The Politics of Prison Reform: Juvenile Justice Policy in Texas, California and Pennsylvania
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2016 The Politics of Prison Reform: Juvenile Justice Policy in Texas, California and Pennsylvania Sarah Cate University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Criminology Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Recommended Citation Cate, Sarah, "The Politics of Prison Reform: Juvenile Justice Policy in Texas, California and Pennsylvania" (2016). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1639. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1639 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1639 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Politics of Prison Reform: Juvenile Justice Policy in Texas, California and Pennsylvania Abstract At a moment when there is a great deal of enthusiasm for reforming the prison system in the United States, a number of states across the country have enacted legislation that aims to reduce the number of juveniles sent to state-run prisons. These new policies have focused on expanding community-based alternatives. The three state-level cases on Texas, California and Pennsylvania show that this strategy for reform entrenches punishment at the local level. As counties are given more responsibility to handle juvenile offenders they have contracted out services to the private-sector and invested in expanding jails and punitive conditions of probation. Overall, the reforms have done little to improve the treatment of juveniles caught up in the system. In these states hailed as juvenile justice “models for the nation,” youth continue to be incarcerated for minor offenses, subjected to abusive conditions of confinement, and stigmatized. The remarkable convergence of diverse states on this reform strategy can be traced back to past transformative eras of juvenile justice policy. Early developments in the juvenile justice system created the foundation for devolution, privatization, and the persistent belief that juvenile delinquency can be solved through individualized interventions. The development of the juvenile justice system connects to broader trends in social policy. This latest reconfiguration of the juvenile justice system reifies post- New Deal policy development where the state has shifted from providing basic public services to subsidizing the private-sector. Degree Type Dissertation Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Graduate Group Political Science First Advisor Marie Gottschalk Keywords community-based, devolution, juvenile justice, prison, privatization, reform Subject Categories Criminology | Criminology and Criminal Justice | Political Science | Public Policy This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1639 THE POLITICS OF PRISON REFORM: JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY IN TEXAS, CALIFORNIA AND PENNSYLVANIA Sarah Diane Cate A DISSERTATION in Political Science Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2016 Supervisor of Dissertation ______________ Marie Gottschalk Professor of Political Science Graduate Group Chairperson ______________ Matthew Levendusky, Professor of Political Science Dissertation Committee Rogers Smith Professor of Political Science Adolph Reed Professor of Political Science THE POLITICS OF PRISON REFORM: JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY IN TEXAS, CALIFORNIA AND PENNSYLVANIA COPYRIGHT 2016 Sarah Diane Cate This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ AKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the many people who helped and supported me with this research project. Above all, I would like to thank my family who means everything to me. My dad, Tim Cate, has read more of what I have written than anyone. As the best teacher I have ever known, he carefully and tirelessly edited and insightfully discussed my work at every stage of this process. While I may be following in my dad’s professional footsteps, it is my mom, Sue Cate, whose career inspired this research. She teaches me and models for me compassion and dedication to helping others. I have looked up to my brother, Aaron Cate, my whole life. The many long conversations I have had with him and my sister-in-law, Sarah Dixon, stick out as some of the most influential and fun moments of working on this project. Aaron and Sarah work tirelessly for young people; they exemplify the answer to helping make life better for youths. I was fortunate to have the best dissertation committee I could have asked for. Having Marie Gottschalk as my chair was a dream for someone interested in this topic. Marie was an exceptional mentor-- lending me the space to “keep reading,” and pushing me to always think deeper and work harder. She is dedicated to her students in an admirable and rare way. The rumors about Rogers Smith are true: he is the hardest working and most dedicated academic. He is also a generous mentor with the ability to always cut right to the core of a research project and ask the most challenging questions. One thing I am most grateful for from my time in graduate school is being able to call Adolph Reed my friend. His work, classes and our many conversations had an immense impact on how I see the world and give me great hope. All of the hard work my teachers put into my decades of schooling deserve a great amount of thanks. Particularly, Mrs. Wolf, Mrs. Densmore, Mrs. Wells, Mr. Cornelius, Mr. McKinnon and Prof. HoSang. Related, a special thanks is owed to the wide support and love I am fortunate to have from to my extended family and the Morris and Bowers families. And, the Blue Barn. No one tells you that the most important and influential people in graduate school are your peers. I benefitted from having so many close friends to go through this experience with. The solidarity I felt with them was one of the greatest sources of joy I got during my time researching. Finally, Daniel Moak, who I deeply admire, made every step of this possible, more enjoyable and better. I am immeasurably appreciative of your support. Thank you for the great happiness you bring to everything. iii ABSTRACT THE POLITICS OF PRISON REFORM: JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY IN TEXAS, CALIFORNIA AND PENNSYLVANIA Sarah Diane Cate Marie Gottschalk At a moment when there is a great deal of enthusiasm for reforming the prison system in the United States, a number of states across the country have enacted legislation that aims to reduce the number of juveniles sent to state-run prisons. These new policies have focused on expanding community-based alternatives. The three state-level cases on Texas, California and Pennsylvania show that this strategy for reform entrenches punishment at the local level. As counties are given more responsibility to handle juvenile offenders they have contracted out services to the private-sector and invested in expanding jails and punitive conditions of probation. Overall, the reforms have done little to improve the treatment of juveniles caught up in the system. In these states hailed as juvenile justice “models for the nation,” youth continue to be incarcerated for minor offenses, subjected to abusive conditions of confinement, and stigmatized. The remarkable convergence of diverse states on this reform strategy can be traced back to past transformative eras of juvenile justice policy. Early developments in the juvenile justice system created the foundation for devolution, privatization, and the persistent belief that juvenile delinquency can be solved through individualized interventions. The development of the juvenile justice system connects to broader trends in social policy. This latest reconfiguration of the juvenile justice system reifies post-New Deal policy iv development where the state has shifted from providing basic public services to subsidizing the private-sector. v TABLE OF CONTENTS AKNOWELDGEMENT.……………………………………………………...…………iii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………...…………iv LIST OF TABLES..……………………………………………………………………...vii LIST OF GRAPHS.…………………………………………………………………..…viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS……………………………………………………………..ix CHAPTER ONE Introduction: Devolution, Privatization and Community Based Alternatives in the Juvenile Justice System……………………………………………….1 CHAPTER TWO Still Texas Tough……………………………………………………..26 CHAPTER THREE Possibilities for Decarceration in California…………………….…98 CHAPTER FOUR Pennsylvania as Testing Ground…………………………………...187 CHAPTER FIVE Conclusion: Consequences of Bipartisanship and Market-Based Reforms…………………………………………………………………………………311 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………338 vi LIST OF TABLES 1. Probation Programs and Services 1999 and 2012, Texas………………………….49-50 2. Progressive Sanctions Guidelines, Texas…………………………………………...95-6 3. Stipulations of Senate Bill 103………………………………………………….…..96-7 4. Youthful Offender Block Grant: Funds Used for Programs and Services, 2008, California…………………………………………………………………………….126-7 5. Comparison of Detention Survey Measures for 2000, 2005, and 2009, California…183 6. Major Legislation Addressing Gangs, 2009-2013, California…………………….184-5 7. Offense Category for Youth Sent to State-Run Facilities (DJJ) and Secure County Facilities, California…………………………………………………………………….185 8. Youthful Offender Block