chapter ten Flashcards
chapter ten: youth corrections going to jail
After reading this chapter about the historical foundations of youth institutions in Canada, legislative provisions, and institutional profiles and programs, students will:
- Know the history of juvenile institutions in Canada, from prisons to industrial training schools and correctional centres.
- Have a profile of the use of custody.
- Understand Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) provisions for custody and supervision.
- Know different types of correctional programs, their objectives and philosophies, as well as their successes and failures.
- Understand issues associated with program and legislative philosophies.
The number of youth involved in the system that is commonly referred to as correctional correctional services can be measured in different ways.
correctional services: custodial institutions and probation services for youth offenders in canada
the latter statistics are reported in three ways:
as average daily counts, as a monthly average of daily counts, and as total number of admissions.
counts
Counts give us an indication of how many youth are in the system on any one day or in any one month.
admissions
Admissions refer to the number of youth who have gone through the system in any one year.
- So, for example, for the year 2010–2011 (the most recent for which statistics are available), a total of 24,871 youth were admitted under supervision as a result of a probation sentence. In any one month, though, there were 12,141 youth under supervision. Meanwhile, the rate of probation is 71 per 10,000 youth 12 to 17 years of age, a 14 percent decrease from five years ago (Munch, 2012, pp. 12, 17–18).
why is it important to understand and interpret statistics?
Admission figures are a measure of how many youth are moving through custody, receiving programs, and experiencing the system.
Counts tell us about capacity and are of use to the correctional institutions and probation officials for administrative and operational purposes; when counts are higher than admissions, it suggests that youth are entering the system faster than they are being released.
Rates are a reflection of the youth population as a whole and make sense when we are interested in police crime statistics. Correctional rates can be compared with crime rates to understand how young offenders are sanctioned or to compare changes from year to year or between jurisdictions to see if some provinces or territories are more or less likely than others to use custody or probation.
rates also enable statements about how many from the entire Canadian youth population are locked up or are under probation supervision over a given period of time.
see textbook and table 10.1
remand
to hold an accused person in a prison or detention facility prior to a court appearance or trial, or while awaiting sentence (pretrial detention)
10.2 custody and detention “fast facts” 2010-2011
see textbook
(historical foundations)
The foundation for the practice of institutionalizing Canadian youth separately from adults was laid in 1857 with the passage of the Act for Establishing Prisons for Young Offenders.
what was the intention of establishing prisons for young offenders?
The first institution was opened at Îsle aux Noix on the Richelieu River in October 1858, and the second at Penetanguishene on Georgian Bay in August 1859. Both institutions had formerly been used as army barracks.
The intention was to provide a better environment for youth than was to be found in adult penitentiaries. While both boys and girls were sent to Îsle aux Noix, only boys were detained at Penetanguishene (Carrigan, 1991, pp. 405–406).
Notwithstanding all of the good intentions, both institutions reportedly “fell short of expectations” and became “primarily institutions of work and punishment” (Carrigan, 1991, p. 406).
> from reformatories to industrial schools
In 1867, J.M. Langmuir was appointed as Ontario’s first Inspector of Prisons, Asylums, and Public Charities. He began with a campaign to change correctional philosophy and policy regarding youth.
what was J.M Langmuir’s philosophy and policy regarding youth
His efforts were instrumental in changing Penetanguishene from a “reformatory prison” to a “reformatory for boys,” with a mandate to foster the “education, industrial training and moral reclamation of juvenile delinquents”
Meanwhile, efforts were under way in other parts of the country to provide institutions that would serve as places of reform for all children in need—the poor and the neglected as well as the delinquent
children in need would be prevented from becoming criminals if they received what?
Children in need would be prevented from becoming criminals, it was argued, if they received care and education and were taught a trade through industrial training.
halifax protestant industrial school
Halifax was one of the first cities to develop an institution that provided those things. ^^
The Halifax Protestant Industrial School (established 1864) and the St. Patrick’s Industrial School for Catholic Boys (established 1865) were followed by the Monastery of the Good Shepherd, an Industrial School for Roman Catholic Girls. Ontario’s first industrial schools were the Victoria Industrial School for Boys (established 1887) and the Alexandra Industrial School for Girls (established 1892).
By 1927, a total of 24 industrial schools were spread across the country—nine in Quebec, five in Ontario, four in Nova Scotia, two in British Columbia, two in Manitoba, and one each in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick
what was their routines
All had similar routines: half of each day was spent in school and half in learning a trade. Boys typically received training in carpentry, shoemaking, cooking and baking, and farm and garden work; girls were taught sewing, knitting, crocheting, dressmaking, shoemaking, and domestic science (Carrigan, 1991, p. 422; Sutherland, 1976, p. 137).
> training schools
Officially designated as “industrial training schools” at the turn of the 20th century, these institutions came to be known as simply training schools
> a common term for juvenile correctional institutions before the introduction of the YOA
one of the major reasons for declining rates in the use of training schools was that
One of the major reasons for declining rates in the use of training schools was that provinces began to restrict their use. In the early 1970s, British Columbia abolished the use of secure custody and then, as if anticipating the Young Offenders Act, reintroduced it in 1977, but this reintroduced custody was to be used only for “hardcore” offenders and for the purpose of “protection of society.”
Ontario also restricted the use of training schools; only youth who had committed an offence for which an adult would be sentenced to prison could be sentenced to custody. The development of community programs and group homes in the 1970s further reduced the use of training schools (Markwart, 1992, p. 232).
> youth centres
Correctional systems for young people underwent structural and procedural changes with the introduction of the YOA.two
Two levels of custody were established, secure and open, and the court was required to set the level of custody at sentencing.
what’s secure and what’s open
secure: a form of youth custody under the YOA that required more restrictions on movement, both within and outside an institution
open: a form of youth custody under the YOA that required fewer restrictions on movement, both within anf outside an institution, than was required for secure custody
how is there a considerable variation in facilities across the country?
When sentenced for a murder conviction in youth court, a set period of community supervision was also required after a youth was released from custody. While the court established level of custody, provinces were given the power to designate which of their facilities would classify as open (limited restrictions on movement) or secure (maximum restrictions on movement). Hence, there was considerable variation in facilities across the country.
ex: newfoundland and labrador
In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, the Department of Social Services Division of Youth Corrections was responsible for carrying out the sentence of the court. This department has two divisions—Community Correctional Services and Secure Custody and Remand Services. Community Correctional Services was responsible for alternative measures, non-custodial supervision programs, and open-custody services and facilities. Newfoundland and Labrador’s open-custody facilities consisted of eight group homes, three assessment centres, and foster homes. There were two facilities for secure custody and remand—the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre in Whitbourne and the Pleasantville Youth Centre in St. John’s. In 1994–1995, funding was allocated for an additional regional youth centre in Corner Brook (Newfoundland and Labrador, 1996).
ex: british columbia
n British Columbia, youth institutions and other young offender programs such as probation and alternative measures came under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Children and Families. British Columbia had five secure-custody centres—one on Vancouver Island, one in Vancouver, one in the Fraser Valley, one in the Interior, and one in the North Region. There were seven open-custody facilities, one in each region and three in Vancouver. There were also three community-based residential centres (CBRCs) in the province.
ex: ontario and nova scotia
Ontario and Nova Scotia were unique in that the implementation of the YOA created a split jurisdiction over young offenders, resulting in 12- to 15-year-olds being processed differently from 16- to 17-year-olds. In both provinces, 16- to 17-year-olds remained under the jurisdiction of adult corrections and 12- to 15-year-olds under the jurisdiction of the youth system. Courts were also operated separately. Youth under 15 were processed under the family court, as they had been under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Youth aged 16 to 17 were processed in adult court under YOA restrictions; the court was referred to as “youth court” when young offender cases were heard. Both provinces have since moved to have all young offenders processed through the family court.
read textbook for more
> custody provisions under the YCJA
The whole concept of custody, as a sanction for the criminal offences of youth, changed under the YCJA.
how
with the YOA, custody was mostly perceived and used as an end in itself, leading to a number of aftercare issues to be discussed later in the chapter.
With the YCJA, custody is no longer an entity unto itself, but rather exists as part of a larger system of programs and community supervision designed to rehabilitate and reintegrate young offenders back into the community as law-abiding people.
. This represents an important shift in emphasis regarding the purpose of custody. The wording of the YCJA refers to custody as “the custody and supervision system,” and it is clear that its purpose is a welfare and restorative one: to carry out the sentence of the court and assist in the reintegration and rehabilitation of youth. Still, the ultimate objective is one of crime control: to “contribute to the protection of society” (see Box 10.3). Interestingly, these are also the purposes of the adult correctional system, as mandated by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Sentencing options under the YCJA create two new aspects of youth correctional programs:
the conditional supervision order, and intensive rehabilitation custody and supervision.
Youth serving a custody sentence are now required to serve the latter portion of their sentence in the community under supervision.
Section 105(2) of the YCJA outlines the regulations regarding the conditions of a conditional supervision order and the powers of the provincial director regarding required and discretionary conditions.
conditional supervision order: requires a person under supervision to abide by particular conditions set by the court
ex: attend drug or alcohol rehabilitation programs
Under this section, the provincial director is required to bring a young person to the youth justice court before the custodial portion of her or his sentence expires, for the court to set the specific conditions of the youth’s conditional supervision
The necessary conditions of the conditional supervision order include:
1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
2) Appear before the youth justice court when required;
3) Be under the supervision of the provincial director or designate;
4) Inform the provincial director when arrested or questioned by the police;
5) Report to the police as instructed;
6) Advise the provincial director of any change in address, employment, vocational or educational training, volunteer work, family or financial situation, and any changes that might affect the young person’s ability to comply with the conditions of the order;
7) Do not own, possess, or have the control of any weapon, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, prohibited device, or explosive substance; and
8) Comply with any reasonable instructions that the provincial director considers necessary.
Requiring supervision for the latter part of a custody term may give the impression to some of a reduction of time served in custody, but section 98 allows for an application to the court to keep youth in custody for the entire sentence. In addition, the court may impose any number of additional conditions regarding where the youth will live and with whom; what efforts the youth will make to get a job, attend school, or become involved in a training or recreational program; restrictions on moving out of the court’s jurisdiction; and any other conditions the court considers appropriate to promote the youth’s reintegration. In Table 10.1, we see that in 2010–2011, there was an average daily count of 328 youth under this type of supervision.
see table 10.4 for purpose of custody and supervision
A related new sentencing option allows the court to defer a custody term. The deferred custody and supervision order
deferred custody and supervision order: a sentence option created by the YCJA that is similar to “house arrest” sentences for adults
. The deferred custody and supervision order permits a judge to sentence a youth to a term in custody (maximum six months) and also to specify that this sentence will be deferred in favour of the youth serving the duration of the sentence under conditional supervision in the community.
A violation of conditions in these cases does not involve a new charge of breach, but rather the possibility that the youth will be incarcerated. Judges were slow to adopt this sentence but its use has increased, from 1,152 in 2004–2005 to 1,471 (5 percent of guilty cases) in 2011–2012 (
n Table 10.1, we see that in 2010–2011, there was an average daily count of 422 youth under this type of community supervision. This sentence can only be used when a case actually qualifies for custody, and it is often used in recognition of a youth’s active efforts to turn his or her life around. In R. v. C.W. (2007), the judge took into account the youth’s expressions of remorse, steps the youth took to change his life, as well as recommendations from family and probation to justify a deferred custody and supervision sentence.
intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision order
refers to a sentencee of the court whereby a youth must serve a custody term in a facility designated as a rehabilitation institution
The intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision order is reserved for youth convicted of the most serious violent offences—murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault—or a youth who is a repeat offender and has been convicted of a serious violent offence for which an adult would be liable to a prison term of more than two years.
. In addition, section 42(7) of the YCJA also requires the court to establish three other conditions that limit its use:
(b) the young person is suffering from a mental illness or disorder, a psychological disorder, or an emotional disturbance;
(c) a plan of treatment and intensive supervision has been developed for the young person, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the plan might reduce the risk of the young person repeating the offence or committing a serious violent offence; and
(d) the provincial director has determined that an intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision program is available and that the young person’s participation in the program is appropriate.
Two other aspects of the YCJA complement and strengthen the rehabilitative and reintegrative mandate of section 83(1):
youth workers and reintegration leave.
. Under the YOA, youth workers’ duties and functions were connected to community dispositions, such as probation and conditional supervision. The YCJA section 90 requires that a youth worker be assigned to every youth sentenced to custody. This worker is responsible for developing plans for the youth’s reintegration into the community that include the most effective programs for the young person, as well as supervising and providing support to the youth when she or he is released from custody and is under supervision in the community. The wording of the legislation implies that a young person will have the same caseworker for the duration of the sentence.
The YOA allowed for temporary absences and day release (escorted or unescorted) from custody for a period of up to 15 days. These releases were granted by the provincial director for medical, compassionate, humanitarian, or rehabilitative reasons, or to allow a youth to attend school, find a job or work, or participate in training or treatment programs. The YCJA refers to this type of release [s. 91(1), (2)] as “reintegrative leave.” It allows release for the same reasons as the YOA, and extends such a release to a 30-day period that can be renewed any number of times.
(youth custody issues)
Issues relevant to the use of custody have varied over the course of the history of juvenile justice in Canada, depending to a great extent on the legislation and its reforms over time. A major concern over the past 20 years, since the YOA era, has been the use of custody, how many and which youth are sentenced to terms of custody or held in detention and for what offences. The YCJA brought with it concerns about liability for adult sentences for youth and how they would be served. Now, issues are being raised around the appropriateness of institutional/custodial environments for young people, especially those in adult institutions. In this, we seem to have returned to matters of concern to the Victorian reformers who worked to get children and youth out of the criminal justice system.
> changing use of custody
> youth facility location
> the effect of prison on children and youth
> youth serving adult sentences
> administrative segregation
> age jurisdiction
> changing use of custody
A total of 16,279 youth were admitted to custodial facilities in 2010–2011, and a large proportion of these were remanded to custody to await trial or sentencing.
On any given day, more than half of youth in custody (56 percent) were in remand
While daily counts for youth serving custodial sentences have been decreasing steadily since the implementation of the YCJA, remand counts, youth waiting for trial or sentencing, began increasing in the later YOA years and continued to do so under the YCJA. Bill C-10 changes to provisions for pretrial detention will likely result in a continuation of these increases. While most youth spend only a short period of time in detention, it is not necessarily a benign experience for a youth.
Box 10.5 describes the circumstances leading up to the death of David Meffe, held in detention in the Toronto Youth Assessment Centre in 2002.
see more on textbook
- In the last year of the YOA, remand admissions were highest for both property and violent offences (This now appears to be changing (Table 10.4))
- Under the YOA, property offences predominated among sentenced admissions, although their proportion declined
- Over the same period, the proportion of sentenced admissions for YOA and administrative offences increased, from 12.2 percent to 19 percent, while the proportion of sentenced admissions for violent offences also increased, from 16 percent to 22 percent.
- entenced admissions for YCJA and administrative offences have remained fairly constant over this 10-year period. Judges’ preference under the YOA for short sentences may be waning.
One of the interesting effects of the YOA was that its implementation reversed the declining JDA trend in the use of custody. Most research comparing the uses of incarceration under the JDA and the YOA has concluded that the YOA created an increase in the use of custody for young offenders
Some of this research was considered problematic because it had not considered age differences before and after legislative change.
Nonetheless, when age is considered, the results regarding increased use of custody are astounding. From 1984–1985 to 1989–1990, virtually every province increased its use of custody. Of course, increases varied across the country, so, for example, between the last year of the JDA and the third year of the YOA, youth custody use in British Columbia increased by 85 percent, while adult admissions to custody in British Columbia decreased by 12 percent; in Manitoba, the youth population sentenced to custody increased by 148 percent
- provincial variation
While custody trends were fairly consistent across the country, there were and are provincial variations.
see textbook
- explaining changes and interprovincial variation
When increases in the use of custody were first noticed, they were largely understood to be a result of the new philosophy of the YOA. It was argued that judges were favouring crime-control principles over welfare principles
This interpretation was supported by the fact that more youth were going into custody for shorter periods of time, with the greatest increases occurring for sentences of three months or less—a trend that is also reflected in more recent statistics
. It seemed that judges were shifting toward a “short, sharp shock” style of sentencing. However, Leonard, Smandych, and Brickey (1996) suggest that these increases were due more to changes in sentencing practice and the consequence of these changes than to the adoption of a new philosophy. They argue that shorter sentences ultimately give youth more opportunity to commit crimes; the result is an increase in the number of offenders, some of whom are being committed to custody three or more times in a single year.
what is another problem requiring explanation?
The other problem requiring explanation is the variation in rates across the country. In spite of reporting consistent increases, not all provinces are using custody at the same rate
> youth facility location
Controversy over the location of youth facilities sometimes on the result of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome
Controversy over the location of youth facilities sometimes on the result of the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome, meaning that community residents or homeowners will sometimes object to a facility in their town or neighbourhood
At the same time, community business leaders and politicians will often vie for custodial facilities because of the money and jobs they bring to a community. Correctional facilities contribute to local economies through the dollars that are spent on food and other maintenance costs for prisoners; more indirectly, they contribute through salaries paid to employees. In addition, some facilities provide community access to their pools and gymnasiums. Institutions may also organize projects to raise money for volunteer organizations within the community, thereby helping to ensure good public relations.
why is low security custodial facilitoes more contentious
Low-security custodial facilities are often more contentious than high-security facilities because—with the exception of wilderness camps and facilities located in other rural settings—they are intended to be located in residential neighbourhoods.
. Institutional locations are often the result of politically expedient decisions, precisely because they can provide employment opportunities in areas where job opportunities are limited. Hence, many youth (and adult) institutions are located some distance from major urban centres. This places undue hardship on poorer families who must travel a distance to visit their children and do not have the means or resources to do so. This also limits family contact for disadvantaged youth. This was one of the objections raised about the Brampton “Super Jail.” Volunteer organizations, such as the John Howard Society, often run programs that offer transportation services to youth institutions for family visits.
> the effect of prison on children and youth
In 1996, James Lonnee was 16 when he was placed in a secure isolation cell in an adult detention centre in Ontario along with another youth who had a history of violence. Lonnee was subsequently beaten to death by this youth, who was later convicted of manslaughter. This was the first death of a youth in custody in Ontario (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2013, pp. 563-565). David Meffe was 16 when he was being held in detention and hanged himself in a segregation cell in 2002 at the Toronto Youth Assessment Centre (see Box 10.5). Ashley Smith was 19 when she died in an adult facility in 2007. Ashley had spent most of her adolescence in youth custody, mostly for administrative/institutional offences and had been transferred to the adult system when she turned 18. There she was transferred 18 times in 11 months. Most of her time in both systems had been spent in administrative segregation (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2013, p. 568).
what is administrative segregation
refers to solitary confinement.
used as a management tool in correctional institutions for protection of a prisoner (from self or others) as a punishment for institutional infractions
what does administrative segregation look like
Ashley Smith had little direct communication with staff . . . For the most part, she was in an empty cell with no clothes (she was given a security gown). Staff often entered her cell with shields, batons and spray . . . [she] died by self-strangulation with a ligature while correctional officers looked on because they were told not to intervene unless she stopped breathing, as her behaviour had been labelled attention-seeking and was therefore to be ignored.
These deaths of youths in Canadian institutions raise questions about the effect of incarceration on children and youth. Most research on the social, emotional, and psychological impact of imprisonment has focused on adult male prison populations.
In the past 10 years, some research attention has been directed to youth facilities and, in Canada, inquiries into the deaths of James Lonnee, David Meffe, and Ashley Smith painted a dismal picture of conditions in prisons for youth and stimulated a research interest into the subject. Most of this Canadian research has been conducted by Carla Cesaroni and Michele Peterson-Badali (2013), who point to evidence suggesting that custody is a traumatic lifetime stressor for young people similar to that experienced with the death or divorce of parents. Similar to adults, what youth bring into custodial institutions, “importation,” and the environment of the institution, “deprivation,” impact a youth’s ability to cope with life in a custodial institution. Understanding the impact of imprisonment on youth and their ability to cope with the experience requires that we recognize the fundamentals of a separate justice system for youth—we recognize young people’s immaturity and different social status relative to adults.
effects of youth in prison
Youth in prison are less able to cope with the prison environment than adults and experience higher levels of stress and anxiety
For many youth, arriving in prison or detention is their first time away from their family and social networks, making them particularly vulnerable to stress and associated mental illnesses. In addition, many youth entering a custody/detention setting are already vulnerable as victims of abuse, family instability, involvement with child welfare, and school difficulties.
Youth have generally been found to be more aggressive in prison and more involved than adults in inmate–staff assaults, conflicts, and disciplinary infractions—all of which are attributed to immature coping abilities, higher levels of stress, and fear of victimization. Some of the consequences of a failure to cope with these environments are anti-social behaviour, self-injury, and depression. For older prisoners, the risk of suicide is often associated with psychiatric illness, while for younger prisoners it is associated with an inability to cope with a custodial environment
what is the most important factor affecting youth’s ability to cope or adjust to incarceration?
Institutional culture, as created through policy, staff attitudes, and interpersonal relations, is the most important factor affecting youths’ ability to cope or adjust to incarceration.
Adult and secure institutions, in particular, are generally focused on security, order, and demonstrations of power, while youth institutions are more oriented toward caring staff and supportive environments conducive to rehabilitation.
. In their prison research, Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2010) found that most youth reported “ . . . that there were staff that they could talk to about their problems, that the presence of staff made them feel safe, and that they believed that, if a fight broke out, staff would stop it” (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2013, p. 571). Nonetheless, a “non-trivial” number of youth reported that being in custody was an isolating and fearful experience, during which they felt that staff could not be trusted or relied upon for support. To be separated from adult offenders was ranked as the most important condition of confinement by youth in prison, including those aged 18 to 22 (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2010).
> youth serving adult sentences
As with the YOA, the YCJA required young people who were sentenced to custody to be held separately and apart from adults, but this provision did not apply for youth with adult sentences
what bill changed that?
Bill C-10 changed that, and it is now a requirement that all sentenced youth under the age of 18 will serve their sentences in a youth facility [s. 76(2)]. Nonetheless, when a youth has been sentenced to youth custody and reaches the age of 18, the provincial director has the power to request that the remainder of the youth sentence be served either in a provincial correctional facility for adults or in an adult penitentiary if the court considers it to be in the best interests of the young person or in the public interest or if the youth has two years or more remaining on his or her custodial sentence [s. 92(2)]. This section of the act essentially allows the youth justice court to authorize a provincial director to place a youth serving a youth sentence in a federal penitentiary for adults.
how did ashley smith die?
Ashley Smith died because of this section of the YCJA. According to the Report of the New Brunswick Ombudsman and Child and Youth Advocate (June 2008), the court approved an application by the provincial director in New Brunswick to transfer Ashley to an adult facility after her 18th birthday. The reasons cited included “the burden and strain she put on the resources in youth custody and the youth facility’s inability to offer any more solutions.” Ashley was not successful in appealing this decision, and her suicide followed. The ombudsman’s report on her death recommends that all applications put forward under section 92 by the provincial director should be reviewed by an independent panel before proceeding to youth court for a decision (Tustin & Lutes, 2009, p. 162). The inquest and reports into this and other cases, such as David Meffe’s and James Lonnee’s, all document the “profoundly negative impact of custodial settings on young people, particularly those with mental health concerns and developmental needs” (Knudson & Jones, August 2008, p. 17).
When a young person is transferred to the adult system to serve the remainder of a youth sentence, section 93(3) requires that the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (legislation regulating adult corrections) be applied, except for the protection that youth have in the YCJA regarding publication of records and information.
YCJA requirements for a portion of a youth’s custody sentence to be served in the community makes the custody sentence similar to adult parole entitlements. As in the adult system, a youth who violates the conditions of his or her supervision may be returned to custody to serve the remainder of the sentence.
what is the difference
The difference is that, in the youth system, the court, rather than a parole board, sets the length and conditions of custody and supervision and that the attorney general [s. 98(1)] may apply to the court to keep a youth in custody for a longer period of time.
The deaths of Ashley Smith, James Lonnee, and David Meffe raise two important jurisprudential issues about the use of custody/detention for youth: (
(1) whether solitary confinement/administrative segregation is appropriate for children and youth and (2) whether age 18 is an appropriate age for transfer to the adult correctional system.
> administrative segregation/ solitary confinement
Ashley Smith, James Lonnee, and David Meffe all died in segregation cells. How segregation and isolation is used is indicative of institutional climate; policies around its use are particularly harsh in institutions with a culture focused on control, power, and security
Correctional Services of Canada has regulations regarding the use of segregation and isolation, but how it impacts prisoners differs according to the behavioural and mental health issues of the individual subjected to it. Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2013), in their review of the research in this area, point out that “[t]here is evidence to suggest that young people are unable to handle solitary confinement with the same resilience as adults and . . . [it] may have an impact on their chance to rehabilitate.”(569) The use of solitary confinement is particularly problematic for youth because of their emotional immaturity and the history of trauma, neglect, and abuse that many have already experienced. Simkins, Beyer, and Geis (2012) maintain that the practice is particularly cruel and harmful when used with young people, and others argue that it should never be used with juveniles because of their physical and mental immaturity (Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali, 2013).
> age jurisdiction
We have seen throughout this text that age of jurisdiction has always been an issue during Canada’s 106-year history of juvenile justice. Most of the debates have been about age limits of jurisdiction—whether we should set age 8, 12, or 14 as the lower limit and age 15 or 17 as the upper lim
The most recent debates have concerned age of liability for an adult sentence
Bill C-1- sets this at age what
. Bill C-10 sets this at age 14 and ensures through section 76(2) that no youth under age 18 will serve any portion of their sentence in an adult facility. Canadians have never had a discussion of the appropriateness of subjecting youth over age 17 to adult prisons. In this, we are in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and are out of step with current juvenile justice reforms in Europe and the United States (see International Box 10.6). Furthermore, there is no evidence-based justification for the age 17 upper age limit, and all evidence suggests this is an inappropriate age for adult jurisdiction.
from the viewpoint of developmental studies..
From the point of view of developmental studies, one cannot pinpoint an age at which a person is no longer a child or youth and has transitioned to adulthood. Indeed, there is even a category, newly recognized among developmental criminologists and psychologists, that is known as “emerging adulthood.
This category refers to 18- to 24-year-olds and to a period of the lifecourse that is distinct from adolescence and adulthood (Arnett, 2000). In England and Wales, the advocacy group Transitions to Adulthood Alliance (T2A) argues for recognition in the criminal justice system of the special needs of young adults in the system. Albrecht (2004) maintains that “[b]ecause transitional periods have been prolonged and entrance into the adult world more difficult, failure to respect the differences between young adults and adults risks failure of adequate justice for young adult offenders” (p. 474). Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2013) argue that there is sufficient evidence now to support research into the area of emerging adulthood and adjustment to prison. They point out that roughly 15 percent of the federal prisoner population in Canada in 2012 was under the age of 25, and they maintain that Canada should develop age-specific correctional policies to support the needs of young adults in adult correctional institutions who “. . . might benefit from a more youth-oriented institutional climate, staffing and programming”(p. 570). This view is supported by the Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator (Canada) 2005–2006 for youth aged 20 and younger.
(correctional programs)
Correctional programs are a vital aspect of youth justice, as they are an important component in the rehabilitation and reintegration process designed to prevent future criminal behaviour when a youth has completed his or her sentence.
Correctional programming involves institutional programs as well as aftercare or follow-up programming that assists in reintegrating young offenders back into their homes and communities. It also involves programming for youth who have been given a community sentence such as probation or community service.
aftercare
any range of programming and services provided after a young person has completed his or her court-imposed sentence or extrajudicial measures contract
Many low-security custodial facilities are operated through contractual arrangements with private organizations, such as the Salvation Army and the John Howard Society.
Specialized programs for offenders in this type of facility are often provided through contracts with community-based professionals who provide such services as academic life skills training, anger management training, and counselling, as well as more specialized programs, such as those for substance abuse and sex offenders. Many facilities offer in-house programs.
High-level security facilities provide programming developed by in-house professional staff and youth workers.
Often a multidisciplinary team will develop a case management plan for each youth, based on an assessment of his or her individual needs. These teams usually consist of a social worker, a psychologist, a chaplain, one or two teachers, a recreational officer, a manager and supervisor, and a number of youth workers. All custodial facilities begin the correctional process with an initial assessment to determine the needs and appropriate management strategies for each youth. Custodial facilities rely on volunteer-based specialized programs, such as those provided by the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society.
10.7 extending a period of custody
YCJA section 98(4) outlines the factors to be considered by the youth court in deciding if a youth should remain in custody for a longer portion of her or his sentence. These factors include:
see textbook
> types of programs
The YCJA sets the parameters for juvenile corrections. However, because the provinces are responsible for implementation, there is considerable variation in philosophical orientations to correctional programming.
corrections and correctional programming
corrections: the part of the justice system that is responsible for carrying out the sentence of the court and/or alternative and extrajudicial measures
correctional programming: a range of structured activities within a correctional system, designated to rehabilitate, educate, train and otherwise facilitate a person’s reintegration into society
Toward the end of the YOA era, some provinces experimented with disciplinary crime control programs (e.g., “boot camps” in Alberta and Ontario), while others, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, were developing interventionist service delivery programs designed to minimize the use of custody.
. Although provincial correctional philosophies do change (particularly when there is a change in the governing political party), there is a certain amount of consistency in the types of programs offered to young offenders, both in custodial facilities and in the community.
what are the three types of correctional programs
general, offence-specific, and offender-specific.
general programs
General programs usually apply to all offenders and include such things as life skills, education, recreation, and counselling programs
life skills: the behavioural, emotional, and philosophical set that one acquires to enable functioning in the social world
offence-specific
Offence-specific programs target specific offences; examples are the StopLift program, for shoplifters, and sex offender programs.
offender-specific
Offender-specific programs target the offender’s problems and behaviours and are exemplified by substance abuse, leisure time, and anger management programs. Some facilities are specifically designed to provide programming for special needs, such as substance abuse.
Programs are also offered to youth serving sentences in the community
Community programming is often provided through services contracted by governments. So, for example, the Pacific Legal Education Association contracts with the Province of British Columbia to provide volunteer supervision for young offenders accused of sex offences and intensive supervision for youth serving probation sentences. The organization also provides support in employment, independent living, anger management, and other special-needs services (British Columbia Ministry of the Attorney General, Corrections Branch, 1995). As a result of the recommendations of the Nunn Commission, Nova Scotia opened two Attendance Centres in the province to provide programming for youth serving community sentences. Similarly, in 2006, the Ontario government announced that it would build 12 new Youth Intervention Centres in Ontario. This would mean there would be a total of 27 in the province. These centres offer programs to address anger management, education, employment skills, and other issues (Centres target . . . April 14, 2006).
Most institutions offer programming in the areas of education, counselling, life skills, and recreation.
. In most cases, programs are developed on an individual basis to meet young offenders’ needs through the initial assessment process. Behaviour modification programs, also known as a token economy system, are most often used as a method of reinforcing program objectives. With behaviour modification, offenders are rewarded or punished by earning or losing points for various privileges. Privileges include such things as contact or home visits with parents and family, movies, or longer hours in TV or games rooms. Punishments involve a removal of some or all privileges, cell confinement, or extra household duties.
Some newer high-security youth centres are designed to facilitate small-group living arrangements and interaction.
Living areas consist of a group of small cottages, and youth are responsible for cleaning, cooking, and laundry—activities that are viewed as part of life skills training. Facilities such as the Nova Scotia Youth Centre in Waterville, Nova Scotia, assign youth to cottages on the basis of programming needs. While some cottages focus on academic education, others emphasize vocational training or substance abuse programming. Similarly, the Brampton “Super Jail” (Roy McMurtry Youth Centre) consists of six campus-style cottages, with two units in each cottage, with a maximum of 16 youth in each unit. There are five cottages for boys and one for girls. A “Fact Sheet” from the Ontario Ministry of Child and Youth Services (n.d.) indicates that the centre will offer health care services, clinical counselling, mentoring, life skills, and behaviour management, as well as programs for promoting healthy relationships and emotional and mental health. In 2012, the African Canadian Youth Justice Program began offering culturally specific programming (Knowledge of Self) on a weekly basis at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. This group program involves Rites of Passage, Colour Coded (anti-gang/anti-drug), The Right Fix (anti-drug), and Life Lessons programming (African Canadian Legal Clinic 2012 Annual Report, p. 13).
- substance abuse
Substance abuse is considered a major risk factor in delinquent and aggressive behaviour and recidivism, so an important first step in programming is for the young offenders to work successfully through a substance abuse program
These programs are designed to provide the resources, encouragement, and support that a young person will need to overcome physical, emotional, and/or psychological addiction to alcohol and/or drugs. Substance abuse programs are seen as a starting point for youth to learn how to overcome their addictions. An important part of substance abuse programming is to involve community support systems and groups (such as Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous), so that follow-up assistance can be provided when young offenders are released into the community.
Based on a literature review of substance abuse programs, Dowden (2003) maintains that programs should target multiple needs related to schooling, employment, and peer and family relationships. Ideally, such programs should be delivered in a community setting. However, because this is not possible for incarcerated youth, institutional programs and residential programs need to incorporate aftercare and advocacy components for youth when they return to their communities (Dowden, 2003, p. 25). Regardless of setting, effective substance abuse programs will
- Be delivered in correctional settings with low staff turnover and a rehabilitative rather than retributive philosophy;
- Identify and target a youth’s strengths;
Provide extended rather than short-term programs; - Incorporate relapse prevention into the program design and content; and
- Systematically address HIV/AIDS concerns. (Dowden, 2003, pp. 25–26)
- education
Educational programming is an important part of correctional programming because many youth have experienced failure in the regular school system and are poorly motivated with respect to academic studies
Educational programs aim to address self-esteem, motivation, and overall reading and writing skills, as well as academic subjects and vocational training. Some students work on academic credits through correspondence courses. Others are granted an educational temporary absence for the purpose of attending local schools. Some institutions offer computer classes in which young offenders are able to learn basic word processing and some software applications. Youth facilities sometimes arrange with local community colleges to provide instruction in specialized vocational studies. Sometimes the youth facilities engage in government contracts with local school boards to provide educational programming. For example, the Peel District School Board in Ontario has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Child and Youth Services to provide a 12-month educational program and services at the Brampton Super Jail. This will entail a staff of 52, including 27 teachers, 12 teaching assistants, a guidance teacher, a teacher librarian, a transition teacher, and a principal (Belgrave, 2008).
- cognitive skills
Many young offenders are seen to have failed to acquire the cognitive skills that are essential for effective interpersonal relations.
cognitive skills: in the field of corrections, refers to develop cognitive solutions to their problems rather than to react emotionally and physically
Problems with interpersonal relations are seen to stem from a lack of parental guidance, a poor home environment, and negative peer group influences.
Life skills and social skills programs attempt to provide young offenders with an opportunity to develop appropriate cognitive skills and self-esteem, and to replace anger, hostility, and aggression with pro-social attitudes and behaviour. This type of programming is designed to help youth to think about why they got into trouble with the law, how they might have avoided such an outcome in the past, and how they will avoid problems in the future.
Cognitive skills programming focuses on rational self-analysis, self-control, means/end reasoning, critical thinking, and interpersonal cognitive problem solving.
1) Rational self-analysis: The objective is to teach the youth to pay attention to and critically assess his or her own thinking.
2) Self-control: Involves teaching youth to stop, think, and analyze the consequences of their behaviour before they act.
3) Means/end reasoning: The aim is to teach youth to think about appropriate pro-social means of satisfying their needs before they act.
4) Critical thinking: Requires teaching youth how to think logically, objectively, and rationally as opposed to externalizing blame and overgeneralizing or distorting facts and information.
5) Interpersonal cognitive problem solving: The objective is to teach youth how to analyze interpersonal problems, how to recognize how their own behaviour affects other people and why others respond to them as they do, and how to understand and consider other people’s values, behaviour, and feelings. (Nova Scotia Department of Corrections, 1994)
Working through the development of cognitive skills provides an avenue for addressing more specific issues, such as anger management, employment strategies, stress management, and decision-making. Life skills programs focus on communication skills, family and peer relationships, sex education, and personal hygiene.
One specific program that combines a number of cognitive and skills training methods is aggression replacement training (ART). Campbell (2005b) describes ART as a program that focuses on a combination of skills training (referred to as “skill-streaming”), anger control training, and moral reasoning. The skill-streaming aspect of the program involves role-playing, feedback, and practical applications to develop and enhance pro-social skills. Anger control training teaches youth to use their self-control to reduce and control their anger and aggression. They are taught to recognize anger triggers and to recognize their own physiological cues to anger arousal, along with ways to reduce and defuse triggers. Moral reasoning training is designed to raise youth to higher moral levels through exposure to a variety of moral dilemmas in a group setting (Campbell, 2005b, pp. 281–282).
- recreation
Recreational facilities and programs, particularly those that feature swimming pools and gymnasiums built into youth facilities, are viewed by some public-interest groups as bringing a “holiday camp” atmosphere to youth corrections.
Those responsible for administrating youth facilities and programs have a different view.
hey see recreational programs as an integral part of the rehabilitation process and emphasize the therapeutic benefits of recreation. Many facilities offer arts and crafts programs in addition to their sporting and physical fitness programs. All of these programs are designed to teach young offenders to make productive use of their leisure time and to assist youth in improving their interpersonal and communications skills and ability to work cooperatively. Other program objectives include providing youth with a sense of accomplishment and well-being, and giving them an opportunity to explore their individual talents and interests.
Some facilities offer wilderness survival programs
Project DARE in Northern Ontario and the Youth Asset Building Adventure program in British Columbia are based entirely on an Outward Bound philosophy. These programs are designed to enhance self-awareness, foster a sense of self-reliance and trust, and help youth develop goal-setting and problem-solving abilities. Some programs, such as aquatics, are run as a vocational training program. Temporary absences are often granted to allow youth to attend and/or participate in community-based recreational activities.
- work activities and incentives
Daily work routines are another part of institutional programming. These programs are designed to meet institutional needs (e.g., cleaning the facility) and at the same time give young offenders opportunities to develop good work habits. Institutions usually offer an allowance program as a positive behavioural incentive. For example, under the Incentive Allowance Program, the Nova Scotia Department of Correctional Services pays one dollar per day to all youth in custodial facilities. The allowance, which is not automatic but must be earned, is credited to a trust account held for each youth (Nova Scotia Department of Corrections, 1994).
> boot camps
Two provincial governments (Ontario and Alberta) implemented boot camps for young offenders
boot camp: in the corrections system, a piece of confinement where programming follows a militaristic regime
boot camp
. Boot camp refers to facilities or programs that emphasize military-style discipline, physical conditioning, teamwork, and punishment in attempting to rehabilitate young offenders. Educational and life skills programs are sometimes also involved. People who believe that youth today lack discipline and respect for authority tend to be attracted to the idea of boot camps. For governments, boot camps offer a cheap alternative to incarceration. It would appear that these programs are being adopted for political, financial, and ideological reasons, not because of any demonstrated success.
In 1992, the U.S. Department of Justice implemented the first boot camp programs for juveniles—one in Cleveland, Ohio; one in Denver, Colorado; and one in Mobile, Alabama. The programs involved a three-month residential program for youth, followed by six to nine months of community programming. The primary motivation for the camps was financial; the diversion of “less serious” youth offenders from institutions to boot camps provided a cheap solution to overcrowding in juvenile institutions (Bourque et al., 1996).
Each of the three U.S. boot camps was evaluated over a two-year period. They were found to be cheaper (at an average per-resident cost of US$26,000 per year) than other types of institutions, but no more effective than probation or custody in reducing recidivism rates. In Cleveland, recidivism rates were actually higher for boot camp participants than for youth in state correctional facilities (Peterson, 1996). Importantly, boot camps produced cost savings only when compared with secure custody; a 90-day stay in boot camp cost as much as the same length of stay in open custody. Completion rates for the boot camp part of the program were very high (80 to 94 percent). In contrast, completion rates for community aftercare ranged from 26 to 49 percent. The major reason for youth not completing the community aftercare part of the program was arrest for a criminal offence (20 to 33 percent) (Bourque et al., 1996, p. 5).
While evaluation of any program is a difficult undertaking and results are often difficult to interpret (Zhang, 1998), these evaluations revealed a number of problems with boot camps whose consideration will be useful for future endeavours. These included community resistance to the location of the boot camps, aftercare facilities and programs, and the fact that aftercare program locations were not always accessible by public transportation. Other problems included inappropriate placements, tensions between the military-minded staff and the staff operating rehabilitation programs, high staff burnout and turnover, an overly abrupt transition from boot camp structure to aftercare supervision, and lack of consistent philosophy between staff and between different phases of the program.
Project Turnaround was Ontario’s attempt at establishing a “strict discipline” boot camp program. It was opened in Barrie in 1997 and has since closed. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Corrections had the program evaluated and announced the program’s success in a press release that reported boot camp participants to have a considerably lower recidivism rate than a comparison group of young offenders. Doob and Cesaroni (2004) reviewed this evaluation and found it to be fraught with methodological errors. Their analysis of the data found that the Barrie boot camp outcomes were consistent with results from other studies. More specifically, they found no statistically significant differences in rates of recidivism between the boot camp participants (whether they completed the program or not) and the comparison group, regardless of the time that had elapsed since release. The authors concluded that there “was no evidence of any overall beneficial psychological or academic impact of the boot camp experience over a standard correctional institution” (pp. 256–258). Others have found that boot camps can have a negative impact for youth with histories of abuse, compared with traditional institutions (MacKenzie, Wilson, Armstrong & Gover, 2001).`
Peterson (1996) and Bourque et al. (1996) argue that a militaristic discipline and structure can be useful for some youth. Youth who need a highly structured and controlled environment can benefit if boot camp is combined with rehabilitative programs designed to meet the youths’ educational, psychological, and emotional needs. Hence, if boot camps are to be designed for these youth in the future, Peterson and Bourque provide the following program and design recommendations:
1) There should be community acceptance of boot camp, combined with a commitment and involvement in aftercare facilities and programs.
2) Given that recidivism rates were highest for youth who had been held in custody in the past and for those involved in the least serious offences, boot camps would be more successful for young people involved in moderately serious offences who have not been in custody in the past.
3) There should be careful screening and selection of staff at the beginning of the program, as well as ongoing staff training. Activities of staff in all phases of the program must be coordinated, as should program philosophy.
4) The transition between boot camp and aftercare should be less abrupt. At least in the beginning, aftercare should be more structured and disciplined and should also provide some form of required participation.
5) There should be coordination among the various community agencies involved in aftercare, as well as an understanding and commitment to the program philosophy and procedures of the boot camp aftercare.
6) All staff and all agency participants should have a clear understanding of the rationale for the various aspects and activities of the program. (Bourque et al., 1996, pp. 7–9; Peterson, 1996)
(programming issues)
No discussion of correctional programming would be complete without a consideration of the issues associated with the very idea of rehabilitative treatment or rehabilitation
These concepts tend to be used interchangeably, as both refer to the objectives of correctional programs. The term “treatment” is often used to refer to psychiatric and psychological programs that involve individual or group counselling or psychotherapy and whose purpose is to change a person’s behaviour or attitudes. The term “rehabilitation” also refers to programs designed to effect change; these programs may involve educational and vocational training, as well as various types of life skills programming.
rehabilitative treatment and rehabilitation
rehabilitative treatment: rehabilitative programs based on assumptions of correcting individual pathologies
rehabilitation: a correctional philosophy based on the belief that appropriate treatment programs can reform or change an individual
Most treatment programs are geared toward a particular type of offender, as exemplified by sex offender treatment programs.
rehabilitation usually refers
“Rehabilitation” usually refers to a philosophical approach to correctional programming. The variety of programs through which it seeks to correct or change stands in contrast to programs that are based on the principles of retribution or incapacitation.
Campbell (2005b) adds the idea of “interventions” to this discussion, a term used in rehabilitation literature from Quebec that is increasingly appearing in recent treatment and programming literature in the field. Campbell speaks of “rehabilitative interventions” in a manner that encompasses all types of programming, both institutional and community, and may even be more appropriate for newer programs that involve combinations of therapy and training directed at youth or at both youth and their families, such as aggression replacement training and multisystemic therapy (MST) (see below
multisystemic therapy: a form of rehabilitative integration that focuses on the entire family, not just on an individual
With respect to treatment, rehabilitation, or rehabilitative interventions, the important issue is whether programs are successful. A related but newer question focuses on why we have so little success with so many youth. Answers to this question focus on what has not been addressed in our efforts at rehabilitation and reintegration. Both questions are addressed below.
- does treatment/rehabilitation work?
The question of whether treatment programs are effective is difficult to answer because, until recently, most correctional programs were not rigorously evaluated using a scientific testing model with control groups. R
Rather, programs tended to be evaluated by the people running them; these evaluations are fraught with methodological errors, the most common of which is failing to include people who do not complete the program, as in the evaluation of the Project Turnaround in Ontario. Seldom is follow-up information available regarding how people have fared over time after leaving correctional programs, and most evaluation studies report relatively low success rates (see, for example, the discussion of multisystemic therapy later in this chapter). While some people therefore concluded that more people are not changed by correctional programming than are changed (Ekstedt & Griffiths, 1988), others had a more positive attitude and maintained that the literature suggested that “some rehabilitation programs work with some offenders in some settings when applied by some staff” (Antonowicz & Ross, 1994, p. 1). From this point of view, the challenge is to develop screening processes that will enhance success rates. So, for example, Rachitskiy, Serin and Viki (2009) used antisocial behaviour developmental pathway models (as discussed in Chapter 7) to predict the risk of program infractions and program dropout rates for youth in an Ontario young offender facility.
The debate regarding the efficacy of treatment began with a now-classic study published in the 1970s that had a profound impact on attitudes and thinking about correctional programming.
Robert Martinson (1974) examined all of the research that had been done to evaluate treatment programs and concluded from the results that “nothing works.” Not surprisingly, correctional workers and treatment providers took issue with this finding. Some treatment advocates scrutinized Martinson’s work and concluded that he was wrong in his conclusion. When Martinson (1979) later re-examined his earlier work, his critics reported that he had retracted his “nothing works” conclusion (Gendreau & Ross, 1987). However, Doob and Brodeur (1989) later pointed out that Martinson’s critics had misrepresented both his original and later work. Although Martinson conceded in his re-examination that some programs had a modest success rate, his most significant finding—and one ignored by his critics—was that some programs had negative consequences for participants.
An important lesson to be learned from Martinson’s findings is that, even though our intentions are good and we want to help a person, we cannot assume that the person will actually benefit from rehabilitative interventions.
There are many reasons why programs may not have the positive effects that are intended. One reason is quite simply that short sentences afford limited time in which to affect change, particularly in youth identified as having serious risk profiles (Corrado & Peters, 2012, p. 122). More fundamentally problematic is the setting itself: an institutional setting may not be conducive to rehabilitation (Rothman, 1980). It may be unreasonable to expect that removing people, especially young people, from their families and communities and subjecting them to an institutional environment and non-voluntary participation in a variety of programs will somehow equip them for reintegration back into these communities. This is a problem also identified by both the people who work in institutions and the youth who live there. Anger management programs are a case in point. Barron (2000), from her research at the Willingdon Youth Detention Centre in British Columbia, reported the views of the senior officer of correctional programming on the transitory nature of anger management programming:
see textbook for more
10.8 recommendations for succesful programming
> what is not adressed
What is not addressed in Box 10.8 are programs that address educational issues.
In spite of a long-standing theoretical and empirical recognition of the links between school failure and delinquency (see Chapters 6 and 7), there is a surprising lack of attention to learning disability (LD) in the justice system
and its impact on recidivism.
learning disability: unlike the intellectual deficiency, LD refers to a number of disorders that may affect the acquisition, organization, understanding, or use of verbal or non-verbal information
While rates of LD in the general Canadian population are estimated at 4 to 5 percent, rates among young offenders range from 30 to 50 percent and recidivism rates for those young offenders diagnosed with LD are twice as high as those for non-LD young offenders
These statistics do not mean that youth with LD are more involved with criminal activity than non-LD youth. Rather, youth with LD are at greater risk of getting into the youth justice system when their special needs are not addressed, and once in the system, it is harder for them to get out. LD young offenders are less successful at reintegration and some institutional programs have been found to just not work for LD youth. Cognitive skills/behavioural programming, for example, while successful for some youth, has been found to not work with LD youth (Mishna & Muskat, 2001).
The most important issue with LD in this context is that it is not a priority in justice/correctional assessments, so it becomes invisible because of the number of issues faced by many young offenders, issues that often start with an undiagnosed LD.
In the United States, for example, federal law requires that special educational services be provided in youth custodial institutions, yet a 2003 national survey of all youth in federal custody reported that one-third of the youth in custody had been diagnosed with an LD and that only one-half of these were in special education programs (OJJDP, 2009). Some communities are recognizing the importance of the LD link with youth justice issues. In Calgary, for example, the Youth Justice Society, which provides supports to the city’s Youth Justice Committees, partnered with the Calgary Learning Centre to enable Youth Justice Committees to identify and facilitate supports and programming for youth with low literacy skills (Cole & Price, 2004). Mental health issues is another area that is only recently being addressed, as well as the connection between mental health caseloads and youth in the justice system—the “cross-over kids.” This issue will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 12.
(bridging the gap: aftercare and community reintegration)
A major stumbling block exists for young offenders and correctional efforts at rehabilitation when youth reach the end of their sentences. As we have seen, positive change evidenced through program participation in an institution may not continue once the youth is released into the community and reintegration as a law-abiding citizen is not realized
In a welfare/rehabilitation-oriented justice system with indeterminate sentences…
. In a welfare/rehabilitation-oriented justice system with indeterminate sentences, as we had under the JDA, youth were not released into the community until it was decided that they were ready for release. In the adult system, parole turns a prison sentence for a definite time period into something indefinite: It is not clear how long a person will spend in prison because he or she might get out on parole.
indeterminate vs determinate sentences
indeterminate sentences: sentences that are not absolute or infinite
determinate sentences: sentences with a stated minimum or maximum term
Under the YOA and now the YCJA, with determinate sentences, there is a predetermined time frame in which to work in a rehabilitative manner with youth.
A short sentence may serve to disrupt school programming for youth who are in school and may allow for only minimal exposure to institutional programs. Whatever positive behavioural/attitudinal changes may occur can quickly be undermined when youths return to their homes, neighbourhoods, friends, and “old” ways. Youth who made some progress in their programs may have nowhere to go on release except back to the streets or to families that have been a major source of their problems.
what is required n order to effect lasting change and promote successful reintegration?
In order to effect lasting change and promote successful reintegration, both time and a continuation of programs and support services are required after young people are released from an institution or come to the end of their community sentences. The YCJA’s requirement of community supervision after a term in custody (conditional supervision and intensive supervision) is a step in the right direction toward aftercare, but the sentence does end, regardless of the likelihood that a youth’s needs for support, rehabilitative interventions, and supervision may continue. Corrado and Peters also point out that many youth leaving custody do not have the type of stable living contexts that are required for participation in treatment programs (2013, p. 122).
While there is general consensus on the need for aftercare, there is debate over which branch of government (if any) should pay for it. Some jurisdictions have developed aftercare programs, but others are less likely to do so, particularly in light of government cutbacks on social spending. The federal government has addressed this issue by providing funding for communities and non-government organizations to implement programs for youth through its national crime prevention program.
> aftercare programs
Many communities have developed aftercare programs through existing community organizations.
. These programs are often rehabilitative and skill-based. The Stop and Think program in Halifax is an example of such a program, involving two stages, which could begin on release or in the institution and then continue after release. First-stage programming focused on programs related to sexuality, drugs, family relationships, leisure education, self-analysis, and motivation/goal identification. After this first phase, the focus switched to programming more specific to community living, such as academic upgrading for school preparation or literacy instruction, career planning, and pre-employment training that involved work placements. Once youth completed the actual aftercare program, the aftercare continued because of linkages that had been established with other support systems in the community, such as alcohol and drug counselling groups. Following its first year in operation, Stop and Think reported that two-thirds of the youth who successfully completed the program did not engage in further criminal activities.
