7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
1/77
Oak Hill Detention Center:Promoting Change or Chains?
By: Cecilia Kline
May 10, 2002
Project D.C.: Urban Research InternshipSOCI-438-01
Prof. Sam Marullo
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
2/77
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
3/77
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1
The purpose of this summary is to provide an overview of the study completed at
Oak Hill Youth Center and the recommendations it generated. As a result of the findings
from interviews with administrators, staff and residents of Oak Hill, the study suggests
five recommendations for changes in the operations of the facility2.
Methodology
Stemming from involvement with the Georgetown University mentorship
program, Oak Hill Outreach, I conducted this study as part of my senior thesis work in
Sociology. Supported by a large amount of literature, from best practices, to case law
and media coverage of Oak Hill, this research was conducted to identify the most
pressing concerns in the facilitys operation.
Based on the objectives set forth in the Youth Services Administrations mission
statement for Oak Hill, this study measured four factors of the centers conditions. These
factors were operationalized as education, habitability, counseling, and safety. Interviews
were conducted with residents, staff and administrators of Oak Hill. Interviews examined
each respondents evaluation of the facility through quantitative and open-ended
questions. Results were measured through overall ratings generated for each factor and
patterns noted in the commentary of the free response sections. Ratings were compared
between subject groups and between each study factor.
1 Model for executive summary adapted from Howlett, Michael J. 2001. Final Report of the JuvenileCompetency Commission.2 These recommendations are not in conflict with the overall goal of ultimately closing the facility andinstituting the least restrictive alternatives to detention. Rather, they provide short-term reforms with themind for ensuring the best possible conditions at Oak Hill as long as it is operating.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
4/77
4
Discussion/Findings
My findings indicate that Oak Hill is not serving the purposes set forth in its
mission statement. Administrators, staff and residents did not evaluate the conditions at
Oak Hill strongly on the four study factors (see Table I). While there were limitations on
the reliability and validity of the study because of the limited population sample, strong
patterns of agreement and important differences emerged between subjects.
Table I Composite factor ratings (1-5 scale)
residents staff Administrators Total
Safety 3.32 3.51 3.69 3.51
Habitability 3.31 4.19 4.36 3.95
Education 3.49 4.17 3.92 3.86Counseling 3.83 4.17 4.75 4.25
The counseling factor generated the highest overall quantitative rating. Data
showed that Oak Hill offered counseling resources, however, data did not support the
quality or consistency of the services. Education was ranked second highest by residents,
while staff and administrators both rated it second lowest. Both in terms of knowledge of
their legal status and academically, Oak Hill failed to support residents with adequate
resources. Staff and administrators rated safety the lowest, while residents rated
habiltability as the worst condition. Each addressed specific problems according to their
concerns, but all respondents noted the failure of Oak Hill to meet the standards of the
mission statement.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
5/77
5
Recommendations
This study generated five recommendations addressing each of the goals set forth
in the YSA mission statement. These include improvements in the staff, facility,
regulations, programming and education system. Standardized training, better recruiting,
support programs and compensation, would improve staff work quality and consistency.
Downsizing and upgrading the structural facility and updating Oak Hills technology
would improve working and living conditions at Oak Hill. Instituting a monthly joint
meeting with administrators, staff and residents to discuss the rules of the facility would
increase the residents knowledge and appreciation of the regulations. Increasing the
quantity of alternative programs through local volunteer groups would offer residents
productive activities while they are detained. Finally, the educational resources,
beginning with the books must be updated and be more readily accessible to residents.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
6/77
6
Oak Hill Detention Center:
Promoting Change or Chains?
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Oak Hill Youth Center is the current operating juvenile detention center for the
District of Columbia. For the past decade it has been under government and public
scrutiny and under judicial order to close or reform its facilities. As a youth detention
facility, it is meant to serve the purpose of a reformative holding facility. In addition to
its daily boarding function, this maximum-security facility provides educational,
counseling and alternative programs to its residents. There is much skepticism about the
quality of these programs and the general living conditions. This study is concerned with
the conditions at Oak Hill Youth Center as evaluated by those with first-hand knowledge.
It will do so by gathering administration, staff and resident assessments of how well Oak
Hill meets its stated purpose by the Youth Services Administration mission statement.
How well does Oak Hill execute its mission statement? Oak Hill is considered
here as a detention center. A private facility, or detention center is defined as one that
has the authority to house juvenile offenders and has a population that is at least 10%
offender (Moone 1997). The Oak Hill mission statement goals are stated as follows:
empower youth to become lawful, competent and productive citizens, holding youth
accountable in the least restricted way, establishing and implementing an individual
service plan for each child which assists in competency development, habilitation and
reintegration and promoting public peace and community safety (Youth Services
Administration 2001). These conditions are conceptualized here into four factors:
education, quality of living, counseling, and safety. Interviews with residents, staff and
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
7/77
7
administrators examine each of these factors through different questions, generating an
overall rating for each factor.
This research will conclude in recommendations enumerating the problematic
conditions at Oak Hill and provide each problem area with a proposed solution. Along
with the recommendations will be the supporting research materials. This will include
the historical analysis done on juvenile detention centers in the US and a compilation of
documents specifically pertaining to Oak Hills history over the past two decades,
including newspaper articles and statistical data. Also included will be models and
results of the interviews conducted with residents, staff, and administrators at the facility
(see Appendix I-VIII). In addition to the proposal for improvements, the results of this
research will be made available to the general public, through a newspaper editorial.
Educating the local community of the problems at Oak Hill is needed to generate support
for action to change its conditions. This article will summarize the findings from my
research and work at Oak Hill. It will outline the proposed solutions to alert the
community that there are feasible solutions that they can demand.
Oak Hill has been under constant pressure from the city for the past two decades
to improve its conditions. There have been numerous proposals to close the facility and
create a number of smaller homes to detain juveniles. Both the inaction from the city and
disorganization at Oak Hill has produced neither of the two results. The proposal
generated from this research project will serve as an immediate action plan for the city to
finally start in reforming the youth center. It will include measurable steps that the
administration of Oak Hill, with support from the District government, will be able to
implement to improve the current conditions.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
8/77
8
Violence, corruption and appalling conditions have been continuously uncovered
in the criminal justice system in the United States. Some turn a cold shoulder to
hardened criminals who deserve this kind of treatment, but in an imperfect system
where mistakes are constantly being made, it is unethical to let the lives of anyone be
carried out in the fashion they are in the prisons today. Juvenile detention centers suffer
the same corruption but affect young men and women who are not even old enough to
vote or skilled or experienced enough to advocate for themselves. This leaves them
without effective advocacy resources of their own, individually or collectively. Hence,
there is no check being held to monitor the conditions of detention centers, especially one
that takes into account the insiders perspective. This study will determine the status
from the perspective of those detained and employed at this particular facility as a case
study of detention conditions. Since the majority of the money in juvenile reform goes in
to detention centers, it is both important as a policy issue as well as an ethical matter that
must be addressed (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 3-9).
There is an explicit reason why juveniles are treated differently than adults in
criminal charges. This is based on the belief that juveniles are not fully responsible for
their actions because they do not understand the effects of their actions in the way that
adults can. This belief is founded on a developmental process in which juveniles can still
learn to do the right thing, but it is up to the system to teach them how. Some consider
juvenile delinquency to be a function of individual characteristics. In fact, many social
and cultural factors have conditioned their behaviors. However, the system has proven to
be racist and sexist, which only reinforces stereotypes rather than trying to help detainees
overcome them. It is important to question why there is an overrepresentation of
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
9/77
9
minorities and the poor in prisons. These facts can potentially perpetuate the stereotypes
in society and make it easier to accept dehumanizing conditions which essentially trap
youth into the system.
The recidivism rate is a clear indication of the failure of the system to function as
a reformatory institution (Lambert 1988). Many studies show the stability of juvenile
delinquency over developmental periods (Loeber 1982). It is a well-known fact that once
a juvenile enters the justice system, it is very difficult to leave. There is a high
progression of juveniles in detention center who go on to serve time in prison. Studies
indicating the social factors predisposing youths to delinquent lifestyles attest to the fact
that this pattern in crime involvement is largely determined by environmental factors
(Moffitt 1990). For instance, the family condition is a primary determinant of delinquent
behavior and reform efforts are increasingly focusing on incorporating the family system
in order to have a lasting effect (Patterson, DeBaryshe and Ramsey 1989, Roberts 1989:
288). Especially in the case of youth, with proper attention and guidance, it has been
shown that they can be turned towards a positive direction (Palomin 2001, Peterson 1996,
Street 1966).
The conditions within the detention centers from the rooms, to the food, to the
staff all effect the youths learning experience while incarcerated. If they are not
adequate they may perpetuate the already hurting self-image of the inmates, and at one of
the most formative time of the youths lives. The social environment can stimulate more
hostility, competition, and hopelessness, as the inmates have nothing more to reflect on
than the life situations, which brought them to detention. For the sake of all citizens it is
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
10/77
10
imperative to questions the current institutional standards and seek to improve conditions
in facilities such as Oak Hill Youth Center.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
11/77
11
LITERATURE REVIEW
Juvenile justice has been a topic of much interest since the inception of
correctional facilities. Since the onset of juvenile detention, state and local governments
have responded with inadequate reforms to problems at juvenile detention centers. One
author concludes, In short, the reform movement has not reduced the numbers of young
people brought into the formal system of social control; rather it has produced a
widening of the nets to encompass ever-increasing numbers of young people in an
increasingly comprehensive system of control (Doig 1982: 61). Since this time, the
literature documents a series of unsuccessful activity to reform the system, tangled in
manipulation of power and definition of goals to serve its own purposes while
maintaining federal funding. The four mission statement criteria will be used to evaluate
the literature pertaining to juvenile detention. These topics will be reviewed both in a
general, nationwide scope and as specifically related to Oak Hill.
The literature covers an extensive history of how the system was instituted in the
United States and how it has evolved over the past centuries. This history includes the
accompanying theories that set up the practices of juvenile detention centers. It also
outlines the inherent problems in the system including the discrimination and
organizational problems that are exhibited at Oak Hill Youth Center today. Recent
reviews of the juvenile corrections system look at the current practices and examine
different approaches that are being tested around the US. The ultimate goal of these
reviews is to determine what is necessary to reform the system. It is imperative that this
research includes the operating conditions of detention centers, as the majority of the
attention in juvenile justice reform is typically placed on intake procedures.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
12/77
12
The history of juvenile justice reform has proven to be quite unsuccessful despite
numerous Congressional and legal attempts for improvement. At the turn of the
twentieth century, there was a nation-wide movement to develop a successful juvenile
justice system. Prior to this time, juveniles were processed in the institutions as adults.
Almost as soon as childrens courts were developed, it was recognized that the system
was increasingly abusing its power. Courts were using their own discretion in cases, not
based on the laws, resulting in racist and sexist practices. Reformers known as the Child
Savers, urged juvenile treatment facilities to serve as treatment rather than punishment
facilities (Bowker 1982: 95). In the 1960s and 70s the Supreme Court got involved in
requiring juvenile courts to make significant changes in their procedures. By 1974 the
Bayh Act was made law in attempt to divert at risk juveniles from becoming involved
in the court system. This was the first formalized attempt at a preventative measure to
deal with juvenile delinquency.
The juvenile justice system in the United States is largely based on practices
established in sixteenth and seventeenth-century England. Finckenauer (1984) and Hardy
(1973) discuss the history and theory behind juvenile institutional correction models.
The underlying belief ofparens patriae established the justification for the State power
acting in place of the parent. Detention facilities were originally formed to serve as
temporary custody and as pre-adjudicatory holding. Their purpose was to make sure the
juvenile was present in court, to keep them from a potentially dangerous situation at
home, and to protect themselves and others from any potential danger. Statutory
guidelines outlining the function of detention centers have been manipulated so that they
serve a permanent detention and as a sentencing facility (Finckenauer 1984: 152). This
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
13/77
13
has created the conflict today of the inability to effectively serve as a treatment center
while serving as a prison function for many inmates.
Oak Hills Youth Services Administration Mission Statement is modeled to serve
a treatment role as a longer-term incarceration facility. It states:
The Youth Services Administration (YSA) empowers youth entrusted to its careto become lawful, competent and productive citizens and appropriately manifestsitself in the District of Columbia as a contributor to the transformation of allyouth, families, and communities by: providing an integrated system of care,custody and services involving youth, family and community, holding youthaccountable in the least restrictive environment, establishing and implementing anindividual service plan for each child which assists in competency development,habilitation and reintegration, and promoting public peace and community safety.
The fact that the residents enter under such different circumstances and for varying
amounts of time makes it virtually impossible to address the needs of each individual.
This fact calls into question the mission of detention centers, as they are not serving the
functions they claim to serve. Furthermore, Schwartz and Barton (1994: 15) point out
that, Although conceived and designed as pre-adjudication holding facilities, detention
centers are increasingly being used for post-adjudication purposes. Confining pre- and
post-adjudication populations in the same facility suggests that detention centers are
playing the same role in the juvenile justice system that jails play in the adult criminal
justice process.
EDUCATION
Educational reform within Oakhill has been successful in individual cases. In
Slevin (1999), the article describes the success a vocational class in computer repair has
had and the story of some inmates going out into District schools to teach other public
school students new skills. While some classes have proven to be helpful since the
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
14/77
14
joining of Oak Hill to the District of Columbia Public Schools system, the classes and
instruction still do not keep residents up with their current school level. Moreover, the
system can only address a small number of the inmates because of the continual turn over
of residents plus the different educational levels. Inmates enter with drastically low
reading and math proficiency making it impossible to address the needs of an entire class.
Without individual attention, classes at Oak Hill remain amply inefficient and test scores
for residents remain below basic level in both math and English proficiency (DCPS).
The National Juvenile Detention Associations Center for Research and Professional
Development (CRPD) has established a core training curriculum that serves to prepare
teachers at detention facilities to deal with the challenges of this unique setting and
uncommon population (Cramer and White 2000). Such a program is not employed at
Oak Hill as it has gone from the District of Columbia Public School (DCPS) system to a
private firm in 1998 (Slevin 1998), back to DCPS the next school year (Slevin 1999).
Since the last transfer, an improvement in the management and the classes has been noted
(Chan 1999).
HABITABILITY
A large portion of the literature on reform focuses on preventative measures to
detention rather than improving its current conditions. While many programs dealing
with reducing the length of stay and reducing the intake numbers have proven to be
successes in some jurisdictions, they have not dealt with the conditions for those who are
detained. This approach is based on the idea that improving the system that
unnecessarily lock ups so many juveniles will in turn improve the problems of
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
15/77
15
overcrowding. Attention must still be given to improving the actual conditions for those
youth for which detention is necessary (Schwartz and Barton 1994).
Problems at Oak Hill ranging from adequate food, to fire code violations, to lack
of hot water have been traced through the past decade at Oak Hill (Lewis 1994, 1995).
Kids were sleeping on cots and beds that no one should have been sleeping on. When I
went into Building 10, I said, I wouldnt put my dog on that bed. This was a comment
that an inspector made upon visiting Oak Hill in 1998, before renovations were mandated
by the courts (Slevin 1998). A year later, another article reported inadequate health care
still plaguing the facility despite pressure from the court to improve conditions (Chan
1999).
In Washington DC, the population crisis at Oak Hill was addressed in court in
Jerry M. v. District of Columbia. This case culminated in a court ordered population cap
of 188 youths (Soler 2001). Lewis documents the correctional officers protests to the
overcrowded conditions at Oak Hill in 1993. The dramatic increase in number of
juveniles being locked up has contributed to the large number of overcrowded facilities.
This trend has been nationwide, however the most drastically affected cities were the
same from 1971 and 1989. In 1989 Washington DC had the highest rate of detention
center admissions in the US, incarcerating 15,223 of every 100,000 youth (Schwartz and
Barton 1994: 14). By 1989, 27.5% of the facilities were over capacity, housing 50.4%
of all incarcerated youth (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 16). Between 1985 and 1995 the
populations of juvenile detention centers increased by 72 percent. The majority of efforts
to reduce detention populations have been in finding alternatives to detention (Lubow and
Barron 2000). In 1995, 69% of percent of residents were being held in facilities
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
16/77
16
operating above their design capacity with some facilities operating 88% above capacity
(Altschuler and Armstrong 1999:3). This strain of detention centers resources has
serious implications on the quality of living conditions.
The unfortunate result of the unchecked power structure and management within
correctional facilities is many instances of sexual and racial discrimination executed by
separate and differential treatment to different groups. Austen James (1995) and
Kimberly Leonard (1995) document the overrepresentation of minorities within juvenile
correctional facilities, foreshadowing the adult system. The racial disparities are
apparent at every phase of the juvenile justice system. In terms of who ends up
incarcerated, it has been shown that the overrepresentation of minorities in detention is
not a function of differences in offense rate. Minorities are consistently given more
severe indictments than White youth, hence end up detained in disproportionate numbers
(May 2000: 58). Although Whites used to represent the majority of detained
populations, white juvenile youth offenders have continuously decreased opposite to the
dramatic increase in Black and Hispanic youth. This is an issue, which pervades the
juvenile justice system, and which Oak Hill serves as a true example with 95% Black and
5% Hispanic inmates in 1999 (DCPS).
Sexual discrimination also happens at an institutional level and between inmates
within the same center. At the outset, girls are discriminated against, coming into
detention on mush lesser charges than their male counterparts. Schwartz and Barton
(1994) noted this discrepancy that there is a much larger probability for girls to be
confined for status offenses than boys (18). Recent trends show that the most dramatic
change in prisons is the increase in female juveniles entering detention (Porter 2000).
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
17/77
17
Authors have documented the differences the treatment of girls versus boys as described
in Palomin (2001). Perhaps it is related to their different developmental demands and
needs, but the womens unit at Oak Hill receives very different treatment than the men.
The discrepancies range from which classes they can take, to the privileges that they are
allowed, however these important findings are beyond the scope of the current research.
It seems easy to attribute the poor quality of the programs and facilities at Oak
Hill Youth Center to lack of money from the District. This concern is questionable at
best when considering that in 1998, when Washington DC boasted the nations highest
homicide rate, the city failed to spend the $3.2 million allocated by federal grants to
reduce youth crimes, as reported in articles from the Washington Post (Slevin 1998). The
money is clearly available; it is disorganization of the city to not implement programs to
utilize federal grant money. The City also incurred fines of up to $2 million from not
meeting the youth population limit set by the court (Lewis 1994). The Washington Post
has tracked the past decade of the failures on the part of Oak Hill from inadequate health
care, fire safety violations to security breaches to a two decade long stalemate in
instituting court-mandated reforms (Chan 2000), all examples of funds being wasted in a
money pit.
SAFETY
The capabilities of the staff and administration influence the way an institution
operates to a great extent. Deficient staffing is a key factor in the security problems
found to be rampant at juvenile detention centers. Previt (1997) examines this problem
as an organizational problem. Various Washington Post articles have documented the
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
18/77
18
recurring security breakdowns at Oak Hill since 1986 until the most recent in November
2001 (Welsh 1986). At one point logs, reported 30 percent of assigned youth missing as
escapees (Welsh 1987). Other safety problems include drug use while residents are
incarcerated. One article detailed the prevalence of drugs inside Oak Hill including
marijuana, PCP, cocaine (Weiser 1985). MacDonald (1999)shows one way in which
guards not only allow but sometimes aid in the drug trafficking within the detention
centers.
Street, Vinter and Perrow (1966)look at the relationships between inmates and
the staff at detention centers. On one hand, the need for personnel to staff the centers is
so great, yet the demand for the work so lacking that it is difficult to hire capable staff.
Considering the immense disproportion of minorities in detention, it is found that staff
with similar backgrounds and values have much greater success in working with residents
than nonmonirity staff from separate communities (Finckenauer 1984: 212).
Training offered to the staff is particularly important because of the demanding
and unique nature of the work. Porpotage (1996) notes this need, Professional
practitioners and academicians have viewed training as a priority due to several factors,
including uneven levels of pre-employment education, high staff turnover rates,
increasingly complex needs of juvenile offenders, liability issues, and scarce agency
funds.
In such conditions training is crucial, yet findings show that their training is
greatly lacking, as reported on inRoush and Jones (1996). In addition to inadequate
training, detention center staff have to cope with unusually stressful and precarious work
environments as reported inRole Stress and Job Stress Among Juvenile Detention Care
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
19/77
19
Workers. Bowker reports, To the extent that job stress causes negative feelings towards
prisoners, letting out tension in inappropriate situations, and tightening of discipline
where that is not needed, it impairs job performance (1982: 194).
The requirements of the superintendent alone have become so multifaceted they
now place much greater demands effectively overseeing every aspect of the facility.
Fifteen years ago, the principal concerns of a detention center superintendent were
safety and security. While those are still concerns todaysuperintendents are now
concerned about appropriateness of alternative education programs, self-directed
computer instruction programs, low fat diets, mental health screening, and upgrading
medical and dental services inside the facility (Schwartz and Barton 1994: 97). This
literature indicates that the safety of a secured facility is dependent on resources from
staff to structural facilities, factors which are both limited at Oak Hill.
COUNSELLING
Many theorists have attacked the problem of juvenile delinquency trying to find
its cause in order to more easily access its remedy. Researchers have looked at individual
factors such as sociobiology, psychopathology, behavioral learning and cognitive
explanations to juvenile delinquency. There has been little advance in this area
particularly because of the recent shift to social and cultural explanations including
labeling theory, which posits the source of delinquency in stigma and society. Despite
numerous attempts at understanding the origin of juvenile delinquency, correctional
facilities have not improved because of the great gulf between theory and research on
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
20/77
20
the one hand, and program development, practice, and evaluation on the other as
Finckenauer (1984: 16) puts it.
The socialization process that takes place within the detention center is just as
detrimental as the effects of the process that placed them in the states custody. Many
testimonies reveal that incarceration serves as a reinforcement of the values and illegal
activity that got inmates arrested. May (2000) illustrates one of these testimonies through
a previous inmate, Imprisonment can turn young people into more seasoned or hardened
criminalsjail is an institution of continuing education for black men, it is like his
training ground where he develops his skills for hustling (86). This socialization process
plays a large role in the difficulty of escaping the justice system since the same negative
behavior and skills are reinforced and even developed while in detention. New
alternative skills must be taught in order to improve behavior.
Evaluations of successful programs have noted similar trends. The Washington
Postarticle on therapy work within Oak Hill discusses the merits of one-on-one sessions
with youth (Greene 1993). This kind of work is the ideal and most effective as it targets
the specific problems of each inmate. Individual treatment has been even more effective
than some group therapy methods (Jacobs 1990). Most important, this kind of
individualized approach gives inmates the attention they need but that the system has
failed to provide them. Mentorship programs have been positively evaluated in the
literature and proven effective in practice. These programs work effectively, as a
preventative measure, during confinement as a treatment measure and after release, as a
continued support system (Grossman and Garry 1997). Articles in the Washington Post
review the positive influence that reformed former inmates have had on current residents
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
21/77
21
at Oak Hill (Wartofsky 1997). Greenes (1993) review of practices at Oak Hill confirms
the positive effects of individualized attention from staff. Therapists working at the
facility state that the work they do is in large part a replacement for the parenting that was
missing in the youths lives prior to incarceration. This is in tune with the theoretical
basis ofparens patriae, however, the problem is that this type of work is not being done
on a consistent basis, if at all. The lack of staff and overcrowding documented
throughout Oak Hills coverage in the Washington Postis at the heart of this issue and
shows how the safety, habitability and counseling issues are interconnected in many
ways.
Roberts (1989) compares the different approaches to dealing with juvenile
delinquents from detention centers, to community based approaches, to diversion
programs and family treatment. His findings on the different approaches are inconclusive
due to inconsistent and incomplete studies on their effects. However, in general they
reveal that the treatment programs effectiveness was greatly dependent on the
individuals case. For some family therapy treatments, the approach was successful, but
in some cases it was not helpful. The same applies to diversion programs where he notes,
They recommend that several types of diversion alternatives be available so that
juveniles could be matched to the alternative that most closely met their needs (87). The
common thread among each of these programs however was the finding that a
community based approach to treatment, involving the neighborhood, family, social
workers etc. is necessary and are at least as effective and generally much more effective
than institutionalization. Findings of aftercare treatment plans show this, Specialized
treatment in the institution is likely of little long-lasting value if it is not relevant to
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
22/77
22
pressing concerns in the daily lives of offenders in the community and not carefully and
consistently reinforced in this setting (Altschuler and Armstrong 1999:4).
Just as boot camp disciplinary methods have proven to be ineffective, the
literature shows that the harsh conditions at detention centers worsen juveniles
conditions in many cases (Finckenauer 1984; Schwartz and Barton 1994). Mitchell and
Varley (1990) discuss the effects of confinement practices such as practiced at Oak Hill,
similar to the solitary model of regular prisons. The majority of units at Oak Hill
function by a boot camp style of discipline. These programs revolve around obedience to
authority and discipline. An article evaluating the effectiveness of juvenile boot camps
found that they provided no better results in terms of recidivism rates, especially
considering the greater cost they incur. Eric Peterson (1996) overviews some juvenile
boot camp pilot programs to and their effectiveness based on recidivism rates. In two of
the programs, educational improvements were found, however, none of the programs
resulted in lower recidivism rates. This indicates the ability for detention facilities to
alter juveniles behavior during the interim period but its effects do not reach beyond the
gates of the detention center.
One evaluation of these militaristic programs, by Anthony Platt, is that they are
the inculcation of middle class values and lower class skills. Although a conspiratorial
interpretation, he accurately reveals the perpetuation of social inequalities through a
system of limited opportunities for a disadvantaged population. Boot camps are
criticized as contributing to social control repressing the lower classes by the upper class
(Finckenauer 1984: 116). Furthermore, this emphasis while it may be effective within
the context of the camp does not translate to the juveniles home community. The same
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
23/77
23
article cited that once camp graduates return home, they tend to reject their new behavior
in order to fit in. The study notes an important fact that points to the failures of such
short term and context dependent solutions, The type of behavior exhibited by these
juveniles takes time to develop; to change that behavior will take more than just a few
days of discipline (Tyler 2001: 449).
Another important factor that is receiving more attention is the effect of the time
spent in detention after the resident is released. Many programs have looked to
incorporate follow up procedures to continue providing the released inmate with support.
This is a major area in which most programs fail and result in high recidivism rates, as
the resident returns to their problem behavior once they return to their home environment.
Juveniles must receive continued monitoring and support after release in order to adapt
any positive changes that may have occurred while being detained, to home
circumstances (Altschuler and Armstrong 1999).
Conclusions towards a proposal for Oak Hill will come from the various sources
dealing with the most recent successful reforms. These include articles evaluating the
successful components of different treatment methods, from community-based, to
incarceration, to parole methods. These will be evaluated against the most realistic
political and economic constraints imagined, based off of the most recent reform data of
the New York juvenile corrections systems outlined in McGarrell (1988). The recent
mayors proposal generated by Anthony Williams Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth
Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform which recommends the closing of Oakhill (DeMilo
2001) will also be taken in to consideration in evaluating the best alternative to the
unacceptable conditions at Oakhill Youth Center. Each of these factors, from the
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
24/77
24
theoretical bases to the practical findings will be combined to propose a plan of action to
make current conditions consistent with the centers mission statement.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
25/77
25
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH PROCESS
The entire research process including history, interviewing, and writing portions
are developed, completed and analyzed by the researcher to maximize reliability of
results. The historical piece includes both historical research on the juvenile justice
system in the U.S. in general, current juvenile justice reform, and on Oak Hill Youth
Center specifically. This process is undertaken prior to and during the interview and
writing portions. Ongoing reading of current and past news articles pertaining to Oak
Hill is maintained throughout the research process.
The interview portion of the research process consists of the development,
execution and transcription of interviews. The interview questions and disclosure
statements are written after preliminary document research is completed. The interviews
were designed to address Oak Hills members rating and feedback on the facilitys
conditions as related to the Youth Services Administrations mission statement. The
writing portion will be done continuously throughout the process to minimize distortion
of data collection. Final analysis is done after all data is collected and transcribed, then,
the recommendations and final conclusions are drawn.
SUBJECTS
Subjects were chosen from the population of administrators, staff and residents at
Oak Hill Youth Center. Due to the security of the facility, unlimited access to form a
random sample of respondents was not possible. Scheduling of the interviews was
greatly dependent on the availability of the staff and administration and had to conform to
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
26/77
26
residents schedules. These factors account for the nonrandom and limited sample size.
Residents interviews were done on the MOD 1, a boot camp unit of Oak Hill. This unit
was chosen as access to the unit was available through a university tutoring program
which took place every Sunday morning.
All residents were asked to voluntarily participate in the research. All twelve
residents who were asked to participate agreed to do so (See Appendix VI). Residents
varied in age from 15 to 18 years old, with an average age of 17. Residents also ranged
in length of stay at Oak Hill from 1 month to 48 months, with an average of 8.5 months.
Number of times detained at Oak Hill ranged from one to six, with an average of 4.4. No
average was obtained on how long residents were charged to stay at Oak Hill as many
were not sure of their release date. Known terms ranged from one month to juvenile life
(until 21). Residents grade levels ranged from ninth grade through GED completion.
Residents also varied in crimes committed. For those who chose to respond to this
question, drug selling was the most frequent charge, with 25% of the respondents. MOD
1 male residents comprised all but one of the resident respondents. One female from the
womens unit who was available during school hours was interviewed. The rest of the
womens unit was not included in part of the sample as the scope of the research does not
include the gender differences at the facility although they present an important area of
inquiry to be followed up in future research.
The staff interviews were given to the security staff and correctional officers (See
Appendix VII). Staff interviewed were either referred to by another officer or were
independently solicited based on their presence at the Control Unit. Four out of eight,
half of the solicited staff refused to participate. Of those who chose to respond, their
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
27/77
27
years working at Oak Hill ranged from five to fifteen. Administrators interviews were
done on the basis of availability. Two administrators were asked to participate and both
agreed (See Appendix VIII). Both administrators interviewed had worked at Oak Hill for
two and a half years.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The interviewing part of the research was be developed and completed by the
researcher. Resident and staff interviews were conducted during Sunday mentoring
sessions and on weekdays as necessary. Administrator interviews were scheduled
according to their availability during the week. Disclosure statements, ensuring
confidentiality, were given to each of the interviewees to read and sign at the beginning
of every interview (See Appendix I). Participants were given the option to pass on any
answer, in which case no answer was recorded. Participants were given the option to fill
out the form themselves or orally respond while the researcher recorded answers. Each
section of the interview was followed by a period to elaborate on or add additional detail
to any of the given answers.
Research tools include interview surveys and disclosure statements based on
previously used surveys and standardized consent forms. Interview questions were
developed partly based on the Inmate Questionnaire found in Street, Vinter and Perrow
(1966). The questions were shortened and adapted to apply to the Oak Hill facility. A
free response section is also included for any non-quantitative, descriptive answers (see
Appendices II-V). After the initial draft of the interviews were made, residents were
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
28/77
28
asked for their input on the adequacy of the questions and if important questions were
omitted. Their suggestions were incorporated into the final interview forms.
There are three different interview question sets. One interview form is focused
on the residents. This includes questions about their demographics and questions on their
perceptions of Oak Hill based on the four study criteria. Administrators and staff are
asked how long they have worked at Oak Hill, their job title and description, how many
hours they work in a week and what type of work they did before placement at Oak Hill.
The staff interview gathers information on their work experience, what kind of training
they received and questions pertaining to their evaluation of the conditions at Oak Hill.
The final interviews are designed for administrators. These interviews include questions
about the reforms that they have seen implemented and those that they believe are still
necessary. Each is asked appropriate personal information to determine their role at Oak
Hill. Personal information is collected from respondents at the beginning of each
interview including age, grade, unit, charge, length of time at Oak Hill, how long they are
charged to Oak Hill, and for residents, the number of times detained at Oak Hill.
RESEARCH VARIABLES
The first factor, indicating empowerment to become lawful, competent and
productive citizens is operationalized as education. Education questions assess the
development of the residents knowledge during their detainment. This means residents
education in terms of the law and their own legal situation to the extent that they
understand their crime and the process of indictment. This is measured by their
knowledge and understanding of their charge. Education also consists of education in a
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
29/77
29
scholastic sense. This evaluates their classes, including the subjects covered, materials
available, and teacher quality based on the residents assessment. The other dimension of
education reflects the residents grade level or completion of the GED. The interview
questions determining this factor are a rating of knowledge of their charge (A1), their
educational plans once released, (B8), and questions evaluating the quality and content of
their classes, (C13), (C14), (C16), (C17), (C19), (C20), (C21), (C22).
The second factor evaluated is the habitability of the facility. Habitability
questions determine the comfort level and the adequacy of living conditions at the
facility. This is measured in terms of their units including their rooms, beds, bathroom
facilities, and access to television or other entertainment resources. This also includes
aspects of the outdoor space at Oak Hill including other building conditions and the
grounds. Questions in the first sections cover the comfort of the unit (A3), room (A5),
bed (A4) and the entertainment resources available during free time (A6), (B9). In
section C, habitability questions include rating the food (C12), telephone (C10) and home
visits (C9).
The third factor is that of safety. This includes escape rate and measures of safety
from the residents and the personnel. This is evaluated in terms of precautionary action
and actual outcomes. Precautionary determinants include factors such as staff training,
rules of engagement and staff to resident ratios. Self-reports as to individual experiences
including fights, weapons and other attacks measure the outcomes. Safety questions ask
for the rating of their safety at the facility (A11) from the unit (A3), (C1), grounds (A7),
the buildings (A8), the guards (A9), and rules (A10). Section B safety questions
determine specific experiences about fighting (B1), (B4), (B5), drugs (B3) and weapons
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
30/77
30
(B2) at Oak Hill. In section C, questions rate the safety and fairness of the rules (C5) and
the adults (C4), (C11).
The fourth, and final factor evaluated regarding competency development,
habilitation and reintegration through a service plan is operationalized as counseling.
The counseling factor is determined by the ratings of the service given to residents while
detained and the progress they feel attributable to the facilitys service. This includes
many factors regarding the treatment of residents while they are detained. It is evaluated
by the quality and quantity of interaction with the different personnel at Oak Hill
including the administration, security guards, and counselors or social workers. Both the
residents report and the centers formal plan for the residents will be investigated to
determine this measure. This is also measured in terms of outcome, by information
regarding recidivism rates. Questions in section B regard the residents belief in their
need for help and whether they receive this help at Oak Hill (B6), (B7). The questions in
the last section ask for the rating of the availability of helpful persons (C2), (C3), (C6),
(C15) and of a change in their behavior (C8), and attitude (C7) while detained.
The open-ended questions ask residents the three most important things they need
in order to succeed. All interviewees answer what they believe are the three largest
problems at Oak Hill. The interview form for the staff and administration ask the same
adapted questions to address their perspective of conditions at Oak Hill. The free
response questions are transcribed and similar responses are tallied together to reveal any
patterns. The answers to 1-10 scale questions (section A) are added for each of the
factors and divided by two. The answers for the agreement scale questions (section C)
are added on the scale of Strongly Agree=5, Agree=4, No Opinion=3, Disagree=2,
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
31/77
31
Strongly Disagree=1. The final average ratings from section A and C are added together
for each factor. This final number is the representative rating for each factor. These
averages for each respondent group is presented in table form in Appendix V.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
32/77
32
DISCUSSION
The juvenile justice system has been operating in an ineffective and
discriminatory fashion since its inception. According to my interpretations of the data I
have found that the current conditions at Oakhill Youth Center do not meet the standards
of a safe, educational, reformative and habitable facility. The poor conditions at Oakhill
result in negative outcomes for its residents evidenced by a high rate of recidivism. The
Youth Services Administration (YSA) Mission Statement states that it is to serve a
reformative function; however, it fails on many levels. In this section, the results of the
interviewing process are presented and evaluated.
The first challenge in the interview process was that the individuals sampled were
not randomly chosen. Due to the nature of the facility, selection of respondents was
mediated by the restrictions imposed by the facilitys security and authorization
measures. Access was limited in terms of the units and the times during which
respondents were available. The sample is biased in two ways. First, the sample is
biased towards male respondents, with eleven males and only one female. Second, the
sample is only based on male respondents from the same (MOD 1) unit, therefore is not
representative of the whole institution and does not capture differences that may occur
between units.
Many of the issues dealt with here are very closely related and overlap the factor
designation. For example, questions pertaining to staff, could be a factor in safety,
habitability, or counseling as the staff serve in each of these functions. For the purposes
of these interviews, answers pertaining to staff were coded according to the context in
which the respondent referred to them. Another problem in validity was found in the
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
33/77
33
language and interpretation differences of the questions. In cases where respondents
interpreted the language of the question differently, the question was not considered in
analysis.
Answers to the questions are analyzed among respondents of the same group.
Each question is viewed in comparison with the answers between groups. Concordance
in answers was much stronger for residents and staff than with administration. This is
most likely due to the different environments that each are exposed to. While residents
and staff are in a similar environment, administrators are more removed, working in their
offices and less directly involved with the residents. One of the administrators backed
this finding, stating that ratings such as exposure to fights would be much higher for staff
as they are exposed to the units on a much more consistent basis. The administrators
ratings were also much more prone to being skewed since only two administrators were
interviewed.
COUNSELING
The first section of the residents interview asked for the three most important
things that you need in order to succeed. Residents free response answers were coded
into internal versus external characteristics. Examples of the most frequently mentioned
internal are discipline, attitude, faith and strength. Examples of external characteristics
mentioned include family, church and education. Internal characteristics constituted the
majority of the responses, with 74%, 20 out of 27 responses referring to internal
characteristics. This suggests that there is an even greater need for adequate counseling
resources, as the greatest self-reported need for help is of internal characteristics.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
34/77
34
Therefore, Oak Hill must focus on improving or changing things such as residents
attitudes, self discipline and self esteem in order to best help them.
Residents responses indicated that Oak Hill is doing the best of the four factors at
addressing counseling needs. Counseling factors for section A and section C questions
(all questions mentioned in this section refer to the residents form unless otherwise
specified) yielded the best overall rating of 3.83 (on a five-point scale). Answers
supporting this finding include responses to question 11 in section B that asks the
frequency of interaction with a counselor or social worker. The most frequent response,
with 5 out of the 11 responses, was once a week. The second most frequent response,
with 4 out of 11 responses was twice a week, and there were two outliers of once a
day and once every couple months. Staff and administrators answers to the same
question confirmed this finding. Staff unanimously stated that residents meet on a daily
basis with a social worker, while administrators answered once a week and once a
day. This indicates that Oak Hill is doing a good job in meeting residents counseling
needs by offering, at the least, weekly access to a counselor or social worker.
Staff and administration responses further support this finding, indicating that the
help residents need is available to them at Oak Hill. Administrators overall factor rating
was also the highest for counseling, with a rating of 4.75. Staff responses also ranked it
highly at 4.17. Both staff and administrators only mentioned one counseling factor as the
three largest problems of Oak Hill.
Another way of evaluating if the need for counseling is being met was asked in
question 6 of section B, Do you think you need help from someone so you can stay out
of trouble? According to the residents responses, only 2 out of 11 respondents stated
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
35/77
35
that they believe that they need help from someone (only one of which stated in question
7 that they actually receive this help they need from Oak Hill). One administrator said,
Those that want help can get it. Residents responses in question 6 suggest that most
residents will not seek the available help. The approach indicated by the administrator
suggests that residents will not receive the help they need as they do not identify a need
for external assistance. A reformative institution must take active steps in extending and
instituting their resources and assistance to its residents. The fact that there was
variability in terms of the frequency of meetings reported between residents, staff and
administrators is evidence that either, there is no structure to which residents receive this
service, or that service varies depending on the resident. While the rating of the
counseling service is high, it is not clear from the questions whether all residents are
receiving the quality of service that they need.
EDUCATION
According to residents answers to question 8 in section B asking whether they
planned on returning to school upon their release, a majority of residents indicated plans
to finish or add onto their high school education. Even though they were all in high
school grade levels and two already had completed their GED, 9 out of eleven, said they
did plan on returning to school, while one responded maybe and one responded no. This
constitutes another reported need on behalf of the residents, to get a good education.
According to the overall ratings of the residents, education was second to
counseling with a rating of 3.49 on a five-point scale. Staff rated it 4.17, the same as
counseling, and administration ranked it 3.92, indicating that they saw more room for
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
36/77
36
improvement than staff. Residents mentioned educational factors just as frequently as
counseling factors in the question addressing the biggest problems at Oak Hill. This was
the same case as with the perspective of the administration and staff.
The indicative aspect of the interviews is found in terms of the substance of the
educational focus questions. For example, questions 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 in section
C ask about the condition of the schooling at Oak Hill. All answers to these questions
were under a rating of 4 (Agree). The question with the lowest rating of 2.9 asked
whether, the subjects are helpful. While administration either agreed or strongly
agreed that residents have adequate books to read, staff was split half-and-half in terms of
those who agreed that residents have adequate books to those who disagree.
The educational advancement offered to inmates proved to be poor to nonexistent.
This leaves inmates at a greater disadvantage when they get out, as they will be at the
same educational level as they were when they were committed. This increases the
appeal of getting a GED, if anything at all, rather than pursuing a high school diploma.
This also limits the availability of college as an option, which inevitably limits the range
of opportunities they will have in the job market, affecting their long-term financial
stability.
The other aspect of education investigated was that of the extent of the juveniles
legal knowledge. A major issue in juvenile justice is that of competency, how well the
juvenile understands the nature and consequences of their charge. Question 1 in section
A addressed this issue asking how well the resident understood their charge. Resident
responses generally indicated that they had a good understanding of their charge, with an
average rating of 8.08 on the ten point scale. The staff confirmed this finding with the
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
37/77
37
highest rating among respondents of 8.75. Administrators average ranking on juveniles
understanding of their charge was 6.5.
The variability in the answers could reflect one of two differences. First, the
adults could have a better understanding of the legal system and the residents charge,
therefore know that the understanding the residents have is inaccurate. Second, the
residents could have a very high actual understanding of their charge and the
administrators are too far removed to know what the residents knowledge.
SAFETY
Safety received the lowest ranking for resident, staff and administrator combined
averages. Staff and administrators gave safety questions the lowest average ranking of all
four factors with ratings of 3.51 and 3.69, respectively. Residents answers rendered an
average of 3.32, making it the second lowest ranked factor. In terms of the largest
problems stated at Oak Hill, staff rated safety matters in a dominating 73% of the free
response answers. These problems revolved around issues concerning the physical
structure of the facility, staff issues and the rules of the institution. Administrators also
mentioned safety matters more than any other factor. Residents noted safety as the
second most frequent factor with 17% of responses, mentioning staff as the most
common problem.
Facility
Part of the questions evaluating safety related to how safe residents felt at Oak
Hill. One major difference was the discrepancy between the ratings of different areas of
the facility. For these questions residents rated the units high while the rating for outside
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
38/77
38
grounds and other buildings were much lower. Residents rated the safety of the unit
(question 2, section A) an average of 9.25 on the ten-point scale. Questions 7 on the
safety of the outside grounds and question 8 on the safety of other buildings were rated
much lower at 7.5 and 6.5, respectively. This indicates that on the smaller units, residents
feel much safer than outside. This is likely to be due to the increased supervision and
control maintained in a confined space whereas in a larger area, guards have less control
of the situation. One resident told that he was not as safe outside because you can be
jumped by a whole group of guys and there isnt anything the guards can do about that.
This strongly supports research stating that smaller treatment and detention facilities are
more effective, if even only for security purposes.
Staff also followed this trend rating units an average of 8.95, outside grounds,
7.75 and the other buildings, 8.75. One staff respondent elaborated on the issue stating
that the grounds provided too much space to be secured by officers. They stated that if a
whole group were to start a fight with another resident, it would be impossible for the
staff immediately available to control the situation. Administration followed an opposite
trend, rating units an average of 8.25, outside grounds at 8.5 and other buildings at 8.75.
This difference could be due to the difference in exposure to the actual living situations
due to their position.
The concern of a large uprising would fall in line with the information provided
from staff respondents that problems from the street were the main causes of the fights
that take place at Oak Hill. Coming from DC, where there are different neighborhood
and gang affiliations, it is common for the residents to have allies from their group at the
detention center. An administrator mentioned that Oak Hill is successful in deterring
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
39/77
39
these street related fights when staff, who are also from the DC area, either know of the
residents street ties or learn of them on the units and are able to separate potential
enemies.
Question 10 in section A asked how easy residents feel it would be to escape from
Oak Hill. Considering the history of mass escapes this matter is of key concern to
maintaining a secured facility. Residents generally gave very low ratings on the
possibility of escape, with an average of 3.46. One resident even mentioned as one of the
largest problems at Oak Hill that the fences were not high enough, posing a health threat
to residents who believed they could escape and therefore get hurt for attempting to go
through the barbed wire. Administrators had an even tougher impression of the safety,
rating the escape chances as less than one. Staff answers were in-between resident and
administrator rankings.
Rules
Another component of the safety factor measured the adequacy of the rules at Oak
Hill. Administrators rated the fairness of the rules a 9.5 and the staff rendered an average
rating of 8.5. Explanations were given to the lower ranking outliers, stating that the rules
are too easy and needed to be reinforced more. This sentiment was supported with the
answers to questions 3, 4 and 8 of section III. These answers indicated the belief that
adults are not overly strict and that some residents get away with too much.
The residents responses to the same questions (4, 5 and 6 of section C) were all
in the three-point range, indicating No Opinion. In question 11 of section A, residents
were asked how fair they felt the rules were. This received an average rating of 3.77 on
the ten point scale. One resident referred to the rules as petty. This supports the finding
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
40/77
40
from the first part of the survey asking for the three largest problems as residents raised
issues such as their mail being opened without their presence, and restrictions on visits, as
major problems. It seems that the discrepancy in ratings between the adults and the
juveniles in the facility are not necessarily opposed to each other. The adults are
supporting stricter and consistent enforcement while the residents are protesting trivial
rules.
Prohibited Activity
The next safety section evaluated the frequency of prohibited activity. First was
the issue of fighting at Oak Hill. All respondents, including residents, administrators, and
staff (except for the one female respondent) affirmed that they had either been involved
in or had witnessed a fight. Question 1 of section B asked residents if they had been in a
fight, how many, and for a description. Residents reported having been involved in an
average of 2.57 fights while at Oak Hill. Staff and administration were asked in question
11 of section 2, if they had witnessed a fight at Oak Hill and to offer a description. Of the
four staff respondents, two stated that fights happen twice a week, one stated, once every
couple months and one stated, once every two days. Out of both administrators who
attested to having witnessed fights, one stated they occur once every six months and the
other said they occur on a weekly basis. The discrepancy in frequency could be
attributable to the different areas at which each respondent worked, including the
different units. There may also be discrepancy in terms of the definition of a fight.
This matter was also addressed by questions asking about any threat or violent
encounter (Question 15, section II). Half of the staff said they had experienced both and
half said they had not had violent encounters with residents. Likewise, one administrator
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
41/77
41
answered yes and one answered no to having been threatened. Some staff explained that
they had most often been attacked because they had gotten in the middle of another
altercation and were hit accidentally. These incidents they did not consider to be violent
encounters, but it does attest to the challenging and sometimes hazardous nature of the
occupation. This data was not so heavily weighed as it was greatly affected by
interpretation. Questions 4 and 5 of section B ask residents if they had ever been
threatened themselves or had they threatened someone else. Five out of eleven residents
answered affirmatively to each question. For residents, the same interpretation problem
may have been present, which would explain the lack of a definite trend.
Question 2 in section B asks whether residents had ever been in possession of a
weapon while at Oak Hill. Four out of eleven residents admitted to having had a weapon
in the facility. Of the seven that denied ever having a weapon, one claimed that all the
weapon they needed they already had in their fists. This resident distinguished juvenile
from adult prison in that juveniles do not think of carrying a weapon or hurting some one
in that way. Residents displayed variation in their weapon answers, however this is to be
expected in a question that raises many confidentiality and trust issues with the
interviewer. Both administrators and three fourths of the staff claimed to have found a
weapon on the units. This suggests that weapons serve a greater role at Oak Hill than
some residents were aware of, or were candid enough to convey.
A similarly complicated question dealt with drug possession (Question 3 of
section B). Residents were asked if they had ever had possessed drugs on the unit.
Considering the incriminating nature of this question, that four out of eleven residents
admitted to having drugs in Oak Hill is considered substantial. Three-fourths of the staff
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
42/77
42
respondents claimed to have found drugs in the units (Question 13 section II). They
claimed that it occurred from once to twice a month. Administrators answers concurred
with these responses, both of them having found drugs at the same frequency. These
results indicate that the prevalence of drugs and weapons at Oak Hill is relatively equal.
One of the staff respondents offered that it is during particular visitation days when
residents familiars sneak drugs into the facility. He also noted that drugs come in
through correspondence, but that they discover much of it in their revisions of the mail.
There was one question, question 14 in section II in the staff and administrators
interviews that was omitted. While it was meant to get a the issue of how the residents
access drugs in the first place, it seemed too confrontational and incriminating to raise the
question of smuggling drugs into Oak Hill as an employee.
Staff
Another component of the safety factor included the adequacy of the staff. Staff
problems were the most frequently offered answers by residents for the free response
section of the three largest problems at Oak Hill. Even more remarkable is that staff and
staff related issues were also the most frequently sited problems by staff respondents of
the same section.
Question 9 from section A rated the effectiveness of the guards at keeping
residents safe. Residents rated this at an average of 6.6 while administrators rated this at
8 and staff rated this at 8.88. Each of the groups of respondents mentioned the variability
between officers. Two of the staff respondents even gave two separate ratings, one for
competent staff and one for incompetent staff. One of these staff respondents attributed
this inconsistency to the difference in training. They stated that the newer staff received
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
43/77
43
much less quantity and lower quality of training. The descriptions of the training
received by staff included thing such as, first aid, custody with care, the procedures and
policies of the institution, suicide prevention, anger management, balanced and
restorative justice and other specialized training programs. Many of the respondents also
referred to previous work training as having prepared them for Oak Hill, as all of the staff
respondents had previously worked in corrections. This could indicate that the
experience required for hiring staff at Oak Hill assumes a certain level of training. Staff
responded in question 5 of section 1, that they Agreed or Strongly Agreed that they were
sufficiently trained. Administrators unanimously Strongly Agreed that their training was
sufficient.
The aspect of job satisfaction was also evaluated in questions about
compensation, support from supervisor and working environment. It is interesting to note
that the administrators Strongly Agreed with all of the areas of job satisfaction. For staff
there were lower ratings, with an average of Agree for sufficient supervisor support, and
No Opinion for adequate compensation. Staff agreed less than administrators did with
their job description corresponding to the work they actually do and rated their feeling of
safety at work lower. It is quite evident that the administrations role and work is better
defined and more secure than that of the staff positions.
HABITABILITY
Habitability rankings received the lowest average rankings from residents in
sections A and C with an average rating of 3.32. It also received the greatest amount of
responses as the largest problems at Oak Hill, with 58.33% of all answers. Residents
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
44/77
44
mentioned issues such as the food, access to mail, lockdown, clothes, visits and staff as
the problems. There was a significant amount of difference between adult and juvenile
answers in terms of the comfort levels of their living situation. However, all three groups
responded approximately the same, most frequently as Agree, to questions on home
visits, telephone use, food and bathroom facilities.
Questions evaluating habitability covered all areas of the living situation. In
section A, questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 inquired as to the comfort of the unit, comfort of the
bed, room and adequacy of entertainment access. Residents gave the unit as a whole the
highest rating of 8.33 and the comfort of the bed the lowest with an average rating of
5.42. The room rating was 6.58 while the entertainment access rating was fairly high at
7.92. Staff rated these habitability conditions significantly higher, rating the comfort of
the unit at 9.13, the rooms at 8, and the entertainment at 9.75. Interestingly, the
administration rated the comfort of the unit lower than the residents did, at 7.5, the
rooms, the same as staff, at 8, and entertainment at 9.5.
Question 10 in section B was not included in the analysis as there was too much
variation in the understanding of the term lockdown. Some understood it to be a
temporary facility count and others considered it locking down residents in their rooms
due to a security concern. The most frequently noted data was the fact that institution-
wide counts are taken at every shift change, which occurs twice a day.
Section B, question 9 asked if residents thought they received enough free time.
Eight out of ten responses indicated no. They noted that they would want more free time
to engage in activities ranging from watch television, sleep, read, play games,
look at family pictures and talk on the phone. There was consensus among residents
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
45/77
45
that there was not enough free time, but there were a wide variety of answers in terms of
the purpose for which they wanted more free time.
Staff, on the other hand, strongly expressed the opinion that residents had more
than enough free time. Administration confirmed this sentiment, unanimously answering
that residents received enough free time. Many included comments as to their belief that
residents received too much free time. A main concern already raised in the education
section is that of the activities residents engage in during their time. Both staff,
administrators and residents concurred in their answers that residents do not spend their
time in constructive ways at Oak Hill, with a combined average rating of 3.67 on a ten-
point scale.
One administrator made the comment that We should use this captive audience.
We shouldnt let them do anything they typically do on the streets. This is a stark
contrast to what actually occurs, as residents commented, [Oak Hill] is making us
worse, we build up negative energy and you want to release it on the streets and all you
are doing down here is learning how to do more things and how to get away with more
things. If the YSA Mission Statement is claiming to improve the residents conditions
in these four areas, these comments must be taken into consideration to implement an
action plan that increases positive energy by adequately providing residents with their
basic needs and by teaching them useful life skills.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
46/77
46
CONCLUSION
While this interviewing process posed limitations on the validity and the
generalizability of the results as mentioned in the discussion, it gave insight to many of
the recurring problems at Oak Hill. The trends that emerged in the answers make a
strong statement as to the areas in which improvements should be focused. The different
perspectives expressed also gave insight to areas where better working relationships and
terms of engagement are necessary. Below are five main recommendations that I have
constructed reflecting the results of the research process. They include specific
improvements to the staff, facility, regulations, programming and education systems.
They each address a different aspect of the goals of Oak Hill and juvenile detention in
general and would bring Oak Hill closer to achieving the aims set out in YSA Mission
Statement.
1. STAFF
Staff problems seem to be the basis of many of the problems at Oak Hill. With a
more regular staff, the counseling and safety needs of the residents may be better
addressed. Measures must be taken to implement better recruiting, training and support
programs for staff. Increased salaries for correctional officers and job security, both
monetarily and in the environment would attract more people to the correctional
profession. More comprehensive and longer training programs would improve their
working conditions, as they would be more equipped to deal with the unique demands of
this challenging working environment. Measures should also be taken to standardize
training to minimize the discrepancy between staff. This would improve the quality of
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
47/77
47
service that staff deliver and would also raise their work satisfaction. Improving staff
morale through appreciation programs and a stronger supervisor support system would
improve continuity of staff job placements.
2. UPDATED FACILITY
Many of the problems faced at Oak Hill could be addressed by better facilities.
The structure of this eighty year old facility is outdated in terms of its original purpose as
a holding facility. As a placement center, the large campus grounds pose too much of a
threat of violence or escape. A smaller facility would allow for more direct and
controlled supervision of residents. An updated facility would improve safety by
implementing more efficient and effective technology, which would also relieve some of
the safety burden from the staff. New technology would make many of the current
procedures more efficient, relieving the staff and administration from some
administrative duties. A newer facility would also improve habitability conditions as
basic problems such as heat, water and roof leaks would no longer be a problem.
Financing concerns of a new facility are addressed by the money which has been going to
repair and update the older facility.
3. REGULATIONS
The juveniles and the adults concerns about the rules of the facility could be met
through a compromise. Through a monthly joint meeting with administration, staff and
residents, the rules of the facility could be discussed. The two interests of a safe and
restricted environment could be weighed along with the interest in a habitable
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
48/77
48
environment. A review of the rules including the residents input would promote
enforceability as residents would be more likely to follow rules that they understood and
had played a role in making. This could help hold them personally accountable for their
actions and increase the residents internalization of the rules and regulations of the
facility. This review would also ensure the full understanding of the rules by all parties,
which could increase cooperation between staff and residents as each would be aware of
the rights and responsibilities of the other.
4. ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMING
There is much support in the literature for the positive effects of involving
juveniles in alternative programs. Such programs can include things from outdoor
education, tutoring programs, ministry outreach or art and cultural immersion programs.
There are an abundance of programs and groups in the area available to administer these
services at detention facilities. Oak Hill has a large ministry service working with the
residents. There is also a university related tutoring program involved at Oak Hill. For
Black History Month an African cultural group came in to arrange a program through
artistic expression. An initiative should be made to have every resident involved in at
least one alternative program. Soliciting more volunteers and staffing more
administrative positions at Oak Hill would help coordinate outreach programs to actually
aide in the rehabilitation of the youth. Most of these programs work on a volunteer basis,
therefore it would not require any additional funding. The only additional money
required would be for staff positions, particularly for the purposes of this volunteer works
coordination in order to facilitate ongoing participation with outside resources.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
49/77
49
5. EDUCATION SYSTEM
As one administrator stated, Every resident should be required to read a certain
number of books before being released. While writing a reading list requirement into
the sentencing structure of the law may not be realistic; the principle conveyed by this
idea is a very useful one. First, the educational resources, particularly the books on the
units must be updated. The resources at the school must be more easily accessible so as
to not impose barriers to spending free time in productive ways such as reading and
writing rather than playing video games and sleeping. Addressing the educational levels
and needs of residents at Oak Hill is a clear deficit, hence a model for effective schooling
in detention facilities remains to be developed. This is the most imminent area for future
research as educational involvement has the greatest probability to positively change the
life course of these youth who have gotten chained into the wrong system.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
50/77
50
Bibliography
Acoca, Leslie. 1996. Are Girls More Difficult to Work With? Youth WorkersPerspectives in Juvenile Justice and Related Areas. Crime and Delinquency. 4:467-85.
Altschuler, David M. and Troy L. Armstrong. (1999) Reintegrative Confinement andIntensive Aftercare. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. July.
Bowker, Lee H. 1982. Corrections: The Science and the Art. New York: MacmillanPublishing Co., Inc.
Chan, Sewell. 1999. Health Care at Oak Hill Still Found Inadequate: Report sayscenter breaks court order. The Washington Post. September 17, p.B4.
Chan, Sewell. 2000. D.C. Council Bemoans Project Delays. The Washington Post.
November 29, pB2.
Cramer, Carol and Carter White. 2000. Curriculum for Training Educators of Youth inConfinement. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: FactSheet. 05.
DeMilo, Andrew. 2001. D.C. Panel Launches Mission for Youth. The WashingtonPost. November 15, p.B2.
DCPS Homepage, Oakhill Academy..
Doig, Jameson W., ed. 1982. Criminal Corrections: Ideals and Realities. Lexington:Lexington Books.
Eron, L., J. Gentry and P. Schlegel. 1994. Reason to hope: A Psychosocial Perspectiveon Violence and Youth. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association
Finckenauer, James O. 1984. Juvenile Delinquency: The Gap Between Theory andPractice. Orlando: Academic Press.
Greene, Marcia S. 1993. In D.C. Detention Centers, A Wall of Pain Traps Young DCOffenders. The Washington Post. January 24, p.A1.
Grossman, Jean b. and Eileen M. Garry. 1997. Mentoring- A Proven DelinquencyPrevention Strategy. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. April.
Hardy, Richard E. and John G. Cull. 1973. Introduction to Correctional Rehabilitation.Springfield: Charles Thomas Publishers.
7/31/2019 Cecilia Kline
51/77
51
Jacobs, Mark D. 1990. Screwing the System and Making it Work: Juvenile Justice in theNo-fault Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
James, Austen. 1995. The Overrepresentation of Minority Youths in the CorrectionalJuvenile Justice System: Perceptions and Realities. Minorities in Juvenile
Justice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lambert, N.M. 1988. Adolescent outcomes for hyperactive children: Perspectives ongeneral and specific patterns of childhood risk for adolescent educational, social,and mental health problems. American Psychologist, 43, 786-799.
Leonard, Kimberly K., and Henry Sontheimer. 1995.The Role of Race in JuvenileJustice in Pennsylvania.Minorities in Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks: SagePublications.
Lewis, Nancy. 1993. Oak Hill Corrections Officers Protest Crowding and Attempts to
Relieve it. The Washington Post. June 15, PC7.
Lewis, Nancy. 1994. Judges Costly Ruling: Fines Raised for Overcrowded D.C.Youth Facilities. The Washington Post. April 22, p.D1.
Lewis, Nancy. 1994. Fire Safety Problems Found at Juvenile Centers: Access to ExitDoors, Number of Youths in DC Detention Facilities Questioned in Court TheWashington Post. July 27, p.B6.
Lewis, Nancy. 1995. Much of DC Youth Facility Without Hot Water. TheWashington