Chapter 4
Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails Management Issues
Introduction
The presence of youthful offenders in facilities designed and operated for
adult offenders creates issues for correctional administrators. The strate-
gies for addressing these issues vary widely among states, depending on
the system for committing youth to adult correctional facilities, the nature
of the facilities utilized, and the experience of the staff dealing with youth-
ful offenders. To better assess the issues facing correctional administrators
and the management strategies currently in place, the project team visited
several states with adult prisons and jails that house juveniles.
Table 12 presents summary data on the institutions that participated in this
review. Sites were selected based on their distinct programs and the num-
ber of youthful offenders incarcerated in the adult facilities. One cannot
assume that the facilities visited are typical of all adult facilities (jails and
prisons) holding youthful inmates. The objective was to visit several facili-
ties to document how various correctional systems are dealing with this
issue.
The project team examined several components at each site. Members
focused on gaining an appreciation of the way administrators perceive the
youthful offender issue and identifying the management strategies each
jurisdiction has developed. The findings of the project team are summa-
rized below for each system and facility visited.
Arizona Department of Corrections
Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, Florence, Arizona
Program description.The Special Management Unit (SMU) II for minors
at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman serves as the state’s super
maximum-security facility for the incarceration of offenders who represent
a threat to the orderly operation of the state prison system. Youthful of-
fenders are incarcerated in a self-contained unit within this institution,
which also houses the department’s death row and specialized mental
health unit.
Arizona law mandates separate facilities for youthful offenders. The state
maintains another 114-bed unit at Rincon for youthful offenders who are
sentenced as adults. Placement in SMU results from serious disciplinary
infractions at Rincon. In effect, SMU functions as a disciplinary segregation
unit for the department’s youthful offenders sentenced to the adult correc-
tional facility.
Institution Type of Facility Total Capacity Youthful Offenders
Arizona State Prison Complex-Super maximum-security75220 Eyman; Florence, Arizona facility
Brevard Correctional Institution;Youthful offender facility; up to81470 Sharpes, Florida age 24; all custody levels
Florida Correctional Institution;Female offender facility;711142 Lowell, Florida all custody levels
Hillsborough Correctional Youthful offender facility; up to272125 Institution; Riverview, Florida age 24; all custody levels
Indian River Correctional Youthful offender facility; up to292144 Institution; Vero Beach, Florida age 21; all custody levels
St. Brides Correctional Center;Youthful offender facility;57022 Chesapeake, Virginia up to age 21; minimum- and
medium-security offenders
Adolescent Reception and Jail2,548526 Detention Center;
Rikers Island, New York
Rose M. Singer Center;Jail1,87435
Rikers Island, New York
House of Correction;Jail65974 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Constructed in 1997, SMU is a state-of-the-art super maximum-security
facility. The unit is designed to hold 20 juvenile offenders and currently
operates at full capacity. All functions related to the operation of the unit
are provided onsite. Juveniles’ movements to programs and services out-
side the unit are controlled by rigid schedules and physical barriers that
ensure total separation from the adult population. The facility is currently
under a consent decree relating to crowded living conditions, program
availability, medical and mental health services, disciplinary policy, and
access to legal services and mail.
Arizona uses an objective classification system to guide placement in
the super-maximum custody status. The classification instrument assigns
points for a variety of factors, including the nature of the offense, escape
history, and misconduct while in prison. The resulting score can be
reduced by remaining free of serious misconduct while at SMU and by
completing specific programs, such as the GED program.
Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails The unit functions as a typical super maximum-security facility, allowing resi-
dents limited personal property, prohibiting audiovisual equipment, and re-
quiring residents to wear a uniform. Youth are permitted to exercise outside
the cell for three 1-hour periods each week and may take three showers per
week. Visits are noncontact and limited in number and duration. Inmates are
shackled and escorted by officers during all movements outside the cell. The
day-to-day operation of the unit is similar to the operation of typical adult, su-
per maximum-security units, with emphasis placed on discipline and control.
Services. SMU has a well-conceived array of programs for youthful of-
fenders. Youth must participate in and complete two of three programs,
listed below.
u Hazelden’s: A Design for Living. This substance abuse treatment
program is based on the Alcohol Anonymous 12-step program. The
course consists of reading short booklets and completing a test, writing
an essay, or both. Successful completion of the program reduces an
offender’s classification points.
u Cage Your Rage. This anger-management program is based on
techniques developed at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary in Canada and
assists offenders in recognizing feelings of anger, their causes, and
methods to control and modify anger. This program is mandatory for
all unit residents.
u Biblio Program. This literacy self-help program is based on readings
and essays from a list of materials. Upon completion of a reading
assignment, the youth must write an essay on the material’s relevance
to his life.
Program participation is based on a clinical assessment of each youth’s
needs. The program offerings are designed to accommodate the disciplin-
ary structure of SMU.
Youth must comply with grooming standards, attend study periods, and
maintain their cells in accordance with SMU regulations. All youth are ex-
pected to participate in physical fitness, mental alertness, and recreational
programs, which include word-search contests, puzzles, and fitness chal-
lenges and testing.
The facility offers a range of educational programs, including mandatory
GED preparation. Residents who already have diplomas must complete a
book report every 2 weeks. Vocational courses are offered, but college-
level courses are not available. Each resident is afforded 3 hours each day
to attend classes. Instruction is provided in an area with adjacent study
cells facing a common instruction area. In this manner, instruction can be
provided on a face-to-face basis with group interaction, while maintaining
a high degree of security. Instruction is enhanced with a variety of sophis-
ticated instructional aids, and each study cell is wired for video and audioinstructional systems controlled by the instructor.
This learning environment results in a positive atmosphere. Class partici-pation is high, and residents seem to value the program and appear moti-vated to achieve their educational goals. Because educational programs provide one of the few opportunities that youth have for out-of-cell time and interaction, great significance is attached to participation in them. Medical staff, including doctors, nurses, and mental health professionals, are available daily. Youth with serious mental health issues are not eligible for the program. There are no facilities in SMU for intensive mental health services, and sight and separation issues make using the larger facility’s mental health unit problematic. On the day of the site visit, 20 percent of the residents were receiving mental health treatment. Despite the preva-lence of mental health issues in adult super maximum facilities, SMU staff did not indicate
any special mental health needs for the youthful offender population. The relatively low level of serious mental health issues may be attributable to careful screening of candidates for the unit. A review of files did not reveal any indicators of serious mental health issues (e.g., suicide attempts) and showed that mental health services were routinely being provided.
Offender profiles. Of the 20 youth housed in SMU II, more than half were sentenced to prison for violent crimes, including 7 sentenced for serious property offenses. The main reason for their placement in SMU II was typically a serious infraction of department rules involving an assault on staff or on other inmates or gang activity. Half of the residents were His-panic, six were black, and four were white. Sixteen of the residents were 17 years old, three were 16 years old, and one was 15, the youngest resident ever housed at the facility. The longest period of commitment to SMU was
13 months, and the minimum stay was 6 months.
A review of a sample of the case files of unit residents confirmed that most had a history of violent offenses. The following cases are representative of the backgrounds of youth incarcerated at SMU:
u Offender one was a 15-year-old serving a minimum of 5 years for assault and possession of a weapon for his involvement in a gang-
related, drive-by shooting. His background showed no prior juvenile or adult criminal record but indicated a history of alcohol and substance abuse. He had completed the ninth grade. His placement at SMU II was the result of an assault on staff.
u Offender two was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 8 years for armed robbery. At the time of this offense, he was on adult probation for other offenses. He has an extensive juvenile record, including
several convictions for weapons-related charges. He was transferred to SMU II for multiple incidents, including inciting a riot, creating a work stoppage, and participating in an institutional disturbance.
Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails u Offender three was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 5 years for
aggravated assault. The offense occurred during his participation in a
drive-by shooting. His background indicated a history of alcohol and
drug abuse that began at age 12. Prior to his latest arrest, he had more
than 20 arrests as a juvenile for a variety of offenses. He was transferred
to SMU II for multiple episodes of misconduct, none of which involved
violent behavior.
u Offender four was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 3.5 years for
possession of a stolen vehicle, assault, and aggravated assault. His
background indicated 10 prior juvenile arrests and 3 prior dispositions
in adult court. He was transferred to SMU II for threatening an
employee and other episodes of misconduct.
u Offender five was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 10 years for
attempted murder committed during a gang-related, drive-by shooting.
His background indicated no previous criminal record but showed
extensive alcohol and drug abuse. He was transferred to SMU II for
assault.
u Offender six was a 16-year-old serving a minimum of 18 years for
manslaughter. His record showed prior juvenile dispositions. He
was transferred to SMU II for assaulting staff.
Arizona laws are flexible in their criteria for the transfer of a juvenile to
adult court. Because of this flexibility, the youthful offender population
has committed a wide range of offenses. Most of the offenses described in
the case files are serious, but several would not qualify for transfer in other
states. Four of the six offenders received a sentence for a lesser offense re-
sulting from a plea bargain.
Alcohol and drug use as well as gang involvement were frequently noted
in the offender’s background. Most surprising was the absence of any prior
criminal record for two offenders. A variety of disciplinary infractions had
resulted in placement at SMU II.
General observations.SMU II appears to be the only institution in the
United States that provides a super maximum-security environment for
youthful offenders. However, this level of security is more a function of
the way Arizona has chosen to manage and provide programs for this
population than a reflection of the nature of the offenders. Although vio-
lent and disruptive, the offenders housed in SMU II are not significantly
different from the juvenile offenders found in the segregation units of most
maximum-security juvenile correctional facilities across the country. SMU
II’s innovative approach to programming for these difficult-to-manage
youth is unique. The juvenile unit at SMU II functions as a controlled set-
ting for the delivery of services to juveniles who have been disruptive to
the general facility population.
Within the tightly controlled context of a super maximum-security facility, SMU II staff have developed programs that complement the facility secu-rity. Staff use the control aspects of the environment to increase incentives to participate in educational and treatment programs. The program offer-ings are well developed, are specific to population needs, and have written criteria to evaluate progress and performance. Moreover, the offenders’progress through these programs is connected to the reclassification of the offender back to the general population. The concerns that might be ex-pressed about the impact of a maximum-security environment on youth appear to be substantially mitigated by the quality of the programs offered at the facility and the incentives for offenders to use these offerings pro-ductively. The enhanced control and discipline of SMU II may provide the degree
of structure required to successfully control and provide program services for certain types of youthful offenders.
Florida Department of Corrections
Brevard Correctional Institution, Sharpes, Florida Florida Correctional Institution, Lowell, Florida Hillsborough Correctional Institution,
Riverview, Florida
Indian River Correctional Institution,
Vero Beach, Florida
Program descriptions. The state of Florida operates a youthful offender program for inmates up to age 24 who have received an adult sentence and have been committed to the Department of Corrections. Offenders in this age group with an adult sentence of less than 10 years are eligible for the program. Offenders under the age of 24 who have been convicted of mur-der or who are serving life sentences are not eligible for the program. Florida law also permits juvenile court judges to certify individuals meet-ing these criteria into the program. The department can also designate in-dividuals f
or placement into the program.
The vast majority of youthful offenders in Florida, age 17 or younger, are participating in the youthful offender program. Exceptions are those youth who have been decertified from the program and transferred to adult cor-rectional facilities. These decertifications are generally for disciplinary rea-sons. Decertifications have also been made to create space for new admissions to the program. Statutes allow the department to recommend sentence reductions to the court for youth who have completed the pro-gram and appear ready for reintegration into society. Several facilities re-port making recommendations for sentence reductions to the department’s central office, but to date, none of these recommendations have been for-warded to the court.
豫公网安备41160202000603
站长QQ:729038198
关于我们
投诉建议