Case Study: The Texas Juvenile Justice System

Every year, juvenile courts in the United States handle an estimated 1.7 million cases in which a youth was charged with a delinquency offense (“Youth in the Justice System,” 2012). Throughout most of history, youthful offenders were handled under the same laws and system as adults were. While deviance has always been around, societal intervention and participation in handling juvenile transgressors has gained the most momentum in the last 100–150 years (Whitehead & Lab, 2013). A separate juvenile justice system was established in the United States with a goal of diverting youthful offenders from the adult system while encouraging rehabilitation. Today, one would hear that the system’s goal is to react to juveniles in ways that protect the
community, hold the offenders accountable, and enhance their ability to live productively and responsibly within the community. In order to obtain these goals there has been a number of rehabilitative programs to assist juvenile offenders. These programs are funded by the public sector or the private sector. The public sector is any program and facilities under local, state, or federal government purview. On the other hand, the private sector is owned and operated by a private entity as oppose to being under governmental control. When looking at rehabilitative programs, funded and controlled by public or private sectors, it is hard to say whether one is better than the other; however, some individuals have taken a clear stance. Realistically, the goal is to fund programs that effectively treat juvenile offenders in ways that reduce recidivism. However, recidivism rates do not provide enough information to affirm whether private sectors are superior to the public, or vise versa. Rather, it is a combination of elements that work together to effectively address the needs of a juvenile. Therefore, efficacy will be determined based on a program’s ability to address and handle the needs of a juvenile. By taking an exploratory approach to the efficacy of juvenile programs, the goal is to discover which sector provides the best treatment for juveniles. Historically, the public and private sectors have been viewed as anything but equal. At the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, he placed executive orders which would foster a greater public–private partnership and decrease the dependence on the government (“Ronald Reagan,” n.d.). Although this was happening decades before the 1980’s, Reagan’s administration was known to advocate for the use of private sectors, as they believed it would reduce government spending and streamline operations which were previously offered by State and local governments. Historically, those in favor of privatization argued that the private sector had the freedom and flexibility to start programs quickly and for less than the public sector. Because these agencies had greater control over potential change, proponents believe the private sector would produce more effective services for juvenile offenders. However, opponents of privatization argued that the private sector could not ensure a consistent level of services. They argued that the public sector could better handle even the most difficult cases and warned against an increase in private sector involvement. These opponents believed an increase in private agencies would lead to a lack of coordinated services and an unhealthy decrease in governmental regulation. The question regarding public and private sectors are similar to the question asked years ago. Although there it truth to both sides, continued research has allowed the public access to more information regarding this ongoing debate–does privatization allow for a better outcome in juvenile treatment than programs owned and operated under the local, state, or federal government. To answer this question it becomes essential to evaluate each program for both it’s strengths and weaknesses. The Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) is best understood as a state agency.
TJJD was created on December 1, 2011 replacing the Texas Juvenile Probation Commissions (TJPC) and Texas Youth Commission (TYC). Their mission is to transform young lives and create safer communities. Along with their mission comes their core values of justice, safety, integrity, partnership, and innovation. With this in mind their vision is to create an effective and integrated justice system that will: advance public safety through rehabilitation, provide youth services which match their needs and enhance their opportunity for a satisfying and productive life, employs a workforce empowered to be agents of change, operate safe and therapeutic environments with positive peer culture emphasizing mutual accountability, and lastly is a model system with innovative, data–driven, and successful programming (“TJJD,”
2017). The Texas Juvenile Justice Department has identified a population of juvenile offenders, which require a more intensive and specialized treatment.
As a result, TJJD has created specialized residential treatment programs designed to specifically treat serious violent offenders, sex offenders, chemically dependent offender, offenders with mental health impairments, and offenders with mental retardation (“Specialized Correctional Treatment,” 2017). For each juvenile offender a comprehensive clinical assessment is performed when they first enter the Texas juvenile system. From the assessment youth are matched with a specialized treatment program to ensure their needs are met. To better evaluate the efficacy of these programs, this paper will address a sample of TJJD’s programs consisting of capital and serious violent offenders, chemically dependent offenders, and offenders with mental health
impairments. For violent offenders, the Giddings State School operates a treatment program for youth committed for murder, capital murder, and if the offense involved the use of a weapon or deadly force. The program helps juveniles connect feelings associated with their violent behavior and to identify alternative ways to respond (“Specialized Correctional Treatment,” 2017). Youth involved in the program are required to reenact their crimes and to play the role of both the perpetrator and victim. This specific technique is portrayed in John Hubner’s (2005) novel Last Chance in Texas; within the novel Corinne Alvarez–Sanders explains, Role plays are especially effective with adolescents because they are close to their childhood. Kids have fewer barriers and defenses. I never saw hardness inside these kids, I saw it as a level of clothing that could be removed. Underneath it, there is softness, and were there is softness, there is hope. (p. 85)
According to Texas Juveniles Justice System, the Giddings Capital and Serious Violent Offenders program is the most promising of TJJD specialized treatment programs. Their research shows that participation in the Giddings State School reduces the chances of juveniles being re–incarcerated for any offense by 55 percent, and for a felony offense, by 43 percent (“Specialized Correctional Treatment,” 2017). For chemically dependent offenders, TJJD’s alcohol or other drug abuse treatment programs are located in all the institutional facilities and several half–way houses. Youth are placed in a program that fits their treatment needs. Residential programs are offered in several locations. Components within the program include evidence–based treatment curriculum and substance abuse education, social skills training, group and individual counseling, and relapse prevention (“Specialized Correctional Treatment,” 2017). According to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, criminal behavior is addressed through linking the use of drugs to the youth’s life story and offense.