550027
research-article2014
CJBXXX10.1177/0093854814550027Criminal Justice and BehaviorSellers / Community-Based Recovery and Youth Justice
Community-Based Recovery And Youth
Justice
Brian G. Sellers
Eastern Michigan University
Four well-known delinquency intervention and prevention programs remain both publicly and politically popular regardless
of a large body of evidence-based research revealing their ineffectiveness in promoting a lasting desistance from youth violence and crime. Scared straight programs, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), youth boot camps, and secure
large-scale, custodial juvenile correctional facilities overemphasize offender “risk management and maintenance” as opposed
to individual, group-based, and/or collective well-being. This article will identify the values that these current and dominant
community-centered youth justice initiatives reflect, and it will explain how these values further (or forestall) offender desistance. Viable, evidence-based alternatives consistent with the value orientation of therapeutic and restorative programming
will also be evaluated. The article concludes by examining the efficacy of this alternative normative agenda to foster successful desistance from juvenile delinquency and crime.
Keywords: get-tough movement; intervention; juvenile corrections; juvenile offenders; prevention; rehabilitation; restorative justice
T
he earliest attempts to develop social control mechanisms for youth can be traced to the
end of the 19th century with the child-saving movement, which was an effort by philanthropists and social reformers to alleviate the miseries of urban life resulting from the structural inequalities of unregulated capitalism (Platt, 1969/2009). However, the possibly
well-intentioned rhetoric of the child savers was really masking the development of a classbased system of harsh punishment, which deprived impoverished youth of due process
while enhancing the role the state played in the everyday lives of the working class (Platt,
1969/2009). The underlying motivation of the child-saving movement was to promote
White middle-class moral values, which were threatened by a rapidly evolving and increasingly complex urban life of the working classes during the industrialization at the turn the
century (Platt, 1969/2009). Therefore, child savers sought to properly socialize and nurture
government control over the movements and actions of working-class urban youth through
the development of a juvenile justice system that would decide what was in the best interest
of the child and society via new forms of control, restraint, and punishment (Platt,
1969/2009).
The child-saving movement was also an “attempt to regulate deviant behaviors of working-class men and women, using ‘panics’ to either establish new or re-instate fragile, social
Authors’ Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian G. Sellers,
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology, Eastern Michigan University, 712 Pray-Harrold,
Ypsilanti, MI 48197; e-mail: [email protected].
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2015, Vol. 42, No. 1, January 2015, 58­–69.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854814550027
© 2014 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
58
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
Sellers / COMMUNITY-BASED RECOVERY AND YOUTH JUSTICE 59
norms” (Evans, Davies, & Rich, 2008, p. 119). The movement directly affected the children
of the urban poor by recasting them as “sick,” “maladjusted,” “unsocialized,” “pathological,” or “troublesome” youth, who needed to be confined “for their own good” (Platt,
1969/2009, p. 177). Thus, delinquent youth were stigmatized as dangerous “others” in the
political rhetoric during the movement (Mills, 1943). This political rhetoric thrived under a
media-influenced moral panic, which demanded the immediate control of what was perceived to be an unmanageable problem with juvenile delinquency and crime (Platt,
1969/2009).
Over time, media-based “child saving” techniques have continued to be used to manufacture biased and misguided opinions about the need to regulate dangerous youth. For
example, rhetoric from John J. DiIulio, William Bennett, John Walters, and William Bratton
overstressed the reports being publicized by the mass media in the 1990s of youth “wilding”
and the growing legions of juvenile “superpredators” (Bennett, DiIulio, & Walters, 1996;
Welch, 2011, pp. 216-217). These characterizations of inner city juvenile offenders as being
criminogenic, valueless, and “new threats to public safety” received constant and sustained
media coverage (Welch, 2011, p. 216). As a result, minority urban youth were targeted as
threats to society, while racial and economic inequalities were reinforced by the state legislatures’ ever-increasing “get tough” responses to the perceived panic over youth crime
(Welch, 2011). Indeed, the moral panic, as driven by media framing of adolescent offending, served to unify a frightened public and public officials in a stance against marginalized
“folk-devils,” which threatened the normative standards and values of an older generation
(Cohen, 1972; Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008). The reach of this media-based and publicly re-enacted moral panic now even extends to school disciplinary policy (Sellers, 2013)
and immigration policy (Trull & Arrigo, in press).
Media-driven outrage over a social problem tends to mobilize popular support for
policy responses that will serve as “quick-fix, punitive solutions” to the threat of future
crime and violence (Finckenauer, 1982; Hirschfield, 2008, p. 85). As such, punitive-oriented prevention and intervention approaches for juvenile delinquency and crime were
implemented with the intent of subduing juvenile offending by displacing public fear and
redirecting it through consequentialist forms of programs and institutional responses,
such as Scared Straight, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), youth boot camps,
and secure juvenile correctional facilities focused more on custodial management rather
than rehabilitative goals. Consequentialism refers to an ethical approach in which actions
and decisions are prioritized according to interest-balancing, means/ends calculations,
and/or cost–benefit analyses (Arrigo, Bersot, & Sellers, 2011). While the intentions of
policy makers who supported these “get tough” approaches to youth crime may have been
deemed well-intentioned at the time of their implementation (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly,
Chapman, & Carver, 2010), years of evaluative research have found them ineffective and
left wanting (Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007; Lipsey et al., 2010; MacKenzie,
Wilson, & Kider, 2001; Pan & Bai, 2009; Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, Hollis-Peel, &
Lavenberg, 2013). Regardless of the empirical findings of well-designed evaluation studies, which have ruled these prevention and intervention programs ineffective, these “get
tough” approaches to juveniles remain popular among political power brokers, who
largely dismiss evaluation evidence in favor of continued use of punitive policies and
practices in the juvenile justice system (Birkeland, Murphy-Graham, & Weiss, 2005;
Lipsey et al., 2010).
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
60 Criminal Justice and Behavior
This article will review the extant research on popular juvenile prevention and intervention programs with regard to their effectiveness. In addition, the values that these “get
tough” youth justice initiatives reflect ethically will be identified, and how these values
further (or forestall) offender desistance will be explained. Viable evidence-based alternatives consistent with the value orientation of therapeutic and restorative programming will
also be evaluated. Finally, the efficacy of this alternative normative agenda to foster successful desistance from juvenile delinquency and crime will be examined via an ethical and
cultural critique.
Review Of Punitive Juvenile Programs
During the 1990s, many state legislatures embraced the get-tough penal harm movement,
which ushered in several juvenile prevention and intervention programs with the aim of
appeasing “just deserts” advocates, while abandoning programming that reflected the traditional rehabilitative mission of the juvenile justice system (Bishop, 2006; Lipsey et al.,
2010). The underlying theoretical rationales for “get tough” punitive policies toward juvenile offending are rooted in deterrence and rational choice theories, which draw from classical criminological and economic theory (Cullen & Jonson, 2012; Lipsey et al., 2010).
Under deterrence theory, swift, certain, and severe sanctions are expected to reduce delinquency and crime, both specifically for the individual offender and generally for the vicariously observing public (Cullen & Jonson, 2012). Basically, fear of severe punishment is
expected to suppress delinquency and deter youth from breaking the law (Cullen & Jonson,
2012; Lundman, 2001). Similarly, rational choice theory hypothesizes that perceived certainty and severity of shame, embarrassment, and legal sanction may deter potential delinquents if they engage in a cost–benefit analysis (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Thus, by applying
Jeremy Bentham’s hedonistic calculus to mechanisms of deterrence theory, rational choice
theory assumes that delinquents are rational agents who weigh the costs and benefits of
engaging in delinquency before committing the act (Grasmick & Bursik, 1990). Thus, punitive juvenile programs value coercion, control, discipline, and retribution to suppress delinquency by utilizing mechanisms of fear.
Given the often political nature of crime control policy, one must avoid emotionally
charged rhetoric in such considerations, and instead, give careful thought to empirical
research when making recommendations for change. Thus, it is necessary to review the
empirical findings of evaluation studies with regard to the effectiveness of the above-mentioned “get tough” variants while taking into consideration the evidence-based research on
effective rehabilitative and restorative alternatives (see Lipsey et al., 2010). The ensuing
review of research findings will lay the groundwork for an ethical and cultural critique of
the resilience of these punitive programs in the midst of efforts to return to rehabilitation
and expand restorative justice approaches to juvenile offending.
Scared Straight
In 1975, inmates serving life sentences in New Jersey’s Rahway prison began a program
to educate at-risk youths about the consequences of incarceration through an aggressive
presentation that brutally depicted life in adult prisons and often entailed exaggerated stories of rape, assault, murder, and suicide (Finckenauer, 1982; Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino,
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
Sellers / COMMUNITY-BASED RECOVERY AND YOUTH JUSTICE 61
& Buehler, 2003). Inmates, who initially engaged in a counselor role, soon resorted to
threats and intimidation in an effort to terrify these youth to the point that they would avoid
breaking the law for fear of these projected realities becoming their own (Finckenauer,
1982; Petrosino et al., 2003; Petrosino et al., 2013). By May 1979, more than 13,000 juveniles attended the program a Rahway prison (Lundman, 2001). This program gained instant
popular public support and media attention after the 1979 documentary titled “Scared
Straight” aired (Petrosino et al., 2003).
The initial program claimed a 94% success rate (Finckenauer, 1982); however, subsequent evaluations concluded that participants in Scared Straight programs are more likely
to be arrested than their control group counterparts (Finckenauer, 1982; Lundman, 2001;
Petrosino et al., 2003; Petrosino et al., 2013). For instance, Finckenauer (1982) found that
41% of those who attended Scared Straight were arrested for new offenses, while only 11%
of the control group offended. Moreover, the program participants committed more serious
offenses and exhibited more favorable attitudes toward crime (Finckenauer, 1982). Metaanalytic investigations of numerous evaluative studies found that Scared Straight does not
deter youth from crime but actually has harmful criminogenic effects on youthful participants (Petrosino et al., 2003; Petrosino et al., 2013).
Indeed, Petrosino et al. (2003) concluded, “Criminological interventions, when they
cause harm, are not just toxic to the participants. They result in increased misery to ordinary
citizens that come from the ‘extra’ criminal victimization they create when compared to just
doing nothing at all” (p. 59). Still, in light of these empirical findings, Scared Straight programs and their derivatives remain in use in numerous jurisdictions in the United States and
abroad (Petrosino et al., 2003; Petrosino et al., 2013). Recently, the Arts and Entertainment
(A&E) television station has reintroduced this ineffective program to the public via the
popular weekly series titled “Beyond Scared Straight” and has become the highest rated
show in A&E’s history (Denhart, 2011; Petrosino et al., 2013). The show also subjects atrisk youth to boot camp regimens. Of course, this sensationalized reality television program
largely ignores the scientific evidence against it, and instead, deceptively depicts a successful experience for at-risk youth (Petrosino et al., 2013).
D.A.R.E
From the 1960s to the 1980s, the government and media framed the association between
youth culture, drugs, and drug trafficking as a major threat to the safety and educational
missions of schools (Simon, 2007). The crime-related politics behind the war on drugs
shifted the crime control efforts of drug policy from the street corner to the schoolyards
(Stinchcomb, Bazemore, & Riestenberg, 2006). As a result, the D.A.R.E. program was initially implemented in 1983 through the joint sponsorship of the Los Angeles Police
Department and a local school district in an effort to teach students how to refuse drugs,
overcome peer pressure, and improve psychosocial behavior, such as social skills, selfesteem, and attitudes toward drug use (Pan & Bai, 2009). The program is usually taught by
a uniformed police officer for elementary and junior high school students (Pan & Bai,
2009). By 2010, roughly 36 million school children around the world participated in
D.A.R.E., with more than 72% of American school districts and 44 countries utilizing the
program (Pan & Bai, 2009).
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
62 Criminal Justice and Behavior
Meta-analyses conducted to assess the effectiveness of D.A.R.E. have found that the program largely fails to deter long-term adolescent drug use behaviors, which is the primary
mission of D.A.R.E. (Ennett, Tobler, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 1994; Pan & Bai, 2009;
Rosenbaum, 2007; West & O’Neal, 2004). While there has been some evidence to suggest
that D.A.R.E. has been able to increase knowledge about drugs and social skills, and fosters
positive relationships between juveniles and police officers, the fact remains that it is ineffective at reducing self-reported drug use among its participants (Birkeland et al., 2005; Pan &
Bai, 2009). The arguments that focus on how D.A.R.E. fosters better relationships between
youth and police officers appear to be nothing more than ex post rationalizations resulting in
parents, school administrators, and politicians continuing to support a program that fails at
its main goal simply because it is a “feel-good” program (Birkeland et al., 2005; Lynam et
al., 1999; Singh et al., 2011). More recently, D.A.R.E. has been modified to focus more on
decision-making processes and protective factors, such as bonding, family, school, and community; however, recent studies reveal mixed evidence in regard to the effectiveness of the
new D.A.R.E. curriculum; further evaluation is recommended (Singh et al., 2011).
Youth Boot Camps
Juvenile correctional boot camps, as a form of shock incarceration, are military-style
short-term institutions, which subject youthful offenders to a regimen of drills, discipline,
routine, hard labor, and military decorum (Mackenzie et al., 2001a; Mackenzie et al.,
2001b). Boot camps became popular in the 1980s and have remained so regardless of disappointing evaluations of their effectiveness (Lipsey, 2009, 2010; MacKenzie & Souryal,
1994; Wilson, MacKenzie, & Mitchell, 2005). In fact, research finds them ineffective for
adults as well, regardless of whether emphasis is placed on military-style discipline or treatment-oriented programs (Mackenzie et al., 2001a; Wilson et al., 2005). Boot camps using
this paramilitary regimen are actually found to increase recidivism rates by 8% when compared with other discipline-oriented programs (Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey et al., 2010).
The “drill sergeants,” or boot camp staff, impose immense physical and psychological
stress during the breakdown process to eventually build them back up in hopes of producing
positive changes in behavior and attitudes (Mackenzie et al., 2001a). While research has
found that juvenile inmates perceive their boot camp environment as more therapeutic than
traditional juvenile correctional facilities, the same research has also found that the potential physical, emotional, and psychological abuse that may occur in boot camp environments is especially detrimental to youth with a history of abuse and family violence
(MacKenzie et al., 2001a). Thus, boot camps exacerbate antisocial attitudes, anxiety, and
depression for adolescents who have endured abuse and violence at home (MacKenzie
et al., 2001a). While boot camps remain popular among policy makers, correctional officers, and the general public (Meade & Steiner, 2010), some states have closed boot camps
perhaps in reaction to political pressure from complaints of abuse or documented deaths,
such as the case of Martin Lee Anderson in Florida. Martin was a 14-year-old boy who was
suffocated when boot camp staff used ammonia capsules, while punching him, because he
would not continue to run due to exhaustion (Roberts, 2008). Still, as of 2009, 11 states
continue to operate juvenile boot camps, while numerous privately run juvenile boot camps
exist and states may contract with them (Meade & Steiner, 2010).
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
Sellers / COMMUNITY-BASED RECOVERY AND YOUTH JUSTICE 63
Secure Custodial Juvenile Correctional Facilities
More than 66,000 youthful offenders reside in 2,111 juvenile justice facilities in the
United States (Hockenberry, Sickmund, & Sladky, 2013). Large-scale, secure, custodial
juvenile correctional facilities tend to be where the more serious juvenile offenders are
sent and become invisible because they are now “out of sight, out of mind” (Currie, 1998;
Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). This “away syndrome” is an approach that discourages finding alternatives to incarceration and surfaces when the system has given up on troubled
youth because of frustration (Currie, 1998). These correctional facilities are often overcrowded, and concerns with custody functions typically outweigh treatment opportunities
and the effective delivery of rehabilitative services (Roush & McMillen, 2000; Snyder &
Sickmund, 2006). As a result, these facilities are becoming more institutional-type settings, where fences, razor wire, and guards are more prevalent than treatment providers
(Lipsey et al., 2010).
When secure juvenile correctional facilities lack treatment integrity or adequate treatment programming, they have very high recidivism rates (Blackburn, Mullings, Marquart,
& Trulson, 2007; Lipsey et al., 2010; Lowenkamp, Makarios, Latessa, Lemke, & Smith,
2010; Trulson, Marquart, Mullings, & Caeti, 2007). Many studies on recidivism among
institutionalized delinquents find that a lack of appropriately tailored treatment programming and trained, high-quality staff will yield no better recidivism rates than merely warehousing the youths as they pass the time (Lowenkamp et al., 2010). Therefore, when juvenile
correctional facilities only focus on custody, control, and order maintenance, the only
behavior modification that may occur is the enhancement of favorable attitudes toward
crime and violence as juveniles adapt to delinquent subcultures within these facilities to
survive and avoid exploitation or victimization (Palacios, 2009). MacKenzie et al. (2001a)
found that youths in these traditional facilities had higher levels of anxiety and depression
than youths in boot camps, which does not help to improve their chances of living a productive life outside of incarceration.
Viable Rehabilitative And Restorative Programs
Rehabilitation, as a correctional focus, entails using various forms of treatment and services in an effort to restore the offender to a pro-social status as a productive member of
society (Cullen, 2005). Rehabilitation operates under the assumption that the correctional
system should provide services to offenders to improve their lives (Cullen & Jonson, 2012).
Recent research focused on determining “what works” have found that certain rehabilitation programs can effectively reform offenders and reduce their recidivism if implemented
properly (Cullen, 2005; Cullen & Gendreau, 2001; Cullen & Jonson, 2012; Lipsey et al.,
2010). Thus, interventions that embody therapeutic philosophies, such as restorative, skill
building, counseling, and multiple coordinated services are more effective than deterrencebased programs that embrace philosophies of control, coercion, and discipline (Lipsey,
2009; Lipsey et al., 2010). A few evidence-based programs include (a) Cognitive-Behavioral
Therapy (CBT), (b) Family Functional Therapy (FFT), (c) Multisystemic Therapy (MST),
and (d) Good Lives Model (GLM).
CBT involves exercises and instruction designed to modify the dysfunctional thinking
patterns displayed by delinquent youth (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). Meta-analyses have
found that CBT programs, whether brand-name or generic, are highly effective
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
64 Criminal Justice and Behavior
interventions for reducing recidivism among juveniles (Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005;
Lipsey et al., 2010). FFT is a short-term, family-based therapy for delinquent youth and
their family, which is designed to improve within-family attributions, family communication, parenting skills, and social support while lessening dysfunctional patterns of behavior (Lipsey et al., 2010). FFT and other generic family counseling programs have proven
to be highly effective at reducing recidivism if properly matched to the needs of the
offender (Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey et al., 2010). MST is an intensive family- and communitybased treatment that addresses multiple causes of juvenile antisocial behavior by seeking
to improve a youth’s functioning at home, school, and in the community, and it also has
positive effects on reducing juvenile recidivism rates (Lipsey et al., 2010). GLM is a
strengths-based model of offender rehabilitation that complements the Risk-NeedsResponsivity (RNR) model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010), by incorporating RNR principles
while also expanding the scope of rehabilitation beyond an emphasis on risk factors
(Ward, Fox, & Garber, 2014; Ward & Maruna, 2007). Instead, GLM seeks to identify the
offender’s primary human goods (e.g., experiences, states of being, and activities that
individuals strive for to gain fulfillment and happiness), which are associated with higher
levels of well-being, and then tailor a good lives intervention plan to aid the offender in
acquiring primary human goods in pro-social ways, while simultaneously addressing
criminogenic needs that might block the attainment of such goods (Ward et al., 2014;
Ward & Maruna, 2007). GLM naturally aligns with restorative justice ideas and practices
because of its sensitivity to relationships, agency, and the community (Laws & Ward,
2011; Ward et al., 2014).
Restorative justice (RJ) is a form of mediated reconciliation, whereby a process of conflict resolution is established by engaging all injured parties in discussion and negotiation
(Van Ness & Heetderks Strong, 2007; Zehr & Toews, 2004). RJ programs seek to repair the
harm done and address the reasons for the offense, while also promoting reconciliatory
sanctions that are salubrious for the victim(s), offender(s), and other involved parties (Zehr,
2002). Reductions in recidivism are seen as a by-product, because RJ is done primarily
because it is the right thing to do (Zehr, 2002). Three main principles are used to guide RJ
practices: accountability, competency development, and public safety (Bazemore & Day,
1996; Center for Restorative Justice and Mediation, 1996).
When an individual commits an offense, they incur an obligation to individual victims,
as well as the community (Zehr, 2002). Accountability for the offender means accepting
responsibility for the offense and working to repair the harm caused by her actions (Center
for Restorative Justice and Mediation, 1996). Competency development is aimed at the
improvement of offenders’ lives through RJ practices. An offender should exit an RJ intervention as a more capable and self-reformed citizen than when she entered (Ward &
Maruna, 2007; Zehr, 2002). Competency is not simply the lack of negative behavior, but
includes providing resources to offenders so they may make measurable gains in educational, vocational, social, civic, and other areas to enhance their capacity to function as
productive citizens, while undergoing moral repair and improving personal well-being
(Bazemore & Day, 1996; Ward et al., 2014). Public safety is the final principle. The aim of
this principle is to facilitate and cultivate new relationships with victims, schools, employers, community groups, and social agencies to strengthen the community’s capacity to
prevent and control crime. Without active participation from the community, crime control
is impossible (Zehr, 2002). Restoration allows for the harm to be repaired and for
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
Sellers / COMMUNITY-BASED RECOVERY AND YOUTH JUSTICE 65
relationships within the community to be rebuilt just as the theory of reintegrative shaming
endorses (Braithwaite, 1989).
Some effective RJ programs include (a) community conference models, (b) victim–
offender conferences (VOC), and (c) family group conferences (FGC; Zehr, 2002).
Bradshaw and Roseborough (2005) assessed the effectiveness of VOC and discovered
that 11 of the 15 studies that they examined found reductions in recidivism. A metaanalysis also found that participation in victim–offender mediation lead to a lower likelihood of re-offense (Nugent, Williams, & Umbreit, 2004). Several other studies revealed
that juveniles who successfully complete a FGC are less likely to reoffend in a 2-year
follow-up, when compared with the control group (McGarrell, 2001; McGarrell & Hipple,
2007; McGarrell, Olivares, Crawford, & Kroovand, 2000). Indeed, after New Zealand
revolutionized its juvenile justice system in 1989 to use restorative justice mediation programming, especially FGC, as the primary response to juvenile delinquency and crime,
there has been a two thirds decline in juvenile offending (Mulligan, 2009; Zehr, 2002). RJ
practices also allow juveniles an opportunity to repair the harm they have done to themselves, as well as help offenders, their families, and the community identify social, environmental, and psychological problems in need of intervention (e.g., anger management
issues, substance abuse, evidence of neglect, physical abuse, or sexual abuse, etc.;
Walgrave, 2004; Ward et al., 2014).
A Concluding Ethical And Cultural Critique
Given the findings from evidence-based research, it may appear perplexing as to why
policy makers, end users, and the public continue to support punitive, deterrence-based
programs for juvenile offenders. Numerous studies on public opinion have found that a
majority of the public tend to favor rehabilitation over punishment when asked; however,
the average citizen may not truly be able to understand the nuanced philosophical and practical differences that distinguish the two, and see no contradiction in simultaneously supporting them both (Bishop, 2006). Perhaps it is the reluctance of criminologists to engage
themselves in public debate, and as a result, they relinquish that debate to politicians and
other power brokers. In so doing, they deprive the public of knowledge that may influence
social action and change (Ferrell et al., 2008; Pratt, 2009). Thus, some scholars have called
for a “public criminology” (see Loader & Sparks, 2010).
The theoretical tenets underpinning “get tough” programs suggest that delinquency is a
conscious product of free will. Thus, juvenile offenders should be treated as rational agents
who knowingly and purposefully broke the law and must suffer the consequences as responsible individuals. Such logic neglects to account for developmental immaturity, lack of
cognitive development, or related social and emotional deficits, which may impair a juvenile’s decision-making. Indeed, empirical research suggests that deficiencies in psychosocial development among juveniles are caused by their impulsivity, reliance on peer
acceptance, lack of autonomy, inability to extricate themselves from criminogenic environments, and poor judgment in relation to future consequences (see Sellers & Arrigo, 2009).
But can we completely reduce the complexity of adolescence and human nature to an atomized rational choice (Ferrell et al., 2008), in which a culture of control (Garland, 2001) is
expected to single-handedly contain and manage social problems? Evidence-based research
suggests we cannot.
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
66 Criminal Justice and Behavior
This focus on individual agency and accountability is also compatible with neoliberal
political-economic values that suggest individual success or failure is to be blamed solely
on the individual, while possible deterministic forces (e.g., sociological, psychological, and
biological factors) are overlooked (Harvey, 2005). Moreover, punitive responses to failure
(e.g., delinquency and crime) reinforce an ethic of consequentialism to govern individual
action and decisions (Williams & Arrigo, 2012). As such, normative behavior is expected to
result from the threat and fear of consequence rather than rightness of action or soundness
of character.
Change presents a unique opportunity for people. The hyper-reality1 of our ever-changing world has outpaced peoples’ ability to situate themselves with the evolving values and
standards of human decency appropriate for the times. In fact, this phenomenon leaves most
in fear of change because newer, uncharted paths are ambiguous and may cause individuals
to question the past commonly held value systems. However, juvenile justice reform does
not appear so ambiguous in light of current research efforts. Yet, we must overcome the
tendency to be overwhelmed by the complexity of systemic problems and instead embrace
change and challenging political structures, rather than hold tight to often antiquated beliefs
that stand as hallmarks of past conservative views of child-saving and perpetuate existing
paradigms. Of course, efforts for change may be further thwarted by the manipulation and
commodification of the perceived realities of punitive crime control programs for consumer
consumption (e.g., the “Beyond Scared Straight” reality show). Such market-based media
effects cultivate anxiety, fear, and even pleasure, while attempting to manufacture tacit consent among the public to maintain status quo social and political conditions (Ferrell et al.,
2008). And more profoundly, this is the problem of how to manage risk without marginalizing juvenile identities (Arrigo, 2013).
Rehabilitative and restorative justice approaches to juvenile offending embody a relational ethic of care and a virtue-based philosophy whereby interventions are meant to repair
and restore a youth’s moral character, and equip her with the ability to make virtuous decisions that are not governed by fear of consequence or obligation to duty (Arrigo et al.,
2011). These approaches to delinquency prevention and intervention are essential when
compared with punitive alternatives, yet they may hold even more promise if they were to
be utilized in tandem (Cullen & Jonson, 2012; McNeill, 2009; Ward et al., 2014). Both
rehabilitation and restorative justice focus on improving the offender, reducing recidivism,
and increasing public safety, so combining these practices may help achieve these goals
more effectively (Cullen & Jonson, 2012; Ward et al., 2014). When examined macrologically as a societal problem in which everyone is harmed by such punitiveness, this ethic of
care and virtue-based philosophy necessitates a response to such “totalizing confinement”
(Arrigo, 2013; Arrigo et al., 2011).
For example, the inclusion of mental health professionals, as an additional community
representative in a RJ conference, may allow the professional to recognize therapeutic
needs of the offender or victim and tie them to services within the community (e.g., substance abuse treatment, anger management, CBT, FFT, MST, GLM) to promote offender
competency development, victim recovery, and public safety (Cullen & Jonson, 2012;
Walgrave, 2004). By coupling restorative justice conferencing with another rehabilitative
intervention (e.g., CBT, FFT, MST, or GLM) that shares the same major tenets, facilitators
may increase the likelihood of successful reentry and desistance from juvenile delinquency
and crime while using evidence-based practices (Cullen & Jonson, 2012; Ward et al., 2014).
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
Sellers / COMMUNITY-BASED RECOVERY AND YOUTH JUSTICE 67
Note
1. Hyper-reality is a term used in semiotics and postmodern philosophy to describe an inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation of reality (see work by Jean Baudrillard).
References
Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson.
Arrigo, B. A. (2013). Managing risk and marginalizing identities: On the society-of-captives thesis and the harm of social
dis-ease. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 672-698. doi:10.1177/03066
24X13480634
Arrigo, B. A., Bersot, H. Y., & Sellers, B. G. (2011). The ethics of total confinement: A critique of madness, citizenship, and
social justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bazemore, G., & Day, S. E. (1996). Restoring the balance: Juvenile and community justice. Juvenile Justice, 3(1), 3-14.
Bennett, W. J., DiIulio, J. J., & Walters, J. P. (1996). Body count: Moral poverty . . . and how to win America’s war against
crime and drugs. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Birkeland, S., Murphy-Graham, E., & Weiss, C. (2005). Good reasons for ignoring good evaluation: The case of the drug
abuse resistance education (D.A.R.E.) program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 247-256. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2005.04.001
Bishop, D. M. (2006). Public opinion and juvenile justice policy: Myths and misconceptions. Criminology & Public Policy,
5, 653-664. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00408.x
Blackburn, A. G., Mullings, J. L., Marquart, J. W., & Trulson, C. R. (2007). The next generation of prisoners: Toward
an understanding of violent institutionalized delinquents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 35-56.
doi:10.1177/1541204006295156
Bradshaw, W., & Roseborough, D. (2005). Restorative justice dialogue: The impact of mediation and conferencing on juvenile recidivism. Federal Probation, 69(2), 15-21.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
Center for Restorative Justice and Mediation. (1996). Restorative justice: For victims, communities and offender—What is
restorative justice? St. Paul: School of Social Work, University of Minnesota.
Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. London, England: MacGibbon and
Kee.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference.
Criminology, 43, 1-42. doi:10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00001.x
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century.
The Prison Journal, 81, 312-337. doi:10.1177/0032885501081003002
Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). Correctional theory: Context and consequences. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Currie, E. (1998). Crime and punishment in America. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
D.A.R.E. America. (2010). D.A.R.E. annual report: Empowering children to lead safe and healthy lives. Retrieved from
http://www.dare.org/d-a-r-e-annual-report-empowering-children-to-lead-safe-and-healthy-lives/
Denhart, A. (2011). Beyond scared straight’s real-life controversy. Retrieved from www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/23/beyond-scared-straights-real-life-controversy.html
Ennett, S. T., Tobler, N. S., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (1994). How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project D.A.R.E. outcome evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1394-1401.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.84.9.1394
Evans, J., Davies, B., & Rich, E. (2008). The class and cultural functions of obesity discourse: Our latter day child saving
movement. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 18, 117-132. doi:10.1080/09620210802351367
Ferrell, J., Hayward, K., & Young, J. (2008). Cultural criminology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Finckenauer, J. O. (1982). Scared straight and the Panacea phenomenon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Grasmick, H., & Bursik, R. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law
& Society Review, 24, 837-860. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3053861
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hirschfield, P. J. (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology,
12(1), 79-101. doi:10.1177/1362480607085795
Hockenberry, S., Sickmund, M., & Sladky, A. (2013). Juvenile residential facility census, 2010: Selected findings. Washington,
DC: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A metaanalysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451-476.
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
68 Criminal Justice and Behavior
Laws, D. R., & Ward, T. (2011). Desistance from sexual offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic
overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124-147. doi:10.1080/15564880802612573
Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of
Law and Social Science, 3, 297-320. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833
Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., Kelly, M. R., Chapman, G., & Carver, D. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of juvenile justice
programs: A new perspective on evidence-based practice. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice, Georgetown
University.
Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2010). Public criminology? London, England: Routledge.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Makarios, M. D., Latessa, E. J., Lemke, R., & Smith, P. (2010). Community corrections facilities for
juvenile offenders in Ohio: An examination of treatment integrity and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37,
695-708. doi:10.1177/0093854810363721
Lundman, R. J. (2001). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lynam, D. R., Milich, R., Zimmerman, R., Novak, S. P., Logan, T. K., Martin, C., . . . Clayton, R. (1999). Project D.A.R.E.:
No effects at 10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 590-593. doi:10.1037/0022006X.67.4.590
MacKenzie, D. L., & Souryal, C. (1994). Multisite evaluation of shock incarceration. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., Armstrong, G. S., & Gover, A. R. (2001a). The impact of boot camps and traditional institutions on juvenile residents: Perceptions, adjustments, and change. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 38,
279-313. doi:10.1177/0022427801038003004
MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., & Kider, S. B. (2001b). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 126-143. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.emich.
edu/stable/1049871
McGarrell, E. F. (2001). Restorative justice conferences as an early response to young offenders. Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice.
McGarrell, E. F., & Hipple, N. K. (2007). Family group conferencing and re-offending among first-time juvenile offenders:
The Indianapolis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 24, 221-246. doi:10.1080/07418820701294789
McGarrell, E. F., Olivares, K., Crawford, K., & Kroovand, N. (2000). Returning justice to the community: The Indianapolis
juvenile restorative justice experiment. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute Crime Control Policy Center.
McNeill, F. (2009). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Meade, B., & Steiner, B. (2010). The total effects of boot camps that house juveniles: A systematic review of the evidence.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 841-853. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.06.007
Mills, C. W. (1943). The professional ideology of social pathologists. American Journal of Sociology, 49, 165-180. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2770362
Mulligan, S. (2009). From retribution to repair: Juvenile justice and the history of restorative justice. University of La Verne
Law Review, 31, 139-149. Retrieved from http://law.laverne.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/139from-retribution-torepair.pdf.
Nugent, W. R., Williams, M., & Umbreit, M. S. (2004). Participation in victim-offender mediation and the prevalence of subsequent delinquent behavior: A meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 408-416.
doi:10.1177/1049731504265831
Palacios, W. R. (2009). Moving beyond the “Pepsi generation”: The contemporary inmate subculture in juvenile correctional
settings. In R. Tewksbury & D. Dabney (Eds.), Prisons and jails: A reader (pp. 367-378). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pan, W., & Bai, H. (2009). A multivariate approach to a meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. program.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6, 267-277. doi:10.3390/ijerph6010267
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2003). Scared straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 41-62. doi:10.1177/0002716203254693
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., Hollis-Peel, M. E., & Lavenberg, J. G. (2013). “Scared straight” and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4, 1-44.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002796.pub2
Platt, A. M. (2009). The child savers: The invention of delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. (Original
work published 1969)
Pratt, T. C. (2009). Addicted to incarceration: Corrections policy and the politics of misinformation in the United States.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Roberts, D. (2008). Torture and the biopolitics of race. University of Miami Law Review, 62, 229-248. Retrieved from https://
www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/roberts1/workingpapers/b62UMiamiLRev229(2008).pdf
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015
Sellers / COMMUNITY-BASED RECOVERY AND YOUTH JUSTICE 69
Rosenbaum, D. P. (2007). Just say no to D.A.R.E. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 815-824. doi:10.1111/j.17459133.2007.00474.x
Roush, D. W., & McMillen, M. (2000). Construction, operations, and staff training for juvenile confinement facilities
(Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program Bulletin). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Sellers, B. G. (2013). Zero tolerance for marginal populations: Examining neoliberal social controls in American schools
(Doctoral dissertation). Scholar Commons. Retrieved from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/4768
Sellers, B. G., & Arrigo, B. A. (2009). Adolescent transfer, developmental maturity, and adjudicative competence: An ethical
and justice policy inquiry. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 435-488.
Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture
of fear. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Singh, R. D., Jimerson, S. R., Renshaw, T., Saeki, E., Hart, S. R., & Stewart, K. (2011). A summary and synthesis of
contemporary empirical evidence regarding the effects of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (D.A.R.E.).
Contemporary School Psychology, 15, 93-102. doi:10.1007/BF03340966
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Stinchcomb, J. B., Bazemore, G., & Riestenberg, N. (2006). Beyond zero tolerance: Restoring justice in secondary schools.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 123-147. doi:10.1177/1541204006286287
Trull, L., & Arrigo, B. A. (in press). US Immigration policy and the 21st century conundrum of “child saving”: A human
rights, law and social science, political economic and philosophical inquiry. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 66.
Trulson, C. R., Marquart, J. W., Mullings, J. L., & Caeti, T. J. (2007). In between adolescence and adulthood: Recidivism outcomes for a cohort of state delinquents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 355-387. doi:10.1177/1541204005278802
Van Ness, D., & Heetderks Strong, K. (2007). Restorative justice: An introduction to restorative justice. Cincinnati, OH:
Lexis/Nexis Anderson.
Walgrave, L. (2004). Restoration in youth justice. In M. Tonry & A. Doob (Eds.), Youth crime and youth justice: Comparative
and cross-national perspectives (pp. 543-597). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ward, T., Fox, K. J., & Garber, M. (2014). Restorative justice, offender rehabilitation and desistance. Restorative Justice: An
International Journal, 2(1), 24-42. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/20504721.2.1.24
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. London, England: Routledge.
Welch, M. (2011). Corrections: A critical approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
West, S. L., & O’Neal, K. K. (2004). Project D.A.R.E. outcome effectiveness revisited. American Journal of Public Health,
94, 1027-1029. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448384/
Williams, C., & Arrigo, B. (2012). Ethics, crime, and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2005). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell
Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/3/
Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Zehr, H., & Toews, B. (Eds.). (2004). Critical issues in restorative justice. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Brian G. Sellers is an assistant professor in the sociology, anthropology, and criminology department, Eastern Michigan
University, and he is a co-author of The Ethics of Total Confinement: A Critique of Madness, Citizenship, and Social Justice.
His interests include juvenile justice, delinquency, juvenile homicide offenders, restorative justice, school violence, and ethics. Some of his work has appeared in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, and International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology.
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at IACFP - International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology on June 15, 2015