California
ignores its own at
out-of-state prison camps
By Sam Stanton and Mareva Brown
Bee Staff Writers
(Published June 28, 1998)
There are more than 1,000 of them, California youngsters
spread around the country ostensibly for their own good -- and
ours.
Some live in tepees in the deserts of Nevada and Arizona.
Some are housed in
girls' dormitories in Colorado that are rigged with alarms.
Others, the lucky ones, spend their days on the manicured
grounds of a venerable estate in suburban Philadelphia.
Every last one of them is a criminal, and every last one of
them costs taxpayers an average of $3,600 a month.
For this fee, these youngsters are forced to
exercise or work or study. Each of these teenagers is
subject to rules of physical discipline that, if used in
California, could land people in jail.
There is virtually no oversight from California over how
these programs are run, or how they spend the $45 million each
year they get to deal with the state's troubled youngsters, a
three-month investigation by The Bee has found.

Orlando Antone, 21, of Oakland is a veteran of
the Arizona VisionQuest program and is now in a
CYA facility in Stockton. He said VisionQuest
physically restrained foster-care wards, which
is not allowed in California.
Bee photo / Chris Crewell
|
|
The investigation -- which follows the March 2 death of
16-year-old Nicholaus Contreraz of Sacramento in one of these
programs -- found that the only Californians regularly checking
on the welfare of youths spread over eight states are individual
probation officers. And their visits depend solely on their
schedules and budgets. Sometimes they visit every month or so,
but in some
cases the periods between visits stretches much longer.
"These programs are taking advantage of the fact that there's
very little oversight, very little regulation," said Loren
Warboys, an attorney with the Youth Law Center in
San Francisco. "It's really buyer beware. There are good
ones and bad ones and there's almost no way to know the
difference."
With California's group homes besieged by overcrowding and
other troubles, private, out-of-state programs have become
increasingly critical to the state's juvenile justice system.
They are billed as the last stop before the California Youth
Authority or CYA, the state's prison for juveniles.
But The Bee's
review of thousands of pages of documents; visits to 11
youth programs or prisons in California, Arizona and Colorado;
and dozens of interviews with investigators, probation officers,
program staff members and juvenile offenders has found myriad
problems, including:
A system that encourages counties to send children hundreds
or thousands of miles from home by rewarding the counties
financially for doing so.
A series of state regulations so lax that California
authorities leave the monitoring of these youths to individual
probation officers who fit it in as they can, sometimes visiting
only every few months.
A reliance by California officials on other states to monitor
these programs, meaning some can run virtually unchecked and
abuses go unreported.
"You can't do this type of humiliating punishment in
California, that's why you don't see these facilities operating
here," said Larry Bolton, chief counsel for the California
Department of Social Services.
There are countless examples of youths whose futures have
been
saved by these programs, youths who were considered midlevel
offenders and were given a last chance in an out-of-state
program rather than be incarcerated inside a CYA prison.
"They've got this place all wrong," 18-year-old Luis
Mu&150;oz of Holtville said recently in an interview at the main
campus of the Arizona Boys Ranch in Queen Creek. "This place
prepares you for society. It prepares you with skills you need
to have.

A counselor and ward walk through the Arizona
Boys Ranch in Queen Creek. California has halted
placements at the ranch.
Bee photo / Chris Crewell
|
|
"Without this, I would have either ended up in the YA or in
prison."
"They are good, very good," added Gloria Scott-Powell, a
Sacramento
woman with a son in the Arizona Boys Ranch, the largest
private agency that receives California youth. "Here, he had D's
and F's in school, was skipping class. There, he has A's and
B's."
But since the death of Contreraz four months ago at the
Arizona Boys Ranch, state officials have been reviewing
California's out-of-state placement program and wondering
whether to do away with it.
They also have frozen new placements to the Arizona Boys
Ranch, although placements are still allowed at 12 other
programs in Arizona and elsewhere.
Officials from such programs say the Contreraz death is an
aberration, an incident that does not represent their
philosophies or practices.
Yet reviews of documents and interviews indicate that the use
of forced exercise or physical restraints is common in some
programs.
Rite of Passage in Nevada, like Arizona Boys Ranch and
others, requires physical exercise. Physical restraint of
youths, not allowed in California outside of prison, also is
common.
In March, for instance, VisionQuest told the Arizona Supreme
Court that it would perform a special review any time a youth is
restrained more than 15 minutes.
"You'd get restrained, sometimes you'd get shoved, sometimes
you'd get choked," 21-year-old Orlando Antone, an Oakland
veteran of the VisionQuest program who is now serving time in a
CYA facility in Stockton, said in an interview. Arizona Boys
Ranch and VisionQuest directors say physical force is used only
to restrain wards who are endangering themselves or others and
that staff members are trained to restrain rather than injure
youths.

Boots of the wards, above left, are lined up
outside a residence hall at the remote Oracle
campus of the Arizona Boys Ranch.
Bee photo / Chris Crewell
|
|
Many of these wards have been shipped to programs outside
California because they failed in group homes or other programs
in this state, which operate under extremely tight rules
regarding use of physical force.
In a California group home, offenders cannot be restrained or
prevented from running away, and cannot be locked inside a room
or facility. Outside the state, however, programs allow for such
youths to be restrained by one or more staff members and to be
pursued if they escape.
The irony in the different practices is not lost on many
involved in the placing of such youths.
"It seems hypocritical to say you can do it out of the state,
just don't do it in our presence," said Judge Kenneth G.
Peterson, presiding judge of Sacramento's Juvenile Court. "It's
like saying we'll fight a war but only through bombings. ... We
don't want any hand-to-hand combat, we don't want to see any
fighting. But we'll do it from a distance."
It is that distance that poses the greatest problem for
officials in California.
At least 14 teenagers have died in private reform programs
since 1980 while serving criminal sentences, according to a list
compiled by Cathy Sutton, a self-styled industry watchdog whose
15-year-old daughter, Michelle, died in a private Utah
wilderness camp eight years ago.
Victims range from an 18-year-old girl from Ripon in San
Joaquin County who was killed in a truck accident in 1995 to a
boat full of teens who drowned in a sailing mishap in 1980.
In one 1984 incident that is hauntingly similar to
Contreraz's death, 16-year-old
Mario Cano fell seriously ill and collapsed as VisionQuest
staff members accused him of faking sickness to get out of a
rigorous
exercise routine, according to an investigator's report.
"When Mario urinated on himself Friday evening (hours before
his death), staff interpreted this as "attention-seeking,'"
wrote the boy's probation officer, Mike Anderson of San Diego
County, in a report to his supervisor that urged the removal of
all youths from that program. "So fixed was this belief in
Mario's manipulative abilities that a staff member is reported
as saying, "Mario is so good, he can change colors,' while Mario
was lying unresponsive on the floor."
Sutton said that despite the number of deaths, the issue
frequently is overlooked because the youths are labeled
"troubled."
"If you don't care about the kids, maybe you'll care about
the money," said Sutton, who has spent thousands of dollars of
her own money to lobby legislators, probation officers and the
media in her attempt to have some controls placed on
out-of-state facilities.
No one disputes that the costs to taxpayers are high.
For instance, the CYA would charge about $2,210 a month to
house a chronic property offender with gang ties but no violent
convictions. Out-of-state programs would charge nearly twice as
much.
What makes the private programs so appealing, though, is a
reimbursement system that rewards counties for using
out-of-state programs and a newly imposed CYA sliding scale that
punishes them for imprisoning nonviolent felons.
Counties pay 75 percent to 100 percent of the monthly $2,950
fee for a nonviolent CYA commitment. But the state and federal
governments reimburse an average of 55 percent of the cost to
send youths to private facilities out of state, dropping the
county's cost from about $3,600 per month to around $1,620.

At the Arizona Boys Ranch's main campus in Queen
Creek, wards perform such day-to-day tasks as
maintaining the grounds.
Bee photo / Chris Crewell
|
|
"YA rates break this county," said Robert Bowman, chief
probation officer for Alpine County, which has placed one youth
at a Utah treatment facility that charges $4,000 per month.
Alpine County has no juvenile hall, no camp and no money to send
a nonviolent offender to the CYA.
There is an alternative to out-of-state camps, but it is even
more expensive for counties than the CYA. Several counties in
the state have used their own money to set up programs that
mirror those offered out of state.
In Colusa County, the Fouts Springs Youth Facility features a
strictly regimented program that includes military drills -- but
no fences.
"It's not necessary to build fences for the same reason the
Russians don't build fences in their prisons in Siberia," said
Carl Womack, Colusa's chief probation officer, who shares
responsibility for the camp with Solano County.
But for the majority of counties it is more cost-effective to
send youths to out-of-state camps and campuses. However, it is
not nearly so cheap to watch over them.
Currently, probation officers say the state requires them to
visit their wards only twice a year, a requirement so low that
most counties say they ignore it and visit much more frequently.
"The county is supposed to certify that it's a good and safe
place," said Bolton, the state's Department of Social Services
counsel. "Placement officers are supposed to be visiting
children in care out of California."
Visits every month or six weeks are more the norm, but that
frequency depends on a variety of things, including the distance
and remoteness of the program, the amount of travel money
available to a county and the motivation of individual probation
officers.

A counselor and ward walk through the Arizona
Youths bow their heads to say grace before a
meal at Queen Creek. "This is a civilized
society and we expect kids to be civilized,"
says Bob Thomas, president of Boys Ranch. Some
wards appreciate the chance to escape gangs,
drugs and other problems. Others paint a picture
of physical mistreatment.
Bee photo / Chris Crewell
|
|
"It's the luck of the draw, just like everything else," said
Marynella Woods, a
social worker with San Francisco's Public Defender's Office.
"How good is the (probation officer) monitoring these things? It
totally depends upon the personality and the work ethic of the
person assigned to doing it."
And it also comes down to money.
Before October 1996, for instance, Sacramento County
probation officer Don Berg used to visit most of his wards every
month. But budget cuts eventually caught up to that schedule and
reduced it to every six weeks.
For Glen Mills Schools, a Pennsylvania program considered one
of the nation's finest, visits from Sacramento come four times a
year, with the program paying the cost of the air fare to the
East Coast twice annually.
Since Contreraz's death, however, visits to Sacramento youths
at Arizona Boys Ranch have increased to every seven to 10 days.
The youth-program industry does not question the need for
regular visits, particularly given the nature and history of
out-of-state programs.
Many operate in extremely remote areas, where it is difficult
for youths to escape, giving them a chance to focus on the
program rather than outside distractions.
To flee the Arizona Boys Ranch orientation facility near
Oracle, for instance, youths would have to walk five miles over
the hilly backside of Mount Lemmon, just north of Tucson. When
they reach pavement, they still are more than 50 miles from a
town of any size, conspicuous on the high desert.
To get away from Rite of Passage in Nevada, youths would have
to cross miles of the high desert on an American Indian
reservation.
"Most of these kids don't know where they are," said Berg,
who oversees youths at the Arizona Boys Ranch and Rite of
Passage.
"It's sad, but I'll take the kids to ROP and deliver them --
we're talking some hard-core gang-banging thugs -- and I'll look
over at them and they'll just have tears streaming down their
cheeks. They had no idea that a place could be so remote."
But others question placing these youths in remote areas and
turning them over to staff members who control their lives so
completely that they can even tell them when and where to go to
the bathroom.
"The problem with these real remote things is if they're not
monitored closely and the staff they get is not monitored
closely, that's when you get into trouble," said Woods, the San
Francisco social worker.
That is precisely what happened in the Contreraz death,
according to investigators and Arizona Boys Ranch officials who
say staff members at the Oracle camp repeatedly broke ranch
rules in their treatment of the boy.

Wards at the Queen Creek campus of the Arizona
Boys Ranch head toward the dining hall. Those
who are wearing yellow shirts have disciplinary
problems.
Bee photo / Chris Crewell
|
|
Because of the Contreraz death, legislators, probation officers
and others have been seeking ways to reform the system,
including proposals to do away with out-of-state placements
entirely.
Critics of that proposal say it won't work for a simple
reason: In most counties, placement in the CYA is the only other
choice.
"I'm sure the Youth Authority has a number of success
stories, but I haven't experienced them. It's basically state
prison for kids. The kids enjoy being able to kick it with their
peers. They get gang tattoos. They hang out. It's a place to
kill time," Berg said.
A state task force is seeking solutions, as is the National
Counsel on Crime and Delinquency, a nonprofit child advocacy
group which has been asked to study the issue by legislators.
Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Polanco, D-Los Angeles, has pushed
for a bill backed by the Arizona Boys Ranch that would relax
regulations to allow Boys Ranch and similar programs to operate
in California.
But some advocates say the entire juvenile justice system
needs to be scrapped and rebuilt.
"Whatever California's doing ain't working," said Jack
Jacqua, co-founder of the Omega Boys Club in San Francisco and a
longtime social activist and youth expert.
"We're building jails, we're building prisons for young
people. ... If we can't do better than that, if we can't find
some liberating, innovative, visionary programs for young
people, then we might as well ship them to Europe and Asia and
Mars." |