Cecilia Kline

7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline

1/77

Oak Hill Detention Center:Promoting Change or Chains?

By: Cecilia Kline

May 10, 2002

Project D.C.: Urban Research InternshipSOCI-438-01

Prof. Sam Marullo


2/77


3/77

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1

The purpose of this summary is to provide an overview of the study completed at

Oak Hill Youth Center and the recommendations it generated. As a result of the findings

from interviews with administrators, staff and residents of Oak Hill, the study suggests

five recommendations for changes in the operations of the facility2.

Methodology

Stemming from involvement with the Georgetown University mentorship

program, Oak Hill Outreach, I conducted this study as part of my senior thesis work in

Sociology. Supported by a large amount of literature, from best practices, to case law

and media coverage of Oak Hill, this research was conducted to identify the most

pressing concerns in the facilitys operation.

Based on the objectives set forth in the Youth Services Administrations mission

statement for Oak Hill, this study measured four factors of the centers conditions. These

factors were operationalized as education, habitability, counseling, and safety. Interviews

were conducted with residents, staff and administrators of Oak Hill. Interviews examined

each respondents evaluation of the facility through quantitative and open-ended

questions. Results were measured through overall ratings generated for each factor and

patterns noted in the commentary of the free response sections. Ratings were compared

between subject groups and between each study factor.

1 Model for executive summary adapted from Howlett, Michael J. 2001. Final Report of the JuvenileCompetency Commission.2 These recommendations are not in conflict with the overall goal of ultimately closing the facility andinstituting the least restrictive alternatives to detention. Rather, they provide short-term reforms with themind for ensuring the best possible conditions at Oak Hill as long as it is operating.


4/77

4

Discussion/Findings

My findings indicate that Oak Hill is not serving the purposes set forth in its

mission statement. Administrators, staff and residents did not evaluate the conditions at

Oak Hill strongly on the four study factors (see Table I). While there were limitations on

the reliability and validity of the study because of the limited population sample, strong

patterns of agreement and important differences emerged between subjects.

Table I Composite factor ratings (1-5 scale)

residents staff Administrators Total

Safety 3.32 3.51 3.69 3.51

Habitability 3.31 4.19 4.36 3.95

Education 3.49 4.17 3.92 3.86Counseling 3.83 4.17 4.75 4.25

The counseling factor generated the highest overall quantitative rating. Data

showed that Oak Hill offered counseling resources, however, data did not support the

quality or consistency of the services. Education was ranked second highest by residents,

while staff and administrators both rated it second lowest. Both in terms of knowledge of

their legal status and academically, Oak Hill failed to support residents with adequate

resources. Staff and administrators rated safety the lowest, while residents rated

habiltability as the worst condition. Each addressed specific problems according to their

concerns, but all respondents noted the failure of Oak Hill to meet the standards of the

mission statement.


5/77

5

Recommendations

This study generated five recommendations addressing each of the goals set forth

in the YSA mission statement. These include improvements in the staff, facility,

regulations, programming and education system. Standardized training, better recruiting,

support programs and compensation, would improve staff work quality and consistency.

Downsizing and upgrading the structural facility and updating Oak Hills technology

would improve working and living conditions at Oak Hill. Instituting a monthly joint

meeting with administrators, staff and residents to discuss the rules of the facility would

increase the residents knowledge and appreciation of the regulations. Increasing the

quantity of alternative programs through local volunteer groups would offer residents

productive activities while they are detained. Finally, the educational resources,

beginning with the books must be updated and be more readily accessible to residents.


6/77

6

Oak Hill Detention Center:

Promoting Change or Chains?

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Oak Hill Youth Center is the current operating juvenile detention center for the

District of Columbia. For the past decade it has been under government and public

scrutiny and under judicial order to close or reform its facilities. As a youth detention

facility, it is meant to serve the purpose of a reformative holding facility. In addition to

its daily boarding function, this maximum-security facility provides educational,

counseling and alternative programs to its residents. There is much skepticism about the

quality of these programs and the general living conditions. This study is concerned with

the conditions at Oak Hill Youth Center as evaluated by those with first-hand knowledge.

It will do so by gathering administration, staff and resident assessments of how well Oak

Hill meets its stated purpose by the Youth Services Administration mission statement.

How well does Oak Hill execute its mission statement? Oak Hill is considered

here as a detention center. A private facility, or detention center is defined as one that

has the authority to house juvenile offenders and has a population that is at least 10%

offender (Moone 1997). The Oak Hill mission statement goals are stated as follows:

empower youth to become lawful, competent and productive citizens, holding youth

accountable in the least restricted way, establishing and implementing an individual

service plan for each child which assists in competency development, habilitation and

reintegration and promoting public peace and community safety (Youth Services

Administration 2001). These conditions are conceptualized here into four factors:

education, quality of living, counseling, and safety. Interviews with residents, staff and


7/77

7

administrators examine each of these factors through different questions, generating an

overall rating for each factor.

This research will conclude in recommendations enumerating the problematic

conditions at Oak Hill and provide each problem area with a proposed solution. Along

with the recommendations will be the supporting research materials. This will include

the historical analysis done on juvenile detention centers in the US and a compilation of

documents specifically pertaining to Oak Hills history over the past two decades,

including newspaper articles and statistical data. Also included will be models and

results of the interviews conducted with residents, staff, and administrators at the facility

(see Appendix I-VIII). In addition to the proposal for improvements, the results of this

research will be made available to the general public, through a newspaper editorial.

Educating the local community of the problems at Oak Hill is needed to generate support

for action to change its conditions. This article will summarize the findings from my

research and work at Oak Hill. It will outline the proposed solutions to alert the

community that there are feasible solutions that they can demand.

Oak Hill has been under constant pressure from the city for the past two decades

to improve its conditions. There have been numerous proposals to close the facility and

create a number of smaller homes to detain juveniles. Both the inaction from the city and

disorganization at Oak Hill has produced neither of the two results. The proposal

generated from this research project will serve as an immediate action plan for the city to

finally start in reforming the youth center. It will include measurable steps that the

administration of Oak Hill, with support from the District government, will be able to

implement to improve the current conditions.


8/77

8

Violence, corruption and appalling conditions have been continuously uncovered

in the criminal justice system in the United States. Some turn a cold shoulder to

hardened criminals who deserve this kind of treatment, but in an imperfect system

where mistakes are constantly being made, it is unethical to let the lives of anyone be

carried out in the fashion they are in the prisons today. Juvenile detention centers suffer

the same corruption but affect young men and women who are not even old enough to

vote or skilled or experienced enough to advocate for themselves. This leaves them

without effective advocacy resources of their own, individually or collectively. Hence,

there is no check being held to monitor the conditions of detention centers, especially one

that takes into account the insiders perspective. This study will determine the status

from the perspective of those detained and employed at this particular facility as a case

study of detention conditions. Since the majority of the money in juvenile reform goes in

to detention centers, it is both important as a policy issue as well as an ethical matter that

must be addressed (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 3-9).

There is an explicit reason why juveniles are treated differently than adults in

criminal charges. This is based on the belief that juveniles are not fully responsible for

their actions because they do not understand the effects of their actions in the way that

adults can. This belief is founded on a developmental process in which juveniles can still

learn to do the right thing, but it is up to the system to teach them how. Some consider

juvenile delinquency to be a function of individual characteristics. In fact, many social

and cultural factors have conditioned their behaviors. However, the system has proven to

be racist and sexist, which only reinforces stereotypes rather than trying to help detainees

overcome them. It is important to question why there is an overrepresentation of


9/77

9

minorities and the poor in prisons. These facts can potentially perpetuate the stereotypes

in society and make it easier to accept dehumanizing conditions which essentially trap

youth into the system.

The recidivism rate is a clear indication of the failure of the system to function as

a reformatory institution (Lambert 1988). Many studies show the stability of juvenile

delinquency over developmental periods (Loeber 1982). It is a well-known fact that once

a juvenile enters the justice system, it is very difficult to leave. There is a high

progression of juveniles in detention center who go on to serve time in prison. Studies

indicating the social factors predisposing youths to delinquent lifestyles attest to the fact

that this pattern in crime involvement is largely determined by environmental factors

(Moffitt 1990). For instance, the family condition is a primary determinant of delinquent

behavior and reform efforts are increasingly focusing on incorporating the family system

in order to have a lasting effect (Patterson, DeBaryshe and Ramsey 1989, Roberts 1989:

288). Especially in the case of youth, with proper attention and guidance, it has been

shown that they can be turned towards a positive direction (Palomin 2001, Peterson 1996,

Street 1966).

The conditions within the detention centers from the rooms, to the food, to the

staff all effect the youths learning experience while incarcerated. If they are not

adequate they may perpetuate the already hurting self-image of the inmates, and at one of

the most formative time of the youths lives. The social environment can stimulate more

hostility, competition, and hopelessness, as the inmates have nothing more to reflect on

than the life situations, which brought them to detention. For the sake of all citizens it is


10/77

10

imperative to questions the current institutional standards and seek to improve conditions

in facilities such as Oak Hill Youth Center.


11/77

11

LITERATURE REVIEW

Juvenile justice has been a topic of much interest since the inception of

correctional facilities. Since the onset of juvenile detention, state and local governments

have responded with inadequate reforms to problems at juvenile detention centers. One

author concludes, In short, the reform movement has not reduced the numbers of young

people brought into the formal system of social control; rather it has produced a

widening of the nets to encompass ever-increasing numbers of young people in an

increasingly comprehensive system of control (Doig 1982: 61). Since this time, the

literature documents a series of unsuccessful activity to reform the system, tangled in

manipulation of power and definition of goals to serve its own purposes while

maintaining federal funding. The four mission statement criteria will be used to evaluate

the literature pertaining to juvenile detention. These topics will be reviewed both in a

general, nationwide scope and as specifically related to Oak Hill.

The literature covers an extensive history of how the system was instituted in the

United States and how it has evolved over the past centuries. This history includes the

accompanying theories that set up the practices of juvenile detention centers. It also

outlines the inherent problems in the system including the discrimination and

organizational problems that are exhibited at Oak Hill Youth Center today. Recent

reviews of the juvenile corrections system look at the current practices and examine

different approaches that are being tested around the US. The ultimate goal of these

reviews is to determine what is necessary to reform the system. It is imperative that this

research includes the operating conditions of detention centers, as the majority of the

attention in juvenile justice reform is typically placed on intake procedures.


12/77

12

The history of juvenile justice reform has proven to be quite unsuccessful despite

numerous Congressional and legal attempts for improvement. At the turn of the

twentieth century, there was a nation-wide movement to develop a successful juvenile

justice system. Prior to this time, juveniles were processed in the institutions as adults.

Almost as soon as childrens courts were developed, it was recognized that the system

was increasingly abusing its power. Courts were using their own discretion in cases, not

based on the laws, resulting in racist and sexist practices. Reformers known as the Child

Savers, urged juvenile treatment facilities to serve as treatment rather than punishment

facilities (Bowker 1982: 95). In the 1960s and 70s the Supreme Court got involved in

requiring juvenile courts to make significant changes in their procedures. By 1974 the

Bayh Act was made law in attempt to divert at risk juveniles from becoming involved

in the court system. This was the first formalized attempt at a preventative measure to

deal with juvenile delinquency.

The juvenile justice system in the United States is largely based on practices

established in sixteenth and seventeenth-century England. Finckenauer (1984) and Hardy

(1973) discuss the history and theory behind juvenile institutional correction models.

The underlying belief ofparens patriae established the justification for the State power

acting in place of the parent. Detention facilities were originally formed to serve as

temporary custody and as pre-adjudicatory holding. Their purpose was to make sure the

juvenile was present in court, to keep them from a potentially dangerous situation at

home, and to protect themselves and others from any potential danger. Statutory

guidelines outlining the function of detention centers have been manipulated so that they

serve a permanent detention and as a sentencing facility (Finckenauer 1984: 152). This


13/77

13

has created the conflict today of the inability to effectively serve as a treatment center

while serving as a prison function for many inmates.

Oak Hills Youth Services Administration Mission Statement is modeled to serve

a treatment role as a longer-term incarceration facility. It states:

The Youth Services Administration (YSA) empowers youth entrusted to its careto become lawful, competent and productive citizens and appropriately manifestsitself in the District of Columbia as a contributor to the transformation of allyouth, families, and communities by: providing an integrated system of care,custody and services involving youth, family and community, holding youthaccountable in the least restrictive environment, establishing and implementing anindividual service plan for each child which assists in competency development,habilitation and reintegration, and promoting public peace and community safety.

The fact that the residents enter under such different circumstances and for varying

amounts of time makes it virtually impossible to address the needs of each individual.

This fact calls into question the mission of detention centers, as they are not serving the

functions they claim to serve. Furthermore, Schwartz and Barton (1994: 15) point out

that, Although conceived and designed as pre-adjudication holding facilities, detention

centers are increasingly being used for post-adjudication purposes. Confining pre- and

post-adjudication populations in the same facility suggests that detention centers are

playing the same role in the juvenile justice system that jails play in the adult criminal

justice process.

EDUCATION

Educational reform within Oakhill has been successful in individual cases. In

Slevin (1999), the article describes the success a vocational class in computer repair has

had and the story of some inmates going out into District schools to teach other public

school students new skills. While some classes have proven to be helpful since the


14/77

14

joining of Oak Hill to the District of Columbia Public Schools system, the classes and

instruction still do not keep residents up with their current school level. Moreover, the

system can only address a small number of the inmates because of the continual turn over

of residents plus the different educational levels. Inmates enter with drastically low

reading and math proficiency making it impossible to address the needs of an entire class.

Without individual attention, classes at Oak Hill remain amply inefficient and test scores

for residents remain below basic level in both math and English proficiency (DCPS).

The National Juvenile Detention Associations Center for Research and Professional

Development (CRPD) has established a core training curriculum that serves to prepare

teachers at detention facilities to deal with the challenges of this unique setting and

uncommon population (Cramer and White 2000). Such a program is not employed at

Oak Hill as it has gone from the District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) system to a

private firm in 1998 (Slevin 1998), back to DCPS the next school year (Slevin 1999).

Since the last transfer, an improvement in the management and the classes has been noted

(Chan 1999).

HABITABILITY

A large portion of the literature on reform focuses on preventative measures to

detention rather than improving its current conditions. While many programs dealing

with reducing the length of stay and reducing the intake numbers have proven to be

successes in some jurisdictions, they have not dealt with the conditions for those who are

detained. This approach is based on the idea that improving the system that

unnecessarily lock ups so many juveniles will in turn improve the problems of


15/77

15

overcrowding. Attention must still be given to improving the actual conditions for those

youth for which detention is necessary (Schwartz and Barton 1994).

Problems at Oak Hill ranging from adequate food, to fire code violations, to lack

of hot water have been traced through the past decade at Oak Hill (Lewis 1994, 1995).

Kids were sleeping on cots and beds that no one should have been sleeping on. When I

went into Building 10, I said, I wouldnt put my dog on that bed. This was a comment

that an inspector made upon visiting Oak Hill in 1998, before renovations were mandated

by the courts (Slevin 1998). A year later, another article reported inadequate health care

still plaguing the facility despite pressure from the court to improve conditions (Chan

1999).

In Washington DC, the population crisis at Oak Hill was addressed in court in

Jerry M. v. District of Columbia. This case culminated in a court ordered population cap

of 188 youths (Soler 2001). Lewis documents the correctional officers protests to the

overcrowded conditions at Oak Hill in 1993. The dramatic increase in number of

juveniles being locked up has contributed to the large number of overcrowded facilities.

This trend has been nationwide, however the most drastically affected cities were the

same from 1971 and 1989. In 1989 Washington DC had the highest rate of detention

center admissions in the US, incarcerating 15,223 of every 100,000 youth (Schwartz and

Barton 1994: 14). By 1989, 27.5% of the facilities were over capacity, housing 50.4%

of all incarcerated youth (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 16). Between 1985 and 1995 the

populations of juvenile detention centers increased by 72 percent. The majority of efforts

to reduce detention populations have been in finding alternatives to detention (Lubow and

Barron 2000). In 1995, 69% of percent of residents were being held in facilities


16/77

16

operating above their design capacity with some facilities operating 88% above capacity

(Altschuler and Armstrong 1999:3). This strain of detention centers resources has

serious implications on the quality of living conditions.

The unfortunate result of the unchecked power structure and management within

correctional facilities is many instances of sexual and racial discrimination executed by

separate and differential treatment to different groups. Austen James (1995) and

Kimberly Leonard (1995) document the overrepresentation of minorities within juvenile

correctional facilities, foreshadowing the adult system. The racial disparities are

apparent at every phase of the juvenile justice system. In terms of who ends up

incarcerated, it has been shown that the overrepresentation of minorities in detention is

not a function of differences in offense rate. Minorities are consistently given more

severe indictments than White youth, hence end up detained in disproportionate numbers

(May 2000: 58). Although Whites used to represent the majority of detained

populations, white juvenile youth offenders have continuously decreased opposite to the

dramatic increase in Black and Hispanic youth. This is an issue, which pervades the

juvenile justice system, and which Oak Hill serves as a true example with 95% Black and

5% Hispanic inmates in 1999 (DCPS).

Sexual discrimination also happens at an institutional level and between inmates

within the same center. At the outset, girls are discriminated against, coming into

detention on mush lesser charges than their male counterparts. Schwartz and Barton

(1994) noted this discrepancy that there is a much larger probability for girls to be

confined for status offenses than boys (18). Recent trends show that the most dramatic

change in prisons is the increase in female juveniles entering detention (Porter 2000).


17/77

17

Authors have documented the differences the treatment of girls versus boys as described

in Palomin (2001). Perhaps it is related to their different developmental demands and

needs, but the womens unit at Oak Hill receives very different treatment than the men.

The discrepancies range from which classes they can take, to the privileges that they are

allowed, however these important findings are beyond the scope of the current research.

It seems easy to attribute the poor quality of the programs and facilities at Oak

Hill Youth Center to lack of money from the District. This concern is questionable at

best when considering that in 1998, when Washington DC boasted the nations highest

homicide rate, the city failed to spend the $3.2 million allocated by federal grants to

reduce youth crimes, as reported in articles from the Washington Post (Slevin 1998). The

money is clearly available; it is disorganization of the city to not implement programs to

utilize federal grant money. The City also incurred fines of up to $2 million from not

meeting the youth population limit set by the court (Lewis 1994). The Washington Post

has tracked the past decade of the failures on the part of Oak Hill from inadequate health

care, fire safety violations to security breaches to a two decade long stalemate in

instituting court-mandated reforms (Chan 2000), all examples of funds being wasted in a

money pit.

SAFETY

The capabilities of the staff and administration influence the way an institution

operates to a great extent. Deficient staffing is a key factor in the security problems

found to be rampant at juvenile detention centers. Previt (1997) examines this problem

as an organizational problem. Various Washington Post articles have documented the


18/77

18

recurring security breakdowns at Oak Hill since 1986 until the most recent in November

2001 (Welsh 1986). At one point logs, reported 30 percent of assigned youth missing as

escapees (Welsh 1987). Other safety problems include drug use while residents are

incarcerated. One article detailed the prevalence of drugs inside Oak Hill including

marijuana, PCP, cocaine (Weiser 1985). MacDonald (1999)shows one way in which

guards not only allow but sometimes aid in the drug trafficking within the detention

centers.

Street, Vinter and Perrow (1966)look at the relationships between inmates and

the staff at detention centers. On one hand, the need for personnel to staff the centers is

so great, yet the demand for the work so lacking that it is difficult to hire capable staff.

Considering the immense disproportion of minorities in detention, it is found that staff

with similar backgrounds and values have much greater success in working with residents

than nonmonirity staff from separate communities (Finckenauer 1984: 212).

Training offered to the staff is particularly important because of the demanding

and unique nature of the work. Porpotage (1996) notes this need, Professional

practitioners and academicians have viewed training as a priority due to several factors,

including uneven levels of pre-employment education, high staff turnover rates,

increasingly complex needs of juvenile offenders, liability issues, and scarce agency

funds.

In such conditions training is crucial, yet findings show that their training is

greatly lacking, as reported on inRoush and Jones (1996). In addition to inadequate

training, detention center staff have to cope with unusually stressful and precarious work

environments as reported inRole Stress and Job Stress Among Juvenile Detention Care


19/77

19

Workers. Bowker reports, To the extent that job stress causes negative feelings towards

prisoners, letting out tension in inappropriate situations, and tightening of discipline

where that is not needed, it impairs job performance (1982: 194).

The requirements of the superintendent alone have become so multifaceted they

now place much greater demands effectively overseeing every aspect of the facility.

Fifteen years ago, the principal concerns of a detention center superintendent were

safety and security. While those are still concerns todaysuperintendents are now

concerned about appropriateness of alternative education programs, self-directed

computer instruction programs, low fat diets, mental health screening, and upgrading

medical and dental services inside the facility (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 97). This

literature indicates that the safety of a secured facility is dependent on resources from

staff to structural facilities, factors which are both limited at Oak Hill.

COUNSELLING

Many theorists have attacked the problem of juvenile delinquency trying to find

its cause in order to more easily access its remedy. Researchers have looked at individual

factors such as sociobiology, psychopathology, behavioral learning and cognitive

explanations to juvenile delinquency. There has been little advance in this area

particularly because of the recent shift to social and cultural explanations including

labeling theory, which posits the source of delinquency in stigma and society. Despite

numerous attempts at understanding the origin of juvenile delinquency, correctional

facilities have not improved because of the great gulf between theory and research on


20/77

20

the one hand, and program development, practice, and evaluation on the other as

Finckenauer (1984: 16) puts it.

The socialization process that takes place within the detention center is just as

detrimental as the effects of the process that placed them in the states custody. Many

testimonies reveal that incarceration serves as a reinforcement of the values and illegal

activity that got inmates arrested. May (2000) illustrates one of these testimonies through

a previous inmate, Imprisonment can turn young people into more seasoned or hardened

criminalsjail is an institution of continuing education for black men, it is like his

training ground where he develops his skills for hustling (86). This socialization process

plays a large role in the difficulty of escaping the justice system since the same negative

behavior and skills are reinforced and even developed while in detention. New

alternative skills must be taught in order to improve behavior.

Evaluations of successful programs have noted similar trends. The Washington

Postarticle on therapy work within Oak Hill discusses the merits of one-on-one sessions

with youth (Greene 1993). This kind of work is the ideal and most effective as it targets

the specific problems of each inmate. Individual treatment has been even more effective

than some group therapy methods (Jacobs 1990). Most important, this kind of

individualized approach gives inmates the attention they need but that the system has

failed to provide them. Mentorship programs have been positively evaluated in the

literature and proven effective in practice. These programs work effectively, as a

preventative measure, during confinement as a treatment measure and after release, as a

continued support system (Grossman and Garry 1997). Articles in the Washington Post

review the positive influence that reformed former inmates have had on current residents


21/77

21

at Oak Hill (Wartofsky 1997). Greenes (1993) review of practices at Oak Hill confirms

the positive effects of individualized attention from staff. Therapists working at the

facility state that the work they do is in large part a replacement for the parenting that was

missing in the youths lives prior to incarceration. This is in tune with the theoretical

basis ofparens patriae, however, the problem is that this type of work is not being done

on a consistent basis, if at all. The lack of staff and overcrowding documented

throughout Oak Hills coverage in the Washington Postis at the heart of this issue and

shows how the safety, habitability and counseling issues are interconnected in many

ways.

Roberts (1989) compares the different approaches to dealing with juvenile

delinquents from detention centers, to community based approaches, to diversion

programs and family treatment. His findings on the different approaches are inconclusive

due to inconsistent and incomplete studies on their effects. However, in general they

reveal that the treatment programs effectiveness was greatly dependent on the

individuals case. For some family therapy treatments, the approach was successful, but

in some cases it was not helpful. The same applies to diversion programs where he notes,

They recommend that several types of diversion alternatives be available so that

juveniles could be matched to the alternative that most closely met their needs (87). The

common thread among each of these programs however was the finding that a

community based approach to treatment, involving the neighborhood, family, social

workers etc. is necessary and are at least as effective and generally much more effective

than institutionalization. Findings of aftercare treatment plans show this, Specialized

treatment in the institution is likely of little long-lasting value if it is not relevant to


22/77

22

pressing concerns in the daily lives of offenders in the community and not carefully and

consistently reinforced in this setting (Altschuler and Armstrong 1999:4).

Just as boot camp disciplinary methods have proven to be ineffective, the

literature shows that the harsh conditions at detention centers worsen juveniles

conditions in many cases (Finckenauer 1984; Schwartz and Barton 1994). Mitchell and

Varley (1990) discuss the effects of confinement practices such as practiced at Oak Hill,

similar to the solitary model of regular prisons. The majority of units at Oak Hill

function by a boot camp style of discipline. These programs revolve around obedience to

authority and discipline. An article evaluating the effectiveness of juvenile boot camps

found that they provided no better results in terms of recidivism rates, especially

considering the greater cost they incur. Eric Peterson (1996) overviews some juvenile

boot camp pilot programs to and their effectiveness based on recidivism rates. In two of

the programs, educational improvements were found, however, none of the programs

resulted in lower recidivism rates. This indicates the ability for detention facilities to

alter juveniles behavior during the interim period but its effects do not reach beyond the

gates of the detention center.

One evaluation of these militaristic programs, by Anthony Platt, is that they are

the inculcation of middle class values and lower class skills. Although a conspiratorial

interpretation, he accurately reveals the perpetuation of social inequalities through a

system of limited opportunities for a disadvantaged population. Boot camps are

criticized as contributing to social control repressing the lower classes by the upper class

(Finckenauer 1984: 116). Furthermore, this emphasis while it may be effective within

the context of the camp does not translate to the juveniles home community. The same


23/77

23

article cited that once camp graduates return home, they tend to reject their new behavior

in order to fit in. The study notes an important fact that points to the failures of such

short term and context dependent solutions, The type of behavior exhibited by these

juveniles takes time to develop; to change that behavior will take more than just a few

days of discipline (Tyler 2001: 449).

Another important factor that is receiving more attention is the effect of the time

spent in detention after the resident is released. Many programs have looked to

incorporate follow up procedures to continue providing the released inmate with support.

This is a major area in which most programs fail and result in high recidivism rates, as

the resident returns to their problem behavior once they return to their home environment.

Juveniles must receive continued monitoring and support after release in order to adapt

any positive changes that may have occurred while being detained, to home

circumstances (Altschuler and Armstrong 1999).

Conclusions towards a proposal for Oak Hill will come from the various sources

dealing with the most recent successful reforms. These include articles evaluating the

successful components of different treatment methods, from community-based, to

incarceration, to parole methods. These will be evaluated against the most realistic

political and economic constraints imagined, based off of the most recent reform data of

the New York juvenile corrections systems outlined in McGarrell (1988). The recent

mayors proposal generated by Anthony Williams Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth

Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform which recommends the closing of Oakhill (DeMilo

2001) will also be taken in to consideration in evaluating the best alternative to the

unacceptable conditions at Oakhill Youth Center. Each of these factors, from the


24/77

24

theoretical bases to the practical findings will be combined to propose a plan of action to

make current conditions consistent with the centers mission statement.


25/77

25

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH PROCESS

The entire research process including history, interviewing, and writing portions

are developed, completed and analyzed by the researcher to maximize reliability of

results. The historical piece includes both historical research on the juvenile justice

system in the U.S. in general, current juvenile justice reform, and on Oak Hill Youth

Center specifically. This process is undertaken prior to and during the interview and

writing portions. Ongoing reading of current and past news articles pertaining to Oak

Hill is maintained throughout the research process.

The interview portion of the research process consists of the development,

execution and transcription of interviews. The interview questions and disclosure

statements are written after preliminary document research is completed. The interviews

were designed to address Oak Hills members rating and feedback on the facilitys

conditions as related to the Youth Services Administrations mission statement. The

writing portion will be done continuously throughout the process to minimize distortion

of data collection. Final analysis is done after all data is collected and transcribed, then,

the recommendations and final conclusions are drawn.

SUBJECTS

Subjects were chosen from the population of administrators, staff and residents at

Oak Hill Youth Center. Due to the security of the facility, unlimited access to form a

random sample of respondents was not possible. Scheduling of the interviews was

greatly dependent on the availability of the staff and administration and had to conform to


26/77

26

residents schedules. These factors account for the nonrandom and limited sample size.

Residents interviews were done on the MOD 1, a boot camp unit of Oak Hill. This unit

was chosen as access to the unit was available through a university tutoring program

which took place every Sunday morning.

All residents were asked to voluntarily participate in the research. All twelve

residents who were asked to participate agreed to do so (See Appendix VI). Residents

varied in age from 15 to 18 years old, with an average age of 17. Residents also ranged

in length of stay at Oak Hill from 1 month to 48 months, with an average of 8.5 months.

Number of times detained at Oak Hill ranged from one to six, with an average of 4.4. No

average was obtained on how long residents were charged to stay at Oak Hill as many

were not sure of their release date. Known terms ranged from one month to juvenile life

(until 21). Residents grade levels ranged from ninth grade through GED completion.

Residents also varied in crimes committed. For those who chose to respond to this

question, drug selling was the most frequent charge, with 25% of the respondents. MOD

1 male residents comprised all but one of the resident respondents. One female from the

womens unit who was available during school hours was interviewed. The rest of the

womens unit was not included in part of the sample as the scope of the research does not

include the gender differences at the facility although they present an important area of

inquiry to be followed up in future research.

The staff interviews were given to the security staff and correctional officers (See

Appendix VII). Staff interviewed were either referred to by another officer or were

independently solicited based on their presence at the Control Unit. Four out of eight,

half of the solicited staff refused to participate. Of those who chose to respond, their


27/77

27

years working at Oak Hill ranged from five to fifteen. Administrators interviews were

done on the basis of availability. Two administrators were asked to participate and both

agreed (See Appendix VIII). Both administrators interviewed had worked at Oak Hill for

two and a half years.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

The interviewing part of the research was be developed and completed by the

researcher. Resident and staff interviews were conducted during Sunday mentoring

sessions and on weekdays as necessary. Administrator interviews were scheduled

according to their availability during the week. Disclosure statements, ensuring

confidentiality, were given to each of the interviewees to read and sign at the beginning

of every interview (See Appendix I). Participants were given the option to pass on any

answer, in which case no answer was recorded. Participants were given the option to fill

out the form themselves or orally respond while the researcher recorded answers. Each

section of the interview was followed by a period to elaborate on or add additional detail

to any of the given answers.

Research tools include interview surveys and disclosure statements based on

previously used surveys and standardized consent forms. Interview questions were

developed partly based on the Inmate Questionnaire found in Street, Vinter and Perrow

(1966). The questions were shortened and adapted to apply to the Oak Hill facility. A

free response section is also included for any non-quantitative, descriptive answers (see

Appendices II-V). After the initial draft of the interviews were made, residents were


28/77

28

asked for their input on the adequacy of the questions and if important questions were

omitted. Their suggestions were incorporated into the final interview forms.

There are three different interview question sets. One interview form is focused

on the residents. This includes questions about their demographics and questions on their

perceptions of Oak Hill based on the four study criteria. Administrators and staff are

asked how long they have worked at Oak Hill, their job title and description, how many

hours they work in a week and what type of work they did before placement at Oak Hill.

The staff interview gathers information on their work experience, what kind of training

they received and questions pertaining to their evaluation of the conditions at Oak Hill.

The final interviews are designed for administrators. These interviews include questions

about the reforms that they have seen implemented and those that they believe are still

necessary. Each is asked appropriate personal information to determine their role at Oak

Hill. Personal information is collected from respondents at the beginning of each

interview including age, grade, unit, charge, length of time at Oak Hill, how long they are

charged to Oak Hill, and for residents, the number of times detained at Oak Hill.

RESEARCH VARIABLES

The first factor, indicating empowerment to become lawful, competent and

productive citizens is operationalized as education. Education questions assess the

development of the residents knowledge during their detainment. This means residents

education in terms of the law and their own legal situation to the extent that they

understand their crime and the process of indictment. This is measured by their

knowledge and understanding of their charge. Education also consists of education in a


29/77

29

scholastic sense. This evaluates their classes, including the subjects covered, materials

available, and teacher quality based on the residents assessment. The other dimension of

education reflects the residents grade level or completion of the GED. The interview

questions determining this factor are a rating of knowledge of their charge (A1), their

educational plans once released, (B8), and questions evaluating the quality and content of

their classes, (C13), (C14), (C16), (C17), (C19), (C20), (C21), (C22).

The second factor evaluated is the habitability of the facility. Habitability

questions determine the comfort level and the adequacy of living conditions at the

facility. This is measured in terms of their units including their rooms, beds, bathroom

facilities, and access to television or other entertainment resources. This also includes

aspects of the outdoor space at Oak Hill including other building conditions and the

grounds. Questions in the first sections cover the comfort of the unit (A3), room (A5),

bed (A4) and the entertainment resources available during free time (A6), (B9). In

section C, habitability questions include rating the food (C12), telephone (C10) and home

visits (C9).

The third factor is that of safety. This includes escape rate and measures of safety

from the residents and the personnel. This is evaluated in terms of precautionary action

and actual outcomes. Precautionary determinants include factors such as staff training,

rules of engagement and staff to resident ratios. Self-reports as to individual experiences

including fights, weapons and other attacks measure the outcomes. Safety questions ask

for the rating of their safety at the facility (A11) from the unit (A3), (C1), grounds (A7),

the buildings (A8), the guards (A9), and rules (A10). Section B safety questions

determine specific experiences about fighting (B1), (B4), (B5), drugs (B3) and weapons


30/77

30

(B2) at Oak Hill. In section C, questions rate the safety and fairness of the rules (C5) and

the adults (C4), (C11).

The fourth, and final factor evaluated regarding competency development,

habilitation and reintegration through a service plan is operationalized as counseling.

The counseling factor is determined by the ratings of the service given to residents while

detained and the progress they feel attributable to the facilitys service. This includes

many factors regarding the treatment of residents while they are detained. It is evaluated

by the quality and quantity of interaction with the different personnel at Oak Hill

including the administration, security guards, and counselors or social workers. Both the

residents report and the centers formal plan for the residents will be investigated to

determine this measure. This is also measured in terms of outcome, by information

regarding recidivism rates. Questions in section B regard the residents belief in their

need for help and whether they receive this help at Oak Hill (B6), (B7). The questions in

the last section ask for the rating of the availability of helpful persons (C2), (C3), (C6),

(C15) and of a change in their behavior (C8), and attitude (C7) while detained.

The open-ended questions ask residents the three most important things they need

in order to succeed. All interviewees answer what they believe are the three largest

problems at Oak Hill. The interview form for the staff and administration ask the same

adapted questions to address their perspective of conditions at Oak Hill. The free

response questions are transcribed and similar responses are tallied together to reveal any

patterns. The answers to 1-10 scale questions (section A) are added for each of the

factors and divided by two. The answers for the agreement scale questions (section C)

are added on the scale of Strongly Agree=5, Agree=4, No Opinion=3, Disagree=2,


31/77

31

Strongly Disagree=1. The final average ratings from section A and C are added together

for each factor. This final number is the representative rating for each factor. These

averages for each respondent group is presented in table form in Appendix V.


32/77

32

DISCUSSION

The juvenile justice system has been operating in an ineffective and

discriminatory fashion since its inception. According to my interpretations of the data I

have found that the current conditions at Oakhill Youth Center do not meet the standards

of a safe, educational, reformative and habitable facility. The poor conditions at Oakhill

result in negative outcomes for its residents evidenced by a high rate of recidivism. The

Youth Services Administration (YSA) Mission Statement states that it is to serve a

reformative function; however, it fails on many levels. In this section, the results of the

interviewing process are presented and evaluated.

The first challenge in the interview process was that the individuals sampled were

not randomly chosen. Due to the nature of the facility, selection of respondents was

mediated by the restrictions imposed by the facilitys security and authorization

measures. Access was limited in terms of the units and the times during which

respondents were available. The sample is biased in two ways. First, the sample is

biased towards male respondents, with eleven males and only one female. Second, the

sample is only based on male respondents from the same (MOD 1) unit, therefore is not

representative of the whole institution and does not capture differences that may occur

between units.

Many of the issues dealt with here are very closely related and overlap the factor

designation. For example, questions pertaining to staff, could be a factor in safety,

habitability, or counseling as the staff serve in each of these functions. For the purposes

of these interviews, answers pertaining to staff were coded according to the context in

which the respondent referred to them. Another problem in validity was found in the


33/77

33

language and interpretation differences of the questions. In cases where respondents

interpreted the language of the question differently, the question was not considered in

analysis.

Answers to the questions are analyzed among respondents of the same group.

Each question is viewed in comparison with the answers between groups. Concordance

in answers was much stronger for residents and staff than with administration. This is

most likely due to the different environments that each are exposed to. While residents

and staff are in a similar environment, administrators are more removed, working in their

offices and less directly involved with the residents. One of the administrators backed

this finding, stating that ratings such as exposure to fights would be much higher for staff

as they are exposed to the units on a much more consistent basis. The administrators

ratings were also much more prone to being skewed since only two administrators were

interviewed.

COUNSELING

The first section of the residents interview asked for the three most important

things that you need in order to succeed. Residents free response answers were coded

into internal versus external characteristics. Examples of the most frequently mentioned

internal are discipline, attitude, faith and strength. Examples of external characteristics

mentioned include family, church and education. Internal characteristics constituted the

majority of the responses, with 74%, 20 out of 27 responses referring to internal

characteristics. This suggests that there is an even greater need for adequate counseling

resources, as the greatest self-reported need for help is of internal characteristics.


34/77

34

Therefore, Oak Hill must focus on improving or changing things such as residents

attitudes, self discipline and self esteem in order to best help them.

Residents responses indicated that Oak Hill is doing the best of the four factors at

addressing counseling needs. Counseling factors for section A and section C questions

(all questions mentioned in this section refer to the residents form unless otherwise

specified) yielded the best overall rating of 3.83 (on a five-point scale). Answers

supporting this finding include responses to question 11 in section B that asks the

frequency of interaction with a counselor or social worker. The most frequent response,

with 5 out of the 11 responses, was once a week. The second most frequent response,

with 4 out of 11 responses was twice a week, and there were two outliers of once a

day and once every couple months. Staff and administrators answers to the same

question confirmed this finding. Staff unanimously stated that residents meet on a daily

basis with a social worker, while administrators answered once a week and once a

day. This indicates that Oak Hill is doing a good job in meeting residents counseling

needs by offering, at the least, weekly access to a counselor or social worker.

Staff and administration responses further support this finding, indicating that the

help residents need is available to them at Oak Hill. Administrators overall factor rating

was also the highest for counseling, with a rating of 4.75. Staff responses also ranked it

highly at 4.17. Both staff and administrators only mentioned one counseling factor as the

three largest problems of Oak Hill.

Another way of evaluating if the need for counseling is being met was asked in

question 6 of section B, Do you think you need help from someone so you can stay out

of trouble? According to the residents responses, only 2 out of 11 respondents stated


35/77

35

that they believe that they need help from someone (only one of which stated in question

7 that they actually receive this help they need from Oak Hill). One administrator said,

Those that want help can get it. Residents responses in question 6 suggest that most

residents will not seek the available help. The approach indicated by the administrator

suggests that residents will not receive the help they need as they do not identify a need

for external assistance. A reformative institution must take active steps in extending and

instituting their resources and assistance to its residents. The fact that there was

variability in terms of the frequency of meetings reported between residents, staff and

administrators is evidence that either, there is no structure to which residents receive this

service, or that service varies depending on the resident. While the rating of the

counseling service is high, it is not clear from the questions whether all residents are

receiving the quality of service that they need.

EDUCATION

According to residents answers to question 8 in section B asking whether they

planned on returning to school upon their release, a majority of residents indicated plans

to finish or add onto their high school education. Even though they were all in high

school grade levels and two already had completed their GED, 9 out of eleven, said they

did plan on returning to school, while one responded maybe and one responded no. This

constitutes another reported need on behalf of the residents, to get a good education.

According to the overall ratings of the residents, education was second to

counseling with a rating of 3.49 on a five-point scale. Staff rated it 4.17, the same as

counseling, and administration ranked it 3.92, indicating that they saw more room for


36/77

36

improvement than staff. Residents mentioned educational factors just as frequently as

counseling factors in the question addressing the biggest problems at Oak Hill. This was

the same case as with the perspective of the administration and staff.

The indicative aspect of the interviews is found in terms of the substance of the

educational focus questions. For example, questions 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 in section

C ask about the condition of the schooling at Oak Hill. All answers to these questions

were under a rating of 4 (Agree). The question with the lowest rating of 2.9 asked

whether, the subjects are helpful. While administration either agreed or strongly

agreed that residents have adequate books to read, staff was split half-and-half in terms of

those who agreed that residents have adequate books to those who disagree.

The educational advancement offered to inmates proved to be poor to nonexistent.

This leaves inmates at a greater disadvantage when they get out, as they will be at the

same educational level as they were when they were committed. This increases the

appeal of getting a GED, if anything at all, rather than pursuing a high school diploma.

This also limits the availability of college as an option, which inevitably limits the range

of opportunities they will have in the job market, affecting their long-term financial

stability.

The other aspect of education investigated was that of the extent of the juveniles

legal knowledge. A major issue in juvenile justice is that of competency, how well the

juvenile understands the nature and consequences of their charge. Question 1 in section

A addressed this issue asking how well the resident understood their charge. Resident

responses generally indicated that they had a good understanding of their charge, with an

average rating of 8.08 on the ten point scale. The staff confirmed this finding with the


37/77

37

highest rating among respondents of 8.75. Administrators average ranking on juveniles

understanding of their charge was 6.5.

The variability in the answers could reflect one of two differences. First, the

adults could have a better understanding of the legal system and the residents charge,

therefore know that the understanding the residents have is inaccurate. Second, the

residents could have a very high actual understanding of their charge and the

administrators are too far removed to know what the residents knowledge.

SAFETY

Safety received the lowest ranking for resident, staff and administrator combined

averages. Staff and administrators gave safety questions the lowest average ranking of all

four factors with ratings of 3.51 and 3.69, respectively. Residents answers rendered an

average of 3.32, making it the second lowest ranked factor. In terms of the largest

problems stated at Oak Hill, staff rated safety matters in a dominating 73% of the free

response answers. These problems revolved around issues concerning the physical

structure of the facility, staff issues and the rules of the institution. Administrators also

mentioned safety matters more than any other factor. Residents noted safety as the

second most frequent factor with 17% of responses, mentioning staff as the most

common problem.

Facility

Part of the questions evaluating safety related to how safe residents felt at Oak

Hill. One major difference was the discrepancy between the ratings of different areas of

the facility. For these questions residents rated the units high while the rating for outside


38/77

38

grounds and other buildings were much lower. Residents rated the safety of the unit

(question 2, section A) an average of 9.25 on the ten-point scale. Questions 7 on the

safety of the outside grounds and question 8 on the safety of other buildings were rated

much lower at 7.5 and 6.5, respectively. This indicates that on the smaller units, residents

feel much safer than outside. This is likely to be due to the increased supervision and

control maintained in a confined space whereas in a larger area, guards have less control

of the situation. One resident told that he was not as safe outside because you can be

jumped by a whole group of guys and there isnt anything the guards can do about that.

This strongly supports research stating that smaller treatment and detention facilities are

more effective, if even only for security purposes.

Staff also followed this trend rating units an average of 8.95, outside grounds,

7.75 and the other buildings, 8.75. One staff respondent elaborated on the issue stating

that the grounds provided too much space to be secured by officers. They stated that if a

whole group were to start a fight with another resident, it would be impossible for the

staff immediately available to control the situation. Administration followed an opposite

trend, rating units an average of 8.25, outside grounds at 8.5 and other buildings at 8.75.

This difference could be due to the difference in exposure to the actual living situations

due to their position.

The concern of a large uprising would fall in line with the information provided

from staff respondents that problems from the street were the main causes of the fights

that take place at Oak Hill. Coming from DC, where there are different neighborhood

and gang affiliations, it is common for the residents to have allies from their group at the

detention center. An administrator mentioned that Oak Hill is successful in deterring


39/77

39

these street related fights when staff, who are also from the DC area, either know of the

residents street ties or learn of them on the units and are able to separate potential

enemies.

Question 10 in section A asked how easy residents feel it would be to escape from

Oak Hill. Considering the history of mass escapes this matter is of key concern to

maintaining a secured facility. Residents generally gave very low ratings on the

possibility of escape, with an average of 3.46. One resident even mentioned as one of the

largest problems at Oak Hill that the fences were not high enough, posing a health threat

to residents who believed they could escape and therefore get hurt for attempting to go

through the barbed wire. Administrators had an even tougher impression of the safety,

rating the escape chances as less than one. Staff answers were in-between resident and

administrator rankings.

Rules

Another component of the safety factor measured the adequacy of the rules at Oak

Hill. Administrators rated the fairness of the rules a 9.5 and the staff rendered an average

rating of 8.5. Explanations were given to the lower ranking outliers, stating that the rules

are too easy and needed to be reinforced more. This sentiment was supported with the

answers to questions 3, 4 and 8 of section III. These answers indicated the belief that

adults are not overly strict and that some residents get away with too much.

The residents responses to the same questions (4, 5 and 6 of section C) were all

in the three-point range, indicating No Opinion. In question 11 of section A, residents

were asked how fair they felt the rules were. This received an average rating of 3.77 on

the ten point scale. One resident referred to the rules as petty. This supports the finding


40/77

40

from the first part of the survey asking for the three largest problems as residents raised

issues such as their mail being opened without their presence, and restrictions on visits, as

major problems. It seems that the discrepancy in ratings between the adults and the

juveniles in the facility are not necessarily opposed to each other. The adults are

supporting stricter and consistent enforcement while the residents are protesting trivial

rules.

Prohibited Activity

The next safety section evaluated the frequency of prohibited activity. First was

the issue of fighting at Oak Hill. All respondents, including residents, administrators, and

staff (except for the one female respondent) affirmed that they had either been involved

in or had witnessed a fight. Question 1 of section B asked residents if they had been in a

fight, how many, and for a description. Residents reported having been involved in an

average of 2.57 fights while at Oak Hill. Staff and administration were asked in question

11 of section 2, if they had witnessed a fight at Oak Hill and to offer a description. Of the

four staff respondents, two stated that fights happen twice a week, one stated, once every

couple months and one stated, once every two days. Out of both administrators who

attested to having witnessed fights, one stated they occur once every six months and the

other said they occur on a weekly basis. The discrepancy in frequency could be

attributable to the different areas at which each respondent worked, including the

different units. There may also be discrepancy in terms of the definition of a fight.

This matter was also addressed by questions asking about any threat or violent

encounter (Question 15, section II). Half of the staff said they had experienced both and

half said they had not had violent encounters with residents. Likewise, one administrator


41/77

41

answered yes and one answered no to having been threatened. Some staff explained that

they had most often been attacked because they had gotten in the middle of another

altercation and were hit accidentally. These incidents they did not consider to be violent

encounters, but it does attest to the challenging and sometimes hazardous nature of the

occupation. This data was not so heavily weighed as it was greatly affected by

interpretation. Questions 4 and 5 of section B ask residents if they had ever been

threatened themselves or had they threatened someone else. Five out of eleven residents

answered affirmatively to each question. For residents, the same interpretation problem

may have been present, which would explain the lack of a definite trend.

Question 2 in section B asks whether residents had ever been in possession of a

weapon while at Oak Hill. Four out of eleven residents admitted to having had a weapon

in the facility. Of the seven that denied ever having a weapon, one claimed that all the

weapon they needed they already had in their fists. This resident distinguished juvenile

from adult prison in that juveniles do not think of carrying a weapon or hurting some one

in that way. Residents displayed variation in their weapon answers, however this is to be

expected in a question that raises many confidentiality and trust issues with the

interviewer. Both administrators and three fourths of the staff claimed to have found a

weapon on the units. This suggests that weapons serve a greater role at Oak Hill than

some residents were aware of, or were candid enough to convey.

A similarly complicated question dealt with drug possession (Question 3 of

section B). Residents were asked if they had ever had possessed drugs on the unit.

Considering the incriminating nature of this question, that four out of eleven residents

admitted to having drugs in Oak Hill is considered substantial. Three-fourths of the staff


42/77

42

respondents claimed to have found drugs in the units (Question 13 section II). They

claimed that it occurred from once to twice a month. Administrators answers concurred

with these responses, both of them having found drugs at the same frequency. These

results indicate that the prevalence of drugs and weapons at Oak Hill is relatively equal.

One of the staff respondents offered that it is during particular visitation days when

residents familiars sneak drugs into the facility. He also noted that drugs come in

through correspondence, but that they discover much of it in their revisions of the mail.

There was one question, question 14 in section II in the staff and administrators

interviews that was omitted. While it was meant to get a the issue of how the residents

access drugs in the first place, it seemed too confrontational and incriminating to raise the

question of smuggling drugs into Oak Hill as an employee.

Staff

Another component of the safety factor included the adequacy of the staff. Staff

problems were the most frequently offered answers by residents for the free response

section of the three largest problems at Oak Hill. Even more remarkable is that staff and

staff related issues were also the most frequently sited problems by staff respondents of

the same section.

Question 9 from section A rated the effectiveness of the guards at keeping

residents safe. Residents rated this at an average of 6.6 while administrators rated this at

8 and staff rated this at 8.88. Each of the groups of respondents mentioned the variability

between officers. Two of the staff respondents even gave two separate ratings, one for

competent staff and one for incompetent staff. One of these staff respondents attributed

this inconsistency to the difference in training. They stated that the newer staff received


43/77

43

much less quantity and lower quality of training. The descriptions of the training

received by staff included thing such as, first aid, custody with care, the procedures and

policies of the institution, suicide prevention, anger management, balanced and

restorative justice and other specialized training programs. Many of the respondents also

referred to previous work training as having prepared them for Oak Hill, as all of the staff

respondents had previously worked in corrections. This could indicate that the

experience required for hiring staff at Oak Hill assumes a certain level of training. Staff

responded in question 5 of section 1, that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed that they were

sufficiently trained. Administrators unanimously Strongly Agreed that their training was

sufficient.

The aspect of job satisfaction was also evaluated in questions about

compensation, support from supervisor and working environment. It is interesting to note

that the administrators Strongly Agreed with all of the areas of job satisfaction. For staff

there were lower ratings, with an average of Agree for sufficient supervisor support, and

No Opinion for adequate compensation. Staff agreed less than administrators did with

their job description corresponding to the work they actually do and rated their feeling of

safety at work lower. It is quite evident that the administrations role and work is better

defined and more secure than that of the staff positions.

HABITABILITY

Habitability rankings received the lowest average rankings from residents in

sections A and C with an average rating of 3.32. It also received the greatest amount of

responses as the largest problems at Oak Hill, with 58.33% of all answers. Residents


44/77

44

mentioned issues such as the food, access to mail, lockdown, clothes, visits and staff as

the problems. There was a significant amount of difference between adult and juvenile

answers in terms of the comfort levels of their living situation. However, all three groups

responded approximately the same, most frequently as Agree, to questions on home

visits, telephone use, food and bathroom facilities.

Questions evaluating habitability covered all areas of the living situation. In

section A, questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 inquired as to the comfort of the unit, comfort of the

bed, room and adequacy of entertainment access. Residents gave the unit as a whole the

highest rating of 8.33 and the comfort of the bed the lowest with an average rating of

5.42. The room rating was 6.58 while the entertainment access rating was fairly high at

7.92. Staff rated these habitability conditions significantly higher, rating the comfort of

the unit at 9.13, the rooms at 8, and the entertainment at 9.75. Interestingly, the

administration rated the comfort of the unit lower than the residents did, at 7.5, the

rooms, the same as staff, at 8, and entertainment at 9.5.

Question 10 in section B was not included in the analysis as there was too much

variation in the understanding of the term lockdown. Some understood it to be a

temporary facility count and others considered it locking down residents in their rooms

due to a security concern. The most frequently noted data was the fact that institution-

wide counts are taken at every shift change, which occurs twice a day.

Section B, question 9 asked if residents thought they received enough free time.

Eight out of ten responses indicated no. They noted that they would want more free time

to engage in activities ranging from watch television, sleep, read, play games,

look at family pictures and talk on the phone. There was consensus among residents


45/77

45

that there was not enough free time, but there were a wide variety of answers in terms of

the purpose for which they wanted more free time.

Staff, on the other hand, strongly expressed the opinion that residents had more

than enough free time. Administration confirmed this sentiment, unanimously answering

that residents received enough free time. Many included comments as to their belief that

residents received too much free time. A main concern already raised in the education

section is that of the activities residents engage in during their time. Both staff,

administrators and residents concurred in their answers that residents do not spend their

time in constructive ways at Oak Hill, with a combined average rating of 3.67 on a ten-

point scale.

One administrator made the comment that We should use this captive audience.

We shouldnt let them do anything they typically do on the streets. This is a stark

contrast to what actually occurs, as residents commented, [Oak Hill] is making us

worse, we build up negative energy and you want to release it on the streets and all you

are doing down here is learning how to do more things and how to get away with more

things. If the YSA Mission Statement is claiming to improve the residents conditions

in these four areas, these comments must be taken into consideration to implement an

action plan that increases positive energy by adequately providing residents with their

basic needs and by teaching them useful life skills.


46/77

46

CONCLUSION

While this interviewing process posed limitations on the validity and the

generalizability of the results as mentioned in the discussion, it gave insight to many of

the recurring problems at Oak Hill. The trends that emerged in the answers make a

strong statement as to the areas in which improvements should be focused. The different

perspectives expressed also gave insight to areas where better working relationships and

terms of engagement are necessary. Below are five main recommendations that I have

constructed reflecting the results of the research process. They include specific

improvements to the staff, facility, regulations, programming and education systems.

They each address a different aspect of the goals of Oak Hill and juvenile detention in

general and would bring Oak Hill closer to achieving the aims set out in YSA Mission

Statement.

1. STAFF

Staff problems seem to be the basis of many of the problems at Oak Hill. With a

more regular staff, the counseling and safety needs of the residents may be better

addressed. Measures must be taken to implement better recruiting, training and support

programs for staff. Increased salaries for correctional officers and job security, both

monetarily and in the environment would attract more people to the correctional

profession. More comprehensive and longer training programs would improve their

working conditions, as they would be more equipped to deal with the unique demands of

this challenging working environment. Measures should also be taken to standardize

training to minimize the discrepancy between staff. This would improve the quality of


47/77

47

service that staff deliver and would also raise their work satisfaction. Improving staff

morale through appreciation programs and a stronger supervisor support system would

improve continuity of staff job placements.

2. UPDATED FACILITY

Many of the problems faced at Oak Hill could be addressed by better facilities.

The structure of this eighty year old facility is outdated in terms of its original purpose as

a holding facility. As a placement center, the large campus grounds pose too much of a

threat of violence or escape. A smaller facility would allow for more direct and

controlled supervision of residents. An updated facility would improve safety by

implementing more efficient and effective technology, which would also relieve some of

the safety burden from the staff. New technology would make many of the current

procedures more efficient, relieving the staff and administration from some

administrative duties. A newer facility would also improve habitability conditions as

basic problems such as heat, water and roof leaks would no longer be a problem.

Financing concerns of a new facility are addressed by the money which has been going to

repair and update the older facility.

3. REGULATIONS

The juveniles and the adults concerns about the rules of the facility could be met

through a compromise. Through a monthly joint meeting with administration, staff and

residents, the rules of the facility could be discussed. The two interests of a safe and

restricted environment could be weighed along with the interest in a habitable


48/77

48

environment. A review of the rules including the residents input would promote

enforceability as residents would be more likely to follow rules that they understood and

had played a role in making. This could help hold them personally accountable for their

actions and increase the residents internalization of the rules and regulations of the

facility. This review would also ensure the full understanding of the rules by all parties,

which could increase cooperation between staff and residents as each would be aware of

the rights and responsibilities of the other.

4. ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMING

There is much support in the literature for the positive effects of involving

juveniles in alternative programs. Such programs can include things from outdoor

education, tutoring programs, ministry outreach or art and cultural immersion programs.

There are an abundance of programs and groups in the area available to administer these

services at detention facilities. Oak Hill has a large ministry service working with the

residents. There is also a university related tutoring program involved at Oak Hill. For

Black History Month an African cultural group came in to arrange a program through

artistic expression. An initiative should be made to have every resident involved in at

least one alternative program. Soliciting more volunteers and staffing more

administrative positions at Oak Hill would help coordinate outreach programs to actually

aide in the rehabilitation of the youth. Most of these programs work on a volunteer basis,

therefore it would not require any additional funding. The only additional money

required would be for staff positions, particularly for the purposes of this volunteer works

coordination in order to facilitate ongoing participation with outside resources.


49/77

49

5. EDUCATION SYSTEM

As one administrator stated, Every resident should be required to read a certain

number of books before being released. While writing a reading list requirement into

the sentencing structure of the law may not be realistic; the principle conveyed by this

idea is a very useful one. First, the educational resources, particularly the books on the

units must be updated. The resources at the school must be more easily accessible so as

to not impose barriers to spending free time in productive ways such as reading and

writing rather than playing video games and sleeping. Addressing the educational levels

and needs of residents at Oak Hill is a clear deficit, hence a model for effective schooling

in detention facilities remains to be developed. This is the most imminent area for future

research as educational involvement has the greatest probability to positively change the

life course of these youth who have gotten chained into the wrong system.


50/77

50

Bibliography

Acoca, Leslie. 1996. Are Girls More Difficult to Work With? Youth WorkersPerspectives in Juvenile Justice and Related Areas. Crime and Delinquency. 4:467-85.

Altschuler, David M. and Troy L. Armstrong. (1999) Reintegrative Confinement andIntensive Aftercare. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. July.

Bowker, Lee H. 1982. Corrections: The Science and the Art. New York: MacmillanPublishing Co., Inc.

Chan, Sewell. 1999. Health Care at Oak Hill Still Found Inadequate: Report sayscenter breaks court order. The Washington Post. September 17, p.B4.

Chan, Sewell. 2000. D.C. Council Bemoans Project Delays. The Washington Post.

November 29, pB2.

Cramer, Carol and Carter White. 2000. Curriculum for Training Educators of Youth inConfinement. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: FactSheet. 05.

DeMilo, Andrew. 2001. D.C. Panel Launches Mission for Youth. The WashingtonPost. November 15, p.B2.

DCPS Homepage, Oakhill Academy..

Doig, Jameson W., ed. 1982. Criminal Corrections: Ideals and Realities. Lexington:Lexington Books.

Eron, L., J. Gentry and P. Schlegel. 1994. Reason to hope: A Psychosocial Perspectiveon Violence and Youth. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association

Finckenauer, James O. 1984. Juvenile Delinquency: The Gap Between Theory andPractice. Orlando: Academic Press.

Greene, Marcia S. 1993. In D.C. Detention Centers, A Wall of Pain Traps Young DCOffenders. The Washington Post. January 24, p.A1.

Grossman, Jean b. and Eileen M. Garry. 1997. Mentoring- A Proven DelinquencyPrevention Strategy. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. April.

Hardy, Richard E. and John G. Cull. 1973. Introduction to Correctional Rehabilitation.Springfield: Charles Thomas Publishers.


51/77

51

Jacobs, Mark D. 1990. Screwing the System and Making it Work: Juvenile Justice in theNo-fault Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

James, Austen. 1995. The Overrepresentation of Minority Youths in the CorrectionalJuvenile Justice System: Perceptions and Realities. Minorities in Juvenile

Justice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lambert, N.M. 1988. Adolescent outcomes for hyperactive children: Perspectives ongeneral and specific patterns of childhood risk for adolescent educational, social,and mental health problems. American Psychologist, 43, 786-799.

Leonard, Kimberly K., and Henry Sontheimer. 1995.The Role of Race in JuvenileJustice in Pennsylvania.Minorities in Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks: SagePublications.

Lewis, Nancy. 1993. Oak Hill Corrections Officers Protest Crowding and Attempts to

Relieve it. The Washington Post. June 15, PC7.

Lewis, Nancy. 1994. Judges Costly Ruling: Fines Raised for Overcrowded D.C.Youth Facilities. The Washington Post. April 22, p.D1.

Lewis, Nancy. 1994. Fire Safety Problems Found at Juvenile Centers: Access to ExitDoors, Number of Youths in DC Detention Facilities Questioned in Court TheWashington Post. July 27, p.B6.

Lewis, Nancy. 1995. Much of DC Youth Facility Without Hot Water. TheWashington

Documents

Cecilia Kline