8.5: Status Offender
When we look at juvenile crime and detention, we must look at several issues surrounding the unique nature of the juvenile offender. First, we must differentiate between crimes and status offenses . Most times when a juvenile is arrested, it is thought they must have committed a crime. However, juveniles historically could be detained (incarcerated) for “status” offenses. These are “crimes” that only juveniles can be arrested for such as curfew violations, truancy or being “incorrigible,” basically not listening to your parent. These petty infractions could get a juvenile locked in a detention facility without even a hearing. Today, this no longer happens, and our guidelines have changed in regard to these offenses. However, it is important to know the history and the reason behind the practice. While status offenses are not serious, they are often precursor to more delinquent behavior.
Figure 8.5 Groundbreaking on Future Detention Home in Richmond Virginia, Dated June 14, 1956. Image is under a CC.By 2.0 license.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) recognized this as a significant issue pertaining to juvenile and provided research into the concern in the following abstract:
Scope of the Problem Status Offending behavior is often a sign of underlying personal, familial, community, and systemic issues, similar to the risk factors that underlie general offending. Sometimes these underlying issues contribute to delinquency later in life, putting youths at a higher risk for drug use, victimization, engagement in risky behavior, and overall increased potential for physical and mental health issues, including addiction (Greenwood and Turner 2011; Chuang and Wells 2010; Buffington, Dierkhising, and Marsh 2010; Henry, Knight, and Thornberry 2012; Mersky, Topitzes, and Reynolds 2012). Ample evidence supports the notion that less serious forms of delinquency often precede the onset of more serious delinquent acts (Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry 1995; Elliott, 1994). However, the “precursor to delinquency” view of status offending does not take into account the normal experimentation of childhood and adolescence or the diverse developmental pathways that can lead to serious delinquency (Kelley et al. 1997). Children and adolescents commonly experiment with behaviors that are not considered positive or prosocial, such as lying, being truant, or defying parents. Such experimentation allows youths to discover the negative consequences of their behaviors and learn from their mistakes. Most youths who engage in status and other minor offenses never progress to more serious behaviors (Kelley et al. 1997). States have formulated differing approaches to defining and handling status offenders. The approaches can be broadly divided into three categories: status offenders as delinquents, status offenders as neglected/abused dependents, or status offenders as a separate legislative category. The classification of offense behaviors largely dictates the kind of treatment and services that status offenders are likely to receive. The legal definition of a status offense is critical, as it can impact the treatment and availability of services to a youth in the juvenile justice system (Kendall 2007). Relatively few states define status offenses as delinquent behavior under statute, yet many status offenders end up being treated as de facto delinquents. One such way is through the use of probation as a disposition for status offenders, which is an option in 30 states (Szymanski 2006). Often, status offenders will be placed on probation, only to be later incarcerated as the result of a technical violation, regardless of whether the status offense was serious enough to initially warrant the use of confinement (Yeide and Cohen 2009).
Impact of Institutionalization : Research is limited with regard to the specific impacts of institutionalization on particular subgroups, such as status offenders. However, researchers have examined the general impact of institutionalization on juvenile offenders and consistently demonstrated that confinement in correctional facilities does not reduce reoffending and may increase it for certain youths (e.g., Lipsey and Cullen 2007). In some cases, status offenders are placed in the same facilities as juveniles who have committed more serious crimes, a practice that may increase deviant attitudes and behaviors among status offenders, such as the development of antisocial perspectives and gang affiliation (Levin and Cohen 2014). Juveniles experiencing confinement are eventually forced to navigate the barriers to reentry in the community, home, and school, which increases the chance of being rearrested and re-incarcerated (Levin and Cohen 2014). Further, research has shown that confinement fails to address underlying causes of status-offending behavior, and thus does not deter youths from committing future crimes (Hughes 2011; Holman and Ziedenberg 2006). Although most youths naturally “age out” of delinquency when social controls are enforced (Sweeten, Piquero, and Steinberg 2013; Tremblay et al. 2004), institutionalization can negate this type of development. When handled as delinquents and placed in juvenile facilities, status offenders may be put into environments that can lead to physical and emotional harm. Institutionalizing juveniles may negatively affect their social development by disrupting their social connectedness and support from family, school, and the community (Hughes 2011). Confinement in a secure environment can increase violent tendencies, exacerbate risk factors, and increase recidivism risk (Holman and Ziedenberg 2006). Studies done on juvenile delinquents show that community-based programming can be more effective than detention in preventing future crime (Hughes 2011; Holman and Ziedenberg 2006; Kendall 2007; Salsich and Trone 2013; Petitclerc et al. 2013). Although status offenders are noncriminal youths, they often possess many risk factors for future offending, which can be exacerbated by formal processing through the juvenile justice system. Research illustrates the need for immediate and efficacious community-based alternatives to help status-offending youths and their families. Strengthening of family relationships, social-control mechanisms, and other protective factors are integral in preventing future criminality among status offenders (Salsich and Trone 2013).
Conclusions - Currently, status-offense laws, terminology, and programs and practices vary widely across states (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera 2014). Some states choose to process juveniles formally through the system, with the idea that harsh treatment of young offenders will deter them from future criminal activity. Conversely, some research has shown that by further entangling young people and children in the juvenile justice system, they become more likely to be involved in a life of crime because of their increased exposure to other criminal peers, the justice system, and the effects of “labeling” (Petrosino et al. 2010). A meta-analysis by Petrosino and colleagues (2010) assessed 27 studies and found a small negative effect for formal system processing of juveniles, meaning that juveniles who were formally processed through the juvenile justice system were more likely to recidivate, compared with youths who were diverted from the system (although the difference was not statistically significant). As a result, more states are exploring alternative strategies to divert status offenders from the juvenile court process altogether (Coalition for Juvenile Justice 2012). Some resources have been developed for jurisdictions looking for specific information about options in the treatment of status-offending youths. For example, through its participation in the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change Resource Center Partnership, the Status Offense Reform Center (SORC) provides tools and techniques to improve the juvenile justice system in support of the equitable, rational, and effective treatment of status offenders. The SORC, operated by the Vera Institute of Justice (n.d.), serves as an information base for juvenile justice stakeholders and is available to provide information, guidance, and assistance to policymakers and practitioners who are interested in preventing the confinement of status offenders (Salsich and Trone 2013). Jurisdictions can make use of this information to consider options to the processing and treatment of status offenders and ensure that they are deinstitutionalized.