Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564926
label
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Institutions, July 1971 (3 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564926
contentType
document
title
[Corrections, Board of] - Coordinated California Corrections: Institutions, July 1971 (3 of 6)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564926
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d21f7edeb421c580
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Corrections, Board of] -
Coordinated California Corrections:
Institutions, July 1971 (3 of 6)
Box: P33
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
"With all the innovations and improvements (that may
be made), an institution still remains, of course,
an institution -- isolated from the community where
its inmates must eventually make their way."
President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and Administration of Justice
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Juvenile Court Act of California provides that the primary emphasis
of the Juvenile court should be on working with the minor in his own home: "to
preserve and strengthen his family ties wherever possible, and to remove him
from the custody of his parents only when his welfare or safety and protection
of the public cannot be adequately safeguarded without such removal". When-
ever the minor is removed from his own family, the court has the responsibility
to secure for him custody, care and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent
to that which should have been given by his parents. 1
The Act also provides enabling authority for juvenile institutions to
be established to meet the needs of youth, declared wards of the juvenile court
under the provisions of Section 601 or 602 of the Juvenile Court Act, who need
placement outside of their own home. 2
Viewed from the above perspective, California's juvenile institutions
function as a "back-up" service to the first line efforts of the juvenile court.
In this respec :, the institutions are organized at two levels. The first level
consists of a series of camps, ranches, schools and treatment facilities
established by 23 of California's 58 counties so that juvenile court wards
who require commitment might be placed in facilities in or near their county
of residence. The second level consists of a series of institutions establish-
ed under the jurisdiction of the California Youth Authority to serve as a
further "back-up" system for those youths whose needs cannot be met at the
local or county level.
The focus of study for the Juvenile Institutions Task Force was upon
these two institutional systems: the loosely knit and generally uncoordinated
institutional facilities operated by the counties of California, and the series
of reception centers, boys schools, girls schools and camps maintained by the
California Youth Authority.
I. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The study objectives for the Juvenile Institutions Task Force, based
on those of the entire project, were as follows:
1. To develop a profile of the current use, resources, programs and
functioning of California's juvenile institutions, i.e. to
describe what they "look like" today.
- 2 -
2. To pinpoint the most important issues that prevail in these
institutions.
3. To develop a model of how juvenile institutions should function.
4. To make recommendations that will help resolve these crucial
issues and bring juvenile institutions closer to the "model".
II. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The Juvenile Institutions Task Force carried out its study at two
levels.
The County Le'el
This included juvenile homes, ranches and camps established under the
provisions of Article 15, Sections 880 and 881 of the Juvenile Court Act;
those 24 hour schools established under Article 18, Section 940; and those
juvenile halls established under Article 14, Section 850, where the program
had been modified to incorporate a short-term treatment or crisis inter-
vention concept.
In accordance with the overall study design, efforts were concentrated
in the 15 coul ties selected for the study's sample. After a review of the
institutional services provided by these 15 counties, it was found that five
(Humboldt, Sutter, Tehama, San Joaquin and Imperial) do not operate juvenile
institutions aside from a juvenile hall. In these counties, the juvenile
court either utilizes placement in private institutions or places juvenile
court wards in facilities operated by another county on a contractual
arrangement. With the exception of Los Angeles County, the study encompassed
all of the institutions operated by the remaining ten counties. Because of
the large number of facilities in Los Angeles County, a representative sub-
sample of three boys' camps and one girls' school was utilized. Using this
format, institutions studied at the county level included 14 boys' ranches,
4 girls' schools, and 3 short-term treatment units located in 10 counties.
The State Level
All operating facilities of the California Youth Authority were
studied. This included three reception centers, six boys' schools, two
girls' schools, and four youth conservation camps.
Limitations
In view of time and financial constraints, the study did not include
the pre-court intake process, the juvenile halls, or detention practices.
However, these were the subject of an extensive study in 1968 by the National
- 3 -
Council on Crime and Delinquency. 3 In addition, time and resources were not
available to include study of the network of private institutions utilized
by juvenile courts for placement purposes. Further, the study did not
include the Department of Corrections institutions being used by the Youth
Authority for approximately 500 Youth Authority wards, nor did it include
the Department of Corrections Reception Center located at the Deuel Vocational
Institution that serves as the point of reception and diagnosis for all super-
ior court male Youth Authority commitments. However, these Department of
Corrections facilities were included in the study carried out by the Prison
Task Force.
Study Population
The study population included all of the institutions administered by
the Youth Authority, encompassing a total of approximately 5,500 wards and
approximately 2,500 staff members. At the county level, it included 21
county operated institutions encompassing a total of approximately 1,200
wards and approximately 450 staff members.
III. METHODOLOGY
The Juvenile Institutions Task Force conducted its study in four over-
lapping phases: review of the literature; institutional survey (facilities,
programs, wards, staff); model-building interviews and panels; and data
assessment. Additional information on study methodology may be found in the
Systems Task orce Report.
Phase I. Review of the Literature
In this phase, an attempt was made to review all significant research
and reports available on California's juvenile institutions, the most recent
national publications dealing with training schools, and all publications of
agencies having relevant standard-setting functions. This review afforded
a comprehensive look at what was known and written about California's juvenile
institutions and about correctional standards for youth facilities. However,
time constraints limited the review of the broader literature to only a few
of the most important and most recent documents.
Phase II. Institutional Survey
In Phase I it became clear very early in the study that California
corrections, including its juvenile facilities, has been the subject of a
great deal of study. There were a number of recent inquiries into operations
of Youth Authority institutions; the educational and vocational programs had
received recent evaluation; Youth Authority research had been active in a
number of special zed programs; recent inspection reports were available
on all county camps, ranches and schools; and there was recent information
- 4 -
regarding recidivism rates available through the Bureau of Criminal Statistics
and the Youth Authority. Hence, the following three principles were formu-
lated to serve as guide-lines for Phase II.
1. To avoid duplication, maximum use would be made of existing research,
inspection reports, and special task force reports.
2. The institutional survey would be carried out as expendiently and
efficiently as possible, both to conserve project staff time as
well as to conserve time and effort on the part of institutional
staff and wards concerned.
3. Interviews would be conducted with institutional and other staff
aimed specifically at clarifying key issues and gaining commit-
mert to project goals on the part of key administrative staff.
Following these guide-lines, detailed questionnaires were constructed
for both staff And clients with the aim of filling the gaps in the existing
literature.
Staff Questionnaires. A questionnaire was used to survey institutional
staff as a means of gaining their evaluation of the functioning of their
respective institutions, their impressions regarding the clients served, and
their reactions to a series of issues currently facing California institutions.
The same questionnaire was used for staff at all levels in the county and
State institutions.
This questionnaire was given to approximately 450 county correctional
employees, representing all employees in county camps, ranches, girls' schools
and treatment unit. in the study counties (except Los Angeles, in which instance
a sub-sample of four institutional programs was used). Because of their very
large numbers, it was necessary to select samples of Youth Authority institu-
tional workers; thus, questionnaires were administered to a random sample of
approximately 1,250 State employees representing roughly 50% of all Youth
Authority employees in reception centers, schools and camps. Sixty-nine
percent of all staff (76% of county workers and 66% of Youth Authority staff)
completed and returned their questionnaires.
Client Questionnaires. A questionnaire was also constructed to obtain
the views of juveniles presently confined in institutions. Task Force staff
were particularly concerned with obtaining the client's expectations regard-
ing their institutional experience, comments on what the commitment experience
consisted of or meant, and their recommendations regarding change and improve-
ment in the system.
The questionnaire was administered to clients either individually or
in groups, with at least one Task Force member being available to answer
questions and to help clients who had difficulty in reading, writing, etc.
Despite rather rigid time constraints, project staff were able to administer
the questionnaire to approximately 1,400 youths in 14 of the 21 county insti-
tutions and in 8 of the 15 Youth Authority institutions.
- 5 -
Phase III. Todel-Building Interviews and Panels
In this phase of the project, Task Force staff met with top admin-
istrators, middle management staff, and key line staff at both the State
and county levels to gain their input regarding concerns and recommendations
for juvenile correctional systems of the future. At this point, the scope
of the study for the county level was broadened to include all counties in
the San Francisco Bay Area as well as all counties in the Los Angeles Basin.
This expansion was undertaken because the San Francisco Bay Area and the
Los Angeles Basin Area not only constitute the two major population centers
in the State but their future growth is anticipated to far exceed other
areas of the State. Further, there are coordinating governmental associations
in both areas, indicating that at some levels, at least, they consider them-
selves to be definable regions. This approach also permitted project staff
to talk with a broader spectrum of correctional leaders and to gather informa-
tion on programs rot contained in the 15 county study sample.
The interviewing was done principally in panels. In each instance,
participants were asked to focus on changes they would like to see made in
the Juvenile Justice System and to project their ideas on what the role and
function of the juvenile institutions would be within that system.
Phase IV. Data Assessment
Both staff and client questionnaires were key-punched and results were
computerized. The model-building interviews were tape recorded. These
recordings were subsequently reviewed and tabulated to select key issues and
recommendations by personnel from the field.
Summary
The input for the findings and recommendations of the Juvenile Insti-
tutions Task Force came from a review of the literature; interviews with key
administrators and other practitioners; computerized results of questionnaires
given to all levels of staff; client interviews and questionnaires; and
model-building" sessions with statewide correctional experts.
- 6 -
FOOTNOTES
¹Department of Youth Authority, California Laws Relating to Youthful
Offenders, State of California (Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1969),
p.5.
²Ibid., pp. 48, 58.
³National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Locking Them Up: A Study
of Initial Juvenile Detention Decisions in Selected California Counties (New
York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1968).
CHAPTER II
N OVERVIEW OF JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA
The objective of this chapter is to describe the historical evolution
of both the county and State networks of juvenile institutions. It mentions
important legislation that has undergirded their development and describes
some of the import nt features of the two systems, including the character-
istics of youth who are placed in them. The chapter concludes by identifying
trends that are suggested by the data, especially that 01' the growing State-
county partnership in the realm of juvenile institutions and facilities.
I. THE COUNTY SYSTEM
Historically
Although there were a handful of historical precedents, the growth of
county correctional facilities for youths has been a phenomenon of the last
35 years. The San Francisco Industrial School, the first juvenile correctional
institution in California, opened its doors to local delinquents on May 3,
1859. 1 Aside from the "Training Ship, Jamestown", which rehabilitated youths
on the high seas in the 1870's, juvenile facilities were almost non-existent
until the early 1930's.2 In order to cope with the increasing numbers of
transient youth during the depression, some of whom inevitably ran afoul of
the law, Los Angeles experimented with forestry camps under the joint super-
vision of probation officers and county forestry employees. 3 This program
worked so well that the State enacted legislation in 1935 formally authoriz-
ing the establis'ment of forestry camps based on the Los Angeles model.
While the number of local camps grew only slightly over the next decade,
it was not until the Legislature authorized subsidies in 1945, and particularly
in 1957, that counties accelerated the building and use of a variety of juvenile
correctional facilities. In 1945, under a section entitled "Juvenile Homes",
the State broadened its earlier legislation to include juvenile homes, ranches
and camps, as well as forestry camps. It authorized a specific maintenance
and operation subsidy to encourage the development of local institutions and,
concurrently, charged the Youth Authority (created in 1941) with responsibility
for prescribing minimum standards of construction and operation. The size of
each camp was limited to 100 children.
The 1957 legislation established an even stronger partnership between
the State and counties. The State committed itself to providing matching
funds, not only for maintenance, but also for the construction of any juvenile
homes or camps that met minimum standards set by the Youth Authority. A limit
on the State's share of expenses was set at $3,000 per bed for construction
costs and $95 per mon ch per ward for maintenance. These amounts have not
been revised since 1957.
Article 15 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, which describes this
program, underscores the purpose of local county institutions:
- 8 -
"In crder to provide appropriate facilities for the
housing of wards of the juvenile court in the
counties of their residence or in adjacent counties
SO that such wards may be kept under direct super-
vision of said court, and in order to more advanta-
geously apply the salutary effect of home and family
environment upon them
The Welfare and Institutions Code also makes clear that these facilities are
not to be used for dependent or neglected youth.
Table I summarizes the growth of county juvenile facilities since 1932.
It not only shows the number and capacity of all such facilities in the State,
but it also indicates their average daily attendance over the past fifteen
years. The data reveal that the number of facilities has more than doubled
in the last decade and that the total capacity has increased markedly as well.
At the same time, however, the average size or capacity of each facility has
begun to show a significant decline. For example, between 1968 and 1969 there
was a 15% decrease in the average capacity of county juvenile correctional
facilities. The recent trend is due to development of day care centers and
small, short-term treatment units. This trend is also reflected in the per-
cent of available beds actually used. The percentage has been steadily
dropping from 92% in 1960 to 73% in 1969-71, apparently the lowest rate of
occupancy in the modern history of local juvenile facilities throughout the
counties of California
Today
In the existing network of local juvenile institutions, 19 of the 58
counties are now operating their own facilities. In addition, 5 counties
(Colusa-Yolo-Solanc and Santa Barbara-Ventura) have entered into cooperative
agreements by establishing joint facilities. As of February, 1971, there
was a total of 68 county juvenile facilities in California. All of these
are being subsidized by the State as a result of the legislation passed in
1945. These institutions include 47 facilities for boys (mainly camps and
ranches), 18 for girls (primarily short-term treatment units and day centers),
and 3 coed facilities. 4
Geograph cally, 17 of the 68 facilities are located in the San Francisco
Bay area (San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties); 42 are located in the Los Angeles Basin (San Diego, Orange, River-
side, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties); and
the remaining 9 facilities are scattered throughout the Central Valley and
Northern California. Thirty-five of California's counties have no correc-
tional facilities for adjudicated delinquents, forcing them to use their
juvenile halls, to contract with another county, or to commit them to the
Youth Authority when confinement is necessary.
While detai ed analytic data do not exist for county juvenile facili-
ties, the California Youth Authority and the Bureau of Criminal Statistics
have been gathering descriptive statistics that can provide a general view
- 9 -
TABLE I
GROWTH OF COUNTY CAMPS¹
Number of
Average Daily
Percent
Year²
Facilities
Capacity
Attendance
Full
1932
2
130
----
------------
1945
11
690
-----
1955-56
16
975
851
87
1960-61
31
2000
1845
92
1962-63
41
2800
2316
82
1964-65
42
2894
2695
93
1966-67
50
3082
2639
86
1968-69
54
3476
3056
88
1969-70
68
3677
2698
73
February 1971
68³
3737
2721
73
This information was compiled from various Youth Authority
reports.
2 From 1955, the statistics are based on fiscal years, except
the last entry which is for the month of February, 1971.
³There were several new facilities from 7-70 to 2-71 but an
equal number were consolidated or closed.
- 10 -
of these institutions. The first thing to note about county juvenile facili-
ties is that they receive a significant proportion of adjudicated delinquents.
Of youths appearing in California Juvenile Courts in 1969, 6,826 (12%) were
committed to local camps, ranches, or schools for the first time. 5 An addi-
tional 1,728 youths were recommitted during that same year. As of December
31, 1969, there was an average of 54 delinquents housed in each county
juvenile facility. 6
Appendix A lists all county juvenile facilities as of March, 1971,
their average monthly cost per minor, bed capacities, and average length of
stay. It should be noted that some of these figures, especially the average
cost, will have changed since the last inspection report on which they are
based.
Financially, the average monthly cost of these institutions per youth
ranges from $199 for a day care center operating out of a local high school
to over $1,300 for an intensive treatment facility for "high-risk" girls.
For all institutions combined, the average cost per youth is $547. The cost
tends to be considerably lower for day care programs and much higher for a
number of girls' and coeducational facilities.
Facility sizes vary from small group homes for 6 or 8 youths to the
100 bed camps allowed by law. 8
The average length of stay for youth in these facilities is 5.6 months.
Several short-term treatment centers keep youths an average of barely more
than a month, while some day care programs retain their charges for up to 14
months. 9 Perhaps the most notable trend is that the average period of commit-
ment, even for regular camps and ranches, has declined considerably from the
7 month average reported consistently by the Bureau of Criminal Statistics
between 1960 and 1967. 10
Table I presents some characteristics of the youths who were sent to
local juvenile institutions in 1969. The most significant factors are that
89% were boys; almost all of whom (92%) were between 14 and 17 years of age.
Significantly higher proportions of minorities were committed than existed
in the State's total population. By far the most common reason for committing
these youths to local facilities was "delinquent tendencies" (30%). With the
exception of sex and race, there is a sharp contrast between youths referred
to local county institutions and those referred to the California Youth Author-
ity. The latter group will be discussed in the next section.
II. THE STATE SYSTEM
Historically
As it is known today, the State juvenile correctional system was
established with passage of the Youth Authority Act of 1941. Prior to 1941
there were three State institutions for youthful offenders. These were
the Whittier State School for younger boys, Preston School of Industry for
- 11 -
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF JUVENILES COMMITTED TO CYA
AND COUNTY CAMPS, RANCHES, HOMES AND SCHOOLS, 1969
(New Admissions only)
COUNTY WARDS
CYA WARDS
CHARACTERISTICS
NUMBER
PERCENT
NUMBER
PERCENT
Total commitments
6,826
100
4,494
100
Boys
6,078
89
3,860
86
Girls
748
11
634
14
Age
12 and under
63
1
62
1
13
400
6
80
2
14
1,088
16
277
6
15
1,691
25
588
13
16
2,068
30
723
16
17
1,435
21
836
19
18 and over
81
1
1,928
43
Race
White
3,698
54
2,409
54
Mexican-American
1,334
20
750
17
Negro
1,649
24
1,253
28
Other
145
2
82
2
Reason for commitment
Homicide
14
0
69
2
Robbery
246
4
457
10
Assault
302
4
334
7
Burglary
1,019
15
589
13
Auto theft
752
11
389
9
Theft (except auto)
566
8
285
6
Sex offenses
39
1
124
3
Drug offenses
1,156
17
844
19
County camp failure or escape
-------------
--
461
10
All other specific cffenses
718
11
418
9
Delinquent tendencies
2,014
30
524
12
Source: Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Crime and Delinquency in California:
1969, p. 179; Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Juvenile Probation and
Detention: 1969, p. 72; Department of Youth Authority, Annual Statis-
tical Report: 1969, pp. 12-15.
- 12 -
older boys, and Ventura School for Girls. These institutions, along with
facilities for the mentally ill, were administered by the Department of
Institutions. Each of the three institutions operated independently, and
each provided statewide aftercare services for its own graduates. Two dubious
"suicides" in the "disciplinary" rooms of one of the facilities aroused public
attention to the primitive condition of the three institutions and resulted
in a legislative investigation.
By coincidence, during this same period, the American Law Institute
had drafted a model "Youth Correction Act" in response to the similarly
publicized plight of young offenders in New York City. The Institute sent
a special advisor. John Ellingston, to encourage the State's authorities to
adopt the model Act. Although the "Youth Correction Act" was actually direct-
ed at the young adult population (roughly 16-23 years), it was modified to
fit California's needs. The legislative result of Ellingston's efforts was
the creation of the California Youth Authority which would have the responsi-
bility of supervising all youths committed to the State by the courts. In
this regard, Ellingston was quoted as saying: 11 the decision to extend
the Youth Authority plan to include all committed juveniles was not made by
the
American
Law
Institute
it was made by the stubborn and irreducible
fact of the iailure of existing industrial schools to provide delinquent
children effective individual treatment
"11
The purpose of the Youth Authority Act was clearly stated:
"to protect society more effectively by substituting
for retributive punishment methods of training and
treatment directed toward the correction and rehabil-
itation of young persons found guilty of public
offenses. "12
Passage of the Act resulted in the creation of the Youth Authority
Board and the Department of the Youth Authority. The Youth Authority Board
was given decision-making powers of accepting, transferring, releasing, and
recommitting youths into and between the State's institutions. The Department
of the Youth Authority was assigned all other designated "powers, duties, and
functions" not specifically given to the Board. The Department of the Youth
Authority also received very broad authority to carry out the stated purpose
of the Act. This included the authority to build reception-diagnostic centers
or other types of institution, to provide aftercare services, to engage in
delinquency prevention, and to coordinate local juvenile correctional activ-
ities. In orde ~ to coordinate the functioning of these two bodies, a 1945
revision of the Act stipulated that the Director of the Youth Authority would
also serve as Chairman of the Board.
A unique characteristic of the Act was its authorization for accepting
jurisdiction not only of juvenile court commitments, but also of criminal
court commitments (from both Superior and Municipal Courts) provided the
youth was under 21 years at the time of arrest.
- 13 -
Shortly after its formation, the Youth Authority was caught up in the
aftermath of California's post-war population explosion. In the first 12
years of its existence, the California Youth Authority's institutional
population doubled from 1300 to 2526. During the next 12 years, however,
the number of youths confined skyrocketed, increasing over 270% to an average
daily population of 6893 in 1965. 13 This period was characterized by a forced
expansion and multiplication of institutions to keep abreast of the growing
tide of juvenile commitments.
Today
The Department of the Youth Authority presently consists of a sizeable
network of 3 reception centers, 6 institutions for boys, 2 girls' schools, a
large vocational training school for boys, and 4 youth conservation camps.
In addition, CYA has 2 new facilities for older boys that have been completed
but never staffed because of the declining institutional population over the
past several years. Traditionally, the Youth Authority placed many of its
older boys in various institutions operated by the California Department of
Corrections (CDC). However, the Youth Authority is now committed to the idea
of retaining is many of these youths as possible in its own institutions.
But despite this commitment, it has been necessary to continue using CDC
facilities. is of this writing one CDC facility is used as a reception center
and permanent irstitution for several hundred older boys, and at least three
other CDC facilities are used for small numbers of youth requiring specialized
care. Finally, CY/ also uses local jails and Department of Mental Hygiene
institutions for a small percentage of its institutionalized youth.
A very clear and significant trend has been the reduction in commitments
to the Youth Authority (as well as to the Department of Corrections) in the
past few years. After a spiraling increase between 1941 and 1965, the insti-
tutional population has dropped steadily, particularly in the last two years,
from a high of nearly 7,000 in 1965 to an existing level of approximately
5,500. 14 This decrease is occurring despite statewide increases in juvenile
arrests, referrals to probation, number of petitions filed, and number of
juvenile wardships declared. 15 Apparently the declining State institutional
population is due to the increase of local facilities, the impact of the
probation subsidy program and other factors as well.
Compared with local juvenile institutional placements, very few delin-
quents are referred to the Youth Authority. Only 417 or .7% of all those
appearing in juvenile court in 1969 were sent to the Youth Authority on
initial commitments. 16 Exactly the same percentage of municipal court offenders
referred to loca probation departments in 1969 were committed to the Youth
Authority. 17 However, 4.3% of those convicted in superior court were so
committed. 18 Of 011 Youth Authority wards in State institutions on December
31, 1970, 59% (57% of the boys and 84% of the girls) were committed by juvenile
courts, indicating is rather high proportion (particularly for boys) committed
from the criminal courts. 19
The high cost of institutional care for delinquents is clearly seen in
CYA expenditures. For fiscal 1970-71, $36,400,000 or 71% of the Youth Authority's
- 14 -
total "support bulget" (i.e. for the Department itself) was spent on its
institutions. 20 During the same fiscal year, the per capita cost per insti-
tution ranged from $4,648 for the conservation camps to over $9,000 for Los
Guilucos School for Girls. 21
Because CYA wards tend to be more sophisticated and have committed
more serious delinquencies than youth referred to local county facilities,
it is not surprising to find that their average lengths of time confined
also differ. In 1970, the average length of time spent by CYA wards in
State institutions was almost twice as long (9.2 months) as the average stay
for youth in local facilities (5.6 months). 22 Boys in Youth Authority
institutions averaged 10.5 months, while girls averaged 8.7 months. 23 Youth
Authority male wards committed to CDC facilities averaged 15.1 months, while
females spent 26.9 months before release. 24
Since the Youth Authority itself publishes detailed profiles of its
wards in its Annual Statistical Report, there is no need to duplicate that
description here. However, the reader is referred back to Table II which
provides arative data on a few selected characteristics for wards placed
in both county and State institutions. Aside from the average length of
stay, the most obvious difference is that Youth Authority wards are consider-
ably older. This is due principally to the fact that they were committed to
CYA from crimiral as well as juvenile courts. Only 1% of the wards sent to
county camps, ranches, and schools are 18 years or older, while 43% of all
Youth Authority wards are at least 18 at the time of their initial commitment.
As might be expected, a significant portion of CYA wards (10%) were county
camp failures or escapees. In addition, CYA wards are more than twice as
likely, than wards in local facilities, to have committed crimes of violence
--homicide, robbery, and assault. Finally, a surprising fact indicated in
Table II is the unexpectedly high percentage of CYA wards who were committed
for "delinque it tendencies". Fully 12% of this group was committed to State
institutions in 1969 for exhibiting the myriad of traits and characteristics
falling within this "omnibus" definition of delinquency.
III. SUMMARY
Both the State and county juvenile institution networks in California
have expanded very rapidly during the past three decades. At present, they
function as a twn level "back-up" system for community-based correctional
programs. Together the three components constitute "a juvenile correctional
system widely acknowledged to be the most advanced in this nation". 25
It is clear that during the past few years the trend has been away
from the expansive use of institutions for young offenders. It is also fairly
evident that the State has spear-headed this trend principally by creating
subsidy programs in several areas. First, it is abundantly clear that the
State's offer of camp, ranch, and school subsidies has led to greatly increased
use of local correctional facilities for young offenders. Second, the proba-
tion subsidy program, introduced by the State in 1966, has resulted in a
marked decline in the number of youths committed to State institutions. At
- 15 -
the same time, there has been an increase in the number and types of field
services offered. Finally, the recent development of short-term and day
care facilities, made possible by State subsidies, has resulted in the
significantly lower use of available camp beds even at the county level.
The treatment philosophy that has been spreading throughout the State,
especially with respect to young offenders, is clearly to provide local
correctional services and to keep programs as community-based as possible.
- 16 -
FOOTNOTES
1Vaughn Roley, "A Century of County Camps", California Youth Authority
Quarterly Vol. 17, No. 3, Fall, 1964, pp. 26-31.
2Ibid.
³Ibid.
4Department of Youth Authority, "Average Length of Stay, Costs, and
Bed Capacity of County Operated Juvenile Homes, Ranches, and Camps", State
of California (Sacramento, March 1971), (Mimeographed.)
⁵Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Juvenile Probation and Detention: 1969,
State of California (Sacramento, 1970), pp. 1 and 64.
⁶Ibid., p. 64.
7See Appencix A.
8
Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Crime and Delinquency in California:
1968, State of California (Sacramento, 1969), p. 168.
11Youth ard Adult Corrections Agency, The Paroling Boards of the Agency,
State of California (Sacramento, 1962), (Mimeographed.), Appendix I.
²California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 1700.
13 Department of Youth Authority, Annual Statistical Report: 1969, State
of California (Sacramento, 1970), p. 22.
14 Department of Youth Authority, "Monthly Statistical Reports", State
of California (Sacramento), (Mimeographed); the 1-71 average daily population
was 5,513.
15Department of Youth Authority, Some Statistical Facts on the California
Youth Authority, State of California (Sacramento, January 1970), pp. 3-9.
16 Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Juvenile Probation and Detention: 1969,
op. cit., p. 1.
17Bureau of Criminal Statistics, Adult Probation: 1969, State of Calif-
ornia (Sacramento, 1970), p. 30.
18 Ibid., p. 27.
- 17 -
19Depa 'tment of Youth Authority, Characteristics of California Youth
Authority Wards: December 31, 1970, State of California (Sacramento, 1971),
p.1.
20Depart.ment of Youth Authority, State of California, Budget Analysis,
1970-71.
21 Ibid.
22 Department of Youth Authority, Cost Comparisons, State of California
(Sacramento, March 1971).
23 Depai tment of Youth Authority, Monthly Statistical Report: December,
1970, State or California (Sacramento, 1970).
24Department of Youth Authority, Research Division, unpublished informa-
tion as of this writing. The mean stay for girls would be 15.4 if 2 girls
(1 who stayed about 4 years and the other 3 years) were not counted; this is
true because there are so few CYA girls in CDC facilities.
25Don C. Gibbons, Society, Crime, and Criminal Careers: An Introduction
to Criminology (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 517.
CHAPTER III
JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS MODEL
As a framework for the remaining discussion of juvenile institutions,
a condensed 'model" is presented in this chapter. The "model" consists of
a brief statement of what juvenile institutions should "look like" or how
they should function. It includes the goals which they should strive to
achieve, the principles upon which they should be founded, and the standards
to which they should adhere.
I. GOALS
The Timary goal of juvenile institutions, as well as that of all
corrections, should be the protection of society, i.e. minimizing the
probability cf recidivism. Ultimately all correctional programs must be
evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in reducing the recidivism of
offenders. Their secondary goals, and strategies for attaining goals, should
be generally the same as for the rest of corrections, but with specific
emphasis based on the nature of institutions and the specific populations
juvenile institutions serve. The secondary goals include incapacitation,
deterrance, and, particularly, rehabilitation and reintegration. It is the
position of the Juvenile Institution Task Force that rehabilitation and
reintegration normally are compatible with the protection of society. That
is, society is normally best protected by the effective rehabilitation and
reintegration of a youth in society. The strategies of juvenile correctional
facilities should include special emphasis on environmental modification and
changes, peer group influence, family and community involvement, and individual
casework.
Realistic Expectations
Historically society has used institutions as rugs under which it can
sweep those people who cause problems. Despite the best efforts of staff,
correctional institutions in California, as well as elsewhere, are involuntary,
unnatural, punitive, dehumanizing "dumping-grounds". The deprivations,
degradation, enbitterment, and stigmatization they impart to their captives
have been recurrently documented in the correctional literature¹ not to
mention in the stories of those who have been confined in them. Yet society
continues to play the role of the proverbial ostrich, closing its eyes to the
inherently negative aspects of institutions and expecting these institutions
to somehow transform inmates into outstanding citizens.
Realistically, the most that can be expected from juvenile (or any other)
institutions, as they are known today, is that they not exacerbate the problem
by contributing to and reinforcing the delinquent careers of the youths they
serve. Indeed, it is to be hoped that institutions have a positive impact on
their lives by making them better equipped to adjust to society upon release.
Institutions are undesirable places to put people, especially young people.
- 19 -
They should be used only as a last resort and for as brief a time as possible.
Every effort should be made to avoid dehumanization and to provide genuine
positive learning experiences that will help inmates to succeed when released
back to their former environment.
II. PRINCIPLES
The System Task Force Report outlines the basic principles that should
govern the entire correctional system. The statements below represent an
application of these generic principles or guide-lines specifically to juvenile
institutions. It will be apparent that many of them are also applicable to
other types of correctional institutions and to field services.
Responsibility
Local communities should construct and operate a range of juvenile
institutions necessary for the temporary care and control of those delinquents
who cannot be dealt with entirely in the community. The State has the overall
enabling responsibility for the entire correctional system and should assist
substantially in the construction and operation of these local institutions by
subsidizing them and providing the services such as consultation, standard-
setting and enforcing, training, research, etc., necessary for the effective
operation of these facilities. The State should also provide necessary "back-
up" facilities of a specialized nature which would handle youths who cannot
be adequately managed or treated in local institutions.
Reintegration
By their very nature institutions have the most difficult task of
reintegration. They must recognize their temporary role and make every effort,
consistent with public protection, to assist the offender in making a success-
ful return back to the community as quickly as possible. This is especially
true in the case of young offenders. In a sense, they must never leave the
community even though they have been placed in an institution. The community
should permeate the functioning of the institution so that their successful
return to it will be maximized. Assistance to youths must be particularly
intensified at the point of transition back into the community.
Coordination
In order to avoid duplication and to develop a continuum of treatment,
there must be close working relationships between that part of the correctional
system which commits youths to an institution, the institution, and that part
of the system wh ch supervises them upon release. Of particular importance
are the links between institutional and aftercare services.
- 20 -
Community-Based
In order to maximize the principle of reintegration stated above,
institutions chould be located as close to the community of their clientele
as possible. The task of reintegration is considerably more difficult if
institutions are forced to serve youths who have been referred to them from
different parts of the State.
Visibility and Accountability
The operations of any youth facility must be open to public view, both
to permit scrutiny and to engender public understanding and support. Research
and evaluation must be an integral part of every institutional program. An
institutional program, indeed the very institution itself, should "live or
die", based on whether or not it satisfactorily achieves realistic expected
results. Institutions must be accountable not only to the officials who
operate them, but also to their clients and to the public.
Burden of Proof
All institutional decision-making, including commitment, type of program
or discipline, and release, should place the burden of proof on the system,
not the youth, to justify any further degree of physical restriction or exten-
sion of restriction.
Public Involvement
Juvenile institutions should recognize the public's concern for its
youth, and in turn should channel that concern into support. Institutions
should develop and implement an effective program of public education. They
should involve the community in a variety of ways, from direct financial and
volunteer assistance to an advisory capacity in policy formulation. Community
support and public involvement are required if juvenile institutions are to
successfully achieve their objectives.
Change-Orientation
Correctional institutions have a marked tendency to preserve their
existence and current modes of operation. Institutions tend to rigidify and
become highly resis ant to change. Juvenile institutions must avoid this
tendency by retaining lexibility and creativity. A process of continual
evaluation must be incorporated into their overall program and they must be
geared to change. Indeed, institutions must be prepared to "self-destruct"
if they are consistently failing to produce expected results.
- 21 -
Differentiation and Range of Services
Treatment of youth should be individualized. This requires both a
range of different types of institutions and sufficient specialization of
program within each to meet the needs of all young offenders requiring
commitment. If correctional institutions do not have the necessary services,
they should Le able to contract for them or place the youth elsewhere.
Financial Support
Juvenile institutions, like all of corrections, must have the financial
means to carry out effective programs, contract for necessary services, and
experiment with promising innovations.
III. STANDARDS
Based generally on the broad principles stated above, the following
specific operational standards should be followed by all juvenile institutions.
The principal source for these standards is the 1967 Task Force Report on
Corrections by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration
of Justice.² These are the most recent national standards and before their
promulgation they were reviewed by members of the American Correctional
Association, the U.S. Children's Bureau, the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, and the Governor's Conference Committee on Juvenile Delinquency.
All statements appearing in quotations have been drawn from these national
standards. (ther specific sources (principally the California Youth Authority's
standards) are cited in footnotes.
Facilities
Type. Local correctional agencies should have a range of institutional
programs and services available, including "diagnostic study centers, small
residential treatment centers for seriously disturbed children, facilities
for various age and coeducational groupings, foster homes, forestry camps,
and other community-based facilities."
Size. The capacity of any juvenile facility, including State institu-
tions, should not exceed 100 (which is the present California law for county
facilities). 3
"Living groups in a training school should consist of not more than
20 children. Forestry camp population should total no more than 40 to 50."
More specifically, "standards generally call for the living unit to have a
maximum capacity of 20 where groupings are homogeneous; the size for a
heterogeneous group, or a group of severely disturbed children, should be
from 12 to 16. Girls should have private rooms".
- 22 - -
Planning. 10 new institutions or major additions to existing facilities
should be authorized without first planning them around the specific type of
program to be carried out in the institution. No new institutions or any
major additions to existing facilities should be authorized unless the facili-
ties are in locations conducive to the task of reintegrating their clientele
into the community.
General. In general, the Standards for Juvenile Homes, Ranches, and
Camps, publis by the California Youth Authority in T965,4 or subsequent
revisions should be adhered to by county institutions. The same or similar
standards should also apply to State juvenile facilities. State or local
fire, health, and safety regulations should be followed.
Staff
Ratios. "A minimum of one full-time psychiatrist for each 150 children".
"A mirimum of one full-time psychologist for each 150 children."
If the specialization stated in the above three standards is not possible,
there should be a minimum of one "treatment" or "professional" person (psychi-
atrist, psychologist, or social caseworker) for every 21 children.
"One trained recreation person for each 50 children."
"A minimum of one supervisor for 8 or 10 cottage staff, or one super-
visor for 2 or 3 living units."
"A minimum of one teacher to 15 youngsters with sixth-grade reading
ability and above"; proportionally more teachers are needed for those with
lesser reading ability.
"Major religious faiths represented in a training school population
should be served by chaplains on the training school staff."
An overall minimum of one supervision staff (line worker) position for
every 5 to 6 children. 5
An overall ratio of substantially more than one employee for every 2
youths.
Qualifications. Cottage or line staff should have "ability to relate
to children, emotional maturity, and flexibility in adapting to new situations".
While there is nc rigid standard for this position, "graduation from college
would be the preferred qualification".
In addition to the above qualifications, caseworkers should "have
graduated from an accredited school of social work" or another of the
behavioral sciences.
- 23 -
e
Superintendents, in addition to all of the above qualifications,
should have completed training in modern management techniques.
Training. "A structured program of on-the-job training is essential
for every correctional agency. Its elements are: (a) an orientation period
for new workers, geared especially to acquainting them with the rules,
procedures, and policies of the agency; (b) a continual in-service program
designed to meet the needs of all personnel, including administrators and
supervisors, through the agency directly and by participation in seminars,
workshops, and institutes; (c) educational-leave programs with provision
for part and full-time salaried leave, with financial assistance for educa-
tional costs, to achieve preferred qualifications and to improve professional
competence."
New embloyees should receive at least 40 hours training before being
assigned to supervise children. 6
All staff should receive at least one hour per week of in-service
training.
Working Conditions. The standards for working conditions prescribed
by the President's Task Force and the Youth Authority8 should be adopted.
- 24 -
FOOTNOTES
1See, for example: Donald Clemmer, The Prison Community (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1940), Chapter 12; Marshall Clinard, Sociology
of Deviant Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1957), Chapter
21; Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey, Principles of Criminology (Chicago:
Lippincott Co., 1960), Chapters 23 and 24; Gresham Sykes The Society of
Captives (New York: Atheneum, 1965), esp. Chapter 4; Daniel Glaser, The
Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co.,
1964), Part II.
2President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice,
Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967), pp. 14,-149; 206; 211-212.
³California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 886.
⁴Department of Youth Authority, Standards for Juvenile Homes, Ranches,
and Camps, State of California (Sacramento, 1965).
⁵[bid., p. 12.
⁶[bid., p. 13.
7 Ibid.
⁸Ibid., :.p. 10-17.
CHAPTER IV
THE CURRENT SYSTEM: SURVEY FINDINGS
Now that a trief overview of State and local juvenile institutions
has been sketched and a theoretical model developed, this chapter will examine
the results of the Juvenile Institution Task Force study of the current system.
Particular emphasis will be placed on data obtained from the staff and client
questionnaires. The analysis will be divided into sections on: (1) Goals and
Expectations, (2) Functions, (3) Resources, and (4) Research and Evaluation.
I. GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS
Chapter III expressed the view of the Juvenile Institution Task Force
that the protection of society (i.e. minimizing the probability of recidivism)
should be the primary goal of correctional institutions as well as of all
corrections, that the secondary goal is rehabilitation-reintegration, and that
tertiary goals are deterrence and incapacitation. Both staff and clients were
asked what they perceived to be the purpose of the institutions in which they
worked or lived.
Staff Views
All staff were asked two distinct questions about goals: (1) "What
should be the most important goal of corrections" and (2) "What actually is
the most important goal of your agency?"
Seventy-one percent of the Youth Authority employees and 87% of county
institutional personnel thought "rehabilitation" should be the primary goal
of corrections while 24% and 10%, respectively, believed that "protection of
society" should be most important. Responses to the second question were
almost identical to the above, except that secondary choices were more varied.
Variation by institution was considerable: from 51% to 100% of total staff
at different Youth Authority institutions and from 25% to 100% of staff in
county facilities stated that "rehabilitation" was the most important goal
of their agency. Staff members employed in girls' schools, at both State and
county levels, were strongest in their selection of "rehabilitation" as both
the ideal and actual primary goal.
The data clearly suggest that marked discrepancies exist between staff
perceptions and definitions of correctional goals and the position taken by
the Juvenile Insvitution Task Force. While few county institutional systems
had any official statement of goals and philosophy, the Youth Authority Act
unmistakably states as its purpose: "to protect society". 1 Yet, the over-
whelming choice of "rehabilitation" as both the desired and actual goal of
corrections is abundantly clear, particularly in girls' schools and many small
county facilities. It would appear that there is considerable variation
and/or confusion not only in how individual staff perceive their task, but
also in how they define and distinguish the various goals of corrections.
- 26 - -
Client Views
Wards were asked for their perception of why they were sent to an
institution. The rost common responses were as follows:
30% -- "To learn how to get along better on the outside"
26% -- "To keep me away from where I might get into trouble"
11% -- "Because they did not know what else to do with me"
1%-- -- "To receive trade training or schooling"
They were also asked "What do your family and friends back home think of this
place?" Half of the wards replied "a place to punish", while a third said
"a place that help;". These data suggest that a substantial proportion of
wards and their families and friends view these facilities as custodial
institutions that are punitively-oriented.
II. FUNCTIONS
The pr ncipal functions or tasks of juvenile institutions personnel
that will be dealt with here are: (1) Intake, (2) Reception, Classification,
Assignment, (3) Care, Custody, Control, (4) Program, and (5) Placement and
Aftercare.
Intake
While intake into the overall correctional system is outside the formal
scope of this study, it is necessary to briefly discuss the processes by which
wards are committed in order to better understand the operation of juvenile
institutions.
County process. At the county level, all commitments to juvenile
facilities are made directly by the juvenile court. Any minor coming within
the provisions of Section 601 (evidencing delinquent tendencies) or Section
602 (violation of specific criminal laws) of the Welfare and Institutions
Code may be committed to a local facility. County institutions have no legal
basis for refusing any case referred to them by the juvenile court, provided
the total population does not exceed 100. However, it should be noted that
the law does require that, when a ward is considered unfit, the "director
shall make recomrendation to the probation department for consideration for
other commitment'.²
State process. Commitment to the Youth Authority is, at least theo-
retically, more involved. First of all, the Legislature, in 1941, prohibited
any commitment to the Youth Authority:
- 27 -
"until che Authority has certified in writing to the
Governor that it has approved or established places
of preliminary detention and places for examination
and study of persons committed, and has other facili-
ties and personnel sufficient for the proper discharge
of its duties and functions.
The Director 50 certified in 1942. While this was a one-time certification,
there is an obvious credibility commitment that these conditions still pertain
as long as youth are sent to the Youth Authority.
Secondly, within certain limitations, any court of record in the State
of California may commit young offenders to the Youth Authority. The juvenile
court may so commit anyone under its jurisdiction provided the youth has been
declared a ward under Section 602, is at least 8 years old, and does not have
an infectious disease. Any criminal court (municipal or superior) may commit
anyone under 21 years at the time of arrest (with a few minor exceptions listed
in Sections 1731.5 and 1732.7 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code).
Third, the Youth Authority is not legally bound to accept every case,
i.e. it may eject any specific case. With respect to juvenile court commit-
ments, Section 1736 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code simply
states that the Authority: "may in its discretion accept such commitments"
(emphasis addea). Regarding criminal court commitments, Section 1731.5 of the
California Welfare and Institutions Code indicates that the Authority "shall"
accept any commitment, but only on two conditions: (1) "if it believes that
the person can be materially benefitted by its reformatory and educational
discipline" and (2) "if it has adequate facilities to provide such care."
Clientele. The single most important determinant as to the success
or failure of a correctional system is its clientele. The degree to which
a system can hange the behavior of other persons is limited and depends
greatly on the characteristics, motivation, and capacities of those individuals
it is processing. Hence, it is essential to evaluate California's juvenile
institutions in terms of the clientele with whom the system works.
Whatever other characteristics may apply to these youth, at least two
things are evident in the case of those committed to county facilities.
First, they have violated the law and, secondly, duly authorized decision-
makers have felt that they could not be dealt with in the community. It can
also be stated that when youths are committed to the State, the local commun-
ities felt they were not able to cope with them adequately, even by placing
them in local institutions. The fact is that the great majority of these
youths, particularly those sent to the Youth Authority, have extensive
histories of delincuency, including a history of failure in normal probation
supervision programs.
Chapter II capsulized some of the key demographic characteristics for
State and county institutional populations in 1969. At the present time,
there is little additional data available about county commitments as a total
group. However, the Youth Authority publishes extensive "ward characteristic"
- 28 -
data each year. Tables III and IV portray some of the most significant
trends in Youch Authority populations, for boys and girls separately, over
the last 10 years. Both tables clearly reveal a decline in population since
1965. This trend is in large measure due to the probation subsidy program
initiated in 1966. The tables also show that over the past decade, the
median age of wards has increased significantly; the percent committed from
the criminal courts has risen (over 350% for girls); the proportions of
crimes against persons and drug offenses have skyrocketed; and the percentage
of "third time losers" has more than doubled for boys and more than tripled
for girls. Trese changes would strongly suggest that the Youth Authority's
population is becoming a more "hard-core" group.
Unfortunately, the most important types of variables, such as attitudes
and "acting-out" potential, that are more adequate measures of "hard-core"
delinquents, are difficult to measure and not normally available. A subsequent
section on "Care, Custody, and Control" will discuss the growing concern of
staff over what they clearly perceive as more disturbed and difficult-to-
manage youths being placed under their charge. Particularly at the State level
(both in institutions and parole), staff are becoming increasingly anxious
and concerned about the high density of the "worst" youth in the system that
are coming to them from the counties. In addition to this, 94% of Youth
Authority and 76% of county employees indicated, on the staff questionnaire,
that they have no voice at all in the process by which wards are sent to
them. In short, institutional intake is a process over which the institutions
themselves have little or no control. Staff members assert that clients are
simply delivered to them and they are expected to perform a variety of services
for them, as well as for society. Fogel, somewhat satirically, describes this
situation from the noint of view of State agencies:
"All they are charged to do is to receive the failure
cases of several dozen counties, concentrate the most
volatile, hostile, antisocial, asocial, destructive,
deviant group of youngsters in large complexes with
ratios of one staff to from 30 to 50 (or more) wards,
keep them against their wills, and with extremely
limited budgets, poor community support, or downright
hostility, treat them.
In spite of the above concerns, significant numbers of staff seemed to
agree that it was appropriate to send them the most difficult cases. Only
31% of State employees and 52% of county workers felt that all the youth they
received needed institutionalization. Eighty-eight percent of Youth Authority
and 68% of local staff stated that at least 10% of their clients "could be
more appropriately handled in a community program", such as a half-way house
or day care center. Only 8% of Youth Authority workers and 18% of county
personnel thought that all the youth sent to their institutions were "appro-
priately placed" in the sense that the resources of their institutions were
consistent with the needs of the youth they received.
TABLE III
CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUTH AUTHORITY BOYS IN INSTITUTIONS
JUNE 30 EACH YEAR, 1961 - 1970
(Showing percent of totals*)
BOYS IN
JUNE 30
INSTITUTIONS
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Total Population
4,340
4,578
4,943
5,117
5,353
4,827
4,894
4,922
4,748
4,541
Court
Juvenile
62
64
65
67
70
70
69
64
63
59
Criminal
38
36
35
33
30
30
31
36
37
41
Commitment Offense
29 I I
Against persons
17
19
21
21
22
23
21
24
26
26
Against property
50
50
48
46
45
43
42
38
36
33
Drugs
5
4
4
5
5
6
9
12
13
15
Other offenses
27
27
27
28
29
29
29
27
25
26
Admission Status
1st Commitment
66
61
58
55
56
55
53
54
54
58
1st Return
21
25
25
27
26
26
27
26
25
22
2nd Return
9
10
10
12
12
12
13
14
13
12
3rd or more
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
7
9
8
Ethnic Group
White
56
55
54
52
50
50
50
51
50
48
Mexican-American
20
21
19
20
21
20
19
18
20
19
Negro
23
24
26
27
28
29
29
29
28
32
Other
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Median age in years
18.1
18.0
17.9
17.9
17.9
17.8
17.8
18.2
18.4
18.6
Source: Department of Youth Authority, A Comparison of Youth Authority Wards: 1961-70, State of
California (Sacramento, September 1970), p. 6.
*Except "Total Population" and "Median age".
TABLE IV
CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUTH AUTHORITY GIRLS IN INSTITUTIONS
JUNE 30 EACH YEAR, 1961 - 1970
(Showing percent of totals*)
GIRLS IN
JUNE 30
INSTITUTIONS
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Total Population
453
503
636
587
665
657
588
562
619
527
Court
Juvenile
96
95
95
93
93
94
93
90
89
84
Criminal
4
5
6
7
7
6
7
10
11
16
Commitment Offense
Against persons
5
5
9
8
8
11
14
16
14
16
30 I I
Against property
14
15
16
17
18
16
12
13
12
13
Drugs
3
4
6
6
5
4
6
6
12
12
Other offenses
79
76
69
69
70
69
68
65
62
59
Admission Status
1st Commitment
73
70
69
66
67
62
58
56
57
62
1st Return
23
25
23
24
26
27
31
30
28
22
2nd Return
3
4
6
8
5
9
8
11
12
12
3rd or more
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
4
3
4
Ethnic Group
White
59
53
55
54
53
53
53
51
56
57
Mexican-American
16
16
14
14
15
14
15
16
12
11
Negro
23
27
28
29
29
31
30
31
28
29
Other
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
Median age in years
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.6
16.5
16.6
16.9
17.0
17.3
Source: Department of Youth Authority, A Comparison of Youth Authority Wards: 1961-70, State of
California (Sacramento, September 1970), p. 7.
*Except "Total Population" and "Median age".
- 31 -
Reception, Classification, Assignment
To assure adherence to the principles of coordination between the
parts of the correctional system, providing a continuum of treatment, and
appropriate differentiation in the treatment of youth (described in Chapter
II), an effective classification system is essential. Within an institutional
framework, the classification process is the pivotal link between what has
occurred before confinement and what will occur in the institution. In brief,
its task is to evaluate a client's current needs and plan a correctional
strategy.
At the county level, where maximum correctional services should be
available, classification on any sophisticated level is almost non-existent,
particularly in the smaller counties. This is evidenced by the fact that
the counties of ten request the State to furnish diagnostic services for both
juveniles and adults (per Sections 704 W & I and 1203.03 P.C.).
The Youth Authority, on the other hand, has special reception centers
which perform classification functions for all committed wards. It operates
three separate reception centers or units. The Northern Reception Center
receives both boys and girls. The Southern Reception Center is for boys only,
and there is 1 reception center for girls at the Ventura School. In addition,
some of the wards committed by the criminal courts are referred to the recep-
tion center at the Deuel Vocational Institution operated by the Department of
Corrections. The three Youth Authority reception centers evaluate each ward
for an average of 4 weeks.5 The evaluation process is somewhat longer at the
Deuel Vocational Institution. Reception centers make recommendations as to
the type of program in which the youth should be placed.
Responses from the staff questionnaire, interviews, and relevant
literature suggest three problem areas related to how youth are received,
classified, and assigned within their particular institution. These are
time delays, quality of information, and use of classification materials.
Time delays. Only 35% of Youth Authority staff and 74% of county staff
reported that they receive both advance notification and relevant case history
material prior to the delivery of a youth at their institution. Individual
county facilities varied from 33% to 100% in affirmative responses to this
question. Curiously, 61% of Youth Authority reception center staff reported
that they receive prior notification and case material from the committing
counties while a far lower percentage of staff from other Youth Authority
institutions (particularly the large facilities for boys) received this
information from their own reception centers. This suggests that there is
closer coordination between individual counties and Youth Authority reception
centers, than that which exists between YA reception centers and its insti-
tutions. In instances where case material is not delivered with the youth,
questionnaire results showed that it normally took 2 to 7 additional days
before the information was received.
- 32 -
State reception center personnel indicated that they have the most
difficulty in obtaining school data on their wards. In most cases, informa-
tion regarding the youth's school adjustment in the local school district
(or even county institutions) is not received in time to be of any assistance.
Frequently this necessitates duplication of testing procedures.
Quali y of information. Only 25% of Youth Authority reception center
staff and 30% of county staff reported that they ever receive a classification
of the yout's committed to them. Amazingly, from 14% to 53% of the staff at
various Youtl: Authority institutions said they either did not receive classi-
fication information on wards sent to them, or did not know that classification
information was even available. This finding takes on added significance
when it is remembered that all Youth Authority wards are routinely classified
at the reception centers.
Reception center workers feel that many of the reports they receive
from the counties are prepared with commitment in mind and, therefore, do not
provide the comprehensive information needed by the reception center. The
phenomenon 01 selective reporting has long been documented. The Governor's
Special Study Committee on Juvenile Justice in 1960 reported:
"Present court reports appear to be prepared with the
thought of supporting a given disposition recommenda-
tion. Thus, if the probation officer feels the child
should be removed from his home, the social report
often contains selected information, incidents, and
hearsay which would allow the juvenile court judge to
support this recommendation. Similarly, when a
dismissal of the petition is recommended, social
evaluations are equally selective. Since cases are
no+ thoroughly aired in court - the average hearing
takes less than 15 minutes - there is little opportun-
ity for the judge to personally verify the facts or to
obtain other information which might logically suggest
a different but more appropriate disposition.
Similarily, in analyzing the court reports of a series of cases under
commitment to the Youth Authority, Fogel concluded that there was a relation-
ship between a "report's complexity and the disposition of the case".7 He
found that 62% of the total volume of reports presented to the court at the
time of the youth's first hearing was devoted to social analysis. The remain-
ing 38% was devoted to the offense. At the time of commitment to the Youth
Authority, the composition of the court report had reversed itself. Fully
70% of the report was devoted to a description of the offense and only 30%
devoted to social analysis.⁸ Though the nature of the offense resulting in
commitment was likely to be more serious, and while the increased use of
defense attorneys required better support of a case, these figures strongly
suggest that "social factors" are increasingly neglected or condensed in
reports when commitment is anticipated.
- 33 -
It is a fact that county juvenile probation departments frequently
have prepared lengthy case histories at a cost of hundreds of dollars on
youths they send to the Youth Authority. Yet, the information continued in
these case histories is not communicated fully to Youth Authority reception
centers and institutions. All too frequently, a sort of "shell game" exists
in which that part of the system currently having jurisdiction over the
client must figure out under which "shell", or other part of the system,
needed information about the youth is located.
Use of classification materials. Table V summarizes the questionnaire
results related to this topic. Only two-thirds of State staff and 43% of
county personnel reported that their institutions used any classification
system. Approximately two-thirds of those persons had been trained in the
classification system used by their facility. Only 29% of State workers and
22% of county employees felt the classification system they used was of any
help in treating the youths under their supervision. The majority of staff
supported the concept of "matching" worker with ward.
A remarkable finding uncovered by the survey was the lack of knowledge
by so many staff as to what was occurring in their own institution. There
was no Youth Authority institution, and only one county facility, in which
all staff knew whether or not a classification system was being used in their
institution. Some of the Youth Authority staff employed in institutions other
than the reception centers felt that much of the diagnostic-classificatior
materials prepared by the various reception centers was of little value to
them. They frequently had to re-diagnose and re-classify the youths sent to
their respective institutions. Questionnaire results showed that more than
a third of the Youth Authority staff in institutions indicated that they re-
classified, at least some of the wards, that had previously been classified
by the reception centers. These findings clearly reveal a duplication of
efforts. In fact, only one facility indicated much satisfaction with recep-
tion center reports - a girls' school which has its own reception center
attached. A major reason for this appears to be the close relationship be-
tween the receiving-classifying unit and the main institution, fostered by
at least some rotating of staff between them. In other reception centers,
staff often had little or no first hand knowledge of the programs for which
they were recommending youths.
Despite efforts to use sophisticated classification systems, the most
commonly utilized cr teria for assignment of a youth to a program was "age
and maturity", followed by a "formalized classification system" and "available
bed space". However, it should be noted that there was tremendous variation
in the weight given to these factors by different institutions and by different
individuals within the same institution.
Summary. The above findings reveal several significant problems related
to the receiving, classifying, and assigning of youths in institutions. First,
local information such as school records is often not reaching institutions,
particularly the Youth Authority reception centers, in time to be useful. This
is resulting in costly duplication of efforts. Second, full "social history"
- 34 -
TABLE V
USE OF CLASSIFICATION MATERIALS
(Staff Responses)
PERCENT
QUESTION
CYA
COUNTIES
1. Does your institution use a classification system?
Yes
66
43
No
10
40
No information
23
18
2. Have you had training in the classification system
used by your institution?
Yes
43
28
No
42
34
No system used
5
20
Not applicable
11
19
3. Do you yourself use a classification system with
youth under your charge?
Yes, bu; it is not a significant help in
treatment
11
6
Yes, it is a significant help in treatment
29
22
No
36
53
Not applicable
24
18
4. Do you think that staff should be classified and
in some way matched with youth they supervise?
Yes
68
52
No
32
48
5. Rank the following items in order of importance
in determining youth assignments in your institution:
Age and maturity
1
1
Formalized classification system
2
2
Available bed space
3
3
Informal classification system
4
4
Other (i.e. not in this list)
5
7
Type of offense
6
8
Institutional need
7 (tie)
5
Custody and runaway potential
7 (tie)
6
- 35 -
data are frequently not included in reports sent to institutions. Third,
sophisticated classification systems have not been adequately developed,
understood, and used consistently and effectively for treatment purposes.
Fourth, there are significant gaps and overlaps between the Youth Authority's
reception centers and its other institutions, raising the question of how
valuable or necessary the reception centers are.
Care, Custody, and Control
The trend toward localized corrections and the use of alternatives
to institutionalization, both augmented by State subsidies, has resulted in
a change in the types of youths being committed. The current institutional
population consists increasingly of young persons who are least able to
exercise sociàlly-acceptable behavior. In the survey, one of the primary
concerns of staff centered on the increasing numbers of difficult-to-manage
youths that had been committed to institutions within the last three years.
Table VI summarizer staff questionnaire responses related to how they per-
ceived their institutions were faring in regard to the care, custody, and
control of their charges.
County personnel generally felt they were doing a good job in caring
for and controlling the majority of wards placed in their facilities. However,
they indicated that runaways were an increasing problem. Administrators
stressed that their open, minimum custody facilities no longer provided the
degree of security and custody needed. Only 64% of county staff (and only
one-third of State employees) felt that they had an effective program for
runaways. Staff members expressed by far the most concern over the rapidly
growing numbers of emotionally disturbed youth they were receiving. Many
county authorities reported that because of the closing of State Mental
Hygiene resources, resulting from recent statutory amendments, and the lack
of expansion of local resources, they were unable to cope with many of these
seriously disturbed youth. Only 46% of local personnel (and 26% of Youth
Authority staff) believed that their programs were effective for the emotion-
ally disturbed youth. As many of these youths were being processed through
the juvenile courts, they backed up in juvenile halls while awaiting placement,
and frequently the authorities were forced to send them to county camps and
ranch programs. Correctional personnel thus have been forced to program
their institutions for a completely different type of ward than those for whom
the facilities were established. Administrators are experiencing a serious
lack of appropriate facilities, personnel, and training. Counties with short-
term institutional treatment programs seemed much better equipped to handle
this problem. Many of the other county administrators interviewed were
considering the possibility of converting a portion of their juvenile halls
into short-term treatment units built around a crisis intervention model.
As mentioned earlier, the State has been asserting for some time that
its population is becoming increasingly more difficult to deal with. A 1969
Youth Authority report, The Disturbed and Intractable Wards, concluded that
"the Youth Authority has a more difficult, more delinquently-oriented, more
emotionally disturbed population than any other juvenile institution system
in the country, probably in the world". 9 This contention was based on three
(
TABLE VI
EVALUATION OF CARE, CUSTODY, AND CONTROL
(Staff Responses)
PERCENT
QUESTIONS
CYA
COUNTIES
1. With respect to its functions of care, custody, and control
in the past year, has your institution:
Lost ground
31
16
Held it own
28
31
Improved
41
53
2. How do you assess your institution with respect to care of wards?
36 I I
Poor
6
2
Average
16
8
Good
89
90
3. How do you assess your institution with respect to custody of
wards?
Poor
23
18
Average
33
36
Good
44
46
4. How do you assess your institution with respect to control of
wards?
Poor
22
4
Average
31
20
Good
46
76
(
(
TABLE VI (continued)
PERCENT
QUESTIONS
CYA
COUNTY
5. In the past year, have the characteristics and needs of
institutionalized youths:
Remained same
17
30
Changed slightly
42
50
Changed drastically
41
20
6. In the past year, has the number of assaults on staff:
Decreased
14
9
37 I I
Remained same
32
74
Increased
54
17
7. In the past year, has the number of racial and ethnic
assaults among youth:
Decreased
13
16
Remained same
39
75
Increased
48
9
8. In the past year, has the number of runaways:
Decreased
15
16
Remained same
34
30
Increased
52
53
- 38 -
factors. First, California's local camp system is by far the most developed
in the country and handles roughly the "best one-third" of confined youths
in the State, leaving only the harder-to-manage cases for the Youth Authority.
Second, the probation subsidy program has been siphoning off an additional
portion of the more tractable wards. Third, society's general unrest and
turmoil, particularly among the young, evidenced by civil rights activity,
distrust of the establishment and occasional defiance of authority, and
racial conflict. have become intensified in institutional populations.
Charts I to VI, showing updated data from the above-mentioned study, reflect
the marked increase in serious "acting-out" behavior among institutionalized
wards from 1965-70. The report concluded that little could be done to alleviate
these problems without significantly increasing the staffing ratios, reducing
living unit size, and strengthening the whole range of medical-psychiatric
resources.
As seer in Table VI, the Task Force staff questionnaire responses
substantiate :he Youth Authority's overall concern about its custody and
control functions. Since the publication of the above report, i.e. in the
past year, "acting-out" incidents have risen sharply. Both classification
unit personnel (who review all new commitments) and reception center workers
confirmed the opinions of other staff that a higher proportion of intake
cases consist of seriously disturbed youth.
Program
As is t'ue with any part OT the correctional system, program is the
backbone of the entire operation--the core of its very existence. Everything
else is auxiliary. Because society has traditionally shown greater concern
about its children, correctional administrators have usually been able to
secure more resources for programs in juvenile institutions than is the case
with adult offenders. However, even correctional programs and facilities for
children traditionally have been weak and have been subordinated to the needs
of the institution. In discussing training schools across the country,
Gibbons summarizes their program history:
"Training schools in the past have usually operated
a minimal treatment program. Most inmates have
been placed in a school program or some kind of
vocational or other work experience. Occasionally
they receive some kind of individual therapy from
a social case worker, but this tends to be a
relatively infrequent event.
He adds that, even in California, "where treatment goals have been emphasized
in State institutions for several decades, training schools place primary
emphasis 11 upon regimentation of youngsters in the interests of controlling
them!.
In general, there are three major types of programs that do or should
exist in juvenile institutions: treatment, education, and work or vocational
training.
- 39 -
CHART
I
ATTEMPTED SUICIDES
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1365-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
Attempted suicide is an incident where a ward, in the judgment of staff concerned,
has made an attempt to take his life. Deaths Decerring from these attempts are
included in this category.
CHART
II
ATTACKS ON STAFF OR WARDS
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
Reported in this category are unprovoked attacks or assaults by a ward on another
ward or staff.
CHART
III
SELF INFLICTED INJURIES
105
90
75
60
45
30
15
0
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
These are incidents in which a ward has voluntarily injured himself, e.g., shoving
his hand through a window, striking a wall, etc. Also included in this category
are suicidal gestures without a clear suicidal intent.
- 40 -
CHART IV
RESTRAINTS NEEDED
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
This is a combination of both mechanical and chemical restraints. It involves
either the use of handcuffs or camisoles, or the use of mace or tear gas.
CHART
V
FIGHTS - INVOLVING INJURIES
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
The data given on fights reflect only those fights occurring (normally between
two wards) where an injury occurred which required medical attention.
CHART VI
ESCAPES
420
360
300
240
180
120
60
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
An escape is defined as a ward leaving an institution of the Youth Authority, the
Department of Corrections, or the Department of Mental Hygiene without permission.
This includes leaving the control of institution staff while off grounds, on work
assignments, or on a trip, regardless of the duration of the absence. This does
not include a ward who fails to return on time from a day pass or furlough.
- 41 -
Treatment. While California is widely recognized as being in the
avant garde in developing treatment programs, deviations from the basic
principles outlined in the previous chapter nevertheless occur throughout
the State's facilities on a daily basis. For example, there are many
instances where wards are not provided with a continuum of treatment before,
during, and after confinement. In addition, the necessary range of treatment
services does not exist for all of the youths confined in local and State
institutions. In short, substantial progress has been accomplished, but
much more remains to be done.
Related to the above, the staff survey found that only 36% of all
Youth Authority workers and 41% of county boys' camp staff indicated that
"specialized treatment" played a primary role in their respective institutions.
However, 85% of the staff employed in local girls' schools felt it played a
significant role. Many stated that they lacked the necessary resources,
while others commented on the need for additional training, particularly in
basic casework techniques.
Education. Academic training continues to be the primary emphasis in
most of California's juvenile institutions. Sixty-nine percent of Youth
Authority boys' school staff, 83% of their girls' school employees, and 68%
of all county personnel reported that educational programs clearly played
a primary rol< in their facilities. The major problem reported by county
staff members was the existence of occasional conflicts between school staff
and institutional administrators. At present, County Boards of Supervisors
have the authority to arrange for either the County Superintendent of Schools
or a loca] school district to provide the educational program in any juvenile
facility. 12 All of the study counties chose the first option, which establish-
es a dual administration within the facility. A number of camp administrators
complained that because of this organizational arrangement, they were left
without adequate control over the most important component of their overall
program. Other administrators asserted that not only did they have an
excellent relationship with the school personnel, but also would probably
be unable to obtain such efficient and economical services through any other
arrangement. In this respect, California law is not consistent with the
national standard which recommends that "The entire educational program
within a training school should be administered within the institutions'
administrative structure". 13 Additionally, a number of institutions through-
out the State do not adhere to the standard that a year-round school program
be available to all "who can benefit from an education". 14
Work and vocational training. While facilities for younger wards are
almost always academically-oriented, a number of institutions for older youths
concentrate on work experience, and to a significantly lesser degree, voca-
tional training. Unfortunately, few programs provide training or work exper-
ience that truly help reintegrate youths back into their communities. The
hundreds of wards placed in forestry and dairy type programs find little
demand for lumber-jacks and shepherds when they return to their urban
ghettoes.
- 42 -
The most serious problem is the paucity of vocational training programs
for the rapidly growing 18-21 year oid group in the Youth Authority. As of
December 31, 1970, the median age for institutionalized Youth Authority wards
was 18.6 years (18.8 for boys)--a figure that has been edging upward over the
last few years. 15 Hence, it is obvious that CYA facilities need to significantly
upgrade and expand their vocational training efforts. Such programs should be
balanced with an increased number of college level programs for those who can
profit from them (such as those pioneered at Fricot and the Youth Training
School).
Summary. Treatment, educational, and vocational training programs in
particular need to be reevaluated and strengthened at both State and county
levels.
The Youth Authority presently consists of a vast, bureaucratic network
of reception centers, institutions, and camps that were built as a result of
the pressures of the post-war years. Most of the existing programs have been
shaped because of population pressures, lack of resources, and concern over
smooth-running facilities, rather than by analysis of or planning for the
needs of the youth that have been served. Inadequate coordination between
and within institutions (as reported by 44% of staff), has resulted in consid-
erable duplication of programs with limited capacity to provide the range of
services required for effective differential treatment. Geographic location,
excessive living unit size, and staffingratios have continued to pose serious
handicaps. Furthermore, although the Youth Authority has evolved from a
system for children and youth to an agency for youth and young adults, thereby
falling more closely in line with its original purpose, it has nevertheless
fallen further behind in its ability to provide effective programs for the
young adult. Finally, only 40% of staff felt that their overall institutional
services had improved in the last year.
It should be noted, however, that the Youth Authority has recognized
many of its problems and is striving actively to eliminate deficiencies and
to maintain its standing as one of the nation's foremost juvenile correctional
agencies. Within the past three years it has taken a number of steps to
become a more effective and responsive system. It has commissioned a series
of task forces to study various aspects of its operation. It has also estab-
lished the treatment team concept in its institutions, as well as the adoption
of I-level as its official system of classification. Other signs of change
have been efforts to move decision-making down to the lowest level of the
organizational hierarchies; regionalization of its institutions; beginning
integration between field and institutional services; formulation of a long
range plan to revitalize the education program; the development of a pilot
coeducational program at Ventura; and long range research efforts in the
Northern Youth Center.
As described in Chapter II, many of the county facilities were estab-
lished on the forestr/ camp model. This format has resulted in the development
of programs that have little to do with helping the ward readjust to his
society. As camps for younger wards have developed, they have become more
academically oriented. These two types of programs comprise the bulk of
- 43 -
juvenile institutions that have been available for delinquents in most
counties. As a result, there is a noticeable similiarity of program within
and between neighboring counties. Only recently, have some counties employed
a wider variety of strategies, such as day care centers and short-term
treatment units, thereby allowing greater individualized programming. County
programs for the older adolescent and young adults are almost non-existent.
This is true even though there is enabling legislation. As yet, no county
has established a "Youth Correctional Center" or, as far as the Juvenile
Insitution Task Force was able to determine, any equivalent types of programs.
In spite of the above shortcomings, county staff felt, to a much greater
extent than State personnel, that their programs were coordinated and that
they received feedback on whether or not their efforts with "graduates" had
proved successful.
Perhaps the most common limitation of any institutional program is
the tendency to have the program fit the needs of the institution, instead
of accommodating the needs of the individual client. A corresponding limi-
tation consists of viewing the institution as an end in itself rather than
as a temporary back-up service for field supervision programs.
Release and Aftercare
Just as intake and classification are important links between preinsti-
tutional handling and the institution, so should placement and aftercare
services provide an effective bridge back into the community. The three
processes should not be viewed as separate events, but as part of the same
continuum of treatment. The well-established fact that the greatest recidivism
occurs within a short time after release¹ also underscores the importance of
concentrating services during those crucial weeks or months immediately follow-
ing release. The two major issues here are when to release the ward and how
to best provide him with a continuum of treatment between institution and
community.
Length of stay and readiness for release. The first critical problem
is to predict accurately readiness for release or, minimally, the point at
which further confinement serves no beneficial purpose.
As mentioned in Chapter II, the average stay in county juvenile
institutions has dropped significantly in the past few years to a current
average of 5.4 months. 18 The Youth Authority, on the other hand, has
increased its average length of stays markedly, particularly in the last
3 or 4 years. Table VII shows the mean length of stay for Youth Authority
wards over the past decade and the percent increase from the first half
of the decade to 1970. With the exception of the 1968 figure for girls in
CYA facilities, the average lengths of stay in 1970 were the longest in at
least a decade. Thus, while fewer youths are being committed to institutions,
the average length of stay for those who are confined has increased. The
survey data suggest that the increased periods of confinement are generally
endorsed by the institutional staff in the Youth Authority and conversely the
employees of local juvenile institutions endorsed the declining lengths of
TABLE VII
MEAN LENGTH OF STAY OF WARDS IN CYA AND CDC INSTITUTIONS
PRIOR TO RELEASE ON PAROLE, 1961-1970
(In Months)
INSTITUTION
Percent
OF
Increase
RELEASE
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
From 1961-5
To 1970
Boys - CYA
Institutions
8.6
8.9
8.7
9.0
8.8
8.6
9.4
10.0
9.9
10.5
19%
Girls - CYA
Institutions
8.5
8.5
8.2
7.4
7.8
8.4
8.4
9.0
8.6
8.7
7%
Boys - CDC
Institutions
11.2
12.5
13.3
13.4
13.7
14.2
12.1
12.6
15.1
15.1
18%
44 # I
Girls - CDC
Institutions
11.0
11.6
12.3
12.9
14.7
13.6
14.5
15.4
16.4
26.92
115%
Source: Department of Youth Authority, Annual Statistical Report: 1969, p. 25; also "Monthly
Statistical Report", December, 1970, mimeographed.
1 These percentages represent the increase from the average of the means of 1961-1965
to the mean of 1970.
2This figure is so high due to 2 girls who were paroled in 1970 after serving 4 and 5
years respectively. If those 2 girls were not counted, the mean stay would be 15.4
months.
- 45 -
stay for wards in their facilities. Table VIII shows that 41% of the CYA
staff believed the length of stay to be about right. An additional 34%
felt that youths were released prematurely, thus opting for even longer
periods of confinement. On the other hand, 74% of the staff in county
facilities believed that their wards were released at about the right time.
Virtually no staff felt that wards were being held too long.
However, despite the clear differences of opinion between staff members
of local and State institutions, there is considerable evidence that suggests
that many, if not most, of even "hard core" youthful offenders can be released
after much shorter periods of confinement without decreasing or jeopordizing
the community. In the early 1960's, the Fremont Experiment at the Youth
Authority Southern Reception Center assigned youths randomly in regular
institutional programs (averaging 9 months) or in the Fremont unit (for a
fixed period of 5 months) with a rich treatment program. A two year parole
follow-up of graduates showed that the experimental group (Fremont unit) had
no higher recidivism rate and no more serious types of offenses than the
control group. 19
Following up on the Fremont Experiment, the same reception center
developed the Marshall Program in the mid 1960's. This program attempted to
create a therapeutic community model, employing a treatment team approach,
but limited the program to only 3 months. Part I of the analysis of the
Marshall Program found that "For the total sample of consecutive admissions,
the Marshall graduates exhibited a slightly lower parole violation rate than
the comparison group". 20 The comparison group consisted of wards who went
through regular, longer institutional programs. Even "when selection bias
was (partly) controlled by the case-matching procedure, the violation rates
were found to be virtually equivalent" 21 Part II of the analysis carefully
followed the effects of the program on different types of youths. During
the follow-up period, the Marshall graduates had a higher violation rate
than the control group (72% compared to 56%). 22 However, "when the group
violation rates were recomputed excluding lone offenders, the violation rates
converged impressively--Marshall Program: 67%; matched comparison group:
62%; no significant difference". 23 In fact, some types of youths from
Marshall fared better than did their "matches". The major implications of
the Marshall study are two-fold. First, many, if not most youths, do just
as well on parole after a relatively brief period of confinement than if
they are incarcerated for longer periods. Second, the data clearly suggest
that certain types of youths fare better in this kind of program while other
types of wards do worse.
Similarly, the recent Ventura Intensive Treatment Program (VITP)
compared girls placed in a 3 month special program with a control group who
averaged 7.6 months of institutionalization. The project researcher concluded:
"In terms of testing the feasibility of assigning selected wards to a three
month institutional program without seriously increasing the recidivism rate,
the VITP program appears to have adequately achieved this goal". 24 Further-
more, he pointed out that "in occupancy expenses alone financial savings of
$570,248 were effected during the first 18 months of the program, or roughly
$380,165 per year". 25
(
TABLE VIII
READINESS FOR RELEASE - STAFF VIEWS
(Percentage Distribution)
STAFF FEELING
CYA STAFF
COUNTY STAFF
ABOUT RELEASE
ALL
ALL
SHORT-TERM
OF WARDS
CYA COUNTY
RECEPTION
BOYS
GIRLS
BOYS
GIRLS
TREATMENT
STAFF STAFF
CENTERS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
CAMPS
SCHOOLS
SCHOOLS
UNITS
Usually premature
34
21
35
38
20
22
26
16
7
Usually well co-
ordinated with
youth's readi-
ness
41
74
41
36
62
51
65
82
93
46 I I
Usually no rela-
tionship to
youth's readi-
ness
22
5
24
23
13
27
8
2
0
Usually overdue
3
0
0
3
6
0
1
0
0
- 47 -
The best known and perhaps most successful of all programs which
demonstrated the feasibility of reducing or eliminating incarceration is
the Youth Authority's Community Treatment Project which has existed since
1961. This program has placed wards directly on parole after the reception
center process. The treatment strategy has been to classify the youths
according to I-level theory and to "match" them with parole agents who have
been evaluated as being particularly capable of working with that type of
ward. The success of this program has been so noticeable that the program
director has stated:
"By 1964, the feasibility of treating a large proportion
of the juvenile offender population in intensive commu-
ity programs rather than in institutions was a settled
issue. In addition, it was clear that the community
program offered higher success than the traditional
Youth Authority program. "26
Subsequent research has documented that the Community Treatment Project, like
the Marshall Program, has been more successful with certain types of youths
than with others. However, researchers have been careful to stress that:
"CTP's effectiveness is not simply a result of its
having operated within a community setting: all avail-
alle evidence suggests that the avoidance of institu-
tionalization, in itself, contributes little if anything
to the experimental-contro] differences in parole success.
In other words, it is the differential or intensive/
extensive treatment aspects which appear to be of
fundamental importance. "27
All of the above evidence supports the premise that the period of
institutionalization can be minimal for many types of youths, assuming that
intensive treatment is available in the alternative program. The fact that
Youth Authority average stays continue to rise and that staff, particularly
CYA personnel, reel that youths are released too soon raises the question
of whether staff is overly conservative and, perhaps, fighting for their
existence by retaining the fewer youths they do receive for longer periods
of time. In this regard, one highly placed State official opined that the
increasing length of stay in Youth Authority institutions was in no small
way due to "the self-preservation squirming of a bureaucratic system attempt-
ing to protect itself, its jobs, programs, etc".
Links between institution and aftercare. The second issue related to
release concerns construction of the bridge -- specifically, how aftercare
supervision should be linked with institutional treatment. As might be
expected (due simply to proximity to the community), the counties throughout
the State seem to be integrating these services far more effectively than
the Youth Authority. Eighty-two percent of the county staff reported that
personal contact was made between field and institutional workers, and one-
third of them indicated dditional contacts were made with other significant
persons in the youth's home environment. On the other hand, 69% of the
- 48 -
Youth Authority staff reported that this transition was only a "paper process"
and that it did not exist in fact. Again, county programs are somewhat more
flexible either in terms of allowing institutional personnel to supervise
some of their graduates as part of their normal duties, or by requiring field
personnel to become involved with their future wards while they are still in
the institution. Staff preference appears to be in favor of community-based
units with small caseloads (about 15 per worker), allowing time to work with
the youth and his family before release, and to provide intensive supervision
during the critical transition period. Furloughs are also being used increas-
ingly to facilitate a ward's gradual reintegration.
As stated above, the Youth Authority is aware of problems it faces in
linking institutions with parole and has attempted to minimize the obstacles
by placing both types of services in the same division. However, geography
and the traditional gaps between these components continue to hinder their
forming closer linkages.
As an overall evaluation, staff were asked: "Are there programs at
your institution that really seem to be making sense in helping the youth
in his move back into the community?" Ninety percent of county staff and
77% of the Youth Authority employees replied affirmatively.
III. RESOURCES
Now that the principal goals and functions or tasks of juvenile
institutions have been examined, it is essential to look at the resources
that are available to them in carrying out their responsibilities. As used
here, the notion of resources is a very broad one. It encompasses all those
factors that facilitate or hinder the correctional process.
While the following variables are discussed one at a time and while
some are more important than others, it should be remembered that they do
not operate independently. They are all interrelated and tend to have a
cumulative effect. It is the accumulation or "cluster" of positive or
negative factors that effects how an institution carries out its functions
and determines the extent to which it accomplishes it goals. For example,
there is a high degree of agreement among researchers that the most signif-
icant factor affecting an institution's ability to change its wards is the
development of a proper social climate, commonly referred to as a "thera-
peutic milieu". 28 This therapeutic climate or milieu, however, is dependent
on a host of variables such as location, design, institutional size, living
unit size, staffing ratios, quality of staff, as well as other characteristics
to be discussed below.
Geographic Location
An institution should be geographically located so that it can be an
integral part of the community it serves. This factor is SO important that
it effects the very nature of programming and reintegration efforts by an
- 49 -
institution. It also relates to the ability of the institution to recruit
and train competent personnel, to mobilize community resources, to build
and strengther family ties, to develop and maintain relevant educational
and vocationa programs, and to serve as a change agent within the community.
An institution that is not located in or immediately adjacent to the commun-
ity it serves operates under a handicap that is extremely difficult to over-
come.
Geographic location is considered to be a definite problem at the
county level and a critical and almost insurmountable obstacle at the
State level.
As noted earlier, most counties have employed the "forestry-camp"
concept in establishing their camps and ranches. As a result they are
located in isclated portions of the respective counties. While there are
exceptions to this pattern, most camps require extended private transportation
to and from the community which exacerbates the problem of establishing linkages
between themselves and the communities they serve. Most of the recently
established courty facilities, particularly the short-term treatment centers,
are located within acceptable geographic limits. However, in reviewing the
location of other types of institutions in the sample counties, it appears
that more than half of them are located in areas that tend to hinder, rather
than enhance, their correctional effectiveness.
The State picture is considerably more dismal. Only three institutions
are situated in such a way that they can effectively relate to local commun-
ities. The three institutions are the Northern Reception Center at Perkins,
the Southern Reception Center at Norwalk, and the Nelles School for Boys in
Whittier. A fourth facility, the Youth Training School in Chino, might be
geographically well-situated in approximately ten years if the population
growth continues. The same is true for the Ventura School for Girls in
Camarillo. At the present time, however, only 20% of the Youth Authority's
institutional resources are situated in locations that readily lend themselves
to the task of reintegration.
The Youth Authority has an additional handicap to overcome. Not only
are most of its institutions located in rural areas, but they are also not
located in the most expedient sections of the State. Sixty percent of all
of the Youth Authority's bed space is in Northern California. And yet it
receives 64% of its commitments from Southern California.
Considerable time and effort has been spent attempting to work around
these handicaps. Most recently the CYA has attempted to regionalize its
institution and field resources. This has met with only limited success. As
reflected in Table IX, youth from Southern California are still being sent all
over the State. Thirty-seven percent of the youth confined at Preston and 21%
of those at 0. H. Close and Karl Holton are at least 350 miles away from their
home. Sixty-three percent of the youths confined in the four Northern conserva-
tion camps come from Southern California. Paso Robles, located half way
between the two major population centers of Los Angeles and San Francisco,
receives 77% of its youth from Southern California, 12% from the San Francisco
region, and the balance from the rest of the State. The Northern Youth Center,
TABLE IX
PERCENTAGE OF WARDS IN YOUTH AUTHORITY INSTITUTIONS
BY AREA OF COMMITMENT
AREA
BOYS INSTITUTIONS
GIRLS SCHOOLS
OF
(Including
(Including
COMMITMENT
Location)
Location)
Nelles
O.H.
Karl
Camps
Ventura
Los
(Whit-
Y.T.S.
Paso
Preston
Close
Holton
(All 4
(Cama-
Guilucos
Total
tier)
(Chino)
Robles
(Ione)
(Stocktn)
(Stocktn)
North)
rillo)
(S.Rosa)
Southern
California
64
99
91
77
37
21
19
63
96
1
San Francisco
Bay Area
21
1
5
12
40
50
48
20
3
65
50 I 8
Balance of
State
15
0
5
11
23
29
33
17
2
35
Source: Department of Youth Authority, Characteristics of CYA Wards: December 31, 1970, State of
California (Sacramento, 1970), pp. 9-15