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.