Juvenile Justice Administrator Perspectives: Reframing Reentry Around Positive Youth Outcomes

Abstract

This article draws on research, policy, legislation, and practice to provide strategies for addressing the reentry needs of youth in the juvenile justice system and reframing the way successful reentry outcomes are conceptualized. Achieving a systemic paradigm shift of this nature requires that researchers, policymakers, and juvenile justice administrators work together to facilitate change. The Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators is leading the combined effort to facilitate reform in this area. This article briefly discusses the state of the juvenile justice system, progress in the field, and remaining challenges facing administrators of juvenile justice facilities, within the context of a changing framework that focuses on a developmental approach to issues of delinquency and emphasizes positive youth outcomes as a more effective measure of reentry.

Keywords

professional development residential policy issues continuum of care education transition

The treatment of youth involved in the justice system has vacillated between rehabilitation and punishment since the first juvenile court in the United States was established in Chicago. The court was authorized by the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899 and given jurisdiction over neglected, dependent, and delinquent children younger than the age of 16 years. Created within a context of child reform and social welfare, the focus was on rehabilitation (Schreck et al., 2017). The way in which rehabilitation is carried out, however, has evolved substantially from this initial conceptualization. Prior to the 1960s, the juvenile justice (JJ) system was seen as a setting in which adolescents, born into an impoverished social context, were placed to provide them with a more productive environments that focused on preparation for adulthood (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2019). During the 1960s and 1970s, youth courts were formalized and the U.S. Supreme Court produced key decisions that increased due process protections of youth. Kent v. the United States (1966) was a landmark decision that established a level of due process for youth waived to the adult system. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, In re Gault (1967) determined that a juvenile involved in a delinquency hearing must be afforded similar due process rights as those afforded to an adult. After these rulings, the focus of the system became to follow accepted principles of justice and deal with juvenile offenders as fairly as possible, but in the 1980s, public perception that youth crime had reached dangerous levels caused a shift in treatment and encouraged prosecution in the adult system or increased lengths of commitment in the JJ system (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2019). From 1992 to 1997, all but five states changed laws related to transfer provisions, making it easier to waive juvenile offenders into the adult criminal justice system. In addition, 31 states gave criminal and juvenile courts expanded sentencing options (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

Recently, research has revealed several drawbacks to a punitive approach to youth justice. First, the high cost of incarcerating youthful offenders strains state budgets (Pratt, 2018). Second, research shows that harsh or lengthy sentences are unlikely to reduce recidivism; in many cases, they may actually increase the likelihood of reoffending (Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators [CJJA], 2017c; Harris et al., 2009). In addition, a meta-analysis by Lipsey (2009) revealed that coercive and/or punitive approaches, when working with JJ youth, resulted in higher recidivism rates. Conversely, this same meta-analysis found that using therapeutic approaches produced lower recidivism rates. Finally, recent brain-based research found that adolescents, relative to adults, lack the capacity to self-regulate because the portion of the brain that is linked to pleasure-seeking and emotional reactivity develops much faster than the portion of the brain that regulates self-control (CJJA, 2017c). This brain-based research indicating that the lack of fully developed self-control skills may play a larger role in delinquency than intention may partially dispel the line of traditional thought that postulates delinquent youth as calculating criminals (National Research Council, 2013).

The fluctuation between a punitive approach and rehabilitation has also hindered the development of the JJ system and the individual organizations that make up this system. When a system suddenly changes direction, the organizations within the system experience substantial turnover among administrators and direct care staff, organizational culture slowly changes, and policies that support the new vision are put in place (National Research Council, 2013). Although transformation is key to the evolution of a system, it can also cause strain on the system and may produce pessimism across staff and communities. The aftermath of one such transformation was seen when the corrections system shifted to a deterrence philosophy in the 1980s. This phenomenon was produced by the confluence of various perceptions that treatment approaches do not work and that the civil rights of offenders are often violated by attempts to rehabilitate them (National Research Council, 2013). Now, research on brain development, program effectiveness, the impact of trauma, and quality indicators of improvement provide administrators with evidence to make sound decisions and redirect the mission of their organizations (National Research Council, 2013). In addition, JJ systems now use evidence-based practices (EBPs) to guide treatment and policy more frequently than ever before (Howell & Lipsey, 2012).

Research to Practice

In the past 10 years, research on what works to prevent JJ system involvement and improve outcomes has grown. JJ systems have learned that reducing the use of youth detention and out-of-home placement, using assessment tools to identify risks and needs, bringing attention to racial and ethnic disparities, looking for ways to engage affected families in the process, and raising the age at which youth court jurisdiction ends are principles that will improve outcomes (CJJA, 2018g). This wide body of research has provided a framework for reform, enhancements, and refinement of current systems. However, moving research into practice is a challenge for many jurisdictions. There are numerous opportunities for JJ systems to receive training and technical assistance to translate and operationalize these policies into practice.

The CJJA, the professional organization of state juvenile corrections agency directors and a national voice for youth corrections in law and policy-making, was founded to connect, develop, and strengthen JJ systems and JJ system administrators’ capacity to implement and sustain reforms. CJJA also educates, trains, and supports agency directors to promote implementation of effective programs and services, recognizing the unique strengths and needs of youth to enable them to successfully return to the community and lead prosocial, positive lives.

Acknowledging that data have strengthened JJ administrator’s ability to work with local governments and communities, to not only keep young people out of facilities but to promote successful reentry, CJJA partnered with the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (CJJR) at Georgetown University and other national experts to develop the Youth in Custody Practice Model (YICPM; Umpierre et al., 2016). This is a data-driven, research-based initiative designed to assist systems in implementing comprehensive and effective service delivery approaches that align core research-based principles with everyday practice to achieve more positive outcomes for youth, families, staff, and communities. The YICPM underscores the importance of critical policy and practice issues in the treatment of delinquent youth like using a developmental approach to rehabilitation, addressing past trauma, prioritizing family engagement, and supporting the needs and well-being of staff. The YICPM is a prime example of how CJJA and others are assisting JJ leaders utilize EBP to determine “what works” in reducing recidivism through a developmental approach that advances positive youth outcomes (PYO).

A Developmental Approach

The shift to PYO evolved from the Positive Youth Developmental approach. Positive Youth Development (PYD) was introduced as a strength-based, resilience-oriented approach that encouraged service providers, youth leaders, and educators to foster positive development in adolescents by focusing on their natural talents, assets, and skills rather than on mitigating their risk factors (Butts et al., 2010). The premise was to move away from a deficit-based approach, in which providers attempted to “fix” youth, and instead promote resilience by connecting youth to opportunities, supports, positive activities, and relationships. Components of PYD programs include respectful approaches to youth and families, development of personal agency, and a focus on strengths and competencies. PYD claims that when these positive components inform program delivery, the likelihood that youth will develop successfully increases (Lerner et al., 2005). Informed by social learning theory (Bandura, 1971), which suggests that people learn from each other, and social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) which suggests that criminal behavior occurs because an individual’s bond to society is broken, the extension of PYD into delinquency posits that youth are less attracted to criminal behavior when they have strong prosocial relationships with others, are learning useful skills, and are being rewarded for using those skills (Butts et al., 2010).

PYD is now a framework that represents the various methods, techniques, grounded theories, and practices used to apply scientific knowledge about adolescent development to agency and community settings (Development Services Group, 2014; Pittman et al., 2000). This framework has been adapted in JJ as positive youth justice, emphasizing a strength-based, developmentally sound approach that builds on community connections, positive peer culture, and family engagement. For youth placed away from family in residential facilities, detention, or corrections, positive youth justice offers new directions to help create a wider range of constructive pathways to reconnect with school, family, and community (Butts et al., 2010). Philosophically,

The concepts underlying PYD resemble those that led to the founding of the American juvenile justice system more than a century ago . . . Organizers of the first juvenile courts saw the solution to delinquency in better schools, community organizations, public health measures, and family supports. They believed an improved social environment would encourage youth to embrace pro-social norms. (Butts et al., 2005, p. 6)

However, implementation of PYD approaches in the JJ system faces many challenges. Some practitioners and/or policymakers believe that youth in the JJ system are too antisocial to respond to PYD approaches, others find the time and personnel investment PYD requires too costly, while others fear that the shift from a deficit approach to focus on protective factors may be too difficult for the justice field (Butts et al., 2010).

The purpose of this article is to briefly address the transition to a PYD approach; highlight areas of progress; discuss the use of PYO in measuring success, including the reentry of JJ-involved youth; share professional development resources necessary to promote PYD; and identify remaining challenges.

Progress Toward a Positive Youth Developmental Approach

Trauma-Informed Care

It is widely known that most youth in JJ facilities have experienced or been exposed to traumatic events. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014) stated that

individual trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being. (p. 7)

Exposure to trauma in childhood is frequently referred to as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). ACEs generally fall into three categories: neglect (physical and emotional), abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual), and family dysfunction (mental illness, incarcerated relative, family violence, substance abuse, and parental separation/divorce). ACEs are also associated with increased involvement in the criminal justice system (Fox et al., 2015). One study found that 93% of youth in custody had at least one traumatic incident, whereas over half had experienced trauma 6 or more times (Boesky, 2014). Similarly, JJ staff can also be exposed to traumatizing events, such as restraining youth, observing violent assaults, physically intervening in assaults, and self-injurious behavior, including suicide. Exposure to this indirect trauma, coupled with the associated workplace stress, can lead to secondary trauma, post-traumatic stress, compassion fatigue, and burnout (CJJA, 2019a; Denhof et al., 2014).

While it is recognized that unmet behavioral health needs contribute to youth involvement in the JJ system (Sickmund et al., 2019), it is recommended that youth receive community-based treatment interventions, rather than relying on JJ to provide them (Mental Health and Youth Justice Collaborative for Change, 2014). However, the sheer number of youth in the JJ system previously exposed to trauma, coupled with the prevalence of mental health issues, necessitates that JJ facilities and staff be well versed in trauma-informed care. Trauma-informed care focuses on understanding, recognizing, and responding to the effects of trauma, emphasizing physical, psychological, and emotional safety for the individual and the provider (National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2016). JJ systems can become “trauma-informed” by offering (a) routine screening of all youth for trauma exposure and related symptoms, follow-up assessment for youth who have trauma, and access to trauma treatments, while providing a safe and respectful structure that supports youth, families, and JJ professionals; and (b) providing linkages to trauma-specific services that include in-depth therapeutic assessment and evidence-based preventive and rehabilitative interventions that target youth with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other trauma-related disorders (National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2016). Strategies for providing trauma-informed care include (a) maximizing the youth’s sense of safety; (b) assisting youth in reducing overwhelming emotion; (c) helping youth find meaning and make connections with their trauma history and current behaviors and experiences; (d) addressing the impact of trauma in the youth’s behavior, development, and relationships; (e) coordinating youth care, as traumatized youth are involved in multiple systems; (f) facilitating comprehensive assessment of the youth’s traumatic experiences and the impact on the child’s development and behavior to guide services; (g) supporting and promoting positive and stable relationships; and (h) providing support and guidance to the youth’s family and staff. CJJA (2017d, 2018c) has affirmed the need for JJ systems to adopt trauma-informed strategies across all jurisdictions.

Family Engagement

In addition to the provision of trauma-informed care, a PYD approach emphasizes strong prosocial relationships and family engagement. The importance of family involvement in youth justice approaches has been recognized by several national groups, including the National Research Council, Anne E. Casey Foundation, Vera Institute, and the YICPM through CJJA and the Center for Youth Justice Reform. After reviewing research on adolescent development and JJ interventions, the National Research Council (2013) identified family engagement as one of seven hallmarks that should serve as a template to guide system reform. Family engagement has been associated with improvements in the functioning of youth, both in residential programs and in the community. A study by the Vera Institute (Shanahan & diZerega, 2016) found that youth in custody who received regular family visits performed better academically and were involved in fewer violent incidents. Supportive family involvement has also been associated with decreases in recidivism when youth return to the community. The Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) 2014 Standards encourage increased family involvement noting that success in the community is linked to supportive relationships that youth have with family (CJJA, 2017a). PYD also emphasizes culturally competent family engagement, as youth development occurs and is influenced by family history, cultural norms, and societal expectations. PYD programs and JJ facilities operate within unique, culturally distinct communities and must honor and integrate key cultural components into programming respectfully and responsively to promote inclusiveness (Dillard et al., 2019). Engaging and empowering families is also one of the guiding principles in CJJA’s YICPM. Key practices to increase family engagement include (a) broadly defining and identifying families, (b) encouraging youth–family connections, (c) engaging families in the treatment process, and (d) empowering families to improve systems (CJJA, 2017a).

PYO and Reentry

To further the implementation of PYD in the JJ system, administrators must decide how to invest agency resources in strategic activities that drive positive change for youth. It is also vital that the activities are consistent with the national recognition that young people are developmentally different from adults and have an enormous ability to learn new skills, develop healthier insights, and move on toward productive lives. Organizing JJ agencies in a way that prioritizes youth development also contributes to reduced recidivism. Building on this desire, the field has developed measurements, such as reading and math improvements, graduation rates, and the amount of taxable income upon release, to quantify successful PYD. In addition, CJJA created a PYO committee to strategically facilitate the shift away from recidivism as the primary indicator of facility, program, and intervention effectiveness. Although recidivism is a common and appropriate measure that can help determine the impact of system intervention on future criminal behavior of youth, it is not the only measure that is indicative of success. The conversation and need for additional accurate and consistent measurements of success at a national level is largely focused on recommendations from CJJA’s Defining and Measuring Recidivism (Harris et al., 2009). One thread in the conversation addresses the limit using just recidivism imposes, as it focuses on the absence of negative behavior rather than the presence of any positive counterparts.

The National Research Council also recognized the need for PYO, as well as school and social connectedness in their report, Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach (2013). This report calls for implementation of a developmental approach to youth justice and encourages reforms that best meet the needs of both the public safety and the youth. It notes that a key ingredient in creating effective programming in developmental environments is providing educational and vocational opportunities, which facilitates space for youth to experience social connectedness to their peers and community. The report further states that youth should be afforded opportunities for social connectedness in both their immediate environment and the greater external community. Providing youth with resources to connect with various communities, and the opportunities to contribute to those communities, meaningfully supports skill development and understanding that an individual’s choices and behaviors impact the community and their own connectedness to that community (National Research Council, 2013).

However, in order for JJ agencies to deliver a successful service menu that promotes PYO, a clear vision must be articulated and supported by staff. Successful JJ agencies have a staff development and training agenda that attracts, develops, and retains staff that embrace PYD. In addition to CJJA, the CJJR provides professional development opportunities and certificate programs for JJ administrators and staff; the National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth (NDTAC) serves as a national resource center to provide direct assistance to states, schools, communities, and parents seeking information on the education of children and youth who are considered neglected, delinquent, or at risk; and the Council of State Government Justice Center provides in-depth data analyses, recommendations designed for a particular jurisdictions, on-the-ground training and assistance, and national- and state-level convenings.

Providing quality educational services and measuring the impact of the services received are also in direct alignment with the shift to PYO. The 2015 report, Locked Out: Improving Educational and Vocational Outcomes for Incarcerated Youth, conducted by the Council of State Governments presents findings from a national survey of juvenile correctional agencies in all 50 states. Survey results revealed that (a) most students who are incarcerated do not have access to educational and vocational opportunities that are equitable to the opportunities the peers in the community have; (b) the majority of states fall short of collecting outcome data for all students who were served in juvenile correctional education settings; and (c) that the preponderance of states have policies and practices that present significant barriers to postrelease school reenrollment (The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015). These realities, coupled with the developing understanding of the inverse relationship between education and recidivism and the need to move away from using recidivism as the primary indicator of success, led a CJJA committee to develop the PYO professional development series for JJ administrators.

This webinar series explores nationally recognized best practices and supports JJ administrators in their pursuit to provide highly quality educational services and PYO. The 2018 PYO series consists of 10 complimentary webinars. The first nine webinars address critical issues that JJ agency and facility administrators and staff need to be aware of to ensure quality educational services are provided to the youth in their care. The 10th and final webinar provides an overview of the policy and practice implications that may assist agency and facility leadership in building upon and enhancing their current educational offerings. In planning for the series, representatives of the PYO Committee intentionally identified a strong mix of researchers, national experts, JJ directors/administrators, facility leaders, and CJJA members to serve as presenters. The combination of researchers and practitioners allowed for the sharing of both the evidence base for each topic, as well as the cultural change that would be needed at the agency and facility level, and the policies and practices that would be required to support successful implementation of the strategies and practices presented. The webinars are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Positive Youth Outcomes Professional Development Webinar Series.

No.	Title	Summary
1	Blueprint for Change: Education Success for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System (Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators [CJJA], 2018a)	Reviews relevant studies and highlights practical resources for providing high-quality education in JJ settings.
2	Classroom Excellence in Secure Residential Facilities (CJJA, 2018b)	Characteristics of high-quality educational programs within JJ settings and provides a step-by-step guide to creating high-performing JJ schools.
3	Behavioral Strategies in the Classroom and Facility/Campus (CJJA, 2018e)	Implementation of a Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS)/facility-wide PBIS (FW-PBIS) framework to positively engage youth and improve student behaviors and outcomes within JJ.
4	Technology in the Classroom and Living Space (CJJA, 2018j)	Integrating technology to enrich learning opportunities for youth, including establishing infrastructure, identifying funding and resources, providing relevant programming, and security.
5	Obstacles and Remedies to Re-Enrollment and Engagement of Adjudicated Youth (CJJA, 2018f)	A comprehensive overview of strategies to engage youth, families, local school districts, other agencies, and community-based providers, in efforts to improve education and workforce development for youth leaving JJ facilities.
6	Effective Reentry Practices (CJJA, 2018d)	Development and implementation of effective, evidence-based, and data-informed reentry practices; improving educational and workforce outcomes for youth; performance-based standards (PbS); PbS data on reentry; standards to help guide effective reentry.
7	Postsecondary Strategies for Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System (CJJA, 2018h)	How to expand postsecondary educational opportunities available to youth within JJ facilities.
8	Tracking Positive Outcomes (CJJA, 2018k)	Describes positive youth outcomes in the areas of education and employment, social connections, and health and well-being; using validated models for evaluation; measuring positive youth outcomes.
9	Special Education in Juvenile Correctional Settings: The Law and Practice (CJJA, 2018i)	An overview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the responsibilities of correctional educators in meeting the special education needs of youth in JJ facilities.
10	Policy Implications (CJJA, 2018c)	Policy implications, data, and positive youth outcomes for topics highlighted within the series.

Note. JJ = juvenile justice.

JJ administrators and educators may choose to utilize the content of the series in a variety of ways. First, leaders and educators could use the content as a framework against which to examine their current policies, practices, and programming. This examination could take the form of a year-long assessment process where one webinar is viewed and discussed per month during professional development meetings. At the time of the meetings, agency, facility, and/or school personnel could examine current policies and practice related to the topic, reflect upon the information presented in the webinar, and determine the improvements that they would like to make. Based upon the desired improvements, team members could then jointly determine the policies and practices that need to be created and/or revised, adopted, and implemented to expand or improve educational offerings for youth in their care. In the year following the assessment, the policies deemed critical could then be implemented. A second option would be to select one or two topics of interest from the series, view the webinars, peruse the accompanying materials, and determine how the recommended content might impact current operations. Finally, JJ personnel could create a quality assurance checklist based on the content presented in the series (i.e., strategies, lessons learned, tips, practices, research-based findings) and conduct a self-assessment of their current educational programming.

In addition to this series, two other CJJA webinars are particularly relevant to reentry. Obstacles and Remedies to Re-Enrollment and Engagement of Adjudicated Youth provides a comprehensive overview of the strategies JJ personnel can employ to engage youth, families, schools, and community-based providers in efforts to improve education and workforce development for youth reentering the community. Effective Reentry Practices centers on the elements of and rationale for a thoughtful, evidence-based approach to reentry with a special focus on education.

Remaining Challenges

While research in EBP related to risk, resilience, education, behavior, and reentry has aided JJ leaders and practitioners in improving the provision of services and advancing positive outcomes for youth, less attention has traditionally been paid to recruiting, training, and retaining qualified staff to work with youth in JJ facilities (Gagnon et al., 2012; Mathur et al., 2009). Gagnon and colleagues (2012) acknowledged that the complexity of the JJ setting requires that personnel be highly skilled in effective practices and that professional development materials and training be specific enough to meet the needs of the youth and the demands of the job. Mathur et al. (2009) also addressed the need for professional development in JJ, suggesting that efforts must be long term and focused on building the capacity of all staff rather than only a few individuals at a time.

CJJA (2019a) recognized that JJ administrators needed a roadmap to strengthen a skilled and committed workforce, and consequently created a toolkit on recruiting, hiring, and retaining qualified staff. While most JJ facilities/agencies require staff to complete mandatory in-service training annually, these trainings generally focus on agency mission, values, policies, and procedures. As EBP has increasingly been used to inform practice, JJ administrators now need staff to engage with youth using a strengths-based approaches like therapeutic coaching, interactive supervision, and supportive skill development. Therefore, JJ administrators must not only seek out individuals with youth development skills when hiring but also train staff who do not already possess these skills, and retain them once they are trained (CJJA, 2019a). Investments in training are returned by the significant impact on staff confidence, which influences retention.

Tactics that focus on retention are essential as studies have estimated that turnover of JJ staff is between 20% and 25% per year (Mikytuck & Cleary, 2016; Wells et al., 2016). Frequent staff departures have been noted to increase the risk of serious incidents, increase stress on direct care staff, dilute the therapeutic nature of the staff-to-youth interactions, and increase agency/facility expenses (CJJA, 2019a). In addition to these negative impacts, repeated turnover decreases staff morale leading to diminished productivity, disengaged employees, and weakened culture (Denhof et al., 2014; Groysberg et al., 2018; Mikytuck & Cleary, 2016; Wells et al., 2016).

The culture, or tacit social order, of an organization has been proven to influence staff attitudes, behavior, satisfaction, and retention (Groysberg et al., 2018). Cultural norms define what is encouraged, discouraged, accepted, or rejected within a group and that “when properly aligned with personal value, drives and needs, can unleash tremendous amounts of energy” (Groysberg et al., 2018, pp. 2–10). Establishing and maintaining a collaborative, caring, and stable work environment that supports creativity are critical pieces to agency success (CJJA, 2019a).

Agency/facility culture can be created or changed. The challenge for many agencies is not the will to change but rather how to change the culture. When an agency or facility experiences problems related to its culture, leadership must be willing to take bold steps to reshape the attitudes and beliefs of the workforce. Change requires patience, persistence, and resources to achieve a healthy culture—one in which staff respect leadership, feel empowered to make decisions, rely on their colleagues, are committed to the agency mission, and care about the youth they serve. The CJJA Toolkit outlines strategies for assessing the culture of a facility and guidance for using data gathered to facilitate positive change, while emphasizing that changing culture takes time and requires involvement from staff at all levels. It also necessitates frequent communication, a demonstration of genuine care and respect for staff and youth at all levels, and an open, supportive, and solution-focused environment rather than one driven by faultfinding and blame-placing (CJJA, 2019a).

While a tremendous amount of forward movement in the field has been accomplished within the last decade or so, several other challenges for JJ systems, administrators, staff, stakeholders, and youth remain. One challenge is providing instruction in self-determination that prepares youth for reentry. In the first article of this issue, Houchins and colleagues discuss the relationships between trauma and mental health as risk factors and self-determination and counseling as protective factors. They conclude that JJ facilities need to create positive climates, develop self-determination instruction, and provide tailored counseling to promote successful reentry for youth. In the second article, Mathur, Griller Clark, and Gau also highlight the need to continue examining protective factors that promote resilience, postrelease engagement, and long-term reentry success. Their study emphasized the importance of having a transition specialist provide individualized, youth-centered reentry planning. Although this may be more costly and time-consuming, the impact is much greater, even for youth with disabilities. In the third article, a national survey of mental health–related JJ practitioners, Swank and colleagues found that responses emphasized the need for high-quality professional development training and resources to address the mental health needs of JJ youth, particularly for corrections teachers and officers. Finally, Unruh and colleagues note that the field needs to focus on the intersection between the young offenders with disabilities, the family, the school, and juvenile services by establishing procedures that enhance interagency collaboration and collaborative processes to positively support youth with disabilities during the reentry process.

The National Research Council (2013) also noted that JJ staff need support and training to understand the value their relationship with the youth plays in the change process. When staff are able to establish a rapport and gain youth trust, they are able to offer constructive criticism and advice that contributes to better choices for youth. Absent that relationship, youth are not inclined to internalize advice from adults. The National Research Council report also discusses procedural justice and perceptions of fairness indicating that, if youth perceive the system as fair, they will grow from their experience; however, if youth perceive the system as unfair, they may become more jaded and worse off than when they entered (National Research Council, 2013). To foster PYD, resilience, and well-being, youth also need the opportunity to establish culturally responsive developmental relationships with staff (Osher et al., 2018).

An ongoing struggle for all JJ agencies/facilities in addition to meeting the needs of an increasingly difficult population, while hamstrung by shrinking resources and an overworked workforce, is addressing racial and ethnic disparities. These disparities are inherent throughout the system, ranging from first contact with detention placements through incarceration. On average, African American youth are more than 5 times as likely to be detained or committed compared with White youth (The Sentencing Project, 2017). In order for the JJ system to fully address the challenge of reducing ethnic and racial disparities, there has to be collective understanding that it requires critical public agency partnership that includes the juvenile court, probation, child welfare, and law enforcement agencies. A single strategy will not address the myriad of issues associated with reducing racial and ethnic disparities. Although the Children’s Center on Law and Policy, in collaboration with CJJR, offers training designed to support efforts to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, many systems continue to struggle with collaborating and coordinating successful strategies to address these issues while ensuring successful reentry for these youth to ensure effective community linkages.

Another challenge is that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, and other gender nonconforming (LGBTQI) youth are significantly overrepresented, making up about 15% to 20% of the youth in the JJ system (CJJA, 2017b). While little research on the prevalence of intersex youth exists, the Prison Rape Elimination Act recognizes that the needs and risks faced by all LGBTQI youth are similar and may go unaddressed without the proper supports in place (CJJA, 2017b). In an effort to assist jurisdiction with some the challenges they are facing with this population, CJJA’s PYO committee developed a two-part LGBTQI webinar series for JJ administrators. The first webinar provides an introductory overview of the terminologies, concept, disparities, policy challenges, and systems of care for LGBTQI youth. The second webinar focuses on providing a practical approach to shaping the work.

Homelessness and transitional housing continue to remain challenging for justice-involved youth and those who serve them. Many youth leaving residential facilities face unstable home settings or lack of family support. The Coalition for Juvenile Justice, National Network for Youth and the National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education and Families began a project in 2016 to address youth homelessness and JJ. The project developed principles for change that are intended to help communities find ways to ensure justice-involved youth do not experience homelessness as a result of contact with the system and homeless youth do not become justice involved as a result of their homelessness. National organizations must find ways to work with communities to address this issue, and communities must look to child-serving agencies to provide expertise, assistance, and resources to ensure young people have safe and stable housing. JJ leaders should require transition planning for justice-involved youth that includes an understanding of their housing situation to increase their success and decrease the likelihood of homelessness.

In addition, over the past decade most states across the country have raised the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to the “18^th birthday.” This has forced the average age of youth in the custody of juvenile correctional agencies above 17 years of age. This shift has created the need for more focused work in the area of career and technical training (CTE) and presented challenges of what to do with youth who graduate from high school or attain their high school equivalency. The field has been pursuing access to online classes with community colleges for youth in secure placement and pathways to postsecondary placements as part of the reentry planning process. There are also emerging opportunities with technology that are having a positive impact on the JJ landscape. Youth access to computers, controlled access to the internet, and the use of tablets inside and outside the classroom are promising activities that need to be supported and evaluated.

Conclusion

The original principles upon which the JJ system was established, advancements in neuroscience and adolescent development, research on the developmental approach, and recent rulings by the Supreme Court (i.e., Roper v. Simmons [2005], Graham v. Florida [2010], Miller v. Alabama [2012]) reaffirm that juveniles are fundamentally different from adults and are amenable to rehabilitative efforts (National Research Council, 2013). Furthermore, there is a growing and promising body of research exploring the connections between academic achievement while in secure care and positive postrelease outcomes [Blomberg et al., 2012; Gagnon et al., 2009; Steele et al., 2016). Based on these principles, advancements, and findings, an increasing number of JJ administrators are advocating for and working toward a cultural change. This cultural change is resulting in a system that holds youth accountable, provides opportunities for youth to repair any harm caused to their communities, recognizes their ability to change and grow, and invests in the programs, opportunities, and services needed to help youth realize their full potential.

Advances in research and practice have led to significant developments within the JJ field in the past decade. These developments are intended to support better practice for JJ administrators, staff, youth, and families while shifting the focus to positive outcomes. It is also important to keep in mind that JJ-involved youth are children “at promise” in terms of the accomplishments and successes their future may hold. It is our hope that, as JJ professionals, we do not allow ourselves to lose sight of those possibilities. For as challenging as they are, those who work with them must not lose hope and must instill hope in them for their own futures.

As we continue to improve JJ systems, conditions of confinement, and, most importantly, the long-term outcomes for youth entrusted to these systems, we must continue to focus efforts on trauma-informed care and PYD as well as improving treatment, education, vocation, and reentry programs. Transformation of the culture, atmosphere and environments of these facilities requires a reimagined purpose of these facilities. While public safety is and will always be a primary goal of any JJ system, it should not be the only goal of the system. Justice-involved youth, like other adolescents, are developing physically, neurologically, psychologically, and socially and it is imperative to capitalize on their naturally occurring development in ways that promote optimal growth. Strategies such as compliance monitoring, surveillance, and punitive sanctions are not the best solutions for promoting youth development. Such coerced conformity is not likely to help youth develop a sense of internal accountability, purpose, and desire to lead a successful and socially productive life (CJJA, 2018g).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bandura

(1971). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.

Blomberg

T. G.

Bales

W. D.

Piquero

A. R.

(2012). Is educational achievement a turning point for incarcerated delinquents across race and sex? Journal of Youth Adolescence, 41(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9680-4

Boesky

(2014). Mental health. In Desktop guide to quality practice for working with youth in confinement. National Partnership for Juvenile Services and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.desktopguide.info/?q=node/6

Butts

J. A.

Bazemore

Meroe

A. S.

(2010). Positive youth justice: Framing justice interventions using the concepts of positive youth development. Coalition for Juvenile Justice. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=262260

Butts

J. A.

Mayer

Ruth

(2005). Focusing juvenile justice on positive youth development [Chapin hall issue brief]. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (2019). Juvenile justice history. http://www.cjcj.org/Education1/Juvenile-Justice-History.html

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2017a). Family engagement. http://cjca.net/publications/

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2017b). Mental health services for LGBTQI youthful offenders. http://cjca.net/publications/

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2017c). A toolkit for positive youth development. http://cjca.net/publications/

10.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2017d). Trauma informed care in juvenile justice. http://cjca.net/publications/

11.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018a). Blueprint for change: Education success for youth in the juvenile justice systems [Webinar]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1CAnQLjzyE

12.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018b). Classroom excellence in secure residential facilities [Webinar]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z8qVyjHQgI

13.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018c). Community-based mental health services. http://cjca.net/publications/

14.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018d). Effective reentry practices [Webinar]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miHfDnscvvY&t=1902s

15.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018e). Engagement strategies in the classroom and facility/campus [Webinar]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHeXP8kAscQ&t=201s

16.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018f). Obstacles and remedies to re-enrollment and engagement of adjudicated youth [Webinar]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QYfyWaZEH4

17.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018g). Outcome-based investments in juvenile justice programs. http://cjca.net/publications/

18.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018h). Post-secondary strategies for youth involved in the juvenile justice system [Webinar]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juSml-KNGHg

19.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018i). Special education in juvenile correctional settings: The law and practice [Webinar]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohnBNU9gqAQ

20.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018j). Technology on the youth facility campus [Webinar]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHzpscFcKqU&t=2401s

21.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2018k). Tracking positive outcomes [Webinar]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stIAodc1Mc8&t=4s

22.

Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators. (2019a). Council of juvenile correctional administrators toolkit: Recruiting, hiring, and retaining qualified staff. http://cjca.net/publications/

23.

The Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2015). Locked out: Improving educational and vocational outcomes for incarcerated youth. The Council of State Governments.

24.

Denhof

M. D.

Spinaris

C. G.

Morton

G. R.

(2014, July). Occupational stressors in corrections organizations: Types, effects and solutions (NIC Accession: 028299). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/system/files/028299.pdf

25.

Development Services Group. (2014). Positive youth development: Literature review. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

26.

Dillard

Newman

T. J.

Kim

(2019). Promoting youth competency through balanced and restorative justice: A community-based PYD approach. Journal of Youth Development, 14(4), 14–35.

27.

Fox

Perez

Cass

Baglivio

Epps

(2015). Trauma changes everything: Examining the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 46, 163–173.

28.

Gagnon

Houchins

Murphy

(2012). Current juvenile corrections professional development practices and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(4), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0888406411434602

29.

Gagnon

J. C.

Barber

B. R.

Van Loan

Leone

P. E.

(2009). Juvenile correctional schools: Characteristics and approaches to curriculum. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(4), 673–696.

30.

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010).

31.

Groysberg

Lee

Price

Yo-Jud Cheng

(2018, January/February). The leader’s guide to corporate culture. Harvard Business Review, pp. 2–10.

32.

Harris

P. W.

Lockwood

Mengers

(2009). A CJJA white paper: Defining and measuring recidivism [White paper]. http://cjca.net/publications/

33.

Hirschi

(1969). A control theory of delinquency. In Criminology theory: Selected classic readings (pp. 289–305). https://www.bartleby.com/essay/A-Control-Theory-Of-Delinquency-F3YM2VK9D47W

34.

Howell

J. C.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2012). Research-based guidelines for juvenile justice programs. Justice Research and Policy, 14(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.14.1.2012.17

35.

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).

36.

Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966).

37.

Lerner

Almerigi

Theokas

Lerner

(2005). Positive youth development: A view of the issues. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16.

38.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.

39.

Mathur

Griller Clark

Schoenfeld

(2009). Professional development: A capacity-building model for juvenile correctional education systems. Journal of Correctional Education, 60(2), 164–185.

40.

Mental Health and Youth Justice Collaborative for Change. (2014). Better solutions for youth with mental health needs in the youth justice system. http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/519

41.

Mikytuck

A. M.

Cleary

M. D.

(2016). Factors associated with turnover decision making among juvenile justice employees: Comparing correctional and non-correctional staff. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 5(2), 50–67.

42.

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).

43.

National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. (2016). Strengthening our future: Key elements to developing a trauma-informed juvenile justice diversion program for youth with behavioral health conditions. http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/846

44.

National Research Council. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/14685

45.

Osher

Cantor

Berg

Steyer

Rose

(2018). Drivers of human development: How relationships and context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 22(1), 1–31.

46.

Pittman

Irby

Ferber

(2000). Unfinished business: Further reflections on a decade of promoting youth development. Forum for Youth Investment.

47.

Pratt

T. C.

(2018). Addicted to incarceration: Corrections policy and the politics of misinformation in the United States. SAGE.

48.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

49.

Schreck

C. J.

Leiber

M. J.

Miller

H. V.

Welch

Wilson

(2017). Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899. In The encyclopedia of juvenile delinquency and justice. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118524275.ejdj0204

50.

The Sentencing Project. (2017). Fact sheet: Black disparities in youth incarceration. https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Black-Disparities-in-Youth-Incarceration.pdf

51.

Shanahan

diZerega

(2016). Identifying, engaging, and empowering families: A charge for juvenile justice agencies. Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University.

52.

Sickmund

Sladky

T. J.

Kang

Puzzancera

(2019). Easy access to the census of youth in residential placement. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

53.

Snyder

H. N.

Sickmund

(2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

54.

Steele

J. L.

Bozick

Davis

L. M.

(2016). Education for incarcerated juveniles: A meta-analysis. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21(6), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2015.1133308

55.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach (HHS Publication No. SMA 14-4884).

56.

Umpierre

Dedel

Marrow

Pakseresht

(2016). Youth in custody practice model (YICPM). The Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators & The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform.

57.

Wells

J. B.

Minor

K. I.

Lambert

E. G.

Tilley

J. L.

(2016). A model of turnover intent and turnover behavior among staff in juvenile corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 1558–1579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816645140