‘ .44 . |4|llllj 4 .44 I..o4 I . 0.4494ch ..444I44”..I.444...4u.4I4 54'4”}... .4 .I4I4.444...:44 r... ..44. . .4. 4.,._ 4.4.. .47.. . 4..4’.. ..I..... 4...._..... 4. .. .. 4 . .40... q.. .. . . .. _. 4 . . . I ‘3. . 4 ..4 .. _ 3.4.... ... .4 ....4 ... ..4 ... 44.4 . . ...4_....4. I.. 44 .M4“.4.“ .“4H44444rI4‘. 4 .4 4 4..I 4. . .. .4 . .I I 4 o 4 . _ . ...4 a .I . ...4...4444 .. ..4..44... . \4A4........44...w.. I4... ..4....4.4.4... 4 . . .... ... _ ... .... ..4 . . . .. . .904 ... 4 4... I 4 4 . . .... ... 4 4 . . . . . . 4. ...44 (4.1.44. .44’ ....a I 4..4I.I¢.4.4..4... .4 4%; .4444. 4 ........4.I..._.4 4.... $44!. . . .4 .. .4 . . . . .. .. .A4. .4 .4......1..4...4.4.4. ...I...4..... ... 4444’.‘444 .44.4414f 4 I I . . A. . . 4I l I . 4 I . . 4 I 4 . .I .. T44 .4 ..I.I.4 .0... 4.. ..._. .44.. ......444 ......,4 4. ..I_.4.4 PHIL-4.. . I._44.._ .... \.I 4 . 4 ...... . . . 4. I. . . . . 4 .. ... I . o . . .. . . .. ..... 40. ..A. .. .4 ....I. I. . ... ....4 .4 4 ... ..1... ..4.4..4.1 4.4.44 4 (441 44.4. 4 ,4 . . I . . I . . . 4 . . . . . . .. 4 .4. _ .4 4 4.1. 4 .4 w 44 4 . . 4 I .4 4o 4 ...-<4 4 ....4 4 .... .44.4...4. _. I 44I.I44 .44 . 44 4. .... ... 4. . ..144. .. 4 . .I.. 4 44?. .4 4. I . .I . .. .4 . v . 4 . 4. .4 .4 T4 . . . .4. 4 4.. ...4.. ..4.... . 4 4.4.4. _ 4.44 .44.~4..41014 4?..“54 404/... . I . . _ . . ... A . 4 . . . ., . .. . . _ .. .. ... . . _ . v 45.. 44.4. .04. .4.4I._.444.4 4' 4.44,...444 .94... 4.44. .4... .4. .4. ...4. . ”.....I4 ‘.I . .. .. 4 . .44 4 .I 4 I .4. . I 4.. 4. .4 .. .4 . ..44 ......44...4.4. 4.4.444 4 44.44. 441$ 4 ...I! .4. _ . . ... . A I . . . . . V I 44 04 o. .44 .v.4 444,044.434. 4 444 o 44.‘ v . 4 . 4.4.44 _. v 4 .. . A I I . I I 4 .4 I I. 4 4.84.44. .444. .. 41"”«DD .44fi‘795’4 . . .4 _ 4. ... 4. ...I........4I4 ...I4.. 44 . 4 I. . ... .I o .4 4 4. . . 4 4 44 ..I . .4.,44....4 4. 1.. 4.01 ... 44.4. 4. .4 0 4..... 4.4 .I _ ... ...I .o .... . . . . .. .I 44 4 . .. I. . .4 4 44. , 4.... 4 .44 .44 4.144(441444.4.. 4.... . 4.... I 4.4 . 44. ....440.. .4 . I44. . . 4 .. I . I .. . 4. ...... 4. 444I41414‘I4 .44 14I4O444Iv 4.1.4 ..4444 v4 4 4 440... 44 4 4 4 _ 4. . . 4 4 44 . . . 4. 4 . _ .. . . . 4 _ . 4 44 .4. 4444 .. 44044 .14 '4 '44.; 4. ...“. P44 444‘ 141.4/f1-Lw 4 . 4 .4 . .. . . I 4 I a ,1 .444 . I. .4...4.44.4. . 4.. o. ...4 v4 . . . OI . .4 4. 4 .II .44 I4 _ I 4 . 4 o, 4.4 4 . .. 44.4..fd1. 4‘4 14.4.1.44 ..4(.4.”4.J400.010 . 4 .444 4 no 9.. .4. . .4 .. 4 . . . o . . . . .4411. 4 . .4 4. .44‘._44..4.4'. $51404. 4 4. 44 ,.0l 9 _o 444444 I p Q4 . 4 . 4 4 . 4 A. 4 4 .4 4. 4. .4444..4‘o4*. D'.44‘....”.' 400‘“.44}“4 . ... . \4 . 4.4.I(.. 4 . 4. I 4. I 4. . . 4 . . 4. I 4....1 .......4..... .4.4444 4..” :I141V .444” 4. .... ..... .ItI.4.I...4 4.4.. 4 444.1,. . . _. . . . ... . ....4 4.144. . .4 .4..w4f.4r4A—4 41.“. 4.1,. k4“..’.,’44 4 . 4.4I4 '74 44 4 . 4 .. 4 4 4o 4 I. .9 4. . I 40 4. 4 I. . .4 4 4.00444...qu4.1’..43. MrJV ' 4. 4 I ,0 . . 4 I . 44 .I. 4 ,. o 44 I 4 .4 . 9 4 I . O . .4 0 . . 4 . ..J .4 . I 4 . 4 44¢ 4. 4.4 4‘ 4.4.1.0!0m44_A:.01W'O.4” 4 ..4 4.'I ..14‘4 0'44. 4.... .4 . 4 4 4 4. II 4' . . . I .. .. .. . I I 4 .. 4 .4. 4444: 4.9 .44.: ‘44,. .44 0M. . O4 . . .. ...... .. , .... ._ . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .I.. . , ......f .. .. a -..... 54445.. 49.44.1414 MW”... Im....§..w . I4 . 4 44. I . .I. I4 . s4 . . . o o .4 4 4 . . I ._ /4 o. .4 44 . . ...: .I4ol 4. .A 44434“... .2. 1". . 4 404. 444.. .Q I . 4. 4. I I 04 4 . . . . 4 .. .44 4 . .4... 4.4 . 444.444 1 4.114441. 4‘14. f/ “4" o 1/ IO: 4. 0.4 l4I. . 4 o .4 ..A .. 4 4 4 . .4 . . . . . 4. . 4 . .4. 4 .Ir 04,21” ..Poraufo 4 . I .4 4 I . .. . I . . o . . A 4 . 4. .,.. I 444.I“..4 ‘4’”.oJm4M/f ’97:.»- 4.44 0.4~4\4 JI.II 4 4 I. 4 4 . u 44 4 . . 4 4.4 . ._ 4 . 4 4 .. 4A 4 w. “I“; “unwrwflucfl . . 4 .0. ..I 4 I 4 . 4 4 . 4 .0 . 4. ‘4 a 4 4. 4 O. :4 44;. rv 4" .I. .. ~ . I .. . 4 . . o I . . I . 4 . 4 4 .. ....144WWJH4 .4451. 4441 14.44. 9 \II . 4 . 4 I I 4 . .. . 4 . I 4 I . 44 4 4 .44 4.- .4444 do 44 ..44. 0444114.; . . 4 4 I I V ‘I I4 4 I 4 I I O I 4 4 . 4 4 4.4 4 . .44. 4.44 .-..4114444 4 v. I .I.|-...4 . I 4. . . 0 4| . . o . . I 4 . .4 4 '4 I4 . 444 .4144..444¥.4O 50. 70.1.1144 w 44I I .44 4I 4 I . 4-: o. . 4 4 4 4 4 .4 . o 4444.1.44, r444 444.401.19 4'0 v... C .. ...: I... I I 4 . . I . 4 . . 4 . 4. ... A 4. .4 _. 4..J_4.....4r14441 .4?4 r . ... 4 4 . 4 u . _ I U . . 4. I .4 4 4. ... o . _ 4,. 4' 1. 4:4..44. 44:444.;4‘ C _ v A Qlo 4O 4 . I . o r. 4. . a 44 . 4 ..44, A44 14. , .1 41.:1. ’A .4 II. dvv A 4 . . I I4 .. .4 4. . III I . . I. . . . . . . . . . 4 4.. 4.4 44. f 44 .. ... \1. ’4 4 444.) . v.4 . I 0 I I 4. V . 0 v . Q I I 4 a 4 4 14 4 . 4 4 ...or..44.....4.4UIVV.J..4 ‘ I44 4 . . I. . . .. . I. I .. . .. . I . . 4. . 4 . . ...... . 4 4. .. . 4 4.4.1444: ’1. 144444.14. — .. .I.. I4 . . 4 . I I _ ... . .. .44 ..44 41.4. 144k1. . 4w..444.44 . . .. .. . . ... .. . I . . . .- .. . . .4 _ . .4 ,_.._.4._ ... 4444.564 _ v. ,0 . . I I . 4 4 I .1 .4 4 . 4 .4 I. . 4.4.4594414.04...f 4.644 . 4 . _ I I I 4. 4 o . 4 I . . 4. . . . 4 .. .. . A I 4 _ 4 1 I . 4.91.4 4.4.4 .4 44" V4 04.. .I I . I. . . . Iv _ .. . . . . . . 44. . ... . .4II...144.444I144194;4 I . . I . 4 .. . . A414 .4 44 4 44 7 II II IN... . 4. . . . . . . . .. I ... 4. ... 4.... . 4...I........4_... .444 44. 4.1444451 SI...INK44 _ 4 4. . . _ . . . .. . .I.. .... . I4 .......44 I4. :1... W .I I . 4 . I 1.4 I 4. 4 4 .. 44.. 4:15.44. 3.14. 4.“.- hi..‘ . I4 .4 I 4 .I 4 4 . . 4 4. a .... 4 .(I. W144494.....4 l h‘ i . w I ..4 . . . I . . . I . . .. 4. . ...4. 4“... ....r... 4. .4....4..44.44.1.4 4’4I .44. P 4 I . . . . 4 4 . . I . I o W 4 . I . . 4 . . . . . . . . . a .. . . 4 . . .4. 4 . .14 4.. 4 4 44(14w11.4.4..444ouwr.mi.441 1(1J4 4 .I. 4 II I. . . . ... . .I .. , .4... 4 4 4.4. . I...§ $1.44; 440. W I . . . .. . . . 4 4o . . . .. . . _. 4. ..I 4 4 44 4.4.4.4..4474/4..44.....1..v.14! .. 44 Max:440 I I . 4 4 I. 4. . 1 w . . I I I . . 4 . 4 I 4 4 4.. ...14... 44..H...1I4.44..4II. .44....4.4......4o 9I.a....11ff4..n4 I(.4l4.4 4 . I .04 . 4 4 4 4 4 4 I 4 . 4 4 4 4.44. .74 .4114'4 .44" '1‘“ 44'. 44 u. w . I . . ..a . 1. .....I .. .140 44.......4.'.4.4.44.44 4.4.... .1. .4 _ .1. o I . I. I . . II . 1.! 4 .41./. .. 4 4.1,.4414' 4.044 M41... w. . I . . ... . 4 . 44 4 , ...... .4... 4 4_444...44IL44 ..I. 41.44.41.443. 9 4 I I. 4 . . . . . ..4 4 . ....4 r .. .. 4 ...... I W . 4 I 4 4 .4 . 4 4. ..r .4. 4.....41. .I....44-444..1...4 4‘014494. .4 “44.394 0 I 4 4. . .4 ., 4 . 4 . . .4 .I 4 14 .4 4 (...;44 .. I I 4 . . . .. 4. . 4 .14....4.4 41..r.?4..'4‘ v4.OA.1...4. If»...IOI4.4 4 . I . . 4 . . . I. . . 4. I._.., r .4 .0 ’44 .I 4.4 .” . . . _ . .4. A _ (.. 4 .. 4..4....._.......r.1 4 fit:- 4 4 I o .44 4 4 . .4 I ..4 I .441... 4 a. :.’At ”.40. I . 4 4 . . . . I 4 I . . . .. . .4. 44a.,. ...JJ. 44.44......~4..4I...44.4'I. .I. [449 .Q’ .4 .4 4 I 4 I . I 4 l...4 ..‘4 4.4440 1 4..41..4I .fl 4.. 4 4 a 4' I . 4 I . . I .4 4 4 .44 4v.._4.144..o'4.lt’.b T14P94 ‘ P . 4 4 . I . . . . 4. I. 4 .4 0.. .44.4r.4 .,.’.4 1041144414.. . \ . . . . .. . . . I I- . .. .4. .4. ..I... 14.4.4.1.4...r.4..44.14vb. 9 . 4 . . 1.. . . 4.. I . 44o 4444144,..44...4 .1 0.4... £1444 . . . ‘ I I 4 4. I . . 4 . .4.. 4 .. I31. '44....4I.44.‘>444.v9r'41 I 4 I . II . . . 11444 I 4:... ...4. I . I _ .. . 4... 4 .....4 . l...4/I.4¢_.I .4447. W I I I . . 4 co. 4 4441444l4_o'44144r1.q A .rr'. 44... . . . . 4 I o I. 4 .. 44 4 .0. 4 4 4. ‘ to O I . O 4. . . 4 . . .II .44.. 4....I44...4II..A4I .... .Or...’ I4. . o . . . .. ..4 4A . 444 4.44 44.4491 ,._94 4 I . 4 I . _. I. I. I .. .4401]. 44.4. 14 4. J. 4 4 . . I I . . 4 4 ,.4 4.. ... ....4444I . 11941,) 1. \ V I ..4 . . IA..464 4.41. ...... ..4.0...I .r. 4 4 4 I . 4 . . . . .4 .. .4 ...4 ....4 ..r; 4.44I....4901.l.4’ ‘ I 4 r I 4 . 4 . I 4 1 4 4.1 I 4 . I 4 ... I 4.... ¢..1114.." 4.1440fcl . ‘+l4 . 4 . 4 44 44 4.. 1 4 I.II 4.4 44 ..II..4 ‘1 ._ I 4 I ..I I 4 4.4 ..... . .4 .474. ..4. I. I. 4.14. 4 . .. I . 4 . I 4 . . . 4 4 . . o. . 44.4. 4.4 10. 4., 4 n4 . I . o I . 4. . 4 . .4444. .....I4 ..4..1l1..-?1l.4 440 . . I 4 . 4A .. .41 .. .. 2.4441 14.4 on). ‘ . 4 4. 4 I .I.? 4 O 144 ‘1)...1I‘Q4 . I . 4 4 .I. 44 . 4 ..I I14...’.«V‘444oo. ” . o e. . . . . .. . .. ’44.... 1.1.I 14.4! I I a 4 c . ..I .44 .1. ..I. I.‘4Ir.4 ‘ . . . .I. .. . I. .. .. .4 . 4... .IrII44I44f4; 4 I . 4 ..A . .. ...444 . . 4 . .I ‘ . . . ... I . . I. .. 4L 4 I . .4 4.).4rI . . .4..I4.81. ’4 4r. 4 .4 I a J 4 _ .I I4 I I 14 J . . ,4 ‘ I. I .4 . 44 4 _‘ ... 444 'I 44.14II.:.*P4: . I 4 , 4 I . 4 4 4 OI O. . 4.4 . ..I . .I.. I’...Io o4..If . . I 4 . .0 4 4 . 44.14.» 44 03 I v w . . 4 4 I .4 4 4 o . 44 44 4 4 ’4 . 40.0. ab. 4 .fi 9 .4.. ."04454 4 .1 4. ‘UIOQ '44, . . . . 4o 4 . I .444 4 I... I u ..S. . .4 4 4 4 4 In. .. . . 4 41 . 44‘0an44071. 4hOIIQIWOI' '1’. .d'fld’h . Ia “ . . .. .. . . .4 . . o 4 .4 4 lo. 4 44 1 .4 .44..I~f.I.44 714,444f40 “flit-IS. .Ifi'l H, g .I .. i . I . 4.4 4. . .44 4 40 O. 4 4 o/Wv '4.l .4.'I 4'04I41’r4'4’fnr I1 I .1‘ 4 . .. _ . . . . _ ., ..I. 5: {$335.13}. .I.... .. . 4.. 4 . 4 ._ 4.. 4 . .r .4”... 4.4 4I14O 4.4.4.4.. I. l .b d . . 44 4 4 . _ 4 I. .4 4.9.341. 4'14’1I44O4 ll“. ...! O . .. .4 4 . 4 . I4...4 I. ..oruu. 4'1444. (v.49 ' . ’1' 1 .L a 4 I . . . 1 4.44 I 4 . 4 LI II I 4 II.._144A. I £444.45 :f‘b4744 I 4 4 4 I4 I .I. 4 . . 440 o 44 . A . . . . _ . .I.-.. ...1..........I.v..£....r......n:.5.12....» .,I I . l.. .. . .. .. . .. . 4 .4 14..44....444..! .4’4Pw‘.. .1 07.? .4.d.I.4-I04.I”4.H..'4 .QI .... I4 4‘! I . IIII I ,1 l. 4.4 I.r.I.'4\"v-. .l 44!-07 In]... . I 4 . CI . ..I. II .. O . 1!. _ I . 4... .. .1 .. .I .4. . ..4... 4... . .- 4 .I . I4 44' ... . .4 I t.- 44.... v 44 .4 . . Io . 4... .0 I 4.0 I 4 .4 4 I . I. ... I I . a I . ‘ . . I 4 .4 . 4 I . . «40 I .~ ..I .. . . . .4 I I .414. .f. .4 D I 4 I r... . . . A 41 I. . .I.. . . I I . . . I 4 .I 4 4 I. . .. 4. 4 4 III 4 I 4 4: . I .I.. I _ I I 4 -I O4 4 I . . O 41.4 ‘ .4 4 I .4 44 . . . I 4 I O: D . . 4 D “T44. . . I . ... . _. ....I. 4 I I 4- 0' ’17. 4 I 0 o 4 I I 4 I l .A. 4 . I O 4 4 1 . .0 — . I 4 . 4 II .. .I O. 4 o o . . 4 4 a4 . . A A ” . 0 4 I 4 O I 4 I'l'II. 7 . . .I o. 44 0.4.4 4 . n .. . . . . . .I _ 4| 5 U .— Q ' I O .I IOI . .. I I I I.. | I 4 . 4 4 .. I . :4 cc .42 — v . 4 44 4A . 4 I 4 4.. . 4 . 4 I . 4 . i 44' 4 I I . . 4 ..4 4 4 I. . 4 a .I I A. . _ . .. . .o . . 4 . I . . . . I4 MW 4 . . 4 . a. I . I .4 I 4 O I v . . . o . . i 0 a 4 4 O I '04 U 4 44. 4O 4 . 4 I . . . 4. 4 v I II I 4 . 4 4 4 I .I I I. v 4 . . I A.) vi 4 I O 4 t .4. 0 . . 4 . . c . . I II I . I w . .. ._ I ., . . 4.. . . . . . , I U 4 .4 4 o I 4 ‘ I. l O O . [.4 ‘ . I4 . . ‘ II I . . I .4 .4 I IO.. -‘ .4 . 4. I I19 4 . . . . . .. . 4 . 4 O I 4‘ . O 4. 4. 4 . I 4 1 4. 44I . 4". I. 4 4.4 O . I . . . . . . . . . . 4 I A. I . . . . . . _ . I I . u . 4 4 . o o . . 4 a 44 VI . 4. . . I o I v 4 o . _ . . . I v. . . . . I4 44 . I I 4 I. I. ‘0 . 4. . 44. 4 I 4 U I .I 4 VI 4 444 I . I I I v. 3.4.. 4 \ 44 I 4 4 4 c o . T .. 4 4 .. 4 . . I. . . 44 4 . ... . . . . 1 :4 a. L 4 o O 4 w. 4 ... . 4 .....4. .,. .. . . . . .. .. . .. ... . . . .I.. 4 4 . I . 4. ...A... .. .4 .I I I . . 4 A1... .4..- 4 .4 .4. 4 . d I o I I . .4 4. ... I . A 1. 4 I 44 . 4 4 I. I . 0 Aw. I 4 . 9 4 . I _ I . 4 ll. 44 -. 4 I ._4 0 I4 I I O I I ‘ .4. . . 4.044 .44 4 . 4 I I I 4. . 44-. 4 . . I .4... 4I4444 4.0.. . ...I . I . 4. . 4 . . _ 4 o .0600 I.4I 4 4 4 I :44 ..It.......I . 4 . I I . . . . A . . . . .I I .. ... . I I . . ... . .0. I IA UV 444‘: 4.441140. ....444V‘.u.44444. 444....44444...uu44.¢41..x ....44.4 4 I 1 I I 0 .0 v “4454.44444041444453440‘H4; .‘Ik‘4’0 444.“.i3J‘4P.I..I 444. 4.4 444.0! 40 4.0 “444.44%.4444K'OOJ444. L I . A I o . o .4 4. 4 4 .4444. 444 1.»..144. :4 . 443434.455. ...4‘434... .4 i 4444.”... ..I .4 .A . 444444 4 4 .4. o 4 ‘IV I‘.. ‘I ...}. I 4| ....turtoo 4 .4' $4.411} Iffwxomww‘. .4.WM44..44.444.U044”444 .4442... 3. ...... 4444 4 ..I 4. s . I 4.. 4 4. g!’ . 4.4.3.... ..."... $.44... 43......“41... 4.3.54.4». £43.. “4.4.... .. . ...... (4.24.. www.mflpa u :31; um; twyugnm w (mu 1!» 1m in “@113qu u ABSTRACT A LOOK AT MICHIGAN'S YOUTHFUL TRAINEES By Robert Williamson Pryor Since 1967, Michigan's Holmes Youthful Trainee Act has attempted to meet the needs of the youthful offender without making or labeling him a criminal, while, at the same time, giving him treatment in either an institution or the community. This law has provided distinct advan- tages for youths between the ages of seventeen and twenty. The study began with the hypotheses that the youthful trainee differed characteristically from the youthful offender convicted in the regular manner, and that the correctional success rate of the youthful trainee would be higher than for the convicted youth. To test the first hypothesis, data were manually gathered on the different characteristics of the youthful trainee and the convicted youth. Because of the possible different types of trainee, based on sex and legal dispo- sition, data were gathered on each possibility and devel- oped into a totally composite profile. A similar proce- dure was followed for convicted youths. Robert Williamson Pryor The trainee group serving as data base numbered 238 total. Of this group, 182 were institutionally com- mitted; 42 were "probationed" males in the Detroit area; and 14 were ”probationed” females in the Detroit area. The group serving as the data base for convicted youths included 1,105 youths between seventeen and twenty years of age committed in Michigan during 1969. From this group, a sample of 100 was used. The second hypothesis was tested by taking 100 of the committed trainees and conducting a survey of their arrest experiences after institutional release. Compar- ison of success rates was made by converting the arrests, through projection, to a rate similar to that used for evaluating probation and recidivism. The findings of the study supported both hypo- theses. ' In the case of the characteristics, it was found that the greatest differences were in race make-up of the groups, religious preferences, education and IQ scores, use of drugs and alcohol, previous correctional histories, and offenses. The correctional success rate for the trainee was found to be about 78 percent; about 11 percent higher than the accepted success rate of about 67 percent for regu- larly convicted offenders. A LOOK AT MICHIGAN'S YOUTHFUL TRAINEE BY Robert Williamson Pryor A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1970 } 8Q (j: é2§431£4bsfi// APPROVED W M ’ Chairman Member W KW Member 6r (f ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigator is deeply indebted to the Michigan Department of Corrections and the Detroit Recorder's Court Probation Department for their cooperation and assistance in providing the primary data necessary for this study. My sincere appreciation to Dr. William A. Goldberg, and the other members of my thesis committee, for their time, efforts, and many worthwhile suggestions. My deep gratitude to Mr. William L. Kime, Mr. Joseph J. DeAgostino, and Mrs. Louise S. Cobb, who gave so generously of their time and shared their opinions and experiences. My special thanks to my wife, Jeanne, and my children, for their patience, understanding, and encour- agement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE THE HYPOTHESES DEFINITIONS SUPPORT FOR HYPOTHESES SIGNIFICANCE LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE TYPES OF LITERATURE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT CURRENT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW COMMON OBSERVATIONS IN THE LITERATURE SUMMARY. 3. THE HOLMES YOUTHFUL TRAINEE ACT AND MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE THE YOUTHFUL TRAINEE ACT EXPERIENCE SUMMARY. 4. METHODOLOGY THE GROUPS STUDIED GATHERING THE DATA iii Page 10 10 ll 14 19 25 27 27 32 39 40 40 41 Chapter ASSUMPTIONS INTERVENING VARIABLES DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 5. THE YOUTHFUL TRAINEE AND THE CONVICTED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN MICHIGAN YOUTHFUL TRAINEE DESCRIPTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS THE YOUTHFUL TRAINEE THE CONVICTED YOUTH THE DIFFERENCES. THE SUCCESS RATE SUMMARY 6. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS IMPLICATIONS SUMMARY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A. The Holmes Youthful Trainee Act B. Committed Youthful Trainee Data C. “Probationed” Male Trainee Data D. "Probationed" Female Trainee Data E. Composite "Probationed" Trainee Data F. Composite Trainee Data G. Convicted Youth Data LIST OF TABLES iv Page 45 46 47 49 49 56 59 61 68 69 73 73 76 78 82 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Youthful Trainee Comparison by Percentages . . . . . . . . . . 54 2. Comparing the Trainee and the Convicted Youth by Percentages . . . . . . . 6S 3. Arrest History Follow-Up and Success Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O 4. Summary of the Major Differences Between the Youthful Trainee and the Youth- ful Convict by Percentages . . . . 72 Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE For many years there has been some concern for youthful offenders. It is only since the Second World War, though, that the area of youthful offenders has received any significant emphasis and attention. One of the ways this interest has been manifested has been the enactment of special laws for the handling of youthful offenders.1 These laws have usually been based on the following important considerations: the United States criminal justice system is basically a series of "skimming" opera- tions to direct offenders into various treatment programs according to their needs; youthful offenders are not yet set in their ways and are malleable in their behavior; and influence, to do the most good, must be exerted 1United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, The Young Adult Offender: A Review of Current Practices and Programmes in Prevention and Treatment TNew YorE; United Nations, 1965), p. 1. before the youthful offender becomes involved in the formal systems of penal institutions.2 With these views in mind, and possibly influenced by its own long history of interest in youthful offenders, Michigan passed a special law in 1966.3 Provisions were, basically, that youths between seventeen and twenty years of age charged with criminal offenses could, with their consent, be placed on ”probation" or institutionalized for correctional treatment without incurring a criminal con- viction, or record.4 This law became effective the first of 1967, and became known as the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. Since it 2President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Societ and Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and YoutE Crime (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 8 G 9, and p. 41 respectively. 3United Nations, op. cit., p. 2. The earliest known specialized institution for young adult offenders in the United States was the House of Correction estab- lished in Detroit, Michigan, in 1861. 4Act 210, Michigan Public Acts, 1966 and Act 301, Michigan Public Acts, 19661 The law is presented in its entirety in Appendix A, and is described in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this study. has been in force, slightly over 200 offenders have been committed to treatment under its provisions. THE HYPOTHESES Hypothesis #1: Youthful offenders admitted to treatment under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act are charac- teristically different from regular correctional commit— ments in the same age group. Hypothesis #2: The correctional success rate, as reflected by a projection for trainees and accepted figures for convicted felons, is higher for those under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act than for those regularly committed in the same age group. DEFINITIONS Youthful Offenders When speaking specifically of youthful offenders in Michigan, the age range is seventeen to twenty. This term is inclusive in the sense that it refers to youths who have been regularly convicted, as well as youths proc- essed under special laws. These special laws include, 5This figure includes only those committed to a youthful trainee institution. The total number placed under supervision without commitment is unknown; however, it is believed to be much greater. During 1968 alone, ninety-five persons from the city of Detroit were granted youthful trainee status without institutional commitment. This number ignores all grants of status from the other major cities of Michigan, as well as those from the eighty- three counties of Michigan. L... 1: ‘. T. O . .‘l‘ ,Vli « un~ «\ . . . r l .. in L» I A 5. . s n.. \. .3 c .v . . C». «U L» 1»... ~ . n . I! A J uh i P‘flV a v \‘V . > p ‘7‘ Ev A L I if . . I t . p‘ ~ n . I f. .ly . .J - .I. .. . ... .hl. > a. _ . ‘rly . i 1 I . . - f1 r .. . ~c . .l \ .. 1. \ t ...A ..I Ill'au 41...!» ... ...l O but are not limited to, the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act in Michigan, Persons In Need of Supervision in New York (PINS), and the Youth Authorities in California, other states, and the federal government. Youthful Trainee The term "youthful trainee” refers only to those youthful offenders committed or placed for correctional treatment under the provisions of Michigan's Holmes Youth- ful Trainee Act. Characteristics The word "characteristics” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: age at initial contact with criminal justice system; race; marital status; residence; education and intelligence level; previous dis- positions; history of escapes; current offense; age at which committed or placed this time; experience with alcohol; and drug usage. Regular Correctional Commitment The term "regular correctional commitment" signi- fies any judicial disposition of an offender under the pro- visions of Michigan's regular corrections laws outside of the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act or other Special laws. "Regular correctional commitment" is synonomous with the term ”conviction,” and the two terms are used interchange- ably. Correctional Success Rate Correctional success rates may be measured in one aspect by the non-commission of all types of offenses. Measurement is not easy, and is accomplished in more than one way. Many states measure the lack of criminal involve- ment by their rates of recidivism, and by the number of probations and paroles revoked. The length of time the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act has been in effect, the original intent of the law, and the fact that youthful trainee status is neither probation nor parole, led the investigator to arbitrarily decide that the success of the Michigan program would be best reflected by the trainee group's individual arrests for all types of offenses after being placed in trainee status. For these reasons, and to avoid later confusion, an attempt was made to explicitly identify the basis of determination of all rates cited. SUPPORT FOR HYPOTHESES Support for the hypotheses was categorized into two main types: theoretical-logical and empirical. Theoretical-Logical Sgpport Theoretical and logical support for the hypotheses was based on the existence of previous research and present laws. The previous research led to special laws for youthful offenders; and the continued existence of these Y‘ 'fiu I33 laws supports the continued validity of the research. This condition, combined with the general organization and proc- esses of today's criminal justice system tended to lend weight to the hypotheses. Empirical Support Empirical support for the hypotheses was indirect and from two main areas. First, the organization of the criminal justice system sifts offenders through many screens. This screening has generally differentiated offenders according to their treatment needs, which in turn, were somewhat based on their values and character- istics.6 And, second, certain characteristics were dis- cernible when young offenders were viewed as a group. SIGNIFICANCE The hypotheses were considered significant from the possible contribution to previous research and theory, and their relationship to and implications for a wide range of practical problems. 6This indirect evidence, it must be mentioned, does not seem to be completely borne out by a study of the first fifty youthful trainees in Michigan, conducted during 1967 by Glen Reynolds. Copies of the study are available on a limited basis from the Michigan Department of Corrections, Program Bureau, Research Memo dated September 18, 1967. 7United Nations, op. cit., pp. 17-25. .~-\ in *5 y-a a.» 5- F.» .L 3 F,» a» v... 1"“ A C Contributions to Previous 'Theory and Research Theory regarding the use of Special procedures for youthful offenders has been attacked on the basis that it tends to standardize treatment, reduces individual responsi- bility, does not recognize the effect of maturation, and is not flexible enough to meet the real needs.8 Confirmation of the hypotheses would strengthen the position of current theory, and perhaps, encourage additional use of special treatment for youthful offenders. A denial, on the other hand, could be useful in pointing out weak areas in the theory and serve to direct efforts to its improvement or its practical application. Relationship to and Implications for Practical Problems It is implied that correctional administration can be greatly improved by concentrating on special groups; that current overloads in the criminal justice system can be reduced; that the stigma of early criminal activity will be reduced; that the overall costs of corrections can be reduced; and that corrections will become much more closely allied with other social service efforts. Additional implications can also be found in the areas of training, education, and treatment programs for 8 . . . . Pre51dent's Comm1551on on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 119-20. offenders. These implications appear to be limited only by the imagination and insight of the interested prac- titioner, student, or observer. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The study was limited by the availability of data and the length of time the Youthful Trainee Act has been in use. Availability of Data Records containing data on youthful trainees were not centrally maintained at the state level because of legal restrictions. To get complete data, it would have been necessary to gather material separately from each of Michigan's eighty-three major judicial jurisdictions. Since such an endeavor was beyond the scope and resources of this study, data was gathered on a significantly reduced scale; particularly in the case of the ”pro- bationed” trainees. Limited Youthful Trainee Experience By 1970, the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act had been in effect slightly more than three years. This could have had serious affects on determining the correctional success rate for the youthful trainee since most were initially placed in that status for three years. It was also possible that the characteristics of those granted “(LT a ' a: 1"" trainee status might be affected by the initial lack of experience and familiarity on the part of lawyers, prose- cutors, and judges using the Holmes Act. Finally, it must be noted that no special facilities, such as used for males, exists for the handling of female youthful trainees; hence, they hardly appear in the data on institutionally committed trainees. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter identifies and discusses the types of literature reviewed, presents a brief overview of the history involved, outlines current youthful offender practices, and summarizes the literature's common obser- vations about youthful offenders. TYPES OF LITERATURE The literature dealing with youths as a specific segment of the population is voluminous; and only recently certain special problems confronting the youth population have come to the fore. Yet, most of this work discusses adolescence, youth and young adulthood without really defining the particular ages to which the observations pertain.9 9National Council on Crime and Delinquency, "Youth- ful Offender Study" (unpublished draft submitted by the Directors of Drafting Sub-Committees, Youthful Offender Study Group, to the National Council on Crime and Delin- quency, New York, 1963), Chap. 1, pp. 8-9. Hereafter this study is cited as NCC Draft. 10 11 An international bibliography containing something over 2,000 entries, and covering a twelve-year Span from 1953 to 1965, is available. Most of the work dealing with youth, but not focused on crime, has already been omitted.10 In order to cover the five-year Span from 1965 to 1970, it was necessary to augment the use of the bibliog- raphy with manual searching techniques. Six major types of resource materials were reviewed: books; works-in-a- series; government publications; statutory, quasi—statutory and judicial decisions; periodicals; and unpublished works. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Interest in youthful offenders, disregarding its traceability far back into history and the reformatory movement in the 1870's at Elmira, didn't really start to develop as we know it today until the very late 1890's and early 1900's. At that time the English became alarmed at the vast amount of youth crime, and started its Borstal System. This program was restricted to youths sixteen to twenty-three years old, and was a highly individualized form of institutional training and treatment followed by a closely supervised period of parole. Statutory limit of 10Albert G. Hess et. a1., The Youpg Adult Offender Bibliography (New York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1967), pp. iv, v, G 198. 12 Borstal control was established at four years, and results of the program have been continuous except for the period of the Second World War.11 In the 1930's, American interest in youthful offen- ders peaked enough for action to develop. In 1938, the Delinquency Committee of the Boy's Bureau of the New York Community Service Society published a report on United States youthful offenders and the criminal justice system. This report recommended new methods of dealing with young offenders. Based on this report and some of the knowledge learned in England, The American Law Institute, in 1940, formulated a model act for establishing a youth correction authority.12 The Model Youth Correction Authority Act sought to build a structure that would turn the handling of youthful offenders toward treatment, while providing a means of coordinating the work of the various agencies and insti- tutions involved in youthful offender correctional work. It proposed a youth correction authority (a board of three 11William Healy and Benedict S. Alper, Criminal Youth and the Borstal System (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 194T), pp. 57—58. lzIbid., p. iii; and Orie L. Phillips, "The Federal Youth Corrections Act," Federal Probation, XV (March, 1951), p. 4. 13 members) which would receive commitments of youthful offenders and use any facilities of the state to carry out a plan of treatment.13 Noteworthy features of the Model Act included the following: age group limitations for initial disposition under the act were from sixteen to twenty—one; judicial responsibility for sentencing was, for all practical pur- poses, eliminated by requiring that all youthful offender commitments be to the authority (judge no longer had choice of commitment, probation or other disposition); and the duration of control over youthful offenders was flexible, though usually limited to age twenty-five for convicted minors and age twenty-one for adjudicated juveniles above sixteen.14 The most apparent and immediate governmental responses to the formulation of the Model Act included the beginning of a federal study, and the establishment of a youth authority by California in 1941. Since that time, however, the movement toward treatment-oriented legislation for youthful offenders has shown no specific pattern in the handling of youths. This is so even though the youth authority is generally accepted as representing the highest state of youth correctional 13Sol Rubin et. a1., The Law of Criminal Correction (St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1963), p. 439. 141bid., pp. 441-43. Qu 14 development. No state has adopted the Model Youth Correc- tion Authority Act in its entirety. Only nine jurisdic- tions currently use a youth authority, and two more have them but don't use them. In addition, those youth author- ities enacted were spread over a long period of time; and at least one state, Kentucky, has done away with its youth authority.15 The reasons behind the lack of universal use and adoption of the youth authority concept have been numer- ous. Included among them have been difficulties caused by the peculiarities of the legal and political structures of the various states concerned, the resources available for commitment to such an endeavor, the individual needs of the separate states, and numerous authoritative theories regarding the best way to administer correctional efforts.16 CURRENT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW Current provisions of the laws for handling youthful offenders were examined according to the level of government concerned: federal; state; and local. 15National Council of Juvenile Court Judges, Juvenile Court Judges Directory and Manual [with supple- mentsT(Chicago: American Bar Center, 1964), pp. 347-52. 6Letter from the Department of Corrections to the Governor of Michigan, Re: House Bill 2761, dated May 12, 1969, reflects some of the reasons cited. '11 15 Federal Provisions The Federal Youth Correction Act was enacted September 30, 1950, after ten years of study and is an adaptation of the American Law Institute's Model Youth Correction Authority Act. It provides for a Youth Correction Division within the federal parole board of eight members (this division takes the place of the three-man board proposed by the ALI Model); defines a youth offender as a person under twenty-two years of age at time of conviction; allows the judge to retain traditional sentencing prerogatives; pro- vides reception center and diagnostic services; gives authority to the division to adapt particular forms of treatment, including Supervision, to individual needs; allows control over an individual to continue until age twenty-six or expiration of the maximum sentence imposed; allows parole at any time; and allows the division to control the discharge of offenders.17 State Provisions No comprehensive comparison or summary of state youthful offender laws could be found by this investigator. However, it appeared that only about twenty percent of the states had legal provisions identifiable as adapted from the ALI Model. Variations occurred commonly in 17Phillips, op. cit., pp. 4-9. Here, and here- after, the American Law Institute is referred to as ALI. 16 sentencing forms; administrative organization; method of appointment and authority of the board; and age group limitations.18 Besides the use of youth authorities, special procedures have been developed by various states for meeting the needs of youthful offenders. Sol Rubin cited New York's various special procedures as examples of what has been, and is being, done. Among the more important procedures were youthful offender plans, extension of juvenile court jurisdictions, and wayward . l9 minor procedures. Youthful offender plans. Rubin characterized youthful offender plans as having a special noncriminal status as a youthful offender. If an offender is offered and accepts the Special status after an investigation and before the hearing, the offender waives trial by jury, and special procedures are followed for disposition of the case. These procedures bar the use of any of the defendant's statements or admissions as evidence against him; and records of adjudication, fingerprints, and photographs are closed to public inspection. No matter what the final disposition under the Special procedures, 18Rubin et. a1., op. cit., p. 440. See also National Council of Juvenile Court Judges Directory and Manual, pp. 348—51. 19Rubin et. a1., op. cit., pp. 446-52. 17 there is no criminal record, and civil rights are not later affected as they would be if criminal procedures had been followed.20 Examples of states having youthful offender plans would include Michigan and New York. Extending juvenile court jurisdiction. Several states, including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, and North Dakota, have provisions which allow juvenile courts to handle older adolescent offenders. Usually the age limit is eighteen, and the juvenile court shares concurrent jurisdiction with the criminal court over eighteen year-olds. Regardless of these provisions, and in practice, it has been the criminal court rather than the juvenile court that has generally dealt with the older youths.21 Wayward minor procedure. The wayward minor pro- cedure applies to persons between sixteen and twenty—one who fit any of the following categories: drug addict or habitual drunk; habitually associates with persons of undesirable character; present in a house of prostitution; willfully and unreasonably disobediant to proper authori- ties; or conducts self in a way likely to endanger own or others' health or morals. It deals primarily with diso- bedience and behavior that is objectionable without being 20 21 Loc. cit. Ibid., pp. 451. 18 criminal, and resembles some definitions of juvenile delinquency. Wayward minor acts have been criticized as being subject to abuse and discriminatory applications, and Rubin believes their objectives are better met by youthful offender plans.22 Local Provisions23 Development of special legal provisions for handling youthful offenders on a local level has been principally restricted to metropolitan areas, and has not normally extended beyond the establishment of special youth courts. These courts were categorized according to whether their clientele consisted of wayward minors, mis- demeanants and quasi—criminals, or youths arrested on criminal charges. The first two categories were exemplified by the Chicago Boy's Court, Municipal Court of Philadelphia, and New York Adolescent's Courts. These courts avoid criminal records in nonserious situations and seem to concentrate their attention on persons fitting the categories of the earlier defined wayward minor. Court activity, besides adjudicating, focuses on socialization efforts. The Baltimore City Youth Court, in contrast to the others, appears to be most like regular criminal courts in the types of offenses handled. The special procedures 221bid., pp. 451-52. 23Ibid., pp. 452-55. 19 used by this court include thorough prehearing investiga— tions; consent of the defendant prior to granting special noncriminal status; use of probation without a finding of guilt; and no criminal action if probation is satisfac- torily completed. COMMON OBSERVATIONS IN THE LITERATURE While there were a number of youthful offender observations and findings contained in all of the various types of materials reviewed, some were more common than others. Among the more common were those concerning the youthful offender's problems and his needs. The Youthful Offender's Problems The youthful offender's problems center on five major factors: developmental problems; lack of legal recognition for persons above the statutory juvenile age and not yet an adult; reliance on institutional treatment instead of in-community programs; lack of adequate pre- trial facilities and procedures; and a general lack of coordination of efforts to handle youth problems.24 Developmental problems. Developmental problems include the unbalanced physiological and sociological 24Ben Overstreet, Jr., A Study of the Youthful Offender, Proceedings of the Ninety-Third Annual Congress of Correction of the American Correctional Association (Washington: American Correctional Association, 1963), pp. 245-47. 20 changes that occur during the adolescent years. These changes result in feelings of restlessness, impulsiveness, and confusion of ideas and emotions. Coupled with these conditions are the release from high schools at about age Sixteen, and the normally high vocational maladjustment 25 between ages sixteen and twenty-one. The end result is a tendency toward anti-social behavior and higher crime rates.26 Lack of legal recognition. Little or no distinc- tion exists in laws or trial procedures for youthful offenders above the juvenile court age, and the ideal sought would have procedures and provisions allowing youthful offenders to avoid the stigma of criminal con- victions, while at the same time being subjected to the kind of supervision and guidance determined to be appro- 27 priate. The problem, though improved slightly by 1,— 25Orie L. Phillips, "The Federal Youth Corrections Act," Federal Probation, XV (March, 1951), pp. 3 G 4. 26United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, The Young Adult Offender: A Review of Current Practices and Programmes in Prevention and Treat- ment (NewTYork: United’Natibns, 1965), pp. 16418. The factor of developmental problems being primary is attested to by almost universal findings on a world-wide basis. 27Overstreet, op. cit., p. 246. An exception was noted in the case of New York. 21 programs such as Michigan's Holmes Act, still requires attention.28 Lack of in-community programs. In 1963 there was noted a tendency to favor institutional treatment for 29 youthful offenders convicted of crime. Attention was also directed to the fact that while youth crime is gen- erated in the community and works its damage there, little effort is aimed at its prevention or treatment at the 30 community level. While efforts have been made to alle- viate this situation through federal programs, there remains a great deal to be done.31 Inadequate pretrialgprocedures. The procedures involved include all of those from arrest to trial. Each suffers serious criticism, but none more than detention and bail. For the most part, the first—time, impression- able, and sensitive youthful offender is placed in jail to await trial. Here he is often subject to the negative 8President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth CrimeITWashington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 19-20. 29 Overstreet, loc. cit. 30NCC Draft, chap. 5, p. 1. 31President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in A Free Society (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 68-69. 22 influences that may contribute to future undesirable behavior. Bail practices are a major factor in this problem for the reason that many youthful offenders are detained only because they are unable to finance their release.32 Lack of coordination of efforts. Most of the literature recognized that many organizations have as one of their aims the provision of programs for young people. Consistently noted, however, was the piecemeal nature and compartmentalization of efforts. This condition influ- enced the President's Task Force on Juvenile Delinquency to recommend, in 1967, the coordination of the involvement of youths in community life.33 The Youthful Offender's Needs The obvious need of the youthful offender is to have his problems solved. Solution would include: recog- nition as a special group; greater flexibility in police handling; better legal procedures; more flexible and different institutional programs for youthful offenders; 32Overstreet, op. cit., p. 247. In addition, this problem area is summarized and treated in detail in the NCC Draft, chap. 2, pp. 1-50. 33President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 48-49. 23 special community level programs; and more effective coordination of resources and programs for youth at the community level. Recggnition. In 1967, Milton Luger pointed out that even though no chronological age bracket is completely homogeneous, the youthful offender age group possesses enough common characteristics, and is treated in enough special ways by others, to warrant differentiated proc- essing in the criminal justice system.34 Flexibilipy in police handling. The police are legally restricted in their handling of offenders of all ages. Normally they have little choice other than arrest and detention. This is undesirable because of its result- ing influences. The ideal alternatives involve ways the police can handle youths without resort to the legal processes of formal arrest and detention, thereby avoiding the experiences likely to negate later correctional efforts and the stigma of "records." Several experiments have shown that alternatives to arrest and detention are not only possible, they are desirable.35 Improved legal procedures. Before the problems of the youthful offender can be solved, legal provisions must be passed which will allow handling separate from 34Ibid., p. 120. 35Overstreet, op. cit., p. 251. 24 regular criminal court processes. The procedures required must provide for flexibility in meeting the correctional needs of the individual and protection of society. Improved institutionalyprograms. The young adult's complex make-up, caused mainly by the different maturation processes, requires that rehabilitative treatment be man- ifold and extremely flexible.36 In agreement with this statement, Luger has noted that most current correctional programs have some worth. He qualified this observation, however, by saying all existing programs could be improved.37 Improvements are needed in the adminis- tration of programs, research to develop new programs, physical facilities and smaller sized institutions where programs are executed, and the qualities of people imple- menting the correctional plans.38 Coordinated community level programs. Current thinking appears to be that correctional treatment and supervision is best accomplished in the community. This idea is based on findings which revealed that about 36United Nations, op. cit., p. 89. 7President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delipquency and Youth Crime (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 125. 38President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), pp. 45-59. 25 95 percent of all prisoners return to society, that resocialization of offenders is difficult to accomplish in prisons because of the very nature of prisons, and that community treatment is economically less expensive than institutional treatment.39 SUMMARY Real interest in youthful offenders dates only from the last half of the nineteenth century. Actual development in the United States began even more recently, since about the beginning of 1940. It was about this time that the youth authority concept was developed and first adopted by California. Since developed, the youth authority concept has represented the most knowledgeable thinking in correcting the unacceptable behavior of youths. Even so, it has not developed universally, rapidly, or on a wide scale. This lack of development is attributable to the great legal, political and social complexities involved in legis- lative enactment and implementation by states having vary- ing capabilities and needs. Current provisions for handling youthful offenders were viewed according to the level of government concerned. The federal government and some states have adapted the ALI Model Youth Authority Correction Act. Other states 39United Nations, op. cit., pp. 72-88. 26 use various youthful offender plans, extended juvenile court jurisdictions, and wayward minor procedures. Local, or metropolitan, efforts have concentrated on the develop- ment of special youth courts. The youthful offender's problems center on five main factors. His age group encounters special develop- mental problems as a normal part of maturation and cul- tural influence. There is little legal recognition of him as being no longer a juvenile but not really a mature adult. Real treatment efforts for his benefit are found primarily in institutions instead of the community where he is almost certain to return. Inadequate pretrial facilities and procedures tend to do more harm than good to him because of his sensitivity and impressionability. And, lastly, little is done to coordinate the handling efforts of youth problems. To combat these problems, the youthful offender's needs must be met by: recognizing and treating him as part of a special group; providing greater flexibility in police handling; creating legal provisions for disposition that can avoid the unnecessary stigma of a harmful ”record"; creating more and bettering institutional pro- grams; and emphasizing community treatment under an effective coordinating mechanism. Chapter 3 THE HOLMES YOUTHFUL TRAINEE ACT AND MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE This chapter discusses the provisions of the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act and presents an overview of some of the experiences resulting from its use. The act is presented in its entirety in Appendix A. THE YOUTHFUL TRAINEE ACT Description40 The Holmes Youthful Trainee Act provides that a court of record may, at its discretion, grant youthful trainee status to any consenting seventeen to twenty year- old youth before it who is accused of a criminal offense. The legal guardian may give consent in lieu of the youth, and the age limitation can be lowered to include fifteen and sixteen year-old youths if the juvenile court has waived its jurisdiction. Once consideration of the 40Act 210, Michigan Public Acts, 1966 and Act 301, Michigan Public Acts, 1966. 27 28 individual as a youthful trainee has begun, criminal proceedings under the charges which brought him to court are suspended. The court may, at any time and at its discretion, revoke the trainee consideration or status earlier given. If this occurs, the original criminal charges are rein- stated, and the case goes forward. Any information divulged by the youth during his consideration or grant of status is inadmissible as evidence Should the status not be given or be revoked. Also, if any time has been served as a trainee, it is credited against whatever sentence results from the reinstituted criminal case. If the youth is granted trainee status and was originally charged with an offense punishable by a prison term of more than one year, the court must either commit him to the Department of Corrections for not over three years, or it must place him on ”probation” for not more than three years. In either case, the youth is subject to the direction of the Department of Corrections. Once under the direction of the Department of Corrections, the trainee may be transferred to the Depart— ment of Social Services. All that is required to effect the transfer is for the latter to give its consent. Such transfers would be expected only when the use of the social services facilities would seem more appropriate to the individual's problems. 29 Granting youthful trainee status is not the same as a conviction for a crime; no rights or privileges after release from status are lost or changed; and records regarding the whole affair are closely restricted. Noteworthy Features Because of the innovative qualities of the act, certain of its features are particularly noteworthy. Specifically included among these features are these con- cerned with the trainee's age, consent, designation, credit for trainee time, and authority of the Department of Corrections. Age. The age span covered by the act includes those who account for a large part of the crime in Michigan. However, in comparing this age group with the incidence of Michigan arrests by age groups, it was noted that the statute limits trainee status to less than twenty-five percent of those arrested unless juvenile courts waive jurisdiction in large numbers of cases 41 involving fifteen and sixteen year-olds. The juvenile courts have shown no tendency to do this. 41Michi an Law Enforcement Officials Report on QIime, 1968 (Lan51ng: Michigan State Police, 1968), p. 9. Fifty percent of those arrested are below 17; 25.8 percent are between 17 and 22 (cut—off for trainee status is 20). 3O Consent. The requirement for consent on the part of the trainee appears to be an attempt to help in meeting his need to avoid the damaging stigma and influence of being labeled a criminal. It also seems to be an attempt to apply a realistic approach to the youth's correction as outlined and advocated by William Glasser.42 From this point of view, the use of consent holds out the promise of potentially great benefits. It also tends to generate some confusion in the area of correctional con- cepts and terminology, and possible legal problems are hinted. This is exemplified by the concept of "probation." Correctional probation has long had, as one of the definitional requirements for its existence, the condition of conviction and is a form of sentence. For these reasons, broad authority has customarily existed for the handling of probationers. By removing the condition of conviction but retaining the use of "probation," the statute has broadened the concept considerably; it has established a new status completely different from the accepted probation. Under the new law, probation appears to mean supervision. Designation. The use of the term youthful trainee is an effort to avoid giving the individual a stigmatized 42William Glasser, ”Reality Therapy: A Realistic Approach to the Young Offender," Crime and Delinqueney, X (April, 1964), pp. 135-44. 31 image. Similar efforts have been made with juvenile delinquents in several states. These efforts are exempli- fied by New York's introduction, in 1962, of the PINS (Persons In Need of Supervision) category of individuals serviced under its Family Court Act.43 Along the same lines, Arizona currently uses the term "student" to refer to its commitments to the Arizona State Industrial School, which receives delinquents up to eighteen years of age.44 Credit for trainee time. The required granting of credit for time served in a youthful trainee institution if that status is revoked recognizes that the youthful offender does have rights. It also acknowledges that he deserves credit and recognition for that which he has done. Real protection is provided the trainee against an abuse he might not otherwise be able to overcome. Authority of the Department of Corrections. Lack of broad authority and access to resources have long been 3Preliminary Report of the Governor's Special Committee on Criminal Offenders (New York: Governor's Special Committee on Criminal Offenders, June 24, 1968), p. 264. Initially the law separated the concept of juve— nile delinquency from the concept of persons in need of supervision. Current thinking, supported by a 1963 amend- ment to the New York law, now denies any distinction of the two concepts. 44Superintendent of the State Industrial School, Annual Report, 1968-1969 (Phoenix: Arizona Department of Correctibns, 1969). 32 problems in the field of corrections. The Holmes Youthful Trainee Act appears to be helpful in solving the problem for Michigan. Once trainee status has been granted, the Department of Corrections has the legally established authority to take almost any actions it deems most appro- priate to the individual's needs. The major limitation is the time frame of the Department's jurisdiction. EXPERIENCE Michigan has accumulated legal, administrative, and field experience since the inception of the Holmes Act. Legal Experience The Youthful Trainee Act has been attacked twice in the courts of Michigan; once at the circuit court level and once at the appellate level. In both cases the con- stitutionality of the act was the issue. Circuit court level. In People vs. Wendell Wilson, it was decided that: the constitutional rights of one accused of crime are in no wise protected by this statute; that it is in direct violation of the 5th and 14th Amend- ments of the United States Constitution as not being due process of law and accordingly is contrary to and in violation of the provisions of the Constitu- tion of Michigan. 45Transcript of Proceedings of People vs. Wendell Wilson, Washtenaw County Circuit Court, Ann Aibor, dated January 30, 1968. 33 One of the primary factors which influenced this decision was the court's interpretation for a conviction to be a necessary condition of probation. It was reasoned that if no conviction accompanied by the normal full legal protections occurred, there could be no probation. It was further rationalized that the consent required of the accused was not adequate protection to guarantee that a completely innocent youth would not be placed under the conditions of probation, which are reserved for convicted offenders. Appgllate level. On April 22, 1969, the Michigan Court of Appeals struck down the Wilson case with People vs. Robert Lynn.46 In this appeal the defendant claimed his pre- conviction commitment as a youthful trainee was a denial of due process. The court unequivocally stated that the commitment as a youthful trainee was strictly voluntary and that there was no denial of any of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Contrasting sharply with the Lynn decision, Frank J. Kelley, Michigan Attorney General, ruled in June, 1970, that the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act was 46Pepple vs. Robert Lynn, 17 Mich. App. 117 (1969). 34 unconstitutional because it allowed incarceration without an official finding of guilt. Though this opinion has yet to be tested in court, the Department of Corrections has released all persons previously committed under the act except those who pleaded guilty or were found guilty. In the future, persons not found guilty prior to place- ment as youthful trainees will not be accepted by the Department.47 Administrative Experience Significant administrative experience was viewed according to whether it has tended to modify the Youthful Trainee Act or moved toward a youth authority concept. Modification of the current law. Young persons committed to Michigan's youthful trainee institutions have sometimes walked away, intending not to return. Such action on the part of a trainee has not legally been viewed as an escape since there was no conviction nor sentence passed. This has caused a problem to exist in returning trainees to the custody of proper authorities. Peace officers have had no legal authority to apprehend walk-away trainees without a warrant. To overcome this problem, a bill was introduced to amend the Youthful Trainee Act. This amendment would 7 4 The State Journal [Lansing], June 30, 1970, p. A—lZ, col. 5. 35 provide specifically that a youthful trainee who leaves an institutional facility of the Department of Corrections without proper authority may be retaken without warrant by a peace officer.48 Still another, and more recent, experience has shown that there is some desire to do more than just modify the act. To accomplish the same end sought by the Michigan Attorney General, a bill has been introduced to completey repeal the act.49 Arguments for repeal of the law include its limited usage by the courts and consequently small trainee populations, the failure to adequately augment the physical facilities to handle a large number of trainees, the great similarity of trainees' needs to the needs of con- victed youthful offenders, and the issue of the constitu- tionality of nonconviction commitments. The Department of Corrections has not shown any strong objections to the repeal of the Youthful Trainee Act.SO 48Michigan House Bill 3341, April 15, 1969, intro- duced by Representatives Great, Heinze, Roy Smith and Baker, referred to the Committee on Social Services and Corrections and pending review. 49Michigan Senate Bill 1546, March 26, 1970, intro- duced by Senators Richardson and Lodge, referred to the Committee on Judiciary and pending review. Comments con- cerning the activities of the Michigan Attorney General are contained on pages 33 and 34. 50Letter, Department of Corrections to the Governor of Michigan, Re: Senate Bill 1546, dated April 20, 1970. 36 Toward a youth authority. Since the first of 1969, there have been at least two proposals that Michigan establish a youth authority. House Bill 2760 proposes a youth authority be created within the Department of Correc- tions, and House Bill 2761 would establish a separate Department of Youth Authority. Neither of the bills are the first of their type for Michigan, and neither of them appear to meet Michigan's needs based on government structural limitations.51 Field Experiences Comments were solicited from some of the members of the Probation Department of the Detroit Recorder's Court regarding their general experience with the youthful trainee. Summarized versions of the comments received are included here under the headings of the law, its use, and needs for improvement. The law. Those interviewed believed the Youthful Trainee Act had real potential as a tool, or incentive, for young people to keep out of trouble, go to school, and do other socially acceptable things they would nor- mally not do. Its main feature of avoiding conviction records, however, was believed to do nothing more than 51Separate letters, Department of Corrections to the Governor of Michigan, both dated May 12, 1969; Re: House Bill 2760 and Re: House Bill 2761. 37 restructure what had been already practiced for years 52 As a whole, the immediate through expunging records. avoidance of criminal records under the Youthful Trainee Act was either not recognized or felt to be unnecessary. Its use. The persons interviewed believed that the law was abused a great deal by defense attorneys and judges. The original intent was to have the law restricted in its application to those not involved in serious crimes. It was also intended that use of the law be based on the results of thorough screening through the presentence investigations, so that all risks of failure and danger would be minimized. The numerous examples cited to Show abuse included one case where trainee status was granted an individual who was caught in an armed robbery resulting in the homicide of a victim and a street shoot-out with the police. Other examples included the frequency with which certain judges ignored the recommendations of pre- sentence investigations. The abuses were attributed to the vagueness and ambiguity in the law's wording, combined with our system of giving the accused every legal benefit. 2Expunging records was, and still is, accomplished under the provisions of Act 213, Michigan Public Acts, 1965, which allows those under 21 at the time of the offense to clear their records five years after satisfac- tory completion of probation. 38 Needs for improvement. Those interviewed indi- cated that improvement was needed in handling the youthful trainee, and the youthful offender in general, in the general areas of resources, programs, and research. Needed resources included medium security insti- tutions with wide varieties of training facilities where values and attitudes could actually be restructured toward community contribution, institutions for females, and more high quality correctional personnel at all levels. Needed programs included community based and follow-up programs. Community based programs could serve the purposes of prevention as well as rehabilitation at the local level. Follow-up programs should be avail- able to help those coming out of institutions find real jobs, return to educational pursuits, or get needed training. Research was seen as the basis for all of the foregoing, and was believed dependent on the resources available. Up to the time of this study, little or no data were maintained, or gathered, by Detroit on the trainee. With the recent availability of computerization, however, data gathering had started, and was anticipated to be used in meeting the needs of trainees. 39 SUMMARY Michigan does not have a youth authority. Instead, it enacted in 1966 the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. This act embodies some of the principles found in the youth authority concept. Its most prominent departures from the youth authority idea include the absence of a separate board to control all youth correctional efforts, and the absence of conviction. Experience with the Youthful Trainee Act has in- dicated that it could have great potential, but its orig- inal intentions have been thwarted by ambiguity and vague- ness in its wording, the existence of constitutionality questions, and by the fragmentary nature of its basic applicability to the total problems involved in Michigan youth correction. Chapter 4 METHODOLOGY In order to verify the hypotheses, it was nec- essary that data be gathered allowing comparison between youthful trainees and youthful offenders given regular correctional commitments in Michigan. This chapter attempts to explain the detailsof the data gathering, some of the major assumptions, some of the primary var- iables, and how the information was interpreted. THE GROUPS STUDIED Two major groups were studied. They were further divided into smaller groups for analysis and comparison purposes. The first group studied was the Michigan youthful trainee. Since the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act provided for two different types of trainee status, "probationed" or committed, this group was divided accordingly for comparative purposes. In addition, the "probationed” trainee group was further divided according to sex. 40 41 The second major group was composed of youthful offenders convicted in Michigan and not under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. GATHERING THE DATA What Information Was Gathered? The information gathered and developed was of two basic types: characteristics of the two main groups and data indicating their correctional success rates. Characteristics. Selection of the characteristics on which data could be gathered was restricted by that which was available in specially designated research materials belonging to the Michigan Department of Corrections in Lansing, and by the availability of infor- mation contained in accessible presentence investigations conducted by various agencies in Michigan. The final selection included characteristics that would allow con- clusions to be reached concerning a general description of the groups, their past correctional experiences, and their offenses. Correctional success rates. The selection of correctional success rate data on the two major groups was governed by that which was already easily available or easily obtainable. The success rates cited by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and 42 Administration of Justice in 1967 were arbitrarily used to represent the success rate of the convicted Michigan youthful offender. Since no similar data existed for trainees, a mathematically projected success rate was determined. The projection was based on a survey of the arrest experiences of youthful trainees after they had been institutionally released to the community for a period of not less than eleven months. How Was the Information Gathered? Data on the Michigan youthful offender was manually gathered as follows: The committed youthful trainee. There were 192 youthful trainees institutionally committed throughout Michigan from the time the Youthful Trainee Act became effective on January 1, 1967, until January 1, 1970. No information was available on ten of this group, leaving the total group size at 182. Since the group size was relatively small, and since the time span included most of the life of the program, information was gathered on each individual. In about seventy-five percent of the cases, most of the information was taken directly from summarized individual data sheets. In the remaining cases, all information was taken from presentence inves- tigations, or other reports. 43 Data concerning the correctional success rate of the youthful trainee were taken from this group. Since many of the persons in this group were still in a youthful trainee status, recidivism was ruled out as an effective measure. To fill the void, arrest experience after insti- tutional release was chosen to represent and act as a measure of how effectively the youthful trainee's behavior had been changed.53 In order to allow an arbitrarily selected minimum time of one year in which arrests could occur, it was initially decided to follow-up all releases occurring during and before May, 1969. For administrative reasons, this decision was later modified to include all those released during and before June, 1969. The decision to modify the cut-off date resulted in a total grOUp size of 100, with only three persons being out of the insti- tution for less than one year.54 Through the c00peration of the Michigan State Police, the arrest histories of each subject in the group were followed up. Arrests only in Michigan after institutional release served as the measure of success in accomplishing behavioral change in the Michigan youthful trainee. 53Upon institutional release, the youthful trainee is placed in the community under supervision of regular probation officers. 54These three individuals had eleven months, instead of twelve, outside the institution in which to experience arrests. 44 The "probationed” youthful trainee. ”Probationed” youthful trainees are placed under the supervision of the court jurisdiction granting trainee status. On a state- level basis, no central records are maintained on persons in this status.55 In an effort to gather data on the largest sized group possible, and influenced strongly by population distribution figures and economic realities, the city of Detroit was selected as probably having the largest single group of "probationed" youthful trainees in Michigan, and their cooperation was requested for the study. Administrative limitations restricted data gather- ing on the male group to active cases at the time of record examination.56 The group was composed of forty- two males placed under initial supervision between February, 1968, and May, 1970. All active cases were made available and served as the data base. The female group was comprised of those placed under initial supervision between December, 1968, and April , 1970. The total number of persons in the group 55This comment is also applicable to those trainees in an institutionally committed status. There is, however, some specially designated, centrally maintained research material covering the committed trainee. 56The limitations included nonavailability of closed cases, cases in preparational status, and cases in other stages of process. 45 was fourteen. This number included all active cases, and all but one of the total number of female trainees in Detroit since the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act came into effect.57 The convicted youthful offender. A decision was made to use convicted youthful offenders committed during 1969 for comparison purposes. It was believed this group would reflect the latest thinking of those charged with deciding the disposition of all youthful offenders for correctional actions. Another strong influence was the availability of data. Since there was a total of 1,105 persons in this group, not counting youthful trainees, data were gathered by sampling every eleventh person. Size of the total sample was 100. ASSUMPTIONS Assumptions basic to the study included the following: 1. The criminal justice system was a skimming process. 57This information is based on a personal inter- view with Mrs. Louise S. Cobb, Supervisor, Department of Probation (Women's Division) Detroit Recorder's Court, on April 30, 1970. 8Figures were determined by visual examination of a computer listing made by the Data Processing Sec- tion of the Michigan Department of Corrections. 46 The Holmes Youthful Trainee Act fitted into the skimming process somewhere near its ini- tial stages. The characteristics available and selected for data gathering purposes were adequate for group identification and differentiation. There have been sufficient youthful trainees to make the data gathered significant, reliable, and valid. Michigan youthful trainees were similar to youths in a similar status elsewhere in the country. INTERVENING VARIABLES In addition to the assumptions made, it was recog- nized that some variables could possibly intervene and affect the outcome of the findings. Some of the more important variables were the following: 1. The Judicial Decision to Use the Holmes Youth- ful Trainee Act. If the decision was consis- tently based on personal qualitative standards not reflected in the empirically quantitative factors surrounding individual cases, findings could be affected to the extent that group characteristics would have little significance. 47 2. The Type of Disposition Made Under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. It was possible that the characteristics and success rates of youth— ful trainees would be insignificant as a grouped whole, and significant only according to the two types of disposition possible (commitment or "probation"). 3. The Element of Consent. If a large number of youthful offenders otherwise eligible and selected for youthful trainee status withheld their consent and became regular commitments, the findings of the research might be some- what biased. 4. Proportionate Use of the Youthful Trainee Act. If the Youthful Trainee Act was not used pro- portionately in all of the authoritative dis- tricts, the results of the research would emphaSize the heaviest using districts. This would tend to impose an unusually distorted sectional impression on the entire state. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION All raw data was converted to percentage findings, as opposed to attempted analysis using more sophisticated statistical techniques. The specific presentation of data is through the use of tables for the comparison of individual character- istics, success rates, and other considerations. Each table is accompanied by a narrative analysis. 48 Chapter 5 THE YOUTHFUL TRAINEE AND THE CONVICTED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER IN MICHIGAN It was possible to View and describe Michigan's youthful trainee from several different viewpoints. This chapter discusses those possibilities, and uses one of them for comparison with Michigan's convicted youthful offender. YOUTHFUL TRAINEE DESCRIPTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The Various Trainees There were three types of trainees: The committed; the "probationed” male; and the ”probationed" female. Since it was more difficult to use three separate descriptions for comparison against the description to be developed of the convicted Michigan youthful offender, a way was sought to reduce the number of descriptions involved. Using a composite description for the "probationed" trainee would have reduced the number of trainee descrip- tions from three to two. However, by using a completely composite description, the number could be reduced from 49 50 two to one. This allowed a one to one comparison effort, and seemed most desirable for the purposes of this study. Differences Between Trainee Types AS data were gathered on each type of trainee to be included in the composite, several differences were noted. These differences can be reviewed in detail by using the appropriate appendices. For purposes here, attention is directed to Table 1, page 54, and the follow- ing narrative summary. Age. The committed trainee group included equal numbers above age twenty-one and below age seventeen, while both ”probationed” groups contained age exceptions only at the higher end of the age scale. Rage. Race composition of the committed group was the reverse of that for both ”probationed” groups. This difference is assumed to reflect the socio-geographic conditions of the place furnishing the ”probationer” sample. Nativity. The female ”probationer” group con- tained less natives of Michigan than other groups. How- ever, those from out—of-state tended to have been in Michigan more than eleven years. In addition, all non- natives in the male ”probationed” group were from south— ern states as opposed to 75 percent southerners in the other groups. 51 Religion. “Probationed” males reflected signifi- cantly less religious preference than the other two groups, and the "probationed” females reflected significantly more. Education. "Probationers" reflected a general two-year higher educational completion than the committed group. More females than males completed the higher grades of high school. Occupation. Male ”probationers" claimed student status significantly more often than the other groups. Female ”probationers" tended to claim clerical occupa- tions or none at all. The committed group tended to be common laborers or to have no occupation at all. Use of drugs and alcohol. "Probationers" used drugs significantly more often than the committed group. Female ”probationers" were more likely to be addicted than others. Alcohol, on the other hand, tended to be used most by the committed group. Parental home broken. Parental homes of female "probationers" tended to be broken significantly more often than other groups. IQ score and average grade ratings. IQ scores and average grade ratings were not available on either of the ”probation" groups. 52 Age at first attention to authorities. Committed trainees came to the attention of authorities significantly more often and at an earlier age than "probationed" trainees. Juvenile correctional histories. "Probationed” trainees were much less likely than committed trainees to have any kind of juvenile correctional history. In addition, committed trainees were significantly more likely than "probationed" trainees to have had a commit- ment and probation if there was a juvenile correctional history. Adult probation. Committed trainees were much likelier to have had at least one previous adult probation than "probationed" trainees. Jail terms. A Significantly larger proportion of the committed group had jail experience. This differ- ence could be due to the use of youthful trainee selection criteria for the "probationers.” Total time in correctional institutions. While most trainees had no experience in correctional institu- tions, the committed group tended to have more total time in correctional institutions than the other groups. The female "probationer" tended to have the least amount of total time in correctional institutions. 53 History of escapes. The committed group was the only group revealing past escape experience. Offenses. Present offenses of the committed group tended to concentrate in the areas of burglary, auto theft, and assault. Those of the male "probationer” included the same areas with a majority in the drug area and signif- icantly fewer cases of assault. The female ”probationer" was more likely to be involved in drug offenses or less serious property crimes. In the area of past offenses, similar patterns were revealed with the committed group having more and more varied experience. Parenthood. Parenthood was commonly out of wed- lock and significantly more likely in the two ”probation" groups, with the female much more likely a parent than the male. Affects of the Differences The number and intensity of the differences out- lined indicate that all portions of a complete composite profile are affected to some degree. In the comparison of the characteristics of the trainee and the youthful convict, areas believed to be greatly influenced by the predominant tendencies of one of the groups making up the composite profile are identi- fied. 54 n.4q os-oHa <\z <\z <\z _.em mod-oo~ ocoom .o._ L.om am-oa om o.mu a.mm m.ww a ou< xm :oxoum oEo: Hmucopom “.mm on e.oe ~.oe oz -.-- ---- ---- m.~a oocosoaoe zoo .oo: o oo o om a.mm sod N.we e.am .oacMam ooz H c H< o : n.42 ---- ---- ---- ooooaoo< m.me N.ma o.ea E. n om: muses Lo om: “.mm w.em Om A.ea ocoz a.mm mnea o.ma m.- o: .mss Ha oooom ca oeae n.4o o me me an ooao a.Nm oo_ N.wa e.mo oaucam msoeom Houacez om 4.2N o.wN A.mm oeoz m.ea m.ma a.mm m.om oeoosom eoaoaosooo o.x~ ~.ma m.4~ m.mm Looms .soo a.“ 2.5 a.a 2.3 ~-H .Haoo m.eo m.em a.am o.m~ e-m .m.: eoaoaosom e.a~ am o.m~ N.~m N-H .m.: e.HN e.H~ e.- m.- oaaocooo coauaaom o.ma om H.5m m.oo oceomoooea . . zuaom on» scum cumucoouom ma so“ do He .ouaom-mo-u=o atom oaoge mo m.eo Hm m.oa A.ma zoa>aooz gouacoaz m.eo m.mm A.oo a.mN oamoz a.mm H.mm m.am o.ao ooaez boom mo» mo» mo> mo> mumomn< HN m.ae m.~a e.~a 4.25 ma w ”H om< o2 oz oz mo> memoaq< 0H eauz neuz omuz Naurz oameom ofimz accedumLOLQ o “EEO owumfihouumhmnu pocoflumLOEo vocoflumno~m ouwmoasou o ya. u «mommucoouom so :Omwumaeou oocamuh Homnuso> H oaoee Cu CJ mcfiupowok an oHanflm>m we :owumEA0wca noawmuoa .mooflvcoonm oomwunoannm ecu ou .eoupweo coon o>mz mommocoopon vcm mofiuomoumo meow. m.~v m.H~ o.m~ ---- ooocucoumm ---- ---- -m-- m.me woos co N . . poundesou noncowmo ummm Om m CV @ NV 1111 H \AHCO MO wwnmkh. HGQHQWMMD o.mm n.mm m.mm ---- ocoz o.m~ n.mm m.mm m.m ocoz m.me o.wm H.mm m.om oflflco>3w v.Hm ~.ma o.oH mm ufiwwmuh w flocouH< o.w~ m.mm H.Nm «.me .omAZ noncommo ---- m.HH ---- o.wm umozh ouz< ummm ucosoopm umoz m.e~ ---- ---- om scooped ---- ---- ---- m.om zpmqmpsm o.mm m.aa o.aH ---- muses CZ 729,: .932 m.v~ ---- ---- ---- m w 2 xhoMAOu a.” one: ---- m.e~ n.0H AH pooch oos< omcoooo ocomoaa ---- o.m~ ~.mN “.mm saeamasm m.~v o.m~ H.Nm ---- mmzha ---- v.m m.~ u.m~ adammm< ---- ---- ---- e.o~ once so H o ooH ooa ooH o.mm ocoz mo oomm mo xeooma: H.n e.~ c.m n.n .u> H OH .umcH m.~m o.hm v.0m n.mm ocoz .huou cw osfih HmHOH oo~ ooH ooH m.mm oeoz mahoh :Omfium ---- ---- ---- u.mH oeo ooa OOH ooH H.mo oeoz asooe Hana H.n e.m o.m «.mH ooco noduwn0hm m.~m 0.5m v.0m m.~m ocoz uH=v< m30w>0hm H.n ---- ---- «.mH :ofiumnoum w .ufissou H.n m.¢ v.m v.H~ :ofiumnoum HmeOAHUouuoUmwwmmwwww m.mw N.mm m.~m m.mm xuoumfix oz . . m.ma m.~e m.am m.Nm a” so 93 5.3 m1? «.3 2 .Am 33:93.2 3 v.- o.m~ m.o~ H.em ma xm cowueouu< uma um om< o om m.nm H.H .euu< .>oum oz «\2 <\z <\z M.wm NMHM magnum ououo ounuo>< 56 THE YOUTHFUL TRAINEE The detailed characteristics of the composite trainee are contained in Appendix F. By referring to the summarized data shown in Table 2, page 65, the youthful trainee's general descrip- tion emerges as follows: General The youthful trainee is an eighteen or nineteen- year-old white male who was involved in a burglary, auto theft or drug violation. He was born and raised in Michigan, or born in the South and raised in Michigan if from out-of~state, and prefers a Protestant religion. He has had one or two years of high school, and has quite possibly finished high school. For the most part, he has not settled his vocational interests and is almost certain to be single. There is a good chance that he has tried drugs, but he is not a consistent user or addicted. He claims that he uses alcohol moderately or not at all, and that alcohol had nothing to do with the offense which caused him to be placed in trainee status. There is a very good chance that his parents are living together now. If this is not so, his home was probably broken before he was nine years old. He has normal intelligence and an average grade rating somewhere between the fifth and sixth grade, with a good chance of reaching 57 into the high school grades. The attention of the author- ities was first attracted somewhere between his thirteenth and eighteenth year, probably when he was fifteen or six- teen. Chances are good that he has no correctional his- tory of any kind. If he does have a correctional history, it will not involve any prison sentences; rather, it would probably be a juvenile probation, or commitment and probation. He might have been placed under one adult probation, but it's not too likely. If he did spend time in an institution, it was less than a year and he probably tried to escape or walk away from custody. It was noted that the lack of a correctional history does not mean the trainee committed no offenses prior to the one for which trainee status was given. Chances are very good he committed one to three earlier offenses which resulted in no correctional action. Miscellaneous An attempt was made to gather information that would provide depth beyond the knowledge offered by the general description. Unfortunately, data were not avail- able on a scale that would allow its inclusion as part of an overall composite. Therefore, it is presented under this miscellaneous heading and attention is called to the fact that it was developed from the data gathered on the group of committed trainees. OCCI ini1 ‘3‘}1 «Hm indi to b to b Mich Hrrl Prob Slil 58 Status revocation. Revocations of trainee status occurred in 32.6 percent of all cases for which it was initially granted. Over half of these revocations took place within four months of the trainee's institutional- ization; 73.5 percent took place within seven months; and the rest took place within one year. Upon revocation, the individual answered to the court for the criminal charge which had been in suspension. Jurisdictions granting trainee status. Only 27.7 percent of all Michigan counties have committed individuals as youthful trainees. These counties tended to be more populated than the others. They also tended to be located in the northern part or the eastern half of Michigan. Length of institutionalization. Once having arrived at the institution, there is about a 50 percent probability the trainee will be returned to the community by the time he finishes a five-month stay. If he is still there after five months, he can take comfort in the fact that almost 70 percent of the trainees have returned to the community by the end of their sixth month of cus- tody. Another 10 percent leave before they have completed their seventh month. At any rate, almost no one spends more than twelve months as an institutionalized trainee before being returned to the community under supervision. 59 THE CONVICTED YOUTH The detailed characteristics of the convicted youthful offender are contained in Appendix G. By referring again to the summarized data shown in Table 2, page 65, the convicted youth's main features emerge as follows: General He is a nineteen or twenty-year-old male convicted of one of the more serious property offenses or offenses against the person. He may be either white or black, with a slight tendency toward the latter. He was born and raised in Michigan, or born in the South and raised in Michigan if from out-of-state, and he prefers one of the Protestant religions. He has probably had one or two years of high school, and has quite possibly finished high school. For the most part he is a common laborer. If such is not the case, then he has a Skilled trade. On the whole, he is single, probably hasn't used drugs to any significant degree, and alcohol may or may not have been involved in the commission of the offense for which he was convicted. If he has used drugs in the past, there is a good chance that he became an addict. There is a good chance his parents are living together now. If not, the home was probably broken by the time he was nine years old. He has slightly less than normal, or normal, 6O intelligence and an average grade rating between the fifth and eighth grade. The attention of the authorities was first attracted by the time he was sixteen, with a good chance that it was before his fourteenth birthday. Chances are he has a juvenile correctional history. If he does, it probably shows he has had at least one commitment and one probation. He has probably had at least one adult probation, too. He hasn't been in prison before, but the probabilities of having had some jail experience are about even. If he has been to jail, it was probably just once. All in all, he has probably spent up to a year in a correctional institution, possibly as much as three years, and was not caught trying to escape. Even though no information is available about his past offense exper- iences, it is reasonable to assume it is similar to the youthful trainee's. Miscellaneous To provide depth in understanding both the trainee and the youthful convict, it is pointed out that the juris— dictions which convicted the youthful offenders used in this study represented only 32.5 percent of all Michigan counties. Of the counties represented, 59.3 percent showed no record of ever having made a youthful trainee commitment. 61 THE DIFFERENCES The general descriptions of the trainee and the regularly convicted youthful offender are similar on the surface. Differences do exist, however, and are revealed by comparing the two groups depicted in Table 2. These differences are summarized below. In addition, obser- vations not represented in Table 2, but reflected in the appendices, are presented. Differences Differences between the trainees and the convicted youths were found in almost all of the areas of comparison. Ag . The trainee tended to be slightly younger than the convicted youth, with median ages of eighteen and nineteen, respectively. Race. The trainee group was 60.5 percent white and the convicted offender group was only 48 percent white. In addition, the trainee group tended to have more minority grOUps represented than the convicted group. The impact upon the composite profile by the ”probationed" trainee was also significant. Additional information was needed to complete a more solid profile before definite conclusions could be reached and generalizations made. Limited conclusions were possible concerning the sub- groups and their individual comparisons with the convicted group, however. 62 Nativity. There was a greater tendency for train- ees to be natives of Michigan, except in the case of female trainees. Part of the differences could be attri- buted to the size of the sample groups. Religion. Trainees tended to reflect a slightly greater consciousness of religion than convicted youthful offenders. Education. Both groups had 97 percent with edu- cations between the seventh grade and the second year of college completion. It was probable that the median grades were within a few months of each other. However, the com- posite profile appeared to have been significantly influ- enced by the great differences between the "probationed” and committed trainees. Once again, additional infor- mation was needed. All that could be said at this point was that convicted offenders had a higher level of edu- cational completion than committed trainees, and a signifi- cantly lower completion than ”probationed" trainees. Occupation. There was a great difference in the occupations of the comparison groups. This was probably due to the slightly older age of the convicted offender. Marital status. The convicted offender showed much greater experience in the area of marriage than the trainee. This was probably influenced by multiple factors, including age and work experience. 63 Time in state. Trainees had a slight tendency to have spent more time in the state than convicted offenders before being placed in a trainee status or convicted. Use of drugp. The composite profile was greatly influenced by the differences between the types of train- ees. The convict had significantly greater experience with drugs than the committed trainee, similar experience to the male "probationer," and significantly less than the female ”probationer.” Use of alcohol. The significantly higher use of alcohol by the convicted youth was probably influenced by multiple factors, including slightly older age, work, and living experiences. Parental home broken. Trainees were slightly less likely to have parental homes broken, or to have them broken at slightly later ages. It is possible that the composite profile was strongly influenced by the differ- ences between the male and female "probationers.” Females were most likely to have had broken homes or to have had them broken by age nine. Male "probationers” were polar- ized in the opposite direction. IQ scores and average grade ratipg. Trainees, despite their lower educational completion, showed much higher IQ scores and a greater average grade rating than 64 the convicted youth. Since this finding was based solely on the committed trainee data, any conclusions drawn must be viewed with caution. Age at first attention of authorities. Trainees came to the first attention of the authorities slightly later than convicts, and they had a tendency not to be noticed at all, while the convicted youth was reasonably sure of discovery before age sixteen. Correctional histories. The correctional history of the convicted youth was much greater than the trainee's in all respects. The trainee was much less likely to have a juvenile history, adult probation, jail term, prison term, or time in any kind of correctional institution. Present offense. The trainee concentrated on four major offense areas: burglary; auto theft; drugs; and assault. The convicted youth, on the other hand, was spread more evenly over a wider offense area with little emphasis on drugs. Observations The following observations and impressions are not specifically reflected in the foregoing data. They are, however, reflected and supported by the data contained in the appendices to this study. Included are observations Table 2 (55 Comparing the Trainee and the Convicted Youth by Percentages‘ The Composite The Convicted . . Trainee Youth Characteristics N=238 N-lOO Under 18 14.8 S A e At 18 44.5 20 3 At 19 2o.9 39 Over 19 13.9 36 White 60.5 48 Race Negro 37 51 Michigan Nativity 79 75 Of Those Born Out-of-State, Percentage from the South 76.4 79.2 . . Protestant 64.3 61 Re1131°n Catholic 22.3 24 Grade 7-8 16.4 14 Education H.S. 1-2 46.6 48 H.S. 3-4 31.5 34 College 1-2 2.5 1 Common Labor 30.3 82 Occu ation Skilled Trade ---- 9 P Student 24 4 None 32 3 Single 98.3 89 Marital Status Married ---- 8 Sop/Divorced ---- 3 .. . Life 77.3 2 1'me 19 State 11 Yrs. Up 13.5 13 None 68.9 59 Use of Drugs Use 28.2 19 Addicted ---- 11 Not Significant 89.9 46 Moderate with Use Of A1C0h01 10w Tolerance 8 8 3S Alcoholic ---- 8 No 46.2 40 Parental Home Broken Before Age 9 33.9 34 Between 12 G 16 8 10 Below 90 ---- 46 I Q Score 90~99 29.1 23 ‘ ' 100-109 34.1 16 110-Up 24.7 15 Table 2 Continued 66 The Composite The Convicted Characteristics Trainee Youth N=238 N-IOO , . . 5-8 54.4 64 Average Grade Rating 9_12 23.1 12 Below 12 13.4 17 Age at lst Attention 13-14 18.9 21 to Authorities 15-16 26.5 34 17-18 24 22 None 64.3 45 Juvenile Correctional Histories PrObation 17'7 14 Commitment ---- 11 Comm. 8 Prob. 12.2 30 None 85.3 56 Previous Adult Probation Once 12.6 37 Twice ---- 6 None 75.6 50 Jail Terms One 14.3 28 More Than One ---- 20 - None 99.2 89 Prison Terms One ____ 11 . . None 88 Z 37 Total Time in ‘ . . . . . To One Year 6 7 37 Correctional Institutions 1_3 Years ____ 20 . 1 None 92 81 History of Lscapes One or More 8 19 Homicide ---- 5 Assault 10.5 12 ‘ Drugs 12.2 ~- Present Offense Burglary 32.8 17 Auto Theft 15.6 18 Larceny -—-- 19 Counties 27.7 32.5 Jurisdictions Granting % of Convicting Counties Youthful Trainee Status Who Also Use the H.Y.T.A. ---- 40.7 or Convicting % of Convicting Counties Who Never Use H.Y.T.A. ---- 59.3 *Some categories and percentages have been omitted. (is available by referring to the appropriate appendices. Detailed information 67 about the youthful trainee's age, religion, occupation and present offenses, use of alcohol, and first attention of authorities. Agp. There was an indication that the age limi- tations of the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act were not broad enough. This was supported by the appearance of sixteen and twenty-one year-old youths in committed trainee status, and the appearance of twenty-one year-old youths in the supervised status. It could also be argued that this finding revealed a slight tendency on the part of judges to think that the younger a person, the more likely he should be institutionalized. This was supported by the absence of sixteen year-olds in the "probationed" trainee subgroups and the presence of sixteen year-olds only in the committed subgroup. Religion. Only two individuals in the entire group claimed any of the religions, such as the Muhammads and the Black Muslims, currently believed to be popular with blacks. Since this occurred in a group having a strong black representation, and since most blacks involved did claim a religion, the incongruity seemed noteworthy. Occupations andypresent offenses. The occupa- tions and present offenses appeared to be closely connected 68 with the sex of the trainee. Females tended to have occu- pations where they are readily accepted or none at all. Offenses involved no violence or physical destruction of material goods. Use of alcohol. In most cases alcohol was recorded as not being a factor in the offenses of the committed trainee. The impression gained by the investigator while reading most of the material available, however, indicated that alcohol was a factor in the majority of present offenses. This same impression was also received regard- ing many of the offenders' past crimes. First attention of authorities. While extracting data from records, the investigator noted a seemingly high frequency of behavioral control contacts made with various social authorities before the offender finally came to the attention of the police or correctional officials. The social authorities referred to include school officials in all capacities and welfare workers. THE SUCCESS RATE It was impossible within the scope of this study to determine a solid foundation on which to establish a success rate. However, by making a survey of the number of arrests experienced by slightly more than half of the committed trainees used in this study after they had been 56 de ad COH 69 returned to the community for approximately one year, information was gathered that was useful for making an ”educated guess.” Using the procedure illustrated in Table 3, page 70, it was conceivable that a success rate of 78 percent was possible. Such a success rate would compare favor- ably with the high success rates experienced in California, and with other success rates cited in 1967.59 It would also be Significantly higher than the success rate for convicted felons used to represent the convicted Michigan youthful offender in this study.60 SUMMARY Michigan's youthful trainee can be described from several different vieWpoints according to his legal dis- position as a trainee and his sex. The use of any single descriptive viewpoint has certain advantages and dis- advantages. 59President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 28. Success rates of 60 percent to 90 percent are Cited as high. These rates are for probation, which, ‘while not exactly the same as the youthful trainee commit- inent program, has several important similarities. 6OPresident's Commission on Law Enforcement and 1Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in A liree Society (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 15967), p. 45. Based on recidivism, the success rate for COllvicted felons is about 67 percent. Also, see pp. 41 and 42 of this study. 7O .oandmeowoo zaamuoa we: encoded use no .oumscoom yo: me poocodmo ogu umcammm wooed ozu .omcowwo ocu uaeeoo uoc can «asefl>w1:« ozu omseoon :oflumnemopa mo woweom xfinmo ozu mcwuso commasmau one hommo unmade meluo L m Mzwmn .mnH .a .nnomd .oofimao wcflucanm acoECEo>oo .m.: ”coumcagmmzv Nuoaoom omen < ca meanu do owcofiflmzu oza .ooaumsfi wo cowoeuom~:MEo< ace ucoeoonowcu 3mg co scammHEEou m.ucoofimonm«« .moMHmzo oEmm may now meme wcoauwmoamwp unaoo :mmH;u«2 Haw :ufiz mowpmco umoacm “Hm wcfianEou x; woCME»opo: .Avd mzm .me4 .mm< .apz~ do nonssz ZO~HDH~HmzH . . . . . . . . . . . . .¢«moMMum omeu zanmm c“ cofiuecfisfifim manmnonm . . «magnum oocdnna azuzuao» no .coduenond .c0manm o>dooom ooz sane: mownezu ozu co vouooomOEL zHHSMwmouozm w~ .ocz mHdeM>LocH we Conszz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10uwot~h< W~fl3~qw>~fifi~ MO hQDEDZ AGHOH mZOHFnsm oHoEmm mo o~mm Hooch oumm mmooozm pea a:-3o~aom secuma: amonn< m oanwh 71 For the purposes of this study, the broadest possi- ble viewpoint was chosen and a composite trainee profile was developed. Because of the statistical impact of the differences between the groups contained in the composite, the profile must be used with care in some of the compar- ison areas. The composite profile is summarized in Table 2, page 65. The groups which played a role in the composi- tion are presented in summarized form in Table 1, page 54. Using the data collected, general descriptions of the youthful trainee and the convicted youth were developed and compared. The major differences revealed by the com— parison are summarized in Table 4, page 72. Overall, through the use of a projection, it appears that the success rate for trainees is appreciably higher than that for convicted youths. It further appears that the differences between the youthful trainees and the convicted youthful offenders, as shown in Tables 2 and 4, could be an important factor in the higher success rate of the trainee. Table 4 Summary of the Major Differences Between the Youthful Trainee and the Youthful Convict by Percentages* The Composite The Convicted Characteristics Trainee Youth N=238 N-100 Age 18 6 Below 59.3 25 19 6 Above 40.8 75 White 60.5 48 Race Black 37 51 Occupation Common Labor 30.3 82 Student 24 4 None 68.9 59 Use of Drugs Use 28.2 19 Addicted ---- 11 Not Significant 89.9 46 Moderate With Use of Alcohol Low Tolerance 8.8 35 Alcoholic ---- 8 Parental Home Broken No 46.2 40 Below 90 12.1 46 _ ') 1.Q. Score 90 99 29.1 2 100-109 34.1 16 110 8 Above 24.7 15 . Between 5th 5 8th 54.4 64 Average Grade “3"“3 Between 9th a 12th 23.1 12 No Juv. History 64.3 45 No Adult Probation 85.3 56 Previous Correctional No Jail Terms 75.6 50 History No Prison Terms 99.2 89 No Time in Corr. Institutions 88'2 37 No Escapes 92 81 Homicide ---~ 5 Assault 10.5 12 Present Offense Drugs 12.2 -- Burglary 32.8 17 Auto Theft 15.6 18 Larceny ---- 19 * . Some categories and percentages have been omitted. Detailed information is available by referring to the appropriate appendices. Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Conclusions concerning the study results include the following: 1. Youthful trainees differ from convicted youthful offenders in many of their characteristics. In most instances the differences are small, and in a few they are great. Areas of greatest difference are: race; occupation; use of drugs and alcohol; age at which broken homes occur; IQ scores; average grade ratings; previous correctional histories, including juvenile experience; and present offense. 2. Trainees, grouped according to their dispo- sition under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, differ from each other in many respects. Differences are greatest in the areas of race; religion; education; use of drugs and alcohol; age at which broken parental homes occur; age at the first attention of authorities; and past correc- tional histories. 73 74 3. More than half of all Michigan counties have never used the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. The jurisdic- tions which use the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act tend not to be the same ones which convict youthful offenders, have larger populations than jurisdictions which convict only, and are located mainly in the northern and eastern parts of Michigan. 4. Committed trainees are generally institution- alized for periods slightly less than six months before being returned to the community and placed under the supervision of a regular probation officer. 5. If a committed trainee has his status revoked, it will probably take place within four months of his commitment. 6. At this time, the success rate for youthful trainees cannot be determined to the same degree of accuracy as rates have been for some probationers and prisoners. However, by a projection based on arrests after institutional release, the success rate for trainees is about 78 percent, and betters the usual rate of 67 per- cent for convicted youths by 11 percent. 7. The age limitations of the Youthful Trainee Act need to be studied in detail to determine if they should be broadened to better include some of those below seventeen and above twenty years of age. 7S 8. The absence of currently popular black religions, such as Muhammadism and Black Muslimism, from the groups studied is notable. 9. There is a strong possibility that alcohol is more of a factor in youthful trainee cases than reflected by the data in the study. Conclusions concerning the study in general include the following: 1. Both hypotheses were supported by the study. 2. Since the support for the hypotheses was not of overwhelming strength, it is quite possible that the measures used were of too gross a scale. 3. Though the limitations of the study prevented it, the data gathered and presented could be further analyzed to produce additional findings. 4. The administration of any correctional effort for youth must operate under severe limitations of know- ledge, resources, and local conditions. 5. The lack of uniformity between states makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively use all the youthful offender data that is collected under sepa- rate efforts. 6. Youthful offenders, as a special and limited group, have largely been ignored. This situation is con- stantly being changed by increasing attention to the young, and interest in youthful offenders is at its highest peak ever. 76 IMPLICATIONS 1. Concurrent use of regular conviction and youthful offender programs in Michigan suggests confusion exists concerning the ability to cope with criminal reSponsibility on the basis of age alone. This impli- cation is reinforced by the original intent behind the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, and its uneven use throughout Michigan. The study indicates that more attention must be given to the total needs of the offender, regardless of age or the place where the offense was committed. 2. The complexities of administering a correc— tional program for any group, regardless of age or other factors, indicate that the latest analytical and organi- zational methods must be applied. This includes the appli- cation of systems analysis to the total correctional effort. It also means organization to meet clearly estab- lished goals that are realistic and attainable. This is a difficult problem area because there is no such thing as complete independence in any part of the government structure. This should not act as a bar, however, to starting action. Evidence of this is the fact that sys- tems analysis has already begun to be applied in the infor- mational systems of many correctional departments, includ- ing Michigan's. 3. The reasons cited for the overall lack of, and variation in, the enactment of youth authorities included 77 existing administrative structures and needs. Whether youth authorities are adopted or not, there is a clear indication that progress in the area of youthful offenders will require the expenditure of great amounts of resources, and probably require extensive reorganization of current efforts and structures. Perhaps what is needed is an interstate pooling of efforts. 4. The nonobservation by courts of recommenda- tions received from key agencies implies that all elements of the criminal justice system must work more closely together. The end results would include fewer misunder- standings, more cooperation, and probably more effective- ness in reaching the common goals. 5. Another strong implication is that correctional priorities must be reevaluated and reestablished. This reevaluation must take place frequently, and if possible, constantly. If it doesn't, programs and efforts become stale and fail to meet the goals for which designed. Examples of this latter situation include those states which enacted youth authorities but failed to implement and use them. 6. There is a strong requirement for central control and monitoring of all correctional efforts at the state level. This control would include full authority to determine treatment and supervisional needs of those convicted or adjudicated. It should be noted that the 78 difficulties to be encountered in achieving such a goal are formidable, and cross the lines of many common values and societal roles. Completely indeterminate sentencing is a long way off, but not impossible. 7. The existence of differences between offender groups implies that correctional administration can be improved by concentrating on special groups of offenders having nearly identical characteristics. A minimum number of three special groups seem obvious: juveniles; youths; and adults. Subgroups within these groups might also be effectively identified for special efforts using many treatment techniques. 8. Last, but certainly not least in rank of importance, is the implication that the youthful trainee must be studied in further detail. While the study shows that differences do exist between the trainee and the convicted youth, the full significance of the differences is not known. Until the full significance of these dif- ferences is known, and understood, programs and treatment cannot achieve full potential. SUMMARY Michigan's Holmes Youthful Trainee Act attempts to meet the needs of the youthful offender without making or labeling him a criminal, while, at the same time, giving him treatment in either an institution or the community. 79 This law provides distinct advantages for youths between the ages of seventeen and twenty. Since its inception, more than 200 youths have been institutionally treated under its provisions. The number of youths who have received community treatment under its provisions is unknown, but believed to be large. The study began with the hypotheses that the youthful trainee differed characteristically from the youthful offender convicted in the regular manner, and that the success rate of the youthful trainee would be higher than for the convicted youth. To test the first hypothesis, data were manually gathered on the different characteristics of the youthful trainee and the convicted youth. Because of the possible different types of trainee, based on sex and legal dispo- sition, data were gathered on each possibility and devel- oped into a totally composite profile. A similar proce— dure was followed for convicted youths. The trainee group serving as data base numbered 238 total. Of this group, 182 were institutionally com- mitted between the law's inception in 1966 and January 1, 1970; 42 were males in the Detroit area who had received only supervision, and were still in trainee status; and 14 were females in the Detroit area who had received only supervision. All but one in the latter group were still in trainee status at the time of the study. 80 The data base group of committed trainees included all but ten of those receiving trainee commitments between the indicated dates. The group serving as the data base for convicted youths was comprised of all the youths between seventeen and twenty years of age committed in Michigan during 1969. Total group size was 1,105. A sample total of 100 was reached by taking every eleventh subject on a computer printout sheet. The second hypothesis was tested by taking 100 of the committed trainees and conducting a survey of their arrest experience after institutional release. All except three persons in this group had at least one year in the community in which to be arrested. The three with less than one year in the community had eleven months. Com- parison of success rates was made by converting the arrests, through projection, to a rate Similar to that used for evaluating probation and recidivism. The findings of the study supported both hypotheses. In the case of the characteristics, it was found that the greatest differences were in race make-up of the groups, religious preferences, education and IQ scores, use of drugs and alcohol, previous correctional histories, and offenses. 81 Similar areas of difference were found to exist between the various types of trainee groups making up the composite trainee. The success rate for the trainee was found to be about 78 percent; comparing quite favorably with certain high probation success rates, and being 11 percent higher than the accepted success rate of about 67 percent for regularly convicted offenders. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Books Beck, Bertram M. Five States: A Study of the YOUth Authority Program as Promulgated by the American Law Institute. Philadelphih, Pennsylvania: American Law Institute, 1951. Callahan, Parnell J. Legal Status of Young Adults, Under 21: Your Rights and Duties. New York: Oceana, 1958. Healy, William, and Benedict S. Alper. Criminal Youth and the Borstal System. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1941. Hess, Albert G., Franco Ferracuti and Julia Keh-Fang Kao Hess. The Young Adult Offender Biblipgraphy. New York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1967. Musgrove, Frank. Youth and the Social Order. Bloomington, Indiana: University Press, 1964. National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. Juvenile Court Judges Directory and Manual (with supplements). Chicago: American Bar Center, 1964. Rubin, Sol, Henry Weihofen, George Edwards, and Simon Rosenzweig. The Law of Criminal Correction. St. Paul, Minnesota: West PubliShing Co., 1963. Sellin, Thorsten. The Criminalipy of Youth. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Law Institute, 1940. West, D. J. The Young Offender. London: Gerald Duckworth 8 Co., Ltdi, 1967. 2. Works-in-a-Series Lopez-Rey, Manuel. "Some Misconceptions in Contemporary Criminology,” Essays in Criminal Science. South Hackensack, New Jersey: Rotham, 1961. 82 83 Overstreet, Ben, Jr. ”A Study of the Youthful Offender,” Proceedings of the Ninety-Third Annual Congress of Correction of the American Correctional Association. Washington: American Correctional Association, 1963. Reed, G. J. ”Treating the Juvenile and Youthful Offender,” Law Enforcement and the Juvenile Offender. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1963. 3. Government Publications. Arizona. Progress Report of the Arizona State Department of Corrections to January 1, 1970. Phoenix: Arizona State Department of Corrections, 1970. Arizona. Superintendent of the State Industrial School. Annual Rpport, 1968-1969. Phoenix: Arizona Depart- ment of Corrections, 1969. California. A Comparison of Admission Characteristics of Youth Authorityiwards,—l959-1968. Sacramento: Depart- ment of the Youih Authoiity, Division of Research, June, 1969. California. Admission Characteristics of Youth Authority Wards, 1969 (by Sex and Court of Commitment). Sacra- mento: Department of the Youth Authority, Division of Research, 1969. California. Annual Statistical Report, 1968 (Department of the Youth Authority). Sacramento: Department of the Youth Authority, 1968. California. Characteristics of California Youth Authority Awards. Sacramento: Department of the Youth Authority, Decemher 31, 1969. California. Characteristics of the California Youth Authority Parole Caseload, April 1969. Sacramento: Department of the Youth Authority, April, 1969. California. Institutional Experience Summary Datag 1969. Sacramento: Department of’fhe Youth Authority, Divi- sion of Research, 1969. California. Knight, Doug. Parole Outcome and Background Characteristics. Part I of The Marshall Program-- Assessment of a Short-Term Institutional Treatment Program. Research Report No. 56. Sacramento: epartment of the Youth Authority, March, 1969. 84 Michigan. Annual Report-~The Recorder's Court of the Cipy of Detroit, Michigan—-l968. Detroit: City of Detroit Printing Division, June, 1969. Michigan. Criminal Statistics, 1967. Lansing: Depart- ment of—COrrections, 1967. Michigan. Department of Corrections Statistical Manual. Lansing: Department of Corrections, Data Systems and Information Section, January 1, 1957. Reissued June 30, 1966. Michigan. Michigan Law Enforcement Officials Report on Crime, 1968. Lansing: Michigan State Police, 1968. Minnesota. Characteristics of Field Services Population-- July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, DiVision of Research and Planning, January, 1970. Minnesota. Characteristics of Institutional Populations-- July 11 1968 to June 30, 1969. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Corrections, Division of Research and Planning, March, 1970. New York. Preliminary Report of the Governor's Special Committee on Criminal Offenders. New York: Gover- nor's Special Committee on Criminal Offenders, June 24, 1968. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The Young Adult Offender: A Review of Current Prac- fiCeS and Programmes in Prevention and Treatment. New York: United Nations, 1965. United States. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. Who Are the Disadvantaged Girls 16-21 Years Old? Wash- ihgton: U.S. Government Printing Office, July, 1964. United States. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Task Force Report: Corrections. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. United States. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Chime. Washington: U}S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 85 United States. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 4. Statutory) Quasi-Statutory and Judicial Arizona Revised Statutes. Chapters 43 and 81. 1969. De Agostino, Joseph J. Memorandum from Supervisor, Youth Division, Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit, Michigan, to Youth Division Staff; Subject: Criteria for Selection Under Youthful Trainee Act. Public Act i301 (Holmes Act), undated. Michigan Public Act 210. 1966. (House Bill 3653). Michigan Public Act 301. 1966. (House Bill 3998). Michigan House Bill 3341. April 15, 1969. Referred to the Committee on Social Services and Correction. Michigan Senate Bill 1546. March 26, 1970. Referred to the Committee on Judiciary. Minnesota Statutes Annotated. 1969. Section 242.01-242. 54. People of the State of Michigan vs. Robert Lynn. Michigan Court of Appeals, Division 2, April 22, 1969. People of the State of Michigan vs. Wendell Wilson. Wash- tenaw County Circuit Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January 30, 1968. 5. Periodicals Adler, Seymour J. "Effecting Change in Youthful Offenders: Three Case Illustrations," Federal Probation, XXVI (March, 1962), 31-38. Banay, Ralph S. "Violent Youth," Journal of Social Ther- apy, VI, 4 (1960), 207-215. Bennett, James V. "Blueprinting the New Youth Corrections Program,” Federal Probation, XV (September, 1951), 2-7. 86 _________. ”The Federal Youth Corrections Program," Prison World, XIII (January-February, 1951), 13, 27-28. Bradley, H. B. "Community-Based Treatment for Young Adult Offenders," Crime and Delinquency, XV (July, 1969), 359-370. Dudley, Leighton W. "New Horizons for the Institutional Treatment of Youth Offenders," Federal Probation, XXX (June, 1966), 50-53. Glasser, W. "Reality Therapy: A Realistic Approach to the Young Offender," Crime and Delinquency, X (April, 1964), 135-144. Gottshall, A. E. "Sentencing the Youth and Young Adult Offender," Federal Probation, XXVI (June, 1962), 17-22. Lewis, George R. ”Methodological Problems in Institutions Serving Juvenile and Youthful Offenders," Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy, IX, 2T(l963), 86-94. Luger, Milton. ”Book Review: The Young Adult Offender-- A Review of Current Practices and Programmes in Pre- vention and Treatment," Crime and Delinqueney, XII (July, 1966), 296-298. Mackay, J. R. "Alcohol, Alcoholism, and Youth," Social Work, X (January, 1965), 75-80. Phillips, Orie L. "The Federal Youth Corrections Act," Federal Probation, XV (March, 1951), 3-11. Reinemann, John Otto. "Eighteen Through Twenty-One: The Puzzling Years," Quarterly (Pennsylvania Association on Probation, Parole and Correction), XXI, l (1964), 45-48. Reiss, Albert J. "The Marginal Status of the Adolescent," Law and Contemporarngroblems, XXV (Spring, 1960), 309-333. Tappan, Paul W. "The Young Adult Offender Under the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code,” Federal Probation, XIX (December, 1955), 20-24. "Young Adults Under the Youth Authority,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminolqu and Police Sci- ence, IIIL (March-April, 1957), 619-646. 87 The State Journal [Lansing], June 30, 1970. Youngdahl, Luther W. "Give the Youth Correction Program a Chance," Federal Probation, XX (March, 1956), 3-8. 6. Unpublished Works and Materials Executive Office of the Governor. Memorandum to State and Local Officials, Subject: Population Estimates (Counties), dated June 26, 1969. Harrison, Gus. Letter from the Michigan Department of Corrections to Governor William G. Milliken, Reference: Senate Bill No. 1546, dated April 20, 1970. Letter from the Michigan Department of Correc- tions to Governor William G. Milliken, Reference: House Bill 2761, dated May 12, 1969. Letter from the Michigan Department of Correc- tions to Governor William G. Milliken, Reference: House Bill 2760, dated May 12, 1969. Michigan Department of Health. Michigan Population Esti- mates (Cities), dated July, 1964. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. "Youthful Offender Study." Unpublished draft submitted by the Directors of Drafting Sub-Committees, Youthful Offender Study Group, to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, New York, 1963. Reynolds, Glen. ”A First Look at the Youthful Trainee." A report prepared for the Michigan Department of Corrections, September 18, 1967. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE HOLMES YOUTHFUL TRAINEE ACT APPENDIX A THE HOLMES YOUTHFUL TRAINEE ACT The Holmes Youthful Trainee Act was brOUght into being in 1966 by the passage of Michigan House Bill 3998 and Michigan House Bill 3653, which are quoted below. MICHIGAN HOUSE BILL 3998 The People of the State of Michigan enact: Section 1. Chapter 2 of Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, as amended, being sections 762.1 to 762.10 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, is amended by adding 6 new sections to stand as sections 11 to 16 as follows: CHAPTER 2 Sec. 11. When any youth is alleged to have com- mitted a criminal offense between his seventeenth and twentieth birthdays, the court of record having jurisdic- tion of such criminal offense may with the consent of either the affected youth or his legal guardian or guard- ian ad litem elect to consider and assign such youth to the status of youthful trainee. Sec. 12. The court of record, having jurisdiction over the criminal offense referred to in section 1, may at any time terminate its consideration of the youth as a youthful trainee or, once having assigned the youth to the status of a youthful trainee, may at its discretion revoke such status at any time prior to the youth's final release. Such termination of consideration, or such revocation of status as a youthful trainee, shall serve to reinstate the criminal case against such youth at the point interrupted when the consideration as a youthful trainee was commenced. No information divulged by the youth, subsequent to the commencement of consideration of 88 89 the youthful trainee status, may be admissible as evidence in the criminal case. Should the status of a youthful trainee be revoked and sentence imposed under criminal procedure, the court in imposing sentence Shall specifi- cally grant credit against the sentence for time served as a youthful trainee in an institutional facility of the department of corrections. Sec. 13. If a youth is assigned to the status of a youthful trainee and the underlying charge is an offense punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for a term of more than 1 year, the court Shall (a) commit the youth to the department of corrections for custodial supervision and training for a period not to exceed 3 years in an institutional facility designated by the department for such purpose or (b) place the youth on probation for a period not to exceed 3 years. A youth placed on probation shall be under the supervision of a probation officer or community assistance officer appointed by the corrections commission. Upon commitment to and receipt by the depart- ment of corrections, a youthful trainee shall be subject to the direction of the department of corrections. Sec. 14. An assignment of a youth to the status of youthful trainee, as provided in this chapter, shall not be deemed to be a conviction of crime and such person shall suffer no civil disability, right or privilege following his release from such status because of such assignment as a youthful trainee. Unless such person shall be later convicted of the crime alleged to have been committed, referred to in section 1, all proceedings relative to the disposition of the criminal charge and to the assign- ment as youthful trainee shall be closed to public inspection, but shall be open to the courts of the state, the department of corrections, the department of social services and law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duties and such information may only be used for the performance of such duties. Sec. 15. The provisions of this chapter may also be applied to a youth over the age of 15 years whose juris- diction has been waived under the provisions of section 27 of chapter 4 of this act. Sec. 16. Sections 11 to 15 shall be known as the "Holmes youthful trainee act." Section 2. This act shall become effective January 1, 1967. This act is ordered to take immediate effect. 90 MICHIGAN HOUSE BILL 3653 The People of the State of Michigan enact: Section 1. Sections 4 and 6 of Act No. 232 of the Public Acts of 1953, being sections 791.204 and 791.206 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, are hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 1. Sec. 4. Subject to constitutional powers vested in the executive and judicial departments of the state, the department shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the following: (a) Probation officers of this state, and the administration of all orders of probation, (b) par- dons, reprieves, commutations and paroles, and (c) penal institutions, correctional farms, probation recovery camps, prison labor and industry, wayward minor programs and youthful trainee institutions and programs for the care and supervision of youthful trainees. Sec. 6. The director, having first obtained the approval of the commission, subject to the provisions of Act No. 88 of the Public Acts of 1943, as amended, being sections 24.71 to 24.80 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, and subject to the provisions of Act No. 197 of the Public Acts of 1952, as amended, being sections 24.101 to 24.110, of the Compiled Laws of 1948, shall promulgate rules and regulations which shall provide: (a) For the control, management and operation of the general affairs of the department. (b) For supervision and control of probationers and probation officers throughout the state, subject to the provisions contained in this act. (c) For the manner in which applications for pardon, reprieve or commutation shall be made to the governor; for the procedure in handling such applications by the commission, and for recommendations thereon to the governor; for the manner in which paroles shall be considered, and to prescribe the duties of the parole board in respect thereto; for hearings on paroles and for notice thereof, in accordance with the provisions of this act; for the entering of appropriate orders granting or denying paroles; and for the supervision and control of paroled prisoners. (d) For the management and control of state penal institutions, correctional farms, probation recovery camps, the wayward minor program and youthful trainee institutions and programs for the care and supervision of youthful trainees separate and apart from persons convicted of crimes within the jurisdiction of the commission. Such 91 rules may permit the use of portions of penal institutions in which persons convicted of crimes are detained. Such rules shall provide that decisions as to the removal of the youth from the youthful trainee facility or the release of the youth from the supervision of the department of corrections shall be made by the department of corrections and shall assign responsibility for such decisions to a committee composed of representative departmental staff memberS and may include, when practical and applicable, an appropriate probation officer. (e) For the management and control of prison labor and industry. (f) For the establishment and supervision of a youth division. (g) For the transfer, with the approval of the director of the state department of social services, of youthful trainees to the department of social services for admission to any of its facilities for youth, where such facilities are more appropriate for the treatment and supervision of the youth than the facilities of the department of corrections. When the facilities of the department of social services are used by the department of corrections, the youth may be required to abide by the regulations of the department of social services and shall be subject to the same supervision and discipline as other youth in its care. The cost of care of such youth while under the care of the department of social services shall be a charge against the appropriation of the department of social services. The director, having first obtained the approval of the commission, may adopt such further rules and regu- lations with respect to the affairs of the department as he may deem necessary or expedient for the proper admin- istration of this act and he may modify, amend, supple- ment or rescind any such rule or regulation. No rule or regulation shall be adopted which shall be inconsistent with or in contravention of any of the express provisions of this act or the constitution. This act is ordered to take immediate effect. APPENDIX B COMMITTED YOUTHFUL TRAINEE DATA APPENDIX B COMMITTED YOUTHFUL TRAINEE DATA NOTE: Percentages have been rounded off. Table B1 Age Based on Year of Birth Subtracted from Arrival Date at Reception Center Age Number Percentage 16 3 1.7 17 27 14.8 18 84 46.1 19 46 25.3 20 19 10.4 21* 3 1.7 Total 182 100.0 *Those at age 21 were age 20 at the time offense committed. 92 93 Table B2 Race Race Number Percentage White 123 67.5 Negro 54 29.7 Indian 2 1.1 Mexican 2 1.1 Other 1 .6 Total 182 100.0 Table B3 Nativity Birth Place Number Percentage Michigan 145 79.7 Out-of-State 31 17.0 Foreign 2 1.1 Unknown 4 2.2 Total 182 100.0 Source of Out-of-State Trainees Table B4 94 State Number Percentage Alabama 3 9.7 Arkansas 4 12.9 California 1 3.2 Florida 1 3.2 Georgia 3 9.7 Illinois 1 3.2 Kentucky 1 3.2 Louisiana 1 3.2 Mississippi 5 16.1 Missouri 2 6.5 New York 1 3.2 Ohio 2 6.5 Pennyslvania 3 9.7 Tennessee 2 6.5 Wisconsin _1 3.2 Total 31 100.0 Table B5 Religion Religion Number Percentage Protestant 121 66.5 Catholic 41 22.5 Mohammedan 2 1.1 Other 1 .6 None 15 8.2 Unknown 2 1.1 Total 182 100.0 Table B6 Education Completed Grades Completed Number Percentage 3-4 2 1.1 5-6 4 2.2 7-8 36 19.8 H.S 1-2 95 52.2 H.S. 3-4 43 23.6 College 1-2 2 1.1 Total 182 100.0 Table B7 Occupation Occupation Number Percentage Common Labor 64 35.2 Farm Labor 2 1.1 Skilled Trade 8 4.4 Clerk 6 3.3 Student 37 20.3 None 65 35.7 Total 182 100.0 Table B8 Marital Status Status Number Percentage Married 3 l 7 Single 179 98 3 Total 182 100.0 Table B9 Amount of Time in State Before Commitment 96 Time Number Percentage Less than 30 days 1 .6 7 M05. to 1 Yr. 2 1.1 2-3 years 6 3.3 4-6 years 3 1.7 7-10 years 6 3.3 11 years-up 21 11.5 Life 142 77.9 Unknown 1 .6 Total 182 100.0 Table B10 Use of Drugs Degree of Usage Number Percentage None 136 74.6 Use of habit forming drugs 42 23.1 Occasional use of addicting drugs 1 .6 Mildly addicted I .6 Unknown 2 1.1 Total 182 100.0 Table B11 Use of Alcohol Use Number Percentage Not significant 159 87.4 Moderate with low tolerance 21 11.5 Alcoholic 2 1.1 Total 182 100.0 Table B12 Parental Home Broken Age At Which Home Broken Number Percentage Home not broken 84 46.2 Before age 3 37 20.3 Before age 6 14 7.7 Before age 9 10 5.5 Before age 12 13 7.1 Before age l6 14 7.7 After age 16 _19 5.5 Total 182 100.0 Table B13 IQ Scores Score Number Percentage 70-79 6 3.3 80-89 16 8.8 90-99 53 29.1 100-109 62 34.1 110-119 37 20.3 120-129 4 2.2 Unknown 4 2.2 Total 182 100.0 Table B14 Average Grade Rating Rating Number Percentage Second 3 1.7 Third 8 4.4 Fourth 20 11.0 Fifth 28 15.4 Sixth 24 13.2 Seventh 26 14.3 Eighth 21 11.5 Ninth 21 11.5 Tenth 8 4.4 Eleventh 12 6.6 Twelfth 1 .6 Unknown 10 5.4 Total 182 100.0 Table B15 Age at First Attention of Authorities 99 Age Number Percentage Under 10 6 3.3 10-12 16 8.8 13-14 40 22.0 15-16 57 31.3 17-18 49 26.9 19-20 12 6.6 Unknown 2 1.1 Total 182 100.0 Table B16 Juvenile Correctional History Type of History Number Percentage None 101 55.4 Commitment 13 7.2 Probation 39 21.4 Commitment and Probation 28 15.4 Unknown 1 .6 Total 182 100.0 Table B17 Previous Adult Probation Terms Number of Terms Number Percentage None 149 81.8 One 28 15.4 Two 4 2.2 Unknown 1 .6 Total 182 100.0 100 Table B18 Previous Jail Terms Number of Terms Number Percentage None 124 68.0 One 34 18.7 Two 14 7.7 Three 7 3.9 Four 0 0.0 Five 2 1.1 Unknown 1 .6 Total 182 100.0 Table B19 Previous Prison Terms Number of Terms Number Percentage None 180 98.9 Unknown 2 1.1 Total 182 100.0 Table B20 Total Time in Correctional Institutions Time Number Percentage None 156 85.6 To one year 14 7.7 1-3 years 8 4.4 3-5 years 1 .6 Unknown 3 1.7 Total 182 100.0 Table B21 History of Escapes 101 Number of Escapes Number Percentage None 163 89.6 One or more 19 10.4 Total 182 100.0 Table B22 Present Offense Offense Number Percentage Homicide 1 .6 Kidnapping l .6 Sex 5 2.8 Assault 24 13.2 Robbery 15 8.2 Drugs 11 6.1 Burglary 65 35.6 Larceny 14 7.7 Auto Theft 31 16.9 Forgery, Uttering 6 Publishing 11 6.1 Malicious Destruction 3 1.6 Miscellaneous 1 .6 Weapons Offenses (1--.6%) Total 182 100.0 Table B23 Types of Offenses Committed in the Past 102 P r ent e Types of Offenses N=182 Comfiiigzd ¥33€ e Of Nag Sex 16 8.8 Assault 37 20.3 Attempted Suicide 3 1.7 Robbery 14 7.7 Drugs 24 13.2 Burglary 67 36.8 Larceny 55 30.2 Auto Theft 52 28.6 Forgery, Uttering 8 Publishing 24 13.2 Malicious Destruction 19 10.4 Miscellaneous 88 38.4 Shoplifting (l3--7.l%) Tampering With Motor Veh. (l--.6%) Weapons Offense (3--1.7%) Alcohol and/or Traffic (7l--39%) Correctional Offenses 24 13.2 Violation of Probation (19--10.4%) Violation of Parole (5--2.8%) Juvenile Offenses 67 36.8 None 17 9.3 Unknown 2 1.1 103 Table B24 Trainees Who Committed Different Types of Offenses in Past* Number of Different Types Number of Pa t e Of Offenses Committed Trainees rcen ag No Prior Offenses 17 9.3 One 37 20.3 Two 42 23.0 Three 32 17.6 Four 21 11.5 Five 12 6.6 Six 9 5.0 Seven 6 3.3 Eight 3 1.7 Unknown 3 1.7 Total 182 100.0 *One trainee admitted committing 128 offenses of several kinds; another admitted 264. These are not reflected above. Table B25 Trainee Status Revoked 104 Number Percentage Total Committed 182 100 Total Revoked 43 24 . Number % of % of Status Revoked After. Revoked 182 43 Less than one month 1 .6 2.3 One month 3 1.7 7.0 Two months 5 2.8 11.6 Three months 11 6.0 25.5 Four months 7 3.9 16.3 Five months 3 1.7 7.0 Six months Seven months Eight months Nine months Twelve months ll—‘NLNLN-b A (N Total F—‘l—‘P—‘N ONr—‘\1\1N 24.0 NAV‘QLO MNOOLN 100.0 Table B26 105 Court Jurisdictions Granting Trainee Status Court Egghizd Percentage Alcona 2 1.1 Alger l .6 Alpena l .6 Clare 4 2.2 Eaton 3 1.7 Genessee 21 11.5 Gogebic 1 .6 Ingham 1 .6 Iosco l .6 Jackson 2 1.1 Kent 4 2.2 Livingston 3 1.7 Marquette 4 2.2 Midland 3 1.6 Monroe 3 1.6 Muskegon 13 7.1 Oakland 25 13.5 Ottawa 2 1.1 Saginaw 5 2.8 St. Clair 5 2.8 School Craft 1 .6 Wayne 58 31.8 Detroit RC _19 10.4 Total 182 100.0 Table B27 Length of Institutionalization __-.- ——_.. h— 106 Released By No. Of Months Number Percentage Less than one 2 1.1 One 5 2.8 Two 7 3.9 Three 14 7.7 Four 19 10.4 Five 45 24.6 Six 35 19.2 Seven 20 11.0 Eight 11 6.0 Nine 11 6.0 Ten 4 2.2 Eleven 3 1.7 Twelve 3 1.7 Thirteen 1 .6 Unknown __2 1.1 Total 182 100.0 [r APPENDIX C ”PROBATIONED" MALE TRAINEE DATA APPENDIX D "PROBATIONED" FEMALE TRAINEE DATA NOTE: Percentages have been rounded off. Table D1 Age Based on Year of Birth Subtracted from Date of ”Probation” Grant Age Number Percentage 17 l 7.1 18 5 35.7 19 S 35.7 20 2 14.4 21 _1 7.1 Total 14 100.0 Table D2 Race Race Number Percentage White 5 35.7 Negro ‘_9 64.3 Total 14 100.0 115 108 Table C3 Nativity Birth Place Number Percentage Michigan (all from Detroit) 34 81.0 Out-of-State 7 16.6 Foreign _l 2.4 Total 42 100.0 Table C4 Source of Out-Of-State Trainees State Number Percentage Alabama 1 14.3 Georgia 1 14.3 Louisiana 1 14.3 Mississippi 2 28.5 Texas 1 14.3 West Virginia _1 14.3 Total 7 100.0 Table C5 Religion Religion Number Percentage Protestant 21 50.0 Catholic 9 21.4 Other 3 7.1 None 7 16.7 Unknown _2 4.8 Total 42 100.0 117 Table D6 Education Completed Grades Completed Number Percentage Illiterate 1 7.1 H.S. 1-2 3 21.4 H.S. 3-4 9 64 4 Fe. College 1-2 _1 7 1 Total 14 100.0 Table D7 i 1 Occupation 5; Occupation Number Percentage None 7 50.0 Housewife 1 7.1 Clerk 4 28.6 Student _2 14.3 Total 14 100.0 Table D8 Marital Status All but one of the sample, 92.9%, were single and never before married. Of the never before married group, 6 (46.2%) had children born out of wedlock. Of the group that had children, 5 (83.3%) had one child; 1 (16.7%) had two children. Trainees were 15, 16, and 17 years old at time of their childbirths, with 2 trainees at each age and one age unknown (but before age 18). Table D9 Amount of Time in State Before Status Grant Time Number Percentage 11 years-up 5 35.7 Life _9 64.3 Total 14 100.0 Table D10 Use of Drugs Degree of Usage Number Percentage None 5 35.7 Use of habit forming drugs 6 42.9 Mildly addicted 2 14.3 Unknown _1 7.1 Total 14 100.0 Table D11 Use of Alcohol Thirteen of the group (92.9%) denied any sig- nificant use of alcohol; no information was available to allow a finding of use for the fourteenth subject in the sample. “WEE 111 Table C12 Parental Home Broken Age At Which Home Broken Number Percentage Home not broken 21 50.0 Before age 3 9 21.5 Before age 6 l 2.4 Before age 9 2 4.8 Before age 12 3 7.1 Before age 16 3 7.1 After age 16 _§ 7.1 Total 42 100.0 Table C13 Age at First Attention of Authorities Age Number Percentage Under 10 9 21.5 10-12 1 2.4 13-14 2 4.8 15-16 3 7.1 17-18 3 7.1 19-20 3 7.1 No Previous Attention 21 50.0 Total 42 100.0 Table C14 Juvenile Correctional History Type of History Number Percentage None 40 95.2 Probation 2 4.8 Total 42 100.0 1r“ - 112 Table C15 Previous Adult Probation Terms All but one, 97.6%, had no previous record of adult probation. The one having received adult probation had only one period of probation. Table C16 Previous Jail Terms None had received any previous jail terms. Table C17 Previous Prison Terms None had received any previous prison terms. Table C18 Total Time in Correctional Institutions All but one, 97.6%, had no previous time in correctional institutions. The one having spent time in an institution, as a ward of the court requiring spe— cial care, remained there less than one year. Table C19 History of Escapes None had any record of escape. Table C20 Present Offense 113 Offense Number Percentage Assault 1 2.4 Robbery 2 4.8 Drugs 12 28.6 Burglary 12 28.6 Larceny 4 9.4 Auto Theft 6 14.3 Forgery, Uttering 8 Publishing 3 7.1 Miscellaneous (Weapons) _2 4.8 Total 42 100.0 ""1 114 Table C21 Types of Offenses Committed in the Past Types of Offenses N=42 Number Who Percentage Committed Type Of N Sex 2 4.8 Drugs 6 14.3 Burglary 4 9.5 Larceny 2 4.8 Auto Theft 5 11.9 Malicious Destruction 1 2.4 Miscellaneous 14 33.3 Looting (2--4.8%) Tampering with Motor Veh. (l--2.4%) Weapons offenses (3--7.l%) Alcohol and/or traffic (8--19.l%) Juvenile Offenses 12 28.6 None 15 35.7 Table C22 Trainees Who Committed Different Types of Offenses in Past Number of Different Types Number of p t ’ Of Offenses Committed Trainees ercen age No Prior Offenses 15 35.6 One 17 40.5 Two 6 14.3 Three 1 2.4 Four 1 2.4 Five _2 4.8 Total 42 100.0 119 Table D12 Parental Home Broken Age At Which Home Broken Number Percentage Home not broken 5 35.7 Before age 3 l 7.1 Before age 6 4 28.6 Before age 9 2 14.3 Before age 12 0 0.0 Before age 16 _2 14.3 Total 14 100.0 Table D13 - Age at First Attention of Authorities Age Number Percentage 13-14 3 21.4 15-16 3 21.4 17-18 5 35.8 19-20 2 14.3 21- _1 7.1 Total 14 100.0 Table D14 Juvenile Correctional History Type of History Number Percentage None 12 85.8 Probation l 7.1 Commitment 8 Probation _l 7.1 Total 14 100.0 120 Table D15 Previous Adult Probation Terms All but one of the group, 92.9%, had no record of a previous adult probation. The single person having an adult probation record had been placed on probation once. Table D16 Previous Jail Terms None of the group had received any previous jail terms. Table D17 Previous Prison Terms None of the group had received any previous prison terms. Table D18 Total Time in Correctional Institutions All but one of the group, 92.9%, had no previous time in correctional institutions. The one having been institutionalized remained there less than one year. Table D19 History of Escapes None had any record of escape. Table D20 Present Offense 121 Offense Number Percentage Drugs 6 42.9 Burglary l 7.1 Forgery, Uttering & Publishing 2 14.3 Fraud 3 21.4 Miscellaneous (weapons) _2 14.3 Total 14 100.0 Table D21 Types of Offenses Committed in the Past TYpes of Offenses N=l4 COHHTETEdWTgpe Pergin§age Sex 1 7.1 Drugs 4 28.6 Larceny 2 14.3 Miscellaneous 4 28.6 Weapons offenses (l--7.l%) Alcohol and/or traffic (3--21.4%) Juvenile Offenses 6 42.9 None 4 28.6 122 Table D22 Trainees Who Committed Different Types of Offenses in Past Number of Different Types Number of Of Offenses Committed Trainees Percentage No Prior Offenses 4 28.6 One 7 50.0 Two 1 7.1 Three _2 14.3 Total 14 100.0 APPENDIX E COMPOSITE "PROBATIONED" TRAINEE DATA APPENDIX E COMPOSITE "PROBATIONED" TRAINEE DATA NOTE: Percentages have been rounded off. Table E1 Age Age Number Percentage 17 5 8.9 18 22 39.3 19 18 32.1 20 9 16.1 21 ._2 3.6 Total 56 100.0 Table E2 Race Race Number Percentage White 21 37.5 Negro 34 60.7 Mexican _1 1.8 Total 56 100.0 123 124 Table E3 Nativity Birth Place Number Percentage Michigan (all from Detroit) 43 76.8 Out-of-State 11 19.6 Foreign _2 3.6 Total 56 100.0 Table E4 Source of Out-of-State Trainees State Number Percentage Alabama 1 9.] Arkansas 1 9.1 Georgia 1 9.1 Illinois 1 9.1 Louisiana 1 9.1 Mississippi 2 18.2 Texas 2 18.2 West Virginia _2 18.2 Total 11 100.0 125 Table E5 Religion Religion Number Percentage Protestant 32 57.1 Catholic 12 21.4 Other 3 5.4 None 7 12.5 Unknown _2 3.6 Total 56 100.0 Table E6 Education Completed Grades Completed Number Percentage Illiterate 1 1.8 7-8 3 5.4 H.S. 1-2 16 28.6 H.S. 3-4 32 57.1 College 1-2 _4 7.1 Total 56 100.0 126 Table E7 Occupation Occupation Number Percentage Common Labor 8 14.3 Skilled Trade 4 7.1 Own Business 1 1.8 Clerk 6 10.7 Housewife l 1.8 Student 20 35.7 None 19 28.6 Total 56 100.0 Table E8 Marital Status Status Number Percentage Married 1 1.8 Single 55 98.2 Total 56 100.0 Table E9 Parenthood* Parenthood Number Percentage Fathers 5 8.9 Mothers 6 10.7 Non-parents 45 80.4 Total U1 0“ |'-‘ CD CD 0 *All parenthood occurred out of wedlock. 127 Table E10 Amount of Time in State Before Status Grant Time Number Percentage 7 months-l year 1 1.8 2-3 years 0 0.0 4-6 years 1 1.8 7-10 years 1. 1.8 11 years-up 11 19.6 Life 42 75.0 Total 56 100.0 Table Ell Use of Drugs Degree of Usage Number Percentage None 28 50.0 Use of habit forming drugs 25 44.6 Mildly addicted 2 3.6 Unknown _1 1.8 Total 56 100.0 Table E12 Use of Alcohol Fifty-five of the group, 98.2%, denied any signifi- cant use of alcohol. No information was available to allow a finding of use for the remaining member of the sample. 128 Table E13 Parental Home Broken Age At Which Home Broken Number Percentage Home not broken 26 46.4 Before age 3 10 17.9 Before age 6 5 8.9 Before age 9 4 7.1 Before age 12 3 5.4 Before age 16 5 8.9 11fter age 16 _3 5.4 Total 56 100.0 Table E14 Age at First Attention of Authorities Age Number Percentage Under 10 9 16.1 10-12 1 1.8 13-14 5 8.9 15-16 6 10.7 17-18 8 14.3 19-20 5 8.9 21 l 1.8 No Previous Attention 21 37.5 Total 56 100.0 129 Table E15 Juvenile Correctional History Type of History Number Percentage None 52 92.8 Probation 3 5.4 Commitment 8 Probation _1_ 1.8 Total 56 100.0 Table E16 Previous Adult Probation Terms Times Probationed Number Percentage None 54 96.4 Once _2 3.6 Total 56 100.0 Table E17 Previous Jail Terms None had received any previous jail terms. Table E18 Previous Prison Terms None had received any previous prison terms. 130 Table E19 Total Time in Correctional Institutions Amount of Time Number Percentage None 54 96.4 Less than one year ‘_2 3.6 Total 56 100.0 Table E20 History of Escapes None had any record of escape. Table E21 Present Offense Offense Number Percentage Assault 1 1.8 Robbery 2 3.6 Drugs 18 32.2 Burglary 13 23.2 Larceny 4 7.1 Auto Theft 6 10.7 Forgery, Uttering 8 Publishing 5 8.9 Fraud 3 5.4 Miscellaneous (Weapons) _4 7.1 Total 56 100.0 Table E22 Types of Offenses Committed in the Past 131 ) = Number Who Percentage Types of Offenses N 56 Committed Type of N Sex 3 5.4 Drugs 10 17.9 Burglary 4 7.1 Larceny 4 7.1 Auto Theft 5 8.9 Malicious Destruction 1 1.8 Miscellaneous 18 32.1 (Looting (2--3.6%) Tampering with a Motor Veh. (l--l.8%) Weapons Offenses (4--7.l%) Alcohol and/or Traffic (11--l9.6%) Juvenile Offenses 18 32.1 None 19 33.9 Table E23 Trainees Who Committed Different Types of Offenses in Past Number of Different Types Number of g of Offenses Committed Trainees Percentage No Prior Offenses 19 33.9 One 24 42.8 Two 7 12.5 Three 3 5.4 Four 1 1.8 Five _2_ 3.6 Total 56 100.0 APPENDIX F COMPOSITE TRAINEE DATA APPENDIX F COMPOSITE TRAINEE DATA NOTE: Percentages have been rounded off. Composition made up of: Committed Youthful Trainees 182 ”Probationed” Male Trainees 42 "Probationed” Female Trainees 14 TOTAL 238 Table Fl Age Age Number Percentage 16 3 1.3 17 32 13.5 18 106 44.4 19 64 26.9 20 28 11.8 21 5 2.1 Total 238 100.0 132 133 Table F2 Race Race Number Percentage White 144 60.5 Negro 88 37.0 Indian 2 .8 Fifi Mexican 3 1.3 ‘ ' Other 1 .4 E ‘ 1 Total 238 100.0 Table F3 Nativity Birth Place Number Percentage Michigan 188 78.9 Out-of-State 42 17.7 Foreign 4 1.7 Unknown 4 1.7 Total 238 100.0 Source of Out-of-State Trainees 'Table F4 134 State Number Percentage Alabama 4 9.5 Arkansas 5 11.8 California 1 2.4 Florida 1 2.4 Georgia 4 9.5 Illinois 2 4.8 Kentucky 1 2.4 Louisiana 2 4.8 Mississippi 7 16.5 Missouri 2 4.8 New York 1 2.4 Ohio 2 4.8 Pennsylvania 3 7.1 Tennessee 2 4.8 Texas 2 4.8 West Virginia 2 4.8 Wisconsin ‘_1 2.4 Total 42 100.0 Table F5 Religion Religion Number Percentage Protestant 153 64.3 Catholic 53 22.3 Mohammedan 2 .8 Other 4 1.7 None 22 9.2 Unknown 4 1.7 Total 238 100.0 135 Table F6 Education Completed Grades Completed Number Percentage Illiterate 1 .4 3-4 2 .8 5-6 4 1.7 7-8 39 16.4 H.S. 1—2 111 46.7 H.S. 3-4 75 31.5 College 1-2 6 2.5 Total 238 100.0 Table F7 Occupation Occupation Number Percentage Common Labor 72 30.3 Farm Labor 2 .8 Skilled Trade 12 5.0 Own Business 1 .4 Clerk 12 5.0 Housewife 1 .4 Student 57 24.1 None 81 34.0 Total 238 100.0 Table F8 Marital Status 136 Status Number Percentage Single 234 98.3 Married 4 1.7 Total 238 100.0 r—l Table F9 Parenthood* Parenthood Number Percentage E. Fathers 5 2.1 Mothers 6 2.5 Non-parents 227 95.4 Total 238 100.0 *None of the married were parents. Table F10 Time in State Time Number Percentage Less than 30 days 1 .4 7 months-l year 3 1.3 2-3 years 6 2.5 4-6 years 4 1.7 7-10 years 7 2.9 11 years-up 32 13.5 Life 184 77.3 Unknown 1 .4 Total 238 100.0 Table F11 Use of Drugs 137 Degree of Usage Number Percentage None 164 68.8 Use of habit forming drugs 67 28.2 Use of addicting drugs 1 .4 Mildly addicted 3 1.3 Unknown 3 1.3 Total 238 100.0 Table F12 Use of Alcohol Degree of Usage Number Percentage Not significant 214 89.9 Moderate with low tolerance 21 8.9 Alcoholic 2 .8 Unknown 1 .4 Total 238 100.0 Table F13 Parental Home Broken Age At Which Home Broken Number Percentage Home not broken 110 46.1 Before age 3 47 19.8 Before age 6 19 8.0 Before age 9 14 5.9 Before age 12 16 6.7 Before age l6 19 8.0 After age 16 13 5.5 Total 238 100.0 138 Table F14 IQ Scores* Score Number Percentage 70-79 6 3.3 80-89 16 8.8 90-99 53 29.1 100-109 62 34.1 110-119 37 20.3 120-129 4 2.2 Unknown 4 2.2 Total 182 100.0 *The IQ portion of the composite trainee is based solely on the data from the committee trainee. No IQ data were available on others. Table F15 Average Grade Rating* Grade Number Percentage Second 3 1.7 Third 8 4.4 Fourth 20 11.0 Fifth 28 15.4 Sixth 24 13.2 Seventh 26 14.2 Eighth 21 11.5 Ninth 21 11.5 Tenth 8 4.4 Eleventh 12 6.6 Twelfth 1 .6 Unknown _10 5.5 Total 182 100.0 *The average grade rating portion of the composite trainee is based solely on the data from the committed trainee. No average grade rating data were available on other types of trainees. 139 Table F16 Age at First Attention of Authorities Age Number Percentage Under 10 15 6.3 10-12 17 7.1 13-14 45 18.9 15-16 63 26.6 17-18 57 24.0 19-20 17 7.1 21 8 over 1 .4 No previous attention 21 8.8 Unknown 2 .8 Total 238 100.0 Table F17 Juvenile Correctional History Type of History Number Percentage Probation 42 17.7 Commitment 13 5.5 Commitment & Probation 29 12.2 None 153 64.2 Unknown 1 .4 Q Total 238 100. 140 Table F18 Previous Adult Probation Terms Number of Probations Number Percentage None 203 85.3 One 30 12.6 Two 4 1.7 Unknown 1 .4 Total 238 100.0 Table F19 Previous Jail Terms Number of Terms Number Percentage None 180 75.6 One 34 14.4 Two 14 5.9 Three 7 2.9 Four 0 0.0 Five 2 .8 Unknown 1 .4 Total 238 100.0 Table F20 Previous Prison Terms 141 Number of Terms Number Percentage None 236 99.2 Unknown 2 .8 Total 238 100.0 Table F21 Total Time in Correctional Institutions Time Number Percentage None 210 88.2 To one year 16 6.7 1-3 years 8 3.4 3-5 years 1 .4 Unknown 3 1.3 Total 238 100.0 Table F22 History of Escapes Number of Escapes Number Percentage None 219 92.0 One or more 19 8.0 Total 238 100.0 Table F23 Present Offense Offense Number Percentage Homicide 1 .4 Kidnapping l .4 Sex 5 2.1 Assault 25 10.5 Robbery 17 7.1 Drugs 29 12.2 Burglary 78 32. Larceny 18 ' 7.6 Auto Theft 37 l5.6 Forgery, Uttering 8 Publishing 16 6.7 Fraud 3 1.3 Malicious Destruction 3 1.3 Miscellaneous (Weapons) “5 ”.1 Total 238 100 D 143 Table F24 Types of Offenses Committed in the Past _ Number Who _ Types of Offenses N—238 Committed Pergpnfiage Type Sex 19 8-0 Assault 37 15-6 Attempted Suicide 3 1-3 Robbery 14 5-9 Drugs 34 14.3 Burglary 71 29.8 Larceny 59 24-8 Auto Theft 57 24.0 Forgery, Uttering 8 Publishing 24 10-1 Malicious Destruction 20 8-4 Miscellaneous 106 44.5 Looting (2--.8%) Shoplifting (l3--5.5%) Tampering with Motor Veh. (2--.8%) Weapons Offenses (7--2.9%) Alcohol and/or Traffic (82--34.5%) Correctional Offenses 24 10-1 Violation of Parole (5--2.l%) Violation of Probation (19--8%) Juvenile Offenses 85 35-7 None 36 15.1 Unknown 2 .8 Table F25 Trainees Who Committed Different Types of Offenses in Past 144 Number of Different Types Number of of Offenses Committed Trainees Percentage No Prior Offenses 36 15.1 One 61 25.6 Two 49 20.6 Three 35 14.7 Four 22 9.2 Five 14 5.9 Six 9 3.8 Seven 6 2.5 Eight 3 1.3 Unknown 3 1.3 Total 238 100.0 F 145 Table F26 Court Jurisdictions Granting Trainee Status* Court Number Percentage Alcona 2 1.1 Alger 1 .6 Alpena l .6 Clare 4 2.2 Eaton 3 1.7 Gennessee 21 11.4 Gogebic l .6 Ingham l .6 Iosco l .6 Jackson 2 1.1 Kent 4 2.2 Livingston 3 1.7 Marquette 4 2.2 Midland 3 1.7 Monroe 3 1.7 Muskegon 13 7.0 Oakland 25 13.6 Ottawa 2 1.1 Saginaw 5 2.8 St. Clare 5 2.8 Schoolcraft l .6 Wayne 58 31.7 Detroit R.C. 19 10.4 Total 182 100.0 *This part of the composite is based solely on data derived from the committed trainee. APPENDIX G CONVICTED YOUTH DATA Group: APPENDIX G CONVICTED YOUTH DATA All convicted youth committed in Michigan during 1969. Total Group Size: 1,105. Total in Sample: 100. Method of Sample: Took every eleventh individual listed on rm- .... computer print out. Table G1 Age Age Number and Percentage 17 5 18 20 19 39 20 36 Total 100 Table GZ Race Race Number and Percentage White 48 Negro 51 Mexican 1 Total 100 146 147 Table G3 Nativity Birth Place Number and Percentage Michigan Out-of-State Foreign Total Table G4 Source of Out-of-State Convicted Youths State Number Percentage Alabama 5 20.8 Arizona 1 4.2 Arkansas 3 12.5 Florida 2 8.3 Illinois 2 8.3 Kentucky 2 8.3 Louisiana 1 4.2 Mississippi 1 4.2 Missouri 1 4.2 North Carolina 1 4.2 Ohio 2 8.3 Tennessee 2 8.3 Virginia _1 4.2 Total 24 100.0 Table G5 Religion Religion Number and Percentage Protestant Catholic None Total 148 Table G6 Education Completed Grades Completed Number and Percentage 3-4 2 5-6 1 7-8 14 H.S. 1-2 48 H.S 3-4 34 College 1-2 1 Total 100 Table G7 Occupation Occupation Number and Percentage None 3 Common Labor 82 Skilled Trade 9 Clerk 2 Student 4 Total 100 Table GS Marital Status Status Number and Percentage Single 89 Married 8 Divorced 1 Separated 2 Total 100 149 Table G9 Amount of Time in State Before Conviction —--._ .__— Time Number and Percentage Less than 30 days 1 1-6 months 1 7 months-l year 2 2—3 years 3 4—6 years 2 7-10 years 2 ll years-up 13 Life 72 Unknown __4 Total 100 .— -~ c-o—.—.-_-. Table G10 Use of Drugs ._~_._—_——~<.-__ _ —--._ .... ...—— -——— - .r— ,2 .-. ._—-——.—_. .——.--.——--——_ --.—“...," Degree of Usage Number and Percentage None 59 Use of habit forming drugs 15 Occasional use of addicting drugs 4 Mildly addicted 8 Severely addicted 3 Unknown _L1 Total 100 Table Gll Use of Alcohol ——V-‘ .—..._.._ _.—_. -—_—4_-_. Number and Degree of Usage Percentage Not significant 46 Moderate with a low tolerance 35 Alcoholic 8 Unknown _11 Total 100 Table G12 Parental Home Broken 150 Age At Which Home Broken Number and Percentage Home not broken 40 Before age 3 20 Before age 6 7 Before age 9 7 Before age 12 5 Before age 16 10 After age 16 5 Unknown 6 Total 100 Table G13 IQ Scores Score Number and Percentage 50-59 1 60-69 3 70-79 15 80-89 27 90-99 23 100-109 16 110-119 11 120-129 3 Unknown 1 Total 100 151 Table G14 Average Grade Rating Grade Number and Percentage Illiterate 4 Second 1 Third 7 Fourth 7 Fifth l3 Sixth 22 Seventh 13 Eighth l6 Ninth 6 Tenth 6 Eleventh l Twelfth 0 Unknown 4 Total 100 Table G15 Age at First Attention of Authorities Age Number and Percentage Under 10 2 10-12 15 13-14 21 15-16 34 17-18 22 19-20 3 Unknown 3 Total 100 152 Table 616 Juvenile Correctional History Type of History Number and Percentage Probation l4 Commitment ll Commitment & Probation 30 None _i§ Total 100 Table G17 Previous Adult Probation Terms Number of Terms Number and Percentage None 56 One 37 Two 6 Unknown 1 Total 100 Table G18 Previous Jail Terms Number of Terms Number and Percentage None 50 One 28 Two 8 Three 7 Four 4 Five or more 1 Unknown __2 Total 10 O 153 Table G18 Previous Prison Terms Number of Terms Number and Percentage None One Total 89 11 100 Table G19 Total Time in Correctional Institutions Time Number and Percentage None 37 To 1 year 37 1-3 years 20 3-5 years 1 5-10 years 1 Unknown 4 Total 100 Table G20 History of Escapes Number of Escapes Number and Percentage None 81 One or more 19 Total 100 Table 621 Present Offense Offense Number and Percentage Homicide 5 Sex 4 Assault 12 Robbery 9 Drugs 4 Arson 2 Burglary 17 Larceny 19 Auto Theft l8 Forgery, Uttering and Publishing 3 Malicious Destruction 1 Miscellaneous (weapons) 2 Correctional Offenses (escapes) Total 100 Table G22 Court Jurisdiction Convicting 155 Court Number and Percentage Allegan Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Clare Gennessee Gladwin Grand Traverse Ingham Ionia Jackson Kalamazoo Kent Leelanau Lenawee Macomb Monroe Muskegon Oakland St. Clair Shiawassee Tuscela Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne Detroit R.C. Total \il—Ir—au Nl—H—H—I mount—i Hml—ll—l NH-bb—J HNl-‘LN 31 100 AUG 1 2 1970 "Ill111111111111111f