According to Molly Hennessy-Fiske and Richard Winton from the L.A Times, multiple Los Angeles County probation officers were found guilty of molesting, beating, or mistreating juveniles that were formerly or currently under their supervision.

There are multiple cases of officers misusing their authority positions and treating the inmates poorly. Molly Hennessy-Fiske and Richard Winton also discuss how some officers incite violence between inmates, instructing one inmate to physically assault another. In this particular case, the officer was unlawfully punishing the inmate for allegedly stealing the officer’s phone.. Another officer at the Central Juvenile Hall was caught dealing marijuana to kids. Although he was fired, he was not charged with any legal action. These cases attest to the fact that juvenile detention centers are operated in a careless manner.

There are many factors considered when categorizing the actions of a juvenile offenders. The Welfare and Institutions Code specifies the following factors: “the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor, whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction, the minor’s previous delinquent history, success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor”(W&IC,707a), among many others.

Serious or violent crimes committed by juvenile offenders cause the offender to be in violation of article 17, section 707, subsection B of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The Welfare and Institutions Code lists the violent crimes to be: murder, arson, robbery, rape, kidnapping, assault with a firearm or destructive device, etc.(W&IC, 707(b)). Crimes other than the ones listed in the W&IC are considered to be nonviolent crimes and are categorized under non-707(b) offenses. Only the offenders that are considered serious are eligible for the Division of Juvenile Justice,  a parole program that helps with treatment and education of serious juvenile offenders. Non-violent offenders are not enrolled in the DJJ, but are supervised by their community after they complete their sentence.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation states in their 2016 Juvenile Justice Outcome Evaluation Report that

Approximately 82 percent (553 youth) were 707(b) only cases (i.e., serious and/or violent crimes). Only 2.2 percent (15 youth) were 290 only cases, or registered sex  offenders. And over 6 percent (45 youth) were both 707(b) and 290. Six youth were classified as “other” which indicates that they were superior court commitments to DJJ, whose crime would have been a 707(b) if the commitment were from a juvenile court.7 Finally, only 8.3 percent or 56 youth included in this cohort were not a 707(b) or 290

cases(CDCR, 17).

There are multiple instances where we see the current juvenile detention system fail to successfully rehabilitate juveniles. The CDCR found that 13.8 percent (93 youth) of the 675 youth released from DJJ in 2011‐12 were returned to DJJ. 93 out of 675 youth were put back into the DJJ before they were adults. 37.3% were returned to state-level incarceration. 501 out of 675 or 74.2% of juvenile offenders were arrested later on in their lives, and 53.8% were convicted.

It is important that the youth in juvenile detention centers are put into programs that will actually rehabilitate them and decrease the high recidivism rates. L.A county detention centers were shown to pay the most for an offender each year than anyone else. According to Garrett Therolf from the L.A times, counties such as San Diego, Chicago, and Huston spent significantly less per juvenile compared to L.A County Detention Centers. L.A County detention centers spend significantly more than other detention centers, which is controversial because people are wondering whether the funds being allocated to these centers are worth being spent. If centers are paying this much, they should be getting better results, and a significant decrease in recidivism.

Although L.A County detention centers are paying the most, there are no significant improvements, and they are not even aware of why they were paying much more than other detention centers. Therolf also claims in his article that offenders had a lower chance of finishing high school, and had a higher chance of ending up in prison later on in their lives in a study by economists Anna Aizer and Joseph Doyle Jr. There is also no evidence that justifies the overspending because no major improvements have been made. L.A county is showing that the money being spent is wasted because they are doing what every other detention center is doing, but paying significantly more to do so. It is imperative that L.A county detention centers put the money to good use because this is taxpayer money that is being wasted.

Despite the multiple instances of officer misconduct and the failure to rehabilitate juveniles in detention centers, there are still efforts being made to change the system. There is a detention center in Malibu that is called Campus Kilpatrick which reinvented their ideology on the way they operate. They created new facilities and added better programs to rehabilitate the youth admitted to those facilities. The Times Editorial Board claims that the new campus requires intensive training for the staff members, and they attempted to replicate a program that has been effective in Missouri to decrease recidivism among juveniles. It is important that they focus on rehabilitation to ensure the $48 million spent on the new camp is justifiable.

Although this is a great stride in the right direction, it is important to note that even if one detention center was able to successfully create new facilities and change the current system for rehabilitation, it will still be difficult to replicate in other detention center. We have already seen that not everyone is as willing to spend the amount of money L.A County detention centers spend.This issue is also controversial because taxpayers may not be willing to support juvenile rehabilitation because some people see it as a waste of money since the already existing methods are not effective.

Juvenile detentions centers that do not have the funding recreate the entire process should look into the already existing and effective methods to improve the current statistics. . Examples of this include: Family Functional Therapy, The Insiders Juvenile Crime Prevention Program, Multisystemic Therapy, etc.

Family Functional Therapy is a program for juveniles that helps prevent them from recidivism. The goal of the program is to get rid of the problems that might be causing juveniles to be violent, do drugs, commit robberies, etc., by involving the family of the juvenile in his/her life so the juvenile has a support system. With positive influence and support from those closest to the juvenile,the hope is that recidivism rates decrease.This program is effective because it is specific to the juvenile in timing and technique. FFT is goal oriented, and they create their interventions around their respective goals. They have three main goals that they want to accomplish throughout the process. Their goals are to encourage and motivate, change behavioral patterns, and be consistent in those changes . The program is intended to be easily replicated so the process can be applied by many detention centers. The results of FFT is proven to decrease recidivism rates to half of what they would be if the adolescent were to be put in a control group. This program should be implemented into many institutions because it is proven to be effective.

Another technique implemented is the Insiders Juvenile Crime Prevention Program. The goal of this program is to discourage delinquent behavior to prevent juveniles from committing crimes. They do this by showing current juvenile offenders real prison life to deter them from recidivism. This technique is efficient because this shows them that although juvenile detention centers are harsh, keeping up their behavior will only put them in worse conditions. Based on the results of the program, it shows that this is a long-term program that must be sustained to be effective. Results show that over time, juvenile offenders that didn’t take part in this program engaged in delinquent behavior more often than those who attended the program This was proven by comparing the  delinquency involvement scores of both groups. This shows offenders that can’t actualize consequences as well as others are proven to recidivate at a significantly higher rate than those who can.

The way adolescent offenders are dealt with in juvenile detention centers needs to be improved. It is clear that most juvenile detention centers are mishandling the youth that enter their facilities. There is a dire need for more effective rehabilitative methods to be introduced to detention centers across the U.S. To decrease recidivism rates, detention centers need to adopt programs like Functional Family Therapy and the Insiders Juvenile Crimes Prevention Program because these programs have proved to be successful.