Paradoxes of Treatment in Juvenile Corrections

Laura S. AbramsSchool of Social work, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Kyoungho KimUniversity of Konkuk, Korea

Ben Anderson-NatheDepartment of Work, Community, and Family Education, University of Minnesota,Twin Cities

ABSTRACT: Youth offenders who are sentenced to correctional institutions are typi-cally required to participate in various forms of psychological treatment. Despite highcosts and poor results associated with these placements, little is known about howpsychological treatment strategies are integrated into traditional correctional models orhow these essentially competing philosophies operate together. Through field observa-tions and semi-structured interviews, the authors expose several paradoxes of treatmentthat emerged in a county juvenile correctional facility for youthful male offenders in alarge Midwestern American city. The authors provide a critical perspective on theblending of treatment and correctional approaches to juvenile rehabilitation.

KEY WORDS: juvenile justice; youth offenders; field research; residential treatment.

Paradoxes of Treatment in Juvenile Corrections

For the past century, the American juvenile justice system hasoscillated between punitive and rehabilitation-oriented responses tothe social problems of youth crime and delinquency. Following the de-institutionalization trend in mental health, juvenile justice practicesin the 1970s and 1980s encouraged placement of youthful offenders innon-secure, community-based programs (Jenson & Howard, 1998). Inthe 1990s, these strategies were downplayed in favor of strict

Correspondence should be directed to Dr. Laura S. Abrams, University of Minnesota,School of Social Work, 105 Peters Hall, 1404 Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108;e-mail: labrams@che.umn.edu.This project was funded by the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station and the

Lois and Samuel Silberman fund.

Child & Youth Care Forum, 34(1), February 2005 � 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 7DOI: 10.1007/s10566-004-0879-3

sanctions, incarceration, lengthier sentences, and certifying youths asadults (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996).Stemming from this legacy of competing influences, the currentjuvenile justice system struggles to balance its orientation toward bothcorrections and treatment. This paper will summarize the funda-mental elements of these approaches and describe, through qualitativefield research, how these essentially competing principles are appliedin practice and directly experienced by young men in a residentialcorrectional institution. The tensions detected between behavior con-trol mechanisms and psychological treatment strategies can be ap-plied to a variety of residential care settings for young people.

The Correctional Approach

The correctional approach to juvenile justice is based upon a quasi-military model of discipline, drill, and ceremony (MacKenzie, 1997).Mirroring the adult penal system, the underlying goal of correctionalprograms is punishment as these programs rely on systems of harshpenalties to correct offenders’ attitudes and behaviors. Research sug-gests that some punishment can be effective when applied in the rightamount and at the right time, a fortunate finding, as few seriousoffenders readily seek rehabilitation without some form of coercion(Allen & Simonsen, 1998). However, a strictly punitive environmenthas a negative side in that correctional staff tend towatch forminor ruleinfringements and overlook positive actions by offenders (Finn, 1995;Stephan, 1989). Moreover, aside from deterrence effects, these ap-proaches risk bypassing the opportunity to equip youth with skills andresources to prevent future criminal behavior. Although there is scantevidence supporting the effectiveness of the pure correctional approach,it is still used in some detention centers, boot camps, and public cor-rectional programs for repeat or felony-level youthful offenders.

Treatment Approaches

Treatment approaches to juvenile corrections are varied, yet theyshare a concern for the underlying causes of delinquency, such asmental health problems, psychological traumas, child abuse and ne-glect, family dysfunction, and/or substance abuse. As opposed to thecorrectional approach, treatment models help offenders to experiencethe rewards of positive or pro-social behaviors as they come tounderstand the root causes of their misconduct. Treatment-orientedcorrectional programs also try to prepare their clientele for reinte-gration into the community through contact with families, schools,

Child & Youth Care Forum8

and other systems surrounding the youth (Allen & Simonsen, 1998).Contemporary treatment modalities include behavioral approaches,psychological counseling, cognitive-behavioral therapy, specializedtherapeutic programs, and a blend of these various programs (Palmer,1991; Schoenwald, Ward, Henggeler, Pickrel, & Patel, 1996).

Behavioral Approaches. Behavioral techniques are akin to the cor-rectional model in their punishment of negative behaviors, yet theystrive to reward positive behaviors as well. Behavior modification isoften implemented in residential treatment and correctional institu-tional through such mechanisms as point systems, token economies,and behavioral contracting. All of these techniques are based on theprinciple that behavior is related to the consequences it produces. Thatis, if the consequences can be managed by punishment for delinquentbehaviors and rewards for pro-social behaviors, the behavior can bemodified (Hollins, 1990). Early research literature suggests thatbehavioral approaches are more effective in reducing recidivism thanstrictly punitive models (Garrett, 1985; Jesness, 1975).

Psychological Counseling. Psychological counseling interventions at-tempt to address youth offenders’ self-concept, self-understanding,and relational concerns (Borduin, 1994; Henggeler, 1989; Mulvey,Arthur, & Reppucci, 1993). Individual counseling focuses on theemotional and behavioral problems that presumably caused the resi-dents to become involved in crime. Positive peer culture or guidedgroup interaction programs try to solve the offenders’ emotionalproblems by promoting empathy between residents and mutualaccountability (Moon, Sundt, Cullen, & Wright, 2000; Mulvey et al.,1993). Family-based interventions emphasize modification of parent-ing skills, family interactions, and family functioning (Hollins, 1990).All of these therapies assume that raising awareness of deficitsembedded within individual and family systems will resolve some ofthe underlying causes of criminal thought patterns and their resultingbehaviors.

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) israpidly becoming more common in residential correctional facilities foryouth offenders. CBT teaches ‘‘thought control,’’ the practice oflearning to halt or change thoughts that precede impulsive or criminalbehaviors (DeLangue, Barton, & Lanham, 1981). This techniquepurports to help offenders control or contain their impulses when theyfaced with risky situations or crime temptations. Several studiesdemonstrate that CBT with youthful offenders can be effective in

Abrams, Kim, and Anderson-Nathe 9

teaching impulse control and reducing re-arrest rates for at least oneyear after training (Feindler, Ecton, Kingsley, & Dubey, 1986; Glick &Goldstein, 1987; Hazel, Schumaker, Sherman, & Sheldon-Wildgren,1982; Serna, Schumaker, Hazel, & Sheldon, 1986).

Specialized Treatment. Certain types of criminal behaviors, such assex offenses, conduct disorders, or substance abuse require specifictreatment approaches (Caldwell & Van Rybroek, 2001; Cocozza, 1992).These specialized therapies, offered in group, individual, and familysettings, focus on solving particular problems that are often relatedto delinquent conduct (Moon et al., 2000). In many correctionalresidential programs, treatment for specialized problems is oftencombined with psychological counseling, CBT, and/or behavior modi-fication approaches (Palmer, 1991).

The Union of Treatment and Corrections

A blended treatment approach prevails in current correc-tional institutions for youth offenders in that these institutionsremain punitive in their basic structure yet they offer a variety oftreatment options as well. There are, however, vast disparitiesbetween the traditional correctional philosophy and the orientationtoward treating youth offenders’ underlying psychosocial problems.Simply stated, whereas the correctional approach focuses on pun-ishment of residents’ criminality, treatment approaches focus onrehabilitation through self-awareness and personal growth. Theinfluence of these competing ideologies and practices in the context ofcorrectional facilities and similar residential treatment institutionsfor high-risk youths is essentially unexplored in the current researchliterature.

Goals of Current Study

The majority of existing research on the effectiveness of residentialcorrectional institutions for youthful offenders focuses on outcomes asindicated by recidivism rates (Greenwood, 1996; Jenson & Howard,1998; Lipsey, 1992; Myner, Santman, & Cappelletty, 1998). However,the field lacks critical knowledge about how treatment and correc-tional goals can be effectively combined to produce long-lastingbehavior changes for their clientele. To address this knowledge gap,this study aims to:

1. describe the blend of treatment modalities involved in a residentialcorrectional institution for youthful male offenders;

Child & Youth Care Forum10

2. explore some of the tensions that emerge in blending treatment andcorrectional philosophies;

3. investigate male offenders’ subjective experiences of treatmentwithin a correctional setting;

4. understand how messages about treatment and criminal behaviorshape youth offenders’ potential for desistance from crime.

Method

The Setting

This project took place at a county-funded correctional facility inWilliams County, Minnesota.1 The researchers selected WilliamsCounty as a study site because of the high level of youth arrests in thearea. Williams County is a mixed urban and suburban area ofsoutheast Minnesota and is home to approximately 10% of the state’sjuvenile population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The U.S. Censusestimates that 19.2% of the Williams County juvenile population fallsunder the national poverty threshold. This proportion is well aboveaverage for the state of Minnesota (13.1%). Juvenile arrests accounteda very high percentage (39%) of all 1997 Williams County arrests, ascompared with their proportion of the entire population of 25.6% forall children, birth to age 18 (Criminal Justice Statistics Center, 2001).The correctional institution where data collection occurred detains

youthful male offenders for a period of 4–6 months alongwith 3 monthsof aftercare programming in the community. This county-funded cor-rectional facility has the capacity to serve up to 75 young men aged13–18 and has a comprehensive program including an on-site publicschool. The racial census of the facility is approximately 38% AfricanAmerican, 33% White, 15% Asian, 9% Hispanic origin, 4% NativeAmerican, and 2% other/unknown. Youth of color are vastly over-represented in the facility compared to their county population pro-portions.The facility uses a blended approach to offender rehabilitation that

incorporates elements of behavior modification, psychological coun-seling, specialized treatment, and traditional correctional systems.For the behavior modification component, milieu and school staffprovide residents with systematic feedback on their behaviors based

1The name of this county as well as resident and staff names are changed for confi-dentiality.

Abrams, Kim, and Anderson-Nathe 11

on assigned points. Point ratings signal to residents when they displayproblematic or pro-social behaviors in the dorm. Residents are re-quired to keep track of their earned points on daily scorecards thathelp them earn certain program privileges. Psychological counselingand specialized treatment components include both required and op-tional peer groups, individual and family counseling, substance abusetreatment, and CBT skills training sessions. The correctional aspect ofthe facility structures the rank and file ordering of daily operationswith an emphasis on dorm safety, rules, and surveillance. Moreover,at any time, dorm staff can dole out ‘‘violations’’ or ‘‘fines’’ based onresidents’ display of problem behaviors or rule infractions. Theseviolations are later heard in ‘‘team meetings’’ when the resident mustexplain his behavior to four or more staff members. Based on thesemeetings, staff reach consensus about the appropriate consequence forthe violation.Residents are required to complete five ‘‘levels’’ before they can be

approved for release back to their community and into the aftercareprogram.2 Residents move up and down on levels according to theemotional and therapeutic work that they display in their writtentreatment contracts, examples of which include essays titled ‘‘Under-standing My Offense,’’ ‘‘The Cycle of Crime,’’ ‘‘Family Problems,’’ and‘‘Hurt and Loss.’’ Staff routinely assess residents’ written contracts fortheir sincerity and/or depth. If staff reach consensus that the contractmeets the requirements, residents can ‘‘buy’’ a request to advancetheir level with accumulated points, and, during a team meeting,make their case to advance in the program. Loss of levels can occur onaccount of major rule infractions or the staffs’ assessment that a res-ident is not adequately working on his core treatment issues. Hencethe program clearly and explicitly links residents’ program successand progress with their perceived level of engagement in therapeuticand emotional work.

Study Design and Data Collection

This study methodology was observational field research that wasinformed by ethnographic and interpretative principles. Althoughnot a pure ethnography (i.e., total immersion in an unfamiliarculture or setting), core principles of ethnographic fieldwork guidedthe research team in understanding the language, style, and cus-toms of the institution as a whole (Hobbs, 2001; Lofland & Lofland,

2However, residents are often allowed to leave before they complete their levels basedon court dates and maximum stay rules.

Child & Youth Care Forum12

1995). We also adopted an interpretative approach to the researchthat attempted to understand phenomena through the meaningsthat people assign to them. Interpretive research does not predefinespecific relationships between dependent and independent vari-ables, but focuses on the full complexity of human sense making asthe situation emerges (Bogdan and Taylor, 1975). In this frame-work we allowed the concepts for the analysis of these ‘‘paradoxes’’to emerge through our field observations and interactions with thefacility and through the voices of the study participantsthemselves.Data collection consisted of 16 months of regular (weekly or twice-

weekly) participant observation sessions between March 2001 andJune 2002. During these two-to-five hour field observations, thePrincipal Investigator, a white female (L.A.), and a research assistant,a white male (B.A.) participated informally with residents and staff inregular program activities. We often positioned ourselves at thesidelines of activities to take notes about interesting interactions oroccurrences. These observations were recorded in detailed fieldnotes,which occasionally included verbatim dialogues and interactions andalso documented our subjective reactions to the interactions that weobserved.In addition to the field observations, we interviewed 12 residents at

least four times each during their stay at the facility and once upontheir departure. These interviews were semi-structured in that theresearchers had an established list of topics to cover, but the interviewformat was a guided conversation (Patton, 1990). Some thematic an-gles of inquiry were specific to each interview; others cut across eachinterview to understand residents’ perceptions and attitudes as theychanged over time. For example, in all five interviews in the sequence,the researchers asked residents to discuss their perceptions of thefacility, the staff, and their treatment activities and progress. Theinterviews usually lasted between 45 and 90 minutes and were re-corded on audiotapes. Interview data provided a more intensive studyof residents’ experiences at the facility and were used to confirm/dis-confirm the findings from the observational data. Further, interviewdata allowed the researchers to understand how those experienceschanged over the course of residents’ involvement with the facility andinto their community reintegration phase (or aftercare).

Data Analysis

Data collected through field observations were analyzed and codedusing an inductive strategy for qualitative data analysis. Miles and

Abrams, Kim, and Anderson-Nathe 13

Huberman (1984) recommend a four-stage, circular process for ana-lyzing field research data, including data collection, data reduction,data displays, and drawing and verifying conclusions. For datareduction, a graduate research assistant (K.K.) broke down pertinentnote entries into several categories related to the treatment milieu,including: ‘‘staff and resident interactions,’’ ‘‘peer-to-peer interac-tions,’’ and ‘‘what residents tell us about treatment.’’ After these noteentries were sorted by category, the research team developed a seriesof codes that emerged inductively from the entries. The PrincipalInvestigator (L.A.) and the graduate assistant (K.K.) were able tomatch their coding of these note entries 80% of the time. For those thatwere mismatched, the team discussed them and reached consensusdecisions. When coding of the first six months of fieldnotes was com-plete, several data display techniques were used to draw conclusionsfrom the codes and themes, including conceptual matrices, thematicflow charts, and analytic memos (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Oncethese themes were displayed and analyzed, the researchers were ableto gain a better understanding of the role of treatment in correctionsand the way that the youth experienced this blended system. Theseconceptual hypotheses were then tested against the second six monthsof fieldnote entries and modified accordingly.

Observations: The Paradoxes of Treatment

Several tensions emerged in the blending of correctional andtreatment approaches to youth offenders’ residential care. Using de-tailed examples from fieldnotes and interviews, we will describethree paradoxes that emerged in the everyday workings of the insti-tution.

The Paradox of Emotional Expression

The first paradox relates to mixed messages concerning residents’emotional displays. When operating in the treatment frame, programstaff encourage residents to express their anger as a tool for personalgrowth and healing. However, the rigid program structure requiresthat staff simultaneously exert a high degree of control over theseemotional expressions. Moreover, the correctional nature of the facil-ity mandates that staff respond to some extreme emotional displayspunitively or dismissively, leading the residents to hide or suppresstheir true feelings for fear of reprimands. Residents become caught ina tangle of messages concerning emotion that results in confusion

Child & Youth Care Forum14

about when, how, and where it is ‘‘appropriate’’ to activate the ther-apeutic tool of emotional expression.One of the major components of the treatment orientation of the

facility is that staff try to teach residents skills around feeling andexpressing their emotions. The fieldnote excerpts below illustrate howstaff often employ a psychotherapeutic language that encourages theresidents to express their underlying feelings, such as anger, sadness,or disappointment.

Ms. Frucht told him that he seems ‘‘closed,’’ that he ‘‘can’t expresshimself from the heart’’ and asked ‘‘what is he afraid of by being honest?’’She also suggested that his lack of ‘‘openness’’ won’t serve him well inthe long run in life or relationships (Fieldnote, September, 2001).

Nino came into the office for a violation hearing for failing to call in ontime during his weekend, and for failing to attend an AA meeting on thesame weekend. . .After some discussion, Nino received a consequence of aloss of a weekend visit home. He didn’t appear shaken and told the staffthat he understood what they were doing and why. Mr. Jerome startedpushing him at this point, saying ‘‘I know you’re mad at me right now.Why aren’t you showing it? Don’t just sit there and smile. Tell me you’remad.’’ Nino said, ‘‘I’m not mad. I missed my call in and the AA meeting.Only thing I got to be mad at is myself.’’ Mr. Jerome kept pushing him toshow his anger, not to bottle it up—‘‘. . .express yourself, don’t hold it in’’(Fieldnote, January, 2002).

Staff also encourage residents to understand their ‘‘emotional trig-gers’’ as a way to gain insight into the root causes of their delinquency.This process is incorporated into written treatment contracts thatresidents are required to present in front of their peers. In theexamples below, residents are trained in a system of linking theiremotions directly to their behaviors:

The resident in the ‘‘hot seat’’ of the peer group used a lot of ‘‘I felt mad’’or ‘‘I felt angry’’ statements—mostly referring to losses, disappointmentsrelated to his family, and general life setbacks. Significant events alsoincluded his friend dying and his father dying of cancer (Fieldnote,December, 2001).

During peer group, a resident presented his contract, presumably tomove up on his levels. It was a standard procedure—he described how hefelt victimized by his mother which then led him to steal a vehicle to seekout his father. . .His contract focused on the thoughts and feelings thatled him to steal the car, as well as how he felt afterwards that he hadvictimized people (Fieldnote, May, 2002).

Through treatment groups and individual interactions, the programclearly attempts to teach residents emotional expression in the hopes

Abrams, Kim, and Anderson-Nathe 15

that they will develop a better understanding of their crime motiva-tions. However, the staff’s encouragement of openness can be under-mined by their use of residents’ emotional expression as leverage forpunitive action. As the program intimately ties treatment goals to atight rule system, a resident’s failure to show staff that he is ‘‘doing theemotional work’’ can translate into threats of violations, fines, leveldrops, or extended stays at the facility. In this sense, residents aresometimes forced into emotional displays to avoid punitive action.Consider the following examples:

Ms. Wolfe challenged Eric on presenting partial truths. . . She said, ‘youhaven’t learned anything here.’ She warned that if he didn’t ‘open up’ hewouldn’t be able to clear his violation, which would postpone his releasedate (Fieldnote, September, 2001).

Mr. Harris said he wished that Nino could learn to just open up, to ‘stopsmiling all the time.’ Mr. Harris said that Nino has been very ‘closed’since he came to the facility and appears happy and ‘like everything’s OK’but that inside he has a lot of anger. During his violation meeting,Mr. Harris gave him a chance to ‘open up’ and he took it—he swore atstaff and told off Mr. Harris, even saying, ‘fuck you.’ He was givenpermission to do so without fear of repercussions (Fieldnote, April, 2002).

In these two examples, staff clearly exerted control over the resi-dents’ emotional expressions. These residents had to meet staff ’s de-mands around their emotional expression to fulfill their programrequirements or to avoid punishment. For example, Eric had to ‘‘openup’’ to staff presumably not because he saw the value of that process,but rather because he did not want to delay his exit date. In Nino’scase of forced anger at staff, his stated feelings seemed essentiallycontrived. This linking of emotional displays with the correctionalrules seemed to work against the treatment goals by making theresidents’ expressions less authentic or genuine.Residents’ feelings are also subject to correctional or institutional

control in other ways. In some instances in the milieu, staff discountresidents’ emotions when they appear to threaten the rules and thefunctioning of the rank and file order of the facility. When staff per-ceive residents’ feelings as disruptive or inappropriate, they tend toquickly dismiss the importance of these emotional displays, renderingthem silent. Consider the following examples:

Kou mentioned that it’s hard to figure out ‘how to communicate whenstaff are always right.’ Mr. Marshall had no response for them, otherthan to repeat the same phrases over and over again. He finally stoppedthe discussion by saying, ‘this is getting negative. Point proven. Moveon.’ The boys were silenced (Fieldnote, July, 2001).

Child & Youth Care Forum16

The staff asked Josh questions about how he thinks he’s doing in theprogram, pointing out the numerous fines and violations he’s received.Josh tried to explain that he thought he was doing okay, and he offeredexplanations for his violations and fines. Mr. Harris jumped in and toldhim to stop explaining himself—‘You need to learn how to listen. Justlisten to what people have to say, don’t explain. When people get hungup on explaining themselves, they stop listening.’ Josh tried to be clearthat he wasn’t excusing himself, but explaining, and he was told again to‘just listen’ (Fieldnote, January, 2002).

Perhaps as a result of these mixed messages, some of the residentsbecome closed or shut down, feeling that it is better to ‘‘keep theirmouths shut’’ than to practice expressive tools. For example:

I asked Samson whether he felt like he could talk to the staff, and hereplied that they ‘don’t really care,’ so he doesn’t talk to them . . . he justhas to decide to keep his mouth shut and do what people tell him to do(Fieldnote, April, 2001).

Jason mentioned ‘they (staff) don’t care about our feelings . . . I just don’tshow it anymore.’ The others agreed. . . ‘You just deal with it’ if you getupset. ‘You’re not allowed to yell at staff or do anything like that. Youjust keep it inside’ (Fieldnote, April, 2001).

Another resident said during an interview:

. . .if you disagree with them (staff) or express your opinion to them,they’re just going to punish you. So you can’t act out if something’s notfair. You just have to take it. You can’t grieve it; you can’t say that’s notfair. . .If they give me a fine, I’m just like, ‘Okay.’ I won’t try to fight backat all. ‘Cause I notice, the other kids, they’ll fight back, they’ll get sent totime out (Interview, June, 2001).

Hence in the paradox of emotional expression, the facility attemptsto teach residents new skills regarding emotions and openness thatcould potentially be useful a therapeutic sense. Yet in the same cor-rectional context, staff exert control over residents’ emotions asleverage for punitive action. Moreover, staff often discourage resi-dents’ expressions of emotions, when they could potentially interferewith the rules and functioning of the dorm. Juxtaposed with a treat-ment philosophy that teaches the residents to dig deeper into theirpersonal feelings, these responses create a tangle of confusing mes-sages around when, where, and how young people should utilize theexpressive tools they are being taught in their treatment activities.

The Paradox of Delinquency Interpretation

The second paradox pertains to staff messages concerning the rootcauses of delinquency. The treatment model suggests that residents’

Abrams, Kim, and Anderson-Nathe 17

delinquent conduct stems from larger interpersonal issues such asfamily dysfunction, absent parents (particularly fathers), substanceabuse, and unresolved ‘‘hurt and loss.’’ However, the correctionalmodel introduces more individualized explanations of delinquency incatch phrases such as ‘‘bad choices,’’ ‘‘criminal thinking,’’ and ‘‘nega-tive friends.’’ The residents are exposed to these competing frames forwhy they engaged in delinquency and how much responsibility theycan or should take for their behaviors.During treatment activities, program staff consistently point to

residents’ unresolved anger at their parents as the underlying foun-dation for much of their crime motivations. This family lens is uni-laterally applied to all of the cases in the dorm, extending so far as torequire that all residents must complete a ‘‘family problems’’ contractand present it in front of their peers. Moreover, the staff often assessthe residents’ level position based on the extent to which they arewilling or able to disclose information about their family problems.Consider the following examples that occurred either during meetingswith staff or in front of peers:

Caleb presented his contract to the group about his major crime. . .Hesaid that when he is bored, he likes to ‘destroy stuff’ and raise trouble. . .The other boys encouraged Caleb to write into his contract that he wasmad at his dad. Mr. Jerome even said your ‘real problem’ I think is thatyou were so mad at your dad neglecting you that you go and destroythings. . .He suggested that the ‘boredom’ may really be anger at hisfamily (Fieldnote, October, 2001).

Another resident said during an interview:

They <staff> blame a lot of stuff on my parents. Your parents didn’tteach you right . . . your parents didn’t—that’s a lie. The reason I wasdoing these things is not because of my parents. . .my parents have al-ways cared for me, not neglected me, did everything I wanted. So theyblame so much of this stuff on your parents, it’s pathetic. . . (Interview,March, 2002).

Competing with this family orientation to treatment, the correc-tional component of the facility tends to assert residents’ individualresponsibility for their delinquency, stemming from ‘‘poor impulsecontrol’’ or ‘‘criminal thinking patterns.’’ These messages can stigma-tize residents as ‘‘criminals,’’ yet on the flip side, may also help them totake more individual responsibility for their behaviors. Consider thefollowing interactions:

Mr. Harris talked to the boys for about five minutes, starting out bysharing with them that he knows about the negative talking they’vebeen doing about a staff member. He said: ‘This is criminal thinking,

Child & Youth Care Forum18

gentlemen’. . .Mr. Harris reminded the residents that it’s up to them tostop these behaviors—those people who didn’t know anything about therumors are the only people who have no responsibility—if they even justhad heard the rumors and allowed them to continue, that’s criminalthinking and will be consequenced (Fieldnote, November, 2001).

Mr. Jerome said to me after a team meeting: ‘Anyone in this facilityunder 18 is a criminal thinker. That’s why they are here.’ (Fieldnote,March, 2002).

As these examples highlight, staff members oscillate between familyand individual explanations for residents’ delinquency. Yet theseessentially competing frames leave residents without a clear direction:is it they who must change, or perhaps their faulty family system?What if, perhaps, the family is incapable of change? Does that mean Ican’t change myself ? As a result of this paradox, the residents gen-erally experience some confusion about how to complete the changesthat the program requires of them. One typical reaction to this con-fusion was to ‘‘jump through hoops’’ in order to please the staff andfulfill their program requirements.

The Paradox of Jumping Through Hoops

During their four to six months at the facility, residents becomeacclimated to the tight system of rules and regulations and adaptthemselves to the facility structure. Right away, they become awarethat they can expedite their release date if they convince the staff thatthey are sincerely working on their therapeutic treatment goals. Whilesome of the residents genuinely appreciate and engage in theirtreatment activities, many purport to ‘‘fake their change’’ just to exitthe facility in a timely fashion and fulfill their court order. In thissense, treatment activities themselves become a mechanism for resi-dents to manipulate the system, or to ‘‘jump through hoops.’’ Considerthe following conversations with residents during field observations:

I asked if his goal of being here is to change these behaviors. ‘No, just fakin’it by . . . do what you’re told and you get out.’ (Fieldnote, April, 2001).

Alan told me, ‘Ain’t nobody change in here. You just say what they wantyou to say. You act outside how they want you to act. (Fieldnote, August,2001).

Another resident said during an interview:

. . . you have to pretend . . . you have to participate in the program, youhave to make them happy. You have to pretend you’re doing well and allthis stuff. And I am doing well in the program, but you just have to try to

Abrams, Kim, and Anderson-Nathe 19

prove to them that you’re not going to be bad on the outs (Interview,June, 2001).

Moreover, the explicit link between personal disclosure about familyissues and advancement in program levels causes some of the resi-dents to invent their family problems, or to adopt a therapeutic dis-course to fulfill the program requirements. Residents disclosed thesestrategies to us during their interviews:

I remember a lot of time in family group that a lot of the time before I’dtell my mom, I’m gonna say this, you have to say that—or you say thisand then we’d say – oh, we found, we solved an issue. . . ‘Cause if youdon’t take time in family group and if you don’t work on your issues,you’re not gonna get advanced. . .I actually did spend a lot of time justsitting—I was just thinking, what are my real issues in my family and Istill can’t come up with anything (Interview, October, 2001).

Most of it <my family issues>, I just invented it. Cuz it was just goingthrough my head, I was just thinking, and I’d just write down whatever Ithought in my head. I’d just look at it, look over it, read it over, and say,‘Yeah, that sounds about right,’ and then I’d just give it to staff, let ‘emcheck it over and stuff (Interview, May, 2002).

For these residents, faking change or inventing family problems per-mits them to use emotions as a manipulative tool, rather than agenuine therapeutic process. This ability to manipulate the systemmirrors and reinforces the attitudes and behaviors that frequently gotthem in trouble in the first place, such as lying and manipulatingsystems. The following examples suggest how some of the residentseven took pride in their ability to manipulate the staff:

I asked what issues he would talk about. Mark said that there are somefamily issues that staff think are better than others—they expect peopleto have moms or dads who have drug or alcohol problems, so they like tohear people talk about that in their contracts. He said his parents don’thave these problems, but he wouldn’t hesitate to make something likethat up (Fieldnote, November, 2001).

How’d I convince ‘em I changed? Just acting like everybody else whocomplete the program, because there’s somebody out there who com-pleted the program who I’m close to, and I already told him I know howto play programs, because I been in programs before. It’s just simple . . . Ijust go along with what they say (Interview, May, 2002).

One resident wrote us an e-mail about four months after he had leftthe facility:

When I first got there I had no idea what I was supposed to do, but by thetime I left that shithole, I picked up on how to cheat and beat the

Child & Youth Care Forum20

system...Once I saw what they were trying to get at, I just acted like I’vechanged, like I see a whole new world, and I used convincing words inmy contracts. The dummies took it and believed me, exactly as I planned(E-mail correspondence, February, 2002).

As evidenced in these field note excerpts and quotations, manyresidents think of the faking of emotional expression as an easy andquick fix to exiting the residential program. For some residents, fakingworked well and they exited the facility quickly. For others, staffwould confront them on their manipulation and make them workharder on their contracts and treatment goals. Yet perhaps as a directconsequence of the ‘‘jumping through hoops’’ mentality, residents whoare especially prone to manipulative behavior often feel incapable ofadapting to real world situations when they encounter their home orcommunity environments. Some demonstrate serious concern abouttheir own ability to ‘‘make-it’’ when they return to their communities:

I asked Kou how he felt about leaving soon. ‘Mostly nervous. There’s alot out there. . .’ He suggested that the facility teaches you a new way tothink, but doesn’t help to put your new way of thinking in action(Fieldnote, August, 2001).

I wondered out loud why the program doesn’t seem to work for him, andhe told me that it’s because it’s too easy and too easy to fake your waythrough. He suggested that programs that make you do push ups and sitin a cell teach you more because there is nothing to fake (Fieldnote,March, 2002).

Other manipulative residents developed an ‘‘overconfident’’ attitudethat if they can indeed fake their way through the program, they willbe able to easily able to navigate the system upon their release.Terrell, a street-wise resident who believed that he had lied andmanipulated his way through the whole program, planned to stillhang out with his gang buddies but just simply disengage when theywere committed illegal acts. When we asked him if it would be hard tostay away from trouble with his friends, he replied:

It is not hard, no. It’s not. Because, I know they care about me and theytell me, that ‘I don’t want you to come with us, I want you to go your ownway,’ and I’m like, ‘Yeah, I am gonna go my own way, cuz I just gotlocked up and I ain’t getting locked up again’ (Interview, May, 2002).

While Terrell’s manipulative skills were reinforced during his stay inthe program, he left unprepared for the challenges of returning to hishome and peer environment.It should be noted that a few of the residents that we interviewed

and observed did genuinely invest in the program and their treatment.

Abrams, Kim, and Anderson-Nathe 21

However, based on our overall observations and interviews, it appearsthat tying treatment progress to the correctional rules can reinforcepatterns of manipulation and lying, rather than meeting the treat-ment goal of authentic emotional expression. Faking change makes iteasier for residents to complete the program, but it is likely to hindertheir ability to make positive future changes upon exit and return totheir home communities.

Discussion

This paper described several paradoxes of treatment that surfacedin a correctional facility seeking to combine various treatment,behavioral, and correctional approaches to juvenile offender rehabili-tation. Tensions related to emotional expression, competing frames forinterpreting delinquency, and jumping through hoops present somemuch needed reflections on the capacity for psychological treatmentprograms in correctional facilities and similar residential institutionsto help their clients to make long-lasting, meaningful life changes.An interesting and perhaps controversial point raised by this anal-

ysis is whether or not ‘‘treatment’’ strategies can find any suitablehome within a correctional setting. If, as some of the residents ex-pressed, correctional facilities should be a place to sit in a cell, thinkabout your crime, and ‘‘do your time,’’ perhaps investment in extensivepsychological treatment is unnecessary from the point of view of theclients. Although society has progressed a long way from the practiceof ‘‘locking kids in the cell and throwing away the key,’’ it is interestingthat some of the residents found it easier to bide their time in atreatment milieu, meeting the minimum requirements for completionof that program, than to spend time in a more traditional and punitivecorrectional institution.However, as social workers and youth advocates, we support the

policy direction of more humane and rehabilitative approaches tojuvenile justice and believe that institutions for offenders and otherhigh-risk youths should indeed help youth to learn how to expresstheir emotions, including anger, sadness, and hurt in constructiveways. To facilitate this learning process, it would be advisable to dis-tinguish more clearly the treatment aspects of a program from theaspects that are more control-oriented. It is perhaps the linking ofthese two systems through program requirements that underminesthe residents’ personal growth. By making these aspects of the pro-grams more distinct and less contingent upon each other, residents

Child & Youth Care Forum22

would be free to accept or reject their treatment options withouthaving to ‘‘fake’’ their emotions or feel coerced about their emotionalexpression in the correctional milieu. In sum, disentangling thesesystems would allow space for true growth to occur among some, whilenot associating emotions with coercion for the majority of the resi-dents. Without incentive for residents to ‘‘fake’’ their treatment pro-gress, youth workers can also gain a much clearer sense of who isbenefiting from the treatment that is offered and who might need adifferent approach.Moreover, youth who are placed in residential care need encour-

agement to change in ways that are tangible to their lives. A seriousmatter of consideration raised by this study is whether or not treat-ment programs in residential settings with rigid rules and staff con-trols can really prepare youth to face the real world when they returnhome. Ideally the process of engagement in both emotional work and aformal discipline should help to correct some of the presenting prob-lems and behaviors that led youth to corrections in the first place. It isimportant, however, that staff work with youth to prepare for thetransition home and the pressures they will face to return to theirformer lifestyles. This type of preparation goes beyond dealing withunderlying ‘‘family issues’’ and extends to real-life and hands-on skillstraining programs.It should be noted that there are limitations to these findings. From

a methodological standpoint, field research is subject to variousthreats to ‘‘trustworthiness,’’ (Padgett, 1998). To minimize influence ofresearcher presence at the facility (reactivity), the researchers reliedon prolonged engagement in the field by spending a significant amountof time building rapport with the participants. To contend with re-searcher bias, graduate research assistants observed, conductedinterviews, and analyzed data along with the Principal Investigator.Response bias is perhaps the most ominous threat to the trustwor-thiness of the data because residents of correctional facilities are often‘‘trained’’ to say what adults ‘‘want to hear.’’ To offset this threat, wefrequently reminded the residents that their interviews would have nobearing on their standing at the facility or among the staff. Yet evenwith these safeguards in place, it is possible that response biasthreatened the integrity of these findings.Not withstanding these limitations, youth care practitioners can

learn from these observed paradoxes between behavior control andencouraging authentic emotional expression, between individual andtreatment orientations to delinquency, and between ‘‘looking good’’ inan effort to speed discharge and real personal and behavioral change.Spending time in residential care facility can be a significant step for

Abrams, Kim, and Anderson-Nathe 23

young people in making strides to reaffirm, negate, or transform theiridentities and behaviors (Ungar, 2001). An understanding of clients’experiences of psychological treatment in residential institutions canhelp formulate policy and practice strategies that maximize commu-nity resources and promote clients’ long-term behavior change andpersonal growth. It is hoped that this study will provide meaningfulinformation for the future direction of treatment for youth offenders inresidential care.

References

Allen, H. E., & Simonsen, C. E. (1998). Corrections in America: An introduction (8th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bogdan, R. C., & Taylor, S. J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: Aphenomenological approach to the social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Borduin, C. M. (1994). Innovative models of treatment and service delivery in thejuvenile justice system. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23(Suppl.), 19–25.

Caldwell, M. F., & Van Rybroek, G. J. (2001). Efficacy of a decompression treatmentmodel in the clinical management of violent juvenile offenders. InternationalJournal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(5), 469–477.

Cocozza, J. J. (Ed.). (1992). Responding to the mental health needs of youth in the ju-venile justice system. Seattle, WA: The National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in theCriminal Justice System.

Criminal Justice Statistics Center (2001). On line: http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us.ci St.Paul, MN: Minnesota Planning Department.

DeLangue, J. M., Barton, J. A., & Lanham, S. L. (1981). The WISER way: A cognitive-behavioral model for group social work skills training with juvenile delinquents.Social Work with Groups, 4, 37–48.

Feindler, E. L., Ecton, R. B., Kingsley, D., & Dubey, D. R. (1986). Group anger-controltraining for institutional psychiatric male adolescents. Behavior Therapy, 17, 109–123.

Finn, M. (1995). Disciplinary incidents in prison: Effects of race, economic status, urbanresidence, and prior imprisonment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22(1/2),143–156.

Garrett, C. J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment on adjudicate delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 287–308.

Glick, B., & Goldstein, A. P. (1987). Aggression replacement training. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 65, 356–362.

Greenwood, P. (1996). Responding to juvenile crime: Lessons learned. Future of Chil-dren, 6(3), 75–85.

Hazel, J. S., Schumaker, J. B., Sherman, J. A., & Sheldon-Wildgren, J. (1982). Socialskills training with court-adjudicated youths. Child and Youth Services Review, 5,117–137.

Henggeler, S. W. (1989). Delinquency in adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Hobbs, D. (2001). Ethnography and the study of deviance. In Atkinson, P., Coffey, A.,

Delamont, S., Lofland, J., and L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 204–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hollins, C. R. (1990). Cognitive-behavioral interventions with young offenders. NewYork: Pergamon.

Jenson, J. M., & Howard, M. O. (1998). Youth crime, public policy, and practice in thejuvenile justice system: Recent trends and needed reforms. Social Work, 43(4), 324–334.

Child & Youth Care Forum24

Jesness, C. F. (1975). Comparative effectiveness of behavior modification and transac-tional analysis programs for delinquents. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 43, 758–779.

Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into thevariability of effects. In Cook, T., Cooper, H., Cordray, D. S. et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation (pp. 83–126). New York: Russell Sage.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitativeobservation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

MacKenzie, D. L. (1997). Criminal justice and crime prevention. In Sherman, L. W.,Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and S. Bushway (Eds.),Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising (pp. 1–76). Wash-ington, DC: NIJ.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of newmethods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moon, M. M., Sundt, J. L., Cullen, F. T., & Wright, J. P. (2000). Is child saving dead?Public support for juvenile rehabilitation. Crime and Delinquency, 46(1), 38–60.

Mulvey, E. P., Arthur, M. W., & Reppucci, N. D. (1993). The prevention and treatment ofjuvenile delinquency: A review of the research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 133–167.

Myner, J., Santman, J., & Cappelletty, G. G. (1998). Variables related to recidivismamong juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Com-parative Criminology, 42(1), 65–80.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1996). State responses to seriousand violent juvenile crime. Washington, DC: Author.

Padgett, D. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research: Challenges andrewards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Palmer, T. B. (1991). Intervention with juvenile offenders: Recent and ling-term chan-ges. In Armstrong, T. L. (Ed.), Intensive interventions with high-risk youths (pp. 85–120). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Schoenwald, S. K., Ward, D. M., Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., & Patel, H. (1996).Multi-systemic therapy treatment of substance abusing or dependent adolescentoffenders: Costs of reducing incarceration, inpatient, and residential placement.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(4), 431–444.

Serna, L. A., Schumaker, J. B., Hazel, J. S., & Sheldon, J. B. (1986). Teaching reciprocalsocial skills to parents and their delinquent adolescents. Journal of Clinical ChildPsychology, 15, 64–77.

Stephan, J. (1989). Prison rule violations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Justice.Ungar, M. (2001). The social construction of resilience among problem youth in out-of-

home placement: A study of health-enhancing deviance. Child and Youth CareForum, 30(3), 137–154.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Quick facts. Online: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states.

Abrams, Kim, and Anderson-Nathe 25