Oak Hill Detention Center: Promoting Change or Chains?

By: Cecilia Kline

May 10, 2002

Project D.C.: Urban Research Internship SOCI-438-01 Prof. Sam Marullo

Table of Contents I. II. III. Executive Summary Problem Statement Literature Review -Education -Habiltability -Safety -Counseling Methodology -Research Process -Subjects -Data Collection Methods -Research Variables Discussion -Counseling -Habitability -Safety -Education Conclusion/Recommendations -Staff -Updated Facility -Regulations -Alternative Programming -Education System Bibliography Appendices -Appendix I: Disclosure Statement -Appendix II: Resident Interview Questions -Appendix III: Staff Interview Questions -Appendix IV: Administration Interview Questions -Appendix V: Summary Results Table -Appendix VI: Resident Interview Data Sheet -Appendix VII: Staff Interview Data Sheet -Appendix VIII: Administrator Interview Data Sheet

IV.

V.

VI.

VII. VIII.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1 The purpose of this summary is to provide an overview of the study completed at Oak Hill Youth Center and the recommendations it generated. As a result of the findings from interviews with administrators, staff and residents of Oak Hill, the study suggests five recommendations for changes in the operations of the facility2. Methodology Stemming from involvement with the Georgetown University mentorship program, Oak Hill Outreach, I conducted this study as part of my senior thesis work in Sociology. Supported by a large amount of literature, from best practices, to case law and media coverage of Oak Hill, this research was conducted to identify the most pressing concerns in the facilitys operation. Based on the objectives set forth in the Youth Services Administrations mission statement for Oak Hill, this study measured four factors of the centers conditions. These factors were operationalized as education, habitability, counseling, and safety. Interviews were conducted with residents, staff and administrators of Oak Hill. Interviews examined each respondents evaluation of the facility through quantitative and open-ended questions. Results were measured through overall ratings generated for each factor and patterns noted in the commentary of the free response sections. Ratings were compared between subject groups and between each study factor.

Model for executive summary adapted from Howlett, Michael J. 2001. Final Report of the Juvenile Competency Commission. 2 These recommendations are not in conflict with the overall goal of ultimately closing the facility and instituting the least restrictive alternatives to detention. Rather, they provide short-term reforms with the mind for ensuring the best possible conditions at Oak Hill as long as it is operating.

Discussion/Findings My findings indicate that Oak Hill is not serving the purposes set forth in its mission statement. Administrators, staff and residents did not evaluate the conditions at Oak Hill strongly on the four study factors (see Table I). While there were limitations on the reliability and validity of the study because of the limited population sample, strong patterns of agreement and important differences emerged between subjects. Composite factor ratings (1-5 scale) residents staff Administrators Total Safety 3.32 3.51 3.69 3.51 Habitability 3.31 4.19 4.36 3.95 Education 3.49 4.17 3.92 3.86 Counseling 3.83 4.17 4.75 4.25 The counseling factor generated the highest overall quantitative rating. Data showed that Oak Hill offered counseling resources, however, data did not support the quality or consistency of the services. Education was ranked second highest by residents, while staff and administrators both rated it second lowest. Both in terms of knowledge of their legal status and academically, Oak Hill failed to support residents with adequate resources. Staff and administrators rated safety the lowest, while residents rated habiltability as the worst condition. Each addressed specific problems according to their concerns, but all respondents noted the failure of Oak Hill to meet the standards of the mission statement. Table I

Recommendations This study generated five recommendations addressing each of the goals set forth in the YSA mission statement. These include improvements in the staff, facility, regulations, programming and education system. Standardized training, better recruiting, support programs and compensation, would improve staff work quality and consistency. Downsizing and upgrading the structural facility and updating Oak Hills technology would improve working and living conditions at Oak Hill. Instituting a monthly joint meeting with administrators, staff and residents to discuss the rules of the facility would increase the residents knowledge and appreciation of the regulations. Increasing the quantity of alternative programs through local volunteer groups would offer residents productive activities while they are detained. Finally, the educational resources, beginning with the books must be updated and be more readily accessible to residents.

Oak Hill Detention Center: Promoting Change or Chains? PROBLEM STATEMENT Oak Hill Youth Center is the current operating juvenile detention center for the District of Columbia. For the past decade it has been under government and public scrutiny and under judicial order to close or reform its facilities. As a youth detention facility, it is meant to serve the purpose of a reformative holding facility. In addition to its daily boarding function, this maximum-security facility provides educational, counseling and alternative programs to its residents. There is much skepticism about the quality of these programs and the general living conditions. This study is concerned with the conditions at Oak Hill Youth Center as evaluated by those with first-hand knowledge. It will do so by gathering administration, staff and resident assessments of how well Oak Hill meets its stated purpose by the Youth Services Administration mission statement. How well does Oak Hill execute its mission statement? Oak Hill is considered here as a detention center. A private facility, or detention center is defined as one that has the authority to house juvenile offenders and has a population that is at least 10% offender (Moone 1997). The Oak Hill mission statement goals are stated as follows: empower youth to become lawful, competent and productive citizens, holding youth accountable in the least restricted way, establishing and implementing an individual service plan for each child which assists in competency development, habilitation and reintegration and promoting public peace and community safety (Youth Services Administration 2001). These conditions are conceptualized here into four factors: education, quality of living, counseling, and safety. Interviews with residents, staff and

administrators examine each of these factors through different questions, generating an overall rating for each factor. This research will conclude in recommendations enumerating the problematic conditions at Oak Hill and provide each problem area with a proposed solution. Along with the recommendations will be the supporting research materials. This will include the historical analysis done on juvenile detention centers in the US and a compilation of documents specifically pertaining to Oak Hills history over the past two decades, including newspaper articles and statistical data. Also included will be models and results of the interviews conducted with residents, staff, and administrators at the facility (see Appendix I-VIII). In addition to the proposal for improvements, the results of this research will be made available to the general public, through a newspaper editorial. Educating the local community of the problems at Oak Hill is needed to generate support for action to change its conditions. This article will summarize the findings from my research and work at Oak Hill. It will outline the proposed solutions to alert the community that there are feasible solutions that they can demand. Oak Hill has been under constant pressure from the city for the past two decades to improve its conditions. There have been numerous proposals to close the facility and create a number of smaller homes to detain juveniles. Both the inaction from the city and disorganization at Oak Hill has produced neither of the two results. The proposal generated from this research project will serve as an immediate action plan for the city to finally start in reforming the youth center. It will include measurable steps that the administration of Oak Hill, with support from the District government, will be able to implement to improve the current conditions.

Violence, corruption and appalling conditions have been continuously uncovered in the criminal justice system in the United States. Some turn a cold shoulder to hardened criminals who deserve this kind of treatment, but in an imperfect system where mistakes are constantly being made, it is unethical to let the lives of anyone be carried out in the fashion they are in the prisons today. Juvenile detention centers suffer the same corruption but affect young men and women who are not even old enough to vote or skilled or experienced enough to advocate for themselves. This leaves them without effective advocacy resources of their own, individually or collectively. Hence, there is no check being held to monitor the conditions of detention centers, especially one that takes into account the insiders perspective. This study will determine the status from the perspective of those detained and employed at this particular facility as a case study of detention conditions. Since the majority of the money in juvenile reform goes in to detention centers, it is both important as a policy issue as well as an ethical matter that must be addressed (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 3-9). There is an explicit reason why juveniles are treated differently than adults in criminal charges. This is based on the belief that juveniles are not fully responsible for their actions because they do not understand the effects of their actions in the way that adults can. This belief is founded on a developmental process in which juveniles can still learn to do the right thing, but it is up to the system to teach them how. Some consider juvenile delinquency to be a function of individual characteristics. In fact, many social and cultural factors have conditioned their behaviors. However, the system has proven to be racist and sexist, which only reinforces stereotypes rather than trying to help detainees overcome them. It is important to question why there is an overrepresentation of

minorities and the poor in prisons. These facts can potentially perpetuate the stereotypes in society and make it easier to accept dehumanizing conditions which essentially trap youth into the system. The recidivism rate is a clear indication of the failure of the system to function as a reformatory institution (Lambert 1988). Many studies show the stability of juvenile delinquency over developmental periods (Loeber 1982). It is a well-known fact that once a juvenile enters the justice system, it is very difficult to leave. There is a high progression of juveniles in detention center who go on to serve time in prison. Studies indicating the social factors predisposing youths to delinquent lifestyles attest to the fact that this pattern in crime involvement is largely determined by environmental factors (Moffitt 1990). For instance, the family condition is a primary determinant of delinquent behavior and reform efforts are increasingly focusing on incorporating the family system in order to have a lasting effect (Patterson, DeBaryshe and Ramsey 1989, Roberts 1989: 288). Especially in the case of youth, with proper attention and guidance, it has been shown that they can be turned towards a positive direction (Palomin 2001, Peterson 1996, Street 1966). The conditions within the detention centers from the rooms, to the food, to the staff all effect the youths learning experience while incarcerated. If they are not adequate they may perpetuate the already hurting self-image of the inmates, and at one of the most formative time of the youths lives. The social environment can stimulate more hostility, competition, and hopelessness, as the inmates have nothing more to reflect on than the life situations, which brought them to detention. For the sake of all citizens it is

imperative to questions the current institutional standards and seek to improve conditions in facilities such as Oak Hill Youth Center.

10

LITERATURE REVIEW Juvenile justice has been a topic of much interest since the inception of correctional facilities. Since the onset of juvenile detention, state and local governments have responded with inadequate reforms to problems at juvenile detention centers. One author concludes, In short, the reform movement has not reduced the numbers of young people brought into the formal system of social control; rather it has produced a widening of the nets to encompass ever-increasing numbers of young people in an increasingly comprehensive system of control (Doig 1982: 61). Since this time, the literature documents a series of unsuccessful activity to reform the system, tangled in manipulation of power and definition of goals to serve its own purposes while maintaining federal funding. The four mission statement criteria will be used to evaluate the literature pertaining to juvenile detention. These topics will be reviewed both in a general, nationwide scope and as specifically related to Oak Hill. The literature covers an extensive history of how the system was instituted in the United States and how it has evolved over the past centuries. This history includes the accompanying theories that set up the practices of juvenile detention centers. It also outlines the inherent problems in the system including the discrimination and organizational problems that are exhibited at Oak Hill Youth Center today. Recent reviews of the juvenile corrections system look at the current practices and examine different approaches that are being tested around the US. The ultimate goal of these reviews is to determine what is necessary to reform the system. It is imperative that this research includes the operating conditions of detention centers, as the majority of the attention in juvenile justice reform is typically placed on intake procedures.

11

The history of juvenile justice reform has proven to be quite unsuccessful despite numerous Congressional and legal attempts for improvement. At the turn of the twentieth century, there was a nation-wide movement to develop a successful juvenile justice system. Prior to this time, juveniles were processed in the institutions as adults. Almost as soon as childrens courts were developed, it was recognized that the system was increasingly abusing its power. Courts were using their own discretion in cases, not based on the laws, resulting in racist and sexist practices. Reformers known as the Child Savers, urged juvenile treatment facilities to serve as treatment rather than punishment facilities (Bowker 1982: 95). In the 1960s and 70s the Supreme Court got involved in requiring juvenile courts to make significant changes in their procedures. By 1974 the Bayh Act was made law in attempt to divert at risk juveniles from becoming involved in the court system. This was the first formalized attempt at a preventative measure to deal with juvenile delinquency. The juvenile justice system in the United States is largely based on practices established in sixteenth and seventeenth-century England. Finckenauer (1984) and Hardy (1973) discuss the history and theory behind juvenile institutional correction models. The underlying belief of parens patriae established the justification for the State power acting in place of the parent. Detention facilities were originally formed to serve as temporary custody and as pre-adjudicatory holding. Their purpose was to make sure the juvenile was present in court, to keep them from a potentially dangerous situation at home, and to protect themselves and others from any potential danger. Statutory guidelines outlining the function of detention centers have been manipulated so that they serve a permanent detention and as a sentencing facility (Finckenauer 1984: 152). This

12

has created the conflict today of the inability to effectively serve as a treatment center while serving as a prison function for many inmates. Oak Hills Youth Services Administration Mission Statement is modeled to serve a treatment role as a longer-term incarceration facility. It states: The Youth Services Administration (YSA) empowers youth entrusted to its care to become lawful, competent and productive citizens and appropriately manifests itself in the District of Columbia as a contributor to the transformation of all youth, families, and communities by: providing an integrated system of care, custody and services involving youth, family and community, holding youth accountable in the least restrictive environment, establishing and implementing an individual service plan for each child which assists in competency development, habilitation and reintegration, and promoting public peace and community safety. The fact that the residents enter under such different circumstances and for varying amounts of time makes it virtually impossible to address the needs of each individual. This fact calls into question the mission of detention centers, as they are not serving the functions they claim to serve. Furthermore, Schwartz and Barton (1994: 15) point out that, Although conceived and designed as pre-adjudication holding facilities, detention centers are increasingly being used for post-adjudication purposes. Confining pre- and post-adjudication populations in the same facility suggests that detention centers are playing the same role in the juvenile justice system that jails play in the adult criminal justice process.

EDUCATION Educational reform within Oakhill has been successful in individual cases. In Slevin (1999), the article describes the success a vocational class in computer repair has had and the story of some inmates going out into District schools to teach other public school students new skills. While some classes have proven to be helpful since the

13

joining of Oak Hill to the District of Columbia Public Schools system, the classes and instruction still do not keep residents up with their current school level. Moreover, the system can only address a small number of the inmates because of the continual turn over of residents plus the different educational levels. Inmates enter with drastically low reading and math proficiency making it impossible to address the needs of an entire class. Without individual attention, classes at Oak Hill remain amply inefficient and test scores for residents remain below basic level in both math and English proficiency (DCPS). The National Juvenile Detention Associations Center for Research and Professional Development (CRPD) has established a core training curriculum that serves to prepare teachers at detention facilities to deal with the challenges of this unique setting and uncommon population (Cramer and White 2000). Such a program is not employed at Oak Hill as it has gone from the District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) system to a private firm in 1998 (Slevin 1998), back to DCPS the next school year (Slevin 1999). Since the last transfer, an improvement in the management and the classes has been noted (Chan 1999).

HABITABILITY A large portion of the literature on reform focuses on preventative measures to detention rather than improving its current conditions. While many programs dealing with reducing the length of stay and reducing the intake numbers have proven to be successes in some jurisdictions, they have not dealt with the conditions for those who are detained. This approach is based on the idea that improving the system that unnecessarily lock ups so many juveniles will in turn improve the problems of

14

overcrowding. Attention must still be given to improving the actual conditions for those youth for which detention is necessary (Schwartz and Barton 1994). Problems at Oak Hill ranging from adequate food, to fire code violations, to lack of hot water have been traced through the past decade at Oak Hill (Lewis 1994, 1995). Kids were sleeping on cots and beds that no one should have been sleeping on. When I went into Building 10, I said, I wouldnt put my dog on that bed. This was a comment that an inspector made upon visiting Oak Hill in 1998, before renovations were mandated by the courts (Slevin 1998). A year later, another article reported inadequate health care still plaguing the facility despite pressure from the court to improve conditions (Chan 1999). In Washington DC, the population crisis at Oak Hill was addressed in court in Jerry M. v. District of Columbia. This case culminated in a court ordered population cap of 188 youths (Soler 2001). Lewis documents the correctional officers protests to the overcrowded conditions at Oak Hill in 1993. The dramatic increase in number of juveniles being locked up has contributed to the large number of overcrowded facilities. This trend has been nationwide, however the most drastically affected cities were the same from 1971 and 1989. In 1989 Washington DC had the highest rate of detention center admissions in the US, incarcerating 15,223 of every 100,000 youth (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 14). By 1989, 27.5% of the facilities were over capacity, housing 50.4% of all incarcerated youth (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 16). Between 1985 and 1995 the populations of juvenile detention centers increased by 72 percent. The majority of efforts to reduce detention populations have been in finding alternatives to detention (Lubow and Barron 2000). In 1995, 69% of percent of residents were being held in facilities

15

operating above their design capacity with some facilities operating 88% above capacity (Altschuler and Armstrong 1999:3). This strain of detention centers resources has serious implications on the quality of living conditions. The unfortunate result of the unchecked power structure and management within correctional facilities is many instances of sexual and racial discrimination executed by separate and differential treatment to different groups. Austen James (1995) and Kimberly Leonard (1995) document the overrepresentation of minorities within juvenile correctional facilities, foreshadowing the adult system. The racial disparities are apparent at every phase of the juvenile justice system. In terms of who ends up incarcerated, it has been shown that the overrepresentation of minorities in detention is not a function of differences in offense rate. Minorities are consistently given more severe indictments than White youth, hence end up detained in disproportionate numbers (May 2000: 58). Although Whites used to represent the majority of detained

populations, white juvenile youth offenders have continuously decreased opposite to the dramatic increase in Black and Hispanic youth. This is an issue, which pervades the juvenile justice system, and which Oak Hill serves as a true example with 95% Black and 5% Hispanic inmates in 1999 (DCPS). Sexual discrimination also happens at an institutional level and between inmates within the same center. At the outset, girls are discriminated against, coming into detention on mush lesser charges than their male counterparts. Schwartz and Barton (1994) noted this discrepancy that there is a much larger probability for girls to be confined for status offenses than boys (18). Recent trends show that the most dramatic change in prisons is the increase in female juveniles entering detention (Porter 2000).

16

Authors have documented the differences the treatment of girls versus boys as described in Palomin (2001). Perhaps it is related to their different developmental demands and needs, but the womens unit at Oak Hill receives very different treatment than the men. The discrepancies range from which classes they can take, to the privileges that they are allowed, however these important findings are beyond the scope of the current research. It seems easy to attribute the poor quality of the programs and facilities at Oak Hill Youth Center to lack of money from the District. This concern is questionable at best when considering that in 1998, when Washington DC boasted the nations highest homicide rate, the city failed to spend the $3.2 million allocated by federal grants to reduce youth crimes, as reported in articles from the Washington Post (Slevin 1998). The money is clearly available; it is disorganization of the city to not implement programs to utilize federal grant money. The City also incurred fines of up to $2 million from not meeting the youth population limit set by the court (Lewis 1994). The Washington Post has tracked the past decade of the failures on the part of Oak Hill from inadequate health care, fire safety violations to security breaches to a two decade long stalemate in instituting court-mandated reforms (Chan 2000), all examples of funds being wasted in a money pit.

SAFETY The capabilities of the staff and administration influence the way an institution operates to a great extent. Deficient staffing is a key factor in the security problems found to be rampant at juvenile detention centers. Previt (1997) examines this problem as an organizational problem. Various Washington Post articles have documented the

17

recurring security breakdowns at Oak Hill since 1986 until the most recent in November 2001 (Welsh 1986). At one point logs, reported 30 percent of assigned youth missing as escapees (Welsh 1987). Other safety problems include drug use while residents are incarcerated. One article detailed the prevalence of drugs inside Oak Hill including marijuana, PCP, cocaine (Weiser 1985). MacDonald (1999) shows one way in which guards not only allow but sometimes aid in the drug trafficking within the detention centers. Street, Vinter and Perrow (1966) look at the relationships between inmates and the staff at detention centers. On one hand, the need for personnel to staff the centers is so great, yet the demand for the work so lacking that it is difficult to hire capable staff. Considering the immense disproportion of minorities in detention, it is found that staff with similar backgrounds and values have much greater success in working with residents than nonmonirity staff from separate communities (Finckenauer 1984: 212). Training offered to the staff is particularly important because of the demanding and unique nature of the work. Porpotage (1996) notes this need, Professional practitioners and academicians have viewed training as a priority due to several factors, including uneven levels of pre-employment education, high staff turnover rates, increasingly complex needs of juvenile offenders, liability issues, and scarce agency funds. In such conditions training is crucial, yet findings show that their training is greatly lacking, as reported on in Roush and Jones (1996). In addition to inadequate training, detention center staff have to cope with unusually stressful and precarious work environments as reported in Role Stress and Job Stress Among Juvenile Detention Care

18

Workers. Bowker reports, To the extent that job stress causes negative feelings towards prisoners, letting out tension in inappropriate situations, and tightening of discipline where that is not needed, it impairs job performance (1982: 194). The requirements of the superintendent alone have become so multifaceted they now place much greater demands effectively overseeing every aspect of the facility. Fifteen years ago, the principal concerns of a detention center superintendent were safety and security. While those are still concerns todaysuperintendents are now concerned about appropriateness of alternative education programs, self-directed computer instruction programs, low fat diets, mental health screening, and upgrading medical and dental services inside the facility (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 97). This literature indicates that the safety of a secured facility is dependent on resources from staff to structural facilities, factors which are both limited at Oak Hill.

COUNSELLING Many theorists have attacked the problem of juvenile delinquency trying to find its cause in order to more easily access its remedy. Researchers have looked at individual factors such as sociobiology, psychopathology, behavioral learning and cognitive explanations to juvenile delinquency. There has been little advance in this area particularly because of the recent shift to social and cultural explanations including labeling theory, which posits the source of delinquency in stigma and society. Despite numerous attempts at understanding the origin of juvenile delinquency, correctional facilities have not improved because of the great gulf between theory and research on

19

the one hand, and program development, practice, and evaluation on the other as Finckenauer (1984: 16) puts it. The socialization process that takes place within the detention center is just as detrimental as the effects of the process that placed them in the states custody. Many testimonies reveal that incarceration serves as a reinforcement of the values and illegal activity that got inmates arrested. May (2000) illustrates one of these testimonies through a previous inmate, Imprisonment can turn young people into more seasoned or hardened criminalsjail is an institution of continuing education for black men, it is like his training ground where he develops his skills for hustling (86). This socialization process plays a large role in the difficulty of escaping the justice system since the same negative behavior and skills are reinforced and even developed while in detention. New alternative skills must be taught in order to improve behavior. Evaluations of successful programs have noted similar trends. The Washington Post article on therapy work within Oak Hill discusses the merits of one-on-one sessions with youth (Greene 1993). This kind of work is the ideal and most effective as it targets the specific problems of each inmate. Individual treatment has been even more effective than some group therapy methods (Jacobs 1990). Most important, this kind of individualized approach gives inmates the attention they need but that the system has failed to provide them. Mentorship programs have been positively evaluated in the literature and proven effective in practice. These programs work effectively, as a preventative measure, during confinement as a treatment measure and after release, as a continued support system (Grossman and Garry 1997). Articles in the Washington Post review the positive influence that reformed former inmates have had on current residents

20

at Oak Hill (Wartofsky 1997). Greenes (1993) review of practices at Oak Hill confirms the positive effects of individualized attention from staff. Therapists working at the facility state that the work they do is in large part a replacement for the parenting that was missing in the youths lives prior to incarceration. This is in tune with the theoretical basis of parens patriae, however, the problem is that this type of work is not being done on a consistent basis, if at all. The lack of staff and overcrowding documented throughout Oak Hills coverage in the Washington Post is at the heart of this issue and shows how the safety, habitability and counseling issues are interconnected in many ways. Roberts (1989) compares the different approaches to dealing with juvenile delinquents from detention centers, to community based approaches, to diversion programs and family treatment. His findings on the different approaches are inconclusive due to inconsistent and incomplete studies on their effects. However, in general they reveal that the treatment programs effectiveness was greatly dependent on the individuals case. For some family therapy treatments, the approach was successful, but in some cases it was not helpful. The same applies to diversion programs where he notes, They recommend that several types of diversion alternatives be available so that juveniles could be matched to the alternative that most closely met their needs (87). The common thread among each of these programs however was the finding that a community based approach to treatment, involving the neighborhood, family, social workers etc. is necessary and are at least as effective and generally much more effective than institutionalization. Findings of aftercare treatment plans show this, Specialized treatment in the institution is likely of little long-lasting value if it is not relevant to

21

pressing concerns in the daily lives of offenders in the community and not carefully and consistently reinforced in this setting (Altschuler and Armstrong 1999:4). Just as boot camp disciplinary methods have proven to be ineffective, the literature shows that the harsh conditions at detention centers worsen juveniles conditions in many cases (Finckenauer 1984; Schwartz and Barton 1994). Mitchell and Varley (1990) discuss the effects of confinement practices such as practiced at Oak Hill, similar to the solitary model of regular prisons. The majority of units at Oak Hill function by a boot camp style of discipline. These programs revolve around obedience to authority and discipline. An article evaluating the effectiveness of juvenile boot camps found that they provided no better results in terms of recidivism rates, especially considering the greater cost they incur. Eric Peterson (1996) overviews some juvenile boot camp pilot programs to and their effectiveness based on recidivism rates. In two of the programs, educational improvements were found, however, none of the programs resulted in lower recidivism rates. This indicates the ability for detention facilities to alter juveniles behavior during the interim period but its effects do not reach beyond the gates of the detention center. One evaluation of these militaristic programs, by Anthony Platt, is that they are the inculcation of middle class values and lower class skills. Although a conspiratorial interpretation, he accurately reveals the perpetuation of social inequalities through a system of limited opportunities for a disadvantaged population. Boot camps are criticized as contributing to social control repressing the lower classes by the upper class (Finckenauer 1984: 116). Furthermore, this emphasis while it may be effective within the context of the camp does not translate to the juveniles home community. The same

22

article cited that once camp graduates return home, they tend to reject their new behavior in order to fit in. The study notes an important fact that points to the failures of such short term and context dependent solutions, The type of behavior exhibited by these juveniles takes time to develop; to change that behavior will take more than just a few days of discipline (Tyler 2001: 449). Another important factor that is receiving more attention is the effect of the time spent in detention after the resident is released. Many programs have looked to incorporate follow up procedures to continue providing the released inmate with support. This is a major area in which most programs fail and result in high recidivism rates, as the resident returns to their problem behavior once they return to their home environment. Juveniles must receive continued monitoring and support after release in order to adapt any positive changes that may have occurred while being detained, to home circumstances (Altschuler and Armstrong 1999). Conclusions towards a proposal for Oak Hill will come from the various sources dealing with the most recent successful reforms. These include articles evaluating the successful components of different treatment methods, from community-based, to incarceration, to parole methods. These will be evaluated against the most realistic political and economic constraints imagined, based off of the most recent reform data of the New York juvenile corrections systems outlined in McGarrell (1988). The recent mayors proposal generated by Anthony Williams Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform which recommends the closing of Oakhill (DeMilo 2001) will also be taken in to consideration in evaluating the best alternative to the unacceptable conditions at Oakhill Youth Center. Each of these factors, from the

23

theoretical bases to the practical findings will be combined to propose a plan of action to make current conditions consistent with the centers mission statement.

24

METHODOLOGY RESEARCH PROCESS The entire research process including history, interviewing, and writing portions are developed, completed and analyzed by the researcher to maximize reliability of results. The historical piece includes both historical research on the juvenile justice system in the U.S. in general, current juvenile justice reform, and on Oak Hill Youth Center specifically. This process is undertaken prior to and during the interview and writing portions. Ongoing reading of current and past news articles pertaining to Oak Hill is maintained throughout the research process. The interview portion of the research process consists of the development, execution and transcription of interviews. The interview questions and disclosure statements are written after preliminary document research is completed. The interviews were designed to address Oak Hills members rating and feedback on the facilitys conditions as related to the Youth Services Administrations mission statement. The writing portion will be done continuously throughout the process to minimize distortion of data collection. Final analysis is done after all data is collected and transcribed, then, the recommendations and final conclusions are drawn.

SUBJECTS Subjects were chosen from the population of administrators, staff and residents at Oak Hill Youth Center. Due to the security of the facility, unlimited access to form a random sample of respondents was not possible. Scheduling of the interviews was greatly dependent on the availability of the staff and administration and had to conform to

25

residents schedules. These factors account for the nonrandom and limited sample size. Residents interviews were done on the MOD 1, a boot camp unit of Oak Hill. This unit was chosen as access to the unit was available through a university tutoring program which took place every Sunday morning. All residents were asked to voluntarily participate in the research. All twelve residents who were asked to participate agreed to do so (See Appendix VI). Residents varied in age from 15 to 18 years old, with an average age of 17. Residents also ranged in length of stay at Oak Hill from 1 month to 48 months, with an average of 8.5 months. Number of times detained at Oak Hill ranged from one to six, with an average of 4.4. No average was obtained on how long residents were charged to stay at Oak Hill as many were not sure of their release date. Known terms ranged from one month to juvenile life (until 21). Residents grade levels ranged from ninth grade through GED completion. Residents also varied in crimes committed. For those who chose to respond to this question, drug selling was the most frequent charge, with 25% of the respondents. MOD 1 male residents comprised all but one of the resident respondents. One female from the womens unit who was available during school hours was interviewed. The rest of the womens unit was not included in part of the sample as the scope of the research does not include the gender differences at the facility although they present an important area of inquiry to be followed up in future research. The staff interviews were given to the security staff and correctional officers (See Appendix VII). Staff interviewed were either referred to by another officer or were independently solicited based on their presence at the Control Unit. Four out of eight, half of the solicited staff refused to participate. Of those who chose to respond, their

26

years working at Oak Hill ranged from five to fifteen. Administrators interviews were done on the basis of availability. Two administrators were asked to participate and both agreed (See Appendix VIII). Both administrators interviewed had worked at Oak Hill for two and a half years.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS The interviewing part of the research was be developed and completed by the researcher. Resident and staff interviews were conducted during Sunday mentoring sessions and on weekdays as necessary. Administrator interviews were scheduled according to their availability during the week. Disclosure statements, ensuring confidentiality, were given to each of the interviewees to read and sign at the beginning of every interview (See Appendix I). Participants were given the option to pass on any answer, in which case no answer was recorded. Participants were given the option to fill out the form themselves or orally respond while the researcher recorded answers. Each section of the interview was followed by a period to elaborate on or add additional detail to any of the given answers. Research tools include interview surveys and disclosure statements based on previously used surveys and standardized consent forms. Interview questions were developed partly based on the Inmate Questionnaire found in Street, Vinter and Perrow (1966). The questions were shortened and adapted to apply to the Oak Hill facility. A free response section is also included for any non-quantitative, descriptive answers (see Appendices II-V). After the initial draft of the interviews were made, residents were

27

asked for their input on the adequacy of the questions and if important questions were omitted. Their suggestions were incorporated into the final interview forms. There are three different interview question sets. One interview form is focused on the residents. This includes questions about their demographics and questions on their perceptions of Oak Hill based on the four study criteria. Administrators and staff are asked how long they have worked at Oak Hill, their job title and description, how many hours they work in a week and what type of work they did before placement at Oak Hill. The staff interview gathers information on their work experience, what kind of training they received and questions pertaining to their evaluation of the conditions at Oak Hill. The final interviews are designed for administrators. These interviews include questions about the reforms that they have seen implemented and those that they believe are still necessary. Each is asked appropriate personal information to determine their role at Oak Hill. Personal information is collected from respondents at the beginning of each interview including age, grade, unit, charge, length of time at Oak Hill, how long they are charged to Oak Hill, and for residents, the number of times detained at Oak Hill.

RESEARCH VARIABLES The first factor, indicating empowerment to become lawful, competent and productive citizens is operationalized as education. Education questions assess the development of the residents knowledge during their detainment. This means residents education in terms of the law and their own legal situation to the extent that they understand their crime and the process of indictment. This is measured by their knowledge and understanding of their charge. Education also consists of education in a

28

scholastic sense. This evaluates their classes, including the subjects covered, materials available, and teacher quality based on the residents assessment. The other dimension of education reflects the residents grade level or completion of the GED. The interview questions determining this factor are a rating of knowledge of their charge (A1), their educational plans once released, (B8), and questions evaluating the quality and content of their classes, (C13), (C14), (C16), (C17), (C19), (C20), (C21), (C22). The second factor evaluated is the habitability of the facility. Habitability questions determine the comfort level and the adequacy of living conditions at the facility. This is measured in terms of their units including their rooms, beds, bathroom facilities, and access to television or other entertainment resources. This also includes aspects of the outdoor space at Oak Hill including other building conditions and the grounds. Questions in the first sections cover the comfort of the unit (A3), room (A5), bed (A4) and the entertainment resources available during free time (A6), (B9). In section C, habitability questions include rating the food (C12), telephone (C10) and home visits (C9). The third factor is that of safety. This includes escape rate and measures of safety from the residents and the personnel. This is evaluated in terms of precautionary action and actual outcomes. Precautionary determinants include factors such as staff training, rules of engagement and staff to resident ratios. Self-reports as to individual experiences including fights, weapons and other attacks measure the outcomes. Safety questions ask for the rating of their safety at the facility (A11) from the unit (A3), (C1), grounds (A7), the buildings (A8), the guards (A9), and rules (A10). Section B safety questions determine specific experiences about fighting (B1), (B4), (B5), drugs (B3) and weapons

29

(B2) at Oak Hill. In section C, questions rate the safety and fairness of the rules (C5) and the adults (C4), (C11). The fourth, and final factor evaluated regarding competency development, habilitation and reintegration through a service plan is operationalized as counseling. The counseling factor is determined by the ratings of the service given to residents while detained and the progress they feel attributable to the facilitys service. This includes many factors regarding the treatment of residents while they are detained. It is evaluated by the quality and quantity of interaction with the different personnel at Oak Hill including the administration, security guards, and counselors or social workers. Both the residents report and the centers formal plan for the residents will be investigated to determine this measure. This is also measured in terms of outcome, by information regarding recidivism rates. Questions in section B regard the residents belief in their need for help and whether they receive this help at Oak Hill (B6), (B7). The questions in the last section ask for the rating of the availability of helpful persons (C2), (C3), (C6), (C15) and of a change in their behavior (C8), and attitude (C7) while detained. The open-ended questions ask residents the three most important things they need in order to succeed. All interviewees answer what they believe are the three largest problems at Oak Hill. The interview form for the staff and administration ask the same adapted questions to address their perspective of conditions at Oak Hill. The free response questions are transcribed and similar responses are tallied together to reveal any patterns. The answers to 1-10 scale questions (section A) are added for each of the factors and divided by two. The answers for the agreement scale questions (section C) are added on the scale of Strongly Agree=5, Agree=4, No Opinion=3, Disagree=2,

30

Strongly Disagree=1. The final average ratings from section A and C are added together for each factor. This final number is the representative rating for each factor. These averages for each respondent group is presented in table form in Appendix V.

31

DISCUSSION The juvenile justice system has been operating in an ineffective and discriminatory fashion since its inception. According to my interpretations of the data I have found that the current conditions at Oakhill Youth Center do not meet the standards of a safe, educational, reformative and habitable facility. The poor conditions at Oakhill result in negative outcomes for its residents evidenced by a high rate of recidivism. The Youth Services Administration (YSA) Mission Statement states that it is to serve a reformative function; however, it fails on many levels. In this section, the results of the interviewing process are presented and evaluated. The first challenge in the interview process was that the individuals sampled were not randomly chosen. Due to the nature of the facility, selection of respondents was mediated by the restrictions imposed by the facilitys security and authorization measures. Access was limited in terms of the units and the times during which respondents were available. The sample is biased in two ways. First, the sample is biased towards male respondents, with eleven males and only one female. Second, the sample is only based on male respondents from the same (MOD 1) unit, therefore is not representative of the whole institution and does not capture differences that may occur between units. Many of the issues dealt with here are very closely related and overlap the factor designation. For example, questions pertaining to staff, could be a factor in safety, habitability, or counseling as the staff serve in each of these functions. For the purposes of these interviews, answers pertaining to staff were coded according to the context in which the respondent referred to them. Another problem in validity was found in the

32

language and interpretation differences of the questions. In cases where respondents interpreted the language of the question differently, the question was not considered in analysis. Answers to the questions are analyzed among respondents of the same group. Each question is viewed in comparison with the answers between groups. Concordance in answers was much stronger for residents and staff than with administration. This is most likely due to the different environments that each are exposed to. While residents and staff are in a similar environment, administrators are more removed, working in their offices and less directly involved with the residents. One of the administrators backed this finding, stating that ratings such as exposure to fights would be much higher for staff as they are exposed to the units on a much more consistent basis. The administrators ratings were also much more prone to being skewed since only two administrators were interviewed.

COUNSELING The first section of the residents interview asked for the three most important things that you need in order to succeed. Residents free response answers were coded into internal versus external characteristics. Examples of the most frequently mentioned internal are discipline, attitude, faith and strength. Examples of external characteristics mentioned include family, church and education. Internal characteristics constituted the majority of the responses, with 74%, 20 out of 27 responses referring to internal characteristics. This suggests that there is an even greater need for adequate counseling resources, as the greatest self-reported need for help is of internal characteristics.

33

Therefore, Oak Hill must focus on improving or changing things such as residents attitudes, self discipline and self esteem in order to best help them. Residents responses indicated that Oak Hill is doing the best of the four factors at addressing counseling needs. Counseling factors for section A and section C questions (all questions mentioned in this section refer to the residents form unless otherwise specified) yielded the best overall rating of 3.83 (on a five-point scale). Answers supporting this finding include responses to question 11 in section B that asks the frequency of interaction with a counselor or social worker. The most frequent response, with 5 out of the 11 responses, was once a week. The second most frequent response, with 4 out of 11 responses was twice a week, and there were two outliers of once a day and once every couple months. Staff and administrators answers to the same question confirmed this finding. Staff unanimously stated that residents meet on a daily basis with a social worker, while administrators answered once a week and once a day. This indicates that Oak Hill is doing a good job in meeting residents counseling needs by offering, at the least, weekly access to a counselor or social worker. Staff and administration responses further support this finding, indicating that the help residents need is available to them at Oak Hill. Administrators overall factor rating was also the highest for counseling, with a rating of 4.75. Staff responses also ranked it highly at 4.17. Both staff and administrators only mentioned one counseling factor as the three largest problems of Oak Hill. Another way of evaluating if the need for counseling is being met was asked in question 6 of section B, Do you think you need help from someone so you can stay out of trouble? According to the residents responses, only 2 out of 11 respondents stated

34

that they believe that they need help from someone (only one of which stated in question 7 that they actually receive this help they need from Oak Hill). One administrator said, Those that want help can get it. Residents responses in question 6 suggest that most residents will not seek the available help. The approach indicated by the administrator suggests that residents will not receive the help they need as they do not identify a need for external assistance. A reformative institution must take active steps in extending and instituting their resources and assistance to its residents. The fact that there was variability in terms of the frequency of meetings reported between residents, staff and administrators is evidence that either, there is no structure to which residents receive this service, or that service varies depending on the resident. While the rating of the counseling service is high, it is not clear from the questions whether all residents are receiving the quality of service that they need.

EDUCATION According to residents answers to question 8 in section B asking whether they planned on returning to school upon their release, a majority of residents indicated plans to finish or add onto their high school education. Even though they were all in high school grade levels and two already had completed their GED, 9 out of eleven, said they did plan on returning to school, while one responded maybe and one responded no. This constitutes another reported need on behalf of the residents, to get a good education. According to the overall ratings of the residents, education was second to counseling with a rating of 3.49 on a five-point scale. Staff rated it 4.17, the same as counseling, and administration ranked it 3.92, indicating that they saw more room for

35

improvement than staff. Residents mentioned educational factors just as frequently as counseling factors in the question addressing the biggest problems at Oak Hill. This was the same case as with the perspective of the administration and staff. The indicative aspect of the interviews is found in terms of the substance of the educational focus questions. For example, questions 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 in section C ask about the condition of the schooling at Oak Hill. All answers to these questions

were under a rating of 4 (Agree). The question with the lowest rating of 2.9 asked whether, the subjects are helpful. While administration either agreed or strongly agreed that residents have adequate books to read, staff was split half-and-half in terms of those who agreed that residents have adequate books to those who disagree. The educational advancement offered to inmates proved to be poor to nonexistent. This leaves inmates at a greater disadvantage when they get out, as they will be at the same educational level as they were when they were committed. This increases the appeal of getting a GED, if anything at all, rather than pursuing a high school diploma. This also limits the availability of college as an option, which inevitably limits the range of opportunities they will have in the job market, affecting their long-term financial stability. The other aspect of education investigated was that of the extent of the juveniles legal knowledge. A major issue in juvenile justice is that of competency, how well the juvenile understands the nature and consequences of their charge. Question 1 in section A addressed this issue asking how well the resident understood their charge. Resident responses generally indicated that they had a good understanding of their charge, with an average rating of 8.08 on the ten point scale. The staff confirmed this finding with the

36

highest rating among respondents of 8.75. Administrators average ranking on juveniles understanding of their charge was 6.5. The variability in the answers could reflect one of two differences. First, the adults could have a better understanding of the legal system and the residents charge, therefore know that the understanding the residents have is inaccurate. Second, the residents could have a very high actual understanding of their charge and the administrators are too far removed to know what the residents knowledge.

SAFETY Safety received the lowest ranking for resident, staff and administrator combined averages. Staff and administrators gave safety questions the lowest average ranking of all four factors with ratings of 3.51 and 3.69, respectively. Residents answers rendered an average of 3.32, making it the second lowest ranked factor. In terms of the largest problems stated at Oak Hill, staff rated safety matters in a dominating 73% of the free response answers. These problems revolved around issues concerning the physical structure of the facility, staff issues and the rules of the institution. Administrators also mentioned safety matters more than any other factor. Residents noted safety as the second most frequent factor with 17% of responses, mentioning staff as the most common problem. Facility Part of the questions evaluating safety related to how safe residents felt at Oak Hill. One major difference was the discrepancy between the ratings of different areas of the facility. For these questions residents rated the units high while the rating for outside

37

grounds and other buildings were much lower. Residents rated the safety of the unit (question 2, section A) an average of 9.25 on the ten-point scale. Questions 7 on the safety of the outside grounds and question 8 on the safety of other buildings were rated much lower at 7.5 and 6.5, respectively. This indicates that on the smaller units, residents feel much safer than outside. This is likely to be due to the increased supervision and control maintained in a confined space whereas in a larger area, guards have less control of the situation. One resident told that he was not as safe outside because you can be jumped by a whole group of guys and there isnt anything the guards can do about that. This strongly supports research stating that smaller treatment and detention facilities are more effective, if even only for security purposes. Staff also followed this trend rating units an average of 8.95, outside grounds, 7.75 and the other buildings, 8.75. One staff respondent elaborated on the issue stating that the grounds provided too much space to be secured by officers. They stated that if a whole group were to start a fight with another resident, it would be impossible for the staff immediately available to control the situation. Administration followed an opposite trend, rating units an average of 8.25, outside grounds at 8.5 and other buildings at 8.75. This difference could be due to the difference in exposure to the actual living situations due to their position. The concern of a large uprising would fall in line with the information provided from staff respondents that problems from the street were the main causes of the fights that take place at Oak Hill. Coming from DC, where there are different neighborhood and gang affiliations, it is common for the residents to have allies from their group at the detention center. An administrator mentioned that Oak Hill is successful in deterring

38

these street related fights when staff, who are also from the DC area, either know of the residents street ties or learn of them on the units and are able to separate potential enemies. Question 10 in section A asked how easy residents feel it would be to escape from Oak Hill. Considering the history of mass escapes this matter is of key concern to maintaining a secured facility. Residents generally gave very low ratings on the possibility of escape, with an average of 3.46. One resident even mentioned as one of the largest problems at Oak Hill that the fences were not high enough, posing a health threat to residents who believed they could escape and therefore get hurt for attempting to go through the barbed wire. Administrators had an even tougher impression of the safety, rating the escape chances as less than one. Staff answers were in-between resident and administrator rankings. Rules Another component of the safety factor measured the adequacy of the rules at Oak Hill. Administrators rated the fairness of the rules a 9.5 and the staff rendered an average rating of 8.5. Explanations were given to the lower ranking outliers, stating that the rules are too easy and needed to be reinforced more. This sentiment was supported with the answers to questions 3, 4 and 8 of section III. These answers indicated the belief that adults are not overly strict and that some residents get away with too much. The residents responses to the same questions (4, 5 and 6 of section C) were all in the three-point range, indicating No Opinion. In question 11 of section A, residents were asked how fair they felt the rules were. This received an average rating of 3.77 on the ten point scale. One resident referred to the rules as petty. This supports the finding

39

from the first part of the survey asking for the three largest problems as residents raised issues such as their mail being opened without their presence, and restrictions on visits, as major problems. It seems that the discrepancy in ratings between the adults and the juveniles in the facility are not necessarily opposed to each other. The adults are supporting stricter and consistent enforcement while the residents are protesting trivial rules. Prohibited Activity The next safety section evaluated the frequency of prohibited activity. First was the issue of fighting at Oak Hill. All respondents, including residents, administrators, and staff (except for the one female respondent) affirmed that they had either been involved in or had witnessed a fight. Question 1 of section B asked residents if they had been in a fight, how many, and for a description. Residents reported having been involved in an average of 2.57 fights while at Oak Hill. Staff and administration were asked in question 11 of section 2, if they had witnessed a fight at Oak Hill and to offer a description. Of the four staff respondents, two stated that fights happen twice a week, one stated, once every couple months and one stated, once every two days. Out of both administrators who attested to having witnessed fights, one stated they occur once every six months and the other said they occur on a weekly basis. The discrepancy in frequency could be attributable to the different areas at which each respondent worked, including the different units. There may also be discrepancy in terms of the definition of a fight. This matter was also addressed by questions asking about any threat or violent encounter (Question 15, section II). Half of the staff said they had experienced both and half said they had not had violent encounters with residents. Likewise, one administrator

40

answered yes and one answered no to having been threatened. Some staff explained that they had most often been attacked because they had gotten in the middle of another altercation and were hit accidentally. These incidents they did not consider to be violent encounters, but it does attest to the challenging and sometimes hazardous nature of the occupation. This data was not so heavily weighed as it was greatly affected by interpretation. Questions 4 and 5 of section B ask residents if they had ever been threatened themselves or had they threatened someone else. Five out of eleven residents answered affirmatively to each question. For residents, the same interpretation problem may have been present, which would explain the lack of a definite trend. Question 2 in section B asks whether residents had ever been in possession of a weapon while at Oak Hill. Four out of eleven residents admitted to having had a weapon in the facility. Of the seven that denied ever having a weapon, one claimed that all the weapon they needed they already had in their fists. This resident distinguished juvenile from adult prison in that juveniles do not think of carrying a weapon or hurting some one in that way. Residents displayed variation in their weapon answers, however this is to be expected in a question that raises many confidentiality and trust issues with the interviewer. Both administrators and three fourths of the staff claimed to have found a weapon on the units. This suggests that weapons serve a greater role at Oak Hill than some residents were aware of, or were candid enough to convey. A similarly complicated question dealt with drug possession (Question 3 of section B). Residents were asked if they had ever had possessed drugs on the unit. Considering the incriminating nature of this question, that four out of eleven residents admitted to having drugs in Oak Hill is considered substantial. Three-fourths of the staff

41

respondents claimed to have found drugs in the units (Question 13 section II). They claimed that it occurred from once to twice a month. Administrators answers concurred with these responses, both of them having found drugs at the same frequency. These results indicate that the prevalence of drugs and weapons at Oak Hill is relatively equal. One of the staff respondents offered that it is during particular visitation days when residents familiars sneak drugs into the facility. He also noted that drugs come in through correspondence, but that they discover much of it in their revisions of the mail. There was one question, question 14 in section II in the staff and administrators interviews that was omitted. While it was meant to get a the issue of how the residents access drugs in the first place, it seemed too confrontational and incriminating to raise the question of smuggling drugs into Oak Hill as an employee. Staff Another component of the safety factor included the adequacy of the staff. Staff problems were the most frequently offered answers by residents for the free response section of the three largest problems at Oak Hill. Even more remarkable is that staff and staff related issues were also the most frequently sited problems by staff respondents of the same section. Question 9 from section A rated the effectiveness of the guards at keeping residents safe. Residents rated this at an average of 6.6 while administrators rated this at 8 and staff rated this at 8.88. Each of the groups of respondents mentioned the variability between officers. Two of the staff respondents even gave two separate ratings, one for competent staff and one for incompetent staff. One of these staff respondents attributed this inconsistency to the difference in training. They stated that the newer staff received

42

much less quantity and lower quality of training. The descriptions of the training received by staff included thing such as, first aid, custody with care, the procedures and policies of the institution, suicide prevention, anger management, balanced and restorative justice and other specialized training programs. Many of the respondents also referred to previous work training as having prepared them for Oak Hill, as all of the staff respondents had previously worked in corrections. This could indicate that the experience required for hiring staff at Oak Hill assumes a certain level of training. Staff responded in question 5 of section 1, that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed that they were sufficiently trained. Administrators unanimously Strongly Agreed that their training was sufficient. The aspect of job satisfaction was also evaluated in questions about compensation, support from supervisor and working environment. It is interesting to note that the administrators Strongly Agreed with all of the areas of job satisfaction. For staff there were lower ratings, with an average of Agree for sufficient supervisor support, and No Opinion for adequate compensation. Staff agreed less than administrators did with their job description corresponding to the work they actually do and rated their feeling of safety at work lower. It is quite evident that the administrations role and work is better defined and more secure than that of the staff positions.

HABITABILITY Habitability rankings received the lowest average rankings from residents in sections A and C with an average rating of 3.32. It also received the greatest amount of responses as the largest problems at Oak Hill, with 58.33% of all answers. Residents

43

mentioned issues such as the food, access to mail, lockdown, clothes, visits and staff as the problems. There was a significant amount of difference between adult and juvenile answers in terms of the comfort levels of their living situation. However, all three groups responded approximately the same, most frequently as Agree, to questions on home visits, telephone use, food and bathroom facilities. Questions evaluating habitability covered all areas of the living situation. In section A, questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 inquired as to the comfort of the unit, comfort of the bed, room and adequacy of entertainment access. Residents gave the unit as a whole the highest rating of 8.33 and the comfort of the bed the lowest with an average rating of 5.42. The room rating was 6.58 while the entertainment access rating was fairly high at 7.92. Staff rated these habitability conditions significantly higher, rating the comfort of the unit at 9.13, the rooms at 8, and the entertainment at 9.75. Interestingly, the administration rated the comfort of the unit lower than the residents did, at 7.5, the rooms, the same as staff, at 8, and entertainment at 9.5. Question 10 in section B was not included in the analysis as there was too much variation in the understanding of the term lockdown. Some understood it to be a temporary facility count and others considered it locking down residents in their rooms due to a security concern. The most frequently noted data was the fact that institutionwide counts are taken at every shift change, which occurs twice a day. Section B, question 9 asked if residents thought they received enough free time. Eight out of ten responses indicated no. They noted that they would want more free time to engage in activities ranging from watch television, sleep, read, play games, look at family pictures and talk on the phone. There was consensus among residents

44

that there was not enough free time, but there were a wide variety of answers in terms of the purpose for which they wanted more free time. Staff, on the other hand, strongly expressed the opinion that residents had more than enough free time. Administration confirmed this sentiment, unanimously answering that residents received enough free time. Many included comments as to their belief that residents received too much free time. A main concern already raised in the education section is that of the activities residents engage in during their time. Both staff, administrators and residents concurred in their answers that residents do not spend their time in constructive ways at Oak Hill, with a combined average rating of 3.67 on a tenpoint scale. One administrator made the comment that We should use this captive audience. We shouldnt let them do anything they typically do on the streets. This is a stark contrast to what actually occurs, as residents commented, [Oak Hill] is making us worse, we build up negative energy and you want to release it on the streets and all you are doing down here is learning how to do more things and how to get away with more things. If the YSA Mission Statement is claiming to improve the residents conditions in these four areas, these comments must be taken into consideration to implement an action plan that increases positive energy by adequately providing residents with their basic needs and by teaching them useful life skills.

45

CONCLUSION While this interviewing process posed limitations on the validity and the generalizability of the results as mentioned in the discussion, it gave insight to many of the recurring problems at Oak Hill. The trends that emerged in the answers make a strong statement as to the areas in which improvements should be focused. The different perspectives expressed also gave insight to areas where better working relationships and terms of engagement are necessary. Below are five main recommendations that I have constructed reflecting the results of the research process. They include specific improvements to the staff, facility, regulations, programming and education systems. They each address a different aspect of the goals of Oak Hill and juvenile detention in general and would bring Oak Hill closer to achieving the aims set out in YSA Mission Statement.

1. STAFF Staff problems seem to be the basis of many of the problems at Oak Hill. With a more regular staff, the counseling and safety needs of the residents may be better addressed. Measures must be taken to implement better recruiting, training and support programs for staff. Increased salaries for correctional officers and job security, both monetarily and in the environment would attract more people to the correctional profession. More comprehensive and longer training programs would improve their working conditions, as they would be more equipped to deal with the unique demands of this challenging working environment. Measures should also be taken to standardize training to minimize the discrepancy between staff. This would improve the quality of

46

service that staff deliver and would also raise their work satisfaction. Improving staff morale through appreciation programs and a stronger supervisor support system would improve continuity of staff job placements.

2. UPDATED FACILITY Many of the problems faced at Oak Hill could be addressed by better facilities. The structure of this eighty year old facility is outdated in terms of its original purpose as a holding facility. As a placement center, the large campus grounds pose too much of a threat of violence or escape. A smaller facility would allow for more direct and controlled supervision of residents. An updated facility would improve safety by implementing more efficient and effective technology, which would also relieve some of the safety burden from the staff. New technology would make many of the current procedures more efficient, relieving the staff and administration from some administrative duties. A newer facility would also improve habitability conditions as basic problems such as heat, water and roof leaks would no longer be a problem. Financing concerns of a new facility are addressed by the money which has been going to repair and update the older facility.

3. REGULATIONS The juveniles and the adults concerns about the rules of the facility could be met through a compromise. Through a monthly joint meeting with administration, staff and residents, the rules of the facility could be discussed. The two interests of a safe and restricted environment could be weighed along with the interest in a habitable

47

environment. A review of the rules including the residents input would promote enforceability as residents would be more likely to follow rules that they understood and had played a role in making. This could help hold them personally accountable for their actions and increase the residents internalization of the rules and regulations of the facility. This review would also ensure the full understanding of the rules by all parties, which could increase cooperation between staff and residents as each would be aware of the rights and responsibilities of the other.

4. ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMING There is much support in the literature for the positive effects of involving juveniles in alternative programs. Such programs can include things from outdoor education, tutoring programs, ministry outreach or art and cultural immersion programs. There are an abundance of programs and groups in the area available to administer these services at detention facilities. Oak Hill has a large ministry service working with the residents. There is also a university related tutoring program involved at Oak Hill. For Black History Month an African cultural group came in to arrange a program through artistic expression. An initiative should be made to have every resident involved in at least one alternative program. Soliciting more volunteers and staffing more administrative positions at Oak Hill would help coordinate outreach programs to actually aide in the rehabilitation of the youth. Most of these programs work on a volunteer basis, therefore it would not require any additional funding. The only additional money required would be for staff positions, particularly for the purposes of this volunteer works coordination in order to facilitate ongoing participation with outside resources.

48

5. EDUCATION SYSTEM As one administrator stated, Every resident should be required to read a certain number of books before being released. While writing a reading list requirement into the sentencing structure of the law may not be realistic; the principle conveyed by this idea is a very useful one. First, the educational resources, particularly the books on the units must be updated. The resources at the school must be more easily accessible so as to not impose barriers to spending free time in productive ways such as reading and writing rather than playing video games and sleeping. Addressing the educational levels and needs of residents at Oak Hill is a clear deficit, hence a model for effective schooling in detention facilities remains to be developed. This is the most imminent area for future research as educational involvement has the greatest probability to positively change the life course of these youth who have gotten chained into the wrong system.

49

Bibliography Acoca, Leslie. 1996. Are Girls More Difficult to Work With? Youth Workers Perspectives in Juvenile Justice and Related Areas. Crime and Delinquency. 4: 467-85. Altschuler, David M. and Troy L. Armstrong. (1999) Reintegrative Confinement and Intensive Aftercare. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. July. Bowker, Lee H. 1982. Corrections: The Science and the Art. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Chan, Sewell. 1999. Health Care at Oak Hill Still Found Inadequate: Report says center breaks court order. The Washington Post. September 17, p.B4. Chan, Sewell. 2000. D.C. Council Bemoans Project Delays. The Washington Post. November 29, pB2. Cramer, Carol and Carter White. 2000. Curriculum for Training Educators of Youth in Confinement. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Fact Sheet. 05. DeMilo, Andrew. 2001. D.C. Panel Launches Mission for Youth. The Washington Post. November 15, p.B2. DCPS Homepage, Oakhill Academy. <http://www.k12.dc.us/dcps/schools/schools_frame.html>. Doig, Jameson W., ed. 1982. Criminal Corrections: Ideals and Realities. Lexington: Lexington Books. Eron, L., J. Gentry and P. Schlegel. 1994. Reason to hope: A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence and Youth. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association Finckenauer, James O. 1984. Juvenile Delinquency: The Gap Between Theory and Practice. Orlando: Academic Press. Greene, Marcia S. 1993. In D.C. Detention Centers, A Wall of Pain Traps Young DC Offenders. The Washington Post. January 24, p.A1. Grossman, Jean b. and Eileen M. Garry. 1997. Mentoring- A Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. April. Hardy, Richard E. and John G. Cull. 1973. Introduction to Correctional Rehabilitation. Springfield: Charles Thomas Publishers.

50

Jacobs, Mark D. 1990. Screwing the System and Making it Work: Juvenile Justice in the No-fault Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. James, Austen. 1995. The Overrepresentation of Minority Youths in the Correctional Juvenile Justice System: Perceptions and Realities. Minorities in Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Lambert, N.M. 1988. Adolescent outcomes for hyperactive children: Perspectives on general and specific patterns of childhood risk for adolescent educational, social, and mental health problems. American Psychologist, 43, 786-799. Leonard, Kimberly K., and Henry Sontheimer. 1995. The Role of Race in Juvenile Justice in Pennsylvania. Minorities in Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Lewis, Nancy. 1993. Oak Hill Corrections Officers Protest Crowding and Attempts to Relieve it. The Washington Post. June 15, PC7. Lewis, Nancy. 1994. Judges Costly Ruling: Fines Raised for Overcrowded D.C. Youth Facilities. The Washington Post. April 22, p.D1. Lewis, Nancy. 1994. Fire Safety Problems Found at Juvenile Centers: Access to Exit Doors, Number of Youths in DC Detention Facilities Questioned in Court The Washington Post. July 27, p.B6. Lewis, Nancy. 1995. Much of DC Youth Facility Without Hot Water. The Washington Post. September 23, p. B3. Lewis, Nancy. 1995. 4 Teens Detained In DC Claim They Got No Food: Diabetic Deprived of Insulin is Hospitalized. The Washington Post. August 15, p. B1. Loeber, R. 1982. The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development, 53, 1431-1446. Lubow, Bart and Dennis Barron. 2000. Resources for Juvenile Detention Reform. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Fact Sheet. 18. MacDonald, John M. 1999. Violence and Drug use in Juvenile Institutions. .Journal of Criminal Justice 27: 33-44. May, John P. ed. 2000. Building Violence: How Americas Rush to Incarcerate Creates More Violence. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. McGarrell, Edmund F. 1988. Juvenile Correctional Reform, Two Decades of Policy and Procedural Change. New York: State University of New York Press.

51

Mitchell, Jeff and Christopher Varley. 1990. Isolation and restraint in juvenile facilities. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 29:251-5. Moffitt, Terrie E. 1990. Juvenile delinquency and attention deficit disorder: Boys developmental trajectories from age 3 to age 15. Child Development, 61, 893910. Moone, Joseph. 1997. Juveniles in Private Facilities, 1991-1995. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Fact Sheet. 64. Palomin, Al. 2001. The Ventura Youth Correctional Facility Provides Needed Treatment Programs to Youthful Female Offenders Corrections Today 63: 8284. Patterson, G.R., Barbara DeBaryshe, and Elizabeth Ramsey. 1989. A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335. Peterson, Eric. 1996. Juvenile Boot Cams: Lessons Learned. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Fact Sheet. 36. Porter, Gillian. 2000. Detention in Delinquency Cases, 1998-1997. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Fact Sheet. 17. Porpotage, F.M. 1996. Training of Staff in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Fact Sheet. 37. Previt, Mary T. 1997. Preventing Security Crises at Youth Centers. Corrections Today 59. Roberts, Albert R. 1989. Juvenile Justice: Policies, Programs, and Services. Chicago: Dorsey Press. Roush, David W. and Michael A. Jones. 1996. Juvenile Detention Training: A Status Report. Federal Probation 60. Schwartz, Irma M. and William H. Barton. 1994. Reforming Juvenile Detention: No More Hidden Closets. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Slevin, Peter. 1998. D.C. Juvenile Facility Begins Needed Overhaul. The Washington Post. March 16, p. B1. Slevin, Peter. 1998. $3.2 Million to Cut Crime by Youths is Unspent. The Washington Post. March 25, p.B1.

52

Slevin, Peter. 1999. Teens Get it Together Assembling Computers. The Washington Post. June 16, p. B8. Soler, Mark. 2001. Doing Justice to Juveniles. The Washington Post. November 11, p.B8. Street, David, Robert D. Vinter and Charles Perrow. 1966. Organization for Treatment: A Comparative Study of Institutions for Delinquents. New York: The Free Press. Tyler, Jerry, Ray Darville and Kathi Stalnaker. 2001. Juvenile Boot Camps: A Descriptive Analysis of Program Diversity and Effectiveness. The Social Science Journal, 3. Youth Services Administration. 2001. Oak Hill Youth Center Court and Community Services Volunteer Program. Weil, Martin. 1996. 3 Teens Cut Fences, Flee Oak Hill Youth Center. The Washington Post. November 20, p. B3. Weiser, Benjamin. 1985. Inside Juvenile Justice: Drugs at Oak Hill. The Washington Post. September 29, p. A1. Welsh, Elsa. 1986. Four More Youths Flee From Oak Hill Facility: Three others escaped Thursday. The Washington Post, September 27, p. B3. Welsh, Elsa. 1987. D.C. Tightening Security at Youth Detention Facility The Washington Post. August 11, p. A1.

53

Appendix I You are being asked to participate in an interview about your experience at Oak Hill. Please feel free to ask me any questions about what you read here or any other part of the survey. My name is Cecilia Kline and I am a student at Georgetown University. I am in the class Project DC: Urban Research Internship in which I am writing my senior thesis, a requirement for the Sociology major. My thesis is a study on the conditions at Oak Hill and its effects on its residents. I will be under the supervision of my professor, Sam Marullo throughout the research process. I place a high value on the confidentiality of information you share with me and I will make every effort to ensure that information from your interview will be kept confidential. The transcript of the interview will remain anonymous and I will be the only person who sees the direct results of the interview. I will be asking you questions pertaining to your experience with Oak Hill and recording the answers. The process will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. You are free to withdraw from answering any one question or the interview process at anytime. The results from this interview will be used to write my final paper and possibly submit it to city officials as a proposal to improve conditions at Oak Hill. If you would like additional information concerning this research before or after it is completed, feel free to ask me and I will provide you with that information. You may also contact my professor, Sam Marullo, Ph.D., for information about this project. You may contact Professor Marullo or me through correspondence at the following address: Attn: Project DC Sociology Department Georgetown University Washington DC, 20057 Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. I have read this information, discussed it with Cecilia Kline, understand the information contained, and agreed to participate in the interview. _________________________________ Signature _______________________ Date

54

Appendix II Interview Questions: Residents What are the three most important things that you need in order to succeed here? 1.

2.

3.

What are the three largest problems at Oak Hill that you believe need to be improved? 1.

2.

3.

55

1) Age: 2) Grade: 3) Gender: 4) Unit: 5) Charge: ______________________________ aggravated assault robbery drug selling public order 6) How long have you been at Oak Hill? 7) How many times (including this one) have you been to Oak Hill? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 simple assault drug possession sexual assault homicide

8) How long are you charged to stay at Oak Hill?

A. On a scale of 1-10, one being the lowest and ten being the highest: 1. How well do you understand your charge? _______ 2. How safe do you feel on the unit? _______ 3. How do you rate the comfort of the unit? _______ 4. How comfortable is your bed? _______ 5. How livable is your room? _______ 6. How adequate is the access you have to TV, radio, or other entertainment on the unit?____ 7. How safe would you rate the outside grounds? _______ 8. How safe would you rate the other buildings such as control and the culinary? _______ 9. How effective do you think the guards are at keeping you safe in the unit? _______ 10. How easy do you think it would be to escape from Oak Hill? _______ 11. How fair do you think the rules are here? _______

56

B. 1. Have you ever been in a fight while at Oakhill? If so, how many? Please describe. 2. Have you ever had a weapon while at Oakhill? 3. Have you ever had drugs on the unit? If so, how often do you use drugs here? 4. Have you ever been physically threatened by some one else? 5. Have you ever threatened someone else physically? 6. Do you think you need help from someone so you can stay out of trouble? If so, describe the support you believe you need? 7. Do you believe you receive this help at Oak Hill? 8. I plan to return to school when I get out. If no, explain plans for release. 9. Do you get enough free time? If yes, what do you do with your time? If no, what would you do with your free time? 10. How often are you put on lockdown? Once a day Once a week Twice a week Once a month Once every couple months Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No

Yes

No

11. How often do you meet with a counselor social worker? Once a day Once a week Twice a week Once a month Once every couple months

57

C. Please answer these questions according to the following scale: SA: Strongly Agree A: Agree N: No Opinion D: Disagree SD: Strongly Disagree 1. I feel safe on the unit. 2. There is someone I feel I can talk to at Oak Hill. 3. I have someone to talk to when I need. 4. Adults here are not strict enough. 5. Some residents get away with too much. 6. I feel I get enough attention from staff at Oak Hill. 7. My attitude has changed while at Oak Hill. 8. I will change my behavior after I am released. 9. I feel I get a fair amount of home visits. 10. I get a fair amount of telephone use. 11. Some adults here are too strict. 12. We get enough food at meals 13. I understand what I need to do to be released. 14. I spend my time in constructive ways at Oak Hill. 15. I feel like the staff here wants the best for me. 16. I enjoy the classes I take here. 17. I have access to good books here. 18. The bathroom facilities are decent. 19. The subjects we take are helpful. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

20. The classes I take are taught at a level that is useful. SA 21. The teachers here are helpful. 22. Classes here are as useful as the ones at my school. SA SA

58

Appendix III Interview Questions: Staff Part I. 1. How long have you been working at Oak Hill? _______________________________________________________________________ 2. What type of work did you do before working at Oak Hill?

3. What is your job title? _______________________________________________________________________ 4. What is your job description?

_______________________________________________________________________ 5. How many hours a week do you work? _______________________________________________________________________ Please answer these questions according to the following scale: SA: Strongly Agree A: Agree N: No Opinion D: Disagree SD: Strongly Disagree 1. Your job description corresponds to the work you actually do. 2. You receive sufficient support from your supervisor. 3. You feel safe while you are at work. 4. You are adequately paid for the work you do. 5. You were sufficiently trained for your job? Please describe the training. SA A N SA SA SA SA A N A N A N A N D D SD SD

D SD D SD D SD

59

What do you consider the most challenging aspect of your job?

Have you ever had a violent encounter with the residents? ___________________ If so, please describe.

What are the three largest problems at Oak Hill that you believe need to be improved? 1.

2.

3.

60

Part II. On a scale of 1-10, one being the lowest and ten being the highest: 1. How well do you think residents understand their charge? _______ 2. How safe do you think residents are on the unit? _______ 3. How do you rate the comfort of the unit? _______ 4. How livable are the rooms? _______ 5. How adequate is the access the residents have to TV, radio, or other entertainment on the unit? _____ 6. How safe would you rate the outside grounds? _______ 7. How safe would you rate the other buildings such as control and the culinary? _______ 8. How effective do you think the guards are at keeping residents safe in the unit? ______ 9. How easy do you think is to escape from Oak Hill? _______ 10. How fair do you think the rules are here? _______ 11. Have you ever witnessed a fight while at Oakhill? If so, how many? Please describe. 12. Have you ever found a resident in possession of a weapon while at Oakhill? 13. Have you ever found drugs on the unit? If so, how often? 14. Have you ever brought drugs into Oak Hill? Yes No

Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No

15. Have you ever been physically threatened by one of the residents? Yes 16. Do you believe residents receive the help they need at Oak Hill? Yes 17. Do you believe residents get enough free time? Yes

61

18. How often are residents put on lockdown? Once a day Once a week Twice a week Once a month Once every couple months

19. How often do residents meet with a counselor social worker? Once a day Once a week Twice a week Once a month Once every couple months

Part III. Please answer these questions according to the following scale: SA: Strongly Agree A: Agree N: No Opinion D: Disagree SD: Strongly Disagree 1. Residents are safe on the unit. 2. There is someone residents can talk to at Oak Hill. 3. Adults here are not strict enough. 4. Some residents get away with too much. SA SA SA SA A A A A A A A A A A A A N N N N N N N N N N N N D D D D D D D D D D D D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

5. Residents get enough attention from staff at Oak Hill. SA 6. Residents get a fair amount of home visits. 7. Residents get a fair amount of telephone use. 8. Some adults here are too strict. 9. Residents get enough food at meals. 10. Residents spend their time in constructive ways at Oak Hill. 11. Residents have access to good books here. 12. The bathroom facilities are decent SA SA SA SA SA SA SA

62

Appendix IV Interview Questions: Administration Part I. 1. How long have you worked at Oak Hill?

2. What is your job title?

3. What is your job description?

4. What kind of work did you have before you worked here?

5. What kind of training did you receive for this job?

Please answer these questions according to the following scale: SA: Strongly Agree A: Agree N: No Opinion D: Disagree SD: Strongly Disagree 1.Working conditions at Oak Hill have improved since you began working here. SA A N D SD

63

2.Your training was sufficient to prepare you for your work. 3.You are adequately compensated for your work. 4. You are sufficiently supported by your supervisor.

SA A SA SA A A

N N D

SD SD SD

N D

Please describe the kind of support you receive from your supervisor.

What is the most challenging aspect of your work?

What reforms have you seen instituted since you have worked at Oak Hill?

What are the three largest problems at Oak Hill that you believe need to be improved? 1.

2.

64

3.

Part II.

On a scale of 1-10, one being the lowest and ten being the highest: 1. How well do you think residents understand their charge? _______ 2. How safe do you think residents are on the unit? _______ 3. How do you rate the comfort of the unit? _______ 4. How livable are the rooms? _______ 5. How adequate is the access the residents have to TV, radio, or other entertainment on the unit? _____ 6. How safe would you rate the outside grounds? _______ 7. How safe would you rate the other buildings such as control and the culinary? _______ 8. How effective do you think the guards are at keeping residents safe in the unit? ______ 9. How easy do you think is to escape from Oak Hill? _______ 10. How fair do you think the rules are here? _______ 11. Have you ever witnessed a fight while at Oakhill? If so, how many? Please describe. 12. Have you ever found a resident in possession of a weapon while at Oakhill? 13. Have you ever found drugs on the unit? If so, how often? Yes Yes No No Yes No

65

14. Have you ever brought drugs onto the unit?

Yes

No No No No

15. Have you ever been physically threatened by one of the residents? Yes 16. Do you believe residents receive the help they need at Oak Hill? 17. Do you believe residents get enough free time? 18. How often are residents put on lockdown? Once a day Once a week Twice a week Once a month Yes

Yes

Once every couple months

19. How often do residents meet with a counselor social worker? Once a day Once a week Twice a week Once a month Once every couple months

Part III. Please answer these questions according to the following scale: SA: Strongly Agree A: Agree N: No Opinion D: Disagree SD: Strongly Disagree SA SA SA SA A A A A A A A A A A A A N N N N N N N N N N N N D D D D D D D D D D D D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

1.Residents are safe on the unit. 2. There is someone residents can talk to at Oak Hill. 3. Adults here are not strict enough. 4. Some residents get away with too much.

5. Residents get enough attention from staff at Oak Hill. SA 6. Residents get a fair amount of home visits. 7. Residents get a fair amount of telephone use. 8. Some adults here are too strict. 9. Residents get enough food at meals. 10. Residents spend their time in constructive ways at Oak Hill. 11. Residents have access to good books here. 12. The bathroom facilities are decent SA SA SA SA SA SA SA

66

Appendix V Summary Results Table residents staff Safety 3.32 Habitability 3.31 Education 3.49 Counseling 3.83 Administrators 3.51 3.69 4.19 4.36 4.17 3.92 4.17 4.75

Overall Rating (highest to lowest) 1.counseling 2. habitability 3. education 4. safety Residents 1. counseling 2. education 3. safety 4. habitability Staff 1. habitability 2. education 2. counseling 4. safety Administration 1. counseling 2. habitability 3. education 4. safety

67

Appendix VI Resident Interview Data Sheet

resident Part I 1 2 3 education a strong mind family support 1 0 1 2 4 5 (inc.) 1 family respect discipline 2 support (from anyone) follow directions 3 discipline, ability to learns have manners and listen 1 3 2 0

internal external Part II

1 education system 2 better discipline system 3 lack of female staff safety habitability education counseling Part III 1 2 GED 3M 4 MOD 5 drug selling (crack) 6 3 months 7 8 a few months 6 1 0 1 1

stop opening mail food 0 2 0 0

no lockdown on shift change stop opening mail safer fences 2 1 0 0

more family visitation N/A & A/A Groups conjugal visits 0 2 0 1

0 0 0 0

18 11 M MOD drug selling (weed) 4 months 5 juvi life (M) (MOD) simple assault

18 GED M MOD M MOD

16 10

48 months 3 juvi life

8 months 6 8 months

section A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(1-10) 10 10 8 7 10 6 10 9 8 2 5 7 10 8 8 7 10 8 8 8 4 4.5 8 9 10 7 6 5 2 1 1 3 1 10 10 10 5 6 8 8 10 8 6 8 10 7 10 10 10 10 9

68

section B 1 # of fights 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(yes=1, no=0) 1 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 sleep 1/couple months 2/week 1/week 1/couplemonths 1/couple months 2/week 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

watch tv, read newspaper, 10 1/ month 11 1/week section c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (SA=5, A=4, N=3, D=2, SD=1) 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 4 3 5 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 3

5 4 4 2 2 3 3 4 1 4 3 2 5 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 1

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 2 2 2 3 2

5 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2

Analysis: sum secA+secC sum/items safety 33.20681818 3.320681818 habitability 26.48863636 3.311079545 education 31.43257576 3.492508418 counseling 22.99090909 3.831818182

69

6 be strong be careful stay out of trouble

7 yourself determination church 3 0

8 control peace faith in yourself 2 1

9 a good attitude an education a family 3 0

10

1 2

the heat the rooms 0 2 0 0

school stop opening mail staff uniforms (colors) court reports 1 0 2 0

0 2 0 0

17 11 M MOD M MOD pwID

17 M MOD robbery, drug possession 5 months

18 12

17 11 M M MOD MOD custody order UUV dirty urine 9 months 2.5 months 1 residential residential

17 12

6 2 months months 6 ?

4 back to court in March

1 9 8 2 4 9 10 1 2 3 4

1 9 9 6 9 9 9 9 8 1 5

10 10 10 3 5 8 10 8 7 5

10 7 4 1 2 5 10 8 8 2 5

10 10 10 10 10 10 5 8 9 1 0

70

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 T.V.

2/week 2/week 2/week 2/week

1/day 1/week

2/day 1/day

1 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 maybe 0 read, look @ pictures of family not often 2/week

1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

5 5 5 5 5 3 2 5 1 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 2 1 1

2 2 2 4 5 5 5 1 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 2 2 1

5 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 5

4 4 4 2 5 5 5 1 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 2 1 2 2 5 1

5 4 5 3 3 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4

71

11 don't worry about time attitude don't be a punk way of thinking be yourself relationship w/ family 3 0

12 ANALYSIS Total 27 percentage 2 0 20 0.7407407 7 0.2592593

more floor time more rights better staff 0 2 0 1

better staff rules more activities 0 3 0 0

total=24 4 14 3 3

percentage 0.1666667 0.5833333 0.125 0.125

18 12 M MOD drug selling 1 month juvenile life F

Average 15 17.1 9

6 driving w/o permit Average 5 months 8.5 2 5 4.4 5 months Average 10 8.083333 10 9.25 3 8.333333 2 5.416667 4 6.583333 5 7.916667 2 7.5 5 6.545455 6 6.6 4 3.454545 0 3.772727 average/2 mode 4.0416667 4.625 4.1666667 2.7083333 3.2916667 3.9583333 3.75 3.2727273 3.3 1.7272727 1.8863636 median 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 8 8 2 5 10 10 9.5 5.5 6 8.5 8.5 8 8 3 4.5

10 10 10 4 6 10 7 5 8 5 4

72

1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 play games, talk on phone 2/day 2/week 1/week 1/week

0 10/11=yes 0 2.5714286 0 4/11=yes 0 4/11=yes 0 5/11=yes 0 5/11=yes 0 2/11=yes 1 6/11=yes 1 9/11=yes 0 2/10=yes

1/11=no 7/11=no 7/11=no 6/11=no 6/11=no 9/11=no 5/11=no 1/11=no 8/10=no

1/11=maybe

sum 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 4 1 4 3 3 4 2 2 2 2 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 2 5 3 1 2 5 2 5 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 49 39 43 31 38 40 43 42 21 43 40 38 49 44 42 37 36 34 29 30 36 28

average mode 4.4545455 3.9 3.9090909 3.1 3.4545455 3.6363636 3.9090909 3.8181818 1.9090909 3.9090909 3.6363636 3.4545455 4.4545455 4 3.8181818 3.3636364 3.2727273 3.0909091 2.9 3 3.6 2.8

median 5 4 4 3 3 4 5 5 1 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 2 4 3 2 4 1 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 1 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2.5 4 2.5

73

Appendix VII Staff Interview Data Sheet

staff # Part I 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 years 5 years 15 years corrections correction off. police, coach correctional correctional Senior officer officer correct. officer 4 correctional security, custody, security, protection officer custody, control 5 52 40 40 40 ANALYSIS (SA=5, A=4, N=3, D=2, SD=1) average 1 4 4 4 2 3.5 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 5 3.75 4 4 2 4 2 3 5 4 4 4 5 4.25 challenge encounter wide altercations variety of people no no (conditional ) kids w/ mental Changing problems kids attitudes yes Yes

1 building more officers facilities 2 mispercepti job promotion on in the media 3 overworked, underpaid safety 1 2 habitability 0 0 education 1 0 counseling 0 1 Part II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (1-10) 9 8.8 8.5 9 9 8 9 9.5 2.5 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 9 8 5 5

administration training more support stricter corrections punishment better security staff morale 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 total=11 percentage 8 1 1 1 0.7273 0.0909 0.0909 0.0909

8 7 10 10 10 6 7 10 7 10

8 10 8 3 10 9 10 8 9 10

average average mode medi /2 an 8.75 4.375 8 8.5 8.95 4.475 10 9.4 9.125 4.5625 10 9.25 8 4 10 9.5 9.75 4.875 10 10 7.75 3.875 8 8 8.75 4.375 9 9 8.875 4.4375 8 8.75 5.875 2.9375 #N/A 6 8.75 4.375 10 10

74

(yes=1, no=2) 1 1 # fights 2/week 1/couple months 12 1 1 13 1 0 # times 14 15 1 1 16 1 1 17 1 1 18 shift change, bed time 19 1/day full access 11 Part III 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Analysis:

1 2/week 0 1 1/month 1 1 1 shift change 1/day 1/month 1/day 2/month 1/2 days

1 4/4=yes

1 3/4=yes 1 3/4=yes

0 3/4=yes 0 3/4=yes 1 4/4=yes

(SA=5, A=4, N=3, D=2, SD=1) 4 4 2 3 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 sum/items 3.51 4.197916667 4.166666667 4.166666667 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 2 4 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4

sum 17 18 14 16 15 15 16 11 17 9 12 16

average mode medi an 4.25 4 4 4.5 4 4.5 3.5 4 4 4 4 4 3.75 4 4 3.75 4 4 4 4 4 2.75 2 2.5 4.25 4 4 2.25 2 2 3 4 3 4 4 4

sum part II + part III safety 35.1 habitability 25.1875 education 12.5 counseling 12.5

75

Appendix VIII Administrator Interview Data Sheet

administrator # 1 2 Question 1 2.5 years 2.5 2 assnt. superintend of treatment head chaplain 3 treatment 4 psychologist correctional officer ANALYSIS 5 security etc. list (SA=5, A=4, N=3, D=2, SD=1) average 1 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 challenge working with other staff dealing w/ non believers 1 structure 2 archaic culture 3 safety habitability education counseling Part II (1-10) 7 7.5 6 8 9 7 7.5 7 0.2 9 1 weekly 1 1 periodically 1 0 1 shift change daily 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 anger management education empowerment 1 0 1 1

total=5 3 0 1 1

percentage 0.6 0 0.2 0.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (yes=1, no=2) 11 # times 1/6 months 12 13 # times 1/month 14 15 16 17 18 periodically 19 1/week

average average/2 median 6 6.5 3.25 6.5 9 8.25 4.125 8.25 9 7.5 3.75 7.5 8 8 4 8 10 9.5 4.75 9.5 10 8.5 4.25 8.5 10 8.75 4.375 8.75 9 8 4 8 1 0.6 0.3 0.6 10 9.5 4.75 9.5 1

76

Part III 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Analysis: safety habitability education counseling

(SA=5, A=4, N=3, D=2, SD=1) 4 5 2 2 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 sum part II+part III 36.8 30.5 11.75 9.5 sum/items 3.68 4.357142857 3.916666667 4.75 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 4

sum 9 10 6 7 9 8 10 8 9 8 9 9

average 4.5 5 3 3.5 4.5 4 5 4 4.5 4 4.5 4.5

median 4.5 5 3 3.5 4.5 4 5 4 4.5 4 4.5 4.5

77