Florida Department of Corrections, part 2

Services

Three youthful offender institutions were visited: Brevard, Hillsborough, and Indian River Correctional Institutions. The team also visited the Florida Correctional Institution, an institution for adult female offenders that manages a small youthful offender program. The programs at each facility were similar and are described below.

Central to all four facilities is the Extended Day Program. This program uses a quasi-boot camp structure emphasizing constant activity to keep residents productively occupied in exercise activities, classes, or work detail throughout the day. Programming begins at 5:30 a.m. with military drill and exercise. School programs operate from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays, with other scheduled program activities on weekends. The program operates in a regimented, military atmosphere. Residents are required to ask staff permission to pass by, to stand at attention in the presence of ranked staff, and to use “Yes sir” and “No sir” when speaking. The program uses a ranking system, signified by the color of hat the inmate is required to wear, for access to privileges such as telephone use, commissary access, and visitation rights. Advancement through these ranks is based on good conduct and satisfactory progress in the program.

The premise of the Extended Day Program is that youthful offenders are volatile and impulsive, so more intensive levels of activity are required to manage their behavior. Essentially, the program tries to wear down offenders physically so that they have neither the time nor the energy to engage in misconduct. A high level of activity and structure creates a more receptive attitude toward programming, particularly educational programming. Resistant youth are faced with the prospect of transfer to an adult correctional facility.

Florida’s youthful offender facilities offer standard GED programs, special education services, and vocational training. The facilities also offer medical and mental health treatment services, including therapeutic units for drug and alcohol abuse. In assessing program needs, staff identified a need for a violence interruption program and a life-skills program to assist residents in reintegrating into society.

Florida has attempted to separate youthful offenders from the adult population by dedicating facilities for the youthful offender program. However, the state’s definition of a youthful offender, essentially any offender between the ages of 13 and 24, is broad. Within the youthful offender facilities, attempts are made to further separate offenders by age and type of offense, but program activities generally mix program residents of all ages. The department modifies the Extended Day Program for very young offenders.

Because of their small number, female youthful offenders are incarcerated with adults at the Florida Correctional Institution. The youthful offenders at this facility are housed in a dormitory separate from the adult population. Although they participate in the Extended Day Program, youthful offenders are mixed with the facility’s adult population for all other programs and services.

Florida Department of Corrections, part 1

Brevard Correctional Institution, Sharpes, Florida

Florida Correctional Institution, Lowell, Florida

Hillsborough Correctional Institution, Riverview, Florida

Indian River Correctional Institution, Vero Beach, Florida

Program Descriptions:

The state of Florida operates a youthful offender program for inmates up to age 24 who have received an adult sentence and have been committed to the Department of Corrections. Offenders in this age group with an adult sentence of less than 10 years are eligible for the program. Offenders under the age of 24 who have been convicted of murder or who are serving life sentences are not eligible for the program. Florida law also permits juvenile court judges to certify individuals meeting these criteria into the program. The department can also designate individuals for placement into the program. 

The vast majority of youthful offenders in Florida, age 17 or younger, are participating in the youthful offender program. Exceptions are those youth who have been decertified from the program and transferred to adult correctional facilities. These decertifications are generally for disciplinary reasons. Decertifications have also been made to create space for new admissions to the program. Statutes allow the department to recommend sentence reductions to the court for youth who have completed the program and appear ready for reintegration into society. Several facilities report making recommendations for sentence reductions to the department’s central office, but to date, none of these recommendations have been forwarded to the court.



The department designates specific institutions to house the youthful offender program to insulate participants from the general adult prison population. These youthful offender facilities are further categorized by the typical age of their residents. Facilities are designated for two populations: (1) youth between ages 13 and 18 and (2) youth between ages 19 and 24. In practice, however, both types of youthful offender facilities house significant numbers of offenders of all ages. These facilities house youthful offenders with the full range of custody classifications, which include minimum, medium, and close management classes. Staff at these facilities must undergo a 40-hour training program on managing youthful offenders.

Management Issues, part 3

General Observations

SMU II appears to be the only institution in the United States that provides a super maximum-security environment for youthful offenders. However, this level of security is more a function of the way Arizona has chosen to manage and provide programs for this population than a reflection of the nature of the offenders. Although violent and disruptive, the offenders housed in SMU II are not significantly different from the juvenile offenders found in the segregation units of most maximum-security juvenile correctional facilities across the country. SMU II’s innovative approach to programming for these difficult-to-manage youth is unique. The juvenile unit at SMU II functions as a controlled setting for the delivery of services to juveniles who have been disruptive to the general facility population.

Within the tightly controlled context of a super maximum-security facility, SMU II staff have developed programs that complement the facility security. Staff use the control aspects of the environment to increase incentives to participate in educational and treatment programs. The program offerings are well developed, are specific to population needs, and have written criteria to evaluate progress and performance. Moreover, the offenders' progress through these programs is connected to the reclassification of the offender back to the general population. The concerns that might be expressed about the impact of a maximum-security environment on youth appear to be substantially mitigated by the quality of the programs offered at the facility and the incentives for offenders to use these offerings productively. The enhanced control and discipline of SMU II may provide the degree of structure required to successfully control and provide program services for certain types of youthful offenders.

Management Issues, part 2

Offender Profiles

Of the 20 youth housed in SMU II, more than half were sentenced to prison for violent crimes, including 7 sentenced for serious property offenses. The main reason for their placement in SMU II was typically a serious infraction of department rules involving an assault on staff or on other inmates or gang activity. Half of the residents were Hispanic, six were black, and four were white. Sixteen of the residents were 17 years old, three were 16 years old, and one was 15, the youngest resident ever housed at the facility. The longest period of commitment to SMU was 13 months, and the minimum stay was 6 months.

A review of a sample of the case files of unit residents confirmed that most had a history of violent offenses. The following cases are representative of the backgrounds of youth incarcerated at SMU:

• Offender one was a 15-year-old serving a minimum of 5 years for assault and possession of a weapon for his involvement in a gang related, drive-by shooting. His background showed no prior juvenile or adult criminal record but indicated a history of alcohol and substance abuse. He had completed the ninth grade. His placement at SMU II was the result of an assault on staff.

• Offender two was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 8 years for armed robbery. At the time of this offense, he was on adult probation for other offenses. He has an extensive juvenile record, including several convictions for weapons-related charges. He was transferred to SMU II for multiple incidents, including inciting a riot, creating a work stoppage, and participating in an institutional disturbance.

• Offender three was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 5 years for aggravated assault. The offense occurred during his participation in a drive-by shooting. His background indicated a history of alcohol and drug abuse that began at age 12. Prior to his latest arrest, he had more than 20 arrests as a juvenile for a variety of offenses. He was transferred to SMU II for multiple episodes of misconduct, none of which involved violent behavior.

• Offender four was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 3.5 years for possession of a stolen vehicle, assault, and aggravated assault. His background indicated 10 prior juvenile arrests and 3 prior dispositions in adult court. He was transferred to SMU II for threatening an employee and other episodes of misconduct.

• Offender five was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 10 years for attempted murder committed during a gang-related, drive-by shooting. His background indicated no previous criminal record but showed extensive alcohol and drug abuse. He was transferred to SMU II for assault.

• Offender six was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 18 years for manslaughter. His record showed prior juvenile dispositions. He was transferred to SMU II for assaulting staff.

Arizona laws are flexible in their criteria for the transfer of a juvenile to adult court. Because of this flexibility, the youthful offender population has committed a wide range of offenses. Most of the offenses described in the case files are serious, but several would not qualify for transfer in other states. Four of the six offenders received a sentence for a lesser offense resulting from a plea bargain.

Alcohol and drug use as well as gang involvement were frequently noted in the offender’s background. Most surprising was the absence of any prior criminal record for two offenders. A variety of disciplinary infractions had resulted in placement at SMU II.

Management Issues, part 1

The presence of youthful offenders in facilities designed and operated for adult offenders creates issues for correctional administrators. The strategies for addressing these issues vary widely among states, depending on the system for committing youth to adult correctional facilities, the nature of the facilities utilized, and the experience of the staff dealing with youthful offenders. To better assess the issues facing correctional administrators and the management strategies currently in place, the project team visited several states with adult prisons and jails that house juveniles.

Table 12 presents summary data on the institutions that participated in this review. Sites were selected based on their distinct programs and the number of youthful offenders incarcerated in the adult facilities. One cannot assume that the facilities visited are typical of all adult facilities (jails and prisons) holding youthful inmates. The objective was to visit several facilities to document how various correctional systems are dealing with this issue.

The project team examined several components at each site. Members focused on gaining an appreciation of the way administrators perceive the youthful offender issue and identifying the management strategies each jurisdiction has developed. The findings of the project team are summarized below for each system and facility visited.

Constructed in 1997, SMU is a state-of-the-art super maximum-security facility. The unit is designed to hold 20 juvenile offenders and currently operates at full capacity. All functions related to the operation of the unit are provided onsite. Juveniles’ movements to programs and services outside the unit are controlled by rigid schedules and physical barriers that ensure total separation from the adult population. The facility is currently under a consent decree relating to crowded living conditions, program availability, medical and mental health services, disciplinary policy, and access to legal services and mail.


Arizona uses an objective classification system to guide placement in the super-maximum custody status. The classification instrument assigns points for a variety of factors, including the nature of the offense, escape history, and misconduct while in prison. The resulting score can be reduced by remaining free of serious misconduct while at SMU and by completing specific programs, such as the GED program.



The unit functions as a typical super maximum-security facility, allowing residents limited personal property, prohibiting audiovisual equipment, and requiring residents to wear a uniform. Youth are permitted to exercise outside the cell for three 1-hour periods each week and may take three showers per week. Visits are non-contact and limited in number and duration. Inmates are shackled and escorted by officers during all movements outside the cell. The day-to-day operation of the unit is similar to the operation of typical adult, super maximum-security units, with emphasis placed on discipline and control.


Services


SMU has a well-conceived array of programs for youthful offenders. Youth must participate in and complete two of three programs, listed below.



Hazelden’s


A Design for Living. This substance abuse treatment program is based on the Alcohol Anonymous 12-step program. The course consists of reading short booklets and completing a test, writing an essay, or both. Successful completion of the program reduces an offender’s classification points.


Cage Your Rage


This anger-management program is based on techniques developed at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary in Canada and assists offenders in recognizing feelings of anger, their causes, and methods to control and modify anger. This program is mandatory for all unit residents.


Biblio Program 


This literacy self-help program is based on readings and essays from a list of materials. Upon completion of a reading assignment, the youth must write an essay on the material’s relevance to his life.



Program participation is based on a clinical assessment of each youth’s needs. The program offerings are designed to accommodate the disciplinary structure of SMU.


Youth must comply with grooming standards, attend study periods, and maintain their cells in accordance with SMU regulations. All youth are expected to participate in physical fitness, mental alertness, and recreational programs, which include word-search contests, puzzles, and fitness challenges and testing.


The facility offers a range of educational programs, including mandatory GED preparation. Residents who already have diplomas must complete a book report every 2 weeks. Vocational courses are offered, but college level courses are not available. Each resident is afforded 3 hours each day to attend classes. Instruction is provided in an area with adjacent study cells facing a common instruction area. In this manner, instruction can be provided on a face-to-face basis with group interaction, while maintaining a high degree of security. Instruction is enhanced with a variety of sophisticated instructional aids, and each study cell is wired for video and audio instructional systems controlled by the instructor.



This learning environment results in a positive atmosphere. Class participation is high, and residents seem to value the program and appear motivated to achieve their educational goals. Because educational programs provide one of the few opportunities that youth have for out-of-cell time and interaction, great significance is attached to participation in them.


Medical staff, including doctors, nurses, and mental health professionals, are available daily. Youth with serious mental health issues are not eligible for the program. There are no facilities in SMU for intensive mental health services, and sight and separation issues make using the larger facility’s mental health unit problematic. On the day of the site visit, 20 percent of the residents were receiving mental health treatment. Despite the prevalence of mental health issues in adult super maximum facilities, SMU staff did not indicate any special mental health needs for the youthful offender population. The relatively low level of serious mental health issues may be attributable to careful screening of candidates for the unit. A review of files did not reveal any indicators of serious mental health issues (e.g., suicide attempts) and showed that mental health services were routinely being provided.

Characteristics of Juveniles Housed in Adult Jails and Prisons, part 3

Facility Survey Findings

Actual confinement conditions represent critical issues for both correctional managers and youth advocates. To better understand the conditions under which youthful offenders are being incarcerated, this section examines data from surveys of adult facilities that housed youthful offenders.


Every state and local correctional system participating in the survey was sent separate surveys for each facility under its jurisdiction that housed youthful offenders. In total, data were collected from 196 adult institutions that housed youthful offenders. However, 15 of these surveys were excluded from the final analysis because they were returned with significant amounts of missing information.



Of the 181 adult facilities that responded to the survey, 148, or 82 percent, were adult prisons. The majority of these institutions, 74 percent, were either medium- or maximum-security institutions. The predominance of higher security facilities appears to be associated with the offense profile of this population, which, as noted earlier, was heavily weighted toward serious violent offenses. Forty-two percent of the institutions were located in small cities, suburbs, or rural areas, following the typical profile of adult prisons. Only 11 percent were located in large cities.



Of the facilities that responded to the survey, only 13 percent maintained separate facilities or units for youthful offenders. By far the more common practice appeared to be that no differentiation was made between adult and juvenile housing units. This finding is perhaps not surprising when viewed in the context of the rationales for moving youth to adult correctional facilities—the increasing severity of their crimes, the failure of rehabilitation, and the difficulty experienced in managing their behavior. 


The age of the facilities housing youthful offenders ranged from new to 163 years old. More than 25 percent of the facilities were opened before1965. Another 50 percent were opened between 1965 and 1987. The remaining 25 percent have been open since 1987. The median age of these facilities was 20 years. 



Consistent with the operating practices of most adult correctional facilities, 98 percent of the facilities surveyed did not permit community access for youthful offenders. This situation reflects the predominance of medium and maximum-security prisons in the survey and may be more indicative of the serious nature of the offenses for which these youth have been incarcerated than of a lack of appropriate programming for youthful offenders. Lack of community access may also result from the largely rural locations of many adult correctional facilities.

Summary

The housing of juveniles in adult facilities is more frequent than ever before. Most state adult correctional systems house youthful offenders. Of the 54 jurisdictions responding (50 prisons and 4 jails), 87 percent housed incarcerated juveniles. In terms of their status while incarcerated, 96 percent of the reported youthful offender population fell into two categories: 23 percent were held as adjudicated juvenile offenders or pretrial detainees (mostly in the jails that responded to the survey) and 77 percent were sentenced as adults and housed in state prisons.


Juveniles constitute an extremely small proportion of offenders in the nation’s prison system. At the time of this survey, there were 1,069,244 inmates in state prisons but only 4,775, (or 0.5 percent) were under age 18.



Respondents reported 13,876 youthful offender admissions to adult correctional facilities in 1997. The total average female youthful offender population for all reporting systems was only 843 offenders.


The age distribution of the youthful offender population was heavily skewed toward 17-year-olds. Approximately 78 percent of the reported youthful offender population was age 17, with another 18 percent in the 16-year-old category.


Youthful offenders are housed primarily in medium- or maximum-security facilities. Of the institutions surveyed, 42 percent were located in small cities, suburbs, or rural areas, again following the typical profile of adult prisons. Only 11 percent were located in the large cities. Of the facilities that responded to the survey, only 13 percent maintained separate facilities or units for youthful offenders. The more common practice appears to be that no differentiation is made in housing for youthful offenders in adult facilities.

Characteristics of Juveniles Housed in Adult Jails and Prisons, part 2

Findings

Most state adult correctional systems house youthful offenders. Of the 54 jurisdictions responding, 87 percent housed incarcerated juveniles. In terms of the legal status of incarcerated juveniles, 96 percent of the reported youthful offender population fell into two major categories: 23 percent were held as adjudicated juvenile offenders or pretrial detainees, and 75 percent were sentenced as adults.

Two objectives of the survey were to identify the characteristics of youth currently held in adult correctional facilities and to compare the characteristics of the youthful offender population with those of adult offenders held in the same facilities. These data provided information on the types of youth who were incarcerated in adult facilities and their similarities to the adult population housed in these facilities. 

The total adult correctional system capacity identified by survey respondents was 826,289 beds. Of the respondents, 46 percent maintained housing designated for youthful offenders. The capacity of these units for youthful offenders totaled 6,708 beds or less than 1 percent of the overall system capacity identified by the respondents.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia indicated that they maintained separate housing specifically for youthful offenders (table 4). The presence of separate housing for youthful offenders does not necessarily mean that all youthful offenders were housed in these separate facilities. States with large youthful offender populations, by necessity, often housed youthful offenders with the adult population when their housing capacity for youth was exceeded. Although a significant number of states maintained separate housing for youthful offenders, their definition of a “youthful” offender was frequently more expansive than the definition used here. In Florida, for example, youthful offenders from the ages of 14

to 24 were provided with dedicated housing and programs.

The number of youthful offenders in each system surveyed is presented in table 5, along with data on the reported number of adult offenders in these systems. The total adult residential population identified by the survey was 1,069,244 offenders in 1998. The youthful offender population totaled4,775 or 0.5 percent of the total population. For these same respondents, the average system population for calendar year 1997 was 937,460 offenders, with an average youthful offender population of 4,078, again roughly 0.5 percent of the total population. The total average female youthful offender population for all reporting systems was 158 offenders, which is approximately 3.3 percent of the entire youthful offender population in adult facilities. This proportion of female offenders is somewhat lower than that reported for adult female offenders. Survey respondents indicated that adult female offenders constituted approximately 6 percent of the total adult offender population. Approximately 22 percent of the systems surveyed were planning to expand their youthful offender capacity (table 6).

The profile of youthful offenders in adult facilities shows the predominance of youth convicted of crimes against persons. Fifty-seven percent of all youthful offenders were being held for an offense against a person, compared with 44 percent of the adult inmate population. Property offenders made up 21 percent of the youthful offender population and
20 percent of the adult population. Juveniles in adult facilities were less likely to be held for drug-related offenses than their adult counterparts (10 percent and 20 percent, respectively). The remaining major distinction between the offense profiles of the adult and youthful offender populations was the presence of a significant number of parole/probation violators in the adult population. Respondents reported that 8 percent of the adult offender population were parole/probation violators, compared with only 2 percent of the youthful offender population.


These data suggest that the perception that youthful offenders are being transferred to adult correctional systems for more serious offenses is largely accurate. Violent offenders made up a substantially higher proportion of the youthful offender population in adult facilities than were present in the adult offender population. Although some research indicates that the majority of juvenile transfer cases involve nonviolent, less serious offenses, these data suggest that the justice system draws appropriate distinctions in determining the types of youthful offenders who are sent to adult correctional facilities.


In terms of race/ethnicity, 55 percent of the youthful offender population was black, compared with 48 percent of the adult offender population. The proportion of the youthful and adult population with a Hispanic background was 14 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Approximately 26 percent of the youthful offenders were white, compared with 35 percent of the adult population. These data suggest that the concerns expressed regarding the over representation of minority youth among juvenile offenders in adult facilities have some basis, at least with regard to black males.


The age distribution of the youthful offender population was heavily skewed toward 17-year-olds. Approximately 78 percent of the reported youthful offender population was 17, with another 18 percent in the 16-year-old category. In a number of states such as Illinois, Michigan, and New York, 17-year-olds are considered adults. Accordingly, the presence of 17-year-old offenders in these states’ populations does not necessarily reflect a policy of juvenile transfer, but simply a function of the normal prosecution of adult offenders. Few offenders were below the age of 16 in adult correctional facilities. The youngest reported age of a youthful offender in an adult facility was 13 years.



In the course of a year, the number of youth experiencing some form of incarceration in an adult facility is much higher than the number shown by a 1-day count. Respondents reported 13,876 youthful offender admissions to adult correctional facilities in 1997. Not all jurisdictions reportedrelease data; those that did reported 7,886 releases in 1997. The average length of stay for youthful offenders was 106 days for female offenders and 231 days for male offenders. These data are for youth who completed their time served, so they understate the actual length of stay for the youthful offender population by excluding more serious offenders with long-term sentences.



The program offerings of the adult systems were fairly consistent, focusing on education and basic counseling services. As shown in table 10, most respondents offered formal elementary and secondary education programs, special education, general equivalency diploma (GED) preparation, individual counseling, and psychological/psychiatric treatment. In addition, 85 percent offered vocational programs, 50 percent offered college courses, 81 percent offered AIDS prevention counseling, and 84 percent offered health/nutrition programs. Only 56 percent offered substance abuse treatment, 26 percent offered sex offender treatment, and 40 percent offered youth violent offender treatment.


Health services offered to youthful offenders were also fairly consistent. All respondents offered initial health screenings conducted by licensed personnel. Doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, and mental health personnel were available in most systems on a daily basis.

Characteristics of Juveniles Housed in Adult Jails and Prisons, part 1

A current and accurate enumeration of juveniles confined in adult prisons and jails is essential to understand the issue of youth in adult facilities. Data on youthful offenders in national reports were not sufficiently complete or comprehensive to achieve the level of detail required for this study. Consequently, a comprehensive national survey of adult jail and prison systems was required. Two survey instruments were developed to obtain data on youthful offenders, one for adult state prison systems and one for state and local adult correctional facilities. Both surveys were modeled after the Bureau of Justice Statistics correctional facility surveys. The most critical assumption in developing the surveys was a precise definition of a youthful offender. For these surveys, a “youthful offender” was defined as a person age 17 or younger. In most states, 18-year-old offenders are considered adults and are normally tried in adult court. By focusing on the population age 17 and younger, the surveys concentrated on offenders generally considered juveniles and whose presence in adult correctional facilities was exceptional. 

      The purpose of the correctional system-level survey was to collect data on the number and characteristics of all youthful offenders incarcerated in a state’s prison system, as well as to compare these characteristics with those of the adult offenders incarcerated in the system. The survey collected data on the custodial status of the juvenile residential population, housing patterns, offense background, race/ethnicity, age, length of stay, disciplinary actions, programs, litigation, health services, and capacity.

      The facility-level survey was intended to provide specific information on the actual conditions of confinement in prisons and data about some of the large jail systems. This survey asked questions about facility characteristics, housing patterns, offense history, race/ethnicity, age, length of stay, disciplinary actions, programs, litigation, and health services. Although the facility survey addresses many of the issues identified in the system

survey, it is designed to give a better sense of the “fit” between the youth and the adults in these institutions.

      Both the system- and facility-level surveys were sent to each state prison system, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and 19 jail systems. The selected jails included all the major metropolitan jail systems and a sample of small and medium-size jails throughout the country. In total, 70 surveys were distributed. Surveys were mailed in September 1998, and a followup survey was mailed in January 1999. Participating state and local systems were instructed to complete the system-level survey and disseminate the facility-level survey to any facilities in their jurisdiction that housed youthful offenders. The number of participants in the facility-level survey was dependent on the number of adult facilities identified by jurisdictions as housing juveniles, the number of such facilities to which the jurisdictions mailed the facility survey, and the willingness of these particular facilities to respond to the survey.

      All 50 states, 3 of the 19 jail systems (Los Angeles County, New York City, and Philadelphia), and the District of Columbia responded to the system-level survey, and 196 correctional agencies responded to the facility-level survey. Despite efforts to solicit their participation, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other selected jail systems refused to take part in this research. Consequently, these results are not representative of the total population of juveniles in adult prisons.

State Statutes and Juvenile Transfer Laws

During the past decade, most states have adopted legislation that permits the transfer of youth to adult courts to be tried as adults. Usually these laws target serious crimes and permit the age of jurisdiction to be lowered. Relative to the issue of juveniles in adult correctional facilities, these laws often become the basis for a juvenile to be housed in a jail if charged and awaiting court disposition or in a prison if the juvenile has been convicted and sentenced.

Between 1992 and 1996, 45 states and the District of Columbia made substantive changes to their laws targeting juveniles who commit violent or serious crimes (Torbet et al., 1996). All but 10 states adopted or modified laws making it easier to prosecute juveniles in criminal court. Nearly half of the states (24) added crimes to the list of offenses excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction, and 36 states and the District of Columbia excluded certain categories of juveniles from juvenile court jurisdiction. The list of offenses considered serious enough to warrant the transfer of youth as young as age 14 included murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and rape as well as less serious and violent offenses such as aggravated stalking, lewd and lascivious assault or other acts in the presence of a child, sodomy, oral copulation, and violation of drug laws near a school or park. Since 1992, 13 states and the District of Columbia have added or modified statutes that provide for a mandatory minimum term of incarceration for juveniles adjudicated delinquent for certain serious and violent crimes.

A legal method used to try a youth as an adult is accomplished by lowering the age of jurisdiction. For example, seven states (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, South Carolina, and Texas) set their age of jurisdiction at 16, whereas three (Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina) have lowered the age to 15. Missouri lowered the age for transfer to criminal court to 12 for any felony. In all but two states (Nebraska and New York), a juvenile court judge can waive jurisdiction over a case and transfer youth to the adult court for certain crimes and at certain ages. The number of juvenile court cases transferred to criminal court increased 71 percent between 1985 and 1994 and 42 percent from 1990 to 1994 (Butts, 1996).


Although the legal basis for waiver varies from state to state, the trend across the country is to expand the use of waivers. This expansion is being accomplished by casting wider nets for waiver by lowering the age of adult jurisdiction, by adding to the list of applicable crimes, and by adopting more procedures by which youth can be transferred to adult court (e.g., through the discretion of the prosecutor or through legislative mandate). Waiver provisions are often applied to nonviolent offenders and, in some states, running away from a juvenile institution is grounds for prosecution in adult court (Shauffer et al., 1993).

Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 8 of 8: Safety

Safety

Inmates have a right to personal safety under Youngberg v. Romeo, Jackson v. Fort Stanton State Hospital & Training School, Smith v. Wade, Farmer v. Brennan, Ramos v. Lamm, and Harris v. Maynard. A growing body of case law explores the limits of the constitutional right to safety and the liability of institutional officials for the failure to protect vulnerable inmates (see Young v. Quinlan, Redman v. County of San Diego, LaMarca v. Turner, Miller v. Glanz, Luciano v. Galindo, Sampley v. Ruettgers, and Hill v. Shelander).

In Hudson v. McMillan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that minor injuries suffered by a handcuffed, shackled inmate beaten by three Louisiana prison guards constituted a violation of the eighth amendment. The supervisor on duty had watched the beating and told the guards “not to have too much fun.” The Court held that in measuring the objective component of a violation of the eighth amendment, courts should be guided by contemporary standards of decency (Wilson v. Seiter) and, when officials act sadistically, those standards are always violated whether significant injury is evident or not (see Felix v. McCarthy on denying qualified immunity to prison guards in connection with an unprovoked attack on an inmate, even though the injury to the inmate was slight, and Valencia v. Wiggins on denying qualified immunity to a jailer who bashed an inmate’s head against cell bars and used a choke hold that rendered the inmate unconscious).


It is difficult to say when violence reaches constitutional proportions. A California court ruled in Inmates of Riverside County Jail v. Clark that violence had reached an unacceptable level when there was a one in three chance that an inmate would become a victim of violence. In LaMarca v. Turner, the court examined reports showing that the prison superintendent was aware of the level of violence and the conditions contributing to it without acting to remedy the situation.


There has been less litigation over safety issues in juvenile facilities, but the same principles apply; facilities must protect children from violence and sexual assault by other children (see Guidry v. Rapides Parish School Board and C.J.W. by and through L.W. v. State). In monitoring safety issues in juvenile institutions, it is crucial to examine reports of violence or potential violence from individuals, the number and characteristics of violent incidents, and the level of fear in the institution. Another safety issue that, fortunately, arises less frequently is staff brutality. There are few cases on this issue, but further research on the use of excessive force would be valuable.

Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 7 of 8: Restraints

Restraints

Mechanical Restraints

Facilities vary in their use of mechanical restraints. Most juvenile facilities use handcuffs, but the use of four-point restraints or straitjackets is rare. In some facilities, a high incidence of restraint incidents results from inadequate staff training and overcrowding. In others, restraints are used to control mentally ill children or adult inmates or as a punitive measure for troublesome youth.

Freedom from bodily restraint is a protected liberty under Youngberg v. Romeo. Thus, in Garrett v. Rader, the mother of a retarded adult who died in restraints was entitled to bring an action claiming failure to properly hire and train staff and failure to correct conditions that had caused past abuse. One court has prohibited the restraint of children to a fixed object (see Pena v. New York State Division for Youth). The use of restraints as corporal punishment is unconstitutional under H.C. v. Hewett by Jarrard and Stewart v. Rhodes. Moreover, the use of restraints as a retaliatory device against inmates who displease correctional officers may violate the constitution (see Davidson v. Flynn).

Other courts dealing with the use of mechanical restraints have found that due process is violated unless recommended by a health professional (see Wells v. Franzen and O’Donnell v. Thomas on permitting restraint of a suicidal inmate and Jones v. Thompson on finding that use of three-way restraints on a suicidal inmate for a week, coupled with a failure to provide medical treatment or review and the absence of personal hygiene amenities, was unconstitutional). The U.S. Supreme Court permits the use of antipsychotic drugs as a form of medical restraint only where there is substantial due process protection for the inmate (see Washington v. Harper and Riggins v. Nevada).

There is some authority that restraints may be used for a limited period to prevent self-injury by a minor under Milonas v. Williams and Gary W. v. State of Louisiana. Such courts have also held that restraints may not be used for longer than 30 minutes without authorization from qualified professionals or institutional administrators (see Gary W. v. State of Louisiana and Pena v. New York Division for Youth).

Chemical Restraints

A few juvenile institutions have begun to use tear gas or pepper spray to restrain children. Although pepper spray alone may not cause death, it may pose serious danger for inmates who suffer from certain health conditions.

Although the use of chemical restraints has seldom been litigated in juvenile cases, at least two cases have found that the use of tear gas and mace on children who were troublesome, uncooperative, or unresponsive to staff violated the constitution (see Morales v. Turman, and State of West Virginia v. Werner). Similarly, Alexander S. v. Boyd found it improper to use tear gas on children to enforce orders.

Isolation

Most institutions use isolation for out-of-control individuals or as punishment for breaking rules. Even though isolation is commonly imposed as a sanction in juvenile institutions, some courts have found that children may be placed in isolation only when they pose immediate threats to themselves or others, that they must be monitored closely, and that they must be

released as soon as they have regained control of themselves.

Adult institutional case law on the use of isolation as punishment focuses on arbitrary placement in isolation, the length of time imposed, and conditions in the isolation room (see Harris v. Maloughney, McCray v. Burrell, and Lareau v. MacDougall). The cases, demanding that persons in isolation be afforded humane physical conditions and access to basic necessities such as showers and exercise, also apply to children. Children in isolation should be given books, writing materials, and articles of personal hygiene. What may be acceptable as punishment for adults may be unacceptable for children. Children have a very different perception of time (5 minutes may seem like an eternity), and their capacity to cope with sensory deprivation is limited. Thus, in Lollis v. New York State Department of Social Services, a 14-year-old status offender who got into a fight with another girl was placed in isolation in a 6- by 9-foot room for 24 hours a day, for 2 weeks. The court found this isolation to be unconstitutional.

Corporal Punishment

The wanton infliction of pain on prisoners violates the eighth amendment under Weems v. United States and Jackson v. Bishop. The use of excessive force by police or custodial officials violates the 14th amendment under Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences and Meade v. Gibbs. Torturing inmates to coerce information from them is also improper (see Cohen v. Coahoma County, Mississippi). Similarly, depriving an inmate of adequate food is a form of corporal punishment (see Cooper v. Sheriff,

Lubbock, Texas).

Due process

A huge body of law governs disciplinary due process in adult institutional cases, mostly in relation to administrative segregation or disciplinary transfers. The leading case, Wolff v. McDonnell, holds that inmates are entitled to these protections whenever “major” discipline is to be imposed (see Baxter v. Palmigiano). There must be evidence to support the finding of the disciplinary board.

During disciplinary proceedings, inmates are entitled to advance written notice of the charges against them, an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence in their defense where permitting them to do so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals, an impartial decisionmaker, a written decision describing the evidence relied upon and the reasons for any disciplinary action taken, and a procedure for appealing the decision (see Hewitt v. Helm, Punte v. Real, and Sandin v. Conner).

Grievance procedures

Grievance procedures are important to children because they provide a means of addressing perceived injustices, and they thereby assist the rehabilitative process. They are also important to institutional administrators, since they provide information about abuses that

may be occurring. In cases involving adults, it is clear that the constitutional right to seek redress of grievances is violated if there is any retaliation against the prisoner for filing a grievance (see Dixon v. Brown). Similarly, grievance procedures may not place unreasonable restrictions on the language that may be used in presenting the inmate’s complaint under

Bradley v. Brown.

Constitutional law specific to grievance procedures for children is limited, but many cases have approved various forms of grievance procedures. The basic elements of adequate procedures are notice to the children of the availability, purpose, and scope of the procedure; a clear and simple procedure for the child to present a grievance to staff; prompt investigation of the grievance; an opportunity for the child to present the grievance to an impartial panel; notice to the child of the panel’s decision; appropriate disciplinary sanctions to staff if the grievance is found justified; and written records of the procedure and final action.

Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 6 of 8: Environment

Environment

Unsanitary and inhumane environmental conditions may violate inmates’ rights under the 8th and 14th amendments (see Hopowit v. Spellman, McCord v. Maggio, Jones v. Diamond, and Carver v. Knox County, Tennessee). Environmental issues may arise if children are housed in inadequate, dilapidated, or unhygienic physical surroundings (see Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck, Ahrens v. Thomas, and Thomas v. Mears).

Sanitation

There should be no sewage backup in sleeping quarters, and the area should be free of insects and rodents. The living area should be clean and comply with local and state sanitation regulations. Thus, Ramos v. Lamm found constitutional violations at a prison with poor ventilation, fungus and mold, poor drainage, sewage accumulation, rodent and insect infestation, missing tiles/hard-to-clean bathroom areas, exposed wiring, broken windows, inadequate laundry facilities, deteriorating conditions, and inadequate maintenance. Along the same line, McCord v. Maggio held that lack of funds was not a justification for requiring inmates to live in cells where sewage backup created squalid and unsanitary conditions. Hygiene. Children in custody should be provided with adequate supplies for personal hygiene and should be given an opportunity to shower daily, change their clothing reasonably often, and have fresh bed linens on a weekly basis under Ahrens v. Thomas and Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck.

Food

Institutions housing children must provide a balanced diet, with three meals each day and snacks at night. Food should be prepared in accord with public health standards. Food should not be old or moldy; there should not be evidence of insects, rodents, or bad sanitation; and inmate workers should be trained in food preparation and storage (see Ramos v. Lamm). Food should never be withheld from children for disciplinary reasons (see Ahrens v. Thomas and Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck). Ventilation, heating, and cooling. Housing inmates in units with inadequate ventilation and air flow is unconstitutional according to Hopowit v. Spellman and Brock v. Warren County, Tennessee. Inadequate ventilation, heating, and cooling may violate inmates’ constitutional right to adequate shelter under Ramos v. Lamm, Ahrens v. Thomas, Henderson v. De Robertis, and Del Raine v. Williford. The Court has also recognized that involuntary exposure to unreasonable environmental tobacco smoke may violate the constitution (see Helling v. McKinney).

Fire Safety

This is a critical area since failure to adequately provide for fire safety may be a matter of life or death (see Hopowit v. Spellman). The facility must have smoke-monitoring devices, a written evacuation plan with posted diagrams for inmates and staff, at least two fire escape routes, fire extinguishers, and lights marking the fire exits (see Ahrens v. Thomas). 

Lighting

The courts have not required specific levels of candle power, but professional standards require that lighting be sufficient for detainees to comfortably read books in their cells without eyestrain (see Hopowit v. Spellman, Ramos v. Lamm, McCord v. Maggio, and Jones v. Diamond). Juvenile cases addressing lighting include Ahrens v. Thomas and Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck.

Clothing/Personal Appearance

Children have a right to clean clothing under Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck. Clothing should be appropriate for the season, and children should be able to wear clothing similar to that worn by children in the community (see Thomas v. Mears). Also, restrictions on personal appearance that are unrelated to penological interests may violate prisoners’ privacy rights (see Quinn v. Nix on  striking down a prohibition on shag hairstyles).

Overcrowding

This is a critical issue because it is related to so many others. The effects of overcrowding permeate every aspect of institutional operation, including health issues, education, suicidal and assaultive behavior, and overreliance on restraints and disciplinary measures. Under the constitutional standard, the due process clause is violated where children are held under conditions that amount to punishment (see Gary H. v. Hegstrom and Bell v. Wolfish).

In measuring overcrowding against constitutional standards, the courts look not at overcrowding per se but at its impact upon conditions in the institution. Rhodes v. Chapman stands for the proposition that doublecelling itself is not unconstitutional but that it is a factor to be taken into account with other prison conditions affecting essential needs (see Wilson v. Seiter). Thus, in Nami v. Fauver juveniles in the administrative segregation unit of a youth correctional facility could claim constitutional violations when they were double-celled in poorly ventilated, 80-square-foot rooms with only one bed, with violent or psychologically disturbed felons who abused them. Similarly, in Hall v. Dalton the court found constitutional inadequacies in a city jail where an adult inmate spent 40 days in a windowless, two-person cell that held four, with only 14 square feet per person, where meals were served in the cells, where there was little opportunity for exercise, and where the inmates had to sleep on the floor (see the additional adult cases of Tillery v. Owens, Balla v. Board of Corrections, Fisher v. Koehler, Baker v. Holden, Feliciano v. Colon, Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, Young v. Keohane, and Williams v. Griffin).

There is also case law on overcrowding-related issues such as sleeping conditions. Several cases specifically hold that assigning pretrial detainees to sleep on mattresses on the floor violates the due process clause (see Lareau v. Manson, Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, and Lyons v. Powell). Similarly, courts have ruled on overcrowding in juvenile facilities as it relates to program effectiveness, physical plant, staff, security, and other conditions of confinement (see Alexander S. v. Boyd and A.J. v. Kierst). Where overpopulation has an impact upon the availability of health and mental health services, educational programs, and recreation; institutional violence; suicide attempts; and situations requiring the use of force or restraints, the courts may find a violation of the 14th amendment. In addition, courts may find that the constitution is violated where overpopulation means that children spend most of their waking hours locked in their rooms because of inadequate staff to supervise day rooms or recreational activities. Courts around the country have imposed population caps to alleviate overcrowding, even when officials claimed that overcrowding was a result of budgetary constraints (see Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, Texas). In a recent juvenile institutional case, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ordered that no juvenile detention facilities may accept children beyond their licensed capacity, no child may be held in detention longer than 30 days pending disposition of his or her case, and no child may be held longer than 14 days pending post-disposition placement in an appropriate setting. In addition, the court ordered that detention centers must adopt modified versions of the American Bar Association’s detention standards at intake (see Facilities Review Panel v.  Coe).

The Prison Reform Litigation Act of 1995 limits the permissible remedies in cases involving prison conditions and imposes special requirements on prisoner release orders. Nonetheless, relief may still be granted to remedy overcrowding, consistent with the provisions of the act.

Searches

Incarcerated individuals retain some privacy rights. In Bell v. Wolfish, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a determination of whether body cavity searches may be conducted requires balancing the need for a particular search with the invasion of personal rights. For example, adult inmates are entitled to some protection against exposure of their genitals to persons of the opposite gender (see Arey v. Robinson, Lee v. Downs, and Hayes v. Marriott). Similarly, random, suspicionless, clothed searches of female inmates have been found unconstitutional in Jordan v. Gardner. Also, blanket policies allowing strip searches of all detained persons represent an unconstitutional intrusion into personal rights (see Chapman v. Nichols, Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, Giles v. Ackerman, Ward v. County of San Diego, and Thompson v. Souza on recognizing qualified immunity of officials for visual body cavity searches and urine tests of prisoners preselected for prior drug involvement and Thompson v. City of Los Angeles on holding that grand theft auto is sufficiently associated with violence to justify a strip search based on the charge itself).

Courts have remained protective in cross-gender searches of female inmates, disapproving practices such as random, clothed body searches of female inmates by male guards in Jordan v. Gardner and body cavity searches of females in the presence of male officers in Bonitz v. Fair. Even patdown searches of male inmates by female staff violates inmate rights if improperly conducted (see Watson v. Jones). In some situations, male inmates enjoy fewer protections than females. The courts have recognized that female guards may conduct visual body cavity searches of male inmates, and may supervise male prisoners disrobing, showering, and using the toilets under Grummet v. Rushen, Somers v. Thorman, and  Johnson v. Phelan.