U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Juvenile Accountability Incentive

Block Grants Program

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

January 2000

Construction, Operations, and

Staff Training for Juvenile

Confinement Facilities

David Roush and Michael McMillen

This Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s Juvenile

Accountability Incentive Block Grants

(JAIBG) Best Practices Series. The basic

premise underlying the JAIBG program,

initially funded in fiscal year 1998, is that

young people who violate the law need to be

held accountable for their offenses if society is

to improve the quality of life in the Nation’s

communities. Holding a juvenile offender

“accountable” in the juvenile justice system

means that once the juvenile is determined

to have committed law-violating behavior,

by admission or adjudication, he or she is

held responsible for the act through consequences or sanctions, imposed pursuant to

law, that are proportionate to the offense.

Consequences or sanctions that are applied

swiftly, surely, and consistently, and are

graduated to provide appropriate and effective responses to varying levels of offense

seriousness and offender chronicity, work

best in preventing, controlling, and reducing

further law violations.

In an effort to help States and units of local

government develop programs in the 12 purpose areas established for JAIBG funding,

Bulletins in this series are designed to present

the most up-to-date knowledge to juvenile

justice policymakers, researchers, and practitioners about programs and approaches that

From the

Administrator

“If you build it, they will come”

appears to ring true when it

comes to the construction of

new or expanded juvenile

detention facilities. Before

embarking on such a costly

course of action, however, a

community should carefully

assess its facility needs and

ensure that it is effectively

using alternatives to secure

confinement when appropriate.

The Juvenile Accountability

Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG)

program provides assistance in

building or expanding juvenile

correction and detention facilities and in training correctional

staff. This Bulletin, one in a

series featuring JAIBG Best

Practices, offers helpful information about such key aspects

as construction decisions,

master planning, facility

development, and training. It

also provides sources of

additional information, including useful publications.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Overview

JAIBG funds may be used to develop

programs in any of 12 program purpose

areas established by Congress. The first

of these areas—“building, expanding,

renovating, or operating temporary or

permanent juvenile correction or detention facilities, including training of correctional personnel”—addresses construction, operation, and training. Before

beginning construction, however, jurisdictions should complete a master plan,

determine what type of facility will best

meet their needs and expectations, and

reach a decision to construct. Master

planning is a key component because it

establishes the specific policies to prevent

and reduce crowding and control the

length of stay (DeMuro and Dunlap,

1998).

To provide practitioners practical guidance and advice on best practices under

JAIBG Program Purpose Area 1, this

hold juvenile offenders accountable for their

behavior. An indepth description of the

JAIBG program and a list of the 12 program

purpose areas appear in the overview Bulletin for this series.
2

paper addresses five main themes:

construction decisions, master planning, facility development, operations, and training.

■ Construction decisions. Construction under Program Purpose Area

1 includes building new facilities,

expanding existing capacity

through new construction, and

renovating existing facilities.

There are many reasons to build,

including the large number of juveniles currently incarcerated in

crowded facilities (Parent et al.,

1994), the pressing need for secure

beds in jurisdictions without juvenile detention, and the deteriorating condition of many facilities.

Because construction is expensive,

decisions to build, expand, or

renovate facilities should be

reached by using systematic,

data-driven, and rational methods. Decisionmakers, for example,

should be able to provide empirical evidence of a need for construction. If data indicate a need

to build, then jurisdictions have a

strong rationale for construction.

■ Master planning. Master planning

is a systematic process that increases the effectiveness of longterm decisionmaking. Using a

team of juvenile justice specialists

and planners from outside a jurisdiction, the process leads key juvenile justice and community stakeholders through activities that will

elicit a locally defined vision and

mission for the jurisdiction’s juvenile justice system. Data collection

and operational recommendations

are then based on these core values and principles.

■ Facility development. The facility

development process, which begins

with operational/architectural

programming, involves documenting operational priorities and determining spatial requirements and

arrangements that will respond to

a facility’s management, daily

programming, and environmental

needs. During facility development

and prior to the start of physical design activities, jurisdictions should

also define cost parameters for staffing and construction and identify

site issues.

■ Operations. Program Purpose Area

1 includes operations, which for

juvenile detention and corrections

facilities involves programs and

services. Consistent with the competency development aspect of the

Balanced and Restorative Justice

(BARJ) model,1 the operation of

juvenile facilities rests on the assumption that the best way to improve public safety is by changing

an offender’s behavior. Success in

doing so, however, is peopledriven and, therefore, expensive

(with staff costs for salaries, benefits, and training constituting a

large part of operational costs). To

help jurisdictions develop effective

operating practices, this Bulletin

identifies the fundamental needs of

facilities and the key elements of

operations, such as organizational

prerequisites and program, staffing, and management principles.

■ Staff Training. Accountability-based

interventions change juvenile offenders’ behavior by providing them

with opportunities to experience

positive relationships with healthy

adults in appropriate settings. Staff

training is the most cost-effective

way to integrate accountabilitybased principles into staff development in juvenile confinement and

custody facilities.2

 Staff training

technology has expanded greatly

through the programs and services

of the American Correctional Association (ACA), the Juvenile Justice

Trainers Association (JJTA), the

National Institute of Corrections

(NIC) Academy Division, the National Juvenile Detention Association (NJDA), the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) Training and Technical Assistance Division (TTAD),

and an increasing number of Stateoperated training academies. Although this Bulletin presents several

training models and resources, it

cannot capture all of the abundant

knowledge on best practices in this

area. Summaries of effective programs, along with a list of resources

and an extensive bibliography, are

provided to help practitioners retrieve original works and supplemental materials.

Construction 

Decisions—Assessing

the Need To Build

Juvenile detention and corrections

have become big business, with more

and more jurisdictions spending increasing amounts of time, energy, and

money to expand detention and corrections capacity.3

 As public agencies,

private organizations, architects, and

court systems approach construction

more aggressively than ever, more

and larger juvenile facilities come off

the drawing boards every day in a

building surge that has begun to rival

the exponential growth of adult facilities in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Facilities for young people are no longer an

1 The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) model, a

core component of the OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy,

is a combination of the Balanced Approach and the

Restorative Justice models. It includes community

protection, offender accountability, offender competency development, and restoration.

2 Confinement refers to a physically restricting placement, and custody describes places and programs

(such as shelter care, day treatment, and home detention) that involve supervision but may allow youth to

leave at specified times.

3 Juvenile detention refers to the custody process that occurs between the time of a juvenile’s arrest and the time of

his or her adjudication or disposition. It includes a range of

placement alternatives that vary in restrictiveness from

home detention to secure detention. Correctional placements, by contrast, take place after a juvenile has been

adjudicated as an offender and a dispositional plan (or

sentence) has been determined. Correctional placement

alternatives range from small and open residential settings

to large, State-operated, maximum-security corrections

facilities. Some jurisdictions allow the dispositional placement of juveniles in detention facilities, an action that complicates the distinction between detention and corrections.
3

afterthought, buried in the recesses of

civic concern and public budgets; they

are “big-ticket” items occupying communities’ full and serious attention.

Reasons for Construction

Reasons for the recent explosion in

construction of juvenile residential facilities are found in both fact and perception. On the factual side, crowding

is widespread (Parent et al., 1994),

making affected residential programs

difficult to manage and not as safe as

those operating at recommended capacities. Residents spend more time in

lockdown, and program quality suffers (Previte, 1997). When staff must

focus primarily on safety and security,

effective intervention and treatment

are compromised. In addition, because

staffing levels rarely increase as

quickly as the number of residents,

crowded facilities often do not have

enough staff to do the job well.

Another reason for the recent growth

in construction is the large number of

aging and outdated physical plants,

many built during the construction

booms following World War II (see

Norman, 1961). Facilities built during

the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s are fast

approaching the end of their useful

lifespan, an end brought nearer by

the ravages of crowding and (for

many facilities) inadequate maintenance and repair budgets. Such older

facilities also were never intended to

withstand the intense uses they now

frequently must serve. While juvenile

facilities once served a largely nonviolent and manageable population

(with few serious offenders), they

now serve juveniles with profound

behavioral problems and learning

deficits and significant mental health

needs, many of whom present security problems (Cocozza, 1992; Otto et

al., 1992). A large number of facilities

are inappropriately configured to

meet these needs.

A need for increased capacity is another factor driving construction. Until

recently, jurisdictions nationwide have

experienced an increase in juvenile

arrests overall and in arrests for increasingly serious offenses. In communities that have their own secure facilities, the increase has caused buildings

to become crowded and/or juveniles

to be turned away. Jurisdictions that

rely on other communities for secure

beds are frequently told that no room

is available. In both situations, one

immediate solution has been to construct new bed space. With more

beds, communities reason, there will

be no crowding, operations will improve, and problems will go away.

In many instances, communities have

been correct in perceiving a need for

added capacity. For example, in jurisdictions where population has

doubled or tripled over the past 20

years (often with accompanying

changes in juvenile offenders and in

the general social fabric), institutional

capacities may now be totally inadequate. In many communities, especially those where juvenile court

placement practices have not changed,

comprehensive master planning has

confirmed a need for additional capacity to respond to current and future

needs. In other communities, however,

studies have shown that juvenile facilities are housing youth who pose no

significant threat to community safety

or the court process and who could be

managed as effectively in less restrictive and less costly programs and settings (Boersema, 1998; Boersema et al.,

1997; Jones and Krisberg, 1994). In

these instances, the perception that

secure custody is necessary for all juveniles being detained (and perhaps

many more) conflicts with the reality.

When placement in a secure facility is

a jurisdiction’s primary or only treatment option, it becomes an expensive

catchall, one that replaces less restrictive and equally (or more) appropriate

alternatives (Dunlap and Roush, 1995).

Alternatives to Construction

When the perceived need for added

capacity conflicts with reality, a

business-as-usual approach to secure

custody generates high bed-need

projections, which, in turn, result in

excess capacity. Excess capacity then

leads to continued overuse of secure

custody for juveniles and an immediate and lasting strain on financial resources. A jurisdiction may build its

way out of problems, but only temporarily. The numbers usually catch up

with the space available—and usually

more quickly than anyone expected.

In response to these concerns, many

jurisdictions are pursuing alternatives

to construction. This approach, which

uses a range of variably restrictive

residential and nonresidential services, is commonly called “the continuum of care.” Similar to the graduated sanctions model set forth in

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993), the

continuum-of-care approach requires

jurisdictions to examine closely how

to direct resources toward managing

public safety and meeting the needs

of the greatest number of juveniles

(Bilchik, 1998). The continuum-ofcare approach commonly considers

and implements a variety of services

(such as home detention, electronic

monitoring, afterschool and evening

report programs, day treatment, restitution, shelter care, and staff-secure

residential programs) as alternatives

to physically restrictive detention

custody (DeMuro, 1997; GuarinoGhezzi and Loughran, 1996; Howell,

1997).

The JAIBG program raises two important questions related to maintaining a strong continuum of services.

First, given JAIBG’s endorsement of

the concept of graduated sanctions,

will jurisdictions develop and expand

the range of sanctions to serve as consequences for delinquency? Second,

will an overreliance on juvenile institutions as a first or primary sanction

occur that will weaken other sanctions

or the continuum itself? The development of a strong continuum of services
4

would seem to help achieve JAIBG’s

goal of having sanctions that are

graduated, immediate, and accountability oriented. In addition, a strong

continuum may address many jurisdictions’ lack of dispositional options

(sanctions) between probation and

incarceration. By providing juvenile

court judges with options, a strong

continuum of care will improve the

juvenile justice system’s ability to deliver appropriate sanctions and hold

offenders accountable.

Master Planning—Getting

the Numbers Right

In those instances when increased capacity is necessary, deciding to build a

new facility is only the first of many

difficult and critical decisions that a

jurisdiction must make. Because

physical facilities exist for a long time,

jurisdictions should make every effort

to ensure that the process leading to

construction will produce the best and

most appropriate buildings possible.

Master planning is the most important

step in the construction process (Elias

and Ricci, 1997; Farbstein/Williams and

Associates, 1981; Kimme et al., 1988;

McMillen and Hill, 1997). Juvenile

justice system literature emphasizes

the importance of using planning

models to make responsible decisions

about bed space and construction

needs (Boersema, 1998; DeMuro,

1997; Jones and Steinhart, 1994).

Chinn (1996) outlines a planning

strategy to find new solutions for

housing habitually violent young

offenders. The National Center for

Juvenile Justice recommends a 10-

step master planning process to address a range of problems (Steenson

and Thomas, 1997); and Barton

(1994), Guarino-Ghezzi and

Loughran (1996), and Schwartz (1994)

commend the steps in the master

planning process as a strategy to effect broad systems reform. NIC conducts Planning of New Institutions

(PONI) workshops and provides materials that address the construction

planning process (National Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice Planning

and Architecture, 1996; Taylor et al.,

1996; Voorhis, 1996). PONI workshops for juvenile institutions are

currently available to juvenile justice

practitioners.

Responding to crowding and a need

for less restrictive services, NJDA assembled teams of planners, architects,

juvenile justice systems specialists,

and law enforcement specialists to

develop juvenile justice master plans

for several judicial circuits in Illinois

(Boersema, 1998). In each circuit,

teams considered how many secure

detention beds would be needed in

the future and developed master

plans with a wide range of alternatives, including construction of secure

and staff-secure detention beds.4

 Even

though the jurisdictions described

themselves as very similar to one another, the planning process revealed

significant differences to key stakeholders. Given these differences, the

assumption that “one size fits all” can

be misleading and costly—especially

when the proposed solution requires

construction of new secure beds.

The master planning process can

change a jurisdiction’s understanding of its needs, including the size

of the facility it thinks that it needs

(McMillen, 1998). In one jurisdiction, for example, a review of intake

decisions prompted the chief juvenile court judge and circuit court

administrator to modify the intake

process for all juvenile justice system components, including law enforcement. This change led to an immediate and lasting 40-percent drop

in the detention facility’s average

daily population. Intake data not

previously considered also allowed

the jurisdiction to lower its bed-space

projections. Given serious structural

problems with the existing facility,

the final recommendation was to

build a new secure detention center

with a capacity that was 10 beds

higher than that of the existing facility. The jurisdiction’s initial request,

by contrast, had been to construct a

facility with almost twice the number of new beds actually needed.

Without a systematic assessment by

individuals outside the system, the

jurisdiction would have significantly overbuilt.

Planning Team Members

Given the high cost of juvenile facility

construction, a jurisdiction should

carefully review the qualifications of

master planning team members and

make sure that the team includes the

following: an architect experienced in

building juvenile facilities, a planner

with juvenile justice and master planning experience who is knowledgeable in data collection and analysis

procedures, a juvenile justice systems

specialist experienced in operating

model or effective programs and services, and a local law enforcement

specialist who can provide access to

information and services from local

law enforcement agencies.

Planning Steps

Jurisdictions assessing space needs

should complete the following

important planning steps:

Step 1: Form an advisory group

Each jurisdiction should form an advisory group to guide planning efforts. Whether called a stakeholders

group, steering committee, community advisory group, or interagency

workgroup, the group should include

the jurisdiction’s chief probation officer; its superintendent(s) of juvenile

confinement facilities; responsible

local juvenile justice advocates; and

representatives from the juvenile

court, local law enforcement, the

public defender’s and prosecutor’s

offices, youth-serving agencies, placement agencies for adjudicated youth,

4 The term “staff-secure” refers to security resulting

from the presence of and measures taken by staff

members, rather than conditions created by the presence of locks or other hardware.
5

and community organizations

(DeMuro and Dunlap, 1998).

Step 2: Define advisory

group tasks

The community advisory group’s

main tasks are establishing goals for

the planning process and monitoring

progress toward those goals (Ricci,

1995). Establishing goals involves

agreeing on those goals that will appear in a local juvenile justice system’s

vision and mission statements and

identifying the objectives, policies,

procedures, and practices related to

those goals. Monitoring goals involves

considering how critical decisions and

outcomes will affect all stakeholders in

the system. Careful monitoring will

keep decisionmaking balanced and

provide the accountability needed to

ensure that the process remains consistent with a group’s vision and mission

statements.

Step 3: Collect and analyze data

Advisory groups should use data collection and analysis resources from

both within and outside their jurisdictions. Although local data experts may

be familiar with local systems and

sources of information, consultants

from outside the area may possess

broader knowledge of the quality and

implications of data and various

analysis strategies. The planning team

will oversee the data collection process, but the community advisory

group should determine the quantity

and quality of data to be collected. Because many jurisdictions have inadequate information management systems and important data may be hard

to access or of poor quality, data collection and analysis are often tedious

steps in the master planning process.

To address these obstacles, advisory

groups should include data collection

procedures in the initial plan.

Data analysis should encompass the

full range of services and programs

available in the jurisdiction. According to the National Association of

Counties (NACO), a jurisdiction’s

continuum of care may suffer when a

new facility is built (Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

1998). In jurisdictions with limited

resources, a new facility can become a

financial drain, leaving fewer resources for alternatives (noninstitutional) and prevention programs.

Schwartz (1994) opposes the use of

architects or architectural planning

firms to collect and analyze data because a potential conflict of interest

between an architect’s financial interests and a jurisdiction’s best interests

may exist when a large construction

project is involved. Other practitioners, however, cite examples of architectural planning firms that have

completed master plans and advised

jurisdictions against building juvenile

confinement facilities even when construction would have benefited the

firms financially.

Step 4: Obtain technical assistance

Technical assistance regarding how

to create a master plan and assess a

jurisdiction’s need for new or expanded facility construction is available through OJJDP and other sources

listed in the “For Further Information” section of this Bulletin.

Step 5: Involve staff

Planning teams and advisory groups

should involve facility staff, particularly line staff and first-level supervisors, in the master planning process

(Taylor et al., 1996). Experience indicates that youth can also play an important role.

Facility Development—

Determining the Type of

Facility Needed

For a secure juvenile facility to work

well, it must first and foremost be a

safe place. Residents should be able

to leave and the public enter only at

staff’s discretion. The facility must

be easy to manage, supervise, and

maintain, and it must resist the hard

use—and at times abuse—of the

young people who reside there. It

needs adequate space for required

and desired programs and services.

The space must be arranged in a way

that allows staff to do their jobs and

residents to do what is required of

them in a flexible manner.

A review of plans and programs for

juvenile facilities reveals a variety of

physical and operational approaches.

The approach chosen depends on a

community’s circumstances and attitudes. Architects generally try to be

responsive to both the specific needs

of their clients and the constraints imposed by budgets and sites.

Unfortunately, many facilities are

designed without information on the

specific expectations and needs of those

who will use and manage the buildings. In these instances, designers may

propose physical structures based on

available juvenile or adult system models, which may or may not be appropriate. Without carefully considering

the following factors, jurisdictions will

be unable to determine the best possible approach for the physical design

of their facilities:

■ Diverse methods of managing juvenile behavior.

■ Resident and staff responses to the

physical environment.

■ Daily program structure.

■ Staffing patterns and costs.

■ Circulation and space-sharing patterns in a facility.

■ Responses to emergencies and

other situations.

Considering these factors may lead

planners to discover that a proposed

design provides security but fails to

achieve other essential goals. Because

a successful design is based on the

operational priorities of a particular

project, rote design (i.e., one that
6

proceeds without considering such

priorities) will only compromise a project’s goals and ultimate effectiveness.

There is no magical “best approach”

to facility design. In developing any

new or expanded facility, jurisdictions

and their planners must find their own

best approach, basing designs on their

own expectations, rather than on preconceived architectural notions. The

architectural/operational programming process described below permits

such an individualized approach.

Architectural/Operational

Programming

With growing demands for improved

security, program quality, and architectural sophistication, predesign

planning has become increasingly important. Operational programming—

which should involve key agency and

community decisionmakers, court

representatives, service providers,

and other community stakeholders—

involves having these parties examine closely what they intend to accomplish with a proposed facility.

Failure to involve all concerned parties in the process can lead to confusion and dissension.

The operational programming process typically begins with a review of

a facility’s proposed vision and mission statements (e.g., to protect the

public and prevent flight from prosecution, provide a safe and secure environment, deliver programming and

services consistent with legal requirements, and ensure resident health

and welfare). These statements may

serve as the foundation for building a

hierarchy of programs and spaces. In

many cases, however, the statements

only begin to scratch the surface of

expectations for a facility.

A comprehensive range of philosophical and operational imperatives

should be established before physical

planning activities begin. Such imperatives may include:

■ Implementing behavior management methods.

■ Respecting juvenile rights and

recognizing juvenile needs.

■ Providing programs that address

juvenile, system, and family needs.

■ Implementing methods for fostering resident accountability, cooperation, and participation.

■ Recognizing the importance of

resident skills assessment and

development.

■ Recognizing the importance of

family involvement with residents.

■ Emphasizing effective intervention

and treatment or punishment.

■ Appreciating and responding to

resident gender, culture, religion,

and ethnicity.

■ Recognizing the value of links to

community and transition services.

■ Emphasizing the importance of

returning juveniles to productive

roles in the community.

These factors, among others, should

guide the continuing development

and refinement of programs, staffing

patterns, environmental quality, and

spaces at a proposed facility. If a facility and its services are to succeed,

planners should address the use of

space only after all other priorities

have been established.

Next, operational programming

should investigate the following

specific issues:

■ Security and supervision methods.

■ Optimal residential group size for

housing and activities.

■ Classification.

■ Special needs groups.

■ Scope of daily programs and

services.

■ Scheduling of activities.

■ Visual/physical connections

between activities.

■ Resident circulation and movement.

■ Environmental priorities (sound,

lighting, furnishings, appearance,

image).

■ Maintenance and repair (durability, life cycle costs).

■ Staff communications and support.

■ Potential staffing requirements and

costs.

■ Staff qualifications and training

requirements.

■ Codes and standards

requirements.

■ Operational flexibility.

■ Future expansion potential.

■ Construction cost parameters.

A review of these specific issues will

help to determine a facility’s essential

operational concepts and identify developmental options that are responsive to these essential concepts.

Following close on the heels of operational programming, architectural

planning takes all of the previously

assembled information and begins

to enter real numbers and specific

spaces into the equation.

Once a facility’s major functions have

been identified, the architectural planning process examines the various activities that take place in different areas,

the number of people involved, and the

times these activities occur. This analysis generates net area (square footage)

requirements for anticipated activities.

Net area requirements are then combined with circulation and other requirements related to resident and

staff movement within the building,

the need for other spaces (mechanical

rooms, electrical closets, and various

undefined spaces), and additional

space required for wall thickness and

other structural elements. This calculation yields the gross building area or
7

total square footage required for the

building. It is not unusual for the total

square footage required by a residential

facility to be up to 50-percent greater

than the net area required for actual

user activities.

While individual space requirements for facility functions are being developed (see table 1), architects should explore with facility

operators factors—scheduling, potential circulation patterns, supervision and staffing requirements, and

options for connecting various

spaces and activity zones—to be

considered in determining spatial

arrangements. Architects should

then develop construction diagrams

that show the most efficient visual

and physical connections (functional adjacencies) and indicate

access control points and circulation

patterns (see figure 1, page 8).

A facility’s design can succeed only

to the extent that it meets the needs

and expectations of its users. Building a residential facility is expensive and, once construction begins,

there is generally no chance to correct errors in design. Comprehensive operational programming and

architectural planning provide facility planners with an opportunity

to make the best possible decisions

from the outset, before committing

plans to brick and mortar.

Space Considerations

Defining the gross building area and

general spatial arrangements makes it

possible to project capital construction costs and related expenditures

for furnishings, fees, and site work.

Because these projections may form

the basis for funding procurement

and for ensuring that a building is

constructed within budget, the related analysis of space considerations

must be thorough. The process of examining space considerations and

projecting costs must precede physical design efforts to ensure that all

operational objectives are achieved

and to prevent costly changes in

scope during subsequent design

phases (DeWitt, 1987).

The amount of space required for

various facility functions depends on

many factors, including State licensing and building codes, professional

standards of practice (American Correctional Association, 1991a, 1991b,

1991c), and the operational priorities

and methods governing where, when,

and how activities are to take place.

Operational factors should be given

high priority because building codes

and standards typically do little more

than prescribe minimum spatial requirements (American Correctional

Association, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c).

Facility staff may require the flexibility

to depart from certain professional standards of practice to fulfill operational

needs specific to their own facility.

Although spatial requirements for secure juvenile facilities vary depending

on a facility’s capacity and scope of

activities, these requirements usually

include more space per resident than

is required in facilities designed for

adults. The demand for a high level

of service and activity at juvenile

facilities—to keep juveniles occupied

during the day and to facilitate the 

intervention process—requires more

space.

In facilities with 50 or fewer residents,

spatial allocations of 700 to 800 square

feet per resident are not uncommon.

Larger facilities, which achieve certain

economies of scale, may reasonably

average 600 to 700 square feet per resident. A design that significantly exceeds

these ranges without offering compelling justification may be seen as overly

generous. On the other hand, one that

provides significantly less space may

jeopardize a facility’s functionality.

Table 1: Sample Space Listing (Housing Component)

Space Square Total Net

Number Space/Area Quantity Feet Square Feet Comments

5.100 Bedrooms (Standard) 9 70 630 Single User, Toilet

5.101 Bedroom (ADA Access)* 1 100 100 Single User, Toilet

5.102 Quiet Living/Dayroom 1 500 500 10 Users, Natural Lighting

5.103 Staff Desk 1 30 30 Open Station, Telephone

5.104 Restroom/Shower 1 70 70 Single User, ADA Access

5.105 Shower 1 40 40 Single User

5.106 Storage/Janitor Closet 1 80 80 With Janitor Sink

Note: Space Listing covers general population housing units with 10 beds.

Source: Mike McMillen, AIA

* Bedroom must be accessible according to standards of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Total Net Square Feet 1,450

Six Units (60 Beds) @ 1,450 NSF/Unit 8,700
8

Design Issues

An effective juvenile facility, through a

combination of spaces, security features, and environment, allows staff to

perform their jobs with ease and professionalism. Although operating an

effective residential program for juveniles is never easy, the physical setting

can help or hinder operations. If staff

members have to struggle with a building to accomplish their objectives, they

may not make the effort to do their jobs

well or they may seek easier but less

beneficial ways to perform their duties.

In addition, a building with design

elements that provoke undesired responses from residents will only make

staff members’ jobs harder.

Although no single combination of

spaces, security features, and environment is appropriate for every situation,

certain aspects of secure residential

design are of universal importance.

These aspects are discussed below.

Security and safety

Having a secure and safe facility—the

first requisite in secure juvenile

confinement—involves more than

construction materials and hardware.

True security and safety derive from

a combination of physical materials,

management methods, resident supervision, program features, staff

support, and access control.

A sharp philosophical shift in the

planning and design of juvenile facilities has followed the general

trend toward tougher penalties on

juvenile offenders (Niedringhous

and Goedert, 1998). New juvenile

correctional facilities are larger, better equipped with security hardware

and technology, and better able to

accommodate growth. They also

emphasize the use of materials that

resist abuse, destruction, and penetration by residents. Although materials that create a less restrictive

environment may be available, using

durable materials is a way to ensure

that a building provides a first line

of defense that staff do not need to

worry about. If juveniles cannot escape or engage in damaging behavior as a way to exert control or gain

attention, then both staff and residents will be able to focus on more

productive activities.

Most new facilities feature a secure

building perimeter that minimizes the

potential for unauthorized resident

Figure 1: Sample Spatial Relationships Diagram

New Construction Diagram

30-Bed Initial Capacity With Expansion to 50 Beds

Secure Access Control Secondary Access Control Secure Areas

Indoor

Recreation

Support Areas

Outdoor

Recreation

Housing

Unit

1

Housing

Unit

2

Future

Housing Unit

4

Future

Housing Unit

5

Laundry

Storage

Future Multipurpose

Outdoor

Recreation Admissions

Education Kitchen

Staff

Administration

Vest Lobby Public

Access

Police

Access

Service

Access

Primary Security Perimeter

Multipurpose Activities Area

Exam

Dining Visiting

Housing

Unit

3

Control

New Construction Diagram

30-Bed Initial Capacity With Expansion to 50 Beds

Secure Access Control Secondary Access Control Secure Areas

Indoor

Recreation

Support Areas

Outdoor

Recreation

Housing

Unit

1

Housing

Unit

2

Future

Housing Unit

4

Future

Housing Unit

5

Laundry

Storage

Future Multipurpose

Outdoor

Recreation Admissions

Education Kitchen

Staff

Administration

Vest Lobby Public

Access

Police

Access

Service

Access

Primary Security Perimeter

Multipurpose Activities Area

Exam

Dining Visiting

Housing

Unit

3

Control

New Construction Diagram

30-Bed Initial Capacity With Expansion to 50 Beds

Secure Access Control Secondary Access Control Secure Areas

Indoor

Recreation

Support Areas

Outdoor

Recreation

Housing

Unit

1

Housing

Unit

2

Future

Housing Unit

4

Future

Housing Unit

5

Laundry

Storage

Future Multipurpose

Outdoor

Recreation Admissions

Education Kitchen

Staff

Administration

Vest Lobby Public

Access

Police

Access

Service

Access

Primary Security Perimeter

Multipurpose Activities Area

Exam

Dining Visiting

Housing

Unit

3

Control

New Construction Diagram

30-Bed Initial Capacity With Expansion to 50 Beds

Secure Access Control Secondary Access Control Secure Areas

Indoor

Recreation

Support Areas

Outdoor

Recreation

Housing

Unit

1

Housing

Unit

2

Future

Housing Unit

4

Future

Housing Unit

5

Laundry

Storage

Future Multipurpose

Outdoor

Recreation Admissions

Education Kitchen

Staff

Administration

Vest Lobby Public

Access

Police

Access

Service

Access

Primary Security Perimeter

Multipurpose Activities Area

Exam

Dining Visiting

Housing

Unit

3

Control

New Construction Diagram

30-Bed Initial Capacity With Expansion to 50 Beds

Secure Access Control Secondary Access Control Secure Areas

Indoor

Recreation

Support Areas

Outdoor

Recreation

Housing

Unit

1

Housing

Unit

2

Future

Housing Unit

4

Future

Housing Unit

5

Laundry

Storage

Future Multipurpose

Outdoor

Recreation Admissions

Education Kitchen

Staff

Administration

Vest Lobby Public

Access

Police

Access

Service

Access

Primary Security Perimeter

Multipurpose Activities Area

Exam

Dining Visiting

Housing

Unit

3

Control

Source: Mike McMillen, AIA
9

egress, public access, and resident

contact with the public. Within the

building, major functional spaces

such as housing, education, recreation, dining, and visiting areas are

zoned so that staff can control resident access and maintain appropriate

group size and separation. Many facilities control access between zones

remotely (from a central security or

control station), making it unnecessary for staff to carry keys (often a

target of residents). To ensure continuous visual contact between residents

and staff, walls of damage-resistant

glazing are used extensively in partitions separating residential areas.

Nearly all housing in new facilities

consists of single-occupancy bedrooms with integral sanitary fixtures.

If these features seem like those already common in adult facilities,

there is good reason. Juvenile justice

practitioners today face many of the

same safety and security problems

that their adult system counterparts

have long faced, making a similar

level of protection necessary in juvenile facilities. In many ways, however, differences between juvenile

and adult operations are more pronounced now than in the past.

Direct supervision

Direct supervision in adult corrections (Farbstein, Liebert, and

Sigurdson, 1996; Nelson, 1993; Nelson

et al., 1984) is not the same as direct

supervision in juvenile facilities. The

staffing ratio is one source of difference. Adult facilities commonly use

1 correctional officer for every 40 or

more inmates (Nelson et al., 1984;

Wright and Goodstein, 1989). To

maintain safety and security with this

ratio, adult facilities rely on electronic

surveillance, security construction,

and behavior management teams or

therapeutic Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams charged with crisis

management. By contrast, juvenile

facilities usually need 1 staff person

working directly with every 8 to 10

juveniles to ensure effective involvement and behavior management.

(Having 1 staff member supervise

40 juveniles would be a prescription

for serious problems.) In addition,

almost all juvenile facilities use direct

supervision staffing patterns, with

staff physically present and directly

involved with residents at all times.

Juveniles are not (and should not be)

left to their own devices or managed

by remote control.

Higher staff-resident ratios at juvenile

facilities allow for more effective interaction. When staff have many opportunities to work with residents, problems can be identified and resolved

before they pose a threat to safety. Juveniles themselves will feel safer, will

feel less exposed to unknown threats,

and will be less likely to act out.

Another common and effective supervision strategy at juvenile facilities is

having residents participate regularly

in programs and services such as education, recreation, and counseling. A

juvenile who is occupied and engaged

is far less likely to present behavior

problems. He or she will also realize

general benefits in such areas as personal skills development, health maintenance, academic achievement, and

cooperation (Glick and Goldstein, 1995;

Henggeler, 1998; Rubenstein, 1991).

Normalization of the residential

environment—both the physical and

operational character of a facility—is

another essential element in developing a safe and secure setting. Although a secure detention facility is

not an environment that most residents would describe as normal,

many facilities today are designed

with the intent of minimizing overtly

institutional characteristics so that

residents will not engage in the negative behaviors that an institutional

environment may prompt. Spatial variety, movable furnishings, natural

lighting, acoustic control, housing/

group size, and opportunities for resident movement are design elements

that can help to reduce the sense of

crowding and restrictiveness that often leads residents to engage in

thoughtless and unsafe behavior.

Despite the need for increasingly restrictive physical features, juvenile justice professionals continue to emphasize the need for facilities to reflect

intense concern for the juveniles who

reside in them. For example, professionals demand buildings that support

a wide range of activities and encourage ongoing contact between residents

and staff. In this context, security and

safety are recognized as necessary to

accommodate people and places—

rather than as ways to create coercive

and restrictive confinement.

Group size/classification

Another fundamental difference between juvenile and adult facilities is

the typical size of resident groups or

housing units. Although housing

units with capacities of 25 to 40 are

common at adult facilities, juvenile

facilities rarely have units that house

more than 12 to 16 residents and often have units that house as few as 8

residents. Juvenile programs avoid

larger resident groups for various reasons, including the following:

■ Larger groups of juveniles are

more difficult to manage.

■ It is harder for staff (who are often

both counselors and supervisors)

to work effectively with individuals in larger groups.

■ It is more difficult to move larger

groups for various program

activities.

An increasingly important reason for

small group sizes at juvenile facilities

relates to resident classification priorities. In the past, most juvenile facilities had relatively small capacities.

These small facilities needed small

resident groups in order to separate

boys from girls and older youth from

younger and to make it possible for

staff to work with residents on a more

individualized basis. Today, juvenile
10

facilities are becoming larger, but the

need for more refined classification

methods (and for the ability to place

residents in small groups) is more

apparent than ever. Juvenile facilities

are receiving a higher percentage of

serious offenders, sexual offenders,

juveniles with identified substance

abuse and mental health problems,

and female offenders. Accordingly,

facilities need something other than

a one-size-fits-all management approach. They need an approach that

includes specially structured programming and services and the ability to classify and separate juveniles

into small groups for housing and

program purposes. Although program staff rarely, if ever, want to assemble large groups of juveniles, they

should be able to do so when necessary or appropriate without being restricted by the organization or spatial

limitations of a building.

The issue of what housing unit size is

best has by no means been resolved

and probably never will be. Economic

considerations (smaller units usually

mean higher staffing costs) often conflict with operational needs (smaller

units can mean better staff management of residents). Therefore, different balances must be struck in different communities. Although most

programs call for smaller units (up to

12 residents), some prefer larger units

with multiple staff assigned to each

unit to allow staff present to provide

immediate support. Some jurisdictions insist on making all housing

units in a single facility the same size,

thereby permitting consistent and efficient staff allocation (because it is

virtually impossible to predict how

the number of residents in each classification will change over time).

Others require the development of

variable-size housing units so that

certain groups of residents can be

lodged in smaller groups, based on

management and program needs. Although there is more than one way of

doing things correctly, juvenile facilities generally lean toward smaller

group sizes and staffing levels that

support this approach.

Environmental concerns

The wisdom of Vitruvius (the Greek

scholar who explained that a building

may be judged by its adherence to the

principles of commodity, firmness,

and delight) has certain relevance to

environmental concerns that are pertinent to juvenile facilities. By commodity, Vitruvius meant that a building must serve the function for which

it was intended. By firmness, he

meant that a building should be able

to withstand the rigors of wind, rain,

and inhabitants. By delight, he meant

that a building should provide enjoyment to its users.

Although it is easy to see how the

concepts of commodity and firmness

apply to secure juvenile facilities, it is

harder to see the connection between

secure juvenile facilities and the principle of delight. The concept of delight, however, applies in many ways

to these facilities. The spaces that

people live and work in profoundly

affect their attitudes, comfort levels,

and feelings about how good or bad

their circumstances are. In turn, these

perceptions influence people’s approaches to getting through each day.

A person in an inhospitable, threatening, or demeaning environment, for

example, may feel overcome by circumstances and seek relief through

isolation. A person in a restrictive environment might try to exert control

over his or her situation by attempting to change things or simply trying

to get up and leave.

In a secure juvenile facility, none of

these responses is desirable. Juveniles

who isolate themselves (emotionally

or physically) become unreachable

and pose special management problems. Juveniles who try to exert control through aggressive, confrontational, or manipulative behavior

present a danger to staff and other

residents and disrupt the smooth

flow of daily activities. Although

leaving a secure custodial setting is

not an option for residents, the possibility that they will plot such an

action is a continuing source of staff

concern.

Some secure residential facilities for

juveniles are designed to inhibit or

prevent these undesirable responses

by physically restricting residents at

all times and using materials and

spaces that allow no opportunity for

entry or escape. Such buildings, however, often evidence little consideration for the sensibilities of their occupants. At the opposite extreme,

other buildings are completely nonrestrictive and are designed for management methods that rely entirely

on staff and program structure to respond to and control any potential

problem behaviors.

The majority of juvenile facilities

fall somewhere in between these extremes, depending on the population

being served and local attitudes. Most

are designed both to be physically durable and to take human factors into

account. Providing residents opportunities to cooperate and behave responsibly encourages them to do so and to

become more accountable for their actions. The physical setting, while discouraging abuse or destruction of the

building and its furnishings by residents, must also project an image that

reinforces society’s positive expectations of juveniles (rather than one

that will provoke counterproductive

responses).

Such a setting offers a normalized or

noninstitutional environment, one

whose features will moderate the perception of institutional confinement.

Small group living arrangements relieve the sense of crowding and the

strain of fitting in with other youth.

Natural lighting and regular physical

and visual access to outdoor spaces

reduce impressions of confinement,

as does the ability to move among

locations with varied spatial character. A quiet acoustic environment,

achieved through carpeting and other
11

surface treatments, furnishings, and

spatial configurations, can be used to

create the perception of a calm and

controlled setting.

In a 1998 keynote address to the

American Institute of Architects Conference, James Bell, a staff attorney

for the Youth Law Center, described

the optimal features of a juvenile facility as follows:

While technology may be good

for adult incarceration, it has

proven repeatedly to be a poor

way to administer juvenile facilities. Use your designs as a tool to

try to reduce warehousing of

young people, many of whom

have still not been adjudicated

delinquent.

Make sure there is plenty of light

and space. Juveniles in general

are mercurial, and they definitely

are so while detained. A light,

spacious setting can improve

their spirits when they return

from court or from a visit that

goes poorly.

Make sure there is enough space

for large muscle exercise and for

classrooms and contact visiting.

Be wary of multiple use rooms

that are supposed to serve as the

primary classroom. You can believe that any space not designated specifically for classrooms

will probably not be used as such.

There are too many competing

needs for any large space and

school will be one of the first

casualties.

I know that you can design facilities that downplay the negative

aspects of confinement and provide positive space through your

use of natural light, glass, colors,

textures, and furnishings.

Staff support, communication,

and supervision

One of the great challenges in developing effective operations and

management practices in a juvenile

facility is the need for staff to work

consistently and effectively with residents. To do so, staff must be confident of both their personal safety and

the overall security of the facility.

When staff are responsible for too

many residents, when they doubt the

availability of assistance in emergencies, or when they have a limited

number of responses to resident behavior, they are likely to avoid close

contact with residents under their

care and rely on physically restrictive

measures to achieve control. As a result, program quality suffers, and a

more institutional character prevails.

Appropriate group size is a decisive

factor in staff members’ perception of

control. The ability to keep groups

within various zones also contributes

to a sense of control. Other design

features affect staff perception of control. Housing and activity spaces, for

example, should be arranged in a

way that promotes a high degree of

visibility for staff within and outside

those areas. Juveniles should not be

able to conceal themselves in corners

or rooms that are not directly supervised. Resident circulation between

physically controlled security zones

(housing, education, recreation, visiting, dining) should also be direct and

easily observed by staff. Residents

should know that they are being observed at all times and that there are

no gaps in surveillance—even when

staff are not working with them directly. Remote audio and visual monitoring systems should be used, as appropriate, to supplement direct

supervision and to ensure backup

during periods of low staffing.

Staff members must also be able to

communicate immediately with one

another at all times. Access to audio

communication systems should be

uncomplicated and widely available.

In many new facilities, staff are

equipped with cordless telephones or

other wireless communication devices to ensure instant connection to

other staff and prompt notification of

others in the event of an emergency.

Housing

Housing is a critical issue in designing a successful juvenile facility. As

discussed above (under “Group size/

classification”), housing units for juveniles tend to be smaller than those

in adult facilities. The vast majority of

units in juvenile facilities support 8 to

12 residents—the maximum number,

according to juvenile authorities, that

a single staff person can manage effectively with a high level of staff interaction and safety (Parent et al.,

1994). Although smaller units may

result in less efficient staffing patterns, they may be necessary for certain categories of offenders. Larger

housing units—though more common in recent large facilities—are

generally considered unacceptable in

small facilities because it is harder to

classify residents when they are part

of larger groups.

Housing units must support such

varied activities as sleeping, counseling, studying, reading, writing, playing board games, using a computer,

and watching television. Staff generally want housing areas to be quiet

spaces that provide residents with a

sense of calm, reflection, and privacy

after days filled with structured programs and activities. To control noise

and intensity levels, active pursuits

such as table games, exercise, and recreation often occur outside of, but

close to, housing areas.

To create spatial flexibility and allow

for certain program activities in housing areas, many housing unit designs

include living space beyond the minimum levels required by national standards. Many facilities also now incorporate easily accessible activity

spaces, both indoor and outdoor, in

close proximity to housing.

Some new facilities feature housing

units based on the “unit management

concept,” meaning that the majority
12

of resident activities (including dining and education) occur within the

housing unit. This approach minimizes resident circulation. Most residential programs, however, involve

extensive movement of residents

among spaces and reserve housing

units for sleeping, studying, and engaging in certain small group activities. Although either approach can be

successful, the decision to pursue one

over the other should be carefully

considered during project planning

phases because the two approaches

require radically different designs.

Regardless of the amount of resident

movement envisioned, most housing

areas in new juvenile facilities include

the following:

■ Single-occupancy sleeping rooms.

■ Group living spaces.

■ Individual showers and restrooms.

■ Storage spaces for clothes, linens,

and other items used on the unit.

■ Accessible janitor closets (which

facilitate resident participation in

cleaning).

Staff desk areas are often included in

housing areas to allow staff members

to complete paperwork and related

activities in close proximity to residents. According to the mandates of

the 1990 Americans With Disabilities

Act, housing unit designs must also

now include a certain number of bedrooms with wheelchair access. Many

housing units and the areas within

and immediately adjacent to them

also have laundry facilities that allow

resident participation, interview

rooms that may be used by social services and other staff members, additional storage space, and “timeout”

rooms that permit temporary separation of residents who are exhibiting

disruptive behavior.

Single-occupancy sleeping rooms are

preferred in most juvenile confinement settings. Although professional

standards and case law permit the use

of multiple-occupancy sleeping rooms,

practitioners have found that shared

sleeping spaces—even with intensive

supervision—are often a source of increased juvenile injuries, intimidation,

and other undesirable behaviors. ACA

standards require facilities’ living

units to be designed primarily for

single-occupancy sleeping, allowing

no more than 20 percent of housing

capacity to be multiple-occupancy

sleeping rooms (American Correctional

Association, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c). The

court in T.I. et al. v. Delia et al. (King

County, WA), for example, held that

having three or more youth in one

sleeping room constituted a potentially

dangerous, and even unconstitutional,

threat to individual safety and ordered

a stop to multiple-occupancy sleeping

rooms (i.e., those with three or more

residents) in juvenile detention facilities (cf., Puritz and Scali, 1998).

OJJDP’s Research Report Conditions

of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and

Corrections Facilities (Parent et al.,

1994) has similarly linked increased

juvenile-on-juvenile injuries to large

dormitories (11 or more residents in

one large room) and recommends

eliminating dormitory sleeping arrangements in all juvenile facilities.

Because of these concerns, many program operators faced with crowding

refuse to place more than one resident

in a sleeping room, opting instead to

put extra mattresses in separate and

easily supervised dayrooms or hallways to minimize the potential for

injury or other dangers.

Because sleeping rooms are the hardest areas to supervise, they should be

a facility’s most durable and abuseresistant spaces. Hard finishes and

stainless steel sanitary fixtures are

commonly used, windows and

frames are designed to be durable,

and windows are designed and located to prevent external communication. Sleeping rooms should include

audio communications systems to allow residents to contact staff and staff

to contact and monitor residents as

necessary. Doors, whether made of

heavy-gauge metal or solid wood,

should have vision panels. Although

fire safety regulations may require

remote release doors, normal operations usually allow staff to control

sleeping room doors with a key.

Suicide prevention is a paramount

concern in designing facilities. The

time that a juvenile spends in his or

her room, when contact with staff and

other residents is limited, can be the

most emotionally disturbing period of

the juvenile’s entire incarceration

(Hayes, 1998; Rowan, 1989). Recognizing the potential for suicidal and other

dangerous behavior, most residential

programs seek to minimize the time

that juveniles spend in their rooms. In

addition, programs attempt to eliminate protrusions and sharp edges in

sleeping rooms and limit residents’

access to hardware or other materials

that might be used for self-destructive

purposes. Sleeping rooms today are

consequently more spartan than in the

past, an environmental tradeoff considered acceptable given the need for

increased safety and the limited time

that residents spend there. By contrast,

group living spaces in housing units

today are generally more open, less

confining, and more easily supervised

than in the past.

Most program operators favor singlelevel housing arrangements over

multilevel arrangements because

single-level arrangements permit

easier access to and better supervision of sleeping rooms. Site restrictions, staffing levels, cost constraints,

and other factors, however, sometimes require facilities to consider

split-level or two-story housing arrangements, with bedrooms stacked

vertically around a common living or

dayroom area. Although many newer

facilities have used this approach successfully (Dugan, 1998), it poses significant design and operational challenges, including potential difficulties

with vertical circulation, resident access, emergency egress, room checks
13

and supervision, and ADA compliance and the potential for behavior

problems (e.g., jumping or throwing

objects from upper levels).

For the most part, secure detention

housing spaces are intended to provide a constant level of physical security and supervision that supports

flexible use (based on needs determined by staff). Spatial and material

distinctions are less important design

considerations than a facility’s ability

to use housing spaces in a variety of

ways that may be modified over time.

Programs and Services

Having a full schedule of programs

and services available to residents facilitates effective management of their

behavior. Keenly aware that residents

may find unproductive or damaging

outlets for youthful energy when limited opportunities for positive activity are available, program staff in juvenile facilities believe that structured

educational and recreational activities

are the best defense against misbehavior (Roush, 1996c).

In addition to their behavior management benefits, program and service

opportunities are essential to residents’ health and well-being (Bell,

1990, 1992, 1996; National Commission on Correctional Health Care,

1999; Soler et al., 1990). Facilities accordingly allow visitation and provide comprehensive education, recreation, counseling, religious, and

medical services (Roush, 1993). Although specific requirements for programs in each of these areas are not

always defined, professional standards, case law, and State codes

mandate provision of these services

(Roush, 1993), and best practices

demand something more than a

minimalist approach.

Education

Although educational programs may

meet the letter of the law by assigning

residents a few hours of homework

each day or requiring them to complete self-directed learning packets

and related activities, program operators usually believe that more extensive academic activities are necessary

to meet residents’ needs (Leone, Rutherford, and Nelson, 1991; Wolford

and Koebel, 1995). The time that a juvenile spends in custody, when educators can have his or her undivided

attention, is often described as a

“teachable moment,” a time when

considerable learning can take place

(Cavanagh, 1995). Given this opportunity, many residential programs

feature hours of year-round educational activities (formal and informal)

that focus not only on standard

academic subjects, but also on the

following:

■ Life skills development.

■ Communications skills assessment.

■ Remedial reading and writing

instruction.

■ Conflict resolution skills development (including instruction on social skills, anger management, and

healthy lifestyles).

■ Computer literacy.

■ Learning skills assessment.

Daytime learning activities frequently

carry over into the evening and may

also include counseling and group

instruction in subjects such as anger

management, peer pressure responses, and substance abuse resistance. A well-founded residential program seeks both to identify problems

that may contribute to delinquency

and to initiate coordinated educational responses to these problems.

Recreation

Recreation includes such diverse activities as exercise and sports, constructive leisure activities for individuals and groups (e.g., crafts, cards,

and board games), intellectual activities (e.g., reading, writing, and problem solving), and certain less active

pursuits (e.g, computer games)

(Calloway, 1995; Grimm, 1998; Roush,

1996c). Active recreational activities

(which involve vigorous competitive

and noncompetitive activities) are an

essential part of daytime and evening

programming (Bell, 1990, 1992, 1996;

Soler et al., 1990). The availability of

indoor space for these activities allows residents to pursue active exercise regardless of weather conditions.

Outdoor recreational opportunities

should also be available to relieve the

stress of constant indoor confinement.

For these, practitioners generally favor easily supervised outdoor areas

that are close to housing and indoor

activity areas (for easy access) and

suitable for small groups.

Visitation

Visitation with family members usually involves scheduled periods for

group contact visitation,5 supplemented by prearranged private visits

as appropriate. Most facilities include

group visiting rooms and private

visiting rooms (for meetings with

family and legal counsel) within a

building’s secure perimeter but outside its primary residential areas.

Some program operators oppose

bringing visitors into any residential

areas, given the possible disruption of

programming for juveniles receiving

visitors, the need to control contraband, and other safety concerns.

Some facilities also have a limited

number of noncontact visiting rooms

to be used in the rare circumstance

when potential harm to residents or

visitors is anticipated.

Health care

Most juvenile facilities’ medical

services include medical screening,

regular examinations, sick call, and

distribution of medications (Morris,

Anderson, and Baker, 1996; National

5 During contact visitation, a detained individual and

his or her visitor(s) are in the same area; in noncontact

visits, they are separated by safety glass.
14

Commission on Correctional Health

Care, 1999; Owens, 1994). Because

they require round-the-clock medical

staffing, infirmaries are provided in

only the largest facilities. Emergency

medical services and ongoing medical supervision are usually provided

as needed at designated offsite locations, except in the largest facilities.

Because of the number and diversity

of health-related problems experienced by juveniles and the proliferation of medications being administered to juveniles in custody, the

availability of regular care and attention by qualified medical professionals

has become a matter of increasing concern for juvenile facilities. The expanding scope of medical services needed

for juveniles in secure residential custody has resulted in increased space

needs. Many facilities also now include health education for juveniles

as an integral part of their programs.

Site Selection Issues

Site selection is one of the most perplexing decisions jurisdictions face

when developing juvenile residential

facilities. Many projects encounter resistance from community members

who fear that placing a facility near

their homes will make their neighborhoods unsafe and cause property values to plummet. Responses of this nature are inevitable when a project is

announced without community input

and participation. Community involvement should begin at a project’s earliest

stages and should include meetings to

provide background information and

public hearings to respond to citizen

concerns. Although involving the

community will not guarantee a

facility’s acceptance, failure to address

local concerns publicly and directly

will invite conflict.

Unfortunately, the fear of political

backlash or community opposition

too often prompts planners to select

remote sites that are incompatible

with operational needs. From a

practical planning perspective, site

selection should focus on identifying

locations that satisfy a range of

operational needs, including the

following:

■ Public access. The site should

provide convenient access to families, legal counsel, and local agencies that will have contact with

residents. It should be easily accessible by private vehicle or public

transportation.

■ Adequate land area. The site

should have sufficient space for a

facility’s initial construction needs

and possible future expansion. Adequate space for a buffer between

public areas and secure residential

areas is also desirable. A site that is

too small may necessitate undesirable vertical development and circulation or may limit outdoor recreation capabilities and future

expansion potential.

■ Proximity to population served.

Juvenile facilities should be located

near the districts from which their

populations are drawn. Such proximity ensures convenient access

by families. It also helps facilities

recruit staff with cultural/ethnic

backgrounds similar to those of

the residents being confined. Unfortunately, lower property costs

for land in remote locations sometimes lead jurisdictions to select

sites in areas that pose access and

staffing difficulties.

■ Proximity to courts. For facilities

that hold youth prior to adjudication, sites should be close to both

the courts and the facilities where

youth may be placed after adjudication and disposition. Such proximity will minimize the time that

staff and residents need to spend

away from the facility and reduce

staffing needs and transportation

costs.

■ Compatibility of adjacent land

uses. Site selection should focus on

locations that support the residential

character of intended operations.

Heavily industrialized areas are

generally inappropriate, as are

areas with traffic volumes that

would threaten effective monitoring of a site’s perimeter. Excessive

noise (for example, from transportation or a nearby commercial enterprise) should also be avoided.

Site selection and land acquisition are

often highly politicized processes and

may ultimately require compromise. It

is difficult to find a site that satisfies all

concerns (Ricci, 1995). Unfortunately,

some institutions built in remote areas

because of economic incentives end

up being staffed by underpaid and

undertrained individuals who differ

culturally and racially from the resident

population (Butterfield, 1998; Kearns,

1998). To avoid such situations, planners should make every effort to identify the characteristics of critical concern to operators and address potential

obstacles before the site selection process is finalized.

Construction Costs

Almost every jurisdiction contemplating the construction of a new juvenile

facility agonizes about the high costs

involved. Although there are ways of

reducing costs (e.g., through more

efficient systems designs of physical

plants and buildings), jurisdictions

can go only so far in this direction

without compromising operational

integrity and environmental quality.

The costs of juvenile facilities are especially troubling to funding authorities who compare such costs with the

significantly lower relative costs (on a

per resident basis) of adult facilities.

This comparison is unfair, however,

because juvenile facilities usually require substantially more square footage per resident.

At present, juvenile facilities that are

highly durable and include a full

complement of education and recreation areas and associated administrative, admissions, food service, and

other support spaces cost an average

of $140 to $160 per square foot for the
15

building itself (McMillen, 1998). This

amount includes all construction materials, mechanical/electrical systems,

security equipment, and hardware.

It does not include additional costs

for site work, parking, landscaping,

architectural/engineering services, or

furnishings; nor does it allow for any

contingencies during construction (i.e.,

changes required because of unforeseen circumstances). These additional

costs can increase the cost of facility

development by 30 to 35 percent

(McMillen, 1998). Even higher costs

should be anticipated in locations with

high construction cost indexes (e.g.,

large metropolitan areas).

The cost per bed space is also influenced by a facility’s size. Small facilities

(25 to 50 beds) require support spaces

not appreciably smaller than those in

larger facilities (50 to 100 beds), which

are able to achieve economies of scale.

For this reason, small facilities frequently average between 700 and 800

square feet per resident, while larger

detention facilities average 600 to 700

square feet per resident. Long-term

care facilities frequently provide more

space in support of expanded programming options.

Using average costs for construction

and development expenses, table 2

provides examples that illustrate total

project costs expected for facilities with

40- and 80-bed capacities.

These examples do not by any means

encompass the complete range of development costs for juvenile facilities.

A review of recent juvenile facility

projects, in fact, reveals that costs

vary considerably (above and below)

those presented in table 2.

Operational Costs

As high as construction costs may be,

they represent only a fraction of the

costs that a jurisdiction developing

expanded detention capacity will

have to bear each year during the life

of a facility. For example, the authors’

experience has shown that staffing

expenses—which account for approximately 80 to 85 percent of annual operating expenditures in facilities with a direct supervision staffing

pattern—require annual expenditures

amounting to about 25 to 27 percent

of a facility’s total development cost.

The percentage is somewhat lower

for large facilities and somewhat

higher for small facilities. Staffing expenses include all direct supervision,

administration, and program and

support services staff that most facilities require. When other expenses

(food, clothing, supplies, utilities,

communications, normal maintenance, travel, training, and related

items) are added to staffing expenses,

a facility’s total annual operating expenditures may approach 30 to 33

percent of the total facility development cost. To operate a facility, therefore, jurisdictions must allocate approximately one-third of a building’s

cost for each year the building remains open. (For example, a facility

that costs $10 million to build will

cost approximately $3 million to operate each year.)

For a new facility that will be used for

at least 30 years, total operating costs

over the lifetime of the facility will

exceed construction costs by 10 times

or more. Expenditures will actually

be even higher, because the operating

budget described above does not include expenses associated with debt

service of initial construction bonds

or the cost of the inevitable repair and

replacement of structural and mechanical systems over the life of a

building.

A physical design based on staffing

efficiency—even if it will involve

higher construction expenditures—is

of utmost importance. In the interest

of fiscal responsibility, however, jurisdictions should carefully consider

long-term operational costs throughout the planning process. Only by

examining all potential operational

expenses rigorously will planners

achieve the best possible balance of

physical design and supervision

needs. The high cost of secure operations further underscores the importance of seeking cost-effective detention alternatives that reduce residential

capacity needs while providing necessary supervision, management, and

system flexibility (Moon, Applegate,

and Latessa, 1997).

Juvenile Facility

Operations

Fundamental Needs

OJJDP’s Conditions of Confinement

Research Report (Parent et al., 1994)

provides a comprehensive analysis

of conditions in juvenile confinement

facilities. In particular, the study

measured facilities’ conformance to

Table 2: Construction/Development Cost Examples

Cost Factor 40-Bed Capacity 80-Bed Capacity

Total Square Feet/Resident 750 650

Cost per Square Foot (1999) $150 $150

Total Construction Cost $4,500,000 $7,800,000

Sitework @ ±9.5% of Construction $427,500 $741,000

Furnishings @ ±5.0% of Construction $225,000 $390,000

Arch./Eng. Fees @ ±8.5% of Construction $382,500 $663,000

Contingency @ ±10.0% of Construction $450,000 $780,000

Total Project Cost $5,985,000 $10,374,000

Total Cost per Resident $149,625 $129,675

Note: The table does not include financing/bond costs or administrative fees.
16

46 assessment criteria that reflected

existing minimum national and professional standards in 12 areas:

■ Living space.

■ Health care.

■ Food, clothing, and hygiene.

■ Living accommodations.

■ Security.

■ Control of suicidal behavior.

■ Inspections and emergency

preparedness.

■ Education.

■ Recreation.

■ Treatment services.

■ Access to community.

■ Limits on staff discretion.

The 12 areas were each placed in 1 of 4

broad categories (basic needs, order

and safety, programming, and juvenile

rights). The study examined each

facility’s conformance with the 12 areas

of conditions of confinement. The percentage of facilities that conformed to

all criteria in any of the 12 areas ranged

from 25 to 85 percent, underscoring a

disparity in practices and a national

need for improved operations.

Some special problems—such as suicidal behavior, injuries to residents, injuries to staff, and lawsuits—were attributable to isolated events. The study

found, however, that most operational

problems were correlated with pervasive deficiencies in conditions of confinement. To improve such conditions,

the study recommended developing

performance-based standards for juvenile facilities. Conditions of confinement, however, are only one part of the

larger and more complex measure of

juvenile facilities commonly referred to

as “quality of life.” The study’s recommendation of performance-based standards resulted from the finding that

high levels of compliance with policybased criteria did not necessarily result

in improved conditions of confinement,

suggesting the need for improved standards and different ways to evaluate

quality of life.

Key Elements for Operation

JAIBG Program Purpose Area 1 suggests that a new facility’s operation

should be as efficient as possible. Ideally, the facility should be a best practices program. The idea of starting a

program from scratch or building a

facility or operation from the ground

up appeals to most juvenile justice

practitioners largely because it frees

them from all of the “baggage” of

past practices. Problems arise, however, when practitioners must conceptualize what kind of program they

want (i.e., the principles of running

an institution) and determine how to

make it happen (i.e., the practice of

institutional operations or process).

If successful facility operations were

easy to develop, more model programs

would exist. Although a model program is difficult to develop, there are

sufficient resources (knowledge derived from lessons learned and technology derived from best practices) to

guide the development of exemplary

programs. This section serves as an

operations guide, setting forth steps to

take, knowledge and resources to acquire, and people to talk to in order to

operate an effective facility. In particular, it outlines three categories of information: (1) organizational prerequisites

(components that must be in place

before program development can occur), (2) program principles to guide

operations, and (3) staffing and management principles to guide implementation. The information provided here

does not include standards by which

to measure or evaluate facility operations. Instead, this section identifies

key elements that should be addressed.

If any one of these elements is missing or not fully developed, a facility

administrator should be prepared to

explain why.

Organizational prerequisites

Safety and security. Safety and security are fundamental prerequisites of

program development. Programs

cannot grow and evolve unless residents and staff are safe and secure—

both physically and emotionally.

Physical aspects of safety and security include a new facility’s design

and construction and policies and

procedures that control or prevent

juveniles’ access to contraband and/

or weapons. Emotional safety and security means that residents and staff

feel safe from fear or harm.

Order and organization. Organization is the backbone of program development, the structure upon which

effective programs are built. Previte

(1994) refers to this structure as “The

Code” and identifies three components: order, tradition, and discipline.

■ Order includes a building’s neatness and cleanliness, its adherence

to a daily routine or schedule, and

a feeling—among residents and

staff—of knowing what will happen next. To achieve order, an institution must have a clear and

comprehensive policy and procedures manual. To develop the

manual, facilities should refer to

the series of publications on ACA

standards (American Correctional

Association, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c,

1994), the series’ companion works

(American Correctional Association, 1987, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c),

chapter 7 of the Desktop Guide to

Good Juvenile Detention Practice

(Roush, 1996b), and products from

the OJJDP-sponsored PerformanceBased Standards Project managed

by the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA).

■ Tradition includes customs, routines, songs, and other activities

unique to a facility. With a new facility, the possibilities for tradition

are endless. Traditions need not be

large or complicated; they may be
17

as simple as serving chocolate milk

at meals or celebrating birthdays

with cake and ice cream. The purpose of tradition is to generate an

identity within the facility.

■ Discipline, by identifying appropriate behaviors and correcting inappropriate behaviors, is a facility’s

method of building character,

pride, and integrity. It involves

teaching a collectively endorsed set

of appropriate behaviors and values for staff and residents. These

behaviors and values are explained

in greater detail in the discussion

of program principles below.

Conditions of confinement. Conditions of confinement, a model of organizational structure based on the Youth

Law Center’s C.H.A.P.T.E.R.S. model

(Soler et al., 1990), identifies eight areas

of institutional operations most likely

to be targets of litigation. NJDA recommends that facilities use this model to

assess their potential liability before

developing programs. Each area in the

C.H.A.P.T.E.R.S. model is identified

below, and sources of information relevant to each area are cited.

■ Classification and Admissions. Classification systems are explained in

detail in Howell (1997) and OJJDP’s

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,

and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

(Howell, 1995a). Information about

admissions appears in American

Correctional Association, 1987,

1992c; Christy, 1994; and Roush,

1994, 1996c.

■ Medical and Health Care Services.

Although the National Commission on Correctional Health Care

(NCCHC) (1999) and ACA (1991a,

1991b, 1991c) both have standards

that address medical and healthcare

services, NCCHC’s are more comprehensive. Additional information on this topic appears in Morris, Anderson, and Baker (1996)

and Owens (1994).

■ Access Issues. These issues concern a

confined juvenile’s right to have

access to information and individuals outside the facility (e.g., through

mail, telephone, visitation, and

communication with attorneys and

the courts). Bell (1990, 1992, 1996)

explains these rights and discusses

related standards and case law.

■ Programs. ACA standards again provide guidance and direction. According to Soler et al. (1990), the

courts’ primary programming interests are recreation and education.

Information about recreation is

available in the Desktop Guide

(Roush, 1996b) and Calloway (1995).

Developmentally appropriate best

practices are found in BarruetaClement et al. (1984) and Kostelnik,

Soderman, and Whiren (1999), and

guidance on correctional education

programs is available in the Desktop

Guide (Roush, 1996b); Gemignani

(1994); Hodges, Giuliotti, and

Porpotage (1994); Leone, Rutherford, and Nelson (1991); and

Wolford and Koebel (1995).

■ Training. See “Training” section in

this Bulletin.

■ Environmental Issues. ACA standards address these issues, which

include compliance with State and

local regulations on health, safety,

and sanitation.

■ Confinement and Restraints. Information appears in the ACA standards, the Desktop Guide (Roush,

1996b), Mitchell and Varley (1991),

and the NCCHC standards (1999).

■ Safety. The best sources of information on resident safety are Soler et

al. (1990), Hayes (1998), Rowan

(1989), Parent et al. (1994), the ACA

standards, and the Desktop Guide.

Staff. Two organizational prerequisites

relate to staff. First, through a central

personnel office or consultation with

personnel specialists, a new facility

should develop an effective program

for staff recruitment, selection, retention, training, and development. Staff

training and development are addressed in detail later in this Bulletin.

Second, through its policies and procedures, a facility must ensure that it has

sufficient staff to sustain programming. This is a controversial issue, because staffing is the single largest cost

in a facility’s operational budget and

because best practices offer no hardand-fast rules about staffing levels.

Staffing levels depend on many factors, including a program’s philosophy, the quality of interactions between

staff and residents, the education and

training levels of staff, and the physical plant. Best practices are typically

associated with facilities that have a

small number of youth (6–10) under

the direct supervision of any one line

staff member (Roush, 1997).

Density. Density (the number of

people per unit of space in a facility) is

a significant factor in the effectiveness

of an institutional program (Roush,

1999). When density creates problems

in a juvenile facility, the institution is

said to be crowded. The best facilities

have plans, policies, procedures, or

strategies to address crowding (Burrell

et al., 1998; Previte, 1997).

Program principles

Successful programs have core principles or assumptions to guide problem solving and decisionmaking.

These principles define a program’s

purpose and content, articulate what

an institution hopes to accomplish,

and specify the operations that it

will use to accomplish its goals. Frequently called core values, program

principles are decisions about the

type of facility required to accomplish

program goals and the number and

type of staff members needed to

implement the program.

Many different program models address a wide array of offenders and intervention strategies. In completing a

master plan, a jurisdiction identifies the

characteristics of its juvenile offender
18

population. It then chooses a program

model best suited to the offender population. Research into best practices has

revealed that the following program

components are successful in juvenile

detention and corrections:

Effective assessment. The better the

match between offender needs and

facility programs and services, the

greater the likelihood of success. To

assess offender needs, a facility must

use effective needs assessment strategies (Agee, 1995; Bell, 1996; Howell,

1995b, 1997).

Behavior contracting. The use of behavior contracts with juvenile offenders

is effective, especially when contracts

focus on changing behaviors associated

with criminal acts (Agee, 1995; Lipsey,

1992; Stumphauzer, 1979).

Cognitive programs. Cognitive restructuring (i.e, changing a juvenile’s

“self-talk”) has produced successful

outcomes for several decades. Adolescents, especially juvenile offenders,

may have deficits in consequential

thinking and alternative thinking.

Their thinking is frequently illogical,

and they have trouble changing irrational beliefs. Cognitive strategies that

address these deficits further the goals

of JAIBG by emphasizing accountability and personal responsibility (Agee,

1995; Gibbs et al., 1997; Glick, Sturgeon, and Venator-Santiago, 1998;

Lipsey, 1992; Traynelis-Yurek, 1997).

Positive peer cultures. Although

positive group dynamics is an important part of successful programs, the

ultimate empowerment for youth is

having the opportunity to solve their

own problems. Researchers have

shown that youth are more motivated

to behave appropriately when other

youth participate in decisionmaking

about the intervention. They also gain

a greater sense of self-worth when

they are able to help themselves and

others (Brendtro and Ness, 1983;

Ferrara, 1992; Vorrath and Brendtro,

1984; Wasmund, 1988).

Anger management. With violence

becoming increasingly common in

American society, youth in juvenile

confinement facilities are becoming

more comfortable using violence as a

problem-solving strategy. Anger management, however, can be learned,

and it is a prerequisite for meaningful

and lasting behavior change among

youth who have exhibited violent

behavior (American Psychological

Association, 1993; Chinn, 1996;

Dobbins and Gatowski, 1996).

Discipline. Discipline, a vital part of

effective programs, creates character,

courage, pride, and integrity. An inescapable part of every juvenile confinement facility, discipline also sets

the tone for all other program interventions. Effective discipline programs set

high expectations for youth; employ

graduated sanctions; emphasize corrective measures; encourage and

celebrate appropriate behaviors,

achievements, and accomplishments;

and help youth to understand that

disciplinary procedures are in their

own best interest. Effective discipline

programs require strong and committed staff members, who must make

discipline part of their own lives—not

just part of their jobs.

Empathy training. Empathy training

(one of the BARJ model’s restorative

elements) includes helping juveniles

become aware of and empathize with

their victims. Awareness and empathy are necessary precursors to feelings of guilt, shame, and remorse.

Social skills training. Most juvenile

offenders lack adequate social skills.

Many do not know how to relate to

persons outside their family or gang.

Experience indicates that social skills

programming is an important part of

juvenile detention and corrections

programs (Roush, 1998).

Drug and alcohol abuse counseling.

Many youth entering juvenile confinement facilities are under the influence

of alcohol and/or other drugs or have

a history of abusing these substances.

Drug and alcohol counseling programs are therefore important ancillary services that can improve the effectiveness of model programs (Agee,

1995; Cellini, 1994; Howell, 1997).

Transition and aftercare services.

Without transition and aftercare programs, changes occurring within an

institutional setting are unlikely to

have long-lasting effects. Transition

programs move youth back into the

community gradually. Aftercare involves having a specially trained aftercare worker or probation officer

work with youth in the community

for an extended period of time (until

the youth is comfortable being back

in the community or has met a specified set of criteria). As the number of

youth in the juvenile justice system

has increased, caseloads have become

so large that aftercare and parole services officers have insufficient time

to address all of the problems of the

youth on their caseloads. Therefore,

many youth’s problems are unaddressed or neglected; without supervision, youth often quickly return to

lives of drugs and crime (Agee, 1995;

Altschuler and Armstrong, 1995;

Howell, 1997; Lipsey, 1992).

When using any of the techniques

above, facilities should explain related expectations clearly to each juvenile entering the facility. Expectations should be systematic (use a

method to achieve goals); logical

(make sense); rigorous (place high

expectations on youth for improved

performance); and balanced (emphasize strengths while administering

sanctions/punishments).

Staffing and management

principles

Recruitment, selection, retention, and

development of good staff members

are strengths of every successful program. Several organizations and individuals have examined the characteristics of effective juvenile justice staff

(Glick, Sturgeon, and Venator-Santiago,
19

1998; Goldstein and Glick, 1987;

Previte, 1994; Roush, 1996b). Lists of

attributes compiled by researchers

have been fairly similar and include

such traits as patience, the ability to

interact effectively with other people

(i.e., social, communication, and relationship skills), cooperation, respect,

empathy, the ability to work as a team

player, alertness, physical strength,

and optimism.

Once a facility hires good staff members, it needs to determine which

management principles are linked to

best practice operations. Four principles are presented below.6

Consistency. Best practice programs

have highly consistent management

principles. Consistency involves at

least three elements.

■ Rules that provide structure and dependability but do not overwhelm

youth. Rules should be clear and

understandable. They should be

few in number and general in nature. Realizing that not every misbehavior can be addressed by a specific rule, best practices programs

have rules based on general principles (e.g., cooperation, respect,

and responsibility). Rules and structure are the backbone of emotional

and physical safety and provide the

foundation for discipline and selfcontrol in children (Humphrey,

1984). According to Previte (1994),

rules are an institution’s way of

saying “I care” to youth.

■ Rule enforcement that is firm but fair.

Because adolescents are often concerned with fairness, facilities

should enforce rules in a firm and

fair manner. While perceptions of

unfairness generate feelings of anger and resentment, perceptions of

fairness generate cooperation and

increased safety. Being firm but fair

means several things. It means that

rules are enforced uniformly, with

no second chances, excuses, or

warnings (unless rules call for

a warning). Rules are enforced

matter-of-factly, without emotion

on the part of staff. The staff member’s role is simply to enforce rules,

not to provide a lecture, sermon, or

interrogation about a youth’s

knowledge of the rules. Violating a

rule is a youth’s choice; if the consequences for rule violations have

been clearly specified in advance,

the youth also chooses the consequence when he or she violates a

rule. Being fair also means providing procedures for changing or

eliminating unreasonable rules.

■ A social order. A facility needs to

develop a social order (i.e., consistent rules that govern everyone in

the facility, including staff) (Roush,

1984). There will always be two

sets of rules—one for staff (including rules that apply to facility operation) and one for residents. Best

practices programs, however, have

certain rules of conduct that apply

to everyone. Such a social order

encourages the development of

respect and dignity.

Involvement. Involvement means

that a program includes activity, interaction, and staff-resident relationships. Regardless of their content, all

effective programs are active—with

youth in the best programs spending

as many as 14 hours each day in

structured and supervised activities

(American Correctional Association,

1991a, 1991c). In addition to being

enjoyable, active programs are physically and mentally challenging. They

are purposeful, educational, and

helpful (Roush, 1993). They are also

outlets for youthful energy: youth in

active programs are tired and ready

to sleep at the end of the day.

Involvement also requires interaction

between staff and residents, ranging

from active supervision of an activity

(residents are within earshot of or

only a few feet away from staff) to

actual staff participation in an activity.

The essence of involvement in juvenile facilities is the relationship between residents and staff. Staff members should be involved in juveniles’

lives in a constructive way. In the best

programs, staff members have chosen

their jobs primarily because they like

youth and genuinely want to help.

Without compromising a facility’s

structure and order, these staff members listen to the residents, and, as

Previte (1994) explains, “Listening

creates hope, and hope is power.”

Emphasis on positive consequences.

Successful programs emphasize the

positive (Carrera, 1996). In fact, they

use positive consequences at least

four times more often than negative

sanctions (Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968). Effective programs must

be both demanding and encouraging

and must communicate both positive

and negative messages appropriately,

clearly, and without compromise.

To achieve the balance referred to in

the BARJ model, juvenile justice practitioners must be open to including

positive youth development programs, rather than focusing exclusively on problems, needs, skill deficits, and other “negatives.” Matching

programs and services to offender

needs and deficits may be effective;

however, as Karen Pittman of the International Youth Foundation has observed, being problem free is not the

same as being fully prepared (1996).

A positive approach focusing on the

strengths of youth—rather than one

focusing solely on their problems or

needs—has produced effective outcomes (Brendtro and Ness, 1995;

Checkoway and Finn, 1992; Clark,

1995, 1996; Leffert et al., 1996; Seita,

Mitchell, and Tobin, 1996). Positive

youth development programs that

can be used in juvenile confinement

facilities include sports and recreation

activities, camping programs, service

programs, mentoring programs,

6 For more information on management principles and

other operations issues, jurisdictions should call the

OJJDP National Training and Technical Assistance Center at 800–830–4031. Additional sources of information

on operating a juvenile facility also appear at the end of

this Bulletin, under “For Further Information.”
20

school-to-work programs, and support for teen parents.

Respect. No management principles

will work without respect. Respect

means treating juveniles like worthwhile human beings, regardless of

their behavior, appearance, offense

history, psychological assessment, hygiene, or volatility. It means refraining from name calling, threats, putdowns, and cursing. According to

youth, respect is the single most important trait of a good staff member

in any type of program. A respectful

and nonjudgmental approach separates the deed from the doer, allowing

staff to treat youth with respect no

matter how reprehensible the youth’s

conduct may be.

Respect leads staff to focus on similarities (rather than differences) between

themselves and the juveniles under

their care. For example, when staff of

the Utah County Juvenile Detention

Center (Provo, UT) were asked to explain their motivation for working

with youth in the juvenile justice system, the majority stated, “These are

my brothers and sisters who are in

trouble. I am here to help them.”

Juvenile Facility Staff

Training

Fundamental Needs

Citing numerous links between inadequate staff training and serious

problems (e.g., suicidal behaviors by

residents), OJJDP’s study on conditions of confinement confirmed the

need for additional staff training (Parent et al., 1994). Many problems with

conditions of confinement occurred in

facilities where staff had deficits in

specific knowledge and skill areas.

The study also reinforced the belief

that juvenile institutions should give

priority to improving training for new

staff (given the high levels of staff turnover) and adding training for all staff

in the areas of adolescent health care,

education, treatment, access issues,

juveniles’ rights, and limits or controls on staff discretion.

OJJDP’s Juvenile Detention Training

Needs Assessment (Roush, 1996c) identified factors that heighten the need

for improved training. These factors include uneven levels of preemployment

education among staff, high rates of

staff turnover, lateral shifts in personnel, increasingly complex needs of

juvenile offenders, worker liability

issues, and development of new technologies. According to detention administrators in Michigan, scarce

funding was the primary problem

facing facilities that wanted to improve training (Michigan Juvenile Detention Association, 1981). More than

two-thirds of New Jersey detention

facilities did not even have a training

budget in 1990 (Lucas, 1991). Juvenile

facility staff cite scheduling difficulties (e.g., interruptions in training because of staffing problems and

crowding) as the major obstacle to

implementing training programs

(Brown, 1982; Roush, 1996c).

Staff Training

Even though juvenile facility staff training has made significant progress over

the past decade, and access to training

information, resources, and services

has never been better, training remains

one of the highest ranked needs among

line staff. One promising sign that

training is becoming more widely

available is the rapid growth of Stateoperated training academies: only six

such academies existed in 1944, while

today more than half of the States operate academies.

The recent overall improvement in staff

training is attributable to three factors.

First, knowledge about effective training in general has been applied to juvenile justice specifically, resulting in

a knowledge base and technology that

are specific to juvenile justice system

needs (National Training and Technical Assistance Center, 1998; Blair et al.,

undated; Cellini, 1995; Christy, 1989).

Second, professional associations

and organizations—particularly the

American Correctional Association

(ACA); the Association for Staff Training and Development (ASTD); the

Juvenile Justice Trainers Association

(JJTA) (a professional organization

devoted entirely to training); the National Institute of Corrections (NIC)

Academy Division (the training arm

of the Federal Bureau of Prisons); and

the National Juvenile Detention Association (NJDA)—have expanded the

network of skilled trainers. Third,

OJJDP has provided strong leadership and support through its Training

and Technical Assistance Division.

Some of the contributions to training

made by ACA, NJDA, JJTA, and

OJJDP are described below.

ACA

Through standards that specify an

annual minimum number of training

hours for each category of employee

at various periods in his or her employment, ACA has confirmed the importance of staff training (American

Correctional Association, 1991a,

1991c). With facilities’ accreditation

dependent upon compliance with

ACA training standards, comprehensive staff training programs have

gained legitimacy, and training funds

have increased. What was once thought

to be an excessive amount of time for

training (160 hours for new employees

during their first year) is now generally accepted as a best practice (Roush,

1996c). To sustain this level of training,

at least 2 to 4 percent of a facility’s annual operations budget should be allocated to staff training services. For more

information about accredited juvenile

justice facilities, practitioners should

contact the ACA Standards and Accreditation Division (800–222–5646)

and request a list of facilities, contact

persons, and phone numbers.

ACA has also developed useful training materials, including videos and

correspondence courses. ACA training videos address topics such as facility admissions, suicide prevention,
21

and cultural diversity. Correspondence

courses through ACA address basic

careworker skills, behavior management, suicide prevention, and supervision of youthful offenders. Upon

successfully completing courses and

passing an examination, an employee

receives a certificate from ACA.

NJDA

NJDA research (Roush, 1996c) has affirmed ACA’s training requirements,

identified five discrete training categories for juvenile justice employees, and

developed learning objectives to supplement the training topics identified by

ACA. Through OJJDP grants, NJDA

and JJTA developed and tested two 40-

hour training curriculums for line staff

in juvenile detention and corrections

facilities. The curriculums are based on

national training needs assessment

data (Roush and Jones, 1996), and the

lesson plans developed follow the

Instructional Theory Into Practice

(ITIP) model recommended by NIC.

NJDA also has developed a training

implementation model intended to

strengthen and expand facilities’ inhouse training capabilities (Roush,

1996a). Through the use of the Training

Needs Assessment Inventory (TNAI)

and interchangeable lesson plans, institutions can tailor training interventions

to meet their specific needs.

JJTA

With the development of Guidelines for

Quality Training (Blair et al., undated)

and OJJDP Training, Technical Assistance, and Evaluation Protocols: A Primer

for OJJDP Training and Technical Assistance Providers (National Training and

Technical Assistance Center, 1998),

JJTA has provided basic information

about the necessary components of a

model staff training program. Composed primarily of staff development

and training specialists, JJTA provides

a national network of information on

training services and technical assistance for juvenile justice trainers.

NIC has also developed a 27-step

training implementation strategy.

Combined with Training, Technical

Assistance, and Evaluation Protocols: A

Primer for OJJDP Training and Technical

Assistance Providers, this strategy

provides sufficient knowledge to generate a comprehensive staff training

program. Facilities can secure information on the entire network of resources available by referring to the

Training and Technical Assistance Resource Catalog, updated and published

annually by the National Training

and Technical Assistance Center, or

by calling the center at 800–830–4031.

OJJDP

In 1990, OJJDP entered into an interagency agreement with the NIC Academy Division to provide leadership

development programs for juvenile

detention and corrections personnel.

Under the agreement, NIC offers correctional leadership development

(CLD) programs for new chief executive officers, managers, and supervisors. OJJDP produced a video on leadership in juvenile justice based on

NIC’s leadership development curriculum. NIC’s training-for-trainers

workshop, which uses the ITIP model,

is rated by juvenile justice practitioners as one of the best programs for

developing foundation skills for trainers. OJJDP also provides technical assistance resources for line staff training

through NJDA’s Center for Research

and Professional Development (517–

432–1242) and for management staff

training through the NIC Academy

Division (800–995–6429).

Six Major Steps to

Implementation

Several important steps must be completed to construct a model staff training program. As in the master planning process, a facility should begin

by articulating vision and mission

statements. The subsequent steps are

described below.

Step 1: Conduct a training needs

assessment

A facility should first conduct a training needs assessment to identify gaps

between the knowledge, skills, and

abilities needed to perform jobs effectively and the knowledge, skills, and

abilities currently possessed by staff

members. The larger the gap, the

greater the training need. Assessment

instruments and procedures can be

used to collect this information, and

juvenile justice trainers are available

to conduct needs assessments for

agencies and organizations.

Step 2: Develop a formal

training plan

Based on information revealed by its

needs assessment, a facility should formalize its training strategy. This strategy generally takes the form of training policies and procedures in which

the facility identifies who the trainers

will be, what types of training will be

offered, which staff members will be

trained, and how many hours of training are to be provided annually for

each position. Training policies and

procedures should also establish minimum training requirements for staff at

different levels and identify any administrative, professional, and/or

statutory standards or requirements

that the facility will meet.

Step 3: Adopt, adapt, or develop

a core curriculum

Based on the training needs identified

and the training plan developed, a facility should adopt, adapt, or develop

a core curriculum as its primary training vehicle. Several curriculums are

available, including three developed

by OJJDP grants: the National Detention Careworker Curriculum, the

Juvenile Corrections Careworker Curriculum, and the National Training

Curriculum for Educators in Juvenile

Confinement Facilities. To obtain copies of these curriculums, practitioners

should contact NJDA, listed in the

“For Further Information” section.
22

Step 4: Adopt an action strategy

A facility should next adopt an action

strategy for delivering training

services. As discussed above, a majority of States have training academies

responsible for training all personnel

in State-operated juvenile correctional

and detention facilities. Facilities not

covered by a State training academy

are responsible for devising their own

training delivery strategies.

Responding to the need for a training

delivery strategy for locally operated

juvenile facilities and facilities in States

without training academies, NJDA developed and tested a training implementation strategy. NJDA’s strategy

includes developing vision and mission

statements, conducting a training

needs assessment, developing a formal

training plan, and selecting a training

curriculum. NJDA’s strategy also addresses identification of key staff members (middle managers, shift supervisors, and lead workers) to serve as staff

trainers. After completing a basic training curriculum in a separate training

workshop, these key staff members are

divided into two groups: trainers and

mentors. Trainers complete a 40-hour

program on building training foundation skills using the NIC model. Mentors (those key staff who do not want

or should not have staff training responsibilities) receive training on

mentoring so that they can help guide

new employees through the training

process. The NJDA strategy has proven

successful in strengthening in-house

training capabilities.

Step 5: Schedule training

The next major step is to schedule

training, a task that is extremely difficult when a facility lacks sufficient

resources to provide coverage for staff

members attending training. The

NJDA makes scheduling easier by

expanding the cadre of in-house staff

trainers.

Several scheduling strategies have

been successful. The Cook County

Temporary Juvenile Detention Center

(Chicago, IL), for example, has a fulltime training staff devoted to organizing and delivering training services

that meet ACA standards. To improve

ongoing training efforts, particularly

in-service training, at the Bexar

County Juvenile Detention Center

(San Antonio, TX), Kossman (1990)

implemented an innovative, four-shift

staffing pattern. Instead of the routine

three-shift (a.m., p.m., and night)

scheduling assignments, he added a

fourth shift as a replacement for those

shifts attending staff training. Using

the four-shift pattern, Kossman reported reductions in overtime costs

and a greater commitment to training.

Step 6: Evaluate training

As a final step, facilities should evaluate training. Evaluations should include trainees’ reactions and suggestions for improvement and plans or

commitments to implement training

lessons in daily practice. Facilities

should conduct evaluations on an ongoing basis to determine whether

staff behavior and institutional practices have changed as a result of

training and whether the direction of

any change is compatible with the

goals of training. Results of evaluation efforts also provide information

about the nature and extent of a

facility’s training needs. This information, in turn, becomes data for

training needs assessment. The process has now come full circle, with

evaluation data guiding future training needs assessment, annual revisions and modifications to the training plan, and updates to a facility’s

training curriculum.

Conclusion

Even though extensive literature on

juvenile justice exists, best practices are

difficult to define (Elliot, 1998). The

purpose of this Bulletin is not to prescribe a specific best practice. Rather, it

seeks to identify resources (especially

knowledge, principles, and people)

that can inform practitioners, policymakers, and the public in their quest to

develop and implement best practices

in the areas of juvenile facility construction, operations, and staff training. This

is really a search for “best knowledge”;

once this knowledge is located, best

practice is not far behind.

It is often easier to ascertain best

practices in the area of construction

because the physical structures that

result are available for a wide array of

examination and analysis. This is not

always the case when searching for

best practices in the areas of operations and staff training. In these areas,

the search for models and examples

of best practice is most productive

when it begins with people—as opposed to places. Best practice is found

through best practitioners.

There has never been a better time to

acquire knowledge from practitioners. The expansion of juvenile justice

has brought many new and talented

people into the field. Communication

technologies are also better than ever.

Professional organizations (including

the Alliance for Juvenile Justice, the

American Correctional Association,

the American Probation and Parole

Association, the Council of Juvenile

Corrections Administrators, the Juvenile Justice Trainers Association, the

National Association of Juvenile

Correctional Agencies, the National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges, the National Council on

Crime and Delinquency, the National

Juvenile Court Services Association,

and the National Juvenile Detention

Association) offer access to abundant

information, resources, and personal

contacts. The excuses for not knowing

are rapidly disappearing.

References

Agee, V.M. 1995. Managing clinical

programs for juvenile delinquents. In

Managing Delinquency Programs That

Work, edited by B. Glick and A.P.

Goldstein. Laurel, MD: American

Correctional Association.
23

Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L.

1995. Managing aftercare services for

delinquents. In Managing Delinquency

Programs That Work, edited by B.

Glick and A.P. Goldstein. Laurel, MD:

American Correctional Association.

American Correctional Association.

1987. Admissions in Juvenile Detention:

The Critical Hour. Videotape. Washington, DC: Capitol Communication

Systems, Inc.

American Correctional Association.

1991a. Standards for Juvenile Detention

Facilities, 3d ed. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.

American Correctional Association.

1991b. Standards for Juvenile Training

Schools, 3d ed. Laurel, MD: American

Correctional Association.

American Correctional Association.

1991c. Standards for Small Juvenile Detention Facilities. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.

American Correctional Association.

1992a. Guidelines for the Development of

Policies and Procedures: Juvenile Detention Facilities. Laurel, MD: American

Correctional Association.

American Correctional Association.

1992b. Handbook on Facility Planning

and Design for Juvenile Corrections.

Laurel, MD: American Correctional

Association.

American Correctional Association.

1992c. Juvenile Careworker Resource

Guide. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.

American Correctional Association.

1994. 1994 Standards Supplement.

Laurel, MD: American Correctional

Association.

American Psychological Association

Commission on Violence and Youth.

1993. Violence and Youth: Psychology’s

Response. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Barrueta-Clement, J.R., Schweinhart,

L.J., Barnett, W.S., Epstein, A., and

Weikart, D. 1984. Changed Lives: The

Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on

Youth Through Age 19. Ypsilanti, MI:

High/Scope Educational Research

Foundation.

Barton, W.H. 1994. Implementing detention policy changes. In Reforming

Juvenile Detention: No More Hidden

Closets, edited by I.M. Schwartz and

W.H. Barton. Columbus, OH: Ohio

State University Press.

Bell, J.R. 1990. Litigation in juvenile

justice: A tool for advancement. Corrections Today (August):22–23, 26, 28.

Bell, J.R. 1992. Rights and responsibilities of juveniles. In Juvenile Careworker Resource Guide. Laurel, MD:

American Correctional Association.

Bell, J.R. 1996. Rights and responsibilities of staff and youth. In Desktop

Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice, edited by D.W. Roush. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Bell, J.R. 1998. National perspectives

on juvenile justice. Keynote address

to the American Institute of Architecture Conference.

Bilchik, S. 1998. A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Blair, J., Collins, B., Gurnell, B.,

Satterfield, F., Smith, M.G., Yeres, S.,

and Zuercher, R. Undated. Guidelines

for Quality Training. Ithaca, NY: Juvenile Justice Trainers Association.

Boersema, C. 1998. Strategic planning

as a means to address detention overcrowding. Journal for Juvenile Justice

and Detention Services 13(Spring):20–31.

Boersema, C., Dunlap, E., Gulley, J.,

and Roush, D.W. 1997. Juvenile Justice

System Master Plan for Detention Services: Final Report. Richmond, KY: National Juvenile Detention Association.

Brendtro, L.K., and Ness, A.E. 1983.

Re-educating Troubled Youth: Environments for Teaching and Treatment. New

York, NY: Aldine Publishing.

Brendtro, L.K., and Ness, A.E. 1995.

Fixing flaws or building strengths?

Reclaiming Children and Youth 4:2–7.

Brown, M., Jr. 1982. Training officers

in juvenile detention. Corrections Today (June):14–16, 18.

Burrell, S., DeMuro, P., Dunlap, E.,

Sanniti, C., and Warboys, L. 1998.

Crowding in Juvenile Detention Centers: A

Problem-Solving Manual. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Butterfield, F. 1998. Hard times: Profits at a juvenile prison come with a

chilling cost. The New York Times on

the Web (July 15):1–17.

Calloway, J. 1995. Managing recreation and leisure for juvenile delinquents. In Managing Delinquency Programs That Work, edited by B. Glick

and A.P. Goldstein. Laurel, MD:

American Correctional Association.

Carrera, M.A. 1996. Lessons for Lifeguards: Working with Teens When the

Topic Is Hope. NewYork, NY: Donkey

Press.

Cavanagh, M.F. 1995. Remarks. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention

Services 10(Fall):37–40.

Cellini, H.R. 1994. Management and

treatment of institutionalized violent

juveniles. Corrections Today (July):98,

100–102.

Cellini, H.R. 1995. Training programs

and staff development. In Managing

Delinquency Programs That Work, edited by B. Glick and A.P. Goldstein.

Laurel, MD: American Correctional

Association.

Checkoway, B., and Finn, J. 1992.

Young People as Community Builders.

Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of

Youth Policy, University of Michigan.
24

Chinn, K.L. 1996. National trends in

juvenile violence. Corrections Today

(July):70, 72–73.

Christy, J.T. 1989. A curriculum for

training juvenile detention staff. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention

Services 4(Winter):23–29.

Christy, J.T. 1994. Toward a model secure detention program: Lessons

from Shuman Center. In Reforming

Juvenile Detention: No More Hidden

Closets, edited by I.M. Schwartz and

W. Barton. Columbus, OH: Ohio State

University Press.

Clark, M.D. 1995. The problem with

problem solving: A critical review.

Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services 10(Spring):30–35.

Clark, M.D. 1996. Solution-focused

interviewing: A strength-based

method for juvenile justice. Journal for

Juvenile Justice and Detention Services

11(Spring):33–38.

Cocozza, J.J., ed. 1992. Responding to

the Mental Health Needs of Youth in the

Juvenile Justice System. Seattle, WA:

National Coalition for the Mentally Ill

in the Criminal Justice System.

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

1996. Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice

Action Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

DeMuro, P. 1997. Overcrowding in

juvenile detention: Some concrete

suggestions. Texas Probation

12(July):11–17.

DeMuro, P., and Dunlap, E.L. 1998. A

reasonable alternative to locking up

more kids: The development of jurisdictional core groups. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services

13(Spring):3–19.

DeWitt, C.B. 1987. Building on Experience: A Case Study of Advanced Construction and Financing Methods for

Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of

Corrections.

Dobbins, S.A., and Gatowski, S.I.

1996. A Guide to Research on Juvenile

Violence. Reno, NV: State Judicial Institute and the National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Dugan, R.J. 1998. A juvenile detention

facility that works. In Best Practices:

Excellence in Corrections, edited by E.

Rhine. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Dunlap, E.L., and Roush, D.W. 1995.

Juvenile detention as process and

place. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 46(Spring):3–16.

Elias, G.L., and Ricci, K. 1997. Woman

in Jail: Facility Planning Issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Corrections.

Elliot, D.E. 1998. What makes a “best

practice”? In Proceedings of the 1998

Governor’s Juvenile Justice Summit.

Columbus, OH: Office of Criminal

Justice Services.

Farbstein, J., Liebert, D., and

Sigurdson, H. 1996. Audits of Podular

Direct-Supervision Jails. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, National Institute of Corrections.

Farbstein/Williams and Associates.

1981. Corrections Planning Handbooks.

Sacramento, CA: California Board of

Corrections, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.

Ferrara, M.L. 1992. Group Counseling

with Juvenile Delinquents: The Limit and

Lead Approach. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Gemignani, R.J. 1994. Juvenile Correctional Education: A Time for Change.

OJJDP Update on Research. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Gibbs, J., Potter, B., Goldstein, A., and

Brendtro, L. 1997. Equipping youth to

think and act constructively. Reclaiming Children and Youth: Journal of

Emotional and Behavioral Problems

6(Summer):120–127.

Glick, B., and Goldstein, A.P., eds.

1995. Managing Delinquency Programs

That Work. Laurel, MD: American

Correctional Association.

Glick, B., Sturgeon, W., and VenatorSantiago, C.R. 1998. No Time to Play:

Youthful Offenders in Adult Correctional

Systems. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Goldstein, A.P., and Glick, B. 1987.

Aggression Replacement Training: A

Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth. Champaign, IL: Research

Press.

Grimm, R. 1998. Is there life after basketball? Presentation to the 18th Annual Governor’s Conference on Juvenile Justice, New Orleans, LA.

Guarino-Ghezzi, S., and Loughran, E.J.

1996. Balancing Juvenile Justice. New

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Hayes, L.M. 1998. Suicide prevention

in correctional facilities: An overview.

In Clinical Practice in Correctional

Medicine, edited by M. Puisis. St.

Louis, MO: Mosby.

Henggeler, S.W. 1998. Treating Serious

Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: The MST

Approach. Bulletin. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hodges, J., Giuliotti, N., and

Porpotage, F.M., II. 1994. Improving

Literacy Skills of Juvenile Detainees.

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C., ed. 1995a. Guide for

Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
25

Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Howell, J.C. 1995b. A national perspective. In Managing Delinquency Programs That Work, edited by B. Glick

and A.P. Goldstein. Laurel, MD:

American Correctional Association.

Howell, J.C. 1997. Juvenile Justice and

Youth Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Howell, J.C., Krisberg, B., Hawkins,

J.D., and Wilson, J.J., eds. 1995. Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: A Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Humphrey, L.L. 1984. Children’s selfcontrol in relation to perceived social

environment. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 46:178–188.

Jones, M.A., and Krisberg, B. 1994.

Images and Reality: Juvenile Crime,

Youth Violence, and Public Policy. San

Francisco, CA: National Council on

Crime and Delinquency.

Jones, M.A., and Steinhart, D. 1994.

Assessing the need for secure detention: A planning approach. NCCD Focus (August):1–7.

Kearns, R. 1998. No profit for kids in

Glen Mills’ Florida plunge. Youth Today 7(June):1, 37–38.

Kimme, D.A., Bowker, G., Deichman,

R., Bounds, B., Reisteck, C., and

Farbstein, J. 1988. Small Jail Design

Guide: A Planning and Design Resource

for Local Facilities of Up to 50 Beds.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

National Institute of Corrections.

Kossman, S.P. 1990. Staffing pattern

dynamics: A new approach to old

problems. Journal for Juvenile Justice

and Detention Services 5(Fall):9–12.

Kostelnik, M.J., Soderman, A.K., and

Whiren, A.P. 1999. Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum: Best Practices in

Early Childhood Education. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Leffert, N., Saito, R.N., Blyth, D.A.,

and Kroenke, C.H. 1996. Making the

Case: Measuring the Impact of Youth Development Programs. Minneapolis,

MN: The Search Institute.

Leone, P.E., Rutherford, R.B., and

Nelson, C.M. 1991. Special Education

in Juvenile Corrections. Reston, VA:

Council for Exceptional Children.

Lipsey, M.W. 1992. Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic

inquiry into the variability of effects.

In Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A

Casebook, edited by T.D. Cook, H.

Cooper, and D.S. Cordray. New York,

NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lucas, C. 1991. Juvenile Detention Staff

Development Initiative: Survey of Training Resources. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey

Department of Corrections.

Madsen. C.H., Becker, W.C., and Thomas, D.R. 1968. Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis 1:139–150.

McMillen, M. 1998. Planning juvenile

detention facilities: The real costs.

Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services 13(Spring):49–57.

McMillen, M., and Hill, J.R. 1997.

Jadults and adulniles. Corrections Today (April):100–101, 102–104.

Michigan Juvenile Detention Association. 1981. Child Care Staff Training: Two

Unresolved Issues. Marshall, MI: Michigan Juvenile Detention Association.

Mitchell, J., and Varley, C. 1991. Isolation and restraint in juvenile correctional facilities. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services 6(Fall):31–37.

Moon, M.M., Applegate, B.K., and

Latessa, E.J. 1997. RECLAIM Ohio: A

politically viable alternative to treating youthful felony offenders. Crime

& Delinquency 43(October):438–456.

Morris, R., Anderson, M., and Baker,

C. 1996. Health care for incarcerated

adolescents. In Desktop Guide to Good

Juvenile Detention Practice, edited by

D.W. Roush. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

National Clearinghouse for Criminal

Justice Planning and Architecture. 1996.

Criminal justice planning process: A

total systems model. Planning of New

Institutions Workshops. Longmont, CO:

National Institute of Corrections.

National Commission on Correctional

Health Care. 1999. Standards for Health

Services in Juvenile Detention and Confinement Facilities. Chicago, IL: National Commission on Correctional

Health Care.

National Commission on Correctional

Health Care. 1998. Health services to

adolescents in adult correctional facilities: Position statement. Journal of Correctional Health Care 5(Spring):113–117.

National Training and Technical Assistance Center. 1998. OJJDP Training

and Technical Assistance Protocols: A

Primer for OJJDP Training and Technical

Assistance Providers. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Nelson, W.R. 1993. New generation

jails. In Podular Direct Supervision Jails.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division.

Nelson, W.R., O’Toole, M., Krauth, B.,

and Whitmore, C.G. 1984. Direct Supervision Models. Boulder, CO: National Institute of Corrections Information Center.

Niedringhous, R.T., and Goedert, P.

1998. New rules in juvenile justice

design. Corrections Today (February):

58–60.

Norman, S., ed. 1961. Standards and

Guides for the Detention of Children and

Youth, 2d ed. New York, NY: National

Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1998. 1997 Report

to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for
26

Local Delinquency Prevention Programs.

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Otto, R.K., Greenstein, J.J., Johnson,

M.K., and Friedman, R.M. 1992. Prevalence of mental disorders among

youth in the juvenile justice system. In

Responding to the Mental Health Needs of

Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, edited by J.J. Cocozza. Seattle, WA: National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in

the Criminal Justice System.

Owens, J. 1994. Juvenile health care in

correctional facilities: A public health

opportunity. New York Health Services

Journal 1(Spring):55–66.

Parent, D., Leiter, V., Kennedy, S., Livens, L., Wentworth, D., and Wilcox, S.

1994. Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities.

Research Report. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Pittman, K.J. 1996. Community,

youth, development: Three goals in

search of connection. New Designs for

Youth Development (Winter).

Previte, M.T. 1994. Hungry Ghosts:

One Woman’s Mission to Change Their

World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Publishing House.

Previte, M.T. 1997. Preventing security crises at youth centers. Corrections

Today (February):76–79.

Puritz, P., and Scali, M.A. 1998. Beyond

the Walls: Improving Conditions of Confinement for Youth in Custody. Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Ricci, K. 1995. What county commissioners can do about overcrowding in

their jails. The Prison Journal 61:1–3.

Roush, D.W. 1984. Contributions to

the therapeutic milieu: Integrating

key theoretical constructs. Child Care

Quarterly 13:233–250.

Roush, D.W. 1993. Juvenile detention

programming. Federal Probation

57(September):20–33.

Roush, D.W. 1994. Admission to juvenile detention. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services 9(Fall):32–39.

Roush, D.W. 1996a. A comprehensive

strategy for implementing the NJDA

careworker training curriculum.

JERITT Bulletin 7(2):1–4.

Roush, D.W., ed. 1996b. Desktop Guide

to Good Juvenile Detention Practice.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Roush, D.W. 1996c. Juvenile Detention

Training Needs Assessment. Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Roush, D.W. 1997. Staffing patterns in

juvenile detention facilities. Journal for

Juvenile Justice and Detention Services

12(Fall):87–94.

Roush, D.W. 1998. The importance of

comprehensive skills-based programs

in juvenile detention and corrections.

In Juvenile Justice: Policies, Programs

and Services, 2d ed., edited by A.R.

Roberts. New York, NY: Nelson-Hall

Publishing Company.

Roush, D.W. 1999. Crowding and its

effects. In Juvenile Detention Centers:

Applied Resources Manual, edited by

D.W. Roush. Richmond, KY: National

Juvenile Detention Association.

Roush, D.W., and Jones, M.A. 1996.

Juvenile detention training: A status

report. Federal Probation 60(June):54–60.

Rowan, J.R. 1989. Suicide detection

and prevention: A must for juvenile

facilities. Corrections Today

(August):218, 219, 226–227.

Rubenstein, F.D. 1991. A facility-wide

approach to social skills training.

Journal of Correctional Education

42(June):88–93.

Schwartz, I.M. 1994. What policymakers

need to know about juvenile detention reform. In Reforming Juvenile Detention: No More Hidden Closets, edited

by I.M. Schwartz and W.H. Barton.

Columbus, OH: Ohio State University

Press.

Seita, J., Mitchell, M., and Tobin, C.

1996. In Whose Best Interest? One

Child’s Odyssey, a Nation’s Responsibility. Elizabethtown, NJ: Continental

Press.

Soler, M.I., Shotton, A., Bell, J.,

Jameson, E., Shauffer, C., and

Warboys, L. 1990. Representing the

Child Client. New York, NY: Matthew

Bender.

Steenson, D., and Thomas, D. 1997.

Managing change through strategic

planning. In Juvenile Probation Administrators’ Desktop Guide, edited by D.

Thomas and P. Torbet. Pittsburgh, PA:

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Stumphauzer, J.S., ed. 1979. Progress

in Behavior Therapy with Delinquents.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas,

Publisher.

Taylor, J., Gottheil, D., Kimme, D.,

Bishop, K., and Maase, D. 1996. Seven

steps to plan a better jail. In Planning

of New Institutions Workshops.

Longmont, CO: National Institute of

Corrections.

Traynelis-Yurek, E. 1997. Thinking

clearly through positive peer culture.

Reclaiming Children and Youth: Journal

of Emotional and Behavioral Problems

6(Summer):87–89.

Treahy, J. 1995. Detention services for

juveniles. In Managing Delinquency

Programs That Work, edited by B.

Glick and A.P. Goldstein. Laurel, MD:

American Correctional Association.

Voorhis, D.J. 1996. The seven stumbling blocks to effective jail planning.

In Planning of New Institutions Workshops. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections.
27

Vorrath, H., and Brendtro, L. 1984.

Positive peer culture, 2d ed. New York,

NY: Aldine Publishing.

Wasmund, W.C. 1988. The social climates of peer group and other residential programs. Child & Youth Care

Quarterly 17(Fall):146–155.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993.

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Wolford, B.I., and Koebel, L.L. 1995.

Reform education to reduce juvenile

delinquency. Criminal Justice

(Winter):2–6, 54–56.

Wright, K.N., and Goodstein, L. 1989.

Correctional environments. In The

American Prison: Issues in Research and

Policy, edited by L. Goodstein and

D.L. MacKenzie. New York, NY:

Plenum Press.

For Further Information

The following sources of information

may be helpful before beginning the

search for best knowledge and best

practices relating to juvenile facility

operations:

■ American Correctional Association (800–222–5646) has assembled

and published information on a

variety of best practices.

■ American Institute of Architects

(202–626–7300), through its library,

archives, and online services, is the

preeminent source of information

in the United States on the practice

and profession of architecture.

■ The Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC) (800–638–8736) supplies information to the field

through the dissemination of publications, monographs, and reports. Clearinghouse staff provide

some research services. Information relevant to best knowledge

and practices includes OJJDP publications describing its Gould/

Wysinger Award recipients.

■ The National Council of Juvenile

and Family Court Judges (702–

784–6012) has developed curriculum materials that explain many

best practices concepts.

■ The National Criminal Justice

Reference Service (NCJRS) (800–

851–3420) will conduct a computer

search of relevant criminal and juvenile justice literature.

■ The National Institute of Corrections Academy Division (800–

995–6429) develops curriculum

materials that explain many best

practices concepts.

■ The National Juvenile Detention

Association (517–432–1242) has

collected information on innovative programs and services for juvenile detention.

■ OJJDP’s National Training and

Technical Assistance Center

(NTTAC) (800–830–4031) has information on individuals, agencies,

associations, and grant recipients

that address best practices in

operations.

■ OJJDP’s JAIBG Technical Assistance Development Services

Group (877–GO–JAIBG) provides

and coordinates technical assistance

within the 12 JAIBG purpose areas.

Useful Publications

The following guides, handbooks,

and manuals provide valuable

information on the construction

and operation of juvenile detention

and corrections facilities:

■ Best Practices: Excellence in Corrections, a 1998 compilation of best

practices, edited by E. Rhine and

published by the American

Correctional Association.

■ Conflict Resolution Education: A

Guide to Implementing Programs in

Schools, Youth-Serving Organizations, and Community and Juvenile

Justice Settings, a 1996 guidebook

edited by D. Crawford and R.

Bodine and published by OJJDP.

■ A Directory of Programs That Work,

a 1996 directory compiled by the

American Correctional Association and published in the August

1996 issue of Corrections.

■ Effective and Innovative Programs:

Resource Manual, a 1994 manual

developed by the National

Juvenile Detention Association

and edited by D. Roush and T.

Wyss.

■ OJJDP Training and Technical

Assistance Protocols: A Primer for

OJJDP Training and Technical

Assistance, a 1998 collection of

protocols compiled by the

National Training and Technical

Assistance Center and published by OJJDP.

■ Training and Technical Assistance

Resource Catalog, a 1997

catalog of resources compiled

by the National Training and

Technical Assistance Center

and published by OJJDP.

■ What Works: Promising Interventions in Juvenile Justice, a 1994

manual published by OJJDP

and edited by I. Montgomery,

P.M. Torbet, D.A. Malloy, L.P.

Adamcik, M.J. Toner, and J.

Andrews.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 178928

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by David

Roush, Ph.D., and Michael McMillen,

AIA. David Roush has provided leadership in institutional programs and services for juveniles and staff since 1971.

He is currently an assistant professor

in the School of Criminal Justice at

Michigan State University and Director

of the National Juvenile Detention

Association’s Center for Research and

Professional Development. Mike

McMillen, Champaign, IL, has specialized

in the design and planning of juvenile

justice facilities for more than 23 years.

In addition to providing operations

analysis, architectural programming, and

facility design services for youth-related

projects nationwide, he has developed

and currently teaches seminars on

operational and architectural programming for the National Institute of Corrections’ Planning of New Institutions

for Juveniles (PONI) training program.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do

not necessarily represent the official position

or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department

of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected.

We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint,

please cite OJJDP and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in

your feedback, such as how you received a copy, how you intend to use the

information, and how OJJDP materials meet your individual or agency

needs. Please direct your comments and questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org