Vol. 2 No. 5 (May, 1992) pp. 86-88

SCREWING THE SYSTEM AND MAKING IT WORK: JUVENILE JUSTICE IN THE NO- FAULT SOCIETY by Mark D. Jacobs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990. 296 pp. Cloth $32.50.

Reviewed by Susette M. Talarico, Department of Political Science, University of Georgia.

The title of Mark Jacobs' book is both provocative and misleading. At first glance, one might think that by "screwing the system," juvenile justice can be made to work. But as Jacobs concludes at the end of this interesting and excellent study, "...merely screwing the system cannot make it work." How Jacobs came to that conclusion makes for a thought-provoking and insightful analysis.

The book begins with the story of "Larry," a thirteen year-old client of a juvenile court in what the author describes as a "prosperous and rapidly developing suburban community." Larry clearly was a tough case. Four of his last five years had been spent in the state's largest juvenile institution or in a training school operated by the state's Department of Corrections. Although he had severe educational or learning disabilities, Larry had never been enrolled in any special educational program. Undoubtedly related to these problems was a dysfunctional family. Larry's father had been incarcerated in the state penitentiary and had the dubious distinction of winning early release after a nervous breakdown. The original charges against Larry did not seem to correspond to his history of institutionalization as his record was dominated by allegations of incorrigibility and car stealing. Unknown to the juvenile court in question and certainly complicating his situation, Larry had a history of serious parental neglect and abuse -- a history that the juvenile court would not learn for three years.

As Jacobs points out in telling Larry's story, the case seems to illustrate the worst of the juvenile justice system, especially as a vulnerable minor had been subject to unnecessary and unproductive institutionalization. But it is also clear that the efforts of the juvenile court in Larry's behalf reflect the system's best work. Anxious to "do right," Larry's probation officer, the judge, and the head of the diagnostic unit worked every angle to find a suitable resolution to his case. In this effort, his probation officer expended an incredible amount of energy, visiting potential placement sites and finally securing an acceptance at Boys Town in Nebraska. Celebrating this successful climax to weeks of strenuous efforts, the probation officer exulted "We really did it -- we made the system do something it heretofore had never done -- we really screwed the system and made it work, for one impossible kid."

Unfortunately, in the final analysis the system -- screwed or otherwise -- did not work. Shortly after his admission to Boys Town, Larry left without permission and ended up as an accomplice in an armed robbery. Facing substantial scorn from Boys Town authorities who claimed that Larry's probation officer misled them, the juvenile officer observed that "...this kid was destroyed by age eight. We could not have saved him, if save is the word. There is probably no institutional program that could have helped him..."

Page 87 follows:

The sad and tragic tale of Larry aptly symbolizes the theme and argument of Jacobs' book. Offering a compelling, ethnographic study of juvenile court processes in a suburban community, Jacobs takes the reader through several case stories. In the process, he draws on individual records and "stories," observations of court processes, and extended interviews with court personnel. As head of the court's research unit for more than a decade, Jacobs was in a good position to collect and reflect on these materials. The reports he offers are compelling, provocative, and yet sympathetic. Jacobs clearly thinks well of his former colleagues. To be sure, not all the portraits are positive, but he emphasizes that the probation officers he observed were far from the "street-level bureaucrats" who unquestionably adhered to fixed organizational routine. Rather, they were very creative -- using formal and informal avenues to help youngsters with needs that clearly taxed even a well-functioning juvenile justice system. Sometimes these needs developed in more deprived circumstances, but as Jacobs points out, parental neglect was not confined to the lower socio- economic strata in society. Whatever the socio-economic background of their clients, the probation officers were diligent in manipulating the system in their behalf. Taking advantage of ambiguities in the law, contravening official policies, and nurturing a wide assortment of "contacts," the probation officers described in SCREWING THE SYSTEM were clearly dedicated and resourceful.

One might conclude from this that Jacobs offers a rather positive analysis and that the "cure" for juvenile justice is simply the recruitment and retention of dedicated, resourceful, and energetic professionals. Alas, Jacobs offers no such panacea. As he emphasizes throughout the study, even the best system (and he takes pains to characterize the office in question as a model) runs up against entrenched features of the broader social and legal systems, features that make effective social control impossible. It is in this final conclusion that Jacobs offer the heart of his analysis, namely his consideration of the failure of juvenile justice and the dispersion of responsibility that makes that failure inevitable.

Borrowing a phrase of Gerald Suttles, Jacobs refers to the context in which the juvenile court operates as the "no-fault" society. Characterized by constrictive individualism, a failure to distinguish public and private spheres, and a lax rule of law, this context holds virtually no one accountable and insures that social control will fail. When communities (families, schools, work place) fail to socialize young members, when moral character is not reinforced in civic discourse and tradition, when the justice system (and especially the juvenile variety) has virtually unlimited access to information on the private lives of delinquents and their families, when private agencies and organizations operate facilities that are used but not adequately supervised by the state, when laws and public policies are poorly defined and structured to effectuate vague, contradictory, or untenable objectives -- then it is not surprising that blame can be passed around. When blame can be passed around and no one held accountable, social control is impossible and juvenile justice destined to fail.

This is not a happy conclusion, but it is an argument that needs to be heard and taken to heart. Jacobs develops it well, especially in the case analyses that dominate his ethnographic approach. It is also

Page 88 follows:

well illustrated in his concluding literary analysis of probation case reports as tragic narratives -- an analysis that probably deserved more attention. However, Jacobs' argument is not developed as well in the quantitative portion of the study, specifically the one chapter (out of twelve) where he reports the results of his survival analysis of 629 cases. Although this dimension of the analysis is directed to important questions (how effective are court treatments? how varied? how equitable? at what stage is court intervention productive?), it was difficult to assess the validity of the underlying research and, consequently, the fairness of the conclusions. The inclusion of a comprehensive and sophisticated statistical analysis in the midst of a generally qualitative study seemed to disrupt the flow of Jacobs' own narrative. From my perspective, independent treatment (in, perhaps, another book) would have yielded more satisfactory statistical analyses and an even more cohesive qualitative study.

This limitation aside, Jacobs' book is important. SCREWING THE SYSTEM... is an excellent ethnographic study and will probably be referenced as a leading example of this methodology - especially as applied to juvenile justice. More significant, however, than this contribution is the fact that Jacobs' analysis prompts serious reconsideration of our conceptions of and expectations for law, our political responses to the problem of crime, and our enduring, (and oftentimes dysfunctional) preoccupation with individual rights. For example, it is clear that we ask too much of law when we ask it to compensate for the failure of other social institutions. Relatedly, it is also clear that knee-jerk responses to crime and delinquency -- either the "liberal" or "conservative" variety -- will fail. Simple exhortation to regularize juvenile court processes with more stringent due process requirements or equally simple proposals to "get tough" with young offenders will not yield any productive results. The problem of delinquency and the frustrations of juvenile justice are not rooted in either too lax or too stringent procedures -- although these procedures do play a part in the dispersion of accountability. Rather, they are rooted in the failure of community. Until we structure a "child-friendly" society where families, schools, and all social institutions work toward the development of moral character and a sense of the common good, judicial efforts at social control will fail. In this sense, Jacobs offers a very communitarian message. It is, to this reviewer, welcome and timely.