The NY Times Magazine article entitled ‘The Juvenile Justice Revolution’ by James Forman Jr. (2 February 2025) examined aspects of the juvenile justice human service system in the US between 2000 and 2020. The article contains many points and lessons consistent with much of what we teach in SRV. See the following for a few connections; what else can you identify?
The article notes the rise in incarceration rates of young people from the 1970s to the 1990s and then the drop in incarceration rates from the 2000s to 2020. Nonetheless, the US rates are still significantly higher than similar systems in much of the rest of the world. The number of juvenile youth facilities in the US has also dropped, with larger facilities (those holding more than 100 people) closing at faster rates. What societal dynamics, and programmatic and non-programmatic factors, may be part of these system changes?
“The public remained largely unaware of what was going on behind bars … Prison walls keep incarcerated people in, but they also keep the rest of us out. This secrecy fosters ignorance; when was the last time you thought about what life is like for people in the prison or jail nearest to where you live? Juvenile prisons are especially good at hiding their true nature–even those that feel like dungeons are festooned with pleasant names like ‘children’s center,’ ‘camp,’ or … ‘youth center.’ (p. 23) Note connections for instance to unconsciousness, detoxification, and interpersonal identification.
“I was prepared for judges who would treat my clients as menaces …” (p. 24) Consider the menace role.
“Aizer, now an economist at Brown University, found a way to test how juvenile incarceration affected young people … The kids who were locked up did worse. They were 12 percent less likely to graduate from high school. And they were 23 percent more likely to be incarcerated as adults.” (p. 25) What might this reveal to us about the consequences of wounding on individual levels of personal competency?
“Susan Burke, director of Utah’s juvenile justice system from 2011 to 2018, remembers encountering Aizer’s research–along with other papers that reached similar conclusions–at a conference of juvenile justice administrators. Burke was intrigued, but she also found the findings ‘challenging.’ Consider it from her perspective: Because she ran a juvenile system, part of Burke’s job was to keep young people in jail.” (p. 25) Consider the SRV theme on the role of (un)consciousness. As well, some of Wolfensberger’s writings and teachings outside of SRV note that many modern economies are now largely service economies (post-primary production), which generate a ‘need’ for other ways to keep the economy going. Human services, as both Wolfensberger and John McKnight pointed out, have become significant economic engines, which raises the legitimate question of who is being served, the recipient or human service organizations?
“So what was Burke to make of research suggesting that even a short stay in detention might make it more, not less, likely that a young person would steal or vandalize again? … [Burke] sat down and talked to some kids that had gone through work camp … they did remember the experience as profoundly dislocating … She … ended the practice–common in Utah and elsewhere–of removing kids from their homes after arrest for a period of ‘observation and assessment’ … Why not do observation and assessment while the kid is at home?” (p. 25). Consider the wounds related to distantiation and discontinuities, as well as the adaptive potential of starting from culturally valued analogues.
“(T)he group that does best of all is those who are diverted from the system entirely.” (p. 47) Note a link to the SRV strategy of averting entry into devalued roles.