Troubled Affluent Youth’s Experiences in a Therapeutic Boarding School: The Elite Arm of the Youth Control Complex and Its Implications for Youth Justice

  • Heather MooneyEmail author
  • Paul Leighton


Criminology focuses on street crime and crimes of the poor. Surveys, however, indicate that deviance among middle- and upper-class youth is widespread, and that their experience of social control is not researched, despite its importance for a more complete understanding of youth justice. This study provides insight into a mostly unregulated private troubled teen industry, relying on interviews and a survey of affluent youth sent to a therapeutic boarding school. The main sections of this article explore the wide variety of behaviors that caused youth to be sent to the program, the key aspects of their experiences, and the very mixed outcomes. (All participants graduated high school and most completed college, but many others committed suicide or overdosed.) While a degree and the lack of a criminal record ultimately benefited these privileged youth, the strong-arm rehabilitation tactics of this kind of total institution are a problematic model to use to advance youth justice.



  1. Barak, G., Leighton, P., & Cotton, A. (2018). Class, race, gender & crime (5th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  2. Behrens, E., Santa, J., & Gass, M. (2010). The evidence base for private therapeutic schools, residential programs, and wilderness therapy programs. Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, 4(1), 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behrens, E., & Satterfield, K. (2017). Longitudinal family and academic outcomes in residential programs. Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, 2(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bettmann, J., & Jasperson, R. (2009). Adolescents in residential and inpatient treatment. Child & Youth Care Forum, 38(4), 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bratter, E. (2011). Compassionate confrontation psychotherapy. Adolescent Psychiatry, 1(3), 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush, N., Friedman, R., Huffine, C., Huff, B., & Elberg, P. (2011). Treatment research lacks good science. Resource document. Alliance for the Safe, Therapeutic and Appropriate use of Residential Treatment. Retrieved March 17, 2017, from
  7. Chambliss, W. J. (1973). The saints and the roughnecks. Society, 11(1), 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clemson, C. (2015). The prison path. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Cox, A. L. (2018). Trapped in a vice: The consequences of confinement for young people. Camden, NJ: Rutgers University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Currie, E. (2003). “It’s our lives they’re dealing with here”: Some adolescent views of residential treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 33(4), 833–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Currie, E. (2005). The road to whatever: Middle-class culture and the crisis of adolescence. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Flavin, J. (2008). Our bodies, our crimes: The policing of women’s reproduction in America. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Friedman, R., Pinto, A., Behar, L., Bush, N., Chirolla, A., Epstein, M., et al. (2006). Unlicensed residential programs. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(3), 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giroux, H. (2009). Youth in a suspect society: Democracy or disposability?. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  16. Goshe, S. (2015). Moving beyond the punitive legacy: Taking stock of persistent problems in juvenile justice. Youth Justice, 15(1), 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goshe, S. (2017). The lurking punitive threat: The philosophy of necessity and challenges for reform. Theoretical Criminology, 23(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gowan, T., & Whetstone, S. (2012). Making the criminal addict: Subjectivity and social control in a strong-arm rehab. Punishment and Society, 14(1), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaye, K. (2013). Rehabilitating the ‘drugs lifestyle’: Criminal justice, social control, and the cultivation of agency. Ethnography, 14(2), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khan, S. R. (2012). The sociology of elites. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhl, D., Chavez, J., Swisher, R., & Wilczak, A. (2016). Social class, family formation, and delinquency in early adulthood. Sociological Perspectives, 59(2), 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kutz, G., & O’Connell, A. (2007). Residential treatment programs: Concerns regarding abuse and death in certain programs for troubled youth (GAO-08-146T). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  23. Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Levine, M. (2006). The price of privilege. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  25. Luthar, S. S. (2003). The culture of affluence: Psychological costs of material wealth. Child Development, 74(6), 1581–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luthar, S. S., Barkin, S., & Crossman, E. (2013). “I can, therefore I must”: Fragility in the upper-middle classes. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 1529–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luthar, S. S., & Becker, B. E. (2002). Privileged but pressured? A study of affluent youth. Child Development, 73(5), 1593–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luthar, S. S., & D’Avanzo, K. (1999). Contextual factors in substance use: A study of suburban and inner-city adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 11(4), 845–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luthar, S. S., & Latendresse, S. J. (2005). Children of the affluent: Challenges to well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luthar, S. S., & Sexton, C. C. (2004). The high price of affluence. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 32(C), 125–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marcus, D. (2005). What it takes to pull me through. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  32. McCorkel, J. (2013). Breaking women. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  33. McKay, J. (2017). So you want to run an outcome study? The challenges to measuring adolescent residential treatment outcomes. Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, 2(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, A., & Toivonen, T. (2010). To discipline or accommodate? On the rehabilitation of Japanese “problem youth”. The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, 7(20), 22–26.Google Scholar
  35. Mohamed, A., & Fritsvold, E. (2010). Dorm room dealers. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Mohr, W. (2009). Still shackled in the land of liberty: Denying children the right to be safe from abusive “treatment”. Advances in Nursing Science, 32(2), 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NATSUP (National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs). (2017). NATSUP program definitions. Resource Document. NATSUP. Retrieved January 13, 2018, from
  38. OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention). (2018). Statistical briefing book. Resource Document. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved May 3, 2018, from
  39. Postman, N. (1970). The politics of reading. Harvard Educational Review, 40(2), 244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramey, D. (2018). The social construction of child social control via criminalization and medicalization. Sociological Forum, 33(1), 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reamer, F., & Siegel, D. (2013). Teens in crisis: How the industry serving struggling teens helps and hurts our kids. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2017). The rich get richer and the poor get prison (11th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Robbins, I. (2014). Kidnapping incorporated: The unregulated youth-transportation industry and the potential for abuse. American Criminal Law Review, 51(3), 563–600.Google Scholar
  44. Sankofa, J., Cox, A., Fader, J. J., Inderbitzin, M., Abrams, L. S., & Nurse, A. M. (2018). Juvenile corrections in the era of reform: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(7), 1763–1786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Szalavitz, M. (2006). Help at any cost: How the troubled-teen industry cons parents and hurts kids. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  46. US Government Accountability Office. (2008a). Residential facilities: State and federal oversight gaps may increase risk to youth well-being (GAO-08-696T). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  47. US Government Accountability Office. (2008b). Residential facilities: Improved data and enhanced oversight would help safeguard the well-being of youth with behavioral and emotional challenges (GAO-08-346). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  48. Whitehead, K., Keshet, M., Lombrowski, B., Domenico, A., & Green, D. (2007). Definition and accountability: A youth perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(3), 348–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, M. (2018).‘It’s like, who’s next?’ A troubled school’s alarming death rate. The New York Times. Accessed 2 Sept 2018.
  50. Zahn, M. (Ed.). (2009). The delinquent girl. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology, Anthropology and CriminologyEastern Michigan UniversityYpsilantiUSA

Personalised recommendations