ABSTRACT
Child protection is inextricably tied to the rationale for the very existence of juvenile service agencies, including those which securely detain youth. Thus, they are responsible for taking diligent action to prevent professional misconduct against youth and properly responding to it when it unfortunately does occur. A reactive approach to misconduct-simply punishing or firing employees who commit misconduct, for example-is very insufficient. Undoubtedly, several agencies do a fine job preventing, detecting, investigating, and resolving cases of misconduct against youth. However, even these agencies should continuously search for improvements to be made to anti-misconduct policies and practices. For instance, Pihl-Buckley (2008) points out that an agency’s current rules against sexual misconduct can be adjusted in accordance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003. Following the enactment of PREA, the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services (DYS) engaged in self-examination and determined that although it was doing well with its current policies and practices, there was room for improvement. Pihl-Buckley (2008, p. 47) writes:
Asbridge (2007) urges administrators to become familiar with and use current resources available to them, such as those offered by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). With technical assistance from the NIC and a consulting group, the Massachusetts DYS became a leader in implementing PREA’s mandate of safety in both juvenile and adult correctional facilities (Pihl-Buckley, 2008). The DYS used its PREA implementation plan to improve existing policies, practices, and procedures regarding sexual misconduct. The agency formed an internal PREA workgroup at the commissioner’s level that “included representatives from the legal unit, investigations, clinical and medical services, the training academy, victim services, and community and
facility operations” and later other state agencies as subcommittee members (Pihl-Buckley, 2008, p. 44). Under agreement with the NIC and through appraisal by the consultant, Massachusetts DYS created PREA implementation policies that serve as models for other states (Pihl-Buckley, 2008).
