Catherine A. Gallagher

Coercion and Sex Offenders Controlling Sex-Offending Behavior Through Incapacitation and Treatment

Sex offenders represent a variable group of law violators, yet they are often viewed as suffering from a generalized mental illness and in need of treatment and management different from other types of criminal offenders. This often occurs within the context of some form of coercion. However, little is known about how coercion adds to or detracts from the successful treatment and control of sex offenders. This article explores the historical role of coercion in treating sex offenders and controlling their behavior along with the changing and evolving emphasis on treatment of sex offenders. It concludes with a discussion of the proper role that coercion can and should play relative to the overall effectiveness of treatment and a theoretical explanation of how coerced sex offenders may ultimately benefit from treatment.

Can Juvenile Justice Detention Facilities Meet the Call of the American Academy of Pediatrics and National Commission on Correctional Health Care? A National Analysis of Current Practices

OBJECTIVE. Despite the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics, just 53 of the ∼3500 juvenile justice residential facilities in the United States have received voluntary accreditation for facility health care from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. This suggests either that facilities do not meet the standards of care or do not seek accreditation. This study describes whether and under what conditions juvenile detention facilities (a narrowly defined subset of all facility types) adhere to some of the standards outlined by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and promoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics. METHODS. Data from 2 national censuses of juvenile justice residential facilities (n = 726) were used to describe detention facility performance in terms of 10 types of service provision, ranging from health screening to communicable-disease testing. Multivariate models predicting high levels of service provision were estimated. RESULTS. Juvenile detention centers partially meet some of the minimum standards. Most services can be garnered at some level; however, they tend to be provided on an ad hoc basis for portions of the population rather than systematically for the whole population. Detention centers most likely to provide a higher tier of services tend to be those that have longer average lengths of stay, are larger, and are government owned. There are also geographic and racial differences in quality and scope of health services. CONCLUSIONS. Juvenile facilities have been provided a single set of standards for a diverse system with tremendous variation across and within facility types. Detention centers are just one specialized type. Very few detention centers meet a minimum standard of care, which suggests that standards are simply not being met (hence the low levels of accreditation). The findings of this study call into question whether detention facilities with little in the way of health care infrastructure can benefit from National Commission on Correctional Health Care standards as they are currently packaged, regardless of whether accreditation is the ultimate goal.

Risk of Suicide in Juvenile Justice Facilities The Problem of Rate Calculations in High-Turnover Populations

Two recent publications have reported vastly different rates of suicide in juvenile-justice residential facilities using the same data. Similarly, divergent rates were calculated on juvenile suicides while in custody using the same data in the 1980s. Using data from the Juvenile Residential Facility Census and the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, this article demonstrates the underlying differences in the suicide rate calculations by drawing on the historical and epidemiological literature. It highlights the arithmetical relationships between the rates and suggests which methods are best depending on the purpose of the exercise. Facility administrators may find beds-based rates more meaningful for comparisons on rates of suicide across facilities, whereas mental health professionals may prefer person-based rates to describe the risk of suicide in the juvenile justice population.

From knowledge to action: Establishing an international network for justice health

A group of 38 researchers, policy makers, and practitioners from seven countries, speaking nine languages and representing diverse perspectives, gathered in May 2009 in Orlando, Florida, to establish the International Network for Justice Health. The Network can assist policy makers, researchers, and practitioners to improve the health of justice-involved populations; however, achieving progress will require individual and organizational commitment to working with colleagues across different disciplines and different countries. The Network aims to facilitate this collaboration and become a focal point for the sharing and dissemination of knowledge. Its priorities will continue to evolve and to be determined by members. As a collaborative venture, the Network is only as strong as its membership. Readers are encouraged to join (membership is free) and to contribute.