U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

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

A Message From OJJDP

The environment in which juvenile 

offenders are confined can affect their 

future behavior and may even contribute to recidivism. To obtain a clearer 

picture of the conditions of juvenile 

confinement, OJJDP initiated the 

Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP), the first comprehensive 

national study to gather information 

about youth in custody by interviewing 

the detained offenders.

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

of the facilities in which youth are 

confined and of the programs provided to them. It reports on the security 

status of these residential facilities 

and the types of youth offenders in 

various programs and their placement 

with other youth. It also describes the 

physical and program environments, 

the access offenders have to emotional support and legal representation, 

the relationship between youth and 

staff, the clarity of the facility’s rules, 

and the nature of the disciplinary measures used to enforce those rules.

While self-reported data bear certain 

limitations, the findings reported in 

this bulletin indicate areas in which 

some conditions of confinement fail 

to meet best practice guidelines. The 

authors provide helpful recommendations to address such deficiencies. 

OJJDP is committed to enhancing the 

conditions of confinement for youth 

in residential custody. It is our hope 

that the findings of this study will help 

facilities in their efforts to address the 

needs of the youth offenders in their 

care.

Conditions of Confinement

Andrea J. Sedlak and Karla S. McPherson

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 findings from the 

Survey of Youth in Residential Placement 

about the conditions of confinement for 

youth in a range of different facilities and 

programs. Results focus on the structural 

and operational characteristics of these 

environments and indicate how youth 

offenders are distributed across various 

programs and facilities of different size 

and complexity.

SYRP research provides answers to a 

number of questions about the characteristics and experiences of youth in custody, 

including: 

◆ How are youth grouped in living units 

and programs?

◆ Which youth are placed together? 

◆ What activities are available in each 

facility? 

◆ How accessible are social, emotional, 

and legal supports? 

◆ What is the quality of the youth-staff 

relationships?

◆ How clear are the facility’s rules?

◆ How clear is the facility’s commitment 

to justice and due process?

◆ What methods of control and discipline 

do staff use?

SYRP’s findings are based on interviews 

with a nationally representative sample 

of 7,073 youth in custody during spring 

FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY OF YOUTH IN RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator May 2010
2

2003, using audio computer-assisted selfinterview methodology. Results examined 

youth offenders’ self-reports about conditions in their facility and living unit and in 

their placement program (i.e., detention, 

corrections, camp, community-based, or 

residential treatment). Facility administrators provided additional information by 

verifying or updating their answers on the 

most recent Juvenile Residential Facility 

Census (JRFC) survey,1

 by completing the 

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) survey2

 (to give administrative data on the sampled youth), and 

by providing information about facility 

structure and operations. Using these 

data, SYRP describes the custody environment at three different levels: the facility’s 

organization and security, the program 

characteristics, and the specific conditions in a youth’s living unit. For more 

information about data collection in SYRP, 

see “Surveying Youth in Residential Placement: Methodology” on page 8. 

Facility and Program 

Characteristics 

Facilities that hold juvenile offenders vary 

widely in size, organizational complexity, 

and layout. Many are single-function facilities, providing only one type of placement 

program (e.g., a boot camp or a detention 

center), while others are more complex. 

The more complex facilities offer various 

programs in separate groups of living 

units. These facilities can occupy multiple 

buildings on a single campus or have 

housing units at multiple locations. Facilities and their programs also differ in size, 

security, the types of offenders they hold, 

and the average length of stay for their 

residents. Most youth (93 percent) live in 

facilities that provide a single primary program. The remaining 7 percent of youth 

are in operationally complex facilities that 

provide different programs for different 

groups of residents. The majority (58 percent) of youth in custody are in facilities 

that house 100 or fewer youth, and most 

youth (65 percent) are in public facilities.3

For more information about facility capacity, layout, and ownership, see table 1.

SYRP classifies residential programs into 

five general categories by grouping together living units that have the same primary 

function. As table 2 shows, most youth are 

in either corrections programs (32 percent) or detention programs (26 percent). 

Table 1: Youth in Placement, by Facility Characteristics

Facility Characteristic

Estimated 

Number of Youth

Percentage of Youth 

(n=101,040)

Organizational complexity 

(number of programs)

1 93,920 93

2 or more 7,110 7

Facility size (capacity*)

30 or fewer 16,130 16

31–60 24,200 24

61–100 18,560 18

101–150 13,550 13

151–300 13,760 14

More than 300 14,840 15

Physical layout

Part of one building 4,900 5

All of one building 30,980 31

Multiple buildings at single site 50,690 50

Multiple campuses or sites 14,470 14

Facility owner/operator

Government owned and operated 65,680 65

Privately owned and operated 25,620 25

Government owned, privately operated 9,740 10

Total 101,040 100

Note: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. 

*As measured by the total number of beds. 

Table 2: Youth in Placement, by Type of Program

Program Type

Estimated 

Number of Youth

Percentage of Youth 

(n=101,040)

Detention 26,590 26

Corrections 32,260 32

Camp 9,770 10

Community based 18,360 18

Residential treatment 14,070 14

Note: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. 
3

are most prevalent in detention (19 percent) and residential treatment programs 

(29 percent).

Youth Placement With 

Other Youth 

SYRP examined how youth are grouped 

together in programs and living units and 

revealed certain imbalances. Placing youth 

who are different ages or who have dissimilar personal histories or offense records 

together in programs and living units may 

not provide these youth with optimal environments for growth and change. 

Age 

Age differences mark important differences in youth’s maturity and experience. 

These disparities are magnified during 

childhood and adolescence. Most experts 

agree that housing young juvenile offenders with older youth is a practice that 

should be avoided. Separation of adults 

and juveniles in custody is also one of the 

core requirements of the Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act. 

SYRP does not include juveniles who are 

held in adult prisons and jails, but the 

findings do reveal considerable age mix 

in juvenile facilities as well as substantial 

mixing of juveniles with young adults. 

Mixing juveniles with young adults poses 

challenges for implementing developmentally appropriate programming and for 

safety (Committee on Adolescence, 2001; 

Steinberg, Chung, and Little, 2004). 

One-fifth of offenders in juvenile facilities 

are in living units with others who are 3 or 

more years older than they are. Moreover, 

43 percent of juveniles in placement are 

housed in living units with young adults. 

Such units with older offenders tend to 

have more serious offenders. Juveniles 

(younger than 18 years old) who are in 

units with young adults are more than 

twice as likely as juveniles not living in 

units with young adults (42 percent versus 

20 percent) to be living with youth whose 

most serious career offense is murder. 

Sex 

Thirty-six percent of youth in custody live 

in facilities that house both males and 

females. Similarly, 35 percent of programs 

are coed. However, coed placement in living units is uncommon (6 percent). Coed 

placement predominates in detention 

programs—86 percent of youth are in a 

coed program and 17 percent are in a coed 

living unit.

The remainder of youth are in communitybased programs (18 percent), residential 

treatment programs (14 percent), or camp 

programs (10 percent).

Overall, 26 percent of youth in residential 

placement are in programs that have one 

or more specialized subunits. Specialized 

subunits include reception/diagnostic 

units, targeted treatment units (e.g., for 

sex offenders, violent offenders, drug 

treatment), and variations of the primary program (e.g., a camp program that 

includes both a boot camp and a forestry 

camp, or a community-based program that 

incorporates a shelter, group homes, and 

independent living subunits). Most youth 

in camps (59 percent) reside in a program 

with specialized subunits (figure 1).

Security

Facilities are typically classified as “staff 

secure” or “secure” according to whether 

locks confine youth in their living units 

during the day. More than one-third (35 

percent) of youth are placed in programs 

that do not use locks, but almost half (46 

percent) are confined by three or more 

locks during the day. Youth in detention 

are held most securely, with 83 percent 

confined by three or more locks during the 

day. Locks secure youth in buildings (64 

percent), in areas within buildings (e.g., 

corridors, wings, floors) (58 percent), and 

within external fences or walls (59 percent). Detention and corrections programs 

use locks for most residents. In addition, 

53 percent of youth offenders live in facilities that lock residents into their sleeping 

rooms under certain conditions.

Types of Offenders in 

Different Programs 

Youth placed in custody have committed 

a variety of offenses. Including current offenses and past convictions, SYRP shows 

that all types of offenders are comparably 

represented in each kind of program. 

Some significant, small differences occur 

across programs. Youth with the most 

serious career offenses (i.e., murder, rape, 

or kidnapping) are most prevalent (14 

percent or more) in corrections, residential treatment, and community-based 

programs. Camp programs have the highest percentage of property offenders (30 

percent), and detention and camp programs have the highest percentage of drug 

and public order offenders (11 percent). 

Female offenders constitute 15 percent of 

the total youth offender population and 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage of Youth in Program

Detention

None One or more

Corrections Camp Community based

Residential

treatment

Program

Specialized Subunits:

Figure 1: Youth in Each Type of Program Based on Whether Their 

Program Has Specialized Subunits
4

Race/Ethnic Group 

The core requirements of the JJDP Act 

mandate that states must work to improve 

their response to disproportionate minority contact. Despite the requirement, SYRP 

findings on differences in custody rates 

(Sedlak and Bruce, forthcoming) reconfirm 

the numerous earlier studies that have 

demonstrated that minority youth are 

still disproportionately represented in 

the placement population (Hsia, Bridges, 

and McHale, 2004; Pope, Lovell, and Hsia, 

2002). 

In addition, SYRP reveals that different 

races and ethnicities tend to be held in 

different types of programs—more Black/

African American youth in placement 

are in corrections programs compared 

with other races/ethnicities (42 percent 

versus 31 percent or less of other races/

ethnicities), more Hispanic youth in 

placement are in camp programs (17 

percent versus 7 percent), and more 

White youth are in residential treatment 

programs (20 percent versus 9 percent). 

These findings confirm that the patterns 

previously observed only in local samples 

(Cohen, 1991; Drakeford and Garfinkel, 

2000; Kaplan and Busner, 1992; Richissin, 

1999) also hold at the national level for 

the total population of youth in custody. 

SYRP data can provide a resource for 

examining factors that might explain the 

observed distributions, such as youth’s 

backgrounds, offense histories, and service needs.

Placement With Other 

Victims 

Results indicate that youth with experiences of physical or sexual abuse tend to 

be clustered together in the same living 

units. These patterns could stem from deliberate programming decisions, whereby 

youth with similar abuse histories are 

housed together for specialized treatment. 

Clustering of abuse victims is particularly 

strong for females. This may reflect the 

joint influence of two dynamics: females 

have fewer placement alternatives and 

they are more likely to have experienced 

prior physical or sexual abuse. 

One-fourth (25 percent) of youth in 

custody report past experiences (prior 

to placement) of frequent or injurious 

physical abuse and nearly one-eighth (12 

percent) acknowledge prior sexual abuse. 

Among youth with physical abuse histories, 77 percent of males and 95 percent 

of females are in living units where more 

than 20 percent of residents claim they 

were physically abused. A similar pattern 

is evident for prior sexual abuse: victims 

of both sexes are more likely to be living 

with higher percentages of other victims 

(52 percent of male victims and 84 percent 

of female victims).

Coplacement of 

Offender Types 

SYRP shows that most youth (63 percent) 

live in units where the majority of other 

residents are person offenders. Nearly 

one-fifth of the less serious career offenders (status offenders, technical parole violators, and youth who report no offense) 

are placed in living units with youth who 

have killed someone, and about one-fourth 

reside with felony sex offenders. (For more 

specific details on how less serious youth 

offenders are placed with serious youth 

offenders, see table 3.) Extensive mixing 

of youth who have dramatically different 

offense histories raises concern about the 

safety of the less serious offenders. From 

another perspective, placing youth together who have committed the same specific 

kind of offense (e.g., robbery, felony sex, 

felony drug) can have a reinforcing effect, 

increasing the probability that a juvenile 

will recidivate on the shared crime (Bayer, 

Pintoff, and Pozen, 2004). 

These facts may seem somewhat surprising in light of the assumption that more 

serious offenders are remanded to the 

more secure placement contexts. However, the career offense categories in this 

survey depend on self-reports of both 

prior convictions and current offenses. 

Current placements will substantially 

depend on current offenses and assessed 

risks (Austin, Johnson, and Weitzer, 2005) 

as well as youth’s needs and the types of 

placements available at the time.

Unlike serious career offenders for robbery 

or drug offenders, sex offenders are more 

typically separated. SYRP indicates that 

youth who are in custody for a current 

rape offense are in living units where the 

majority of residents have rape offense 

histories (55 percent on average), whereas 

youth who are in custody for current offenses other than rape are in units where 

just 6 percent of residents (on average) are 

felony sex offenders. This type of clustering is dictated to a considerable extent by 

treatment programs geared toward specific 

types of offenders. In fact, nearly threefourths (74 percent) of youth in custody 

for a current rape offense are in specialized 

living units for sex offenders.

Placement With 

Nonoffenders 

Some facilities house youth who are in 

custody because the juvenile court wants 

to protect them (i.e., they have been 

neglected or abused), they do not have a 

parent or guardian, or their families have 

voluntarily placed them in a private facility for specific services, such as mental 

health or substance abuse treatment. 

SYRP surveys only offender youth, but 

administrative data on their facilities also 

indicate whether they are housed with 

nonoffender youth. Twelve percent of 

youth in residential placement reside in 

facilities that also house nonoffenders. 

Ten percent participate in programs with 

nonoffenders, and 8 percent reside in primary living units with nonoffenders.

Physical and Program 

Environment 

The physical features of a facility and the 

programs it provides define day-to-day 

reality for youth in custody. SYRP asks 

youth about their sleeping arrangements, 

the reasons for any difficulty sleeping, the 

cleanliness of the environment, the quality 

of the food and of the recreation and educational programs, and the amount of time 

they spend watching television.

Sleeping Arrangements 

Slightly more than one-third (36 percent) 

of youth in custody sleep in a private 

room, so most youth share their room 

with one or more other residents. About 

17 percent stay in a room with 10 or more 

other residents. 

Sleeping arrangements vary with security 

level—more youth who are locked in 

during the day have private sleeping 

rooms (42 percent) compared with youth 

who are not locked in during the day (23 

percent). Sleeping arrangements also vary 

with type of program. For instance, 60 percent of youth in detention programs have 

single rooms, whereas 55 percent of youth 

in camp programs share their rooms with 

10 or more other youth.

Difficulty Sleeping 

Important changes in sleep patterns occur during adolescence, shifting to later 

circadian cycles (Carskadon, Vieri, and 

Acebo, 1993). At the same time, traditional 

schedules (e.g., the early start of the 

school day) do not accommodate these 

new daily cycles, so most teens suffer 
5

from chronic sleep deprivation (Carpenter, 2001; Carskadon et al., 1998; Carskadon, 2005). Adolescents’ sleep problems 

have been the focus of increased attention 

in recent years, with some policymakers 

recommending that schools shift their 

start times. Researchers have explored the 

implications of juveniles’ sleep deprivation, documenting its association with 

poorer grades (National Sleep Foundation, 2006), depression (Graham, 2000), 

behavior problems (Stein et al., 2001), and 

increased suicide risk (Liu, 2004). 

SYRP finds that youth in custody report 

more sleep problems compared with high 

school-aged youth in the general population. About one-third (34 percent) of youth 

in custody say they “often” or “always” 

have a problem falling asleep at night, 

whereas only 11 percent of 9th to 12th 

graders in the general population say they 

have difficulty falling asleep “every night” 

or “almost every night.” Just 28 percent 

of youth in custody say they have “no 

problem” falling asleep, compared with 

almost half (48 percent) of 9th to 12th 

graders who “rarely” or “never” have 

that problem (National Sleep Foundation, 

2006).4

 Females tend to have more trouble 

falling asleep then males. More females 

report that they have trouble sleeping 

“often” (23 percent vs. 16 percent) or “always” (20 percent vs. 16 percent), whereas 

more males say they have no problem falling asleep (30 percent vs. 18 percent).

Youth’s View of Facilities 

and Amenities 

SYRP asks youth to describe their facility 

by choosing characteristics from a list of 

positive and negative qualities. More than 

half of youth in custody have polarized 

views on these items. One-fourth of youth 

(25 percent) select no positive feature to 

describe their facility, while just slightly 

more (29 percent) identify no negative 

feature. For information about what youth 

like and dislike about their facilities, and 

how these likes and dislikes vary between 

programs, see table 4.

Television 

Youth also indicated that they watched 

an average of 2.9 hours of television on a 

typical weekday. These numbers are comparable to those in the general American 

population, where youth watch an average 

of 2.5 hours of television a day (Woodard 

and Gridina, 2000). Youth in communitybased programs spend the most time 

watching television (averaging 3.5 hours 

per day). The number of hours youth 

say they watch television is unrelated 

to whether they think their facility has a 

good recreation program. 

Safety 

Several questions focus on issues related 

to youth’s safety in their facilities, including whether they know what to do in case 

of fire or how to get help if they are threatened, whether they ever left their facility 

without permission, and whether they are 

afraid of being attacked while living there. 

Most youth in custody (78 percent) say 

they know what to do in case of fire in 

Table 3: Placement in Living Units and Programs With Serious Offenders

Youth’s Most Serious 

Career Offense

Estimated 

Number

Most Serious Career Offense 

of Others in Living Unit (%)

Most Serious Career Offense 

of Others in Program (%)

Murder Rape Murder Rape

Murder, rape, kidnapping, 

robbery, assault with a 

weapon 39,380 35 51 66 78

Assault, no weapon 18,030 27 32 57 63

Burglary, arson, or theft 20,120 28 36 62 69

Other property offense, drug 

offense, public order offense, 

or something else 16,850 28 31 62 68

Status offense, technical 

parole violation, or no offense 

reported 6,280 19 26 52 64

Total* 101,040 30 39 62 71

Notes: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. The “career offense” classification combines all information youth report about their 

offenses, considering all prior and current convictions (or, for youth not yet adjudicated, offenses youth are accused of committing or are charged with).

*This table excludes 25 youth, representing less than 0.5 percent of those in custody, whose answers could not classify their most serious career offense.
6

Table 4: Youth’s Perceptions of the Positive and Negative Features of Their Facilities, Overall and by Type of 

 Program, Security Level, and Youth’s Sex

Program (%) Security (%) Sex (%)

Facility 

Characteristic

All Youth 

in Custody 

(%) Detention Corrections Camp

Community 

Based

Residential 

Treatment Locked

Not 

Locked Males Females

Positive features

Good food 29 22 18 36 47 38 21 44 31 20

Clean 46 41 34 45 61 62 37 61 nd nd

Good school 

program 51 42 52 54 51 65 48 56 nd nd

Good 

recreational 

program 40 32 41 39 40 57 36 48 nd nd

None of the 

above 25 32 30 22 16 13 30 16 nd nd

Negative features

Dirty sheets, 

towels, clothes 22 26 26 37 9 11 26 14 23 15

Bad smells 41 42 47 35 31 37 45 32 39 50

Insects or bugs 43 40 53 40 33 44 47 36 42 52

Dirty 

bathrooms 38 34 46 40 34 28 42 30 nd nd

Rats or mice 14 7 23 15 12 9 nd nd nd nd

None of 

the above 29 29 21 30 41 34 25 38 nd nd

nd = No difference; subgroups that do not differ resemble the overall population of youth in custody. 

their facility. Only 5 percent report having left their facility without permission. 

More than one-third of youth (38 percent) 

say they fear attack by someone, which 

includes 25 percent who fear attack by 

another resident, 22 percent who are 

afraid that a staff member will physically 

attack them, and just 15 percent who fear 

attack by someone coming into the facility 

from the outside. Ninety percent of youth 

report that they know how to find help 

if they are threatened or assaulted. For 

information about program differences on 

these measures, see table 5.

More females than males say they fear 

being attacked (44 percent versus 36 

percent). More girls express fear of attack 

from another resident and from someone 

outside the facility.

Access to Support 

SYRP asks youth about their access to 

different types of support, including their 

families, emotional support from facility 

staff, and legal representation. 

Family Contact 

The vast majority of youth in custody (92 

percent) said that since arriving at their 

facility, they had some contact with their 

families, either through phone calls or visits. Nearly 9 in 10 youth talked with their 

family on the telephone, and more than 

two-thirds had an in-person visit.

The percentage of youth in contact with 

family varies by program type. While most 

youth have spoken on the telephone with 

their families, fewer youth in detention 
7

(80 percent) and camps (74 percent) have 

done so compared with those in other 

programs (93 percent). Fewer youth in corrections (61 percent) and camp programs 

(63 percent) report in-person visits with 

their families. Fewer youth in camps (80 

percent) have any family contact compared 

with youth in other programs (camps are 

commonly in remote locations). Frequency 

of family contact also depends on the 

program. Youth in corrections and camp 

programs are nearly twice as likely to have 

a low rate of family contact. Thirty-nine 

percent of corrections and camp youth 

have family contact less than once a week, 

compared with 20 percent of youth in other 

programs.

One-third (33 percent) of youth who have 

no in-person visits indicate that this is due 

to time constraints (facility visiting hours 

are inconvenient) or distance (their family 

lives too far away). One-fifth of those who 

have no phone calls or no visits say that 

their families have resource constraints 

(e.g., a phone call would be long distance, 

a visit would cost too much, or the family 

does not have transportation). About 

one in seven (14 percent) youth without 

contact claim that the lack of contact exists because their facility does not allow it. 

Relatively few youth without contact say it 

is because they do not want to talk or visit 

with their family (7 percent) or because 

their family does not want to talk or visit 

with them (6 percent). 

The majority of all youth in custody (59 

percent) say that it would take their 

families 1 hour or longer to travel to visit 

them. For more than one-fourth of youth 

(28 percent), their families would have to 

travel 3 hours or longer to see them.

Emotional Support From 

Facility Staff 

Eighty-four percent of youth in custody 

know how to find a staff member to talk to 

if they are upset. Youth in residential treatment programs are most likely to know 

how to find this support (93 percent) and 

Table 5: Indicators of Youth Safety

Safety Measure

Program (%) Security (%)

All Youth 

in Custody 

(%) Detention Corrections Camp

Community 

Based

Residential 

Treatment Locked Not Locked

Know what procedure 

to follow if there is 

a fire 78 59 81 84 89 90 73 88

Ever left their facility 

without permission 5 2 2 2 12 8 2 10

Afraid of being 

physically attacked 

by anyone 38 38 42 35 29 39 40 33

By another resident 25 25 30 22 19 25 27 22

By a staff member 22 22 28 23 13 23 25 17

By someone coming 

in from outside 15 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Know how to find help 

if someone assaults or 

threatens them 90 87 90 87 93 93 88 93

Notes: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. All percentages are computed based on youth who answered the relevant question 

in each row. Data are missing for between 6 and 40 youth across the measures, reducing the estimated population total used in the denominators by 

<0.5 percent. 

nd = No difference; subgroups that do not differ resemble the overall population of youth in custody. 
8

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 computer-assisted 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).

those in camps are least likely 

(77 percent). 

Legal Counsel 

Improving access to legal counsel has 

been a policy concern (Hsia and Beyer, 

2000; Puritz and Scali, 1998), but SYRP 

shows that youth’s access to legal support 

is infrequent. Only a minority of youth in 

custody report that they have a lawyer 

(42 percent), have requested contact with 

a lawyer (20 percent), or requested and 

received access to a lawyer (13 percent). 

Youth in detention facilities are most likely 

to have a lawyer (50 percent) and to request contact (28 percent). More females 

(49 percent) have lawyers than males 

(41 percent).

Facility Climate 

SYRP asks questions about relationships 

between youth and facility staff, gang 

memberships, and whether youth were 

offered contraband.

Youth-Staff Relations 

Youth distrust of facility staff and conflict 

with them can undermine program efforts 

to alter delinquent career paths and elevate discipline, control, and safety issues. 

Overall, youth in custody are lukewarm in 

their ratings of staff. Based on consensus 

within living units, 43 percent of youth are 

living in units with relatively poor youthstaff relations. Youth in unlocked units are 

more than twice as likely to live in units 

with good youth-staff relations (26 percent 

versus 12 percent). Those in locked units 

are almost twice as likely to live where 

youth-staff relations are poor (53 percent 

versus 28 percent).

In selecting specific characteristics to 

describe staff, about one-half of youth 

(49 percent) feel staff are friendly and 

47 percent describe staff as helpful. More 

than one-third say that staff genuinely 

seem to care about them (38 percent), 

are fun to be with (38 percent), and act as 

good role models (34 percent). In contrast, 

40 percent of youth say staff are hard to 

get along with, 38 percent say staff are disrespectful, and 29 percent describe staff 

as mean. Youth in community-based and 

residential treatment programs have the 

most positive perceptions of staff. 

Gangs 

The presence of gangs in a facility can exacerbate conflicts and disruptions and complicate facility operations. Nearly one-third 

of the custody population professes some 

gang affiliation—a level of gang involvement consistent with rates among high-risk 

youth (Thornberry, 1998). A majority of 

youth in custody (60 percent) report that 

there are gangs in their facilities.

On average, youth in residential placement 

are in living units where 19 percent of residents are members of gangs in the facility. 

Most youth (64 percent) are living in units 

where one-fifth or fewer of the residents 

are gang members, less than one-third (30 

percent) are in living units where between 

one-fifth and one-half of youth are gang 

members, and 6 percent are living in units 

with a majority of gang members.

The presence of gangs can affect the custody environment for all youth present. 

SYRP reveals that the presence of gangs 

in a facility is significantly related to the 

percentage of youth who say they have 

been offered contraband (24 percent 

versus 8 percent) and to the percentage of 

youth who are in living units characterized 

by poor youth-staff relations (51 percent 

versus 30 percent). Certain problematic 

conditions tend to cluster in custody 

environments. When problems escalate, 

facilities sometimes engage in last-resort 

control methods. For instance, when there 

are gangs in a facility, significantly more 

youth are in living units where one or 

more residents say that staff sprayed them 

with pepper spray (38 percent versus 18 

percent). 

Contraband 

One indicator of disregard for rules involves whether youth can easily obtain 

prohibited items such as alcohol, drugs, 

and weapons. Sixteen percent of youth in 

custody say they have been offered such 

contraband since they arrived at their 

facility. Youth most frequently report they 

have been offered marijuana (12 percent) 

and other illegal drugs (10 percent). 

Primarily, youth say other residents offered the contraband (12 percent), rarely 

implicating staff (6 percent) or someone 

outside the facility (4 percent). 

More residents in community-based 

programs report offers of contraband (26 

percent). These offers are often likely to 

come from other residents (16 percent) 

or from outside the facility (13 percent). 

Additionally, males report being offered 

contraband twice as often as females (18 

percent versus 9 percent). 

Rules and Justice 

SYRP asks youth whether they understand 

the rules at their facility, know how to file 

a complaint, receive fair and reasonable 

treatment, have been placed in solitary 

confinement, or have experienced other 

methods of control.
9

may find SYRP findings on the prevalence 

of solitary confinement both surprising 

and problematic. 

More than one-third of youth in custody 

(35 percent) report being isolated—locked 

up alone or confined to their room with 

no contact with other residents. The vast 

majority of youth who were isolated (87 

percent) say this was for longer than 2 

hours and more than one-half (55 percent) say it was for longer than 24 hours. 

Best practice guidelines recommend that 

solitary confinement exceed 24 hours only 

if the facility director explicitly approves 

and that youth who are held in solitary 

confinement for longer than 2 hours see 

a counselor (Roush, 1996). SYRP has no 

information on procedures for approving 

lengthy times in solitary confinement, but 

the interview does ask youth whether they 

talked to a counselor about their feelings 

or emotions. The majority (52 percent) of 

those isolated longer than 2 hours indicate 

that they have not talked to a counselor 

since coming to the facility. 

Control and Use of 

Restraints 

Best practice dictates that restraints 

should be used only for youth who are out 

of control (Roush, 1996). More than onefourth of youth in custody (28 percent) 

say that facility staff used some method 

of physical restraint on them—whether 

handcuffs, wristlets, a security belt, 

chains, or a restraint chair. Although the 

questions mean to ask youth about their 

experiences at the facility, some youth 

may report being handcuffed or otherwise 

restrained during transportation to or 

from the facility, which would be common 

youth in custody do not perceive fairness 

or justice in their facility environments. 

One-half of youth in custody report that 

staff apply punishment without cause, and 

more than one-third claim that staff use 

unnecessary force. About one-third (34 

percent) think that staff treat residents 

fairly, and less than one-third (30 percent) 

say punishments are fair. These views are 

strongly correlated with whether youth 

live in units that are locked during the 

daytime. Youth in locked units have more 

negative views of fair and reasonable 

treatment in all categories compared with 

youth in units that are staff secure in the 

daytime.

Discipline 

Common disciplinary measures in a facility involve group punishment, which 49 

percent of youth have experienced, and 

removing special privileges (such as television), which 43 percent have experienced. 

Twenty-six percent of youth in custody 

have been confined to their rooms, 24 

percent were placed in solitary confinement, 23 percent were given extra chores 

or work, and 20 percent were moved to 

another location in the facility. Table 6 

shows that youth in different programs are 

likely to experience different disciplinary 

measures.

Solitary Confinement 

Maintaining discipline and control is critical but challenging, considering that the 

large majority of youth in custody have 

previous involvement with the juvenile 

justice system and most (57 percent) have 

a history of person offenses (Sedlak and 

Bruce, forthcoming). Nevertheless, some 

Clarity and Consistency 

of Rules 

Youth should be given copies of the facility’s rules and should learn and follow 

them. Seventy-five percent of youth say 

they received a copy of the facility’s rules 

when they arrived, and 90 percent believe 

they understand the rules. The majority of 

youth (68 percent) feel that facility rules 

are applied equally to all residents. 

Access to a Grievance 

Process 

Youth who wish to file a grievance about 

staff should have access to an adequate 

grievance process that is readily available, 

easy to use, and impartial (Roush, 1996). 

However, the findings reveal that one-third 

of youth in custody (33 percent) have 

some type of problem with the grievance 

process; either they do not know how to 

file a complaint (19 percent) or are concerned about retribution if they do so (20 

percent). 

Fair and Reasonable 

Treatment 

Best practice fosters juvenile accountability through principles of balanced and 

restorative justice (Beyer, 2003), but many 

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 Characteristics and 

Backgrounds: Findings From 

the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement.

◆ Youth’s Needs and Services: 

Findings From the Survey of 

Youth in Residential Placement.

◆ Nature and Risk of Victimization: 

Findings From the Survey of 

Youth in Residential Placement.

◆ Highlights From the Survey of 

Youth in Residential Placement.

For more complete results of the 

survey findings on conditions of confinement, see the “Reports” link at 

www.syrp.org.
10

on more than 10 percent of residents. 

Twenty-nine percent of youth live with 

one or more residents who received time 

in a restraint chair, and 16 percent are in 

units where more than 10 percent of residents report that staff placed them into a 

restraint chair. 

for youth in more secure placement environments. This possibility should qualify 

interpretations of their reports regarding 

these restraints.

However, this qualification would not apply to youth’s answers about experiences 

with a restraint chair or pepper spray. The 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention’s Performance-Based Standards program dictates using a restraint 

chair or pepper spray only as a last resort 

following appropriate protocol (Council 

of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, 

2007). SYRP indicates that these practices, 

although infrequent, are used—4 percent 

of youth say that facility staff placed them 

into a restraint chair and 7 percent report 

that staff used pepper spray on them. 

Apart from these personal experiences, 

however, SYRP reveals that these practices indirectly affect a much larger segment of youth in custody. Thirty percent 

of youth in custody live in units where 

one or more residents experienced the 

use of pepper spray and more than one in 

five youth in custody (21 percent) are in 

living units where staff used pepper spray 

Conclusion 

Although youth’s self-reports have limitations, the findings reported here convey 

internally consistent patterns. Moreover, 

they portray confinement conditions and 

raise concerns that have been longstanding issues in juvenile justice (GuarinoGhezzi and Loughran, 2006), indicating 

Table 6: Disciplinary Measures Youth Experience in Their Current Facility

Measure

Program (%) Security (%)

All Youth 

in Custody 

(%) Detention Corrections Camp

Community 

Based

Residential 

Treatment Locked

Not 

Locked

Group punishment 49 37 56 63 44 54 nd nd

Removal of special 

privileges, such as 

television

43 36 47 35 45 50 nd nd

Confinement to own 

room 26 36 33 9 13 20 32 15

Solitary confinement 24 33 34 16 6 13 32 9

Extra chores or work 23 10 23 27 34 34 18 33

Forced physical 

exercise 22 18 20 50 17 25 nd nd

Moved to different 

location within facility 20 20 24 18 15 18 22 16

Other 35 25 36 34 43 44 32 41

None 16 25 13 12 17 10 nd nd

nd = No difference; subgroups that do not differ resemble the overall population of youth in custody. 
11

◆ Increase access to legal counsel, 

particularly before adjudication. The 

Juvenile Justice Standards (Institute 

for Judicial Administration–American 

Bar Association, 1980), developed as 

a result of the 1974 Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Act (P.L. 

93–415), require legal representation 

for juveniles from the outset of the 

court process. However, SYRP indicates 

that less than one-half of all youth in 

custody (42 percent) have a lawyer and 

just one-half (50 percent) of those held 

in detention facilities have a lawyer. 

◆ Improve the quality of youth-staff 

relations, require fair treatment, and 

establish an effective grievance process. Positive relationships with older, 

prosocial role models can counteract 

the negative effects of placing delinquent youth with other youth offenders 

(Dodge, Dishion, and Lansford, 2006). 

Unfortunately, poor relations with staff 

characterize life in custody for more 

than two in five youth (43 percent). A 

majority of youth in custody say punishments are unfair, while more than 

one-third feel that staff use unnecessary force. Similarly, one-third of youth 

have difficulties with their facility’s 

grievance process—either they do not 

know how to file a complaint or they 

fear retribution if they do so. Standards 

for staff conduct should require that 

staff treat youth fairly and issue fair 

and reasonable punishments commensurate with the infraction. The facility 

should maintain a grievance process 

that is clear and universally understood 

and that includes protections for youth 

who submit complaints.

around deviance and reinforcing the 

delinquent behavior). Although studies 

have demonstrated the negative effects 

of aggregating offenders, they have also 

shown that these negative effects do 

not occur in all circumstances or for all 

youth (Dodge, Dishion, and Lansford, 

2006). Further research should specifically identify how and when deviance 

training occurs. Such research can help 

guide recommendations for grouping 

offender youth to minimize safety issues and avoid deviance training.

◆ Ensure that youth know the facility 

fire safety procedures. Best practice 

guidelines dictate that facilities post a 

clear evacuation plan and hold regular, 

documented fire drills (Roush, 1996). 

SYRP results show that more than one 

in five youth in custody (22 percent) do 

not know what to do if there is a fire in 

their facility. 

◆ Select placement locations that facilitate family contact. Although family interventions can be more effective with 

delinquent youth than individual treatment (Perkins-Dock, 2001; Quinn, 2004; 

Quinn and VanDyke, 2004), involving 

families is often difficult while the youth 

is incarcerated. SYRP shows that most 

youth have contact with their families 

but indicates that more than one-fourth 

of youth are placed a considerable 

distance from their families—requiring 

the family to travel 3 hours or longer to 

visit the youth. When assigning youth 

to placements, the court should consider how the facility’s location could 

affect their family’s involvement in an 

intervention program.

areas where future policies and practices 

can measurably improve the custody 

environments. The findings in this bulletin 

highlight several areas where confinement conditions do not meet best practice 

guidelines and where improvement efforts 

could begin, including the following:

◆ Prioritize developmentally appropriate programming and document its 

implementation and success. SYRP 

revealed a considerable age mix within 

living units. One in five young offenders 

are housed in living units with offenders who are 3 or more years older than 

they are, and more than two in five 

juveniles are housed with young adults 

who are 18 years or older. These arrangements present barriers to creating 

developmentally appropriate programming and undermine youth safety. 

Moreover, no systematic information 

exists regarding facilities’ efforts to 

implement programs, interventions, 

or activities designed for specific age 

ranges or on the success of facilities’ 

efforts.

◆ Explore factors that might explain 

disproportionate confinement of 

minorities. SYRP confirms that minority youth continue to be disproportionately represented in the population 

of youth in custody. The study also 

reveals that, even within the placement 

population, different races and ethnicities tend to be assigned to different 

types of programs. Exploring the information that SYRP collects on youth’s 

backgrounds, offense histories, and 

service needs may help explain these 

different placement rates and patterns. 

◆ Improve understanding of the risks 

and benefits of mixing different types 

of offenders versus grouping youth 

with similar offense histories. SYRP 

indicates that a number of less serious 

offender youth are housed in living 

units with some of the most serious 

offenders. It also shows that youth who 

are grouped together in living units often share common backgrounds, such 

as membership in a gang or a history 

of physical or sexual abuse (possibly 

because the facility contains a specialized treatment program). 

Mixing youth with different offense 

histories and backgrounds raises 

safety concerns, but grouping youth 

who have committed similar offenses 

may enhance deviancy training (i.e., 

bonding with other group members 
12

SYRP Research Questions Addressing Conditions of Confinement for Youth 

in Residential Placement

General Research Question Specific Research Questions

Where are youth placed? ◆ How many youth are in the different types of residential programs (detention,

 corrections, residential treatment, etc.)?

◆ What size are these facilities? What is their physical layout? Their organizational

 complexity (number of programs, living units, specialized subunits)? Their security 

provisions?

◆ What types of offenders are placed in different types of programs?

Which youth are placed 

together?

◆ What types of offenders share living units?

◆ How broad is the age range in a living unit? How many youth are placed with much 

older youth?

◆ What percentage of youth in placement are in coed programs or facilities?

◆ What percentage of youth are racial/ethnic minorities in their living units or programs?

◆ What types of offenders are placed together in living units or in programs?

◆ What percentage of youth are in facilities that also house nonoffenders?

◆ Do placements tend to group youth together who have similar backgrounds

 (childbearing, prior abuse)?

◆ Do patterns of coplacement differ for males and females?

What are the physical properties 

of the placement environment 

and the availability of activities?

◆ How many youth share a room? What difficulties do they have sleeping?

◆ What are the facility’s good qualities? What problems do youth indicate?

◆ How do youth feel about the quality of the recreational program(s)? 

The school program?

◆ Can they watch TV? How much do they watch TV?

How safe and secure is the

environment?

◆ Do youth know what to do if there is a fire?

◆ Do they know how to find help if they are assaulted or threatened?

◆ Have they ever left the facility without permission?

◆ How afraid are they of being attacked in their facility?

What social, emotional, and legal 

supports are accessible to youth?

◆ Do youth have access to a telephone?

◆ Have they been in touch with their family? How often? When was the last time?

◆ Do youth know how to find a staff member to talk to if they are upset?

◆ Do they have a lawyer? Have they had contact with a lawyer?

What is the quality of the 

facility climate?

◆ How do youth perceive the staff? What percentages of youth say positive versus

 negative things about staff? What percentage see resident/staff relations as generally 

good versus poor?

◆ What percentage of youth say there are gangs in their facility? Are there gang fights?

◆ What percentages of youth are gang members themselves?

◆ How prevalent is contraband? What percentage of youth report having been offered 

different types of contraband in their current facility? Who offered it to them?

How clear are facility rules and 

the commitment to justice and 

due process?

◆ Do youth receive a written copy of the rules?

◆ Do youth understand the rules? If not, why not?

◆ Are the rules fair? Are they applied uniformly to all?

◆ Is there a grievance process? Can youth use it without retribution?

What control and discipline

practices are used?

◆ Do youth in placement see punishments as fair? What kinds of punishments are

 applied?

◆ What percentage of youth have been locked up alone? For how long?

◆ How many youth in placement have directly experienced more intrusive and coercive

 methods of control (e.g., strip search, restraint chair, pepper spray)?
13

◆ Implement best practice guidelines in 

the use of solitary confinement and of 

last-resort control methods of pepper 

spray and restraint chairs. SYRP indicates that, contrary to best practice guidelines (Roush, 1996), the majority of youth 

who were isolated longer than 2 hours 

did not see a counselor. When youth are 

held in solitary confinement for longer 

than 24 hours, facility staff should document the specific circumstances and 

verify that the facility director explicitly 

approved the period of confinement in 

that particular case. Staff should also 

establish timely records detailing the 

situations where staff use pepper spray 

or a restraint chair, verifying that the 

events warranted these measures and 

that staff followed appropriate protocol.

Endnotes 

1. The JRFC collects data about the characteristics of facilities that house juveniles 

and the services these facilities provide.

2. The CJRP collects data about the personal characteristics of youth offenders in 

custody.

3. These findings and others cross-validate 

well with findings from the CJRP.

4. SYRP has no information about facilities’ schedules, so whether or how 

they may contribute to residents’ sleep 

complaints is unknown. However, the 

issue deserves further attention in light 

of the fact that juveniles’ sleep difficulties 

can contribute to or mark a host of other 

significant problems.

References 

Austin, J., Johnson, K.D., and Weitzer, R. 

2005. Alternatives to the Secure Detention 

and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders.

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

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

Prevention. 

Bayer, P.J., Pintoff, R., and Pozen, D.E. 

2004. Building Criminal Capital Behind 

Bars: Peer Effects in Juvenile Corrections.

Yale University Economic Growth Center 

Discussion Paper No. 864. Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.

cfm?abstract_id=44182.

Beyer, M. 2003. Best Practices in Juvenile 

Accountability: Overview. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

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

Carpenter, S. 2001. Sleep deprivation may 

be undermining teen health. Monitor on 

Psychology 32(9):32.

Carskadon, M.A. 2005. Pediatric and 

Adolescent Sleep. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates.

Carskadon, M.A., Wolfson, A.R., Acebo, 

C., Tzischinsky, O., and Seifer, R. 1998. 

Adolescent sleep patterns, circadian timing, and sleepiness at a transition to early 

school days. Sleep 21:871–881.

Carskadon, M.A., Vieri, C., and Acebo, C. 

1993. Association between puberty and 

delayed phase preference. Sleep 16:258–

262.

Cohen, R. 1991. To prisons or hospitals: 

Race and referrals in juvenile justice. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 2:248–249.

Committee on Adolescence. 2001. Health 

care for children and adolescents in the 

juvenile correctional care system. Pediatrics 107:799–803.

Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. 2007. Candidacy Guide. Braintree, 

MA: Council of Juvenile Correctional 

Administrators. 

Dodge, K.A., Dishion, T.J., and Lansford, 

J.E. 2006. Deviant Peer Influences in Programs for Youth: Problems and Solutions.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Drakeford, W., and Garfinkel, L.F. 2000. 

Differential treatment of African American 

youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth: The 

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems 9(1):51–52.

Graham, M.G., ed. 2000. Sleep Needs, 

Patterns, and Difficulties of Adolescents: 

Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press.

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

2006. Balancing Juvenile Justice. New 

Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

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.
14

Stein, M.A., Mendelsohn, J., Obermeyer, 

W.H., Amromin, J., and Benca, R. 2001. 

Sleep and behavior problems in schoolaged children. Pediatrics 107:60.

Steinberg, L., Chung, H.L., and Little, M. 

2004. Reentry of young offenders from the 

justice system: A developmental perspective. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2(1):21–38.

Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in 

youth gangs and involvement in serious 

and violent offending. In Serious and 

Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors 

and Successful Interventions, edited by R. 

Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Woodard, E.H., and Gridina, N. 2000. Media 

in the Home 2000: The Fifth Annual Survey 

of Parents and Children. Philadelphia, PA: 

University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg 

Public Policy Center. 

Hsia, H.M., and Beyer, M. 2000. System 

Change Through State Challenge Activities: 

Approaches and Products. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hsia, H.M., Bridges, G.S., and McHale, R. 

2004. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update. Summary. Washington, 

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention.

Institute for Judicial Administration–

American Bar Association. 1980. Juvenile 

Justice Standards. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

Kaplan, L.S., and Busner, J. 1992. A note 

on racial bias in the admission of children 

and adolescents to state mental health 

facilities versus correctional facilities in 

New York. American Journal of Psychiatry 

149:768–772.

Liu, X. 2004. Sleep and adolescent suicidal 

behavior. Sleep 27:1351–1358.

National Sleep Foundation. 2006. 2006 

Sleep in America Poll. Washington, DC: 

National Sleep Foundation.

Perkins-Dock, R.E. 2001. Family interventions with incarcerated youth: A review of 

the literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45(5):606–625.

Pope, C.E., Lovell, R., and Hsia, H.M. 2002. 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 

A Review of the Research Literature From 

1989 Through 2001. Bulletin. Washington, 

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention.

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.

Quinn, W.H. 2004. Family Solutions for 

Youth at Risk: Applications to Juvenile 

Delinquency, Truancy, and Behavior Problems. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge. 

Quinn, W.H., and VanDyke, D.J. 2004. 

A multiple family group intervention for 

first-time juvenile offenders: Comparisons 

with probation and dropouts on recidivism. Journal of Community Psychology

32(2):1–24. 

Richissin, T. 1999. Race predicts handling 

of many young criminals: Care vs. punishment of mentally ill youth correlates with 

color. The Baltimore Sun (June 25):IA.

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

Good Juvenile Detention Practice. Research 

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

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

Prevention. 

Sedlak, A.J., and Bruce, C. Forthcoming. 

Youth’s Characteristics and Backgrounds: 

Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement. Bulletin. Washington, 

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 
15

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). Karla S. McPherson, Ph.D., is a Senior Study Director at Westat and 

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, Carol Bruce, Ph.D., Monica Basena, Kristen 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).
Bulletin NCJ XXXXXX

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

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 227729

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

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP *NCJ~227729* PERMIT NO. G–91