Seven in ten juvenile offenders in custody were held in locked rather than staff-secure facilities

Security arrangements varied by facility characteristics

Juvenile residential placement facilities vary in their degree of security. The use of fences, walls, and surveillance equipment is increasingly common in juvenile facilities, although security hardware in juvenile facilities is generally not as elaborate as that found in adult jails and prisons. National accreditation standards for juvenile facilities express a preference for relying on staff, rather than on hardware, to provide security. The guiding principle is to house juvenile offenders in the “least restrictive placement alternative.” Staff security measures include periodically taking counts of the youth held, using classification and separation procedures, and maintaining an adequate ratio of security staff to juveniles.

For each juvenile offender reported to the CJRP, respondents were asked if “locked doors and/or gates confined THIS young person within the facility and its grounds during the afterschool, day-time hours.” Facilities reported that 7 in 10 juveniles were confined by at least one locked door or gate. The vast majority of juveniles in public facilities and in tribal facilities were confined under locked arrangements. For those in private facilities the reverse was true.

Facility security profile, 1999:
Type of facility
Total
Locked
Staff-secure
Total
100%
72%
28%
Public
100
87
13
Private
100
34
66
Tribal
100
91
9

As facility size increased, the proportion of juveniles held under staff-secure arrangements decreased. More than half (54%) of those held in facilities housing fewer than 40 residents were held under staff-secure arrangements, compared with 33% of those in facilities housing 40–109 residents and just 7% of those in facilities housing more than 270 residents. However, the majority of youth held in private facilities were housed under staff-secure arrangements, even in the largest facilities. In public facilities, though, 98% of those held in facilities with 270 or more residents were held under locked arrangements.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:
Number of residents
Total
Locked
Staff-secure
All facilities
100%
72%
28%
     Fewer than 40
100
46
54
     40–109
100
67
33
     110–269
100
79
21
     270 or more
100
93
7
Public facilities
100
87
13
     Fewer than 39
100
69
31
     40–109
100
81
19
     110–269
100
89
11
     270 or more
100
98
2
Private facilities
100
34
66
     Fewer than 39
100
27
73
     40–109
100
40
60
     110–269
100
34
66
     270 or more
100
47
53

Security arrangements also varied by offense and placement status

A larger proportion of detained juveniles than committed juveniles was held in locked facilities.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:
Type of placement
Total
Locked
Staff-secure
Committed
100%
66%
34%
Detained
100
88
12
Other
100
45
55

Juveniles in residential placement for homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault were the most likely to be held behind locked doors or gates.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:
Most serious offense
Total
Locked
Staff-secure
Delinquency
100%
73%
27%
Person
100
76
24
    Criminal homicide
100
90
10
    Sexual assault
100
74
26
    Robbery
100
82
18
    Aggravated assault
100
79
21
    Simple assault
100
63
37
    Other person
100
74
26
Property
100
71
29
    Burglary
100
74
26
    Theft
100
68
32
    Auto theft
100
69
31
    Arson
100
76
24
    Other property
100
69
31
Drug
100
70
30
    Drug trafficking
100
77
23
    Other drug
100
67
33
Public order
100
73
27
    Weapons
100
77
23
    Other public order
100
71
29
Technical violation
100
76
24
Status
100
29
71

Most status offenders were in staff-secure facilities in 1999

Unlike juveniles held for delinquency offenses, those in residential placement for status offenses were more likely to be confined under staff-secure than under locked arrangements. Seven in ten status offenders were confined under staff-secure arrangements. However, substantial variation existed within the status offense categories. Juveniles held for underage drinking or possession of alcohol were as likely to be held in locked arrangements as in staff-secure arrangements. Among those held for running away, curfew violations, and truancy, the proportions of youth locked in were smaller. Juveniles held for incorrigibility were the least likely to be held under locked security arrangements.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act prohibits placement of status offenders in secure facilities

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 states that “juveniles…charged with or who have committed offenses that would not be criminal if committed by an adult or offenses which do not constitute violations of valid court orders, or alien juveniles in custody, or such nonoffenders as dependent or neglected children, shall not be placed in secure detention facilities or secure correctional facilities…”

Federal regulations have interpreted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to permit accused status offenders to be held in secure juvenile facilities for up to 24 hours following the initial contact with law enforcement or the court.


Facility security profile of residents, 1999:
Most serious offense
Total
Locked
Staff-secure
All facilities
Status offense
100%
29%
71%
    Underage drinking
100
51
49
    Runaway
100
40
60
    Curfew violation
100
40
60
    Truancy
100
24
76
    Incorrigibility
100
18
82
    Other status
100
33
67
Public facilities
Status offense
100
55
45
    Underage drinking
100
78
22
    Runaway
100
60
40
    Curfew violation
100
*
*
    Truancy
100
47
53
    Incorrigibility
100
43
58
    Other status
100
59
41
Private facilities
Status offense
100
14
86
    Underage drinking
100
21
79
    Runaway
100
23
77
    Curfew violation
100
*
*
    Truancy
100
13
87
    Incorrigibility
100
11
89
    Other status
100
8
92
* Too few juveniles to calculate a reliable percentage.

Security arrangements varied by demographic characteristics

Minority juveniles were more likely than nonminority juveniles to be confined behind locked doors. Among minorities, black and Hispanic youth were more likely to be held under locked arrangements than were other minorities.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:
Race/ethnicity
Total
Locked
Staff-secure
White
100%
66%
34%
Minority
100
75
25
    Black
100
75
25
    Hispanic
100
76
24
    Other
100
65
35

However, within more detailed offense categories, the difference between the proportion of white and minority youth held under locked arrangements diminished. This was especially true for those held for serious offenses. For example, among those held for robbery, 80% of white youth were confined by at least one locked door or gate compared with 83% of minority youth.

The proportion of juveniles held under locked arrangements increased with age. Although youth age 12 and younger were much less likely to be locked in than 17-year-olds, a substantial proportion of these youngest youth were locked in (63%).

Overall, much of the race/ethnicity, age, and gender differences in the proportion of juveniles held under locked rather than staff-secure arrangements were largely related to offense variations among the demographic groups.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:
Age
Total
Locked
Staff-secure
12 and younger
100%
63%
37%
13
100
64
36
14
100
66
34
15
100
68
32
16
100
72
28
17
100
75
25
18 and older
100
81
19

Males were more likely than females to be held under locked arrangements.

Facility security profile of residents, 1999:
Gender
Total
Locked
Staff-secure
Male
100%
72%
28%
Female
100
65
35

Previous Contents Next

Juveniles in Corrections OJJDP National Report Series Bulletin
June 2004