U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator December 2010 

Office of Justice Programs Innovation	•	Partnerships	•	Safer	Neighborhoods	 www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Youth’s Characteristics 

and Backgrounds 

Findings From the survey oF youth in residential Placement 

Andrea J. Sedlak and Carol Bruce 

The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) is the third component in the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s constellation of surveys providing 

updated statistics on youth in custody in the juvenile justice system. It joins the Census of 

Juveniles in Residential Placement and the Juvenile Residential Facility Census, which 

are biennial mail surveys of residential facility administrators conducted in alternating years. SYRP is a unique addition, gathering information directly from youth through 

anonymous interviews. This bulletin series reports on the first national SYRP, covering its 

development and design and providing detailed information on the youth’s characteristics, 

backgrounds, and expectations; the conditions of their confinement; their needs and the 

services they received; and their experiences of victimization in placement. 

This bulletin presents key findings from 

the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement that describe the characteristics of 

youth in placement. Specifically, this bulletin focuses on the youth’s demographic 

characteristics, current and prior offenses, 

current disposition, family and educational backgrounds, and expectations for 

the future. 

SYRP’s findings are based on interviews 

with a nationally representative sample of 

7,073 youth in custody during 2003, using 

audio computer-assisted self-interview 

(ACASI) methodology. Researchers analyzed answers from all youth in custody 

and assessed differences among subgroups based on their age, sex, and placement program (i.e., detention, corrections, 

community based, camp, or residential 

treatment). When other studies offered 

corresponding data about youth in the 

general population, researchers compared 

those findings to the SYRP results for 

youth in custody. For more information, 

see “Surveying Youth in Residential Placement: Methodology.” 

Many of the topics covered in this bulletin will be familiar to juvenile justice 

researchers and practitioners. However, 

SYRP results extend current information 

and provide new perspectives. The following discussion highlights several issues 

where the findings underscore, clarify, 

and enlarge current understanding of the 

characteristics and backgrounds of youth 

in custody. 

A Message From OJJDP 

To better understand the reasons that 

youth in confinement have offended, 

we need to examine their backgrounds and characteristics and 

review the offenses that led to their 

custody placement. 

OJJDP’s Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) asks youth 

to identify the offenses they have 

committed and the personal and environmental factors that may have contributed to their delinquency. SYRP 

complements related OJJDP research

such as the Census of Juveniles in 

Residential Placement. However, as 

the only national survey that gathers information directly from youth in 

custody, SYRP provides data that are 

not available from other sources. 

This bulletin draws on SYRP’s findings to examine the characteristics 

and backgrounds of youth in custody. 

It describes their demographic characteristics and reports on their current

and prior offenses, disposition, family 

and educational backgrounds, and 

expectations for the future. 

SYRP’s findings echo those from 

local studies and indicate national 

patterns. Moreover, its findings provide insights into how we might best 

combat recidivism while promoting 

positive outcomes. 

As we strive to learn more about 

youth who commit offenses so that 

we may provide them with more 

effective intervention and treatment 

programs, OJJDP hopes that the 

findings presented in this bulletin will 

inform our strategies and programs. 

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.gov
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic 

Characteristics 

SYRP targets youth in custody between 

ages 10 and 20. Based on the SYRP interviews in spring 2003, an estimated 101,040 

youth in this age range are in residential 

placement in the United States because 

they were arrested for, charged with, or 

adjudicated for an offense. This reflects a 

custody rate of 224 youth per 100,000 in 

the general youth population—about 0.22 

percent of 10- to 20-year-olds nationwide.1 

Surveying Youth in 

Residential Placement: 

Methodology 

The Survey of Youth in Residential 

Placement (SYRP) is the only national 

survey that gathers data directly from 

youth in custody, using anonymous 

interviews. The Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

designed the survey in 2000 and 

2001. SYRP surveys offender youth 

between ages 10 and 20. It draws 

a nationally representative sample 

from state and local facilities that are 

identified by the Census of Juveniles 

in Residential Placement and Juvenile 

Residential Facility Census surveys. 

SYRP interviewed youth from a representative selection of 205 eligible, 

responsive facilities listed on the 

census as of September 2002. The 

survey team interviewed 7,073 youth 

between the beginning of March and 

mid-June 2003. Surveys were electronic and used an audio computerassisted self-interview system to ask 

questions and record answers. 

When using this system, youth wear 

headphones and hear a prerecorded 

interviewer’s voice read the words 

on the screen. Youth indicate their 

response choice by touching it on 

the screen. The computer program 

automatically navigates to the next 

appropriate question based on the 

youth’s earlier answers, storing all 

the data anonymously and securely. 

Statisticians assigned weights to reflect the sampling probabilities of the 

facility and the youth respondents and 

to adjust for nonresponse. In this way, 

the survey of 7,073 provided accurate 

estimates of the size and characteristics of the national youth offender 

population in custody (estimated as 

more than 100,000 youth). 

Sex 

Eighty-five percent of all youth in residential placement are male. The custody rate 

for females is less than one-fifth the rate 

for males (70 females versus 370 males per 

100,000).2 

Age 

The majority (51 percent) of youth in 

placement are 16 or 17 years old. More 

than 15 percent are between ages 18 and 

Race/ethnicity 

About one-third (35 percent) of youth 

in residential placement are White nonHispanic and no other race. Nearly another one-third (32 percent) are Black or 

20. Preteens (ages 10–12) comprise 1 percent of the placement population.3 

African American and no other race, and 

close to one-fourth (24 percent) are Hispanic. Very few youth identify themselves 

as any other single race category—3 percent classify as American Indian/Alaska 

Native, Asian, or Native Hawaiian/other 

Pacific Islander. An estimated 6 percent 

identify as multiracial. 

Considering custody rates, SYRP results 

indicate that multiracial youth have a substantially greater custody rate as compared 

with other race/ethnicity categories—an 

estimated 751 of 100,000 multiracial youth 

are incarcerated, compared with 123 White 

youth per 100,000 and 463 Black/African 

American youth per 100,000 (table 1).4 

For more information about the demographic characteristics of youth in 

custody, including race and ethnicity, 

see table 1. 

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Youth in Custody 

Custody Rate per 

Estimated 100,000 Youth 

Number of in the General 

Demographic Characteristic Youth Percent Population 

All youth in custody 101,040 100 224 

Sex 

Male 85,720 85 370 

Female 15,320 15 70 

Age 

10 to 12* 1,240 1 10 

13 3,460 3 80 

14 9,720 10 233 

15 19,320 19 469 

16 26,210 26 646 

17 25,130 25 612 

18 10,710 11 262 

19 3,250 3 86 

20 2,000 2 53 

Race/ethnicity† 

White only, non-Hispanic 34,160 35 123 

Black or African American only, 

non-Hispanic 31,180 32 463 

Hispanic (any race) 23,880 24 317 

Other single race, non-Hispanic 3,110 3 145 

Mixed race, non-Hispanic 6,380 6 751 

Notes: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. The custody rates in the last column 

are computed as ratios of the estimated number of youth in custody to the number of youth in the general population in the demographic group. The general population information is derived from census 

estimates for April 2003 (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, 2004). 

* Estimates for this category are less reliable because they are based on fewer than 100 participating youth. 

† Excludes youth who did not respond to the race/ethnicity categories and those who chose only the 

“some other race” answer in response (n = 170 of the survey participants, or 2.3 percent of the estimated youth in placement). 

2 
3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYRP asks youth about all the offenses 

that led to their current stay in the residential facility (table 2). Nearly one-third 

of the youth (31 percent) report just one 

offense. Another one-third (33 percent) 

indicate two or three offenses, and the 

remaining one-third (34 percent) indicate 

four or more offenses.5 

Table 2 shows the percentages of youth 

who say that the offenses led to their current custody. The greatest percentages of 

Current Offenses youth report property offenses (45 percent), 

person offenses (43 percent), and status 

offenses (42 percent). The table also shows 

how probation and parole violators compared with other youth offenders—they are 

more likely to report status offenses and 

less likely to report person offenses. 

3 

SYRP Research Questions Addressing the Characteristics, Backgrounds, and Expectations 

of Youth in Residential Placement 

Who are the youth in placement? ◆ How many youth are in placement? 

◆ What is their distribution by age, sex, race/ethnicity? 

What are their offenses? ◆ What offenses led to the youth’s current placement? Were they on probation at the 

time? 

◆ What percentages are adjudicated and committed? 

◆ How long have they been in their current facility? 

◆ What were the circumstances of the offenses that led to their current placement 

(weapons use, accomplices and gang involvement, victims, substance use)? 

◆ What percentage had prior contact with the juvenile justice system (convictions, 

custody, probation)? 

◆ Considering their overall offense history (current offenses and prior convictions), 

what kinds of offenders are they? How does their current offense compare to any 

prior conviction(s)? Are they repeat offenders in the same category or has the general 

category of their offense increased or decreased in severity? 

◆ How do females and males differ in their offense profiles? 

What are their family backgrounds? ◆ Who took care of the youth most of the time while they were growing up? 

◆ Who were they living with when they were taken into custody for their current stay? 

◆ What caretaking responsibilities did they have when they entered custody? 

◆ Are the adults in their family primarily non-English speakers? 

◆ Do they have children of their own? Are they pregnant or is someone pregnant with 

their child? How do childbearing patterns differ for females and males in placement? 

How do these findings compare to childbearing in the general youth population? 

What is their educational background and status? 

◆ What are the youth’s grade levels? Are they educationally on track for their age? How 

many had to repeat a grade? How do they compare to similar-age peers in the general 

youth population? 

◆ What percentage have a learning disability? How does this compare to youth in the 

general population? 

◆ What academic achievements and/or sanctions have they received? What percentage 

were suspended or expelled? How does this compare to general population youth? 

◆ Do males and females differ on educational status measures? 

What are their expectations for 

the future? 

◆ Have youth been told when they will be released? 

◆ Do they know where they will go after they leave their current facility? 

◆ Do they know what will be expected of them when they are released? 

◆ Do they think they will reoffend in the future? If so, do they think they would be 

arrested? If arrested, would they be placed again into custody? How do they think 

their future punishment would compare with their current punishment (less, the 

same, or more)? 

◆ Have they made any plans for finding a place to live, getting a job, going to school, 

receiving treatment? 

◆ What do they see as their personal strengths? 

◆ When they think of their future life, do they expect to be married, have children, have 

a steady job? 

◆ How much education would they like to attain? Do they think they will achieve that 

level? If not, why not? 

◆ Do females and males in custody have different expectations for their futures? 

General Research Question Specific Research Questions 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circumstances of the 

Current Offense Table 2: Offenses Leading to Youth’s Current Custody Situation

Alcohol or drug use was a factor in current offenses for a number of the youth. 

Forty-four percent of youth in custody say 

they were under the influence of alcohol 

or drugs at the time of one or more of the 

offenses that led to their being placed 

in custody. Additionally, most youth (55 

percent) had committed their current 

offense with someone else. These findings 

are consistent with earlier observations 

of the tendency of juveniles to commit 

their offenses with others (McCord and 

Conway, 2005; Warr, 1996) and while under 

the influence of drugs or alcohol (Wallisch, 

1992; White et al., 2002). But although others (e.g., Stormshak, Comeau, and Shepard, 

2004) have observed that delinquent 

youth tend to have both drug and alcohol 

problems and deviant peers, SYRP reveals 

a previously unreported finding: not only 

do the same youth report both drug and 

alcohol abuse and association with deviant 

peers, but the youth who report them say 

that both factors occurred during the same 

crimes. SYRP finds that youth who commit 

their offenses with others are also significantly more likely to be under the influence 

of drugs or alcohol at the time of those 

offenses. Overall, the odds of youth being 

under the influence are almost three times 

as great when they are with an accomplice 

than when they act alone. The difference is 

even greater for youth who report the less 

serious property offenses (e.g., trespassing, vandalism), drug offenses, public order 

offenses, or status offenses. In these cases, 

the odds of youth being under the influence 

are more than four times as great when 

they are with an accomplice than when 

they act alone. 

Most Serious Current 

Offense 

More than two-fifths of youth in custody 

(43 percent) are currently classified as 

person offenders. Nearly one-half of them 

(20 percent of youth) are classified with 

some form of assault as their most serious 

current offense. Most person offenders 

(69 percent) say they knew their victims. 

Another one-fourth of youth in custody (26 

percent) have a property offense as their 

most serious current offense, with most 

of them (19 percent of youth) reporting 

burglary, arson, or theft. For more information about youth’s most serious current 

offenses, see table 3. 

Youth in Custody Percentage of 

Probation/ 

Percentage 

of NonEstimated Parole Violators violators 

Current Offense Number Percentage (N = 58,180) (N = 42,700) 

All offenses 101,040 100% 100% 100% 

Person 43,320 43 36 53 

Murder, rape, 

kidnapping 10,730 11 5 18 

Robbery 14,520 14 13 16 

Assault with a weapon 9,310 9 9 10 

Assault without a 

weapon 17,110 17 18 16 

Property 45,310 45 46 43 

Burglary, arson, 

or theft 35,190 35 36 34 

Other property 28,060 28 32 22 

Drug 28,590 28 34 21 

Public order 23,080 23 24 21 

Status 42,760 42 59 19 

Technical violation* 30,730 30 53 na 

Other 26,100 26 30 21 

Notes: na = not applicable. Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Rows sum to 

more than the estimated total number of youth in placement because youth are classified in every 

offense category they reported. The table excludes 139 participating youth (representing 2.3 percent 

of the estimated total custody population) who did not indicate any current offense among those 

listed. Youth not yet adjudicated are classified according to the offense(s) they are charged with or are 

accused of committing. 

* This category includes violations of probation or parole that are not classifiable as offenses in other 

categories in this table (e.g., testing positive for drugs, violating house arrest or electronic monitoring, 

or running away from a placement or facility). 

Differences Between 

Male and Female 

Offenders 

Males and females differ in their offense 

patterns (figure 1). Greater percentages 

of males than females are in placement for 

murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, drug 

offenses, and public order offenses. Greater 

percentages of females than males are in 

placement for status offenses and assaults. 

SYRP findings underscore the historically 

greater rates of status offenses among 

females (Chesney-Lind, 2001; ChesneyLind and Shelden, 2004). FBI data from 

2003 (the year SYRP was conducted) on 

arrests of youth younger than 21 years old 

show that females are charged with status 

offenses twice as frequently as males 

(12 percent of arrested females versus 6 

percent of arrested males).6

 Related SYRP 

findings, displayed in figure 1, indicate 

that status violations are the most serious 

offense leading to custody for twice as 

many females as males (18 percent versus 

9 percent). 

During the past decade, arrests of juvenile 

females increased more (or decreased 

less) than male arrests for the same 

offense categories. The Uniform Crime 

Reports show that between 1999 and 2008, 

juvenile arrests for aggravated assault 

dropped 21.8 percent for males but only 

2.5 percent for females. During this same 

period, simple assault arrests for juvenile 

males decreased 5.8 percent but increased 

4 
 

 

Table 3: 	 Most Serious Offense Leading to Youth’s Current Placement and 

Youth’s Most Serious Career Offense 

Most Serious Offense Lead- Youth’s Most Serious 

ing to Current Placement Career Offense 

Estimated Estimated 

Offense Number* Percent Number† Percent 

All youth 101,040 100 101,040 100 

Person 43,320 43 57,410 57 

Murder, rape, kidnapping 10,730 11 13,310 13 

Robbery 13,010 13 17,610 18 

Assault with a weapon 6,130 6 8,460 8 

Assault without a weapon 13,440 14 18,030 18 

Property 25,420 26 25,990 26 

Burglary, arson, or theft 18,920 19 20,120 20 

Other property 6,510 7 5,880 6 

Drug 9,380 10 7,340 7 

Public order 3,220 3 1,750 2 

Status** 9,880 10 4,930 5 

Technical violation 3,080 3 630†† 1†† 

Other 4,420 4 1,880 2 

Notes: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Percentages are based only on 

youth who identified offenses. Career offenses consider youth’s prior convictions. 

* Columns sum to slightly less than the estimated total number of youth in placement because of 

participants who answered “none of the above” or “don’t know” to the offense questions or said they 

would rather not answer these questions. This precluded current offense estimates for 2.3 percent of 

the population (139 survey participants). 

** A status offense is an offense only prohibited for a certain group of people (e.g., alcohol drinking 

under age 21). 

† Columns sum to slightly less than the estimated total number of youth in placement because of 

participants who answered “none of the above” or “don’t know” to the offense questions or said they 

would rather not answer these questions. This precluded career offense estimates for 1.1 percent of 

the population (64 survey participants). 

†† Estimates for this category are less reliable because they are based on fewer than 100 participating youth. 

15.9 percent for juvenile females (Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, 2009). Additional 

research has shown that females have not 

become more violent during this period 

(Steffensmeier et al., 2005). Rather, the 

evidence indicates that the shift is likely 

an unintended result of changes in arrest 

policies, specifically the use of mandatory 

and proarrest laws for domestic violence. 

In these cases, juvenile females are being arrested for altercations with family 

members—incidents that were previously handled informally or documented 

as status offenses (e.g., “ungovernable”) 

(Strom et al., unpublished paper). This 

trend is evident in analyses of arrest data 

(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006), which find 

that a greater percentage of aggravated 

assaults by juvenile females are against 

family members or intimate partners, as 

well as in SYRP, which finds that females 

in custody for violent offenses are more 

likely than males to report that they know 

or are related to their victims (82 percent 

of females versus 67 percent of males with 

current person offenses). 

Justice System 

Involvement 

SYRP asks youth whether they were previously taken into custody, on probation or 

parole, or convicted of any offenses— 

information that enters into court decisions about where to place them in the 

juvenile justice system. The large majority 

(85 percent) of youth interviewed have 

prior convictions. Ten percent report only 

prior custody, probation, or parole. Only 5 

percent of youth in custody have no prior 

involvement with the justice system. 

The authors examined youth’s answers 

about their current offenses and previous 

convictions and classified youth according 

to their most serious career offense. Youth 

with no prior justice system involvement 

are more likely to have committed murder, 

rape, or kidnapping as their most serious 

current (and career) offense (35 percent) 

than youth with only prior custody or probation (13 percent) or with prior convictions (12 percent). Most youth with prior 

convictions (74 percent) have committed 

another person offense or property crime7 

as their most serious career offense. 

In addition, for most youth with prior 

convictions, their current most serious 

offense is less severe or at the same level 

of severity as the most serious offense in 

5 
Murder, rape, 

kidnapping* Robbery* 

Assault, 

Assault with 

no weapon*

weapon* 

Property 

Drug, public order* Status* 

Technical violation/other 

Figure 1: Males and Females in Custody by Their Most Serious 

Current Offense 

their prior convictions. Only 22 percent of 

youth identified a current offense that is 

more serious than their prior convictions. 

Adjudication and 

Placement in Programs 

Two-thirds of youth in custody (66 percent) have been adjudicated and assigned 

to placement in their current program 

(i.e., committed). Seven percent have been 

adjudicated and await placement and/or 

disposition, 14 percent have not yet been 

adjudicated, and 13 percent have been 

adjudicated but SYRP could not determine 

their disposition status. 

Committed Youth in 

Detention Programs 

The percentage of youth who are committed is substantially less in detention 

programs than in other types of programs 

(28 percent in detention versus 80 percent in other programs). Although this 

difference is expected, readers might be 

surprised that the percentage of committed youth in detention is this high, in view 

of the concerns in the juvenile justice field 

regarding the use of detention facilities 

for postadjudication placements (Roush, 

1999). Nevertheless, sentences to detention 

have become increasingly popular and are 

available as a disposition in 32 states. In addition, 40 states use detention as a sanction 

for probation violations (National Center 

for Juvenile Justice, 2006). 

Length of Stay 

The amount of time youth offenders spend 

in a facility typically depends on many 

factors, including time in detention prior 

to adjudication, the nature and severity 

of their offense(s), and their commitment 

status. SYRP does not assess youth’s total 

length of stay but can measure how long 

they have been in their facility at the time 

of their interview. About one-third (35 

percent) of all youth in custody have been 

in their facility for 60 days or less, and the 

same percentage (35 percent) have been 

held between 61 and 180 days. About 1 in 

10 (11 percent) have been in their facility 

for more than a year. 

Family Background

SYRP asks youth about their family backgrounds, including who raised them and 

whom they lived with at the time they 

were taken into custody. Many youth in 

custody (46 percent) report that both 

parents helped raise them, although this

could have been in separate households. A

slightly lower percentage (42 percent) had 

just one parent caring for them when they

were growing up. Eleven percent report no

parental care while growing up. 

At the time they were taken into custody, 

more youth were living with one parent 

(45 percent) than with two parents (30 

percent), and one-fourth of youth (25 

percent) were not living with any parent. 

SYRP data describing where youth were 

living when they entered custody indicate 

that the risk of being taken into custody is 

significantly greater for juveniles who live 

with a single parent (558 per 100,000) or 

with no parent (1,652 per 100,000) than for 

juveniles living in two-parent households 

(153 per 100,000).8

 Table 4 shows more 

information about who raised youth in 

custody and whom they lived with when 

taken into custody.

SYRP also indicates that significantly more 

females than males enter custody from 

no-parent living arrangements (32 percent 

of females versus 24 percent of males) and 

from foster family or agency care (7 percent of females versus 4 percent of males). 

However, more males than females lived 

with a single parent (46 percent of males 

versus 40 percent of females). 

30 

Male Female 

25 

Percentage of Sex Group 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Childbearing 

Fourteen percent of youth in custody report that they have children. More males 

have children than females (15 percent 

versus 9 percent). These rates are much 

greater than in the general population (2 

percent of males and 6 percent of females 

between ages 12 and 20) (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2004). Twelve percent of youth, 

some of whom already have children, say 

they are currently expecting a child (i.e., 

females report they are pregnant; males 

report that someone is pregnant with their 

child). A combined total of 20 percent of 

youth in custody have or are expecting 

children. 

Other researchers have observed strong 

associations between teen fatherhood 

and delinquent behavior in smaller, local 

samples of juvenile offenders and at-risk 

youth (Thornberry et al., 2000; Unruh, 

Bullis, and Yovanoff, 2003, 2004). SYRP 

findings indicate that this association is 

reflected in the national population of 

male youth in residential placement. The 

association is not as strong for female 

youth in placement, probably because 

Most Serious Current Offense 

* Percentages of males and females differ significantly in these offense categories. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Family Background of Youth in Custody 

Family Background Estimated Number Percentage 

All youth 101,040 100 

Caretaker when growing up 

Two parents 46,770 46 

One parent 42,690 42 

No parent 11,580 11 

Living arrangement when 

taken into custody 

Two parents 29,980 30 

One parent 45,390 45 

No parent 25,670 25 

Notes: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Parents include both biological parents and stepparents. Youth who reported that two parents took care of them while they were growing 

up did not necessarily live in a two-parent household. 

pregnant females are less prevalent in the 

placement population than males who are 

expectant fathers. 

Educational 

Background 

Researchers have consistently documented 

a number of educational deficiencies 

among delinquent youth in local samples. 

Delinquent youth perform at less than expected academic levels (Wang, Blomberg, 

and Li, 2005; Zabel and Nigro, 2001). They 

have poor school attendance and greater 

rates of grade retention9

 (Laird, 1980; 

Silberberg and Silberberg, 1971; Wang, 

Blomberg, and Li, 2005; Zabel and Nigro, 

1999). When they are in school, they 

exhibit more disciplinary problems, resulting in greater suspension rates (Finn, 

Scott, and Zarichny, 1988; Loeber and 

Farrington, 1998; Wang, Blomberg, and Li, 

2005; Zabel and Nigro, 1999). SYRP results 

corroborate these findings in the nationwide population of youth in custody. 

SYRP asks youth about their enrollment, 

school experience, grade level, and learning disabilities. Although a majority (76 

percent) of youth were enrolled in school 

when they entered custody, this is significantly less than the rate of youth in the 

general population who are the same age 

(88 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). 

Only 3 percent of youth who were not 

enrolled when they entered custody had 

already graduated from high school or 

earned their general equivalency diploma. 

More than one-half (53 percent) of youth 

in custody admit skipping classes in the 

year before they entered custody, and the 

majority (57 percent) had been suspended 

in the same year. Also, 26 percent of 12- to 

17-year-olds say they repeated a grade in 

the year prior to entering custody, which 

is more than twice the lifetime rate of 

grade retention (11 percent) among youth 

of the same age in the general population 

(Lugaila, 2003). Almost one-half (48 percent) 

of youth in custody are at less than the typical grade level for their age, compared with 

28 percent of youth in the general population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). 

Additionally, SYRP data indicate that 

youth in custody have disabilities that 

would make school more difficult for 

them. Thirty percent of youth in custody 

report that they have been diagnosed with 

a learning disability, compared with 5 percent of youth between the ages of 10 and 

20 in the general population (U.S. Office of 

Special Education Programs, 2003). 

Nonetheless, more than two-thirds of 

youth in custody report that they have 

aspirations of higher education. About 

one-half (47 percent) say they want to go 

to college and another one-fifth of youth 

(21 percent) say they would like to go to 

graduate school, medical school, or law 

school. Females are significantly more 

likely than males to aspire to some type 

of advanced degree (37 percent of females 

versus 18 percent of males). Most youth 

in custody think they will achieve their 

educational goals. When asked how far 

they thought they would go in school, the 

majority (57 percent) say they expect to 

go at least as far as they want. 

Youth’s positive aspirations also apply to 

their future employment. Most youth in 

custody (88 percent) say they expect to 

have a steady job in the future. 

Expectations About 

Release 

More than one-half (51 percent) of youth 

in custody say they have been told when 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they will be released. One-third (33 percent) expect to be released in 1 month 

or sooner, 23 percent think they will be 

in custody for another 1 to 3 months, 

one-fifth (20 percent) believe they will be 

released in another 3 to 6 months, and 

one-fifth (20 percent) expect to be in custody for longer than 6 more months. 

Youth who have been committed (i.e., 

adjudicated and assigned to placement 

in their current program) expect their 

further time in custody to be considerably 

longer than other youth. Only 26 percent 

of committed youth believe they will be 

released in 1 month, compared with 51 

percent of other youth. 

When they leave their current facility, onehalf of youth (50 percent) say they will be 

placed on probation or parole, 11 percent 

think they will be released with no court 

supervision, and 8 percent expect to go to 

another facility. Close to one-third of the 

population in custody (30 percent) say 

they have not been told what will happen 

when they leave. Once released, majorities 

of youth in custody think they will have 

to report to a probation or parole officer 

(59 percent) or attend school regularly 

(56 percent). Some (42 percent) say they 

will have to take drug tests and a similar 

percentage (40 percent) say they will be 

Similarities and Differences Between Youth Surveys 

The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) and the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP)1 both provide information about the size of the custody population; its age, sex, and race/ethnicity composition; and youth’s most serious 

current offenses. SYRP findings on age, sex, race/ethnicity, population size, and current offenses closely parallel those reported 

for the 2003 CJRP (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2008). Any differences in population size and in age and sex distributions may 

stem from methodology differences or from changes over time and seasonal fluctuations: SYRP describes the population in 

spring, whereas CJRP reflects the population in October. 

SYRP and CJRP custody rates differ slightly, with SYRP rates slightly lower than those given in the CJRP Databook (Sickmund, 

Sladky, and Kang, 2008). This difference reflects the use of slightly different population denominators. CJRP rates are based on 

the number of juveniles in the general population ages 10 through the upper age of the original court jurisdiction in each state,2 

whereas SYRP rates are based on all juveniles ages 10 through the upper age of extended juvenile court jurisdiction.3 

The two surveys also offer different race/ethnicity classifications, reflecting their different methodologies and answer categories: 

CJRP requires administrators to assign a single race/ethnicity classification to each youth, whereas SYRP permits youth to 

identify as multiracial. The CJRP-type classification has been used universally until only recently, and it still remains the standard 

for available administrative data (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). SYRP’s expanded answer choices conform to the new Census 

Bureau standard for measuring race/ethnicity. Moreover, this expansion reveals that multiracial youth have a substantially greater 

custody rate (see page 2). 

In comparison to CJRP data, SYRP findings indicate that the most serious offense leading to current placement is more commonly a person offense (Sickmund, 2004; Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2008). The SYRP data show that 43 percent of youth 

are in their current placement because of a person offense, whereas the CJRP data show only 34 percent. This discrepancy is an 

understandable consequence of measurement differences between the SYRP interview answers and administrative data used to 

categorize offenses. 

CJRP asks facility administrators for a single response that summarizes each youth’s offense record. In contrast, the SYRP selfreport interview explicitly asks separate questions about all offenses, affording youth more opportunities to report a more serious 

offense. The vast majority of youth in placement have previous convictions, so when asked to recall and report the events that led 

to their current placement, they may not clearly distinguish these events from their prior offenses. In actuality, their view on this 

may be quite realistic because courts undoubtedly consider offense histories when deciding to place youth. Finally, differences 

between what the youth did and the charges to which they finally pled should be systematic, with pled charges less serious. If 

youth describe what they actually did and administrative records indicate the charge for which they were adjudicated after their 

plea, then self-report data will convey offenses that are more serious. (For example, a youth may describe an assault while the 

record may show a disorderly conduct charge.) Given these dynamics of memory, interpretation, and circumstances, neither the 

self-report nor the administrative record is necessarily more valid. Both methods provide important, alternative perspectives on 

offender youth in placement. 

SYRP data concerning offense behaviors go well beyond what administrators (surveyed through CJRP) can currently provide. 

SYRP gives details about the circumstances of current offenses, identifies patterns of past involvement in the justice system, 

identifies first offenders, and classifies youth by their most serious career offense. Until records systems become substantially 

more advanced, researchers must rely on interviews with youth to obtain this extensive information. 

1 CJRP surveys residential facilities in the United States to collect data on youth in custody; SYRP collects data from facilities and the youth themselves. 

Like SYRP, CJRP collects information on sex, age, race/ethnicity, most serious offense, court adjudication status, and more. 

2 This is the oldest age at which a juvenile court has jurisdiction over an individual for law-violating behavior. In 38 states, the juvenile court has 

original jurisdiction over all youth charged with an offense who were younger than age 18 at the time of the offense, arrest, or referral to court (King 

and Szymanski, 2006). In many states, the juvenile court has original jurisdiction over young adults who committed offenses while they were juveniles. 

3

 This is the oldest age for which the juvenile court can retain jurisdiction over youth’s dispositions in delinquency matters. Extended jurisdiction laws 

enable the juvenile court to provide sanctions and services even for older juveniles who have reached the age at which original juvenile court jurisdiction ends. This upper limit varies by state, depending on what is considered to be in the best interests of the juvenile and the public. In 33 states, 

this is age 20 (King and Szymanski, 2006). 

8 
9 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

required to work at least part time. Only 

a little more than one-third (35 percent) 

say they will be expected to go to counseling, and just more than one-fifth (22 

percent) say they will have to pay for 

damages they caused. 

Youth Expectations 

About Future Offending 

and Sanctions 

SYRP asks youth whether they think they 

will reoffend in the future. To assess 

youth’s thoughts on the workings of the 

juvenile justice system and on graduated 

sanctions,10 SYRP asks whether they expect to be apprehended and confined for 

any future offenses and what they believe 

their future punishments will be. 

Most youth in custody (59 percent) say 

they definitely will not reoffend in the 

future. This belief is particularly prevalent 

among first-time offenders (78 percent). 

Although this is the socially desirable 

response, the anonymity of the interview 

should have minimized youth’s concerns 

about conveying a good image. Despite 

this, the majority of youth in all groups 

affirm they will not reoffend. At the same 

time, nearly two-fifths (39 percent) think 

it unlikely they would be caught if they reoffended in the future. Nonetheless, the majority of youth recognize that if they were 

caught for a future offense, they would 

be punished. More than three-fourths (76 

percent) think they would be remanded 

to custody, and 75 percent believe their 

future punishment would be greater than 

their current punishment. 

Youth’s expectations about the workings 

of the juvenile justice system are revealing, 

particularly considering that nearly twofifths of youth in custody think they are 

unlikely to be apprehended for any 

repeat offense (most of whom say they 

“definitely will not be arrested”). Perhaps 

these youth feel they will be better at 

eluding law enforcement in the future, 

or perhaps they recognize the considerable challenge that officers face in solving 

crime and apprehending those responsible. Whatever their reasoning, youth’s 

answers on this series of SYRP questions 

suggest that arrest or apprehension is the 

weakest link in the sanctioning process. 

Conclusion 

The findings presented here represent a 

major advance in statistics about youth 

in custody. They provide a rich portrait 

of the characteristics, backgrounds, and 

expectations of these youth. SYRP results 

provide information about the national 

population of youth in placement that is 

not available through any other source. 

For example, until now no information has 

been available for the national population 

in custody regarding the overall prevalence of all offenses for which youth are 

incarcerated or the characteristics of 

these offenses, such as the presence of 

accomplices and youth’s use of drugs or 

alcohol during the offenses. 

A number of the SYRP findings reiterate 

results from small, local studies. These 

findings provide a valuable contribution 

to the research literature on delinquent 

youth because they demonstrate that 

the patterns are not just local but apply 

more generally to the national population 

of youth in custody. Other observations 

provide unprecedented glimpses into the 

backgrounds, expectations, and beliefs of 

juveniles in custody. 

Several findings have implications for reducing recidivism and enhancing positive 

outcomes: 

◆	 Develop programs that address the 

specific needs of youth who are 

parents or expectant parents. SYRP 

discovered that 20 percent of youth 

in custody already have children or 

are expecting a child. Juvenile justice 

programs have not commonly focused 

on the unique needs of these young 

parents and have overlooked how 

youth’s unmet needs may affect their 

children. To reduce youth’s recidivism 

and enhance the outcomes for their 

children, future initiatives should focus 

on programs that support parent-child 

bonds, improve youth’s parenting 

skills, develop realistic release plans 

to preserve these new families, and 

enhance youth’s ability to support 

and safely parent their children in the 

future. 

◆	 Capitalize on youth’s aspirations to 

motivate positive changes in their 

lives. SYRP found that most youth say 

they want to go to college, or even to 

graduate school, and that the large 

majority expect to hold a steady job in 

the future. Intervention programs to reduce recidivism could motivate critical 

changes in youth’s behavior by tapping 

their own specific aspirations for their 

further education and productive future 

lives. 

SYRP can inform program and policy 

by providing details about the kinds of 

offenders in custody. Further analyses of 

the SYRP data can answer a wide range of 

questions about youth’s offense patterns, 

including the following: 

◆	 Do certain combinations of offenses 

typically occur together? What types 

of offenses do the same youth tend to 

commit? 

◆	 How do the offenses that gang members report differ from the offenses 

that other youth report? Do gang members have different offense profiles than 

other youth? Are gang members more 

likely to report using a weapon, injuring 

their victims, having accomplices, or 

being under the influence of alcohol or 

drugs when they committed their current offenses? 

◆	 How do youth’s current offenses 

relate to their family situations? What 

are the current offenses of youth who 

were living with two parents when they 

entered custody, and do these offenses 

differ from the offenses of youth who 

were living with a single parent or with 

no parent? What kinds of offenses do 

youth commit if they have children of 

their own or are expecting a child? 

◆	 Do different types of offenders have 

different expectations about their future education or employment or about 

their future offending and sanctions? 

Are violent offenders less positive about 

their future education or employment? 

Are they more skeptical about the workings of the justice system? 

Endnotes 

1. All SYRP custody rates are computed 

as rates per 100,000 U.S. youth, including 

youth in the ages covered by extended 

juvenile court jurisdiction. Numbers of 

youth ages 10 through 20 in the general 

population were obtained from the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s monthly population 

estimates for April 2003, which was the 

midpoint of SYRP data collection (U.S. 

Census Bureau, Population Division, 2004). 

These numbers were adjusted by removing youth not within the purview of the 

juvenile court in states where extended 

court jurisdiction ends before age 20. 

2. The SYRP bulletins report only differences that are statistically significant. 

3. Fewer than 100 SYRP respondents are 

in this age category (n=82). Here and 

throughout the SYRP bulletins, estimates 
10 

based on fewer than 100 respondents are 

flagged as less reliable. 

4. The body of research on multiracial 

youth and delinquency is just emerging, 

so although these findings suggest that 

elevated rates of delinquency may be 

evident among multiracial youth in the 

custody population nationwide, the findings should be considered in context. Only 

recently have studies and data collection 

activities—both small and large scale— 

allowed respondents to indicate mixed 

race/ethnicity. Further research is needed 

to better understand the factors that may 

influence this finding. Until these findings 

are better understood, their implications 

for disproportionate minority contact 

programs and policies are unclear. 

5. Some participants (n=139) did not select 

any of the listed offenses. 

6. The authors computed these rates from 

information provided in tables 39 and 40 

of Crime in the United States, 2003 (Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, 2004). 

7. Property crimes include burglary, arson, 

and theft as well as the less serious property offenses—trespassing, joyriding, and 

vandalism. 

WesDax: Providing 


Survey of Youth in 


Residential Placement 


Data Online
 

WesDax is an online query and analysis 

system that allows users to construct 

their own results from the Survey of 

Youth in Residential Placement. The 

system is designed for audiences without 

technical or statistical expertise, including policymakers, service providers, and 

the general public. 

The WesDax system: 

◆	 Operates in a standard Web browser 

and requires no special software. 

◆	 Offers a tutorial for new users, including a glossary of terms. 

◆	 Computes accurate totals and 


percentages.
 

◆	 Can provide statistical measures of 


precision (in the form of standard errors or confidence intervals).
 

To use WesDax, see the “Online Analysis” link at www.syrp.org. 

8. Corresponding statistics on 12- to 

17-year-olds in the general population are 

available (U.S. Census Bureau, Population 

Division, 2004). The rates given in the 

text reflect this subgroup (and exclude 

younger and older SYRP youth). 

9. Grade retention means that youth 

repeated a grade in school. 

10. “Graduated sanctions” refers to justice 

system responses that can take a variety 

of specific forms but always involve a 

continuum of consequences (dispositions, punishments, services, or intervention programs) calibrated to address the 

severity and chronic nature of the specific 

crimes and the individual offender’s history and characteristics. 

References 

Chesney-Lind, M. 2001. Are girls closing 

the gender gap in violence? Criminal Justice Magazine 16(1):1–9. Available online: 

www.abanet.org/crimjust/cjmag/16-1/ 

chesneylind.html. 

Chesney-Lind, M., and Shelden, R.G. 2004. 

Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice, 3d 

ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2004. 

Crime in the United States, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2009. 

Crime in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Finn, J.D., Scott, M.W.R., and Zarichny, 

K.T. 1988. School performance of adolescents in juvenile court. Urban Education 

23(2):150–161. 

King, M., and Szymanski, L. 2006. National 

overviews. In State Juvenile Justice Profiles. 

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Laird, A.W. 1980. A comprehensive and 

innovative attack of action programs for 

delinquency prevention and classroom 

success. Education 101(2):118–122. 

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 1998. 

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk 

Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Lugaila, T.A. 2003. A Child’s Day, 2000 

(Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Available online: www.census.gov/ 

prod/2003pubs/p70-89.pdf. 

McCord, J., and Conway, K.P. 2005. Cooffending and Patterns of Juvenile Crime. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2006. 

State Juvenile Justice Profiles. Pittsburgh, 

PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Available online: www.ncjj.org/ 

stateprofiles. 

Roush, D. 1999. Helpful juvenile detention. 

Reaching Today’s Youth 3(3):63–68. 

Sickmund, M. 2004. Juveniles in Corrections. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement 

Further information about the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement can be 

found in the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Technical Report and other 

bulletins in this series, which include: 

◆ Introduction to the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement. 

◆ Youth’s Needs and Services: Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential 

Placement. 

◆ Conditions of Confinement: Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential 

Placement. 

◆ Nature and Risk of Victimization: Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement. 

For more complete results of the survey findings on youth’s characteristics and 

backgrounds, see the “Reports” link at www.syrp.org. 
11 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., and Kang., W. 

2008. Census of Juveniles in Residential 

Placement Databook. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. Available online: 

ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp. 

Silberberg, N.E., and Silberberg, M.C. 1971. 

School achievement and delinquency. Review of Educational Research 41(1):17–38. 

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 2006. 

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., Zhong, H., 

and Ackerman, J. 2005. An assessment 

of recent trends in girls’ violence using 

diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender 

gap closing? Criminology 43(2):355–405. 

Stormshak, E.A., Comeau, C.A., and 

Shepard, S.A. 2004. The relative contribution of sibling deviance and peer deviance 

in the prediction of substance use across 

middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal 

Child Psychology 32:635–649. 

Strom, K., Warner, T., Tichavsky, L., and 

Zahn, M. Unpublished paper. Policing 

daughters: The role of domestic violence 

arrest policies in child-parent conflicts. 

Thornberry, T.P., Wei, E.H., StouthamerLoeber, M., and Van Dyke, J. 2000. Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior. 

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Unruh, D., Bullis, M., and Yovanoff, P. 2003. 

Community reintegration outcomes for 

formerly incarcerated adolescent fathers 

and nonfathers. Journal of Emotional and 

Behavioral Disorders 11:144–156. 

Unruh, D., Bullis, M., and Yovanoff, P. 2004. 

Adolescent fathers who are incarcerated 

juvenile offenders: Explanatory study of 

the co-occurrence of two problem behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies 

13:405–419. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Current Population Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. (Table C2. Household 

Relationship and Living Arrangements of 

Children Under 18 Years/1, by Age, Sex, 

Race, Hispanic Origin). Available online: 

http://www.census.gov/population/ 

socdemo/hh-fam/cps2003/tabC2-all.pdf. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Single grade of 

enrollment and high school graduation 

status for people 3 years old and over, by 

age (single years for 3 to 24 years), race, 

and Hispanic origin: October 2003 (Table 2 

at School enrollment—Social and economic characteristics of students: October 

2003, detailed tables). U.S. Census Bureau, 

Population Division, Education and Social 

Stratification Branch. Available online: 

www.census.gov/population/www/ 

socdemo/school/cps2003.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 

2004. Monthly Population Estimates, 2000 to 

2004. Monthly postcensal resident population (by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin 

for the United States). Available online: 

http://www.census.gov/popest/national/ 

asrh/2004_nat_res.html. 

U.S. Office of Special Education Programs 

(OSEP). 2003. Number of children served 

under IDEA Part B, by disability and age 

(table AA7). (Data tables for OSEP statereported data: Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) Data.) Available 

online: www.ideadata.org/arc_toc5.asp. 

Wallisch, L.S. 1992. Substance use among 

youth entering Texas Youth Commission reception facilities in 1989. Austin, 

TX: Texas Commission on Alcohol and 

Drug Abuse. Available online: www.tcada. 

state.tx.us/research/criminaljustice/ 

tyc/1989/89tyc2ndrpt.pdf. 

Wang, X., Blomberg, T.G., and Li, S.D. 2005. 

Comparison of the educational deficiencies of delinquent and nondelinquent students. Evaluation Review 29(4):291–312. 

Warr, M. 1996. Organization and instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology 

34:11–37. 

White, H.R., Tice, P., Loeber, R., and 

Stouthamer-Loeber, M. 2002. Illegal acts 

committed by adolescents under the 

influence of alcohol and drugs. Journal 

of Research in Crime and Delinquency 

39:131–152. 

Zabel, R.H., and Nigro, F.A. 1999. Juvenile offenders with behavioral disorders, 

learning disabilities, and no disabilities: 

Self-reports of personal, family, and school 

characteristics. Behavioral Disorders 

25(1):22–40. 

Zabel, R.H., and Nigro, F.A. 2001. The influence of special education experience and 

gender of juvenile offenders on academic 

achievement scores in reading, language, 

and mathematics. Behavioral Disorders 

26(2):164–172. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~227730*

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/OJJDP
 

PERMIT NO. G–91
 

Bulletin NCJ 227730 

Acknowledgments 

Andrea J. Sedlak, Ph.D., Vice President and Associate Director of Human Services Research at Westat, is Project Director of the Survey of Youth in Residential 

Placement (SYRP). Carol Bruce, Ph.D., is a Senior SYRP Analyst. Other Westat 

staff who made key contributions to the study included David Cantor, Ph.D., John 

Hartge, John Brown, Alfred Bishop, Gary Shapiro, Sheila Krawchuk, Karla McPherson, Ph.D., Monica Basena, Kristin Madden, and Ying Long, as well as many other 

dedicated Westat staff too numerous to name here. 

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) assisted during the SYRP 

design and preliminary analyses under a subcontract to Westat. Contributing 

NCCD staff included Madeline Wordes, Ph.D., Eileen Poe-Yamagata, and Christopher J. Hartney. 

Several OJJDP program managers provided support and guidance over the course 

of the project: Joseph Moone, Barbara Allen-Hagen, and Janet Chiancone. Many 

members of the SYRP Advisory Board offered constructive advice at critical points. 

Finally, this study would not have been possible without the generous cooperation 

of the many state directors and hundreds of local facility administrators who provided the information, space, and staff support needed to conduct the survey and 

the thousands of youth who agreed to participate and contributed their time and the 

details of their lives and experiences in answering the SYRP questions. 

This bulletin was prepared under grant number 

2001–JR–BX–K001 from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

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 Community Capacity 

Development Office; the National Institute 

of Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; 

and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking (SMART).