Last updated: September 2010 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

Correctional Facilities 

A correctional facility is any residential facility with construction fixtures or staffing models designed 

to restrict the movements and activities of those placed in the facility. It is used for the placement of 

any juvenile adjudicated of having committed an offense, or, when applicable, of any other individual 

convicted of a criminal offense. 

When a precipitous rise in violent juvenile crime during the early 1990s aroused public fears about the 

emergence of “violent juvenile superpredators,” legislators responded with a “get tough” approach 

that resulted in tougher sanctions on juvenile offenders: more mandatory and determinate sentences, 

blended sentencing (combining juvenile and adult sanctions), more offenses that qualified for the most 

severe sentences, progressive sanctions, and “zero tolerance” policies (Howell 1998). The increased 

reliance on confinement and adult transfers placed huge burdens on existing juvenile and adult 

detention and correctional facilities. 

As a result of changes in juvenile justice policies, the total number of juveniles in residential placement 

facilities (which includes correctional facilities) rose 41 percent from 1991 to 1999. The total number 

decreased 10 percent from 1999 to 2003, but this was still a 27 percent increase from 1991 to 2003 (Snyder 

and Sickmund 2006). According to the latest data available from the Census of Juveniles in Residential 

Placement, in 2006 there was a 1-day count of 92,854 juvenile offenders in residential placement 

facilities (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang 2008). 

Correctional facilities are comparable with prisons in the adult criminal justice system (Justice Policy 

Institute 2009). A primary difference between residential placement in a correctional facility and 

placement in other nonsecure facilities is the use of confinement fixtures or features to restrict juveniles 

within in the facility. Among the facilities responding to the Juvenile Residential Facility Census survey 

in 2004, 49 percent reported using one or more confinement features, other than locking sleeping rooms. 

These confinement features usually include security doors or external gates that are locked by staff to 

confine young persons within a specific building or area in the facility. A facility’s staff can also provide 

security, and in some incidences, such as wilderness camps, the remote location is a security feature 

that keeps youth from leaving (Livsey, Sickmund, and Sladky 2009). 

The costs and resources required to keep juveniles in a correctional facility can be substantial. The 

Justice Policy Institute (2009) found that it costs on average of $240.99 per day (close to $88,000 per 

year) per youth in state-funded, post-adjudication residential facilities. Because of budget constraints, 

many states are rethinking how they fund the juvenile justice system and looking for ways to reduce 

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2010. “Correctional Facilities.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Correctional_Facilities.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1 
the number of youth incarcerated through expansion of community-based, detention alternatives.

Outcome Evidence 

Research on juvenile corrections has generally found that confinement can negatively affect youth in 

custody and can lead to further involvement in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems rather 

than interrupting the offending cycle or facilitating rehabilitation. Youths in custody are more likely to 

recidivate or end up in the adult criminal justice system, compared with youths who are diverted from 

detention or confinement facilities (Holman and Zidenberg 2006). Studies have generally shown that 

the most effective secure corrections programs serve only a small number of participants and provide 

individualized services. Missouri, for example, has achieved “exceptional” reductions in juvenile 

recidivism by abolishing its state reform school and replacing it with a network of small group homes 

emphasizing personal attention and therapeutic treatment (Mendel 2003). Large, congregate-care 

facilities, such as training schools and boot camps, have not proven especially effective at reducing 

recidivism (Howell 1998). In the words of one juvenile justice expert, “virtually every study of 

recidivism among youth sentenced to juvenile training schools finds that at least 50 percent to 70 

percent of offenders are arrested within 1 or 2 years after release” (Mendel 2003). 

Lipsey (1998) performed a meta-analysis of 83 studies of interventions with institutionalized juvenile 

offenders and found that “recidivism effect sizes for the different treatment types were most 

consistently positive for interpersonal skills interventions and teaching family homes.” Behavioral, 

community-based residential, and multiple-service programs also appeared to reduce recidivism, but 

the small number of studies in each category makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions. A recent 

systematic review by Lipsey and Cullen looked at meta-analyses of correctional rehabilitation 

programs. The meta-analyses included research on juvenile and adult offenders, although as the 

authors noted “treatment effects for juvenile offenders have been more thoroughly analyzed and 

document than for adult offenders” (2007, 306). Across the various meta-analyses of studies, the authors 

noted two key results. First, in meta-analyses that compared recidivism outcomes for offenders 

receiving greater sanctions versus lesser or no sanctions (such as incarceration versus community 

supervision), the results showed at best there was a modest mean reduction in recidivism for offenders 

who received greater sanctions (such as incarceration), but at worst the results showed an increase in 

recidivism for that condition. Second, meta-analyses that compared offenders who received 

rehabilitation treatment with offenders who did not receive treatment found that offenders who had 

gone through rehabilitation had lower mean recidivism rates. Further, almost all of the meta-analyses 

of specific rehabilitation treatments found a reduction in recidivism rates, and the majority of those 

reductions are greater than the largest reduction found in any meta-analysis of sanctions including 

incarceration. 

Characteristics of Correctional Facilities 

The basic characteristics of correctional facilities—including their size, structure, security 

arrangements, type of programming, and ownership—are highly variable. Within a single state or 

jurisdiction, secure correctional programs may range from military-style boot camps to large, state-run 

training schools, to intimate family-style group homes. 

Most incarcerated youths are still sentenced to traditional training schools and other large correctional 

units housing 100 to 500 individuals. In 2004 the largest facilities (those holding more than 200 

residents) accounted for only 3 percent of all facilities, but they held 25 percent of the juvenile 

population in custody (Livsey, Sickmund, and Sladky 2009). Many of these large, congregate-care 

facilities suffer from overcrowding and unsafe conditions. A national survey of juvenile detention and 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2 
correction facilities in the early 1990s found that more than 75 percent of youths incarcerated 

nationwide are housed in facilities that violate federal standards related to living space. Such crowded 

conditions are also associated with high rates of injury and suicidal acts (Parent and Abt Associates 

1994). Youths housed in these types of facilities often have higher rates of physical injury, mental health 

problems, and suicide attempts, as well as inferior educational outcomes compared with counterparts 

who are treated in the community (Sedlak and McPherson 2010; Holman and Zidenberg 2006). 

Recent studies also show that many of the nation’s juvenile offenders are being kept in overcrowded, 

secure facilities even though they could be safely maintained in less-secure settings. In 2006, fewer than 

25 percent of all juvenile offenders in residential placements had committed a violent offense (including 

homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault), but more than 80 percent of all juvenile offenders were 

held in locked facilities—as opposed to the staff-secure facilities favored in national accreditation 

standards (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang 2008; Snyder and Sickmund 2006). 

Concerns/Issues 

In recent years, there has been a spate of media reports about the deteriorating conditions in “juvenile 

jails,” and Amnesty International, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, and the American Bar Association 

have all called for significant reform of the country's juvenile correctional facilities (Hubner and 

Wolfson 1999). A report completed in compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 found 

that an estimated 12 percent of youths in juvenile facilities reported experiencing one or more incidents 

of sexual victimization by another youth or facility staff (Beck, Harrison, and Guerino 2010). Within the 

juvenile justice system, there has been a concomitant emphasis on the need for graduated sanctions and 

alternatives to detention that will keep juveniles out of secure facilities for as long as is safely possible 

(Howell and Lipsey 2004). 

References 

Beck, Allen J., Paige M. Harrison, and Paul Guerino. 2010. Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities 

Reported by Youth, 2008–09. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Holman, Barry, and Jason Zidenberg. 2006. The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in 

Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Washington, D.C.: The Justice Policy Institute. 

Howell, James C. 1998. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic 

Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Howell, James C. 1998. “New Approaches to Juvenile Crime: The Promise of Graduated Sanctions in 

the Juvenile Justice System.” Corrections Compendium 23(9):1–25. 

Howell, James C., and Mark W. Lipsey. 2004. “Promising Sanctions Programs in a Graduated System.” 

In National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (ed.). Juvenile Sanctions Center Training 

and Technical Assistance Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges. 

Hubner, John, and Jill Wolfson. 1999. Ain’t No Place Anybody Would Want to Be: Conditions of Confinement 

for Youth. Washington, D.C.: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 

Justice Policy Institute. 2009. The Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal 

Sense. Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute. 

Lipsey, Mark W. 2006. The Effects of Community-Based Group Treatment for Delinquency: A MetaAnalytic Search for Cross-Study Generalizations. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion and J. E. Lansford 

(eds.). Deviant Peer Influences in Programs for Youth. New York, N.Y.: Guilford Press. 

Lipsey, Mark W., and Francis T. Cullen. 2007. “The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A 

Review of Systematic Reviews. “ The Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3:297–320. 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3 
Lipsey, Mark W., and David B. Wilson. 1998. “Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A 

Synthesis of the Research. “ In R. Loeber and D. P. Farringon (eds.). Serious and Violent Juvenile 

Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE. 

Lipsey, Mark W., David B. Wilson, and Lynn Cothern. 2000. Effective Interventions for Serious Juvenile 

Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Livsey, Sarah, Melissa Sickmund, and Anthony Sladky. 2009. Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2004: 

Selected Findings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Mendel, Richard. 2003. Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works—and What Doesn’t. 

Washington, D.C.: American Youth Policy Forum. 

Parent, Dale G., and Abt Associates. 1994. Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections 

Facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Sedlak, Andrea J., and Karla S. McPherson. 2010. Youth’s Needs and Services: Findings From the Survey of 

Youth in Residential Placement. Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Sickmund, Melissa. 2002. Juvenile Residential Facility Census: 2000, Selected Findings. Bulletin. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Sickmund, Melissa, T.J. Sladky, and Wei Kang. 2008. Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 

Databook. Online. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Snyder, Howard N., and Melissa Sickmund. 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4