Security status of juveniles in residential placement by offense, 1999

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Working for Youth Justice and Safety

Printer-friendly

Custody Data (1997-Present)

Q:	How did the use of security in residential placement facilities vary by offense in 1997?
A:	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
Most serious offense	Total		Locked		Staff secure

All facilities	100	%	72	%	28	%
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 offense	100		29		71
Underage drinking	100		51		49
Running away	100		40		60
Curfew violation	100		40		60
Truancy	100		24		76
Incorrigibility	100		18		82
Other status offense	100		33		67

Note: To preserve the privacy of the juvenile residents, cell counts have been rounded to the nearest multiple of three. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Rates and percentages presented are also based on rounded totals. More information on this rounding rule is available on the CJRP Databook Web site.

[ Excel file ]

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.
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 out of ten status offenders were confined under staff-secure arrangements. There was, however, substantial variation within the status offense categories. Juveniles held for underage drinking or possession of alcohol were as likely to be held under locked as in staff-secure arrangements. Among those held for running away, curfew violations, and truancy the proportion of youth locked in were smaller. Juveniles held for incorrigibility were the least likely to be held under locked security arrangements.

Internet citation: OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qa08512.asp?qaDate=20021030. Released on October 30, 2002.

Adapted from Sickmund, M. (2004). Juveniles in Corrections. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Data Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 1997 and 1999 [machine-readable data files]. Washington, D.C.: OJJDP, 1998 and 2001.