U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator Juvenile Justice Practices Series 

August 2005 

Planning Community-Based Facilities for 

Violent Juvenile Offenders as Part of 

a System of Graduated Sanctions 

Shelley Zavlek 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is presenting a Juvenile 

Justice Practices Series to provide the field with updated research, promising practices, and 

tools for a variety of juvenile justice areas. These Bulletins are important resources for youthserving professionals involved in developing and adopting juvenile justice policies and 

programs, regardless of their funding sources. 

This fourth Bulletin in the series discusses the use of small, secure, community-based or regional 

facilities to house serious, violent, and/or chronic juvenile offenders.1 

In the early 1990s, the prevailing belief was that serious juvenile crime was out of control and bound to 

get worse. These projections, although credible at the time, failed to materialize. On the contrary, serious 

juvenile crime rates have been declining over the past decade and, as of 2001, were at their lowest level 

since 1983 (Snyder, 2003). Nevertheless, the rate at which youth have been placed in confinement in the 

United States nearly doubled between 1979 and 2001 (Hobbs and Nicole, 2002; Snyder and Sickmund, 

1999; Sickmund, 2002; Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2004). The causes of these apparently contradictory 

trends are complex, and the end result is troubling: most youth housed in today’s large, secure juvenile 

facilities do not require the level of security these facilities were created to provide. Furthermore, research 

suggests that simply “locking kids up” in such facilities is an ineffective and unnecessarily expensive 

approach to helping troubled youth and reducing juvenile crime. Jurisdictions are seeking better 

strategies. 

1

 OJJDP first focused attention on treatment and intervention strategies for this population of juvenile offenders in 

its Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993). This 

group includes juveniles who commit serious violent and nonviolent offenses and juveniles who have had multiple 

contacts with the justice system. Loeber and Farrington define “serious violent offenses” as homicide, rape, robbery, 

aggravated assault, and kidnapping and “serious nonviolent offenses” as burglary, motor vehicle theft, theft over 

$100, arson, and drug trafficking (Loeber and Farrington, 1998, p. xix). “Chronic offenders” are defined as those 

who have had five or more police contacts (Wilson and Howell, 1993, p. 2). 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent 

the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs • Partnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
A promising strategy for responding to juvenile crime is one in which secure confinement is an integral 

part of a continuum of options that also includes prevention, comprehensive services, graduated sanctions, 

and, for confined youth, aftercare programming to ensure successful reentry into the community. For each 

youth who comes to the attention of the juvenile justice system, the best response is the least restrictive 

one that meets the needs of the youth and the community. Secure confinement is reserved for the small 

number of offenders who pose a threat to public safety, account for a disproportionate share of all serious 

crime committed by juveniles, and are unsuitable for other settings or programs. 

For this limited population of serious, violent, and/or chronic juvenile offenders, smaller, communitybased or regional facilities can provide secure confinement economically and with the best possible 

outcomes for the youth involved. This Bulletin presents basic information relevant to planning such 

facilities. After a brief review of juvenile arrest and incarceration trends, the Bulletin discusses the 

advantages of small, secure, community-based or regional facilities and outlines a process for developing 

such facilities within a comprehensive juvenile justice system master plan. The Bulletin also describes 

three sample programs and presents a list of related resources. 

Background 

The mid-1980s and early 1990s saw a precipitous rise in violent juvenile crime, a projected surge in the 

juvenile population, and sporadic, high-profile incidents of youth crime, such as the shootings at schools 

in Jonesboro, AK, and Paducah, KY, and at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. In the early 1990s, 

warnings of an emerging class of “violent juvenile superpredators” aroused public fears. In a 1996 report 

by the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Attorney General 

Janet Reno stated that “[n]o corner of America is safe from increasing levels of criminal violence, 

including violence committed by and against juveniles” (p. iii). The report issued an urgent call to action: 

This Nation must take immediate and decisive action to intervene in the problem of 

juvenile violence that threatens the safety and security of communities—and the future of 

our children—across the country. Demographic experts predict that juvenile arrests for 

violent crimes will more than double by the year 2010, given population growth 

projections and trends in juvenile arrests over the past several decades (p. 1). 

Reports of uncontrolled juvenile crime fueled fears that America was under assault by a generation of 

“teenage time bombs” and that “only the abandonment of ‘soft’ educational and rehabilitative approaches, 

in favor of strict and unrelenting discipline—a zero tolerance approach” could address the problem 

(Browne, 2003, p. 10). 

By the mid-1990s, however, the overall juvenile arrest rate for violent offenses—murder, rape, robbery, 

and aggravated assault—was as low as it had been a generation earlier, and the rate has since declined 

even further. In 2002 (the most recent year for which data are available), the rate was nearly half its 1994 

peak level. Between 1993 and 2002, the juvenile arrest rate for murder dropped 64 percent, rape 27 

percent, robbery 38 percent, and assault 34 percent. In addition, the juvenile arrest rate for property 

crimes dropped 34 percent between 1993 and 2002 (Snyder, 2004). 

Nevertheless, during the 1990s, legislators reacting to real and perceived public concerns determined to 

“crack down” on juvenile crime (McCord, Widom, and Crowell, 2001). Nationwide, states and local 

jurisdictions enacted new laws that imposed tougher sanctions on juvenile offenders—more mandatory 

and determinate sentences, blended sentencing (combining juvenile and adult sanctions), more offenses 

that qualified for the most severe sentences, progressive sanctions, and “zero tolerance” policies (Browne, 

2003; Torbet et al., 1996; Torbet and Szymanski, 1998; Howell, 1997). These legislative reforms, 

together with juvenile justice system policy changes, brought more youth into the system for longer 

2 
periods of time. In addition, the system experienced an influx of youth with severe emotional, behavioral, 

and mental health problems (Teplin et al., 2002; Parent et al., 1994). 

Thus, although serious juvenile crime rates in 2001 were comparable to rates 20 years earlier, the number 

of youth confined in juvenile residential facilities on any given day nearly doubled during the same period 

of time. In fact, whereas the total population of youth ages 10–19 increased only slightly more than 3 

percent between 1980 and 2000,2

 the number of juveniles confined on an average day rose from 51,000 in 

1979 to more than 104,000 in 2001—an increase of more than 100 percent (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999; 

Sickmund, 2002; Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2004). As noted earlier, the juvenile violent crime arrest 

rate rose sharply during the mid-1980s and early 1990s, from 139 arrests per 100,000 youth ages 17 and 

younger in 1985 to 231 arrests per 100,000 youth in 1994—a 66-percent increase. However, as noted in a 

report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Stanfield, 1999), the number of youth confined in detention 

centers on an average day increased even more—74 percent—during approximately the same period of 

time (from 1985 to 1995). Moreover, although the juvenile violent crime arrest rate has declined 

dramatically since 1994—more than 44 percent from 1994 to 2001—there has not been a concomitant 

decline in juvenile confinement, which has remained fairly constant since 1995 (Snyder, 2003). 

The increased reliance on confinement placed a large burden on existing juvenile detention and 

correctional facilities, many of which were reaching the end of their useful lives by the mid-1990s. 

Between 1991 and 1995, the number of youth committed to overcapacity training schools and long-term 

public institutions (i.e., facilities with more residents than they were designed to house) increased 55 

percent. By 1995, nearly 70 percent of youth confined in public juvenile facilities were held in 

overcapacity facilities (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). Furthermore, facilities built in the 1960s and 1970s 

were designed primarily for youth charged with petty crimes and status offenses, such as shoplifting and 

truancy. Few facilities were prepared to provide treatment and services for the more challenging 

populations placed in their custody during the 1980s and 1990s (Teplin et al., 2002; Roush and McMillen, 

2000; Cocozza, 1992). 

In the mid-1990s, studies such as Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections 

Facilities (Parent et al., 1994) and Beyond the Walls: Improving the Conditions of Confinement for Youth 

in Custody (Puritz and Scali, 1998) documented widespread overcrowding and substandard, dangerous 

conditions in juvenile facilities. The need to replace or renovate these facilities became apparent, and 

funds were allocated accordingly. 

The need to add space to address existing safety and overcrowding conditions does not fully explain the 

increase in youth detention facility construction. Nor does it explain the development and construction of 

large facilities as opposed to smaller ones. Many juvenile systems and jurisdictions have developed larger 

facilities, containing anywhere from 150 to more than 800 juvenile beds.3

 Such facilities, with their 

physically restrictive construction and sophisticated security and communications systems, are among the 

most expensive structures that public agencies build and are extraordinarily expensive to operate 

(Griffinger, 2001). A 1998 report on crowding in detention facilities recognized secure detention as “by 

far, the most expensive option for handling youth undergoing juvenile delinquency proceedings” (Burrell 

et al., 1998, p. 12). The extraordinary costs the report cites for secure facilities include both operating and 

construction costs. Based on a 2000 report, total juvenile justice expenditures in the United States are at 

2

 According to U.S. Census data, the total U.S. population ages 10–19 increased 3.39 percent between 1980 and 

2000 (Hobbs and Nicole, 2002). 

3

 For example, the 865-bed Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility in Stockton, CA, opened in 1991; the 450-bed 

Michigan Youth Correctional Facility opened in 1999; and in Texas, the 436-bed Orientation and Assessment Unit 

opened in Marlin in 1995, the 356-bed San Saha State School opened in 1996, the 336-bed Victory Field 

Correctional Academy opened in 1997, and the 352-bed McLennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility 

opened in 2000 (American Correctional Association, 2001). 

3 
least $10–15 billion, with much of that amount paying for confinement of a small segment of the juvenile 

offender population, most of whom are housed in training schools or “large correctional units typically 

housing 100 to 500 youth” (Mendel, 2000, p. 49). 

Today, many of the youth housed in juvenile correctional facilities pose little threat to the community. A 

1993 study of incarcerated juveniles in 14 states revealed that violent offenders comprised a minority of 

youth in confinement, ranging from a high of 44 percent to a low of 11 percent (Krisberg et al., 1993). 

The 2001 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) found that of the 76,298 youth residing in 

juvenile facilities as a result of court-ordered placements, 18,321—24 percent—had committed a Violent 

Crime Index offense (homicide, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault). According to the CJRP, 

23 percent of all youth in court-ordered placements had committed a combination of technical violations, 

status offenses, and other public order offenses (excluding weapons).4

 A similar pattern was evident with 

youth held in temporary detention centers while awaiting trial (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2004). In 

addition, many youth are incarcerated simply because of a shortage of alternatives—in particular, 

community-based services and mental health services—that might prevent them from entering the 

juvenile justice system (Griffinger, 2001; Stanfield, 1999). 

Youth in juvenile correctional facilities may be subjected to harsh conditions. In its assessment of juvenile 

facilities, the National Research Council Panel on Juvenile Crime concluded that 

[d]etained and incarcerated juveniles have higher rates of physical injury, mental health 

problems, and suicide attempts and have poorer educational outcomes than do their 

counterparts who are treated in the community. Detention and incarceration also cause 

severe and long-term problems with future employment, leaving ex-offenders with few 

economic alternatives to crime. (McCord, Widom, and Crowell, 2001, p. 223) 

Furthermore, a large, centralized facility unavoidably removes most youth from their community 

environments and local cultures.5

 This increases alienation and isolates youth exclusively with other 

delinquent peers, which “tends to exacerbate rather than mitigate the law-breaking tendencies of youthful 

offenders” (Mendel, 2000, p. 49; Krisberg and Howell, 1998). 

Serious, pervasive problems in the juvenile justice system—such as inadequate risk assessment 

procedures, lack of alternative programs, inadequate special programs (e.g., mental health, genderspecific), and poor supervision in probation and aftercare—all contribute to overcrowding in juvenile 

correctional facilities, which further adds to the harshness of conditions in these facilities. The lack or 

inadequacy of diversionary tools results in increased use of secure facilities as a catch-all solution 

(Mendel, 2001; Burrell et al., 1998). 

The foregoing factors all underline the need for jurisdictions to examine carefully their approach to using 

secure confinement. To ensure that public funds are spent wisely, civic authorities responsible for juvenile 

justice planning must pursue a full range of custodial and service options to both protect the public and 

provide an appropriate, fiscally prudent response to juvenile treatment and supervision needs. Simply 

continuing to add secure bedspace will not suffice. The key is better designed programs and facilities that 

4

 Technical violations include violation of probation, parole, valid court orders, or conditions of probation or parole. 

Status offenses include obstruction of justice, nonviolent sex offenses, cruelty to animals, disorderly conduct, traffic 

offenses, etc. 

5

 On January 31, 2005, the California Youth Authority (CYA) announced the terms of a settlement reached in a 

lawsuit concerning conditions of confinement in the juvenile justice system. The settlement stated that in 

conjunction with developing a wholly new model for juvenile corrections in California, CYA would keep youth in 

facilities close to their homes. 

4 
address emerging needs. Jurisdictions must conduct the necessary research and engage in comprehensive 

planning processes to reach sound decisions regarding the need for secure beds for juveniles (Roush and 

McMillen, 2000; Zavlek and Barron, 2000). The remaining sections of this Bulletin address these tasks. 

Advantages of Small, Community-Based Secure Facilities 

Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders may require placement in secure facilities to protect the 

public, hold the offenders accountable for their acts, and provide an appropriate treatment environment. 

Although training schools, camps, and ranches may still have some limited use for these purposes, most 

authorities agree that such “large congregate-care juvenile facilities . . . have not proven to be particularly 

effective in rehabilitating juvenile offenders” (Krisberg and Howell, 1998, p. 362). 

The most effective strategy for treating and rehabilitating juvenile offenders and preventing recidivism is 

a comprehensive, community-based model that integrates prevention programming; a continuum of 

pretrial and sentencing placement options, services, and sanctions; and aftercare programs (Loeber and 

Farrington, 1998; Howell, 1995; Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994). This model reserves secure placement 

for only the most violent and serious juvenile offenders (Loeber and Farrington, 1998)—those who 

cannot function in a less restrictive environment or who pose a threat to public safety. Leading authorities 

point to the advantages of small, community-based facilities for housing the relatively few juvenile 

offenders who require a secure, structured setting (Krisberg and Howell, 1998). Even for jurisdictions 

under pressure to “get tough” on juvenile crime, planning new facilities within this framework has 

programmatic, economic, and systemwide advantages. 

Programmatic Advantages 

Decentralizing facilities for juvenile offenders has programmatic advantages that benefit juvenile justice 

systems, youth and families that come in contact with these systems, and communities as a whole. These 

advantages derive from (1) keeping young offenders connected to their communities and (2) targeting 

sanctions and services to meet the needs of specific jurisdictions and categories of offenders. 

Research indicates that many incarcerated youth can be managed effectively in well-structured, 

community-based programs. Krisberg and Howell (1998) summarize the results of some of the most 

frequently referenced studies on alternatives to institutionalization for serious juvenile offenders. Most of 

these studies found greater or similar reductions in recidivism rates and greater attitudinal improvements 

in youth treated in community-based programs as compared to those placed in secure institutions. These 

studies led researchers to suspect that “alternatives to secure confinement for serious and chronic 

juveniles are at least as effective in suppressing recidivism as incarceration, but are considerably less 

costly to operate” (Krisberg and Howell, 1998, p. 360). When secure confinement is necessary, “the 

establishment of small, community-based facilities to provide intensive services in a secure environment 

offers the best hope for successful treatment of those juveniles who require a structured setting” (Krisberg 

and Howell, 1998, p. 362). 

Based on this research, states considering new facilities have an opportunity to replace large, traditional 

training schools with smaller, community-based or regional facilities that are part of a continuum of 

services and sanctions supported by local justice systems and communities (Austin, Johnson, and 

Weitzer, forthcoming). Such facilities are more likely to be rooted in local values, engender community 

support and involvement, and reflect the needs of local jurisdictions. Equally important, these smaller 

facilities can target programming and operations to be responsive to the specific treatment and 

supervision needs of the youth in their care. By focusing exclusively on serious, violent, and/or chronic 

juvenile offenders, these facilities can avoid the operational problems that arise when disparate behavioral 

groups are housed together. 

5 
Developing small, secure, community-based or regional facilities to hold serious, violent, and/or chronic 

juvenile offenders who are identified as unsuitable for other settings or programs also creates a valuable 

opportunity to address the most serious problems of youth crime and recidivism. This relatively small 

group of offenders accounts for a disproportionate share of all serious crime committed by juveniles 

(Loeber and Farrington, 1998). Furthermore, studies have shown substantial recidivism among juveniles 

released from residential institutions.6

 Clearly, just locking up these youth is not enough. It is critically 

important to provide effective treatment programs designed to enhance their chances for success when 

they return to the community. A smaller residential facility that houses only the most serious offenders 

can be an ideal setting for such programs. 

Although few studies have examined the impact of criminal sanctions on juvenile crime rates, some 

research indicates that effective programming for serious and violent offenders can produce modest to 

substantial reductions in recidivism rates. A meta-analysis involving 200 studies that investigated the 

effects of interventions with serious juvenile offenders (83 of which dealt with programs for 

institutionalized youth) found that “for both institutionalized and noninstitutionalized offenders, the 

‘average’ intervention program represented in the research literature produced positive, statistically 

significant effects equivalent to about a 12% reduction in subsequent reoffense rates” (Lipsey and Wilson, 

1998, p. 338). However, the most effective treatment programs for institutionalized juveniles, which 

focused on interpersonal skills (e.g., social skills training, anger management, and moral education) and 

used behavioral programs (e.g., cognitive mediation training, stress inoculation training, reinforcement 

therapy principles), reduced recidivism rates by as much as 40 percent (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998). These 

and other researchers have concluded that developing successful facilities and treatment models for 

serious, violent, and/or chronic juvenile offenders is programmatically sound and makes both intuitive 

and fiscal sense considering the expense and social costs associated with the delinquent behavior of these 

juvenile offenders (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; Wiebush et al., 1995; Altschuler, 1998). 

Smaller facilities connected to local communities have programmatic advantages that are generally 

missing from large congregate-care facilities, which often confine youth hundreds of miles from their 

families and the communities they will reenter when they are released. Small, community-based or 

regional facilities can: 

♦	 Engage local communities to provide resources for creating a comprehensive prevention, sanction, 

and treatment model. Potential community partners include service providers, volunteers and 

mentors, houses of worship, schools, civic organizations, businesses, and government agencies. 

♦	 Help youth forge personal bonds with mentors and other caring adults in the community. A key factor 

for healthy development is the “capacity, ability, and opportunity to build relationships with caring 

adults” (Masten and Coatsworth, 1998). Studies of successful youth who live in high-risk 

environments indicate the critical importance of strong bonds with caregivers or other adults in 

preventing problem behaviors (Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992). 

♦	 Engage in ongoing, intensive family involvement and intervention activities. This approach 

recognizes the critical role of families in treating young offenders (Thornberry, 1993). 

♦	 Function as a resource for the community (e.g., through victim counseling and restitution programs). 

A facility that is located in the community can also offer youth enhanced opportunities for independent 

living. Administrators can create phased reentry programs that allow youth and their support networks to 

participate in a gradual and successful transition back into the community. 

6

 A recent study of recidivism among incarcerated offenders in 15 states found that 82 percent of juveniles ages 14– 

17 were rearrested within 3 years of their release; among those serving time for violent offenses, the rate was 62 

percent (Langan and Levin, 2002). A number of state studies confirm high recidivism rates (more than 50 percent) 

among juvenile offenders released from confinement (Feld, 1998; Howell, 1997). 

6 
Economic Advantages 

A more localized system of sanctions and services for juvenile offenders has economic as well as 

programmatic advantages. Jurisdictions that adopt this strategy can expect cost savings in three areas: 

facility operations, recidivism, and facility construction. 

Downsizing large, centralized facilities—i.e., replacing them with a system of smaller, community-based 

or regional facilities that are part of a full continuum of sanctions and services—is likely to produce 

substantial immediate and long-term savings in the form of lower operating costs and reduced recidivism 

(Loeber and Farrington, 1998). Secure facilities are particularly expensive to operate because they run 24 

hours a day, 365 days a year, and have relatively high staffing ratios. Reforms that emphasize using the 

least restrictive sanction consistent with the needs of offenders and the safety of the community will result 

in reduced operating costs as many youth are moved out of secure confinement and into less expensive 

alternatives. In addition, reduced recidivism is likely to result as both secure facilities and other sanctions 

and services are better tailored to the needs of the juveniles and jurisdictions they serve. 

Construction costs are an additional consideration. High-security facilities are the most expensive to 

construct. Costs associated with building materials, security systems, furniture, fixtures, and equipment 

for these facilities far exceed the costs of standard commercial-grade items that can be used in other 

facilities. If a jurisdiction decides it does not need to build a high-security facility and can instead 

substitute a lower security facility or a nonresidential program, cost savings will result. 

Because secure facilities are expensive to build and operate, it is important for jurisdictions to recognize 

when secure incarceration is being used inappropriately for youth who can be successfully treated in other 

settings. Although more rigorous research into appropriate sanctions for the most serious juvenile 

offenders may be needed, leading authorities recognize that “community-based interventions for serious 

and chronic offenders can be safely expanded, and produce enormous cost savings” (Krisberg and 

Howell, 1998). 

Systemwide Advantages 

Creating a new small, secure, community-based facility (or a small, secure regional facility in less 

populated areas) offers an opportunity to improve the entire continuum of services and sanctions for atrisk and delinquent youth in the community. In developing such a facility, it is critical to understand that 

the facility should not stand alone but rather should be designed as an integrated part of this continuum. 

For example, by providing space and access for community-based service providers, the facility design 

can make it possible for these providers to begin working with youth while they are still in custody, thus 

ensuring continuity of services and helping the facility tap into the strengths and resources of the 

community. 

Many jurisdictions are developing juvenile justice facilities that incorporate multiple aspects of the local 

continuum of services into the facility design. This approach achieves economies of scale by allowing 

various smaller programs and facilities to be housed either in a single multiservice center or in a campusstyle setting. Furthermore, construction and operating expenses can be shared among several cost centers. 

Although such facilities can offer clear advantages for a community, extensive teamwork and planning 

should precede the decision to build them.7 Juvenile justice system stakeholders need to work together 

toward a common goal: a system of facilities and programs that holds young offenders accountable 

7

 Jurisdictions should take caution to control the total bed capacity of a multiservice facility, keeping each residential 

component (detention, secure treatment, group home, etc.) relatively small—no larger than about 50 beds. The total 

capacity should reflect careful analysis of the juvenile offender population and related bedspace needs. 

7 
______________________ 

through a continuum of graduated sanctions while building strengths and resilience in these youth through 

a broad spectrum of services such as education, mental health, skills training, and intensive aftercare 

supervision.8 

Missouri: A Case Study in Cost-Effective Reforms 

In 1983, Missouri closed its only large training school and moved to a well-developed system of regional, 

small-scale correctional centers and community-based residential and nonresidential programs. The state also 

moved from an incarceration model to a rehabilitation model. In 1994, Missouri appropriated funds to construct 

200 secure beds, with the condition that no facility could exceed a 50-bed capacity. By 2001, no juvenile 

correctional facility in Missouri contained more than 85 beds, and all except 3 contained 33 beds or fewer.a 

Missouri also created an objective decisionmaking strategy to provide juvenile justice professionals with 

standardized procedures for screening, assessing, and assigning dispositions to juvenile offenders (Hsia and 

Beyer, 2000). 

As a result of these reforms, three-fourths of youthful offenders committed to Missouri’s Division of Youth 

Services (DYS) are assigned to nonresidential community programs, group homes, and less secure residential 

facilities. Youth who are committed to the state’s medium- and high-security facilities enter a bright, 

noninstitutional environment that provides extensive, 24-hour-per-day therapy, quality education programs, 

strong family outreach and counseling, well-qualified and highly trained staff, and extensive aftercare support 

(Mendel, 2001). 

A report sponsored by The American Youth Policy Forum concluded that Missouri’s focus on treatment and 

use of least restrictive care rather than incarceration and punishment “is far more successful and cost-effective 

than the training school-oriented systems of most state juvenile corrections agencies” (Mendel, 2001, p. 11). 

Cost savings have resulted from avoiding overreliance on expensive residential confinement programs, limiting 

length of stay in residential programs, and reducing recidivism. Reported recidivism rates have declined from 

50 percent or more in the old training school model to averages as low as 11 percent (Center on Juvenile & 

Criminal Justice, 2004). According to state records, currently only 8 percent of youth released from 

rehabilitative programs are in Missouri’s prisons 5 years after their release. Based on regional per diem costs 

for secure confinement of juveniles, Missouri’s reduced reliance on incarceration saves $140 per day ($51,000 

per year) for each bed not used (because of reduced recidivism, use of alternatives, and other reforms). In 

addition, as a result of Missouri’s reforms, DYS operated in 2000 with a budget of $61 million (about $94 per 

youth in the state’s population ages 10–17); the average juvenile corrections budget in the eight states 

surrounding Missouri was approximately $140 per youth—one-third more than Missouri’s budget (Mendel, 

2001). 

Representatives from several states have visited Missouri to learn more about its reforms, and many are 

beginning to follow Missouri’s lead.b

 On January 31, 2005, as part of the settlement of a lawsuit challenging 

conditions in the California Youth Authority (CYA), CYA announced a plan to completely reform California’s 

juvenile justice system based largely on Missouri’s rehabilitative model and therapeutic environments. CYA’s 

new model will include families in treatment and rehabilitation, keep youth in facilities close to their homes, 

provide youth with a supportive and positive environment that helps them get their lives back on track, and staff 

programs with trained rehabilitation specialists. 

a

 The Fulton Treatment Center, described under “Sample Programs,” was the prototype for these smaller facilities. 

b Author’s interviews with DYS Director Mark Steward. 

8

 These services have been identified as essential to the successful reintegration of young offenders into their 

communities (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994). 

8 
The stakeholder team’s first challenge is to establish links among 

all components of the existing system of services and sanctions, The Multiservice Facility: An 

including prevention, diversion, probation, nonsecure sanctioning Example From Eugene, OR 

alternatives, secure sanctions, and aftercare. Once the links are The Lane County Juvenile Justice established, the team should analyze the populations entering the Center in Eugene, OR, is a secure, co- juvenile justice system, ensure that alternatives to incarceration are ed, 36-bed facility that houses the used effectively, and develop new secure confinement facilities county’s Department of Youth 

only when warranted. The links established by the stakeholder Services (intake, probation, parole,

team are also essential for implementing effective case and detention center); juvenile court,

management and family involvement procedures at each stage of court clerk, district attorneys, and

the juvenile justice process, from entry into the system through defense attorneys; Court Appointed 

release. 	 Special Advocates (CASA); and the 

Oregon Youth Authority. The facility, 

which houses both preadjudicated and The next two sections elaborate on this planning process. They postadjudicated youth, also offers a discuss both the context and the “nuts and bolts” of facility drug and alcohol treatment program, planning. 	 assessments, and shelter care. 

A Systemic Approach to Facility Planning 

A comprehensive juvenile justice system master plan is a prerequisite for developing new facilities and 

programs to ensure an appropriate continuum of residential and nonresidential services. “Master 

planning” means that juvenile justice agencies and civic authorities should: 

♦	 Know the populations their system serves. 

♦	 Select the best approaches for meeting the needs of youth and the community, based on clearly 

defined values and goals. 

♦	 Actively plan for all essential services and programs, addressing issues such as funding, staffing, and 

space needs. 

The starting point for this process is a thorough assessment of the juvenile justice system. That requires 

the participation of all stakeholders in the system. 

Participatory Planning: Building Consensus Among Stakeholders 

The process of system assessment should be fully participatory. To achieve full participation, a steering 

committee consisting of key stakeholders should be established, including representatives from every 

level of government, probation and community corrections, existing facilities, social services, the 

judiciary, prosecuting attorneys, schools, child advocates, parents, and business leaders. Steering 

committee members should be individuals who: 

♦	 Understand the local community. 

♦	 Possess the necessary knowledge and skills to tailor a system plan and programs to local needs. 

♦	 Know how to get things done in the community. 

♦	 Have the power to implement the selected sentencing sanctions, programs, and plans broadly and to 

monitor their effects to make adjustments as needed. (Catalano et al., 1998) 

Stakeholders may have very different and sometimes competing goals and interests. They may also have 

very different views about the objectives of the juvenile justice system and about critical decisions that 

affect juveniles at various points in the system (figure 1). 

9 
10

Steering committee members should reach a consensus regarding objectives and decisionmaking criteria 

for each phase of the juvenile justice caseflow process. Consensus is achieved through structured 

workshops that encourage an open exchange of ideas. These workshops usually move from the general 

(agreeing on broad values, creating vision and mission statements) to the very specific (spelling out goals 

and objectives). (A similar process takes place in developing a facility master plan, as discussed in greater 

detail below.) 

Consensus building is important because decisions in the caseflow process are governed as much by 

policy as by the behavior of juveniles. Policy changes can have a dramatic impact on costs and system 

outcomes. Careful assessment and planning can ensure that the juvenile justice system is responsive to the 

needs of youth and the community. For these reasons, it is essential that all stakeholders and other 

interested parties remain fully engaged throughout the assessment and planning process. 

Juvenile Justice System Assessment 

A juvenile justice system assessment is a collaborative information-gathering and analysis process 

conducted to gain a better understanding of how an existing system of sanctions and services works; to 

identify any duplication, gaps, needs, and excesses; and to determine where a proposed new facility 

would fit within the system (figure 2). The assessment should result in detailed baseline data and analyses 

that can be used to develop a more coordinated, rational, and cost-effective system. 

The assessment should consider all factors that affect demands on and use of sanctions and services. It 

should also examine all factors that drive the need for new detention and corrections beds, including the 

following: (1) policies, practices, and available resources; (2) arrest rates for various types of crimes; (3) 

speed with which the justice system processes cases; and (4) availability and use of alternatives to secure 

confinement. 

Steps in the juvenile justice system assessment process include developing profiles of the community and 

the existing juvenile justice system, assessing other community resources, developing baseline 

information about how the sanctioning system currently operates, and researching historical justice 

system trends and analyzing data. The box that follows figure 2 outlines details of these steps. 

Completing a system assessment requires many meetings. Participants include steering committee and 

assessment team members, public officials and policymakers, community leaders and citizens, and 

juvenile justice decisionmakers. The goal of the meetings is a consensus about the current status of the 

juvenile justice system, how well it is working, and how it might be improved. 

Assessment results may be used to reevaluate or modify available sanctioning options, programs, and 

processes; refine forecasts of future bedspace needs; and identify opportunities for improving 

management of existing bedspace capacity. Information from the assessment provides a basis for shaping 

a vision of how the system might look in the future and for developing a strategy to realize that vision. 

11 
12

Steps in the Juvenile Justice System Assessment Process 

1. Develop a community profile. Describe the following characteristics of the community: 

•	 Geographic area: location, size, climate, land use, etc. 

•	 Resident population: demographic breakdowns (age, gender, income, marital status, educational attainment, 

etc.); population projections. 

•	 Economy: major industry, economic trends, unemployment levels, poverty levels, etc. 

•	 Assets and infrastructure: recreational facilities, libraries, shopping, transportation systems, health care, etc. 

Such a profile yields information about issues and trends in the community that may affect use of juvenile 

detention or correctional facilities. 

2. Develop a profile of the existing juvenile justice system. Describe the juvenile justice resources currently 

available in the jurisdiction, including the following: 

•	 Police department. 

•	 Court services, including probation and any alternative dispute resolution approaches. 

•	 Prosecution and defense bar. 

•	 Juvenile detention and placement facilities and operations. 

•	 Community programs for juvenile offenders (day reporting, electronic monitoring, community service, 

mediation, etc.). 

These descriptions should include information about each entity’s functions, staffing, funding levels and 

sources, workload, etc. They should also highlight any major deficiencies or concerns with regard to facilities 

and operations. 

3. Assess other community resources. Describe all other community resources that may work cooperatively 

with the justice system, including the following: 

•	 Emergency services: fire, EMS, etc. 

•	 Healthcare services: including services provided to juvenile offenders in the community and in custody. 

•	 Mental health and substance abuse services: including services provided to juvenile offenders in the 

community and in custody (both residential and nonresidential). 

•	 Juvenile services: residential and nonresidential. 

•	 Social services. 

•	 Schools and other providers of educational services. 

These descriptions should include information about the extent to which each entity serves the juvenile offender 

population or otherwise addresses justice system needs. They should highlight barriers or problems encountered 

in providing services to this population. 

Continued on page 14 

13 
Continued from page 13 

4. Develop baseline information about how the sanctioning system currently operates. Address the 

following questions: 

•	 What is happening in various sanctioning components for preadjudicated and adjudicated youth: detention, 

placement, intermediate sanctions, preadjudication services, diversion programs, probation and parole? 

•	 How are cases being processed through the juvenile justice system, and what is the level and nature of 

coordination among justice system agencies? 

•	 What is the system’s current capacity for collecting and compiling information to support policy 

development efforts? 

•	 Will the political climate support or impede change? 

This information should help planners create or refine written policies regarding desired outcomes, target 

offender populations, screening procedures, intervention approaches, and capacity and costs of individual 

sanctions within the existing continuum of services. 

5. Research historical justice system trends and analyze data. Collect and analyze the following types of 

data: 

•	 Law enforcement data: arrests, rearrests, offense types, use of citations and warrants, etc. 

•	 Court data: case filings, types of charges, dispositions, failure to appear rates, bonding practices, etc. 

•	 Detention data: admissions and releases, average daily population, average length of stay, offender profile 

(age, gender, education, employment, special needs, charges, charge status, charge type, etc), recidivism, 

etc. 

•	 Probation data: commitments and discharges, revocation data, caseloads, etc. 

•	 Use of alternatives to incarceration: number and types of alternatives, number of juvenile offenders served, 

program completion/failure rates, etc. 

Planners should also gather information from justice system officials regarding their policies and practices that 

affect use of detention. It can be helpful to construct a caseflow diagram as part of this process to understand 

how juveniles move through the system. The diagram provides a framework for linking together data from the 

various components of the system. As these data are collected and analyzed, a better understanding of the 

capabilities, deficiencies, and needs of the current system begins to emerge (Burke, Cushman, and Ney, 1996). 

System Master Plan 

The information compiled and analyzed in the assessment should be developed into a master plan that 

encompasses the design, use, capacity, and cost of a coordinated system of juvenile justice sanctions and 

services. A primary goal of this strategic plan is to identify opportunities for addressing inefficiencies and 

needs so that the system will function better and management of services and bedspace utilization can 

improve. 

Through this process, states and local jurisdictions can evaluate whether juvenile correctional beds are 

being used appropriately and whether more effective use of alternatives might have an impact on the 

number or type of beds required. Jurisdictions can also determine the need for bedspace in smaller, 

specialized facilities that can be responsive to management needs of special populations such as sex 

offenders, female offenders, and youth with mental health, substance abuse, and/or behavior disorders. 

14 
The Facility Development Process 

The process of developing a new secure facility for juvenile offenders (figure 3) is fundamentally similar 

to the process of creating a master plan for the overall juvenile justice system. Both activities rely on a 

systematic, participatory approach. 

Just as a system master plan defines system needs and opportunities for the future, a facility master plan 

defines the functional and space needs of a new facility. To lay a solid foundation for the facility master 

planning process, stakeholders should achieve a consensus on the shared values, vision, mission, goals, 

and objectives for the new facility. Ideally, this process will be informed by comprehensive data on the 

justice system and the juvenile population to be served, developed through the assessment of the overall 

system. 

Building a Foundation for Planning a Facility 

The first step in the facility planning process is building a foundation for planning. In taking this first 

step, it is helpful to keep in mind that the best way to ensure the success of a project is to take control of it 

from start to finish. This requires understanding the decisionmaking processes that will be used and 

identifying and empowering the right participants so they can make sound and timely decisions. It also 

requires understanding facility planning, design, and construction processes; knowing how to create 

budgets and how to meet goals within limited budgets; and understanding the roles and responsibilities of 

all parties, including the owner.9 

Develop the Project Approach and Participatory Process 

The key to building and operating a successful small, community-based facility (or network of facilities) 

is a concerned, informed, and engaged owner and community. The facility planning process should be 

active and participatory. This approach creates a sense of shared ownership by all participants in the 

process, promotes an informed consensus, and helps to ensure that the needs of all interested parties and 

their departments and units are addressed. 

A planning team is established to carry out the day-to-day work of developing a master plan for the 

proposed facility. The composition of this team depends on the jurisdiction and the facility, but, typically, 

the team includes key facility staff (e.g., administrators and managers), technical members (e.g., an 

architect and a professional planner), and security and law enforcement representatives. For a communitybased center, the planning team should also include court administrators, teachers, health professionals, 

and other applicable specialists. The planning committee is extremely “hands-on” and active throughout 

the facility development process. 

Analyze the Population Served 

Jurisdictions planning to build new secure juvenile facilities should first carefully examine their juvenile 

offender populations and the classification systems being used to determine secure bedspace needs. This 

analysis (which may have been substantially completed as part of the system assessment) should identify 

any existing alternatives to secure detention and placement and determine whether these alternatives are 

being used effectively. New space should be built only for youth who cannot function safely and 

effectively in less restrictive alternative programs. 

9

 The term “owner” refers to the organization or system that has primary responsibility for operating and paying for 

the facility. Depending on the jurisdiction, this could be a state, a county, an American Indian tribe, the juvenile 

court, or the probation department. The owner is also the entity that will occupy and operate the new facility when it 

is complete. 

15 
Figure 3. Facility Development 

16

Population Profile 

The first step in this analysis is to profile the current population of youth in the juvenile justice system 

and existing facilities. This involves gathering and analyzing data on age, gender, offense, legal status, 

offense history, substance abuse history, behavior, academic level, family, living arrangement at time of 

arrest, gang affiliation, and special management needs. Profiles should be based on the most 

comprehensive and recent local data available. Random samples may be used in populous jurisdictions, 

but larger samples and analyses of all data are warranted in jurisdictions with smaller populations of 

juvenile offenders. 

The profile information is combined with population projections to determine: (1) appropriate custodial 

and noncustodial programs/alternatives for all youth, and approximate numbers of youth in each; (2) the 

types of custodial and noncustodial facilities that are needed and appropriate for youth and programs; 

(3) classification of youth in existing correctional facilities; and (4) design features of all spaces, from 

classrooms to living units, that best support youth and programs. 

The profiling process can help jurisdictions determine both the need to build new facilities and the types 

of new facilities to build. For example, the data may indicate that a jurisdiction needs a 40-bed secure 

facility10 for boys, a 24-bed secure facility for girls, a 32-bed staff-secure facility11 for boys, and 4 

multiservice community centers (without beds) to provide substance abuse treatment, academic tutoring, 

anger management, family counseling, and prevocational training for 400 youth. A facility that targets the 

most serious and chronic juvenile offenders should be considered only after a jurisdiction verifies that the 

number of juveniles projected to fall within the physically secure facility category justifies construction of 

a new facility. 

System Factors 

In analyzing bedspace needs, planners should consider recent or pending juvenile justice system 

developments—legislative changes, policy shifts, crime trends, and other factors—at the local, state, and 

(to a lesser extent) national levels. One example is legislation that allows (or requires) juveniles older than 

a certain age who commit certain offenses to be charged as adults. Such a policy may reduce the number 

of local juvenile commitment beds needed but, because trials in the adult system often take longer than 

juvenile court proceedings, may increase the number of detention beds needed for youth with cases 

pending adjudication. Another example of legislation that affected bed needs is the federal Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, which required the deinstitutionalization of status 

offenders. Fewer low-security beds were needed, but this reduction was more than offset by the increase 

in demand during the 1980s and early 1990s for more secure bedspace to accommodate accused and 

adjudicated juveniles (e.g., youth adjudicated under legislation instituting harsher sentencing 

requirements and more severe treatment of serious juvenile offenders). 

Although awareness of such developments is important, the continuum of available services and sanctions 

available for young offenders has an even greater impact on bedspace needs. Before a jurisdiction decides 

on the number and types of beds to be built, it should thoroughly study the population profile and 

projections together with existing and possible noncustodial alternatives. Without this key step, the 

jurisdiction is likely to overbuild, and the result will be dramatically higher construction, operating, and 

life-cycle costs than are necessary. 

10 Secure facility in this context refers to a physically restricting environment that has hard construction, locked 

doors, and a secure perimeter. 

11 “Staff-secure” refers to an environment that is restricted by intensive staff supervision rather than by physical 

restrictions. 

17 
Facility Bedspace Capacity 

Once a jurisdiction justifies the need to build a new facility, the next step is to calculate the bedspace 

capacity required for the target population. Because bedspace capacity has a direct impact on facility size, 

staffing, and operating and construction costs, establishing the number of beds required initially and over 

the next 10 to 20 years is a critical part of the planning process. Planners should be careful to document 

the rationale for all bedspace decisions. 

Bed needs are determined by multiplying offender population projections by a factor that accounts for 

peaking and classification. Accounting for peaking is necessary because facilities must be able to handle 

fluctuations in offender populations. Classification must be considered to provide enough beds for 

different population categories and to ensure appropriate housing unit characteristics, which may vary 

widely depending on offender age, gender, offense, and behaviors. For example, if a violent, out-ofcontrol youth enters a facility that has only generalpopulation beds, serious problems may result. Although 

such youth usually comprise a very small percentage of 

the overall juvenile offender population, their impact on 

facility operations can be dramatic unless the facility 

design anticipates and accommodates their requirements. 

Reach Consensus on Core Values 

One of the most critical steps in building a foundation for 

facility planning is the articulation of core principles or 

values for the new facility. The core values, which reflect 

the shared beliefs of all stakeholders in the facility 

development process, will guide all decisions and 

activities related to planning, designing, and, ultimately, 

operating the new facility. These values help the owner 

define boundaries for decisions and activities and provide 

a gauge for keeping the planning and design processes on 

track. 

Core values help the jurisdiction define a vision for the 

facility and a mission that will move the jurisdiction 

toward that vision. The mission and all related actions 

should fall within the boundaries defined by the core 

values. For example, if a core value is “promoting 

partnerships with family,” then the facility’s policies and 

design should be consistent with that value. It would 

allow frequent enough visits to accommodate families’ 

varying personal demands and work schedules. Visiting 

rules and procedures would be clearly stated. The facility 

would be designed to welcome family and guests by 

making access easy and providing comfortable and 

appropriate visiting spaces. 

Develop the Vision Statement 

The vision statement for a new facility will guide the 

planning process and provide the foundation for the 

facility’s operational and space requirements. The 

statement should be far reaching, portraying a future state 

Sample Statements of Core Values 

Promoting public safety. We promote public 

safety by being part of a continuum of services 

for youth that begins with prevention and ends 

with successful reintegration into the community. 

Providing a purposeful program for youth. 

We provide a comprehensive, structured, 

purposeful, and gender-specific program that 

develops assets in youth and promotes their 

successful reintegration into the community. 

Promoting partnerships with family. We 

encourage collaborations with family to best 

meet the needs of youth in our care and their 

families/support networks and to facilitate their 

successful transition back into the community. 

Promoting partnerships with businesses, 

government, and community-based 

organizations. We encourage strong links and 

collaborations with business leaders, 

government, and the community to best meet the 

needs of youth in our care. 

Promoting staff professionalism. We believe 

that staff are a valuable resource entitled to a 

supportive work environment that equitably 

enhances professional development and 

recognizes excellence. 

Sample Vision Statement 

All youth in the care of the Juvenile Justice 

Center will reach their fullest potential in a safe 

and nurturing environment and will become 

capable, productive, and law-abiding citizens. 

18 
that is better in some significant way than the current state. It should envision the new facility as part of a 

paradigm for juvenile crime control and treatment that taps into the community’s strengths to address 

recidivism and reduce crime. Developing the vision statement requires a high level of participatory 

planning among key stakeholders. Ideally, before stakeholders begin this task, a system assessment team, 

legislative body, or umbrella agency will have created a broader vision for the juvenile justice system as a 

whole that provides a context for the facility’s vision. 

Develop the Mission Statement 

The mission statement defines the “vehicle” that will transport Sample Mission Statement 

the jurisdiction from its present state to its vision. It usually The mission of the Juvenile Justice Center answers three questions: is to promote public safety, reduce 

♦ What is the purpose of the facility? recidivism, and rehabilitate youth in our 

care through a continuum of services that 

♦ What clients does the facility serve? are provided in safe and nurturing 

environments. To achieve this mission, the ♦ What activities, services, or resources does the facility Juvenile Justice Center will focus on 

provide? providing: 

The mission statement should reflect the facility’s core values, • Purposeful programming that includes 

prevention, diversion, supervision, local risk factors for delinquency and youth crime, and education, behavioral management, community strengths and resources. It should be based on a therapy, youth accountability, and consensus of all stakeholders. transitional services. 

Together, the statements of the facility’s core values, vision, • Partnerships with families, the 

community, business leaders, and and mission provide a roadmap for key decisions during the government. planning process—including the definition of goals and 

objectives. In the longer term, these three fundamental 
 • A diverse, well-trained, professional 

statements will influence the nature and scope of juvenile staff.


offender custody, care, and treatment. 


Identify Goals and Objectives 

The goals and objectives of a facility shape its specific programmatic and design elements. Goals should 

support or build on the community’s strengths and address local risk factors for delinquency and youth 

crime.12 Therefore, the process of defining the facility’s goals and objectives begins with a review of 

these strengths and risk factors. The available continuum of services and sanctions identified during the 

system assessment is a critical part of the protective factors or strengths from which the jurisdiction can 

draw. A new facility should be designed to build on the jurisdiction’s strengths or protective factors (e.g., 

by providing safe and accessible workspaces for probation officers, lawyers, community-based service 

providers, and aftercare program staff operating in the facility) and to address its most prevalent risk 

factors (e.g., by providing comprehensive programming and well-planned spaces to support academic and 

counseling programs). 

Goals often are expressed as the reduction of juvenile problem behaviors (e.g., recidivism, drug and 

alcohol abuse), reduction of risk factors (e.g., family conflict, availability of alcohol and drugs), or 

12 Research indicates that exposure to certain “risk factors” at the community, peer group, individual, family, or 

school level results in a significantly higher likelihood that a youth will become involved in delinquency, illegal 

drug use, or crime. The same research has identified “protective factors” or “assets” that appear to buffer youth 

against the effects of exposure to multiple risk factors. This research finds that strategies to decrease risk factors and 

enhance protective factors are important elements of an overall strategy for delinquency prevention and intervention 

(Hawkins et al, 2000; Loeber and Farrington, 1998; Farrington, 1996; Howell, 1995). 

19 
enhancement of protective factors (e.g., strong bonds between children and prosocial members of the 

community). Goals represent the desired end, not the means to the end. For example, if “lack of skills for 

employment” is identified as a risk factor for delinquency, the corresponding goal could be “helping 

youth in the facility gain skills that would increase their employability.” 

Each goal should have a number of specific operational or programmatic objectives associated with it. 

Objectives are stated in concrete terms. Generally they specify who or what will change, by how much, 

and over what period of time. The more specific the objectives, the easier it is to determine if and when 

they have been achieved. For example, if a goal is “reducing family conflict,” an associated objective 

might be “Within 6 months after the facility begins operations, 85 percent of youth in its care for more 

than 10 days will be engaged in a family counseling program.” 

As noted, each goal and objective has programmatic and design implications. During the facility master 

planning process (discussed further below), planners should conduct workshops with relevant staff and 

administrators to program each area of the facility, to ensure that the design will help staff achieve their 

identified goals and objectives. For example, to reach the goal of an enhanced family counseling program, 

the facility owner may choose to hire additional social workers or retain an independent contractor to set 

up an intensive family counseling program. The facility design would need to include spaces to 

accommodate the program. Such spaces might include a number of small conference rooms that are easily 

accessible to families, counselors, and residents and “family-friendly” visiting areas. Creating familyfriendly visiting areas might have implications for where the areas are located (indoors or outdoors, 

accessible to visitors’ entrance); how they are designed (features to provide privacy, comfort, safety); and 

their functional and visual qualities (light, colors, visibility). 

By carefully defining goals and objectives that are consistent with the facility’s core values, vision, and 

mission, planners can ensure that the core values are expressed in specific design features (figure 4). 

Developing the Facility Master Plan 

Once the system assessment is complete and the foundation for facility planning is in place—the core 

values, vision, mission, goals, and objectives—the next step is to develop the facility master plan. The 

master plan is not an isolated document. It should be viewed within the context of the overall plan for 

juvenile justice system sanctions and services. 

As with overall system planning, the process of developing a master plan for a juvenile correctional 

facility is a participatory one. In addition to the interested stakeholders and the owner’s steering 

committee and planning team, the process involves consultants, architects, engineers, builders, and the 

public. In developing the facility master plan, participants will rely on the values, vision, mission, goals, 

and objectives already identified for the new facility and will explore operational and spatial alternatives 

to ensure the best possible configuration to achieve the mission and goals and realize the vision for the 

facility. The following sections provide a step-by-step overview of the facility master planning process, 

together with practical tips for implementing the process. 

Develop the Operational Program 

The operational program is a detailed narrative description of the specific program and service 

requirements, operational procedures, and management practices for each functional area of the facility. 

New facilities offer jurisdictions an opportunity to improve operations and services as defined during the 

system assessment process. Jurisdictions can explore state-of-the-art and emerging treatment and 

management methods that are responsive to the diverse needs of today’s youth-serving agencies. 

20 
Figure 4. Translating Core Values, Goals, and Objectives Into Design Features: Illustrations From 

a Facility Planning Project 

Providing a purposeful 

program for youth 

Sample Core Values

Promoting public safety 

Assist youth in 

developing a more 

positive self-image.

Related Goal

Develop a facility 

design that protects the 

public by preventing 

security breaches from 

within while permitting 

safe, secure, broad 

access for visitors. 

Within 10 days of admission, 

all youth will be engaged in a 

behavior management system 

that creates opportunities for 

success by permitting youth 

to achieve increasing levels 

of responsibility and 

privilege.

Objective

In the first year of operation, 

the facility will have no 

escapes and will reduce 

reported incidents in visiting 

areas by 80%. 

Availability of housing units 

ranging from maximum 

secure to transitional, elite 

lounges, isolation rooms, 

yards and courtyards, and 

diverse program spaces; 

design features such as desks 

and manual light switches 

(with overrides) in 

bedrooms; excellent site lines 

Selected Implications for 

Facility Design

Maximum-secure facility 

perimeter with graduated 

levels of secure circulation 

within the facility to optimize 

safe and secure access by 

visitors. Strategically placed 

cameras at points of ingress 

and egress, good visual 

access to circulation 

corridors and visiting areas. 

Promoting partnerships 

with family 

Encourage more and 

healthier family 

involvement with 

resident youth. 

Upon activation, visiting 

hours will be increased 50%, 

with a commensurate 

increase in family visits; by 

the end of the first year of 

operation, 50% of eligible 

families will be enrolled in 

family counseling programs 

with residents in the facility. 

Extensive, diverse, safe 

visiting spaces; conference 

and meeting rooms located 

conveniently for regularly 

scheduled family counseling 

sessions that include youth, 

social workers, and family 

members; large and small 

group visitation rooms; soft 

colors; privacy; childfriendly spaces in visiting 

to allow movement to 

program spaces with visual 

observation.

Promoting partnerships 

with local businesses, 

government, and 

community-based 

organizations 

Increase residents’ 

marketable skills. 

All eligible youth in the 

school program will have 

access to vocational 

programs designed to teach 

marketable skills linked to 

the local economy. 

Spaces designed for 

vocational programs tied to 

certifications in trades that 

are supported by the local 

economy or specific 

industries or businesses 

within the region. 

Participation of staff of 

related industries or 

area.

businesses in facility 

planning and design process. 

Safe and easy access to 

vocational education and 

other education spaces for 

visiting instructors. 

Source: S. Zavlek, IPFYouth 

21 
Jurisdictions can also investigate various classification systems, security levels, and daily program 

alternatives. In addition to accommodating traditional elements such as housing, dining, education, and 

recreation areas, a newly designed physical setting can incorporate new types of programs appropriate for 

special populations, units with smaller bed capacities, youth transitioning to the community, and even 

nonresident youth and their families (e.g., outpatient services, walk-in counseling, community supervision 

and training, conflict resolution, skills development, ombudsman services). A small, regional or 

community-based facility designed along these lines can provide support services to youth after their 

release from the facility, to youth who have been in custody in out-of-state programs, or to siblings of 

youth in custody who may be at high risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. 

The process of defining functional requirements for the operational program should be guided by the 

concepts and goals established during system assessment and planning and by the core values, vision, 

mission, goals, and objectives that constitute the foundation for facility planning. The best facilities are 

developed in response to a clear vision defined long before physical design efforts begin. The values that 

underlie that vision, established early on, serve as the benchmark for evaluating all aspects of the physical 

design process. 

Before physical design efforts get underway, operational programming defines the kinds of spaces and the 

amount of space that will best serve the functions envisioned for the facility. This process involves 

rigorous examination of all potential activities (housing, education, vocational training, visiting, dining, 

recreation, medical services, administration, admissions, and support services); exploration of alternative 

approaches; and detailed description of the approaches determined to be most responsive to operational 

priorities. 

Tips: Functional Requirements 

Input from appropriate officials and staff is necessary in identifying the functional requirements of a new facility. 

Consultants can help to gather this input via questionnaires, interviews, and workshops. 

Planners should work with interested stakeholders to define each functional area (e.g., intake, food service, 

recreation) in terms of the following: 

•	 Mission, objectives, and policy issues defining the purpose of the area. 

•	 General uses, including anticipated activities and functions. 

•	 Frequent users (staff, students, community groups, neighborhood residents). 

•	 Access (private, secure, and public movement) and adjacencies (which areas should be located adjacent or 

close to the functional area). 

•	 Security level, including use of security hardware and cameras; sightlines, building materials (e.g., hollow 

metal doors versus solid wood doors, porcelain versus stainless steel bathroom fixtures, cement block versus 

dry wall); and furniture and finishes (e.g., fixed versus loose furniture, bright versus soft colors, carpet 

versus tile). 

•	 Group size and supervision methods (e.g., housing unit capacity, direct or indirect supervision, spaces to 

support activities, and, if applicable, behavior management programs). 

•	 Behavioral considerations, including users’ perceptions, emotions, or circumstances (e.g., youth’s high 

stress level and potential volatility in the intake area). 

•	 Staffing requirements (direct care and other staff needed in the space, by shift and day of week). 

•	 Hours of operation (including days of the week that the area will be in use and peak usage hours). 

•	 Design directives (design features of each area, discrete spaces for users, special equipment, and 

furnishings). 

•	 Applicable codes and standards. 

22 
Create the Architectural Space Program 

Once operational needs are known, space planning begins. The architectural space program translates the 

functional requirements developed in the operational program into space, or square footage, requirements 

for each functional area of the facility and for the building as a whole. It defines with specificity the type 

and number of spaces required to support each function. The amount of square footage required for 

individual areas depends on a number of factors, including the kind of activity involved, the number and 

characteristics of juveniles who may use the space, staffing requirements, good operating practices, 

Tips: Square Footage Estimates 

The architectural space program should include a program summary that provides a tally of the net square 

footage (NSF) and gross square footage (GSF) totals for each functional area (e.g., housing, intake, food service, 

etc.) of the facility. The NSF represents assignable or usable floor space and excludes corridors, stairs, elevators, 

mechanical spaces, walls, and the building structure itself. The GSF equals the NSF multiplied by efficiency 

factors that represent the ratio of net usable space to gross unassignable space. Each functional area has its own 

efficiency factor. For example, in a recreation area comprising a large gymnasium, a storage room, and an office, 

the percentage of usable space would be high and therefore the efficiency factor would be low. The opposite 

would be true of a high-security, single-occupancy housing unit, which has a large quantity of walls (bedroom, 

bathroom, storage, etc.), plumbing chases, and secure construction. 

In estimating total building GSF, some architects and planners add up all the GSF amounts for the various 

functional areas; others multiply the GSF sum by a building efficiency factor, which accounts for circulation 

among functional areas and mechanical and electrical areas that serve the entire building. In the latter case, lower 

multipliers are usually used for each functional area of the facility. As a result, the estimated total GSF for the 

building would be similar using either approach. 

required furniture and equipment, and relevant state and national standards. Evaluation of these factors 

generates net area, or square footage, requirements for the usable areas of each anticipated facility 

function. Net area requirements are then combined with space requirements for general circulation and 

resident and staff movement through the facility, mechanical rooms, electrical closets, and other structural 

elements such as wall thickness. This calculation generates the gross square footage (GSF) or total 

building area of the facility. 

The space requirements in the architectural program and all of the factors examined to derive them are the 

basis for space organization activities, specifically the development of adjacency diagrams that illustrate 

the desired connections and relationships between individual spaces (e.g., bedrooms, bathrooms, and 

living areas in housing units) and between groups of spaces (e.g., housing and education areas). The 

adjacency diagrams indicate general access and circulation patterns, resident movement, control points, 

and security features. Because the relationship and proximity of the various areas can be critical to the 

effective functioning of the facility, the design should clearly reflect the desired connections indicated in 

the adjacency diagrams. 

Tips: Adjacency Information 

One way to convey adjacency information is to create a matrix that lists all functional spaces in the facility along 

both the top and the left side. Each box in the matrix represents two corresponding spaces. In each box, a number 

represents the ideal relationship between the two spaces (one number might represent “must be immediately 

adjacent,” another “visibility from one space to the other, but no physical connection”). Alternatively, “bubble” 

diagrams can illustrate relationships between functional spaces and activity areas (both indoor and outdoor) and 

the necessary or desirable features of each activity area. 

23 
Develop Cost Estimates 

The area narratives, building gross square footage, and general spatial relationships described in the 

previous sections are used to project initial construction costs and total project development costs. The 

construction cost usually represents about 75 percent of the total cost of a project, with the remaining 25 

percent covering items such as architectural and engineering fees, furnishings, site work, and 

contingencies. Thus, a building that costs $10 million will usually entail a total project development cost 

of $13.5 million. 

Tips: Accuracy in Estimating Construction Costs 

To calculate construction costs for the entire building, the cost estimator may simply use an average cost per 

square foot for all components combined, or the estimator may assign each component a different cost per square 

foot that reflects various factors. (For example, the cost per square foot for a high-security unit will always be 

relatively high, whereas that for nonsecure classrooms and administrative space will always be relatively low.) 

This second approach usually results in more accurate cost estimates. 

If initial projections surpass anticipated or mandated funding levels (see section on funding 

considerations, below), further space programming is necessary to explore alternatives. Because it is 

difficult and expensive to make changes once the architect has begun to develop building plans, these cost 

considerations should be resolved as early in the process as is practical. 

Tips: Ongoing Budget Review 

As the planning and design process continues, the cost estimator has more and more information about the new 

building. Hence, each subsequent cost estimate should be more accurate than the preceding one. Each time a cost 

estimate is developed, decisionmakers should check that the project is still within budget. If an estimate exceeds 

the budget, planners should find ways to lower costs before entering the next phase of the process. 

Ideally, project funding will be established at the completion of the programming process so that the size 

and anticipated cost of the facility have been thoroughly analyzed before the facility design process 

begins. Establishing the budget before programming takes place may make it necessary to eliminate 

required areas or reduce capacity if projected costs exceed the budget. 

Tips: Staffing Costs 

In addition to design and construction costs, planners must consider the cost of operating the facility. Staffing 

costs constitute the lion’s share of a facility’s annual operating costs and life-cycle costs (about 70 percent of 

life-cycle costs over 30 years). Thus, controlling staffing costs is a major consideration in facility planning. To 

estimate these costs, jurisdictions should develop a generic staffing plan based on a general assumption about the 

number of housing units and the number and type of posts, programs, and services projected for the facility. It is 

critical to consider how services will be provided (e.g., centralized versus decentralized, contracted or owneroperated). Developing a realistic staffing plan driven by actual programming and operational needs requires 

input not only from the facility operator and consultants but also from managers and staff of each functional area 

of the facility. 

24 
Develop Facility Concepts 

The architect develops facility concepts (or conceptual diagrams) primarily to help the owner choose the 

design option that is most consistent with the jurisdiction’s values, site, needs, and budget. These 

diagrams provide a visual representation of various configurations that may meet functional and space 

requirements. They illustrate key elements such as the facility “footprint” and the configuration of 

housing units and other functional areas. The diagrams should reflect issues pertaining to housing unit 

size, centralized versus decentralized services, classification divisions, access and circulation, and 

security. 

In this phase, the architect and planner determine how many stories the facility will have and which 

functions work on which stories (blocking and stacking). They may also do studies that use threedimensional forms to examine the relation of the building to its surrounding context and with its subparts 

(massing), to reach decisions about the building’s external architectural form. By exploring conceptual 

alternatives in this way, the architect and planner can find an overall best solution. 

Developing several facility concepts serves a number of purposes. In addition to depicting the various 

design options in a way that is meaningful for justice system professionals and other participants in the 

planning process, the concepts are useful in site planning, cost estimating (see previous section), and 

staffing. 

Tips: Facility Concepts and Site Planning 

If the jurisdiction has already selected a site (or has narrowed its selection to a few sites), the facility concepts 

should be applied to the site or sites. In addition to the building itself, the site concepts should show the 

following: 

•	 Access points for general vehicular and pedestrian traffic, law enforcement (including secure ingress and 

egress), correctional agency vehicles, delivery vehicles (including loading docks), and trash vehicles. 

•	 Outdoor recreational areas. 

•	 Areas for the building to expand (e.g., added housing and classrooms). 

•	 Areas for functions that may be added to the facility in the future (e.g., juvenile or family courts, day 

treatment centers, alternative schools, clubs). 

After studying the concepts, the owner probably will prefer one option but will want to see some 

modifications. The architect refines the preferred concept based on owner input, and the process continues 

until the owner approves the design. A more detailed cost estimate should then be developed for the 

selected design concept. 

Design 

The building design process takes place following completion of the facility master plan. During building 

design, the owner works closely with the architect to ensure that the proposed design reflects the values, 

principles, and facility features identified during the planning process. 

25 
Tips: The Owner’s Responsibility During Design 

The owner’s input is especially important at the beginning of the design phase. By the end of design, the process 

has become quite technical and the owner needs to rely more on the judgments and recommendations of the 

architects, engineers, and consultants. Nevertheless, it is critical that facility operators and other planning team 

members continue the review process throughout the design phase, asking the design professionals hard 

questions to ensure that all the technology, building systems, and room finishes (e.g., tile, carpet, block, 

sheetrock) support the jurisdiction’s needs and will work well for staff, youth, and the community. 

The design phase proceeds in three stages: schematic design, design development, and production of the 

construction documents. 

Schematic Design 

The schematic design builds on the selected facility concepts and continues to rely on the architectural 

space program and adjacency requirements. In schematic drawings, the owner can see the relative shapes 

and sizes of all the spaces in the facility. The main circulation patterns and the general character of the 

building begin to emerge in the schematic design phase. 

Tips: Ongoing Design Review 

During schematic design (as well as all other phases), the owner should insist on reviews during the process, 

rather than waiting until after each phase is completed. Often, informal “over-the-shoulder” reviews are very 

informative and helpful to the designers. However, even with such reviews, meetings are still important because 

individual reviewers may not agree and designers need clear and consistent direction. The owner should ask to 

see design documents (paper or electronic copies) prior to design review meetings, to make the meetings more 

efficient and productive and to avoid rushing the review process. 

The end products of the schematic design phase include floor plans, site plans, a security zone plan, a site 

circulation plan, building sections, and elevations. The architect and engineer also outline the basic 

structural, electrical, and mechanical building systems and basic interior and exterior finishes and colors 

(usually referred to as “outline specifications”). 

Approval of the schematic drawings is a major step for the owner, who should insist that the architect 

circulate the schematic drawings widely and discuss them before panels that include all levels of facility 

staff and other stakeholders and interested parties. The architect should be willing to make several 

presentations at this stage to explain the basic concepts and ideas behind the design. Once the schematic 

design phase is complete, a more detailed and accurate cost estimate can be generated. 

Design Development 

During design development, detailed drawings and specifications are produced. These include finalized 

floor plans, elevations, and sections. The architects also develop drawings that show details such as 

staircases, windows, and doors. All design development drawings are drawn to scale. 

Tips: Before Design Development Begins 

Design development should not begin until all major design issues are resolved, primary decisions have been 

made, and participants are reasonably confident that the project will be within budget. 

26 
Design development is the first phase in which the full spectrum of engineers—mechanical, electrical, 

electronics/security, plumbing, structural—are heavily involved. They produce drawings that show 

structure, lighting, electrical outlets, electronics, plumbing, heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) 

systems, and construction materials. Specifications for all building systems, materials, and finishes 

outlined during the schematic design phase are detailed during this phase. 

Tips: Critical Tasks for Owners During Design Development 

•	 Provide input on hardware, materials, and equipment. This information is then indicated on the 

drawings and specifications. The owner should help to ensure that these items are consistent with the 

facility’s mission and day-to-day operations and with the profile of the youth who will use the facility. In 

providing this input, the owner should keep in mind that different areas (even different housing units) 

probably will require different types of doors, windows, flooring materials, plumbing fixtures, finishes, etc. 

Owners should solicit input from facility managers and staff, architects, engineers, and maintenance 

administrators. 

•	 Discuss safety and security implications with the project’s security consultant. 

•	 Ensure that the project is within budget and on track. If the project is not within budget, “value 

engineering” may be necessary. At this point in the process, it is easier to change materials, finishes, 

plumbing fixtures, hardware, etc., than to change or delete spaces. One exception: Some areas may be 

designed with the option of including them if the budget permits or adding them later if necessary (e.g., if a 

facility is designed with six housing units, perhaps one or two could be added in the future). 

Construction Documents 

Once design development is complete, the architect and engineers produce the detailed working 

documents that will be used for obtaining competitive construction bids and for construction. Their final 

submission includes working drawings for architecture and all engineering disciplines, a full set of 

specifications, and a construction schedule. At the end of this phase, they also submit a final revised cost 

estimate for construction. 

Construction 

Once the construction drawings are ready, the project is offered for bidding. Contractors submit bids in 

sealed envelopes, the bids are opened and compared, and, if the bids are consistent with the project 

framework, the jurisdiction begins negotiations, usually starting with the lowest responsive bidder. Some 

bidders may be eliminated based on criteria established by the owner and design team (e.g., recent 

experience building correctional facilities, or sufficient bonding/insurance). Once the negotiations are 

complete, the jurisdiction signs a detailed contract with the successful bidder. 

Tips: The Design/Build Option 

The design/build approach is an alternative to the traditional construction bidding process. In design/build, which 

is a form of project delivery that aims to simplify and speed up construction, owners contract with a single 

entity—the design-builder—to provide both design and construction services. The design-build entity may be a 

single firm, a group of experts, or a joint venture. Typically, the team includes an architect and a contractor, who 

may be partners in the undertaking or one a subcontractor to the other. Principal advantages of a design/build 

contract are the single point of responsibility and the potential to combine otherwise independent phases and 

thereby save time and money. A downside may be a reduction in the owner’s responsibility and involvement 

after a certain point. To minimize loss of decisionmaking and control in such an arrangement, owners sometimes 

have one design team carry a project through schematic design or even partially into design development and 

then offer the project to design/builders for bids, specifying that the design cannot be changed and the outline 

specifications must be followed. 

27 
Once the contract is signed, construction begins. Timely, high-quality construction requires a good 

construction manager and effective supervision by the architect/designer (e.g., through approval of shop 

drawings, reports from observation of construction, interpretation of contract documents, and punch lists). 

However, the jurisdiction should continue to have its own project manager—ideally someone with a 

background in construction or architecture—during this phase. 

Transition 

While design and construction are moving forward, the owner carefully prepares for transition to and 

operation of the new facility. A well-thought-out transition and activation plan can help to ensure that 

staff and residents make a smooth transition and that the new facility operates as effectively and 

efficiently as possible. 

The transition process, which requires attention to many details ranging from ensuring safety and security 

to supplying an adequate number of wastebaskets, is complex, time consuming, and demanding on staff. 

The process should begin 18 to 24 months before the projected completion date for construction. 

The first step in the transition process is to establish an organizational structure. This includes appointing 

a transition coordinator and team, identifying major transition tasks and goals, and establishing task 

forces. The transition team should include representatives of all key facility functions (e.g., 

administration, training, programs, plant management, education). The steering committee formed earlier 

in the facility planning process will also continue to play a role. This initial step also involves defining a 

hierarchy of authority for decisionmaking and a process for identifying issues and getting them addressed. 

Tips: Transition Task Forces 

Task forces for carrying out the transition to a new facility typically include the following: 

• Construction monitoring. • Move management. 

• Furniture, fixtures, and equipment. • Transportation. 

• Interagency coordination. • Public affairs and community relations. 

• Programming. • Recruitment, selection, and training of new and 

• Scenarios, staffing, and facility schedule. existing staff. 

• Policies, procedures, and post orders. • Transition and operating budget. 

• Security. • Resident and staff orientation. 

• Computerization and communications. 

The transition coordinator should establish a master timeline for the overall transition process. Each task 

force should have a detailed action plan and a timeline. The action plans (which are fluid) should clearly 

identify all tasks to be completed, due dates, and people responsible for each task. 

Toward the end of construction and after the facility is officially transferred from the general contractor to 

the owner, the owner increasingly controls the project and must complete some essential tasks. An 

owner’s “punchlist” should identify items overlooked by the contractor (e.g., missing locks, unpainted 

corners, building materials left behind) and address items that may create safety or security breaches (e.g., 

blind spots, fixtures that create suicide risks). A detailed logistical plan for the move should be developed, 

tested, and scheduled. Facility systems should be tested, and staff should receive training from 

manufacturers or staff trainers on how to operate these systems. Owner-purchased furniture, equipment, 

and supplies should be received and installed, and outfitting of the facility should be completed. 

28 
While attending to the many details involved in making the transition to the new facility, jurisdictions 

should keep the “big picture” in mind. A new physical environment offers a unique opportunity to 

implement major improvements in operations. Jurisdictions should, where possible, dedicate the time, 

effort, and resources necessary to take full advantage of that opportunity. 

Tips: Smooth Transition to a Smaller Facility 

Making the transition from large congregate care facilities to smaller facilities will inevitably present both 

challenges and advantages. The result can be disappointing if effective plans for operating the new facility are 

not in place. The following considerations are essential to a smooth transition: 

•	 Identify and resolve old problems. Planners should provide well-thought-out programming, support 

facility staff through good training programs, and remember the adage that “buildings don’t solve problems, 

people do.” 

•	 Staff buy-in. All levels of staff should be involved in developing operational plans. Staff committees can 

look at specific areas—security, education, food services, visiting, etc.—and develop plans for dealing with 

issues in each area. Remember that staff members will support what they help to create. 

•	 Alternative programs. The new facility will have fewer beds than the old facility it is replacing. Based on 

decisions made during the system assessment and facility master planning phases, some categories of youth 

who were accommodated in the old facility will need to be placed in alternative programs and/or housed for 

shorter periods of time. A comprehensive plan should be developed for these youth, and alternative 

programs should be expanded and fully operational long before the move. 

•	 Culture change. Serious attention must be given to creating an organizational culture that supports the 

values, vision, and mission that drove the design and programs for the new facility. The organizational 

culture is, in essence, the “personality” of an organization. In the juvenile facility, the culture may be 

apparent in the programs that management supports, the way things look, what staff are proud of, and how 

they talk to and act toward each other and the youth. 

•	 Post-occupancy evaluation. Six months to a year after the new facility begins operation, the jurisdiction 

should evaluate the efficacy of the facility design and programs, as well as the transition process. Evaluation 

results form the basis of any design and programmatic changes that may be necessary. 

Getting Started: Funding Considerations 

Many federal and state grants are too small to pay for revamping an entire juvenile justice system or 

building and operating a new secure, community-based facility. These funds can, however, serve as seed 

money for initiating the process of changing from large institutions to smaller, community-based 

facilities. Such funds can also support a number of important related activities: 

♦	 Smaller projects ancillary to the construction of a new community-based facility. 

♦	 Planning studies or population analyses. 

♦	 Pilot programs. 

♦	 Development of classification instruments for use in targeting populations to be moved from large 

institutions to smaller, community-based facilities. 

♦	 Studies that help jurisdictions critically examine their classification and programming practices with 

an eye toward downsizing large congregate-care facilities. 

29 
Funding Ancillary Projects and Pilot Programs: Examples From Missouri and Wisconsin 

When Missouri appropriated funds to construct 200 secure beds with the condition that no facility could exceed a 

50-bed capacity, it used a small federal grant to draft model operating policies and procedures, risk and needs 

assessment instruments, and staff and site safety manuals (Hsia and Beyer, 2000). 

Wisconsin used federal funds in 1995 to institute a “decompression treatment” pilot program that removes the 

most unmanageable, aggressive juvenile offenders from large state institutions and places them in a small, secure 

facility on the grounds of the state mental health institute, which administers the program for the state 

corrections department (see “Sample Programs, Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center”). 

Summary 

Juvenile justice system and facility planning is an interactive, dynamic process of working within a 

community or region to (1) identify local factors that contribute to delinquency, (2) identify local 

strengths and resources that create resilience in youth and prevent delinquency, (3) understand the 

continuum of services and sanctions that address delinquency and recidivism, and (4) plan and design 

appropriately sized facilities that are integrated within that continuum. Underlying the process is the 

principle of using secure facilities only for youth who pose a threat to the community or who cannot 

function in a less secure setting. The ultimate goal of the process is to create a system that effectively 

reduces juvenile delinquency and recidivism and supports the development of healthy, productive youth. 

Sample Programs 

The three programs described below fit the model described in this Bulletin and are offered as a starting 

point for jurisdictions interested in developing facilities within that model. The author selected these 

samples from a list of potential model programs developed in consultation with juvenile justice system 

practitioners throughout the country. Many of the programs on the original list lacked a continuum of 

sentencing and treatment options and/or empirical evidence of effectiveness and could not, therefore, 

serve as samples. 

Fulton Treatment Center 

The Fulton Treatment Center in Missouri is a 33-bed, high-security residential treatment program for 

males committed to the Division of Youth Services (DYS). With funds available from a 1994 bond issue 

and the 1995 Juvenile Crime Bill, DYS constructed a number of smaller residential facilities (one 40-bed, 

four 33-bed, one 24-bed, and two 20-bed) throughout the state so that youth could receive services closer 

to their communities. The Fulton Treatment Center, which opened in 1997, was a prototype for these 

facilities. 

The Fulton facility uses an open-dorm model and is enclosed and locked with a perimeter fence. Youth 

are placed in treatment groups of 10 to 12 participants each. They receive educational services, vocational 

guidance, and a variety of counseling services (group therapy, family therapy, drug and alcohol 

counseling, sex offender counseling, etc.). Youth who successfully complete the facility’s program are 

released into the community and aftercare supervision with DYS. 

Since fiscal year 2001, DYS has maintained a recommitment rate of 8 percent. Only 7 percent of youth 

discharged from DYS enter adult corrections within 5 years after their discharge. 

30 
Contact: John Klekamp 

 Facility Manager 

 Fulton Treatment Center 

1650 Highway O 

Fulton, MO 65251–0847 

573–592–4188 

john.klekamp@dss.mo.gov 

Jackson County Youth Center 

The Jackson County (Michigan) Youth Center is a secure, co-ed facility that provides infirmary/health 

services and an academic program, day treatment program, family services, and aftercare. The center has 

a total capacity of 50 beds (24 detention, 26 short-term and long-term treatment). It is part of a 5-year 

strategic plan that has brought improvements in the county’s management of juvenile offenders, as 

evidenced by the following results: 

♦	 The day treatment program provides immediate accountability for offenders’ delinquent behavior and 

use of illegal substances, reducing the need for detention. Of the 78 youth who participated in the 

program from 1999 to 2003, 40 percent successfully returned to their home schools and avoided 

detention; 60 percent received graduated sanctions, moving along the continuum into more restrictive 

settings as appropriate. 

♦	 The detention unit reduced its average length of stay from 21 days in 1999 to 14 days in 2002. The 

residential treatment program increased its rate of successful transitions from 52 percent in 1996 to 77 

percent in 2001 and 65 percent in 2002. 

♦	 Post-treatment adjudications decreased from 20 in 1995 to 4 in 2002. 

♦	 From 1995 to 2002, the facility administered more than 2,500 drug screens; 16 percent of youth tested 

positive and received graduated sanctions and treatment as appropriate, and 84 percent tested negative 

and received graduated rewards for staying drug free. 

Contact: 	 Brian D. Philson 

 Director 

Jackson County Youth Center 

 930 Fleming Avenue 

 Jackson, MI 49202 

 517–788–4460 

 bphilson@co.jackson.mi.us 

Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center 

The Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center (MJTC) in Wisconsin is a 29-bed secure correctional facility for 

male juveniles, located on the grounds of a state mental health institute. The mental health institute 

administers the MJTC program under the auspices of the state corrections department. The center uses the 

“decompression” treatment model to prepare the most defiant, aggressive youth for transition into 

conventional education, rehabilitation, and treatment settings. 

The decompression model explains the behavior of the most unmanageable juvenile offenders in terms of 

a downward spiral in which these youth react in increasingly negative ways to deterrence-based sanctions. 

Sanctions beget aggression, which begets more sanctions, and so forth, until the juvenile is “compressed” 

into a behavior pattern of almost continual defiance. MJTC attempts to break this pattern so these youth 

will not withdraw (or be removed) from treatment. The MJTC program merges security with treatment 

when a youth’s behavior becomes difficult and dangerous. If behavior requires increased security 

31 
measures, individualized treatment contacts also increase. Using a “today-tomorrow” strategy, the 

program rates each youth daily on basic behaviors (interactions with peers and staff, following rules, etc.); 

acceptable behavior “today” brings more privileges “tomorrow.” As youth become attached to having 

more privileges instead of repeating the antagonism-sanction cycle, they move toward greater 

involvement in school and therapy. 

Regular outcome studies have compared MJTC participants with control groups to assess the 

effectiveness of the decompression treatment model. These studies have consistently found significant 

reductions in violent and felony reoffending among MJTC participants (Caldwell and Van Rybroek, 

2001, in press). 

Contact: Gregory J. Van Rybroek, Ph.D., J.D. 

 Director

 Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center 

 301 Troy Drive 

Madison, WI 53704 

608–201–1000 

VANRYGJ@dhfs.state.wi.us 

Resources 

Planning and Designing Juvenile Facilities 

Training 

Juvenile Transition and Activation Planning (J-TAP) 

The curriculum for this weeklong training program is targeted to jurisdictions that are planning for the 

transition to and activation of new juvenile detention or correctional facilities. J-TAP is a joint project of 

International Partnership for Youth (IPFYouth), the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), and the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). For information about the program, 

contact Shelley Zavlek, IPFYouth, 29 Donnybrook Drive, Demarest, NJ 07627, szavlek@ipfyouth.com. 

Planning of New Institutions for Juveniles (Juvenile PONI) 

The curriculum for this weeklong training program is targeted to jurisdictions that are planning, 

designing, and building a new juvenile facility. The Juvenile PONI program helps jurisdictions make 

well-informed planning decisions about building new secure juvenile facilities or about renovating or 

expanding existing facilities. Juvenile PONI is a joint project of OJJDP and the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (both within the Office of Justice Programs) and NIC. A two-page Fact Sheet on Juvenile 

PONI is available from OJJDP at www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200101.pdf. For information on related 

technical assistance that NIC offers, contact Nancy Shomaker, National Institute of Corrections, 1960 

Industrial Circle, Longmont, CO 80501; 800–995–6429 ext. 120; nshomaker@bop.gov. 

Publications 

Anticipating Space Needs in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities 

OJJDP Bulletin. 2001. NCJ 185234. 


Available at www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/185234.pdf. 


Provides juvenile justice policymakers with information to help them project detention and corrections 


populations. Presents an overview of the roles of juvenile justice system policies and decisionmaking in 


determining space needs. Analyzes methods for projecting juvenile confinement populations, noting


limits of simple projection models and describing a detailed example of a comprehensive projection 


32 
model. Examines practical implications of projecting detention and corrections populations and outlines 

differences between forecasting and predicting future space needs. 

Construction, Operations, and Staff Training for Juvenile Confinement Facilities 

OJJDP Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Series Bulletin. 2000. NCJ 178928. 

Available at www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/178928.pdf. 

Provides practical guidance on best practices with regard to juvenile confinement facilities, including 

information on construction decisions, master planning, facility development, operations, and staff 

training. Offers a step-by-step explanation of the planning process, thorough instructions on determining 

the type of facility needed, and a detailed discussion of the key elements of operation. Also includes 

extensive references and resources. 

Correctional Facility Design and Detailing 

American Correctional Association. Available at www.aca.org/store/bookstore. 

Offers comprehensive ideas for designing, detailing, and specifying correctional facilities of all kinds, 

including jails, prisons, and juvenile detention facilities. Systematically examines architectural planning 

for state-of-the-art facilities ranging from rural settings to urban highrises. Uses modular format to 

combine photographs, details, specifications, and design issues. Includes case studies of new construction 

and remodel projects. 

Planning and Design Guide for Secure Adult and Juvenile Facilities 

American Correctional Association. Available at www.aca.org/store/bookstore. 

Provides architects, planners, and administrators with information for designing and building facilities 

that are safe, secure, and architecturally sound. Shows how the elements of a correctional facility can 

work together. Topics include planning, design, and construction processes and issues; inmate services 

and programs; administrative functions; service facilities and physical plant; security features and 

technology; and commissioning. Also covers budget development, privatization, ADA (Americans with 

Disabilities Act) guidelines, outsourcing/contract services, and staffing. Contributors include top 

architects, planners, and administrators of adult and juvenile facilities. 

Alternatives to Incarceration 

Publications 

Focus on Accountability: Best Practices for Juvenile Court and Probation 

OJJDP Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Series Bulletin. 1999. NCJ 177611. 

Available at www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/177611.pdf. 

Describes what it means to hold juvenile offenders accountable, details the role of the juvenile court and 

probation department, identifies the key elements of programs that promote accountability, and presents 

examples of exemplary community-based initiatives. Examples include diversion, mediation and 

restitution, specialized probation supervision, and aftercare programs. 

Juvenile Intensive Supervision: Planning Guide 

OJJDP Program Summary. 1994. NCJ 150065. 

Available at www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/juvsu.pdf. 

Offers practitioners tools for implementing community-based intensive supervision programs as 

alternatives to long-term institutional confinement for designated juvenile offenders. 

33 
Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 


Available at www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-01-1201.pdf. 


Documents the first statewide experiment involving research-based programs for juvenile justice, 


including functional family therapy, aggression replacement training, coordination of services, and 


multisystemic theory. Evaluates whether programs previously researched only as small-scale pilot 


projects work when applied statewide in a “real world” setting. Indicates that programs can be both 


effective and cost efficient, with savings ranging from $400 to more than $2,000 per participant. 


Resources for Juvenile Detention Reform 

OJJDP Fact Sheet. 2000. FS 200018. 


Available at www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200018.pdf. 


Addresses the issue of crowding in juvenile detention facilities and describes detention reform initiatives. 


Treatment Foster Care 

OJJDP Family Strengthening Series Bulletin. 1998. NCJ 173421. 

Available at www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/173421.pdf. 

Describes an alternative to residential and group care placements for serious and chronic juvenile 

offenders. Includes an overview of the Treatment Foster Care approach, together with findings from 

evaluation studies. 

Teleconference 

How Shall We Respond to the Dreams of Youth? 

OJJDP Teleconference. 2000. NCJ 182438. 


Available online and on videotape. 


See www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubAbstract.asp?pubi=11045. 


Highlights effective interventions and model programs that serve the needs of troubled youth. Includes 


interviews with successful “graduates” of the juvenile justice system, footage of the system at work, and 


highlights from “National Juvenile Justice Summit: Revitalizing the Juvenile Court” and the National 


Juvenile Justice Awards.


Organizations 

The organizations listed below provide guidance and information relevant to programming, planning, 

designing, and operating juvenile detention and correctional facilities. They also offer resources for 

juvenile justice system planning. 

American Correctional Association. www.aca.org. 800–222–5646. 

American Institute of Architects. www.aia.org. 800–242–3837. 

Council for Educators of At-Risk and Delinquent Youth. www.ceardy.org. 859–622–6259. 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=2. 

800–851–3420. 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. www.ncjfcj.org. 775–784–6012. 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service. www.ncjrs.org. 800–851–3420. 

34 
National Institute of Corrections. www.nicic.org. 800–995–6429 (Academy Division). 800–877–1461 

(Information Center). 

National Juvenile Detention Association. www.njda.com. 859–622–6259. 

National Partnership for Juvenile Services. www.npjs.org. 859–622–6259. 

OJJDP National Training and Technical Assistance Center. www.nttac.org. 800–830–4031. 

References 

Altschuler, D.M. 1998. Intermediate sanctions and community treatment for serious and violent juvenile 

offenders. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited 

by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L. 1994. Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: An Assessment. 

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

Delinquency Prevention. 

American Correctional Association. 2001. Directory of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Departments, 

Institutions, Agencies and Probation and Parole Authorities. Lanham, MD: American Correctional 

Association. 

Austin, J., Johnson, K.D., and Weitzer, R. Forthcoming. Alternatives to the Secure Detention and 

Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Practices Series Bulletin (online only). 

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

Delinquency Prevention. 

Browne, J.A. 2003. DERAILED! The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track. Washington, DC: Advancement 

Project. 

Burke, P., Cushman, R., and Ney, B. 1996. Guide to a Criminal Justice System Assessment. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

Burrell, S., DeMuro, P., Dunlap, E., Sanniti, C., Warboys, L. 1998. Crowding in Juvenile Detention 

Centers: A Problem-Solving Manual. Richmond, KY: National Juvenile Detention Association; 

Washington, DC: Youth Law Center. 

Caldwell, M.F., and Van Rybroek, G.J. 2001. Efficacy of a decompression treatment model in the clinical 

management of violent juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

Criminology 45(4):469–477. 

Caldwell, M.F., and Van Rybroek, G.J. In press. Reducing violence in serious and violent juvenile 

offenders using an intensive treatment program. International Journal of Law and Mental Health. 

Catalano, R.F., Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J.D., Berglund, L., and Olson, J.J. 1998. Comprehensive 

community and school-based interventions to prevent antisocial behavior. In Serious and Violent Juvenile 

Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice. 2004. Reforming the juvenile justice system. Available online at 

www.cjcj.org/jjic/reforming.php. Accessed November 23, 2004. 

35 
Cocozza, J.J., ed. 1992. Responding to the Mental Health Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. 

Seattle, WA: National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System. 

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1996. Combating Violence and 

Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

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

Farrington, D.P. 1996. The explanation and prevention of youthful offending. In Delinquency and Crime: 

Current Theories, edited by J.D. Hawkins. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Feld, B.C. 1998. Juvenile and criminal justice systems’ responses to youth violence. In Youth Violence: 

Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 24, edited by M. Tonry and M.H. Moore. Chicago, IL: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Griffinger, W. 2001. National trends, local consequences: The expansion of juvenile detention facilities. 

Youth Law News XXII(1):18–21. 

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and Miller, J.Y. 1992. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other 

drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for drug abuse prevention. Psychological 

Bulletin 112:64–105. 

Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkohl, T.I., Farrington, D.P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., Harachi, T.W., and 

Cothern, L. 2000. Predictors of Youth Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Hobbs, F., and Nicole, S. 2002. Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 

2000 Special Reports, Series CENSR-4. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Howell, J.C., ed. 1995. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and 

Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Howell, J.C. 1997. Juvenile Justice and Youth Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Hsia, H.H., 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. 

Krisberg, B., and Howell, J.C. 1998. The impact of the juvenile justice system and prospects for 

graduated sanctions in a comprehensive strategy. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors 

and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Krisberg, B., Onek, D., Jones, M., and Schwartz, I. 1993. Juveniles in State Custody: Prospects for 

Community-Based Care of Troubled Adolescents. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency. 

Langan, P.A., and Levin, D.J. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, D.C. U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

36 
Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D.B. 1998. Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis 

of research. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited 

by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 1998. Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and 

Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, pp. 313–345. 

Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. 1998. The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable 

environments: A tale of resources, risk and resilience. American Psychologist 53:205–220. 

McCord, J., Widom, C.S., and Crowell, N.A., eds. 2001. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 

Mendel, R.A. 2000. Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works—and What Doesn’t. 

Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. 

Mendel, R.A. 2001. Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice. Washington, 

DC: American Youth Policy Forum. 

Parent, D., Leiter, V., Kennedy, S., Livens, L., Wentworth, D., and Wilcox, S. 1994. Conditions of 

Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

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

Puritz, P., and Scali, M. 1998. Beyond the Walls: Improving the 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. 

Roush, D., and McMillen, M. 2000. Construction, Operations, and Staff Training for Juvenile 

Confinement Facilities. Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Series Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. 

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

Sickmund, M. 2002. Juvenile Offenders in Residential Placement: 1997–1999. Fact Sheet. Washington, 

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

Prevention. 

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., and Kang, W. 2004. Census of juveniles in residential placement databook. 

Available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp. Accessed November 23, 2004. 

Snyder, H.N. 2003. Juvenile Arrests 2001. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

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

Snyder, H.N. 2004. Juvenile Arrests 2002. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

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

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. 

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

Delinquency Prevention. 

Stanfield, R. 1999. Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform: The JDAI Story. Baltimore, MD: The Annie 

E. Casey Foundation. 

37 
Teplin, L., Abram, K., McClelland, G., Dulcan, M., Mericle, A. 2002. Psychiatric disorders in youth in 

juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry 59(12):1133–1143. 

Thornberry, T.P. 1993. The Relationship Between Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescent Involvement 

in Delinquency and Drug Use. Albany, NY: State University of New York at Albany. 

Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst, H. IV, Montgomery, I., Szymanski, L., Thomas, D. 1996. State Responses to 

Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Torbet, P., and Szymanski, L. 1998. State Legislative Responses to Violent Crime: 1996–97 Update. 

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

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Wiebush, R., Baird, C., Krisberg, B., and Onek, D. 1995. Risk assessment and classification for serious, 

violent, and chronic offenders. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful 

Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Wilson, J., and Howell, J.C. 1993. The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic 

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

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Zavlek, S., and Barron, D. 2000. Teamwork: National workshop addresses planning strategies for the 

juvenile justice system. Corrections Today 62 (December). 

38 
Acknowledgments 

This Bulletin was written by Shelley Zavlek, M.Ed., J.D., President of International Partnership for 

Youth/Justice Solutions Group. Ms. Zavlek, formerly Executive Director of Capital and Operational 

Planning for the New York City Department of Juvenile Justice, has more than 25 years of experience in 

justice system and facility administration and planning, law, and education. Under cooperative 

agreements with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and supported by funding from OJJDP, Ms. 

Zavlek has developed two weeklong courses addressing the challenges of planning for and opening new 

juvenile detention and correctional facilities. She has presented these programs—Planning of New 

Institutions for Juvenile Facilities (Juvenile PONI) and Juvenile Transition and Activation Planning (J– 

TAP)—to numerous jurisdictions across the country. She currently provides technical assistance on 

planning, designing, and operating juvenile and adult correctional facilities to 22 American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribes under a cooperative agreement with NIC. As part of this cooperative agreement, Ms. 

Zavlek has overseen the development of a series of guides on planning, designing, and constructing 

detention and correctional facilities in Indian Country. 

Ms. Zavlek is a member of the Governing Board of the National Partnership for Juvenile Services, 

President and a founding member of the Council for Educators of At-Risk and Delinquent Youth, and a 

member of the Juvenile Corrections Committee of the American Correctional Association. 

Ms. Zavlek is grateful for the valuable editorial assistance and input of Mark Martin and Anthony Jones 

during the development of this Bulletin. 

This Bulletin was prepared under contract number OJP–2000–298–BF from the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the 

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. 

NCJ 209326


39