Foster Care and the Juvenile Justice System: Key Connections

Introduction

In the United States, many children cannot live with their parents for a variety of reasons (Cutuli et al., 2016). Such children are typically cared for under the foster care program or out-of-home care initiative. Foster care encompasses children who live with relatives or foster parents in a range of settings, including supervised independent living, emergency shelters, group homes, or residential care facilities (Goodkind et al., 2013). Only children who are still below the age of 18 are placed under foster care. The American juvenile justice system, by contrast, handles minors found to have committed criminal offenses (Bishop & Johnson, 2010).

Juvenile offenders are defined as children who have committed a crime while still below the age of 18 (Leone & Weinberg, 2010). This study seeks to evaluate whether children under foster care are more prone to involvement in the juvenile justice system than those cared for by their parents. According to the Children's Bureau (2014), the United States foster care program provides services to over 0.4 million children living outside of the home on any given day (Cutuli et al., 2016). As a result, children who do not live with their parents are more vulnerable, and thus face higher chances of negative life experiences. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has revealed that many children under foster care undergo severe maltreatment that leads to juvenile delinquency, ultimately resulting in involvement in the juvenile justice system through arrest (Leve et al., 2012).

It is widely believed that most juvenile offenders come from the foster care population and, in part, from underprivileged families. However, this remains an opinion that has not been confirmed by research (Flores et al., 2018). According to the Office of Juvenile Justice, increased delinquency and juvenile justice involvement also result from social changes such as shifts in economic status, residential mobility, and changes in social climate factors like healthcare accessibility. Therefore, this study will evaluate the family backgrounds of juveniles as a primary factor associated with juvenile offending and justice system involvement (Bishop & Johnson, 2010). The study will also seek to establish how a juvenile's community of residence contributes to justice system involvement (Goodkind et al., 2013).

Most youth offenders in the United States come from foster care programs in part because many attend under-resourced schools with minimal recreational facilities (Braverman et al., 2011). Various agencies — both public and governmental — must therefore give attention to the voices, experiences, and opinions of these youth (Leone & Weinberg, 2010). Furthermore, many communities that appear to propagate delinquency lack adequate resources to support young people (Bishop & Johnson, 2010). Most foster care centers have also not received sufficient support from the government. In 2012, the District of Columbia reported that 22% of its population was living in poverty, and 34% of those impoverished individuals were children (Cutuli et al., 2016). More strikingly, 54% of the poor children in the district were enrolled in foster care programs. These statistics directly support the claim that the juvenile justice system is driven significantly by children in foster care (Leve et al., 2012).

There has been a notable trend in juvenile justice cases, and America has responded to these changes over time. Within the last decade, escalating juvenile delinquency cases pushed policymakers to review how offenders are punished. Juvenile justice shifted away from a primary rehabilitation model toward a more punitive approach in most juvenile detention centers (Goodkind et al., 2013). According to Roush, the purpose of juvenile detention was to provide temporary, safe custody — consistent with court jurisdiction — for children who require a restricted and secure environment while awaiting legal determination (Leone & Weinberg, 2010). However, some policymakers have opposed juvenile detention, arguing that it does not meaningfully contribute to rehabilitation. The central research question of this study, therefore, is: Are children in foster care more likely to become involved in the juvenile justice system than non-foster care children? (Bishop & Johnson, 2010).

Significance of the Study

The juvenile justice system was formed to help reduce juvenile crime rates across the country (Bishop & Johnson, 2010). Any nation would aspire to have zero juvenile offenders. Establishing whether foster care programs contribute to higher rates of juvenile delinquency would inform policymakers and the government of the need to take appropriate measures to restructure foster care centers into healthier environments for children's growth and development. Such initiatives would contribute substantially to a reduction in juvenile justice cases experienced within the United States (Leve et al., 2012).

Literature Review

According to Snyder and Sickmund, juvenile justice has been a growing concern for some time, prompting the creation of a unique juvenile justice system focused on treatment and rehabilitation (Bishop & Johnson, 2010). Although the juvenile justice system aims at restoration, Simpson argues that reforms such as the right to treatment are essential to juveniles' rights (Leve et al., 2012). Failure to provide adequate treatment to juvenile offenders would undermine the entire rehabilitation premise of the system.

Most policymakers are concerned with developing effective policies to address juvenile crime (Goodkind et al., 2013). The central challenge is how to protect the public from juvenile offenders while simultaneously rehabilitating juvenile delinquents. Currently, most states employ incarceration to punish young offenders; however, incarceration may ultimately contribute to higher long-term crime rates (Braverman et al., 2011).

Some states are increasingly placing juveniles in group settings alongside other young people with similar histories of juvenile delinquency (Bartollas, 2010). In many instances, placement in a group care setting is the last option before an individual is sent to a state training facility for incarceration. According to Vorrath (2011), group treatment approaches such as positive peer culture use group therapeutic processes to inspire juveniles toward positive change (Braverman et al., 2011). Nonetheless, association with delinquent peers has become a strong predictor of further delinquent and offensive conduct (Cutuli et al., 2016). Peer influence in group settings has also been reported to increase substance use over time among juveniles (Bishop & Johnson, 2010).

The adoption of treatment measures grouping juvenile delinquents with similar backgrounds may foster bonding (Leve et al., 2012). However, there is no guarantee that enrollment in a treatment plan will lead youths to internalize pro-social norms or be positively influenced in the long term (Goodkind et al., 2013).

Many foster care children are in serious need of government support to access higher education (Goodkind et al., 2013). Many also require guidance on the importance of enrolling in and completing a certificate or degree program (Cutuli et al., 2016). According to the Public Welfare Journal, more than 0.5 million children were in foster care programs by 2015. Research has shown that educational attainment is a significant contributor to juvenile justice system involvement: youths with low or no education engage in juvenile delinquency at considerably higher rates (Goodkind et al., 2013).

Earlier studies indicate that more than one-third of juveniles entangled with the justice system had previously suffered child maltreatment (Braverman et al., 2011). It is therefore necessary to establish how child maltreatment in foster care exacerbates juvenile justice involvement, in order to disrupt that link (Cutuli et al., 2016). Research also shows that youths in out-of-home placements often experience mental health challenges, which in turn increases juvenile justice involvement (Leone & Weinberg, 2010).

According to Bowlby (2013), most children in foster care are destined to live in uncertainty. The continuous drift between foster care placements and the absence of a permanent home automatically impedes a child's development (Goodkind et al., 2013). A stable base is essential for an individual to develop a sense of identity and pursue personal goals. Beyond the lack of intimacy and attachment, extended stays in foster care also lead to frustration and aggression (Leone & Weinberg, 2010). A child raised in an unstable foster care environment may develop deep-seated anger that, if left untreated, can erupt into juvenile delinquency (Cutuli et al., 2016). Earlier research indicates that nearly 50% of youths removed from home were later arrested, convicted, and imprisoned (Leve et al., 2012). Children who experience abuse and those in foster care are three times more likely to engage in criminal behavior than those who remain in their homes (Szilagyi et al., 2015).

Although much of the existing literature suggests that juveniles in foster care are prone to involvement in the justice system, the government has in recent years directed increased support and policy reforms toward foster care centers to minimize maltreatment (Leone & Weinberg, 2010). These efforts may have shifted outcomes (Bartollas, 2010). This research will therefore establish the most current relationship between juvenile foster care and the juvenile justice system in order to inform policymakers about appropriate measures and policies (Cutuli et al., 2016).

Conclusion

After an intensive review of the relevant literature, it became clear that there are many inadequacies in America's juvenile foster care and juvenile detention systems. The juvenile justice system and juvenile foster care systems struggle to find a balance between upholding children's rights and maintaining public safety through rehabilitation (Bartollas, 2010). However, recent statistics suggest there is more emphasis on punishment than on rehabilitation services (Leone & Weinberg, 2010).

Beyond the failure to provide adequate rehabilitation, incarceration has inflicted harmful effects on juveniles. Some researchers have found that juvenile detention is directly proportionate to continued juvenile delinquency. While the problems within juvenile foster centers are well documented, they have received comparatively little policy attention (Goodkind et al., 2013).

Based on the literature review, lack of education, low self-esteem, and maltreatment within the foster care system are among the most highly rated contributors to juvenile justice involvement in the United States. Foster youth experiencing stressful lives tend to develop defiance as a protective mechanism, which in turn leads to justice involvement. Additionally, the absence of parental care sometimes exposes out-of-home youth to punitive responses that further promote delinquency (Bartollas, 2010).

Given the high rate of foster care involvement in the juvenile justice system, this proposal carries important implications for social workers and researchers in both fields (Perry et al., 2012). It highlights the importance of coordination and communication between the juvenile justice and juvenile foster care systems. Within the juvenile justice system, prior circumstances are often overlooked; therefore, raising awareness of foster care backgrounds and their impacts is essential to ensure that youth are not penalized for circumstances beyond their control during juvenile justice decision-making (Leve et al., 2012).

References

Flores, J., Hawes, J., Westbrooks, A., & Henderson, C. (2018). Crossover youth and gender: What are the challenges of girls involved in both the foster care and juvenile justice systems? Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 149–155.

Perry, G., Daly, M., & Kotler, J. (2012). Placement stability in kinship and non-kin foster care: A Canadian study. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(2), 460–465.

Lee, S., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2012). Foster care re-entry: Exploring the role of foster care characteristics, in-home child welfare services, and cross-sector services. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1825–1833.

Szilagyi, M. A., Rosen, D. S., Rubin, D., & Zlotnik, S. (2015). Health care issues for children and adolescents in foster care and kinship care. Pediatrics, 136(4), e1142–e1166.

Bartollas, C. (2010). Juvenile justice in America. Pearson.

Braverman, P. K., Murray, P. J., Adelman, W. P., Breuner, C. C., Levine, D. A., Marcell, A. V., & Shain, B. (2011). Health care for youth in the juvenile justice system. Pediatrics, 128(6), 1219–1235.

Watson, L., & Edelman, P. (2012). Improving the juvenile justice system for girls: Lessons from the states. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 20, 215.

Bishop, D. M., Leiber, M., & Johnson, J. (2010). Contexts of decision making in the juvenile justice system: An organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(3), 213–233.

Cutuli, J. J., Goerge, R. M., Coulton, C., Schretzman, M., Crampton, D., Charvat, B. J., & Lee, E. L. (2016). From foster care to juvenile justice: Exploring characteristics of youth in three cities. Children and Youth Services Review, 67, 84–94.

Leone, P. E., & Weinberg, L. A. (2010). Addressing the unmet educational needs of children and youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems.

Goodkind, S., Shook, J. J., Kim, K. H., Pohlig, R. T., & Herring, D. J. (2013). From child welfare to juvenile justice: Race, gender, and system experiences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(3), 249–272.

Leve, L. D., Chamberlain, P., Smith, D. K., & Harold, G. T. (2012). Multidimensional treatment foster care as an intervention for juvenile justice girls in out-of-home care. In Delinquent Girls (pp. 147–160). Springer, New York, NY.