William S. Bush. Who Gets a Childhood?: Race and Juvenile Justice in Twentieth-Century . Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2010. 276 S. $24.95, e-book, ISBN 978-0-8203-3762-3.

Reviewed by Mark Carroll

Published on H-Law (August, 2012)

Commissioned by Ethan Zadof (CUNY Graduate Center)

That the United States may soon have to ra‐ tiny town of Pyote, Bush tells the 120-year story of tion health care resources, including mental the Texas juvenile justice system that spawned health services, will almost certainly require its this notoriously dysfunctional institution. Orga‐ people and governments to take into account the nized into seven chapters and an epilogue, Who needs of adult prisoners, civilly committed mental Gets a Childhood? seeks to explain how Texas’s hospital patients, and a growing number of juve‐ regime of juvenile justice reached its current posi‐ nile ofenders committed to the care of the states. tion as one of the more controversial systems in The questions of whether public resources are be‐ the United States, while also advocating aggres‐ ing used efectively in behalf of juvenile justice, sive juvenile justice reform across the nation. Ex‐ and whether they can be used more efciently, amining closely the experiences of African Ameri‐ are of crucial importance at this time. Who Gets a can, Mexican American, and Euro-American girls Childhood? by historian William S. Bush illumi‐ and boys in the Texas training schools, which nates the historic mistreatment and outrageous racially segregated inmates into the 1960s, Bush abuses of poor African American, Latino, and unpacks the historic relationship between race, white youth in the training schools of twentieth- juvenile justice, and, importantly, competing un‐ century Texas. Equally important, the book makes derstandings of childhood. In this account, the an argument in behalf of a constitutional “right to history of the Texas juvenile justice system, which treatment” that would provide mental health re‐ began in 1889, is marked by a cyclical pattern of habilitation services for juveniles committed to abuse and scandal--from humanitarian reforms state custody. Bush thus makes a distinctive con‐ in the 1910s, 1940s, and 1970s, to juvenile crime tribution to the history of racial discrimination panics and “get-tough” “law and order” crack‐ and juvenile injustice in a multicultural southern downs in the 1950s and 1960s and from about state. Furthermore, his juvenile justice reform ad‐ 1985 to 2009. Public fears of “teenage terrorists” vocacy rekindles decades-old moral and political at the height of the Cold War and of “super-preda‐ debates that implicate directly the currently tors” in the Ronald Reagan era and early 1990s strained budgets of numerous states and the fed‐ generated the growth of expensive and remote eral government. lockdown facilities, which failed to deter juvenile Writing in response to the 2007 sexual abuse crime but unleashed unconscionable physical and scandal at the near the psychological abuses on inmates. This was so not‐ H-Net Reviews withstanding the fact that, since the 1940s, ex‐ lishment of the constitutional foundations for perts had reached a consensus on the superior ef‐ such programs articulated in that decision. fectiveness of smaller, community-based, rehabili‐ Bush acknowledges his intellectual debts to tative programs. Texas consistently failed to sus‐ those whose work has explored the historical de‐ tain its periodic reform eforts--a pattern Bush at‐ velopment of the early nineteenth-century notion tributes most to a widespread willingness to view of protected childhood, most recently reprised in juvenile ofenders as fully responsible adults. He Huck’s Raft: A History of American Childhood also argues that the inadequacies of the Texas sys‐ (2005) by historian Steven J. Mintz, and to social tem have been a consequence of structural neces‐ historian David J. Rothman, whose The Discovery sity; white racism; the ideological commitments of of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the administrators; the resistance of juveniles placed New Republic (1971) frst revealed fully the diver‐ in state custody; recalcitrant townspeople who gence between lofty child-saving rhetoric and the stafed, ran, and protected the institutions; legisla‐ hard realities of juvenile justice in the United tors who were generally hostile to expenditures States. Also clearly informing Who Gets a Child‐ for juvenile delinquents they deemed morally sus‐ hood? is Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation pect' and the transience and disorganization of of the Juvenile Court (1999) by legal historian Bar‐ child advocates, at least until the 1970s. ry C. Feld and Juvenile Justice in the Making According to Bush, Texas resembled many (2004) by legal historian David S. Tanenhaus, both other states in its utter failure to live up to Pro‐ of which examine the tensions between viewing gressive-Era promises of professional, individual‐ juveniles as children in need of protection and as ized treatment--a lapse, he argues in several chap‐ “little more than adult criminals in miniature” (p. ters, that extended the privileges of a “protected 3). Fugitive Cultures: Race, Violence, and Youth childhood” to white middle- and upper-class (1996), authored by critical pedagogy theorist youth, while denying those protections to African Henry A. Giroux, and Rethinking Juvenile Justice Americans, Latinos, and poor whites. The central (2008), coauthored by juvenile justice expert Eliz‐ shortcoming of juvenile justice in Texas and else‐ abeth S. Scott and psychologist Laurence Stein‐ where has been its chronic inability to shelter berg, provide some of the conceptual grist with youth from the dangers, responsibilities, and ex‐ which Bush makes his point that the characteriza‐ periences of the world of adult criminal justice, tion of violent juveniles as super-predators is, including, of late, the death penalty. Federal court- when fung at people of color, fundamentally ordered reforms in the Texas case Morales v. Tur‐ racist and that scholars, policy makers, and youth man (1974) advanced new due process rights for advocates have begun to rethink the recent trajec‐ referred juveniles, a constitutional right to treat‐ tory toward stern punishment of juveniles. Quite ment, and community-based rehabilitation pro‐ evidently infuencing Bush’s presentation also is grams for them. But the latter were abandoned by The Cycle of Juvenile Justice (1992) by late crimi‐ the Texas authorities in the late 1980s in the face nal law specialist Thomas J. Bernard, which exam‐ of a growing public panic over rising juvenile ines alternating advocacy for lenient treatment crime and super-predators. A central feature of and harsh punishment for juvenile ofenders in the solution that Bush advocates for ofenders un‐ American history. der the age of eighteen, violent and nonviolent, is Who Gets a Childhood? joins a host of fne more aggressive implementation of the kinds of works, including those referenced above, that reforms ordered in Morales and the frm estab‐ have taken the study of juvenile justice in the United States into new directions. In fact, a verita‐

2 H-Net Reviews ble rediscovery of juvenile delinquency and cor‐ historian Mary E. Odem; Reform and Resistance: rections has occurred, one that revisits their his‐ Gender, Delinquency, and America’s First Juvenile torical development with an array of new meth‐ Court (2001) by educational studies expert Anne ods, approaches, and geographic foci. Bush de‐ Meis Knupfer; Caught: Montreal’s Modern Girls serves much credit for producing the frst book- and the Law, 1869-1945 (2007) by Canadian histo‐ length study to examine the juvenile justice sys‐ rian Tamara Myer; and Justice for Girls? Stability tem of a state once belonging to the Confederacy. and Change in the Youth Justice Systems of the But it also joins company with criminal justice United States and Canada (2009), coauthored by specialist Jennifer A. Trost’s Gateway to Justice: criminal justice specialist Jane B. Sprott and crimi‐ The Juvenile Court and Progressive Child Welfare nologist Anthony N. Doob. in a Southern City (2005), which breaks new Bush is completely transparent about his ground in this regard by examining the juvenile choice to make Who Gets a Childhood? a strong courts in Memphis, Tennessee. Expert in criminal response to those who have, since about the justice Geof K. Ward’s The Black Child-Savers: mid-1980s, called for incarceration, sterner penal‐ Racial Democracy and Juvenile Justice (2012) ex‐ ties, and adult sentencing for violent juvenile amines the Jim Crow juvenile justice systems that criminals. He makes no efort to conceal his inten‐ developed across the United States in the twenti‐ tion to make his book both a scholarly history and eth century and the failure within them of the re‐ a tool with which to educate readers about the habilitative ideal for black youth. Complementing 1990s-spawned myth of the super-predator and Bush’s investigation of Latino and black youth in the actual circumstances and challenges of juve‐ the Texas system is Chicana/o studies specialist nile ofenders. His research, presentation, and ar‐ Miroslava Chávez-García’s States of Delinquency: guments, quite clearly, show an abiding sympathy Race and Science in the Making of California’s Ju‐ for the plight of wayward youth who end up in venile Justice System (2012), the frst book to ex‐ the custody of the state. But it should be noted amine the experiences of Mexican American, that Bush proceeds evenhandedly. He gives credit African American, and ethnic Euro-American to the Texas juvenile justice system when credit is youth in the California juvenile correctional facili‐ due. He provides full coverage of the courageous ties--experiences made more difcult by the inter‐ eforts of reformers, judges, and administrators play of racist science, pseudo-scientifc research, who, time and again, bucked recalcitrant “locals” and the disproportionate classifcation of youths and conservative reactionaries in the political of color as “degenerate.” Equally relevant to arena. He presents an abundance of evidence that Bush’s critique of the super-predator myth is a does not always make his argument easy; for ex‐ 2006 scholarly article concerning the period ample, he clearly identifes substantial increases 2002-2005 by former gang member and sociolo‐ in juvenile crime in the last several decades, in‐ gist Victor Rios, entitled “The Hyper-Criminaliza‐ cluding data showing this trend in Texas. tion of Black and Latino Male Youth in the Era of Who Gets a Childhood? is based on a stun‐ Mass Incarceration.”[1] Bush’s chapters exploring ning amount of archival research. Bush draws the trials and tribulations of black and Latino substantially on the records of the Texas State girls resonate with an abundance of recent schol‐ Board of Control (TSBC); Texas State Youth Devel‐ arship investigating female youth, the construc‐ opment Council (TSYDC); Texas Youth Council/ tion of gender, and the juvenile justice system in Commission (TYC); and juvenile court and proba‐ the United States, including Delinquent Daugh‐ tion ofce case fles, including correspondence be‐ ters: Protecting and Policing Adolescent Female tween parents and incarcerated youth at such in‐ Sexuality in the United States, 1880-1925 (1995) by

3 H-Net Reviews stitutions as the State Juvenile Training School for as will be shown, Bush’s chapter 6 and chapter 7 Boys at Gatesville (founded in 1889), the analyses of the background, beginnings, discovery for Girls (founded in phase, trial, and institutional and political impact 1916), and the Brady School for Negro Girls of Morales v. Turman (1971-1988) is quite impres‐ (founded in 1947). The book makes especially ef‐ sive. Chapter 7 reveals that Who Gets a Child‐ fective use of materials from the federal district hood? constitutes, among other things, an in- court proceedings in Morales v. Turman, includ‐ depth sociocultural, institutional, and political ing responses to inmate questionnaires and in‐ study of that important case. It also demonstrates mate statements, depositions, and trial testimony. the extraordinary value of trial-level evidence for The list of wholly divergent sources goes on and scholars. Testimony given under oath in such cas‐ on: census fgures and state and federal juvenile es such Morales can serve as a rare window into justice and crime data; photographs, anti-juvenile institutional practice and individual experiences delinquency posters, political cartoons, and still for social, cultural, and political historians. Given shots from movies and documentary flms; radio recent trends in the use of comparative approach‐ broadcast transcripts, magazines, and newspa‐ es in the study of juvenile justice employed by pers; governor’s papers and executive commis‐ Sprott and Dobb in Justice for Girls? and by the sion reports; state and federal appellate court late juvenile justice expert Margaret K. Rosen‐ opinions; and legislative testimony and commis‐ heim and others in A Century of Juvenile Justice sion reports. Bush also puts to good use records (2002), however, Bush might well have compared housed at the Center for American History, Uni‐ juvenile justice practices and outcomes in Texas versity of Texas at Austin, and the Texas State Li‐ with those in some other venues, if only briefy. brary and Archives Commission, and documents Who Gets a Childhood? is an analytical narra‐ gleaned from the depositories of various local and tive wrought with sophistication, fair, and con‐ national foundations, charitable groups, and phil‐ siderable economy. To cover well so many com‐ anthropic organizations. plex developments over the course of 120 years in With arguments deftly connected to key de‐ only 208 pages of main text is an admirable bates across numerous disciplines, Who Gets a achievement. Bush explores his subject matter Childhood? comprises skillfully a blend of ap‐ with remarkable skill and judiciousness. He proaches and methods drawing on critical cultur‐ brings to life and lets us hear the voices of indi‐ al theory, sociology, criminology, and social and vidual youth, their parents, and ofcials. With cultural history. Bush can quantify data from the clear and precise prose, he illuminates the byzan‐ Uniform Crime Reports with the best of them. And tine workings of an evolving Texas juvenile jus‐ he certainly employs, to good efect, recent frame‐ tice system. Bush unpacks the local dynamics of works dealing with the cultural and institutional struggle between reform ideals and hard institu‐ construction of sexual identity. As indicated tional and socioeconomic realities, while also ex‐ above, Bush shows himself to be quite adept with ploring how the conficts within that system relat‐ methods employed by cultural and political histo‐ ed dynamically to an ever-changing larger Ameri‐ rians in the interpretation of flm and public art can society, culture, and political order--including and photographs. His legal and constitutional the interaction between training school superin‐ analysis of major United States Supreme Court de‐ tendents, TSYDC and TYC ofcials, the Texas legis‐ cisions relevant to juvenile justice in Texas and lature, Congress, the president, and the federal other states is abbreviated. The discussion of Kent courts. v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), and In re Winship (1970) takes up less than a page. But,

4 H-Net Reviews

Emblematic of the nuance and care with quently, the goal of juvenile rehabilitation re‐ which Bush engages his subject matter is chapter mained elusive and the transition of paroled girls 4, which examines the belated opening of the back to noninstitutional life became one of the Brady School for Negro Girls in 1947. Bush shows most persistent problems. us how growing pressures in behalf of civil rights Drawing on his 2004 University of Texas PhD for African Americans after World War II helped dissertation, it seems, Bush demonstrates intrigu‐ bring the change, while some white leaders saw ingly in chapter 5 how the rapidly growing politi‐ the school as merely a way to bolster “public safe‐ cal and economic fortunes of post-World War II ty” and shield white men and boys from black Texas drew top experts from the felds of sociolo‐ prostitutes supposed to be specially ridden with gy, psychology, and social work--and thus into ur‐ venereal disease. The delayed construction of the ban venues extraordinarily complicated by racial training school for black girls refected a particu‐ and ethnic diversity and confict. He reveals how larly blatant example of the racial segregation “common sense” understandings of adolescence and discrimination of the Jim Crow era. But the and juvenile delinquency competed with opposi‐ lapse was, according to Bush, more fundamental‐ tional understanding nurtured by expert sociolo‐ ly, a refusal to include African American youth in gists and psychologists.[2] Particularly impressive the emerging protected categories of childhood in this chapter is his analysis, informed by cultur‐ and adolescence. On the whole, the Brady School al history methods, of how reformers employed fared much better in providing education and flm and other popular media to cast juvenile treatment than its counterparts for white and delinquency as middle-class and white. Bush ar‐ Mexican American youth. But it did so by exclud‐ gues, quite convincingly, that the 1955 flm Rebel ing the most difcult girls and by embracing a rel‐ without a Cause, starring James Dean, set the atively conservative model of racial uplift. Brady standard for imprinting on the public conscious‐ admitted more delinquent girls each year, while ness the boundary between “normal” rebellious including extracurricular activities organized by adolescents, who were redeemable, and hopeless‐ them and developing strong academic and voca‐ ly lost teenagers. In Texas and across the country, tional programs. On the one hand, the school an invisible line divided juvenile delinquents, would be widely praised as the best run of the who were entitled to privileges and protections Texas institutions for juvenile delinquents. On the attached to the life stage of adolescence, from ju‐ other hand, Bush reveals that Brady’s inaugural venile ofenders, who were more likely to be in‐ years saw tensions run high between black and carcerated in facilities, which seemed to remain white employees and between adult staf and girl necessary. inmates. The largely white local population Of particular interest to legal and constitu‐ shaped public discussion about the rehabilitation tional historians will be chapter 7, which exam‐ of black delinquent girls that was strikingly simi‐ ines carefully the federal-court litigation in lar to the discourse generated by townspeople at Morales v. Turman. In 1970, Alicia Morales sued the older training schools for boys at Gatesville TYC Director James A. Turman and the agency in and Gainesville. The legislature allotted Brady the El Paso Juvenile Court on the ground that, lower budgets and fewer physical resources than when ffteen years of age, her father had her com‐ either of those schools. The girls at Brady were mitted to the TYC for disobedience with an also notably resistant to the diagnoses and reme‐ “agreed judgment” that entailed no notice of dies prescribed by both black and white authori‐ charges, no court appearance, and no representa‐ ties, which led to the adoption of solitary confne‐ tion, an obvious violation of the United States ment, whipping, and a barbed-wire fence. Conse‐

5 H-Net Reviews

Supreme Court ruling In re Gault (1967). Within typically small and frail youth forced to submit to months, Morales v. Turman expanded rapidly into the sexual domination of larger and stronger boys a federal class-action lawsuit destined to bring dubbed “jockers.” radical change to the TYC and which would have On August 30, 1974, Judge Justice issued his major national implications for the treatment of complete ruling. The opinion decried not only the juvenile ofenders placed in state custody. Bush physical but also the psychological damage infict‐ forthrightly points out that the TYC, at the time, ed on juvenile inmates in the care of the state. was providing programs for orphans, delinquent More broadly, he held that juveniles taken into girls, and urban parolees that most deemed quite the custody of the TYC, regardless of their race, salutary. But, by 1971, many Texans had become ethnicity, or economic background, had a right to impatient with the overreliance of the agency on treatment based on the mission statement of the large institutions, especially for boys, and commit‐ TYC, the prohibition against cruel and unusual ment-phase due process violations. The issue of punishment in the Eighth Amendment, and the disproportionate minority confnement, a grow‐ due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ing national concern, also punctuated the early The state appealed Morales to the Fifth Circuit, proceedings in Morales v. Turman, presided over which ordered a new trial on the basis that the by Judge William Wayne Justice of the Eastern case should have been heard by a three-judge District of Texas. panel. But the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Morales v. Turman soon also focused on abu‐ ruling and sent it back to the Fifth Circuit for a sive conditions of confnement, thanks to the consideration on the merits. Notwithstanding pro‐ strategy of the plaintif’s lead attorney Steve tracted developments on appeal, the district court Bercu, who headed the juvenile division of the El supervised sweeping reforms in the TYC from Paso Legal Aid Society. On his motion during dis‐ 1974 to 1988 that instituted community-based pro‐ covery, Judge Justice ordered a questionnaire to grams to deter delinquency and provide rehabili‐ be distributed to all TYC inmates in July 1971, tation for those referred to the juvenile courts--in‐ which revealed that, of the 2,294 respondents, 863 creasing the number of youth in such programs had hearings without legal counsel. A total of 280 from 81 in 1974 to 2,168 by 1981. had never set foot in a courtroom, and 50 respon‐ The epilogue of Who Gets a Childhood? de‐ dents, on their own initiative, reported abuses scribes how the TYC abandoned many of the pro‐ sufered at the hands of staf. The trial illuminat‐ gressive principles articulated by Judge Justice in ed the overrepresentation of black and Latino Morales v. Turman and associated reforms imple‐ youth in TYC facilities, their segregation by race, mented by the agency in response to his 1974 or‐ and a stern English-only policy. But inmate testi‐ der. Amid growing alarm over rising violent juve‐ mony in July and August 1973 also presented nile crime, the TYC tripled its large institution ca‐ graphic descriptions of training school mistreat‐ pacity from 1,686 in 1995 to 4,358 in 2005. The im‐ ment far worse than had previously come to light. pact of abuse scandals in juvenile facilities fell This testimony included accounts of coerced phys‐ disproportionately on African American and Lati‐ ical combat, as a form of initiation after intake; no youth. Black juvenile ofenders, in the year beatings by guards; widespread use of mace; ex‐ 2000, were signifcantly more likely than whites tended solitary confnement; mind-numbing and to be referred to court, detained while awaiting grueling work details; and an unofcial classifca‐ trial, incarcerated in juvenile facilities, and sen‐ tion system that categorized a substantial number tenced as adults. In the summer of 2002, Texas at‐ of inmates as “sexually deviant,” that is, as homo‐ tracted bitter condemnations from national and sexuals--with those denominated “punks” being

6 H-Net Reviews international critics for its administration of the white middle-class or upper-class youth? Juvenile death penalty to juvenile ofenders, including court prosecutors and judges may well have for‐ erstwhile honor student and straight arrow mally and informally, as a consequence of racism, Napoleon Beazley, an African American, for disposed of charges brought against boys in these killing an elderly couple during a carjacking. The categories more frequently than similar charges general public strongly supported such ultimate brought against African American and Mexican punishments out of growing fear of super-preda‐ American male juveniles. It is, in fact, easy to be‐ tors. This cumulative disadvantage, according to lieve that this was the case in Texas and else‐ Bush, constitutes a new American dilemma for where, at least before civil rights-era reforms. But the twenty-frst century, comparable to that artic‐ Bush provides little evidence to help us make this ulated by Gunnar Myrdal in 1944, and should set conclusion. the stage for a new cycle of juvenile justice re‐ Given the publication of Cops and Kids: Polic‐ form. The challenge, in his estimation, is to extend ing Juvenile Delinquency in Urban America, the privileges and protections of childhood and 1890-1840 (2005) by social historian David B. Wal‐ adolescence to all youth, regardless of social back‐ cott, Bush might well have provided more infor‐ ground; to make the reality of juvenile justice hew mation about police practices with juveniles in more closely to its founding rhetoric; and to break large urban areas of Texas, such as , be‐ the deeply ingrained habit of viewing even the fore and after the mid-1960s. By the 1970s, as a worst youthful ofenders as if they were fully re‐ consequence of the civil rights movement, Hous‐ sponsible adults. He deems the formal establish‐ ton was well on its way to making African Ameri‐ ment of a constitutional right to treatment as cen‐ can and Latino ofcers an important and substan‐ tral to these changes. tial part of the force. Bush provides reliable anec‐ Bush makes a solid case that African Ameri‐ dotal evidence suggesting that white middle-class can and Mexican American youth were overrep‐ parents more often refrained from reporting their resented in the juvenile training schools of Texas, wayward boys to civil authorities than did dis‐ at least from the end of World War II to about tressed poor or working-class parents. So, were 2009. He demonstrates clearly that white inmates white middle-class boys more or less likely to be constituted a decreasing segment of that popula‐ “caught” than boys from poor or working-class tion after the 1940s. But he does not fully substan‐ families? Did mistrust of police authorities and tiate his claim that the increasing overrepresenta‐ the courts deter African American and Mexican tion of African Americans and Latinos in the com‐ American parents from reporting their delin‐ mitted juvenile population was the consequence quent children? Did legal versus illegal immigrant of preferential treatment for middle-class and up‐ status afect this predisposition, if it was, in fact, per-class white youth within the Texas juvenile commonplace? In any case, the key question is--to justice system. He does not defne “middle class” what extent did the police apprehend, arrest, or or “upper class” or document with arrest, referral, refrain from arresting or referring minority or commitment data agency practices regarding youth of all classes to the juvenile courts versus white youth in these socioeconomic classes. By their practice in regard to white youth of all class‐ 1973, 89 percent of the inmates in the TYC train‐ es? Similar data regarding teacher diversion or ing schools had been committed for nonviolent of‐ referral practices would be useful. fenses, 11 percent for violent ones, a sad situation Bush’s emphasis on economic hardship and that Morales v. Turman would rectify, at least racism as the root causes of juvenile delinquency temporarily. But what percentage of inmates, in seems somewhat problematic in the context of his all the decades Bush examines, was composed of

7 H-Net Reviews discussion of recent decades. Beginning in chap‐ certainly declared such a right for committed ju‐ ter 2, he shows quite credibly that youth commit‐ veniles in his 1974 decision. But Bush also allows ted to the Texas training schools in the period that the United States Supreme Court in O’Connor 1929-49 typically came from dire family circum‐ v. Donaldson (1975), which denied that the United stances--“broken homes,” absent fathers, wid‐ States Constitution provides civilly committed owed and single mothers, all of which undercut mental patients such a right, efectively reversed efective parenting. He argues that, through the Judge Justice’s ruling in this connection. Bush remainder of the twentieth century, economic de‐ maintains that the Supreme Court in O’Connor ex‐ privation and inequality, ghetto environments, pressed the view that mental health treatment for and racial or ethnic confict remained the root committed juveniles is “desirable” (pp. 201-202). causes of juvenile delinquency in the state. But it But he omits to discuss a key Morales v. Turman seems questionable to cast bare correlations such ruling handed down by the Fifth Circuit Court of as these in cause-and-efect terms across the last Appeals in December 1977 that emphatically dis‐ third of the twentieth century and into the frst counted the proposition that juveniles in the cus‐ decade of the twenty-frst century, a period during tody of the state had such a right under the Con‐ which substantial numbers of African Americans stitution. Bush might also have at least discussed and Latinos worked their way into the prosperous briefy the ruling of the First Circuit in Santana v. middle class. Bush might have emphasized more Callazo (1983), the initial federal court of appeals that the youthful ofenders and parents he inves‐ decision actually to reject the argument that the tigates, especially after 1970, were autonomous Constitution guarantees a right to treatment to in‐ moral agents capable of making benefcial choices carcerated juvenile ofenders. The decision was even in the face of dysfunctional social practices also the frst to adopt the concurring opinion of and cultural predispositions found in some poor Chief Justice Warren Burger in O’Conner v. Don‐ and low-income communities. By the same token, aldson, in which he wrote, rather ominously, that he might have taken a bit more seriously the con‐ “a State’s police power may justify confnement of clusion drawn by federally funded Houston Ac‐ individuals solely to protect society.” tion for Youth (HAY) reformers in the early 1960s Under the circumstances, one is left to won‐ that the problem of school dropouts at that time der what impact O’Connor v. Donaldson and the was, in part, a consequence of the failure of par‐ December 1977 circuit court opinion in Morales v. ents to encourage study or inculcate in their chil‐ Turman actually had on the overhaul of the TYC dren the value of education. Whether this in the period 1974-88. The December 1977 Fifth amounted to a kind of absurd blaming-the-victim Circuit ruling remanded the case to the district error is at least worth discussing. And a work court for evidentiary hearings to determine the strenuously advocating public rehabilitation pro‐ extent to which the TYC had complied with Judge grams for committed at-risk youth certainly can‐ Justice’s 1974 injunction. Did the TYC institute psy‐ not be credible if it presupposes that juvenile of‐ chological counseling or psychiatric treatment of fenders ensconced in difcult environments can‐ inmates after O’Connor? After Santana? To what not make difcult choices correctly and change extent did the Texas juvenile justice system incor‐ their attitudes and behavior. porate mental health treatment into its new sys‐ Bush might have examined more carefully tem? Bush does not let us know. John Hubner’s the viability of his claim that the decision of Judge Last Chance in Texas: The Redemption of Criminal Justice in Morales v. Turman laid the foundation Youth (2005), however, suggests that the TYC for the creation of a constitutional right to treat‐ made strenuous eforts in this regard, at least ment in the early twenty-frst century. The judge with the Capital Ofenders Group Treatment Pro‐

8 H-Net Reviews gram at its Giddings State School. According to Foundation announced on January 26, 2012, that Hubner, the institution houses nearly four hun‐ it will jointly provide two million dollars to ad‐ dred of the most violent juvenile ofenders. The vance innovative treatment and services for program aims to alter the life trajectory of its resi‐ youth committed to state juvenile justice systems. dents. The Giddings School employs a disciplined [4] regimen wherein boys and girls engage separately Books advocating juvenile justice policy can in resocialization sessions carefully arranged by be most useful if they employ a rigorous cost-ben‐ teams of psychologists. Structured psychodramas eft analysis that helps to identify rehabilitative are designed to form emotional connections, en‐ programs that are efective as well as humane. Al‐ abling participants to identify, confront, and ulti‐ lowing that government programs, agencies, and mately gain mastery over violent impulses. Vital experts may well be the only solution to the prob‐ to this process is recognizing personal account‐ lem of juvenile delinquency and violent juvenile ability and internalizing a genuine sense of re‐ crime, Who Gets a Childhood? omits to discuss in morse for the injury they have caused their vic‐ any depth the actual results of small, community- tims. The program’s unconventional methods are based, therapeutic programs that the TSYDC initi‐ somewhat controversial. But Hubner emphasizes ated in the late 1940s and that the TYC developed the TYC’s success. In contrast to national recidi‐ thereafter through at least the 1980s. Bush simi‐ vism rates for youthful ofenders, which ranged larly gives little attention to the results produced from 50 to 60 percent in 2004, a study conducted by the larger, remote, secure institutions for the that year reported that only 10 percent of Gid‐ rehabilitation of troubled youth. Certainly he is to dings School graduates were rearrested for a vio‐ be praised for illuminating and condemning lent crime, at least after three years on parole. training school abuses. But we get very little infor‐ The Texas Capital Ofenders program suggests mation concerning how training school inmates that rehabilitative treatment at a training school, or those referred to local community-based pro‐ carefully and intelligently administered, can actu‐ grams fared after their releases. What number ally work. But it seems quite likely that rehabilita‐ and percentage of juveniles discharged from tive approaches of all kinds will continue to be ex‐ training schools and from community-based reha‐ plored and gain support. Congress passed the Civil bilitative programs reentered civil society suc‐ Rights of Institutionalized Peoples Act (CRIPA) in cessfully? What were the recidivism rates for 1980, which authorized the Department of Justice youth released from these difering institutional to protect the rights of persons in the care of state regimens? Given that juvenile crime in Texas es‐ institutions, including those committed to juvenile calated precipitously in the decades following the correctional facilities. CRIPA did not create any Morales reforms, what are the implications of this new rights, but it allows the United States attor‐ for the viability of traditional community-based, ney general to enforce rights for juveniles set out rehabilitative programs? Can the spike be attrib‐ in the statutes of individual states or their consti‐ uted to this kind of regimen or to other factors? If tutions. The National Mental Health Association so, what are they? strongly supports treatment for committed juve‐ Bush’s advocacy for improved rehabilitation niles with mental disorders, as does the National for juvenile delinquents and ofenders seems to Juvenile Defender Center, and myriad other juve‐ presuppose abundant public resources. This pre‐ nile advocacy organizations.[3] A private-public supposition is, in fact, the white elephant roaming partnership between the Department of Justice’s around in the last four chapters and epilogue of Ofce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven‐ this book. What have been the costs, in tax dol‐ tion and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur

9 H-Net Reviews lars, for maintaining the community-based reha‐ Teenage Troubles in Postwar Texas” (PhD diss., bilitation regimes ordered by Judge Justice? Are University of Texas at Austin, 2004). these costs more or less than for the maintenance [3]. National Mental Health Association of well-administered training school facilities, (NMHA) Position Statement, “Children with Emo‐ such as the Giddings School? At a time when local, tional Disorders in the Juvenile Justice System,” state, and federal budgets are deeply in the red approved by the NMHA Board of Directors, June 6, and with drastic cuts in public programs in the 1998; and National Juvenile Defender Center, Mis‐ ofng, questions of not only efectiveness but also sion and Vision Statement, http://www.njdc.info/ cost ought to be addressed thoroughly in a book about_us.php (accessed February 5, 2012). advocating a major change in policy that will in‐ [4]. Ofce of Justice Programs, “Department of evitably involve substantial public expenditures. Justice, MacArthur Foundation Provide $2 Million Who Gets a Childhood? is a powerful account to Support Juvenile Justice Reform,” January 26, of juvenile injustice and an important, thought- 2012, PRNewswire-USNewswire, http:// provoking book that engages boldly, as Bush www.modelsforchange.net/newsroom/234? maintains, a fundamental crisis facing American src=hometxt (accessed February 5, 2012). society. It is worthy of close reading by all who are concerned about juvenile justice and the solutions - to the growing problem of juvenile delinquency and violent crime. It will undoubtedly be of par‐ - ticular interest to academic experts in juvenile - and criminal justice sciences and juvenile court And judges, probation ofcers, and administrators. It should have special appeal also to sociologists; - school psychologists; public policy experts; legal A scholars; political scientists; and social, cultural, - and political historians, especially those focusing - on twentieth-century African American and His‐ panic American experiences. The book is certain‐ - ly accessible to serious lay readers interested in , the late nineteenth- and twentieth-century history , of Texas and is well suited for undergraduate , classes and the graduate seminar room. Students will read Who Gets a Childhood? with relish, and , the book will almost certainly spur meaningful , classroom discussion and healthy debate. , Notes p [1]. Victor Rios, “The Hyper-Criminalization of e Black and Latino Male Youth in the Era of Mass , Incarceration,” Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture & Society 8, no. 2 (Spring 2006): According to Bush, 40-54. t [2]. William S. Bush, “Representing the Juve‐ - nile Delinquent: Reform, Social Science, and

10 H-Net Reviews

- the  - , wholly , - , - D s C : A - , A ,

, - , Bush writes passionately about his subject , matter and with impressive efect. He brings . home powerfully the horrors experienced by boys . and girls incarcerated in the training schools of the TSYDC and TYC. By chapter 3, this reviewer . was recalling vividly scenes from the 1996 legal - drama flm Sleepers, based on the 1995 novel by - Lorenzo Carcaterra and directed by Barry Levin‐ as son. Four boys growing up in Hell’s Kitchen in New York City--two Irish, one Italian, and one His‐ Jane B.  panic--fnd themselves quickly incarcerated in the Anthony N.  Wilkinson Home for Boys in upstate New York af‐ and contrasted  ter seriously injuring a hot dog vendor with a c prank gone wrong. There, the boys are systemati‐ cally beaten, abused, and raped by guards, trau‐ - matic events that, essentially, ruin their lives. solid in academic and vocational education. - T - - - . well

. eighty-nine - - to  eleven Two hundred eighty - ffty - , T ,

11 H-Net Reviews

(pp. 95, 127) . period  .

- [3]. O’Connor v. Donaldson 422 U.S. 563 (p. 146) (1975). Morales v. Turman  [4]. Morales v. Truman, remanded for further - hearing 562 F.2d 993 (5th Cir.1977), rehearing de‐ nied 565 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1977). [3] [5]. O’Connor v. Donaldson at 583. [4] 6 . . . at < [5] >. C A C 7 19 at < 400 >. - A e ffty sixty ten A G 6 $2 7 - -- of  , , , , , - - m

12 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-law

Citation: Mark Carroll. Review of Bush, William S. Who Gets a Childhood?: Race and Juvenile Justice in Twentieth-Century Texas. H-Law, H-Net Reviews. August, 2012.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=33209

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

13