This article examines the decline of rehabilitation in juvenile justice throughout much of the United States over the past 20 years. This decline was facilitated by the progressive community's abandonment of rehabilitation and their acceptance of the justice model as a means to restrict the growing number of youths in correctional institutions. The justice model was conceived as a means to impose confinement limitations through standardized sentencing while accommodating conservative demands for retribution and punishment. However, contrary to expectations, the justice model promoted an unprecedented rise in the number of incarcerated youths and a deterioration in institutional conditions. This was occurring despite mounting evidence demonstrating the superior effectiveness of rehabilitation models in altering patterns of delinquency. Conclusions were based on an analysis of juvenile correction systems in California, Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington. The evidence shows that rehabilitation should be reaffirmed as the foundation for a progressive agenda in juvenile justice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bakal, Y. , & Polsky, H. W. (1979). Reforming corrections for juvenile offenders. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
2.
California Youth Authority, Youthful Offender Parole Board . (1988). Youth Authority institutional length of stay and recidivism, California juvenile arrest rates, and guidelines for parole consideration dates. Sacramento: State of California.
3.
Castellano, T. C. (1986). The justice model in the juvenile justice system: Washington State's experience. Law and Policy, 8, 479-506.
4.
Chamberlain, P. (1988). Treatment of chronic delinquents in specialized foster care: A matched comparison study. Eugene: Oregon Social Learning Center.
5.
Children's Alliance . (1991). The state of the child: A selected statistical overview. Seattle, WA: Author.
6.
Coates, R. B. , Miller, A. D., & Ohlin, L. E. (1978). Diversity in a youth correctional system. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
7.
Corsaletti, L. T. (1991a, July 16). Overcrowding at Echo Glen: New urgency to old lawsuit. Seattle Times, pp. 1-2.
8.
Corsaletti, L. T. (1991b, August 2). Youth center's staff swamped: State panel told of attacks, stress. Seattle Times, p. 10.
9.
Cullen, F. T. , & Gendreau, P. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: Reconsidering the “nothing works” debate. In L. Goodstein & D. L. Mackenzie (Eds.), The American prison: Issues in research and policy. New York: Plenum.
10.
Cullen, F. T. , & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
11.
DeMuro, P. , DeMuro, A., & Lerner, S. (1988). Reforming the CYA: How to end crowding and diversify treatment and protect the public without spending more money. Bolinas, CA: Commonweal Research Institute.
12.
Empey, L. (1982). American delinquency: Its meaning and construction. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
13.
Fagan, J. A. (1990). Treatment and reintegration of violent juvenile offenders: Experimental results. Justice Quarterly, 7, 233-263.
14.
Fogel, D. (1975). We are the living proof...? The justice model for corrections. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
15.
Gendreau, P. , & Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980's. Justice Quarterly, 4, 249-407.
16.
Greenwood, P. (1986). Juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
17.
Greenwood, P. (1987). An evaluation of the Vision Quest Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
18.
Krisberg, B. , & Austin, J. (1978). The children of Ishmael. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
19.
Krisberg, B. , Austin, J., Joe, K., & Steele, P. (1988). The impact of juvenile court sanctions. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
20.
Krisberg, B. , Austin, J., & Steele, P. A. (1989). Unlocking juvenile corrections: Evaluating the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
21.
Krisberg, B. , Schwartz, I. M., Litsky, P., & Austin, J. (1986). The watershed of juvenile justice reform. Crime & Delinquency, 32, 5-37.
22.
Lerman, P. (1975). Community treatment and social control: A critical analysis of juvenile correctional policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Lerner, S. (1986). Bodily harm: The pattern of fear and violence at the California Youth Authority. Bolinas, CA: Commonweal Research Institute.
24.
Lerner, S. (1990). The good news about juvenile justice: The movement away from large institutions and toward community-based services. Bolinas, CA: Commonweal Research Press.
25.
Lief, J. G. (1988). A history of the internal organization of the State Reform School for Boys at Westborough, Massachusetts (1846-1974). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
26.
Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effect. Unpublished manuscript, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.
27.
Lipton, D. , Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger.
28.
Loughran, E. (1987). Juvenile corrections: The Massachusetts experience. In L. Edison (Ed.), Reinvesting youth corrections resources: A tale of three states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for the Study of Youth Policy.
29.
Macallair, D. (1990, Spring). ACLU's demands trigger change in Hawaii's juvenile justice system. National Prison Project Journal, pp. 5-6.
30.
Palmer, T. , Bohnstedt, M., & Lewis, R. (1978). The evaluation of juvenile diversion projects: Final report. Sacramento: California Youth Authority.
31.
Palmer, T. , & Wedge, R. (1989). California's juvenile probation camps: Findings and implications. Crime & Delinquency, 35, 234-253.
32.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice . (1967a). The challenge of crime in a free society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice . (1967b). Task Force report: Juvenile delinquency and youth crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
34.
Rivers, J. , & Trotti, T. (1989). South Carolina delinquent males: A follow-up into adult corrections. Columbia: South Carolina Department of Youth Services.
35.
Rutherford, A. (1974). The dissolution of the training schools in Massachusetts. Columbus, OH: Academy of Contemporary Problems.
36.
Rutherford, A. (1990). Assessment of the Hawaii Youth Advocacy Project. Southampton, England: University of Southampton.
37.
Schneider, A. L. (1984). Sentencing guidelines and recidivism rates of juvenile offenders. Justice Quarterly, 1(1), 107-124.
38.
Schwartz, I. M. (1989). (In)justice for juveniles: Rethinking the best interests of the child. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
39.
Siegel, L. J. , & Senna, J. J. (1985). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law. St. Paul, MN: West.
40.
Thornberry, T. , Tolnay, S. E., Flanagan, T. J., & Glynn, P. (1991). Children in custody, 1987: A comparison of public and private juvenile custody facilities. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
41.
Van Fleet, R. , Rutherford, A., & Schwartz, I. M. (1987). Reinvesting in youth corrections resources in Utah. In L. Edison (Ed.), Reinvesting youth corrections resources: A tale of three states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for the Study of Youth Policy.
42.
Wallace, B. (1988, December 13). Big majority opposes jailing juveniles. San Francisco Chronicle, p. 1.
