U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Guidance Manual

for 

Monitoring Facilities 

Under the Juvenile Justice 

and

Delinquency Prevention 

Act of 2002

October 2010
Guidance Manual for Monitoring Facilities Under the 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 

1974, as amended 

Preface 

The purpose of this manual is to assist states in monitoring for and achieving 

compliance with three of the four core requirements1

 of the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended.2 The three core requirements 

addressed in this manual are deinstitutionalization of status offenders, removal of 

juveniles from adult jails and lockups, and separating adult offenders from juveniles in 

institutions. The fourth core protection requirement, disproportionate minority contact, 

has a separate manual, the Disproportionate Minority Confinement Contact Technical 

Assistance Manual, which was revised and updated in July 2009. 

This manual was first published in December 2001 and updated in September 2003 and 

January 2007 to comply with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 

1974, as amended. The JJDP Act was reauthorized in 2002 and took effect on October 

1, 2003. 

For further information about this manual and monitoring for compliance, please contact 

OJJDP’s Compliance Monitoring Coordinator or the State Representative assigned to 

your state at: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

810 Seventh Street NW 

Washington, DC 20531 

202–307–5911 

202–307–2819 (fax) 

1 
Table of Contents 

Section 1: Background of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 

1.1 Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

1.2 Separation of Juveniles From Adult Offenders (Separation) 

1.3 Removal of Juveniles From Adult Jails and Lockups (Jail Removal) 

1.4 Reduction of Disproportionate Minority Contact 

Section 2: Monitoring for Compliance: Adult Jails and Lockups 

2.1 Definitions Related to Adult Jails and Lockups 

2.2 Definitions of Secure and Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles Held in Adult Jails 

 and Lockups 

Secure Custody 

Nonsecure Custody 

2.3 Compliance With Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

Prohibition on Secure Holding 

Youth Handgun Safety Act Exemption 

Monitoring for Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

2.4 Compliance With Jail Removal 

Prohibition and Exceptions to the Secure Holding of Juveniles 

Six-Hour Hold Exception 

Removal (Rural) Exception 

Transfer or Waiver Exception 

2.5 Compliance With Separation 

Juveniles Shall Not Have Contact With Adult Inmates 

Administrative Transfers 

Transferred, Certified, or Waived Juveniles 

2.6 Facility Reporting Requirements 

Section 3: Monitoring for Compliance: Juvenile Facilities 

3.1 Definitions Related to Juvenile Facilities 

3.2 Compliance With Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

Secure Holding of Status Offenders—Prohibitions and Exceptions 

Youth Handgun Safety Act Exception 

Out-of-State Runaways 

Federal Wards 

Exception for Status Offenders Who Violate a Valid Court Order 

3.3 Compliance With Jail Removal 

3.4 Compliance With Separation 

Transferred, Waived, or Certified Youth 

Adults Under the Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court 

3.5 Facility Reporting Requirements 

 

2 
Section 4: Monitoring for Compliance: Other Facilities 

4.1 Collocated Facilities 

Classifying Facilities 

Definitions 

Criteria for Collocated Facilities 

Annual Onsite Review Requirement 

Collocated Facility Reporting Requirement 

4.2 Court Holding Facilities 

4.3 Adult Prisons 

Status Offenders 

Delinquent Offenders 

Transferred, Waived, or Certified Juveniles 

4.4 Nonsecure Community-Based Programs and Facilities 

4.5 Secure Mental Health Treatment Units 

 

Section 5: State Monitoring of Facilities 

5.1 Adequate System of Monitoring for Compliance 

5.2 Native American Tribes 

Monitoring Facilities on Native American Reservations 

Grants to Native American Tribes 

5.3 Out-of-State Juveniles 

Section 6: Reporting Requirements 

6.1 Annual Compliance Monitoring Report Requirement 

6.2 Deadline To Submit Annual Report 

6.3 Reporting Requirements 

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

Jail Removal 

Separation 

6.4 Technical Assistance Reporting Tool 

6.5 Monitoring Report Exemption 

6.6 Anti-Fraud Warning 

6.7 Annual Report to the Governor and Legislature

Section 7: Standards for Demonstrating Compliance 

7.1 Grant Funds Affected by Compliance 

Formula Grant Funds 

Community Prevention Grant Funds—State Eligibility 

Community Prevention Grant Funds—Unit of Local Government Eligibility 

7.2 Deadline for Establishing Eligibility for Formula Grant Funds 

7.3 Demonstrating Compliance: Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

Criterion A 

Criterion B 

3 
Criterion C 

7.4 Demonstrating Compliance: Jail Removal 

Numerical De Minimis Standard 

Substantive De Minimis Standard 

7.5 Demonstrating Compliance: Separation 

 

Section 8: Definitions 

Appendixes 

A. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended 

B. Formula Grants Consolidated Regulation, 28 CFR Part 31 

C. Federal Register, January 9, 1981, Policy and Criteria for De Minimis Exceptions to 

Full Compliance With Deinstitutionalization Requirement of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Act 

D. Federal Register, August 16, 1982, Valid Court Order Criteria 

E. Federal Register, November 2, 1988, Policy Guidance for Nonsecure Custody of 

Juveniles in Adult Jails and Lockups; Notice of Final Policy 

F. Federal Register, November 2, 1988, Criteria for De Minimis Exceptions to Full 

Compliance With the Jail Removal Requirement; Final Rule 

G. Federal Register, August 1, 1994, Delinquency Prevention Program Guideline 

H. Valid Court Order Checklist 

I. Collocated Facilities Checklists 

J. Technical Assistance Tool: Annual Compliance Monitoring Report, Paper Format 

K. Age of Full Criminal Responsibility and Maximum Age of Extended Juvenile Court 

Jurisdiction—50-State Survey 

4 
Section 1: Background of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act 

Since its passage in 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act 

has changed the way states and communities deal with troubled youth. The original 

goals of the Act and of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP) were simple: to help state and local governments prevent and control juvenile 

delinquency and to improve the juvenile justice system. These goals were reaffirmed in 

the reauthorization of the Act in 2002. A second important element in the 1974 Act was 

to protect juveniles in the juvenile justice system from inappropriate placements and 

from the harm—both physical and psychological—that can occur as a result of exposure 

to adult inmates. Yet another important element of the JJDP Act emphasized the need 

for community-based treatment for juvenile offenders. In passing the JJDP Act, 

Congress recognized that keeping children in the community is critical to their 

successful treatment. 

The JJDP Act, through the 2002 reauthorization, establishes four core requirements 

with which participating states and territories must comply to receive grants3

 under the 

JJDP Act: 

• Deinstitutionalization of status offenders (DSO). 

• Separation of juveniles from adults in institutions (separation). 

• Removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups (jail removal). 

• Reduction of disproportionate minority contact (DMC), where it exists. 

Meeting the core requirements is essential to creating a fair, consistent, and effective 

juvenile justice system that advances the important goals of the JJDP Act. 

Each participating state must develop and implement a strategy for achieving and 

maintaining compliance with the four core requirements as part of its annual Formula 

Grants State Plan. A state’s level of compliance with each of the four core requirements 

determines eligibility for its continued participation in the Formula Grants programs. For 

example, failure to achieve or maintain compliance, despite good faith efforts, reduces 

the Formula Grant to the state by 20 percent for each core requirement not met. In 

addition, the noncompliant state must agree to expend 50 percent of the state’s 

allocation for that year to achieve compliance with the core requirement(s) with which it 

is not in compliance. 

As part of the strategy for maintaining compliance, states must provide for an adequate 

system of monitoring to ensure that the core requirements are met. 

States must visit and collect information from facilities to demonstrate compliance with 

the JJDP Act. On an annual basis, each state submits this information in the form of a 

compliance monitoring report to OJJDP. The report provides compliance data and a 

detailed description of how the state is meeting the core requirements. The following 

four sections contain information on each of the core requirements. 

5 
1.1 Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

The Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) provision was included in the 

original JJDP Act. As enacted in 1974, the Act required states to “provide within three 

years ... that juveniles who are charged with or who have committed offenses that 

would not be criminal if committed by an adult (i.e., status offenders), shall not be 

placed in juvenile detention or correctional facilities, but must be placed in shelter 

facilities.”4 

A 1977 amendment to the JJDP Act expanded the DSO provision to expressly include 

nonoffenders such as dependent and neglected youth. It also removed the requirement 

that these juveniles be placed in shelter facilities, allowing state and local governments 

additional latitude in the placement of status offenders and nonoffenders. 

In 1980, Congress specified that status offenders and nonoffenders must be removed 

from “secure” juvenile detention and correctional facilities. Congress also added a new 

jail and lockup removal requirement, which prohibits juveniles—including accused and 

adjudicated delinquents, status offenders, and nonoffenders—from being detained in 

adult jails and adult lockups. Congress further amended the JJDP Act that year to allow 

states to detain or confine status offenders in secure juvenile facilities for the violation of 

a valid court order. 

As amended by the JJDP Act of 2002, the DSO requirement currently reads as follows: 

“juveniles who are charged with or have committed an offense that would not be 

criminal if committed by an adult—excluding juveniles who are charged with or who 

have committed a violation of section 922(x)(2) of title 18, United States Code, or of a 

similar state law; juveniles who are charged with or who have committed a violation of a 

valid court order; and juveniles who are held in accordance with the Interstate Compact 

on Juveniles as enacted by the State— shall not be placed in secure detention facilities 

or secure correctional facilities.” In addition, the 2002 Act states that “juveniles who are 

not charged with any offense and who are aliens or alleged to be dependent, neglected, 

or abused shall not be placed in secure detention facilities or secure correctional 

facilities.”5

1.2 Separation of Juveniles From Adult Inmates (Separation) 

Since the inception of the juvenile justice system, the practice of incarcerating juveniles 

with adult inmates has been criticized. The placement of juveniles in institutions where 

they are mixed with adult inmates is emotionally and physically traumatic, resulting in 

further victimization. Moreover, commingling juvenile offenders with adults may provide 

an education in crime and undercuts the intent of a separate juvenile justice system 

designed to rehabilitate and treat juvenile offenders.6

In one of the original provisions of the JJDP Act, Congress sought to provide separation 

between adult inmates and juveniles in institutional settings such as jails, lockups, 

6 
prisons, and other secure facilities. The JJDP Act of 2002, as amended, provides that 

“juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent,” as well as status offenders and 

nonoffenders, “will not be detained or confined in any institution in which they have 

contact with adult inmates.” The 2002 Act further requires that “there is in effect in the 

state a policy that requires individuals who work with both such juveniles and such adult 

inmates, including in collocated facilities, [to] have been trained and certified to work 

with juveniles.” 

1.3 Removal of Juveniles From Adult Jails and Lockups (Jail Removal) 

Although many of the juveniles taken into police custody and referred to the juvenile 

court can be released to parental custody to await court action, juveniles who are 

accused of committing serious crimes and may be a safety risk to the community may 

be removed from their homes and placed in secure facilities pending court hearings. 

Prior to the passage of the jail and lockup removal provision in the JJDP Act, this 

routinely resulted in placing juveniles in adult jails or lockups in danger of physical or 

emotional harm from adult prisoners. Research has shown that young people held in 

adult facilities were sexually assaulted five times more often than youth in juvenile 

facilities, assaulted by staff twice as often, and assaulted with a weapon 50 percent 

more often.7

In an effort to protect juveniles in custody and to meet the 1974 separation requirement 

of the JJDP Act, jail officials sometimes placed juveniles in solitary confinement. This 

practice aggravated the psychological effects of jailing and, in some cases, lead to 

suicide. In fact, juveniles in jails are found to commit suicide eight times more often than 

those in juvenile detention facilities.8

 Moreover, young people in adult facilities were 

being deprived of educational and other services provided in juvenile facilities. For these 

reasons, Congress amended the JJDP Act in 1980 to include the jail and lockup 

removal requirement, which states that “no juvenile shall be detained or confined in any 

jail or lockup for adults,” a requirement reaffirmed during the reauthorization of the JJDP 

Act in 2002.9

 

The JJDP Act of 1974, as amended, provides the following exception: “Juveniles who 

are accused of nonstatus offenses who are detained in such jail and lockup for a period 

not to exceed 6 hours for processing or release, while awaiting transfer to a juvenile 

facility, or in which period such juveniles make a court appearance, and only if such 

juveniles do not have contact with adult inmates and only if there is in effect in the State 

a policy that requires individuals who work with both such juveniles and such adult 

inmates in collocated facilities have been trained and certified to work with juveniles.”10

Under special circumstances, the Act also provides for a “rural” exception of up to 48 

hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays). (See section 2.4 of this 

Guidance Manual for details.) 

7 
1.4 Reduction of Disproportionate Minority Contact 

In 1988, Congress took note of the phenomenon of disproportionate minority contact 

(DMC) within the juvenile justice system. In 1992, Congress required states to address 

disproportionate minority confinement as a condition for receiving 25 percent of the 

state’s Formula Grants program allocation, making it the fourth and final core 

requirement of the JJDP Act. The 1992 amendments required states to determine if 

minority juveniles are disproportionately confined in secure detention and correctional 

facilities and, if so, to address any features of their juvenile justice systems that may 

account for the disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles. This core 

requirement neither required nor established numerical standards or quotas in order for 

a state to achieve or maintain compliance. Rather, it required states to identify whether 

minority juveniles are disproportionately detained or confined in secure facilities, provide 

a complete assessment of why disproportionate minority confinement exists, and 

provide an intervention plan that seeks to reduce the disproportionate confinement of 

minority juveniles in secure facilities. 

As amended by the reauthorization of the JJDP Act in 2002, the concept of 

disproportionate minority confinement has been broadened to address the 

disproportionate numbers of minority youth who come into contact with the justice 

system at any point. The 2002 reauthorization requires states to “address juvenile 

delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, 

without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate 

number of juvenile members of the minority groups, who come into contact with the 

juvenile justice system.” The DMC Technical Assistance Manual is available for 

download at http://www.ojjdp.gov/compliance/dmc_ta_manual.pdf. 

8 
Section 2: Monitoring for Compliance: Adult Jails and Lockups 

2.1 Definitions Related to Adult Jails and Lockups 

Adult jail. A locked facility, administered by state, county, or local law enforcement and 

correctional agencies, the purpose of which is to detain adults charged with violating 

criminal law, pending trial. Also considered as adult jails are those facilities used to hold 

convicted adult criminal offenders sentenced for less than 1 year. 11

Adult lockup. A locked facility that is used by a state, unit of local government, or any 

law enforcement authority to detain or confine adults. Similar to an adult jail except that 

an adult lockup is generally a municipal or police facility of a temporary nature that does 

not hold persons after they have been formally charged.12 

Civil-type juvenile offender. A juvenile who has been charged with or adjudicated for an 

offense that is civil in nature. Examples include noncriminal traffic violations and 

noncriminal fish and game violations. 

Collocated facilities. Collocated facilities are facilities that are located in the same 

building, or are part of a related complex of buildings located on the same grounds. 13

(See section 4). 

Nonoffender. Juvenile who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, usually 

under abuse, dependency, or neglect statutes or as an alien juvenile, for reasons other 

than legally prohibited conduct of the juvenile.14 These cases are referred to by many 

names, including Children in Need of Assistance (CINA) and Children in Need of 

Protective Services (CHIPS). 

Related complex of buildings. A related complex of buildings is two or more buildings 

that share physical features such as walls and fences, or services beyond mechanical 

services (e.g. heating, air conditioning, water and sewer); or the specialized services 

such as medical care, food service, laundry, maintenance, engineering services, etc. 15 

Residential. Pertains to facilities having the capacity to securely detain juveniles 

overnight16 and may include sleeping, shower and toilet, and day room areas. 

Status offender. A juvenile who has been charged with or adjudicated for conduct which 

would not, under the law of the jurisdiction in which the offense was committed, be a 

crime if committed by an adult.17 The following are examples of status offenses: 

• Truancy. 

• Violations of curfew. 

• Running away. 

• Underage possession and/or consumption of tobacco products. 

9 
• Underage alcohol offenses. These offenses are considered status offenses, even 

though state or local law may consider them delinquent offenses. 

2.2 Definitions of Secure and Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles Held in Adult 

 Jails and Lockups 

Secure Custody 

As used to define a detention or correctional facility, this term includes residential 

facilities which include construction features designed to physically restrict the 

movements and activities of persons in custody, (such as locked rooms and buildings, 

fences, or other physical structures). It does not include facilities where physical 

restriction of movement or activity is provided solely through facility staff.18 Secure 

detention or confinement may result either from being placed in a locked room or area 

and/or from being physically secured to a cuffing rail or other stationary object.19 For the 

purpose of this policy, the terms “secure detention,” “secure confinement,” and “secure 

holding” are considered synonymous. 

Further guidance in distinguishing nonsecure custody from secure custody comes from 

the November 2, 1988, Federal Register announcement, Policy Guidance for 

Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles in Adult Jails and Lockups; Notice of Final Policy. The 

policy states that a secure detention or confinement status has occurred within a jail or 

lockup facility when a juvenile is physically detained or confined in a locked room, set of 

rooms, or a cell that is designated, set aside, or used for the specific purpose of 

securely detaining persons who are in law enforcement custody. Secure detention or 

confinement may result either from being placed in such a room or enclosure and/or 

from being physically secured to a cuffing rail or other stationary object. 

Also considered secure are those facilities that contain doors with delayed egress 

devices that have not received written approval by the authority having jurisdiction over 

fire codes and/or fire inspections in the area in which the facility is located. The egress 

delay must never exceed the time delay allowed by the fire code applicable to the area 

in which the facility is located, and the maximum time delay allowed must be specified 

on the written approval. Facilities that contain devices that exceed a 30-second delay 

are always considered secure, even though local code may allow for a longer time 

delay.20

As examples, a juvenile placed in the following situations would be considered in a 

secure custody status: 

• A juvenile placed in an unlocked room within the secure perimeter of an adult jail or 

lockup or a juvenile detention center. 

• A juvenile handcuffed to a rail in an otherwise nonsecure area of an adult jail or 

lockup. 

10 
• A juvenile placed in a room that contains doors with unapproved delayed egress 

devices or approved delayed egress devices with a delay of more than 30 seconds. 

• A juvenile being processed in a secure booking area when an unsecure booking 

area is available within a facility.21 

• A juvenile left in a secure booking area after being photographed and fingerprinted. 

• A juvenile placed in a cell within an adult jail or lockup, whether or not the cell door is 

locked. 

• A juvenile placed in an adult jail/lockup in the same area as an adult that is secured 

to a cuffing rail, bench, or other construction feature designed, set aside, or used to 

securely detain individuals. 

See “Flowchart To Determine if a Juvenile Is in a Secure or Nonsecure Custody Status 

in an Adult Jail or Lockup” on page 54. 

Nonsecure Custody 

A juvenile may be in law enforcement custody and, therefore, not free to leave or depart 

from the presence of a law enforcement officer or at liberty to leave the premises of a 

law enforcement facility but not be in a secure detention or confinement status. OJJDP’s 

Policy Guidance for Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles in Adult Jails and Lockups22states 

that all of the following policy criteria, if satisfied, will constitute nonsecure custody of a 

juvenile in an adult jail or lockup facility: 

• The area(s) where the juvenile is held is an unlocked multipurpose area, such as a 

lobby, office, or interrogation room which is not designated, set aside, or used as a 

secure detention area or is not part of such an area,23or, if a secure area, is used 

only for processing purposes.24 

• The juvenile is not physically secured to a cuffing rail or other stationary object 

during the period of custody in the facility. 

• The use of the area(s) is limited to providing nonsecure custody only long enough 

and for the purposes of identification, investigation, processing, release to parents, 

or arranging transfer to an appropriate juvenile facility or to court. 

• In no event can the area be designed or intended to be used for residential 

purposes. 

• The juvenile must be under continuous visual supervision (which may include 

electronic supervision, e.g. camera) by a law enforcement officer or facility staff 

during the period of time that he or she is in nonsecure custody.25 

11 
In addition, a juvenile placed in the following situations would be considered in a 

nonsecure status: 

• A juvenile handcuffed to a nonstationary object. If the five criteria listed above are 

adhered to, handcuffing techniques that do not involve cuffing rails or other 

stationary objects are considered nonsecure. 

• A juvenile being processed through a secure booking area. Where a secure booking 

area is all that is available and continuous visual supervision is provided throughout 

the booking process and the juvenile remains in the booking area only long enough 

to be photographed and fingerprinted (consistent with state law and/or judicial rules), 

the juvenile is not considered to be in a secure detention status. Continued 

nonsecure custody for the purposes of interrogation, contacting parents, or 

arranging an alternative placement must occur outside the booking area. 

• A juvenile placed in a secure police car for transportation. The JJDP Act applies to 

facilities; therefore, a juvenile placed in a police car for transportation would be in a 

nonsecure status. 

• A juvenile placed in a nonsecure runaway shelter but prevented from leaving 

because of staff restricting access to exits. A facility may be nonsecure (i.e., staff 

secure) if physical restriction of movement or activity is provided solely through 

facility staff. 

• A juvenile placed in a room that contains doors with delayed egress devices that 

have been approved in writing (including a specification of the maximum time delay 

allowed) by the authority having jurisdiction over fire codes and fire inspections in 

the area in which the facility is located and that comply with the egress delay 

established by the authority having jurisdiction over fire codes and fire inspections. 

In no case shall this delay exceed 30 seconds (see footnote 4 on page 6). 

2.3 Compliance With Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

Prohibition on Secure Holding 

Adult jails and lockups shall not hold status offenders, nonoffenders, alien juveniles, or 

civil-type juvenile offenders in a secure manner at any time.26 These juveniles may be 

detained in a nonsecure area of an adult jail or lockup for processing while awaiting 

transportation to a nonsecure shelter care facility or a juvenile detention center or while 

waiting release to a parent or guardian. 

Youth Handgun Safety Act Exception 

The Youth Handgun Safety Act (18 U.S.C. 922(x)) prohibits possession of a handgun by 

a minor under the age of 18. There are exceptions to this Act such as using a handgun 

in a gun safety course or hunting under the supervision of an adult. Because the Youth 

12 
Handgun Safety Act applies only to juvenile offenders, and handgun possession, in 

most cases, would not be a crime if committed by an adult, it fits the definition of a 

status offense. However, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 

Subtitle B, Youth Handgun Safety, amended the JJDP Act to provide that juveniles who 

violate United States Code, Title 18, Section 922(x) or a similar state law can be placed 

in secure detention or secure correctional facilities without violating the DSO 

requirement. Because of this exception to the JJDP Act, violations of the Youth 

Handgun Safety Act or a similar state law can be considered either status offenses 

punishable by detention or confinement or delinquent offenses. The number of these 

offenders held securely must be reported to OJJDP in the state’s annual monitoring 

report but will not be reported as violations of the DSO or Jail Removal core 

requirements. 

Monitoring for Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

Adult jails and lockups should keep records of every juvenile who enters the facility in 

secure custody status or under court authority. For status offenders, nonoffenders, alien 

juveniles, and civil-type juvenile offenders, the records should indicate if the juvenile 

was held securely or nonsecurely. If such a juvenile is held in a secure manner at any 

time, this hold would count as a violation of both DSO and jail removal. If held in a 

secure manner and not sight and sound separated from adult detainees while being 

held securely, the result would be a violation of DSO, separation, and jail removal. 

2.4 Compliance With Jail Removal 

Prohibition and Exceptions to the Secure Holding of Juveniles 

The JJDP Act states that “no juvenile shall be detained or confined in any jail or lockup 

for adults.” There are three exceptions to this requirement: 

• A 6-hour hold exception for accused delinquent offenders. 

• An exception for accused delinquent offenders in rural areas if certain criteria are 

met. 

• An exception for juveniles waived or transferred to a criminal court. 

Six-Hour Hold Exception 

The JJDP Act allows for a 6-hour grace period that permits the secure detention in an 

adult jail or lockup of those juveniles accused of committing criminal-type offenses (i.e., 

offenses that would be a criminal offense if committed by an adult). Under this 

exception, the juvenile shall not have sight or sound contact with adult inmates during 

the time the juvenile is in a secure custody status in the adult jail or lockup. The 6 hours 

can be used in the following circumstances: 

13 
• An accused delinquent could be detained for up to 6 hours for the purposes of 

processing or release or transfer to a juvenile facility. Any holding of juveniles should 

be limited to the absolute minimum time necessary to complete these purposes, not 

to exceed 6 hours. An accused or adjudicated delinquent could be detained for up to 

6 hours before a court appearance and up to an additional 6 hours after a court 

appearance, but any hold of an adjudicated delinquent that is not related to a court 

appearance is a violation of jail removal. 

The following is noted about this exception: 

• The 6-hour time periods cannot be combined to extend the time frame. For example, 

a juvenile cannot be detained for 4 hours before and 7 hours after the court 

appearance. 27 

• Once the juvenile has been placed in a secure custody status and the 6-hour period 

has begun, the facility cannot temporarily take the juvenile out of a secure custody 

status and begin the 6-hour time period again. For example, if a juvenile was placed 

in a secure custody status for 4 hours, then was taken to a nonsecure interview 

room for 1 hour, then was returned to a secure custody status for 2 hours, the total 

time to report for the jail removal provision is 7 hours and would be a violation of the 

6-hour limit. 

• A status offender, nonoffender, alien juvenile, or civil-type juvenile offender cannot 

be securely detained for any length of time in an adult jail or lockup.28

• Adjudicated delinquents cannot be held for any length of time in adult jails or lockups 

as a disposition. 

• A juvenile may not be transferred to a jail or lockup from a juvenile detention center 

for disciplinary reasons. 

• Sight and sound separation from adult offenders must be maintained at all times 

pursuant to the separation requirement. 

Removal (Rural) Exception

The JJDP Act allows states to implement a statutory rural exception,29 allowing the 

temporary detention beyond the 6-hour limit of juveniles accused of delinquent offenses 

who are awaiting an initial court appearance within 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, 

Sundays, and legal holidays). It is important to note that the rural exception does not 

apply to status offenders. Status offenders may not be held for any length of time in an 

adult jail or lockup. 

States must have received prior approval from OJJDP to use the rural exception.30 In a 

request to use the rural exception, states must document, in writing, that all of the 

following conditions are met in order for an accused juvenile criminal-type offender, 

14 
awaiting an initial court appearance, to be detained in an adult jail or lockup under the 

rural exception: 

• The geographic area having jurisdiction over the juvenile must be outside a 

metropolitan statistical area (i.e., qualify as a “rural” area) as defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

• A determination must be made that there is no existing acceptable alternative 

placement for the juvenile pursuant to criteria developed by the state and approved 

by OJJDP. 

• The adult jail or lockup must have been certified by the state to provide for the sight 

and sound separation of juveniles and adult inmates. 

• A state policy is in effect that requires individuals who work with both juveniles and 

adult inmates in collocated facilities to have been trained and certified to work with 

juveniles. 

OJJDP strongly recommends that jails and lockups that incarcerate juveniles provide 

youth- specific admissions screening and continuous visual supervision of juveniles 

incarcerated pursuant to this exception. 

If all of the above conditions are met, a juvenile awaiting an initial court appearance may 

be detained for the following time periods: 

• Up to 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays). 

• If the facility is located where conditions of distance to be traveled or the lack of 

highway, road, or transportation does not allow for court appearances within 48 

hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) so that a brief (not to 

exceed 48 hours) delay is excusable. 

• If the facility is located where conditions of safety exist (such as severely adverse, 

life-threatening weather conditions that do not allow for reasonably safe travel), the 

time for an appearance may be delayed until 24 hours after the time that such 

conditions allow for reasonably safe travel. 

These extended time periods cannot be used after the initial court appearance. After the 

initial court appearance, the 6-hour exception applies and the juvenile could be held 

only for up to 6 hours prior to and 6 hours after a court appearance. 

Transfer or Waiver Exception 

If criminal felony charges have been filed against a juvenile in a court exercising 

criminal jurisdiction, the juvenile can be detained in an adult jail or lockup. The jail and 

lockup removal requirement does not apply to those juveniles formally waived or 

15 
transferred to criminal court and against whom criminal felony charges have been filed 

or to juveniles over whom a criminal court has original or concurrent jurisdiction and 

such court’s jurisdiction has been invoked through the filing of criminal felony charges. 

Note that waiver or transfer and the filing of criminal felony charges does not transform 

a juvenile into an adult. Therefore, such a juvenile can be detained (or confined after 

conviction) in a juvenile facility and commingled with juvenile offenders until that juvenile 

reaches the state’s full age of majority and the state’s maximum age of extended 

juvenile court jurisdiction, at which time, he or she must be separated from the juvenile 

population within 6 months. 

2.5 Compliance With Separation 

Juveniles Shall Not Have Contact With Adult Inmates 

Separation must be achieved in all secure areas of the facility. Accused or adjudicated 

delinquent offenders, status offenders, and nonoffenders shall not have contact with 

adult inmates, including inmate trustees.31 Contact is defined to include any physical or 

sustained sight or sound contact. Sight contact is defined as clear visual contact 

between adult inmates and juveniles within close proximity to each other. Sound contact 

is defined as direct oral communication between adult inmates and juvenile offenders. 

Sight and sound separation may be accomplished architecturally or through policies and 

procedures such as time phasing the use of an area to prohibit simultaneous use by 

juveniles and adults. Brief and inadvertent or accidental contacts between juvenile 

offenders in a secure custody status and adult inmates in secure nonresidential areas of 

the facility do not count as violations, although facilities must have policies, procedures 

(e.g. time-phasing), and/or architectural structures in place to ensure sight and sound 

separation.32 

Where a secure booking area is all that is available, continuous visual supervision is 

provided throughout the booking process, and the juvenile remains in the booking area 

only long enough to be photographed and fingerprinted (consistent with state law and/or 

judicial rules), the juvenile is not considered to be in a secure detention status and 

separation would not apply during this time. Once the booking process has been 

completed, the juvenile must be separated immediately from adult inmates. 

Facilities must assure that no juvenile offender shall enter under public authority (i.e. 

while in the care, custody, or under the jurisdiction of law enforcement or the juvenile or 

criminal court, whichever is applicable), for any amount of time, into a secure setting or 

secure section of an adult jail, lockup, or correctional facility as a disposition of an 

offense or as a means of modifying their behavior (e.g., Shock Incarceration or Scared 

Straight). 

16 
Administrative Transfers 

Adjudicated juvenile offenders cannot be reclassified administratively and transferred to 

an adult (criminal) correctional authority to avoid the intent of separating juveniles from 

adult criminals in jails or correctional facilities. A state is not prohibited from placing or 

transferring an accused or adjudicated delinquent who reaches the state’s age of full 

criminal responsibility to an adult facility when required or authorized by state law. An 

administrative transfer, however, without statutory direction or authorization, of a 

juvenile offender to an adult correctional authority or a transfer within a mixed juvenile 

and adult facility for placement with adult inmates, either before or after a juvenile 

reaches the age of full criminal responsibility, is prohibited. 

Transferred, Certified, or Waived Juveniles 

A juvenile who has been transferred or waived or is otherwise under the jurisdiction of a 

criminal court does not have to be separated from adult criminal offenders. This is due 

to the fact that such a juvenile is not an accused or adjudicated delinquent (i.e., the 

juvenile is under a criminal proceeding, not a delinquency proceeding). Likewise, an 

adult held in an adult jail or lockup for a delinquency proceeding (generally related to a 

crime committed before reaching the age of full criminal responsibility) can be held 

securely in an adult jail or lockup because the adult is not a juvenile alleged to be or 

found to be delinquent. Both types of individuals can be placed wherever the legislature 

or courts, where authorized, deem appropriate.33 

OJJDP strongly recommends that jails and lockups that incarcerate juveniles being tried 

as adults provide sight and sound separation from adult inmates from such youth, in 

addition to continuous visual supervision of juveniles incarcerated pursuant to this 

exception. 

2.6 Facility Reporting Requirements 

States must compile and report compliance monitoring data annually to the 

Administrator of OJJDP. Section 223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act requires that states have 

an adequate system of monitoring for compliance with the core requirements.34 As part 

of this system, facilities must collect data on juveniles held and must report the data to 

the state. In addition, the state must conduct regular onsite visits to monitor all adult jails 

and lockups and verify reported data. As part of an adequate system of compliance 

monitoring, states should strive to inspect 100 percent of all adult jails and lockups 

every 3 years. 

To demonstrate compliance with the JJDP Act, all adult jails and lockups must report 

the following: 

• Dates covered by the reporting period, as defined by the state monitoring agency. 

17 
• Whether the facility held any juveniles in a secure custody status during the 

reporting period. If no juveniles were held, the remaining reporting items do not 

apply for this reporting period. 

• The total number of accused or adjudicated status offenders (including valid court 

order violators, youth held in accordance with the Interstate Compact on Juveniles, 

and alien juveniles) and nonoffenders securely detained for any length of time. 

• The total number of accused juvenile criminal-type offenders held securely for any 

length of time for purposes other than identification, investigation, processing, 

release, transfer to court, or transfer to a juvenile facility following initial custody. 

• The total number of accused juvenile criminal-type offenders held securely in excess 

of 6 hours (including those held in excess of 6 hours pursuant to the rural exception). 

• The total number of accused or adjudicated juvenile criminal-type offenders held 

securely in excess of 6 hours prior to or following a court appearance or for any 

length of time not related to a court appearance. 

• If the state has received approval to use the rural exception, the following must be 

reported for those adult jails or lockups located in areas where the rural exception 

applies: 

o The total number of juveniles accused of a criminal-type offense who were held 

in excess of 6 hours but for less than 48 hours. 

o The total number of juveniles accused of a criminal-type offense who were held 

in excess of 48 hours but not for more than an additional 48 hours because of 

conditions of distance or lack of highway, road, or other ground transportation. 

o The total number of juveniles accused of a criminal-type offense who were held 

in excess of 24 hours but not for more than an additional 24 hours after such time 

as conditions (e.g., weather) allow for reasonably safe travel. 

• The total number of juveniles not separated from adult criminal offenders, including 

inmate trustees. 

Note: To gather data for the DMC requirement, the state should request the race and/or 

ethnicity of each juvenile offender brought to the facility. 

See “Summary of JJDP Act: Adult Jails and Lockups” on page 55. 

18 
Section 3: Monitoring for Compliance: Juvenile Facilities 

3.1 Definitions Related to Juvenile Facilities 

Civil-type juvenile offender. A juvenile offender who has been charged with or 

adjudicated for an offense that is civil in nature. Examples include noncriminal traffic 

violations and noncriminal fish and game violations. 

Federal ward. An alien juvenile under federal jurisdiction held in state or local facilities.35

Such juveniles include undocumented immigrant youth and youth in the custody of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Nonoffender. A juvenile who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, usually 

under abuse, dependency, or neglect statutes or as an alien juvenile, for reasons other 

than legally prohibited conduct of the juvenile.36 These cases are referred to by many 

names, including Children in Need of Assistance (CINA) and Children in Need of 

Protective Services (CHIPS). 

Secure. As used to define a detention or correctional facility, this term includes 

residential facilities which include construction features designed to physically restrict 

the movements and activities of persons in custody, such as locked rooms and 

buildings, fences, or other physical structures. It does not include facilities where 

physical restriction of movement or activity is provided solely through facility staff.37

Secure detention or confinement may result either from being placed in a locked room 

or area and/or from being physically secured to a cuffing rail or other stationary object.38 

Secure detention facility. A public or private residential facility which includes 

construction fixtures designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of 

juveniles or other individuals held in lawful custody in such facility, and is used for the 

temporary placement of any juvenile who is accused of having committed an offense, 

any juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and is awaiting placement, or of any 

other individual accused of having committed a criminal offense.39 

Secure correctional facility. A public or private residential facility which includes 

construction fixtures designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of 

juveniles or other individuals held in lawful custody in such facility, and is used for the 

placement, after adjudication and disposition, of any juvenile who has been adjudicated 

as having committed an offense or any other individual convicted of a criminal 

40 offense. 

ures 

 and 

l 

Staff secure facility. A residential facility (1) which does not include construction feat

designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of juveniles who are in 

custody therein, but any such physical restriction of movement or activity is provided 

solely through staff; (2) which may establish reasonable rules restricting entrance to

egress from the facility; and (3) in which the movements and activities of individua

19 
juvenile residents may, for treatment purposes, be restricted or subject to control 

ed 

itten approval. Facilities that contain devices that exceed a 30-second delay 

re always considered secure, even though local code may allow for a longer time 

which 

r the law of the jurisdiction in which the offense was committed, be a 

ed by an adult.42 The following are examples of status offenses: 

 Underage alcohol offenses. These offenses are considered to be status offenses, 

inquent offenses. 

fenders 

y 

, 

e 

, 

nd legal holidays, immediately following an initial court appearance. The 

eekend begins when juvenile court closes on Friday and reopens the following 

pgraded to delinquent offenders for their failure to appear. Similarly, status 

ffenders who violate probation (by committing another status offense) remain status 

through the use of intensive staff supervision. 

Facilities that contain doors with delayed egress devices that have received written 

approval by the authority having jurisdiction over fire codes and/or fire inspections in the

area in which the facility is located are also considered to be staff secure. The egress 

delay must never exceed the time delay allowed by the fire code applicable to the area

in which the facility is located, and the maximum time delay allowed must be specifi

on the wr

a

delay.41

Status offender. A juvenile who has been charged with or adjudicated for conduct 

would not, unde

crime if committ

• Truancy. 

• Violations of curfew. 

• Running away. 

• Underage possession and/or consumption of tobacco products. 

•

even though state law or local ordinance may classify them as del

3.2 Compliance With Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

Secure Holding of Status Offenders—Prohibitions and Exceptions 

The JJDP Act provides that status offenders, nonoffenders, and civil-type offenders not 

be detained or confined in secure detention or correctional facilities.43 There may be 

rare situations, however, where short-term secure custody of accused status of

may be necessary. For example, detention in a juvenile facility for a brief period of time 

prior to formal juvenile court action for investigative purposes, for identification 

purposes, or for the purpose of allowing return to the juvenile’s parents or guardian may 

be necessary. Detention for a brief period of time under juvenile court authority ma

also be necessary in order to arrange for appropriate shelter care placement. Therefore

OJJDP regulations allow a facility to hold an accused status offender in a secur

juvenile detention facility for up to 24 hours, exclusive of weekends and legal holidays

prior to an initial court appearance and for an additional 24 hours, exclusive of 

weekends a

w

Monday.44 

Status offenders who fail to appear for court hearings remain status offenders; they 

cannot be u

o

offenders. 

20 
Status offenders cannot be securely detained after adjudication unless all of the 

conditions of the VCO Exception (see below) are met. Juveniles who have committed a 

violation of the Youth Handgun Safety Act or are held in accordance with the Interstate 

ompact on Juveniles as enacted by the state are excluded from the DSO requirement 

a 

e 

w 

e 

le by detention or confinement or delinquent offenses. The number of these 

ffenders held securely must be reported to OJJDP in the state’s annual monitoring 

status offenders requirement. Juveniles held 

ursuant to the Interstate Compact on Juveniles enacted by the state are excluded from 

ents in total. 

e 

 of affecting a 

s or for return to their lawful 

sidence or country of citizenship must be reported as violations of the 

C

in total. 

Youth Handgun Safety Act Exception 

The Youth Handgun Safety Act, 18 U. S. C. 922(x), prohibits possession of a handgun 

by a minor under the age of 18. There are exceptions to this Act such as using 

handgun in a gun safety course or hunting under the supervision of an adult. Becaus

the Youth Handgun Safety Act applies only to juvenile offenders and handgun 

possession, in most cases, would not be a crime if committed by an adult, it fits the 

definition of a status offense. However, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 

Act of 1994, Subtitle B, Youth Handgun Safety, amended the JJDP Act to provide that 

juveniles who violate United States Code, Title 18, Section 922(x), or a similar state la

can be placed in secure detention or secure correctional facilities without violating th

DSO requirement. Because of this exception to the JJDP Act, violations of the Youth 

Handgun Safety Act or a similar state law can be considered either status offenses 

punishab

o

report. 

Out-of-State Runaways 

Out-of-state runaways securely held beyond 24 hours solely for the purpose of being 

returned to proper custody in another state in response to a want, warrant, or request 

from a jurisdiction in the other state or pursuant to a court order must be reported as 

violations of the deinstitutionalization of 

p

the DSO requirem

Federal Wards 

The JJDP Act states that “ juveniles ... who are aliens shall not be placed in secur

detention facilities or secure correctional facilities.” Federal wards held beyond 24 hours

in state and local secure detention and correctional facilities pursuant to a written 

contract or agreement with a federal agency and for the specific purpose

jurisdictional transfer or appearance as a material witnes

re

deinstitutionalization of status offenders requirement.45

Exception for Status Offenders Who Violate a Valid Court Order 

The Valid Court (VCO) Exception provides that adjudicated status offenders found to 

have violated a valid court order may be securely detained in a juvenile detention or 

21 
correctional facility. The JJDP Act of 1974, as amended, defines a valid court order a

court order given by a juvenile court judge to a juvenile who was brought before the 

court and made subject to such order; and who received, before the issuance of the 

order, the full due process rights guaranteed to such juvenile by the Constitutio

46

s a 

n of the 

nited States. It is important to note that status offenders who violate a valid court 

ffenders who 

iolate a valid court order, legislative amendment is required if a state wanted to have 

or the VCO Exception to apply, the Act requires that the following actions occur when 

 An appropriate public agency must be promptly notified that such juvenile is held in 

 Not later than 24 hours during which such juvenile is held, an authorized 

 juvenile. 

o Such representative must submit an assessment to the court that issued such 

able 

cause to believe that such juvenile violated the order and the appropriate 

n, 

ible while still allowing 

asonable time for the court to obtain additional information to enable it to make a 

o 

g a valid court order remains a 

tatus offender, and the VCO violation process must be followed, unless the violation 

status 

U

order cannot be held securely in an adult jail or lockup for any length of time. 

Because the JJDP Act does not provide substantive legal authority to a state, where 

state legislation currently prohibits the secure confinement of status o

v

the ability to confine status offenders who violate valid court orders. 

F

a status offender is taken into custody for violating a valid court order: 

•

custody for violating such order. 

•

representative of the agency shall interview, in person, such

• Not later than 48 hours during which such juvenile is held: 

order regarding the immediate needs of such juvenile. 

o Such court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether there is reason

placement of such juvenile pending disposition of the violation alleged. 

In the event that the court orders that the juvenile be detained pending the dispositio

the disposition hearing should be held as soon as poss

re

disposition in the best interest of the status offender. 

Although some states’ common laws or statutes allow the courts to use traditional 

contempt power, failure to appear, or probation violation to upgrade a status offender t

a delinquent offender, a status offender held for violatin

s

itself is a delinquent act as defined under federal law. 

To use the VCO Exception, states must submit, as part of their annual compliance 

monitoring report, evidence that state law allows for the secure confinement of 

offenders who violate a VCO. Moreover, to demonstrate compliance with the process 

governing the VCO Exception, the state must record, in its annual compliance 

monitoring report, the total number of status offenders held in any secure detention or 

22 
correctional facility pursuant to the VCO Exception. The state must have a system in 

place to verify whether court orders used to hold status offenders in juvenile detention 

centers comply with the conditions listed above. At a minimum, the state must ran

verify 10 percent of all adjudicated status offenders held securely because of violating

valid court order; violations of the VCO process, where found, must be projected 

accordingly. If a system

domly 

 a 

 is not in place to monitor compliance with the conditions and 

rocess governing the VCO Exception, all uses of the VCO Exception must be reported 

ile facilities collocated with adult facilities, however, must be 

onitored to ensure compliance with the collocated facility criteria outlined in section 4 

cal 

air 

er 10, 1996. Juvenile facilities collocated with adult facilities are 

onsidered adult jails or lockups absent compliance with the collocated facility criteria 

erated adults and juveniles within close 

roximity to each other. Sound contact is defined as direct oral communication between 

ng 

hority for placement in a juvenile facility. For 

xample, an adult could not be transferred to a juvenile detention center to alleviate 

m 

 the use of an area to prohibit 

imultaneous use by juveniles and adults. The state must monitor all juvenile detention 

cilities and juvenile training schools for separation. 

p

as violations of DSO. 

3.3 Compliance With Jail Removal 

The Jail Removal core requirement does not apply to stand-alone juvenile detention and

correctional facilities. Juven

m

of this Guidance Manual. 

A collocated facility is a juvenile facility that is located in the same building, or is part of 

a related complex of buildings located on the same grounds as an adult jail or lockup.47

A complex of buildings is considered related when two or more buildings share physi

features such as walls and fences, or services beyond mechanical services (heating, 

conditioning, water, and sewer) or share the specialized services that are allowable 

under Section 31.303(e)(3)(i)(C)(3) of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in 

effect on Decemb 48

c

(see section 4). 

3.4 Compliance With Separation 

Accused or adjudicated delinquent offenders, status offenders, and nonoffenders 

cannot have contact with adult inmates, including adult inmate trustees. Contact is 

defined to include any physical or sustained sight and/or sound contact. Sight contact is 

defined as clear visual contact between incarc

p

incarcerated adults and juvenile offenders.49 

It is important to note that the separation requirement prohibits a state from transferri

adult offenders to a juvenile correctional aut

e

overcrowding in an adult facility. 

Adult inmate trustees who perform maintenance or other duties at a secure juvenile 

detention center or juvenile correctional facility must be sight and sound separated fro

the juvenile detainees at all times. Separation may be accomplished architecturally or 

through policies and procedures such as time phasing

s

fa

23 
Transferred, Waived, or Certified Youth 

A juvenile who has been transferred, waived, or certified is otherwise under the 

jurisdiction of a criminal court may be detained or confined in a juvenile correctional 

facility or juvenile detention center with other juveniles who are under the jurisdiction

the juvenile court. This is not a violation of the separation requirement because the 

youth is not a juvenile “alleged to be or found to be delinquent” (he or she has been 

charged with a criminal, not a delinquent act) and the youth is not an “adult inmate.

Once the youth reaches the s

 of 

” 

tate’s full age of majority and the state’s maximum age of 

xtended juvenile court jurisdiction, he or she must be separated from the juvenile 

or 

e 

ecause the 18-year-old adult has not been “arrested and is not in custody for or 

not convicted of a criminal charge offense.”50 

t jails 

 As part of an adequate system of compliance 

onitoring states should strive to inspect 100 percent of all juvenile detention and 

r 

al 

e

population within 6 months. 

Adults Under the Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court 

An adult held for a delinquency proceeding can be held in a juvenile detention center 

a juvenile correctional facility. For example, if a 17-year-old juvenile committed a 

burglary and was charged with this delinquent offense at age 18, he or she could b

held in a juvenile detention center. This does not violate the separation requirement 

b

awaiting trial on a criminal charge, or is 

3.5 Facility Reporting Requirements 

States must compile and report compliance monitoring data annually to the 

Administrator of OJJDP. Section 223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act requires that states have

an adequate system of monitoring for compliance with the core requirements.51 As part 

of this system, facilities must collect data on juveniles held and report the data to the

state. In addition, the state must conduct regular onsite visits to monitor the all adul

and lockups and verify reported data.

m

correctional facilities every 3 years. 

To demonstrate compliance with the JJDP Act, secure juvenile detention or correctional 

facilities must report the following: 

• Dates covered by the reporting period, as designated by the state monitoring 

agency. 

• The total number of nonoffenders held in a secure detention or correctional facility 

for any length of time. 

• The total number of accused status offenders, out-of-state runaways not held 

pursuant to the Interstate Compact for Juveniles and federal wards, held securely fo

longer than 24 hours (exclusive of weekends and legal holidays) prior to an initial 

court appearance and for an additional 24 hours (exclusive of weekends and leg

24 
holidays) immediately following an initial court appearance. Exclude those juveniles 

held pursuant to the VCO Exclusion provision, pursuant to the Youth Handgun 

ofederal 

ose held pursuant to the 

ers. 

o he total number of juvenile offenders held pursuant to the Youth Handgun 

ee “Summary of the JJDP Act: Juvenile Detention or Correctional Facilities” on page 

56. 

Safety Act or a similar state law, or the Interstate Compact on Juveniles adopted by 

the state. 

• The total number of adjudicated status offenders and nonoffenders, including outstate runaways not held pursuant to the Interstate Compact for Juveniles and f

wards, held securely for any length of time, excluding th

VCO Exception provision or pursuant to the Youth Handgun Safety Act or the 

Interstate Compact on Juveniles adopted by the state. 

• The total number of juveniles not separated from adult criminal offend

• The state monitoring agency is also required to collect the following: 

T

Safety Act. 

o Total number of federal wards. 

S

25 
Section 4: Monitoring for Compliance: Other Facilities 

4.1 Collocated Facilities 

Classifying Facilities 

States must determine whether or not a facility in which juveniles are detained or 

confined is an adult jail, adult lockup, or a secure juvenile detention center or 

correctional facility. The JJDP Act prohibits the secure custody of juveniles in adult jails 

and lockups.52Juvenile facilities collocated with adult facilities are considered adult jails 

or lockups absent compliance with the four criteria listed in this section. A facility 

adhering to the four criteria would qualify as a separate secure juvenile detention center 

or correctional facility for the purpose of monitoring for compliance with DSO, jail 

removal, and separation. 

Definitions 

Collocated facilities. Collocated facilities are facilities that are located in the same 

building or are part of a related complex of buildings located on the same grounds.53 

Related complex of buildings. A related complex of buildings is two or more buildings 

that share physical features, such as walls and fences, or services beyond mechanical 

services (heating, air conditioning, water, and sewer); or the specialized services such 

as medical care, food service, laundry, maintenance, engineering services, etc.54

Criteria for Collocated Facilities 

Each of the following four criteria must be met in order to ensure the requisite 

separateness of a juvenile detention facility that is collocated with an adult jail or lockup: 

• Separation between juveniles and adults such that there could be no sustained sight 

or sound contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults in the facility. Separation 

can be achieved architecturally or through time phasing of common use 

nonresidential areas. 

• Separate juvenile and adult program areas, including recreation, education, 

vocation, counseling, dining, sleeping, and general living activities. There must be an 

independent and comprehensive operational plan for the juvenile detention facility 

which provides for a full range of separate program services. No program activities 

may be shared by juveniles and adults. Time phasing of common use nonresidential 

areas is permissible to conduct program activities. Equipment and other resources 

may be used by both populations subject to security concerns. 

• Separate staff for the juvenile and adult populations, including management, 

security, and direct care staff. Staff providing specialized services (medical care, 

food service, laundry, maintenance and engineering, etc.) who are not normally in 

26 
contact with detainees, or whose infrequent contacts occur under conditions of 

separation of juveniles and adults, can serve both populations (subject to state 

standards or licensing requirements). The day-to-day management, security, and 

direct care functions of the juvenile detention center must be vested in a totally 

separate staff, dedicated solely to the juvenile population within the collocated 

facilities. 

• In states that have established standards or licensing requirements for juvenile 

detention facilities, the juvenile facility must meet the standards (on the same basis 

as a free-standing juvenile detention center) and be licensed as appropriate. If there 

are no state standards or licensing requirements, OJJDP encourages states to 

establish administrative requirements that authorize the state to review the facility’s 

physical plant, staffing patterns, and programs in order to approve the collocated 

facility based on prevailing national juvenile detention standards. 

The state must determine that the four criteria are fully met. It is incumbent upon the 

state to make the determination through an onsite facility (or full construction and 

operations plan) review and, through the exercise of its oversight responsibility, to 

ensure that the separate character of the juvenile detention facility is maintained by 

continuing to fully meet the four criteria set forth above. 

Collocated juvenile detention facilities approved by the state and concurred with by 

OJJDP before December 10, 1996, may be reviewed against the regulatory criteria and 

OJJDP policies in effect at the time of the initial approval and concurrence or against 

the regulatory criteria set forth in this section. It is up to the state monitoring agency to 

determine which criteria will be used. Facilities approved on or after December 10, 

1996, shall be reviewed against the criteria set forth in this section.55 A monitoring 

checklist has been developed by OJJDP for each of the criteria. The use of either 

checklist is optional and may be found in appendix I. 

Annual Onsite Review Requirement 

An annual onsite review of the facility must be conducted by the compliance monitoring 

staff person(s) representing or employed by the state agency administering the JJDP 

Act Formula Grants Program. The purpose of the annual review is to determine if 

compliance with the criteria listed above is being maintained. 

Collocated Facility Reporting Requirements 

States must report annually to the Administrator of OJJDP on the results of monitoring 

for DSO, jail removal, and separation. In addition, the state must conduct annual onsite 

visits to monitor collocated facilities for the JJDP Act and to verify reported data. 

Juvenile facilities collocated with adult facilities are considered adult jails or lockups 

absent compliance with the four criteria listed in this section and would follow the same 

reporting requirements as listed for adult jails and lockups in section 2. A collocated 

27 
juvenile facility adhering to the four criteria would qualify as a separate secure juvenile 

detention center or correctional facility and would follow the reporting requirements 

listed for juvenile facilities in section 3. 

4.2 Court Holding Facilities 

A court holding facility is a secure facility, other than an adult jail or lockup, that is used 

to temporarily detain persons immediately before or after detention hearings or other 

court proceedings. Court holding facilities, where they do not detain individuals 

overnight (i.e., are not residential) and are not used for punitive purposes or other 

purposes unrelated to a court appearance, are not considered adult jails or lockups.56 

A status offender or delinquent offender placed in a court holding facility is exempt from 

the deinstitutionalization requirement if the facility meets the criteria listed in the 

definition above. Facilities, however, remain subject to the separation requirements of 

the JJDP Act. The separation requirements pertain to status offenders, nonoffenders, 

and alleged or adjudicated delinquent offenders. 

It is important to note that court holding facilities impose an inherent or practical time 

limitation in that juveniles must be brought to and removed from the facility during the 

same judicial day. 

The state must monitor court holding facilities to ensure that they continue to meet the 

definition and purpose listed above. States should strive to inspect court holding 

facilities at a rate of 100 percent every 3 years. 

A court holding facility that does not meet the definition and purpose listed above must 

be monitored as an adult jail or lockup. 

4.3 Adult Prisons 

Status Offenders 

The JJDP Act prohibits the placement of status offenders and nonoffenders in secure 

detention facilities or secure correctional facilities. Holding status offenders or 

nonoffenders in an adult prison 57would be an immediate violation of the JJDP Act. 

Delinquent Offenders 

The JJDP Act states that “no juvenile shall be detained or confined in any jail or lockup 

for adults....” Therefore, the JJDP Act limits the facilities from which juveniles must be 

removed to adult jails or lockups. The requirement does not apply to adult prisons. 

Therefore, holding a delinquent offender in an adult prison is not a violation of the jail 

removal requirement. 

28 
It is important to note that the JJDP Act states that “juveniles alleged to be or found to 

be delinquent shall not be detained or confined in any institution in which they have 

contact with adult persons incarcerated because they have been convicted of a crime or 

awaiting trial on criminal charges.” Therefore, complete separation must be provided 

between juvenile delinquent offenders and adult inmates. 

Transferred, Waived, or Certified Juveniles 

The JJDP Act states that “no juvenile shall be detained or confined in any jail or lockup 

for adults....” Therefore, it is not a violation of jail removal to hold a juvenile in an adult 

prison if that juvenile has been formally transferred or direct filed into criminal court and 

criminal felony or misdemeanor charges have been filed. 

Furthermore, a juvenile who has been transferred, waived, or direct filed or is otherwise 

under the jurisdiction of a criminal court does not have to be separated from adult 

criminal offenders pursuant to the separation requirements of the JJDP Act. This is due 

to the fact that such a juvenile is not alleged to be or found to be delinquent (i.e., the 

juvenile is under a criminal proceeding, not a delinquency proceeding). 

OJJDP strongly recommends providing sight and sound separation and continuous 

visual supervision for any youth under 18 detained or confined in adult facilities. 

4.4 Nonsecure Community-Based Programs and Facilities 

Nonsecure, community-based programs or facilities are exempt for the purposes of 

reporting data for compliance with DSO, jail removal, and separation. The core 

requirements only apply to secure facilities. For example, a nonsecure residential 

substance abuse treatment program could include both juvenile delinquent or status 

offenders and adult offenders who are under a sentence for the conviction of a crime. 

Pursuant to Section 223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act, states must monitor nonsecure facilities 

to verify their nonsecure status. If the facility’s status were to change and become 

secure, the facility must be monitored as an adult jail or lockup, juvenile detention or 

correctional facility, or other secure institution if it holds both juveniles and adult 

offenders. 

4.5 Secure Mental Health Treatment Units 

A juvenile committed to a mental health facility under a separate state law governing 

civil commitment of individuals for mental health treatment or evaluation would be 

considered outside the class of juvenile status offenders and nonoffenders. For 

monitoring purposes, this distinction does not permit placement of status offenders or 

nonoffenders in a secure mental health facility where the court is exercising its juvenile 

status offender or nonoffender jurisdiction. The state must ensure that juveniles alleged 

to be or found to be juvenile status offenders or nonoffenders are not committed under 

state mental health laws to circumvent the intent of DSO. 

29 
There are no restrictions to placing delinquent offenders in a mental health treatment 

unit. The separation requirement does not apply if the juvenile and adults are held in a 

mental health facility solely because of a mental health civil commitment. 

See “Summary of the JJDP Act: Other Facilities” on page 57. 

30 
Section 5: State Monitoring of Facilities 

5.1 Adequate System of Monitoring for Compliance 

OJJDP reminds the states participating in the JJDP Act that they are required to 

maintain an adequate monitoring system for jails, lockups, detention facilities, 

correctional facilities, and nonsecure facilities to ensure that the core requirements are 

met.58 As such, OJJDP strongly recommends that adequate monitoring systems include 

at least one full-time staff person or their equivalent to coordinate all efforts relevant to 

compliance monitoring. Similarly, necessary resources must be provided to conduct onsite inspections in the range of law enforcement facilities covered by the statute. On-site 

monitoring is critical to ensuring that youth are truly protected in facilities as was 

intended by the JJDP Act. The state must also provide annual reporting of the results of 

all compliance monitoring to the Administrator of OJJDP. Although OJJDP holds the 

Designated State Agency (DSA) implementing OJJDP’s Formula Grants program59

responsible for the monitoring effort and the validity of the monitoring report, the DSA 

may contract with a public or private agency to perform the monitoring function. If 

selecting another agency, the state must identify in its monitoring plan which agency 

has been authorized and/or contracted with to assist in the monitoring functions. 

Those states participating in the JJDP Act must submit a compliance monitoring plan to 

OJJDP annually, as part of the Formula Grants Application. As part of an adequate 

system of monitoring facilities,60 the state must describe in its plan, how the following 

tasks that comprise an adequate system for compliance monitoring are achieved. 

Further, the plan must note the specific agency and employee and/or contractor who 

completes the task. 

• Policies and procedures. A state must document, in writing that it has policies and 

procedures governing the implementation of an adequate compliance monitoring 

system.61 It is strongly recommended that these policies and procedures be made 

available on the DSA’s Web site. 

• Monitoring authority. A state must document and describe the authority under which 

the DSA tasked with compliance monitoring enters facilities to inspect and collect 

data from all facilities in the monitoring universe.62 

• Monitoring timetable. States must keep an annual calendar demonstrating when and 

where compliance monitoring will occur.63 

• Violation procedures. A state’s monitoring system must describe procedures 

established for receiving, investigating, and reporting complaints of violations of the 

DSO, Jail Removal, and Separation core requirements. This should include both 

legislative and administrative procedures and sanctions.64 

• Barriers and strategies. States must provide a description of the barriers faced in 

implementing and maintaining an adequate system of compliance monitoring to 

31 
report the level of compliance with the core requirements; this description must 

include how it plans to overcome those barriers.65 

• Definitions. States may have different definitions for juvenile and criminal justice 

terms than those provided in the JJDP Act. States must document and ensure that 

all state definitions that differ from federal definitions, have been identified and will 

be addressed in the monitoring process. Specifically, states must certify that where 

state definitions differ from federal definitions, in the monitoring process, federal 

definitions will be used in the monitoring process.66 

• Identification of the monitoring universe. This refers to the identification of all 

facilities in the state which hold adults and which might hold juveniles pursuant to 

public authority. Every facility that has this potential, regardless of the purpose for 

housing juveniles, comes under the purview of the monitoring requirements, and 

thus must be classified to determine if it should be included in the monitoring effort. 

This includes those facilities owned or operated by public and private agencies.67 

• Classification of the monitoring universe. This is the classification of all facilities in 

the state that might hold juveniles pursuant to public authority. Classification must 

determine the facility type (e.g. juvenile detention or correctional facility, adult 

correctional institution, jail, lockup, or other type of secure or nonsecure facility). 

Moreover, classification also includes determining whether a facility is public or 

private, residential or nonresidential, and whether the population is juvenile only, 

adult only or juvenile and adult. While facilities can successfully self-report their own 

classification, the final classification of a facility must be verified by the DSA while 

onsite to determine which ones should be considered as a secure detention or 

correctional facility, adult correctional institution, jail lockup, or other type of secure 

or nonsecure facility.68 

• Inspection of facilities. Inspection of facilities is necessary to ensure an accurate 

assessment of each facility’s classification, to verify the adequacy of sight and sound 

separation where both juvenile and adults inmates are present, and to ensure 

appropriate record keeping. States should strive to inspect 100 percent of all 

facilities that have public authority to detain or confine juveniles onsite, once every 3 

years. The inspection must include: 

o An on-site review of the physical accommodations to determine whether it is a 

secure or nonsecure facility and in secure facilities whether adequate sight and 

sound separation between juvenile and adult offenders exists, and 

o An on-site review of the record keeping system, including verification of selfreported data provided by a facility, to determine whether data are valid and 

maintained in a manner allowing a state to determine compliance with DSO, jail 

removal, and separation requirements.69 

32 
• Data collection and data verification. Data collection and onsite data verification 

are required to determine whether facilities in the state are in compliance with the 

applicable requirements of DSO, jail removal, and separation. Reporting periods for 

all three core requirements must concur (i.e. the same months of data must be used 

for each of the core requirements). OJJDP recognizes three data collection periods 

with the resulting due dates: calendar year, due June 30; federal fiscal year, due 

March 31; and state fiscal year, due December 31. The length of the reporting period 

should be 12 months, but in no case less than 6 months. If reporting 6 months of 

data, the data must be projected for a full year in a statistically valid manner. If the 

data is self-reported by the facility or is collected and reported by an agency other 

than the state agency receiving federal grant funds, the plan must describe a 

statistically valid procedure used to verify the reported data. The DSA must verify, 

onsite, self-reported data or data provided by another agency. Onsite data 

verification must involve the review of data self-reported by a facility, including a 

review of the facility’s admissions records and/or booking logs.70 

5.2 Native American Tribes 

Monitoring Facilities on Native American Reservations 

The sovereign authority of Native American tribes with regard to civil and criminal 

jurisdiction over acts committed on a reservation varies from state to state and, in some 

states, from tribe to tribe within a state. Where a Native American tribe exercises 

jurisdiction over juvenile offenders through an established tribal court and operates 

correctional institutions for juvenile and adult offenders and these activities are not 

subject to state law (i.e., the functions are performed under the sovereign authority of 

the tribal entity),the state cannot mandate tribal compliance with the core requirements. 

Therefore, where the state has no authority to regulate or control the law enforcement 

activities of a sovereign Native American tribal reservation, facilities that are located on 

such reservations are not required to be included in the inspection cycle. 

Grants to Native American Tribes 

During the 1988 reauthorization, the JJDP Act was amended to require that a portion of 

each state’s Formula Grant award be made available to fund programs of tribes that 

perform law enforcement functions. While the Act specifies a minimum level of funding, 

states may provide any amount in excess of the minimum amount required to 

accomplish the objectives of the JJDP Act within the tribe. Native American tribes that 

receive Formula Grant funds as part of the Native American Pass-Through requirement 

of the JJDP Act must comply with the core requirements, and facilities on the 

reservation must be monitored by the state. In addition, if the tribe wishes to establish 

eligibility for Community Prevention Grant funds, the tribe must be in compliance with 

the core requirements, and facilities on the reservation must be monitored. 

33 
5.3 Out-of-State Juveniles 

Where there is interstate placement of juveniles and a juvenile is held in a secure facility 

in violation of the JJDP Act, the receiving state must include the violation in its annual 

monitoring report. Although only the receiving state must report the violation, it should 

be noted that neither state is meeting the intent of the core requirements. In addition, a 

unit of local government cannot establish eligibility for Title V Community Prevention 

Grant funds if the jurisdiction is in compliance because of sending juveniles to another 

jurisdiction in violation of the JJDP Act. Juveniles may be held in accordance with the 

Interstate Compact on Juveniles, as enacted by the state.71

34 
Section 6: Reporting Requirements 

6.1 Annual Compliance Monitoring Report Requirement 

In order to receive its full fiscal year allocation of Formula Grants program funds, a state 

must first demonstrate compliance with the DSO, jail removal, separation, and DMC 

core requirements. Compliance with the first three core requirements is demonstrated 

through data provided in the state’s annual Compliance Monitoring Report, of which all 

data must be analyzed and verified prior to submission. Compliance with 

disproportionate minority contact is determined by information provided in the state’s 

Comprehensive 3-Year Plan and subsequent 3-Year Plan Updates. 

Eligibility for Formula Grant awards is determined prior to the fiscal year for which the 

award is being made based on data in the compliance monitoring report submitted. For 

example, in most cases, eligibility for FY 2009 Formula Grants was based on states’ 

2006 compliance monitoring reports. This time frame provides a state that has identified 

a compliance problem with sufficient time to request technical assistance, develop a 

corrective action plan, and take the necessary steps to provide OJJDP with more 

current data demonstrating compliance, thereby maximizing the state’s opportunity to 

receive its full fiscal year allocation. 

6.2 Deadline To Submit Annual Report 

OJJDP’s Formula Grant Regulation requires states to submit compliance information 

annually. The reporting period should provide 12 months of data but shall not provide 

less than 6 months of data. Recognizing that states use various data collection 

procedures, OJJDP has historically recognized a variety of data collection periods 

including the calendar year, the federal fiscal year, or the state fiscal year. The data 

provided for each of the three core requirements must be from the same time period 

(e.g., a state may not use the calendar year reporting period for DSO, the federal fiscal 

year for jail removal, and the state fiscal year for separation data); one data collection 

period must be used for all three core requirements. OJJDP strongly recommends 

calendar year data collection. 

Due dates are as follows: calendar, June 30; federal fiscal year, March 31; and state 

fiscal year, December 31. 

States that fail to adhere to the requirement for the timely submission of this data face a 

restriction on the drawdown of funds for active Formula Grants program awards. 

35 
6.3 Reporting Requirements 

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

To demonstrate the extent of compliance with DSO core requirement, the annual report 

must include, at a minimum, the following information for the current reporting period: 

• Dates covered by the current reporting period.72 

• Total number of public and private secure detention and correctional facilities, 

including the total number reporting data, and the total number inspected onsite.73 

• The total number of accused status offenders and nonoffenders, including out-ofstate runaways and federal wards, held in any secure detention or correctional 

facility for longer than 24 hours (not including weekends or holidays), excluding 

those held pursuant to the VCO Exclusion or pursuant to the Youth Handgun Safety 

Act or a similar state law. A juvenile who violates this statute, or a similar state law, 

is excepted from the deinstitutionalization of status offenders requirement.74 

• The total number of accused status offenders (including valid court order violators, 

out-of- state runaways, and federal wards, but excluding Youth Handgun Safety Act 

violators) and nonoffenders securely detained in any adult jail, lockup, or 

nonapproved collocated facility for any length of time.75 

• The total number of adjudicated status offenders and nonoffenders, including out-ofstate runaways and federal wards, held for any length of time in a secure detention 

or correctional facility, excluding those held pursuant to the VCO Exclusion or 

pursuant to the Youth Handgun Safety Act or pursuant to the Interstate Compact on 

Juveniles.76 

• The total number of status offenders held in any secure detention or correctional 

facility pursuant to the VCO Exclusion.77 The total number of juvenile offenders held 

pursuant to the Youth Handgun Safety Act.78 

Jail Removal 

To demonstrate the extent of compliance with the jail removal core requirement, the 

report must include, at a minimum, the following information for the current reporting 

period: 

• Dates covered by the current reporting period.79 

• The total number of adult jails in the state, including the total number inspected 

onsite.80 

36 
• The total number of adult lockups in the state, including the total number inspected 

onsite.81 

• The total number of adult jails holding juveniles during the past 12 months.82 

• The total number of adult lockups holding juveniles during the past 12 months.83 

• The total number of accused juvenile criminal-type offenders held securely in adult 

jails, lockups, and unapproved collocated facilities in excess of 6 hours (including 

those held pursuant to the rural exception).84 

• The total number of accused juvenile criminal-type offenders held securely in adult 

jails, lockups, and unapproved collocated facilities for less than 6 hours for purposes 

other than identification, investigation, processing, release to parent(s), transfer to 

court, or transfer to a juvenile facility following initial custody.85 

• The total number of adjudicated juvenile criminal-type offenders held securely in 

adult jails or lockups and unapproved collocated facilities in excess of 6 hours prior 

to or following a court appearance or for any length of time not related to a court 

appearance.86 

• The total number of accused and adjudicated status offenders (including valid court 

order violators) and nonoffenders held securely in adult jails, lockups and 

unapproved collocated facilities for any length of time.87 

• The total number of adult jails, lockups, and unapproved collocated facilities in areas 

meeting the rural exception, including a list of such facilities and the county or 

jurisdiction in which each is located.88 

• The total number of juveniles accused of a criminal-type offense who were held in 

excess of 6 hours but for less than 48 hours in adult jails, lockups, and unapproved 

collocated facilities pursuant to the rural exception.89 

• The total number of juveniles accused of a criminal-type offense who were held in 

excess of 48 hours but not for more than an additional 48 hours in adult jails, 

lockups, and unapproved collocated facilities pursuant to the rural exception due to 

conditions of distance or lack of ground transportation.90 

• The total number of juveniles accused of a criminal-type offense who were held in 

excess of 48 hours, but not more than an additional 24 hours after the time such 

conditions as adverse weather allow for reasonably safe travel, in adult jails, lockups 

and unapproved collocated facilities in areas meeting the rural exception.91 

37 
Separation 

To demonstrate the extent of compliance with the separation core requirement, the 

report must include, at a minimum, the following information for the current reporting 

period: 

• Dates covered by the current reporting period.92 

• The total number of facilities used to detain or confine both juvenile offenders and 

adult criminal offenders during the past 12 months, and the number inspected 

onsite.93 

• The total number of facilities used for secure detention and confinement of both 

juvenile offenders and adult criminal offenders which did not provide sight and sound 

separation.94 

• The total number of juvenile offenders and nonoffenders not separated from adult 

criminal offenders in facilities used for the secure detention and confinement of both 

juveniles and adults.95 

• The total number of state-approved juvenile detention centers located within the 

same building or on the same grounds as an adult jail or lockup, including a list of 

such facilities.96 

• The total number of juveniles detained in state approved collocated facilities that 

were not separated from the management, security or direct care staff of the adult 

jail or lockup.97

• The total number of juvenile detention centers located within the same building or on 

the same grounds as an adult jail or lockup that have not been approved by the 

state, including a list of such facilities.98 

• The total number of juveniles detained in collocated facilities not approved by the 

state who were not sight and sound separated from adult inmates.99 

6.4 Technical Assistance Reporting Tool 

OJJDP has developed a technical assistance tool to help states submit annual 

compliance monitoring reports. This technical assistance tool is a template to use with 

the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program. This template requests all of the information 

to be submitted to fulfill the reporting requirements listed above. The form may be 

downloaded from the OJJDP Web site’s compliance monitoring page at 

ojjdp.gov/compliance. 

38 
States that are considering using this form should note the following: 

• The electronic form is a template only—to use it, the state must first have the 

Microsoft Excel program, version 97 or greater. 

• Although it is provided as an electronic template, the form should not be submitted 

electronically.100 It must be printed and then sent to OJJDP with all of the requested 

attachments. 

• The state should check for template updates and enhancements before completing 

its annual monitoring report. New versions of the template can be found at the 

OJJDP Web site on compliance monitoring at http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/compliance. 

6.5 Monitoring Report Exemption 

States which have been determined by the OJJDP Administrator to have achieved full 

compliance with DSO, jail removal, and separation requirements and wish to be 

exempted from the annual monitoring report requirements must submit a written request 

to the OJJDP Administrator which demonstrates that: 

• The state provides for an adequate system of monitoring jails, law enforcement 

lockups, and detention facilities, to enable an annual determination of state 

compliance with Section 223(a)(11),(12), and (13) of the JJDP Act. 

• State legislation has been enacted that conforms to the requirements of Section 

223(a)(11),(12), and (13) of the JJDP Act. 

• The enforcement of the legislation is statutorily or administratively prescribed, 

specifically providing that: 

o Authority for enforcement of the statute is assigned. 

o Time frames for monitoring compliance with the statute are specified. 

o Adequate procedures are set forth for enforcement of the statute and the 

imposition of sanctions for violations. 

6.6 Anti-Fraud Warning 

The annual compliance monitoring report submitted by the DSA is subject to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1001, which makes it a crime to knowingly submit false statements to the federal 

government. 

39 
6.7 Annual Report to the Governor and Legislature 

The JJDP Act requires the State Advisory Group in each state participating in the 

Formula Grants program to submit annual recommendations to the state’s Governor 

and legislature regarding the state’s compliance with the core requirements. This report 

is an excellent opportunity for the state agency and the State Advisory Group to make 

recommendations and report how the state is addressing the core requirements. 

40 
Section 7: Standards for Demonstrating Compliance 

7.1 Grant Funds Affected by Compliance 

If a state demonstrates compliance with the core requirements, it is eligible for Formula 

Grant funds. Moreover, units of local government and federally recognized tribes that 

are in compliance with the core requirements are eligible for Title V Community 

Prevention Grant funds. 

Formula Grant Funds 

The state must demonstrate the extent to which each of the four core requirements are 

met. If the state fails to demonstrate the required level of compliance by the end of the 

fiscal year for which funds are allocated, the state’s Formula Grants allotment will be 

reduced by 20 percent for each such failure in the subsequent fiscal year. Further, the 

noncompliant state must agree to expend 50 percent of the state’s allocation for that 

year to achieve compliance with the core requirement(s) with which it is not in 

compliance. If the OJJDP Administrator makes a discretionary determination that the 

state has substantially complied with the requirement(s) for which there is 

noncompliance and that the state has made, through appropriate executive or 

legislative action, an unequivocal commitment to achieving full compliance within a 

reasonable time, then the restriction on expenditures will not apply. In order for such a 

determination to be made, the state must demonstrate that it has diligently carried out 

the plan approved by OJJDP, demonstrated significant progress toward full compliance, 

submitted a plan based on an assessment of current barriers to DMC, and provided an 

assurance that added resources will be expended, from Formula Grants or other fund 

sources, to achieve compliance. 

Where a state’s allocation is reduced, the amount available for planning and 

administration and the required pass-through allocation, other than the State Advisory 

Group set-aside, will be reduced because they are based on the reduced allocation. 

Community Prevention Grant Funds—State Eligibility 

A state out of compliance with the JJDP Act may still be awarded Community 

Prevention Grants if there are units of general local government eligible to receive grant 

awards based upon their compliance with the core requirements. 

Community Prevention Grant Funds—Unit of Local Government Eligibility 

For a unit of general local government or federally recognized tribe to be eligible to 

apply to the state for Title V Community Prevention Grant funds, the unit must be 

certified by the State Advisory Group as in compliance with the four core requirements. 

The specific unit of general local government that is seeking certification must 

demonstrate compliance with the four core requirements. Therefore, a State Advisory 

Group is not allowed to certify a city’s compliance based on the overall compliance 

41 
status of the county. The unit of general local government must obtain this certification 

prior to applying for an award of funds. In determining eligibility, the State Advisory 

Group must certify only those units of general local government that are within the de 

minimis parameters provided in sections 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 and base this determination 

on the locality’s most current census data. 

The compliance certification applies to all facilities operated by or contracted by the unit 

of general local government. This certification is not limited to a specific catchment area 

within the boundaries of the unit of general local government. Therefore, the certification 

must also include any facility that the unit of general local government operates, 

contracts for, or uses inside or outside its boundaries. However, the certification does 

not apply to facilities operated or controlled by other governmental units within the local 

governmental boundaries that are not used by the local government. 

In order for a unit of general local government to be in compliance with the 

disproportionate minority contact (DMC) core requirement, the State Advisory Group 

must certify that the unit of general local government is cooperating in data gathering 

and analysis to determine if DMC exists. If DMC is found to exist within the boundaries 

or jurisdiction of the unit of general local government, the unit must be making an 

adequate effort toward addressing, or assisting the state to address, this issue. The 

level of cooperation and commitment must be satisfactory to support efforts to achieve 

the goals of the DMC requirement. 

After awards have been made to units of local government, the state must ensure that 

these communities continue to comply with the four core requirements. Title V awards 

to units of local government must be in 12-month increments for periods of up to 3 

years. Continuation funding for each of the 12-month increments is based on the unit of 

local government’s satisfactory performance and continued compliance with the four 

core requirements. As part of its Community Prevention Grants program, the state must 

have a plan which will identify and discontinue all Community Prevention Grants funding 

to units of local government that fall out of compliance. Completed compliance 

certification forms should be kept on file for all Community Prevention Grants 

subawards. 

7.2 Deadline for Establishing Eligibility for Formula Grant Funds 

The deadline date for a state to demonstrate eligibility for its annual allocation of 

Formula Grant funds is March 31, or 60 days after OJJDP officially notifies states of 

their Formula Grant allocation, whichever is later. Demonstrating eligibility includes 

submitting a complete grant application by this deadline and submitting a monitoring 

report and other documentation that establishes compliance with the core requirements 

of the JJDP Act. (For DMC compliance, eligibility is based on a review of the previous 

fiscal year plan.101) If a state cannot meet the deadline for good cause, it may apply for 

an extension to OJJDP in writing by the application due date. The extension will not be 

continued past the end of the fiscal year for which the state has applied for funds. The 

funds for which the state could not demonstrate eligibility will not be held past the end of 

42 
the fiscal year for which the state applied for funds, nor will the entire award be held 

past the end of the fiscal year for which the state applied for funds in order to provide 

additional time to establish eligibility. 

7.3 Demonstrating Compliance: Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders102

Full compliance with DSO is achieved when a state has removed 100 percent of status 

offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities. The legal 

concept of de minimis, meaning “the law cares not for small things,” is generally applied 

where small, insignificant or infinitesimal matters are at issue. OJJDP has developed de 

minimis standards for states that have not removed 100 percent of status offenders and 

nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities. If states that have not 

achieved 100 percent can demonstrate full compliance with de minimis exceptions 

pursuant to the OJJDP policy criteria,103 the state will be determined to be in compliance 

with DSO. OJJDP has established the following criteria for determining whether a state 

has demonstrated full compliance with the deinstitutionalization of status offenders 

requirement. 

Criterion A: The extent of noncompliance is insignificant or of slight 

consequence in terms of the total juvenile population in the state. 

In applying criterion A, the following four standards104 will be used: 

• States which have an institutionalization rate less than 5.8 per 100,000 population 

will be considered to be in full compliance with the de minimis exceptions and will 

not be required to address criteria B and C. 

• States whose rate falls between 5.8 and 17.6 per 100,000 population will be eligible 

for a finding of full compliance with de minimis exceptions if they adequately meet 

criteria B and C. 

• States whose rate is above 17.6 but does not exceed 29.4 per 100,000 will be 

eligible for a finding of full compliance with de minimis exceptions only if they fully 

satisfy criteria B and C. 

• States which have a placement rate in excess of 29.4 per 100,000 population are 

presumptively ineligible for a finding of full compliance with de minimis exceptions 

because any rate above that level is considered to represent an excessive and 

significant level of status offenders and nonoffenders held in juvenile detention or 

correctional facilities. 

OJJDP will consider requests for a finding of compliance from such states where the 

state demonstrates exceptional circumstances which account for the excessive rate. 

Exceptional circumstances are limited to situations where, but for the exceptional 

circumstance, the state’s institutionalization rate would be within the 29.4 rate 

established above. 

43 
The following will be recognized for consideration as exceptional circumstances: 

• Federal wards held under federal statutory authority in a secure state or local 

detention facility for the sole purpose of effecting a jurisdictional transfer, 

appearance as a material witness, or for return to their lawful residence or country of 

citizenship. 

• A state has recently enacted changes in state law which have gone into effect and 

which the state demonstrates can be expected to have a substantial, significant, and 

positive impact on the state’s achieving full compliance with the deinstitutionalization 

requirement within a reasonable time. 

In order to make a determination that a state has demonstrated exceptional 

circumstances under the first two items above, the state must have developed a 

separate and specific plan under criterion C, which addresses the problem in a manner 

that will eliminate the noncompliant instances within a reasonable time. 

It is of critical importance that all states seeking a finding of full compliance with de 

minimis exceptions demonstrate progress toward full compliance annually in order to be 

eligible for a finding of full compliance with de minimis exceptions. 

States may provide additional information that they deem relevant in determining the 

extent to which the number of noncompliant incidences is insignificant or of slight 

consequence. Factors such as local practice, available resources, or organizational 

structure of local government will not be considered relevant by OJJDP in making this 

determination. 

Criterion B: The extent to which the instances of noncompliance were in apparent 

violation of state law or established executive or judicial policy. 

The following information must be provided in response to criterion B and must be 

sufficient to make a determination as to whether the instances of noncompliance with 

DSO as reported in the state’s monitoring report were in apparent violation of, or 

departures from, state law or established executive or judicial policy. OJJDP will 

consider this criterion to be satisfied by those states that demonstrate that all or 

substantially all of the instances of noncompliance were in apparent violation of, or 

departures from, state law or established executive or judicial policy. This is because 

such instances of noncompliance can more readily be eliminated by legal or other 

enforcement processes. The existence of such law or policy is also an indicator of the 

commitment of the state to the deinstitutionalization requirement and to achieving and 

maintaining future 100 percent compliance. Therefore, information should also be 

included on any newly established law or policy which can reasonably be expected to 

reduce the state’s rate of institutionalization in the future. 

44 
• A brief description of the noncompliant incidents must be provided which includes a 

statement of the circumstances surrounding the instances of noncompliance. (For 

example: Of 15 status offenders/nonoffenders held in juvenile detention or 

correctional facilities during the 12-month period for state X, 3 were accused status 

offenders held in jail in excess of 24 hours, 6 were accused status offenders held in 

detention facilities in excess of 24 hours, 2 were adjudicated status offenders held in 

a juvenile correctional facility, 3 were accused status offenders held in excess of 24 

hours in a diagnostic evaluation facility, and 1 was an adjudicated status offender 

placed in a mental health facility pursuant to the court’s status offenders jurisdiction.) 

Do not use actual names of juveniles. 

• Describe whether the instances of noncompliance were in apparent violation of state 

law or established executive or judicial policy. A statement should be made for each 

circumstance discussed in item 1 above. A copy of the pertinent/applicable law or 

established policy should be attached. (For example: The three accused status 

offenders were held in apparent violation of a state law that does not permit the 

placement of status offenders in jail under any circumstances. Attachment “X” is a 

copy of this law. The six status offenders held in juvenile detention were placed 

there pursuant to a disruptive behavior clause in our statute which allows status 

offenders to be placed in juvenile detention facilities for a period of up to 72 hours if 

their behavior in a shelter care facility warrants secure placement. Attachment “X” is 

a copy of this statute. A similar statement must be provided for each circumstance.) 

Criterion C: The extent to which an acceptable plan has been developed which is 

designed to eliminate the noncompliant incidents within a reasonable time, where 

the instances of noncompliance either (1) indicate a pattern or practice, or (2) 

appear to be consistent with state law or established executive or judicial policy, 

or both. 

If the state determines that the instances of noncompliance (1) do not indicate a pattern 

or practice, and (2) are inconsistent with and in apparent violation of state law or 

established executive or judicial policy, then the state must explain the basis for this 

determination. In such case no plan would be required as part of the request for a 

finding of full compliance under this policy. 

The following must be addressed as elements of an acceptable plan for the elimination 

of noncompliant incidents that will result in the modification or enforcement of state law 

or executive or judicial policy to ensure consistency between the state’s practices and 

the JJDP Act deinstitutionalization requirements. 

• If the instances of noncompliance are sanctioned by or consistent with state law or 

executive or judicial policy, then the plan must detail a strategy to modify the law or 

policy to prohibit noncompliant placement so that it is consistent with the federal 

deinstitutionalization requirement. 

45 
• If the instances of noncompliance are in apparent violation of state law or 

established executive or judicial policy, but amount to or constitute a pattern or 

practice rather than isolated instances of noncompliance, the plan must detail a 

strategy which will be employed to rapidly identify violations and ensure the prompt 

enforcement of applicable state law or executive or judicial policy. 

• In addition, the plan must be targeted specifically to the agencies, courts, or facilities 

responsible for the placement of status offenders and nonoffenders in compliance 

with DSO. It must include a specific strategy to eliminate instances of 

noncompliance through statutory reform, changes in facility policy and procedure, 

modification of court policy and practice, or other appropriate means. 

If OJJDP makes a finding that a state is in full compliance with de minimis exceptions 

based, in part, upon the submission of an acceptable plan under criterion C above, the 

state will be required to include the plan as part of its current or next submitted formula 

grant plan as appropriate. OJJDP will measure the state’s success in implementing the 

plan by comparison of the data in the next monitoring report indicating the extent to 

which noncompliant incidences have been eliminated. 

Determinations of full compliance status will be made annually by OJJDP following the 

submission of the annual monitoring report. Any state reporting less than 100 percent 

compliance in any annual monitoring report would, therefore, be required to follow the 

above procedures in requesting a finding of full compliance with de minimis exceptions. 

7.4 Demonstrating Compliance: Jail Removal 

Full compliance is achieved when a state demonstrates that the last submitted 

monitoring report, covering 12 months of actual data, demonstrates that no juveniles 

were held in adult jails or lockups in circumstances that were in violation of jail 

removal.105 As with the deinstitutionalization of status offenders requirement, OJJDP 

has developed de minimis standards for states that have not achieved 100 percent 

removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. Full compliance with de minimis

exceptions is achieved when a state demonstrates that it has met the numerical or 

substantive de minimis standards below: 

Numerical De Minimis Standard 

To comply with this standard, the state must demonstrate that each of the following two 

requirements has been met: 

• The incidents of noncompliance reported in the state’s last submitted monitoring 

report do not exceed an annual rate of 9 per 100,000 juvenile population of the 

state.106

46 
• An acceptable plan has been developed to eliminate the noncompliant incidents 

through the enactment or enforcement of state law, rule, or statewide executive or 

judicial policy, education, the provision of alternatives, or other effective means. 

Any state whose prior full compliance status is based on having met the numerical de 

minimis standard must annually demonstrate, in its request for a finding of full 

compliance with de minimis exceptions, continued and meaningful progress toward 

achieving full (100 percent) compliance in order to maintain eligibility for a continued 

finding of full compliance with de minimis exceptions. 

Substantive De Minimis Standard 

To comply with this standard the state must demonstrate that each of the following 

requirements has been met: 

• State law, court rule, or other statewide executive or judicial policy clearly prohibits 

the detention or confinement of all juveniles in circumstances that would be in 

violation of jail removal. 

• All instances of noncompliance reported in the last submitted monitoring report were 

in violation of or departures from the state law, rule, or policy referred to in the 

preceding item. 

• The instances of noncompliance do not indicate a pattern or practice but rather 

constitute isolated instances. 

• Existing mechanisms for the enforcement of the state law, rule, or policy referred to 

in the first item of this list are such that the instances of noncompliance are unlikely 

to recur in the future. 

• An acceptable plan has been developed to eliminate the noncompliant incidents and 

to monitor the existing mechanism referred to in the preceding item. 

Determinations of full compliance and full compliance with de minimis exceptions are 

made annually by OJJDP following submission of the annual monitoring report. Any 

state reporting less than full (100 percent) compliance in its annual monitoring report 

may request a finding of full compliance with the substantive or numerical de minimis 

exceptions. The request may be submitted in conjunction with the monitoring report, or 

as soon thereafter as all information required for a determination is available, or it may 

be included in the annual state plan and application for the state’s Formula Grant 

award. 

47 
7.5 Demonstrating Compliance: Separation 

Compliance with Section 223(a)(12) has been achieved when a state can demonstrate 

that: 

• The last submitted monitoring report, covering a full 12 months of data, 

demonstrates that no juveniles were incarcerated in circumstances that were in 

violation of Section 223(a)(12);or 

• The instances of noncompliance reported in the last submitted monitoring report do 

not indicate a pattern or practice but rather constitute isolated instances; and 

• Where all instances of noncompliance reported were in violation of or departure from 

state law, rule, or policy that clearly prohibits the incarceration of all juvenile 

offenders in circumstances that would be in violation of Section 223(a)(12), existing 

enforcement mechanisms are such that the instances of noncompliance are unlikely 

to recur in the future; or 

• An acceptable plan has been developed to eliminate the noncompliant incidents.107 

See “Summary of Standards for Demonstrating Compliance” on page 58. 

48 
Section 8: Definitions 

Adult inmate. An individual who has reached the age of full criminal responsibility 

under applicable state law and has been arrested and is in custody for or awaiting trial 

on a criminal charge, or is convicted of a criminal offense.108 

Adult jail. A locked facility, administered by state, county, or local law enforcement and 

correctional agencies, the purpose of which is to detain adults charged with violating 

criminal law, pending trial. Also considered as adult jails are those facilities used to hold 

convicted adult criminal offenders sentenced for less than 1 year.109 

Adult lockup. A facility that is used by a state, unit of local government, or any law 

enforcement authority to detain or confine individuals. Similar to an adult jail except that 

an adult lockup is generally a municipal or police facility of a temporary nature that does 

not hold persons after they have been formally charged.110 

Civil-type juvenile offender. A juvenile offender who has been charged with or 

adjudicated for an offense that is civil in nature. Examples include noncriminal traffic 

violations and noncriminal fish and game violations. 

Collocated facilities. Collocated facilities are facilities that are located in the same 

building, or are part of a related complex of buildings located on the same grounds.111 

Contact (sight and sound). Any physical or sustained sight and sound contact 

between juvenile offenders in a secure custody status and incarcerated adults, including 

adult inmate trustees. Sight contact is defined as clear visual contact between 

incarcerated adults and juveniles within close proximity to each other. Sound contact is 

defined as direct oral communication between incarcerated adults and juvenile 

offenders.112 

Court holding facility. A court holding facility is a secure facility, other than an adult jail 

or lockup, that is used to temporarily detain persons immediately before or after 

detention hearings, or other court proceedings. Court holding facilities, where they do 

not detain individual overnight (i.e. are not residential) and are not used for punitive 

purposes or other purposes unrelated to a court appearance, are not considered adult 

jails or lockups for purposes of section 223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act. However, such 

facilities remain subject to the section 223(a)(13) (42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(14)) separation 

requirement of the Act.113 

Criminal-type juvenile offender. A juvenile offender who has been charged with or 

adjudicated for conduct that would, under the law of the jurisdiction in which the offense 

was committed, be a crime if committed by an adult.114 

Delayed egress device. A device that precludes the use of exits for a predetermined 

period of time. 

49 
Disproportionate minority contact (DMC). As amended by the JJDP Act of 2002, the 

concept of disproportionate minority confinement has been broadened to address the 

disproportionate numbers of minority youth who come into contact with the juvenile 

justice system at any point. The JJDP Act now requires states to “address juvenile 

delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, 

without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate 

number of juvenile members of the minority groups who come into contact with the 

juvenile justice system.”115 

Facility. A place, an institution, a building or part thereof, set of buildings, or an area 

whether or not enclosing a building or set of buildings which is used for the lawful 

custody and treatment of juveniles and may be owned and/or operated by public and 

private agencies (28 CFR 31.304(c)).116 

Federal ward. An alien juvenile under federal jurisdiction held in state or local 

facilities.117 Such juveniles include undocumented immigrant youth and youth in the 

custody of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Juvenile offender. An individual subject to the exercise of juvenile court jurisdiction for 

purposes of adjudication and treatment based on age and offense limitations as defined 

by state law, i.e., a criminal-type offender or a status offender.118 

Juvenile who is accused of having committed an offense. A juvenile with respect to 

whom a petition has been filed in the juvenile court or other action has occurred alleging 

that such juvenile is a juvenile offender, i.e., a criminal-type offender or a status 

offender, and no final adjudication has been made by the juvenile court).119 

Juvenile who has been adjudicated as having committed an offense. A juvenile 

with respect to whom the juvenile court has determined that such juvenile is a juvenile 

offender, i.e., a criminal-type offender or a status offender.120 

Lawful custody. The exercise of care, supervision, and control over a juvenile offender 

or nonoffender pursuant to the provisions of the law or of a judicial order or decree.121 

Nonoffender. A juvenile who is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, usually 

under abuse, dependency, or neglect statutes or as an alien juvenile, for reasons other 

than legally prohibited conduct of the juvenile.122 These cases are referred to by many 

names including Children in Need of Assistance (CINA) and Children in Need of 

Protective Services (CHIPS). 

Nonsecure custody. A juvenile may be in law enforcement custody and, therefore, not 

free to leave or depart from the presence of a law enforcement officer or at liberty to 

leave the premises of a law enforcement facility, but not be in a secure detention or 

confinement status. The November 2, 1988, Federal Register announcement, Policy 

Guidance for Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles in Adult Jails and Lockups; Notice of 

50 
Final Policy, states that the following policy criteria, if satisfied, will constitute nonsecure 

custody of a juvenile in an adult jail or lockup facility: 

• The area(s) where the juvenile is held is an unlocked multipurpose area, such as a 

lobby, office, or interrogation room which is not designated, set aside, or used as a 

secure detention area or is not part of such an area, or, if a secure area, is used only 

for processing purposes. 

• The juvenile is not physically secured to a cuffing rail or other stationary object 

during the period of custody in the facility. 

• The use of the area(s) is limited to providing nonsecure custody only long enough for 

and for the purposes of identification, investigation, processing, release to parents, 

or arranging transfer to an appropriate juvenile facility or to court. 

• In no event can the area be designed or intended to be used for residential 

purposes. 

• The juvenile must be under continuous visual supervision by a law enforcement 

officer or facility staff during the period of time that he or she is in nonsecure 

custody. 

In addition, a juvenile placed in the following situations would be considered in a 

nonsecure status: 

• If certain criteria are met, a juvenile handcuffed to a nonstationary object.

Handcuffing techniques that do not involve cuffing rails or other stationary objects 

are considered nonsecure if the five criteria listed above are adhered to. 

• If certain criteria are met, a juvenile being processed through a secure 

booking area. Where a secure booking area is all that is available, and continuous 

visual supervision is provided throughout the booking process, and the juvenile 

remains in the booking area only long enough to be photographed and fingerprinted 

(consistent with state law and/or judicial rules), the juvenile is not considered to be in 

a secure detention status. Continued nonsecure custody for the purposes of 

interrogation, contacting parents, or arranging an alternative placement must occur 

outside the booking area. 

• A juvenile placed in a secure police car for transportation. The JJDP Act applies 

to secure detention facilities and secure correctional facilities, so a juvenile placed in 

a secure police car for transportation would be in a nonsecure status. 

• A juvenile placed in a nonsecure runaway shelter, but prevented from leaving 

due to staff restricting access to exits. A facility may be nonsecure if physical 

restriction of movement or activity is provided solely through facility staff. 

51 
Other individual accused of having committed a criminal offense. An individual, 

adult or juvenile, who has been charged with committing a criminal offense in a court 

exercising criminal jurisdiction.123 

Other individual convicted of a criminal offense. An individual, adult or juvenile, who 

has been convicted of a criminal offense by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction.124 

Reasonable cause hearing. In the context of the VCO Exception, the reasonable 

cause hearing (also referred to as a “probable cause hearing” or “preliminary hearing”) 

is a court proceeding held by a judge to determine whether there is sufficient cause to 

believe that a juvenile status offender accused of violating a valid court order has 

violated such an order and to determine the appropriate placement of such juvenile 

pending disposition of the violation alleged.125 

Related complex of buildings. Related complex of buildings means 2 or more 

buildings that share physical features such as walls and fences, or services beyond 

mechanical services (heating, air conditioning, water and sewer); or the specialized 

services such as medical care, food service, laundry, maintenance, engineering 

services, etc.126

Residential. Pertains to facilities with the structural and operational capacity to securely 

detain individuals overnight, and may include sleeping, shower and toilet, and day room 

areas. 127 

Secure custody. As used to define a detention or correctional facility, this term includes 

residential facilities that include construction features designed to physically restrict the 

movements and activities of persons in custody such as locked rooms and buildings, 

fences, or other physical structures. It does not include facilities where physical 

restriction of movement or activity is provided solely through facility staff .128 

Secure detention facility. A public or private residential facility which includes 

construction fixtures designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of 

juveniles or other individuals held in lawful custody in such facility, and is used for the 

temporary placement of any juvenile who is accused of having committed an offense, 

any juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and is awaiting placement, or of any 

other individual accused of having committed a criminal offense.129 

Secure correctional facility. A public or private residential facility which includes 

construction fixtures designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of 

juveniles or other individuals held in lawful custody in such facility, and is used for the 

placement, after adjudication and disposition, of any juvenile who has been adjudicated 

as having committed an offense or any other individual convicted of a criminal 

offense.130 

Staff secure facility. A residential facility (1) which does not include construction 

features designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of juveniles who 

52 
are in custody therein, but any such physical restriction of movement or activity is 

provided solely through staff; (2) which may establish reasonable rules restricting 

entrance to and egress from the facility; and (3) in which the movements and activities 

of individual juvenile residents may, for treatment purposes, be restricted or subject to 

control through the use of intensive staff supervision. 

Status offender. A juvenile who has been charged with or adjudicated for conduct 

which would not, under the law of the jurisdiction in which the offense was committed, 

be a crime if committed by an adult.131 The following are examples of status offenses: 

• Truancy. 

• Violations of curfew. 

• Runaway. 

• Underage possession and/or consumption of tobacco products. 

• Underage alcohol offenses. These offenses are considered status offenses, even 

though state or local law may consider them delinquent offenses. 

Valid court order. A valid court order is a court order given by a juvenile court judge to 

a juvenile who was brought before the court and made subject to the order, and who 

received, before the issuance of the order, the full due process rights guaranteed to 

such juvenile by the Constitution of the United States.132 

53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
Appendix K: Age of Full Criminal Responsibility and Maximum Age of Extended 

Juvenile Court Jurisdiction—50-State Survey (Prepared by OJJDP Staff) (Last 

Search Performed on July 27, 2010) 

3⁄4 Yellow highlighting indicates states in which the age of full criminal responsibility and 

the maximum age of extended juvenile court jurisdiction are the same. 

3⁄4 Orange highlighting indicates states in which the age of full criminal responsibility is 

under 18. 

3⁄4 Most state statutes do not use the language “age of full criminal responsibility.” 

Instead, they use “upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction” or a similar term of 

art. 

State Age of Full Criminal 

Responsibility 

Maximum Age of Extended 

Juvenile Court Jurisdiction 

Alabama 181 202

Alaska 183 184

Arizona 185 206

Arkansas 187 208

California 189 2410

Colorado 1811 2112/Until full term of court 

order13

Connecticut 17/1814 2015

Delaware 1816 2017

 

1

 Ala. Code 1975 §§ 12-15-102(3), 12-15-114 (2008). 

2

 Ala. Code 1975 §§§ 12-15-102(3), 12-15-114, 12-15-117 (2008). 

3

 A.S. § 47.12.020(a) (2005). 

4

 A.S. § 47.12.160(c) (2005) (though in special circumstances, an extension past the 19th birthday is 

possible: “the department may apply for and the court may grant an additional one-year period of 

supervision past age 19 if continued supervision is in the best interests of the person and the person 

consents to it”). 

5

 A.R.S. § 8-202 (2001). 

6

 A.R.S. § 8-341(n) (2009). 

7

 A.C.A. § 9-27-306(a)(1) (2009). 

8

 A.C.A. § 9-27-306(a)(2) (2009). 

9

 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 602(a) (2001). 

10 Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 607 (1994). 11 C.R.S.A. §§ 19-1-103(18), (68) (2008) (definition of juvenile); C.R.S.A. § 19-2-104 (2004) (jurisdiction). 12 C.R.S.A. § 19-2-601(8)(b) (2008). 13 C.R.S.A. § 19-2-601 (2008). 14 S.B. 1196 (2007) raised the age of full criminal responsibility incrementally. On July 1, 2010, the age of 

full criminal responsibility will be 17; on July 1, 2012, the age of full criminal responsibility will be 18. 

C.G.S.A. 

§ 46(b)-120(1) (2010). 

15 C.G.S.A. § 46(b)-141(a) (2003) (allows for up to 4 years of extended jurisdiction, which, when the age 

of full criminal responsibility was 16, meant until the youth’s 21st birthday). S.B. 1196 appears to be silent 

on whether 

§ 46(b)-141(a) applies to the new age of full criminal responsibility; if it does, then jurisdiction in 

Connecticut would end when the youth turned 23. 

16 1 Del.C. § 701 (1972); 10 Del. C. § 921 (2009); 10 Del. C. § 1002. 17 1 Del.C. §§ 302, 701; 10 Del.C. § 1009 (2008); 31 Del.C. §§ 5101, 5106-5108 (1996). 

59 
District of 

Columbia 

1818 2019

Florida 1820 2121

Georgia 1722 2023

Hawaii 1824 Until full term of court order25

Idaho 1826 2027

Illinois 1728 2029

Indiana 1830 2031

Iowa 1832 1833

Kansas 1834 2235

Kentucky 1836 1837

Louisiana 1738 2039

Maine 1840 2041

Maryland 1842 2043

Massachusetts 1744 2045

Michigan 1746 2047

Minnesota 1848 2049

 

18 D.C. ST. § 16-2301 (2008). 19 D.C. ST. § 2303 (1997). 20 F.S.A. § 985.03(6) (2008); F.S.A. § 985.0301(1) (2006). 21 F.S.A. § 985.0301(5)(d) (2006). 22 Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-2(2) (2008). 23 Ga. Code Ann. § 15-11-2(2) (2008). 24 H.R.S. § 571-11(1) (2009). 25 H.R.S. § 571-13 (1998). 26 I.C. § 20-502(11) (2000); I.C. § 20-505 (2005). 27 I.C. § 20-507 (1995). 28 705 I.L.C.S. § 405/5-120 (2010). 29 705 I.L.C.S. § 405/5-755 (1999). 30 I.C. § 31-30-1-1 (2003); I.C. §§ 31-37-1-1, 31-37-2-1 (1997). 31 I.C. 31-30-2-1(a)(1) (2007). 32 I.C.A. § 232.2(5) (2009) (definition of child); I.C.A. § 232.8 (2004). 33 I.C.A. § 232.53 (2009). 34 K.S.A. § 38-2302(i) (2008); K.S.A. §§ 38-2304(a)-(c) (2008). 35 K.S.A. § 38-2304(e) (2008). 36 K.R.S. § 600-020(8) (2008); K.R.S. § 610-010 (2008). 37 K.R.S. § 610-010(14) (2008). 38 L.S.A.-Ch.C. Art. § 303 (2001); L.S.A.-Ch.C. Art. §§ 804(1), (3) (2005). 39 L.S.A.-Ch.C. Art. § 804(1) (2005); L.S.A.-Ch.C. Art. § 897.1(A) (2004); L.S.A.-Ch.C. Art. § 898 (2003); 

L.S.A.-Ch.C. Art. § 900 (2003); 

40 15 M.R.S.A. § 3003(14) (2005); 15 M.R.S.A. § 3101(2) (2007). 41 15 M.R.S.A. § 3316(2)(A) (2003). 42 MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-801(e) (2009); MD Code, Courts and Judicial 

Proceedings, § 3-8A-03 (2009); MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, §§ 3-8A-07(b)-(c) (2002). 43 MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 3-8A-07(a) (2002). 44 M.G.L.A. 119 § 21 (2008) (definition of child); M.G.L.A. 119 § 58 (1998). 45 M.G.L.A. 119 § 58(c) (1998); M.G.L.A. 119 § 72(b) (1998); M.G.L.A. 120 § 16 (1996). 46 MI ST. § 712A.2(a) (2002). 47 MI ST. § 712A.2a (1999). 48 M.S.A. § 260B.101(1) (1999). 49 M.S.A. § 260B.193(5)(b) (2004). 

60 
Mississippi 1850 1951

Missouri 1752 2053

Montana 1854 2455

Nebraska 18*56 1857

Nevada 1858 2059

New 

Hampshire 

1760 2061

New Jersey 1862 Until full term of court order63

New Mexico 1864 2065

New York 1666 2067

North Carolina 1668 2069

North Dakota 1870 1971

Ohio 1872 2073

Oklahoma 1874 1875

Oregon 1876 2477

 

50 Miss. Code § 43-21-105(d) (2005) (definition of child); Miss. Code § 43-21-151(1) (1996) (jurisdiction 

over children). 

51 Miss. Code § 43-21-151(2) (1996). 52 V.A.M.S. § 211.031 (2005). 53 V.A.M.S. § 211.041 (2008). 54 M.C.A. § 41-5-203(1) (2001). 55 M.C.A. § 41-5-205(3) (2001). 56 Neb.Rev.St. § 43-247 (2008) (juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over children under age 

16 charged with misdemeanors; and concurrent original jurisdiction with the district and county court over 

children ages 16 and 17 charged with misdemeanors; and concurrent original jurisdiction with the district 

court over children ages 16 and 17 charged with felonies). 

57 Neb.Rev.St. § 43-245(1) (2009) (defining age of majority); Neb.Rev.St. § 43-289 (1996) (defining 

termination of jurisdiction). 

58 N.R.S. § 62B.310 (2003); N.R.S. § 62B.330 (2009); N.R.S. § 62B.370(1) (2009). 59 N.R.S. § 62B.410(2) (2004). 60 N.H. Rev. Stat. § 169-B:4 (2006). 61 N.H. Rev. Stat. § 169-B:4 (2006). 62 N.J.S.A. § 2A:4A-22(a) (1995) (definition of juvenile); N.J.S.A. § 2A:4A-24 (1983) (jurisdiction). 63 N.J.S.A. § 2A:4A-43(f) (2006). 64 N.M.S.A. 1978 § 32A-1-4(B) (2009) (definition of child); N.M.S.A. 1978 § 32A-1-8(A) (2009) 

(jurisdiction). 

65 N.M.S.A. 1978 § 32A-2-19(B) (2009); N.M.S.A. 1978 § 32A-2-23 (2009). 66 McKinney’s Family Court Act § 301.2(1) (2010) (definition of juvenile delinquent); McKinney’s Family 

Court Act § 302.1 (1983) (jurisdiction). 

67 McKinney’s Family Court Act § 355.3(6) (2000). 68 N.C.G.S.A. § 7B-1501(7) (2009) (definition of delinquent juvenile); N.C.G.S.A. § 7B-1601 (2001) 

(jurisdiction); N.C.G.S.A. § 7B-1604 (1999) (limits on jurisdiction). 69 N.C.G.S.A. § 7B-2513(a) (2003). 70 N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(4) (2009) (definition of child); N.D.C.C. § 27-20-3 (2009) (jurisdiction) 71 N.D.C.C. § 27-20-36(6) (2007). 72 R.C. § 2152.02(C) (2000). 73 R.C. § 2152.02(C)(6) (2000). 74 10A Okl.St.Ann. § 2-2-102(B) (2009). 

75 10A Okl.St.Ann. § 2-2-102(B) (2009). 76 O.R.S. § 419C.005(1) (2005). 77 O.R.S. § 419C.005(4)(d) (2005). 

61 
Pennsylvania 1878 2079

Rhode Island 1880 2081

South Carolina 1782 2083

South Dakota 1884 2085

Tennessee 1886 1887

Texas 1788 2089

Utah 1890 2091

Vermont 1892 2293

Virginia 1894 2095

Washington 1896 2097

West Virginia 1898 2099

Wisconsin 17100 24101

Wyoming 18102 20103

 

78 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302 (2008). 79 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302 (2008). 80 Gen. Laws. 1956 § 14-1-5(1) (1999). 81 Gen. Laws. 1956 § 14-1-6(a) (2008). 82 Code 1976 § 63-19-20(1) (2008); Code 1976 § 63-19-1440(A) (2008). 83 Code 1976 § 63-19-1440(B) (2008). 84 S.D.C.L. § 26-7A-1(6) (2003) (definition of child); S.D.C.L. § 26-8C-2 (2004) (definition of delinquent 

child). 

85 S.D.C.L. § 26-7A-1 (2003). 86 T.C.A. § 31-1-102(4) (2009) (definition of child); T.C.A. § 31-1-103 (2009) (jurisdiction). 87 T.C.A. § 31-1-102(4)(B) (2009). 88 T.C.A. Family Code § 51.02(2) (2009); T.C.A. Family Code § 51.04(a) (2001) (jurisdiction). 89 It appears that TYC may retain jurisdiction over youths until age 21, but these youths must be 

sight/sound separated from younger children. “A ward of the Texas Youth Commission between the ages 

of 18 and 21 who has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any crime may under no 

circumstances be housed in the same compartment of a facility as, or permitted regular contact with, any 

“child” as defined in section 51.02 of the Family Code.” Op.Atty.Gen.1991, No. DM-38. 90 U.C.A. 1953 § 78A-6-103(1)(a) (2009). 91 U.C.A. 1953 § 78A-6-103(1)(a) (2009); U.C.A. 1953 § 78A-6-118(1) (2008). 92 33 V.S.A. § 5103 (2009). 93 33 V.S.A. § 5104 (2007). 94 Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-228 (2008) (definition of child and delinquent child). 95 Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-242 (1992). 96 R.C.W.A. § 13.04.030 (2009). 97 R.C.W.A. § 13.40.300 (2005). 98 W. Va. Code, § 49-5-1(b) (1998) (definition of child); W. Va. Code, § 49-5-2(b) (2007). 99 W. Va. Code, § 49-5-2(f) (2007). 100 W.S.A. § 938.02(10m) (2009) (definition of juvenile); W.S.A. § 938.12 (1995) (jurisdiction). 101 W.S.A. § 938.355(4)(b) (2009). 102 W.S.1977 § 14-1-101(a) (2009) (age of majority); W.S.1977 § 14-6-201(a)(iii) (2008) (definition of 

child); W.S.1977 § 14-6-203 (2009) (jurisdiction). 

103 W.S.1977 § 14-6-231(c)(ii) (1997); W.S.1977 § 14-6-247(d) (2009). 

62 
63 

 

1

 Sometimes referred to as the “core protections,” this manual will use the term “core requirements” to emphasize 

that these protections, designed to keep juveniles safe from harm, are requirements of participation in the JJDP Act. 

2

 Since its initial passage in 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (Pub.L. 93-415, Title I, § 

101, Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1109) has been amended four times: 1980 (Pub.L. 96-509, § 3, Dec. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 

2750); 1984 (Pub.L. 98-473, Title II, § 611, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2107); 1992 (Pub.L. 102-586, § 1(a), Nov. 4, 

1992, 106 Stat. 4982); and 2002 (Pub.L. 107-273, Div. C, Title II, § 12202, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1869). 

3

 Formula Grants and the Title V Community Prevention Grants are the grants that are affected by compliance with 

the core requirements. 

4

 The Senate Report that accompanied the 1974 JJDP Act provided additional support for the importance of the DSO 

to the legislation’s drafters: “It is well documented that youths whose behavior is non criminal—although certainly 

problematic and troublesome—have inordinately preoccupied the attention and resources of the juvenile justice 

system. Nearly 40 percent (one-half million per year) of the children brought to the attention of the juvenile justice 

system have committed no criminal act, in adult terms, and are involved simply because they are juveniles. These 

juveniles [sic] status offenders generally are inappropriate clients for the formal police courts and corrections 

process of the juvenile justice system. These children and youth should be channeled to those agencies and 

professions which are mandated and in fact purport to deal with the substantive human and social issues involved in 

these areas.” S. Rep. No. 93-1011, at 5287-88 (1974). 

5

 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(11) (2002). 

6

 The juvenile court was founded at the turn of the twentieth century, based on a growing understanding that 

children had abilities and needs distinct from those of adults, particularly in the context of the justice system. As one 

of the founders of the juvenile court, Judge Julian Mack, wrote, “The child who must be brought into court should, 

of course, be made to know that he is face to face with the power of the state, but he should at the same time, and 

more emphatically, be made to feel that he is the object of its care and solicitude. The ordinary trappings of the 

courtroom are out of place in such hearings. The judge on a bench, looking down upon the boy standing at the bar, 

can never evoke a proper sympathetic spirit. Seated at a desk, with the child at his side, where he can on occasion 

put his arm around his shoulder and draw the lad to him, the judge, while losing none of his judicial dignity, will 

gain immensely in the effectiveness of his work.” Julian Mack, The Juvenile Court, 23 HARV. L. REV. 104, 120 

(1909). 

These principles were strongly reiterated by the Supreme Court in 1967 in its landmark juvenile justice decision, In 

re Gault, in which the Court stated, “The Juvenile Court movement began in this country at the end of the last 

century... The early reformers were appalled by adult procedures and penalties, and by the fact that children could 

be given long prison sentences and mixed in jails with hardened criminals. They were profoundly convinced that 

society's duty to the child could not be confined by the concept of justice alone. They believed that society's role was 

not to ascertain whether the child was ‘guilty’ or ‘innocent,’ but ‘What is he, how has he become what he is, and 

what had best be done in his interest and in the interest of the state to save him from a downward career.’...The 

child was to be ‘treated’ and ‘rehabilitated.’” In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 14-16 (1967). 7

 Dale Parent et al. , Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities Research Summary, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1994) and Martin Forst, Jeffrey Fagan, and T. Scott Vivona, 

“Youth in Prisons and Training Schools: Perceptions and Consequences of the Treatment-Custody Dichotomy, 

“Juvenile & Family Court Journal:40(1)(l989). 

8

 Michael G. Flaherty, An Assessment of the National Incidence of Juvenile Suicide in Adult Jails, Lockups, and 

Juvenile Detention Centers, The University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign (1980). 

9

 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(13) (2002). 

10 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(13)(A) (2002). 

11 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(m) (1996). 

12 42 U.S.C. § 5603(22) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(n) (1996). 13 42 U.S.C. § 5603(28) (2002). 

14 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(11) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(h) (1996). Although the JJDP Act and the Code of Federal 

Regulations use the term “alien” juveniles, legal linguistic trends are moving away from the use of this term: in 

October 2009, the majority in the United States Supreme Court began to refer to these populations as 

“undocumented immigrants.” Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, __ U.S. __ (2009) [slip opinion 2]. 
64 

 15 42 U.S.C. § 5603(29) (2002). 

16 “Final Revision of the Existing Formula Grants Regulation: Final Rule,” 61 Federal Register 238 (10 December 

1996), p. 65132 (“A residential area is an area used to confine individuals overnight, and may include sleeping, 

shower and toilet, and day rooms”). 

17 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(h) (1996). 

18 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(b) (1996). 

19 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(d)(1)(i) (1996). 

20 This is the maximum delay allowed by the National Fire Protection Association, as published in the Life Safety 

Code Handbook. It should be noted that for these devices to be used, the Life Safety Code Handbook dictates that 

other requirements must be met, such as the existence of an “approved supervised automatic fire detection system or 

approved supervised automatic sprinkler system.” 

21 “Policy Guidance for Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles in Adult Jails and Lockups: Notice of Final Policy,” 53 

Federal Register 212 (2 November 1988), p. 44366 (“Where a secure booking area is all that is available, and 

continuous visual supervision is provided throughout the booking process, and the juvenile only remains in the 

booking area long enough to be photographed and fingerprinted (consistent with state law and/or judicial rules), the 

juvenile will not be considered in a secure detention status. Continued nonsecure custody for the purposes of 

interrogation, contacting parents, or arranging an alternative placement must occur outside the booking area”). 22 “Policy Guidance for Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles in Adult Jails and Lockups: Notice of Final Policy,” 53 

Federal Register 212 (2 November 1988), p. 44367 (see appendix E). 

23 An unlocked multipurpose area need not be considered part of a secure detention area if, while the juvenile is in 

the area, sight and sound separation from adult offenders is maintained at all times. 24 “Policy Guidance for Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles in Adult Jails and Lockups: Notice of Final Policy,” 53 

Federal Register 212 (2 November 1988), p. 44367 (“The following policy criteria, if satisfied, will constitute 

nonsecure custody of a juvenile in a building that houses an adult jail or lockup facility: (1) The area(s) where the 

juvenile is held is an unlocked multi-purpose area, such as a lobby, office, or interrogation room which is not 

designated, set aside or used as a secure detention area or is not a part of such an area, or, if a secure area, is used 

only for processing purposes”). 

25 Id. (“the juvenile must be under continuous visual supervision by a law enforcement officer or facility staff during 

the period of time that he or she is in nonsecure custody”); 28 CFR § 31.303(f)(4)(v) (1996) (“OJJDP strongly 

recommends that jails and lockups that incarcerate juveniles be required to provide youth...continuous visual 

supervision of juveniles incarcerated pursuant to this exception”). 

26 42 U.S.C. §§ 5633(a)(11)(B), (a)(13) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(f) (1996). 

27 28 C.F.R. §§ 31.303(e)(2) (1996) (“This requirement excepts only those alleged or adjudicated juvenile 

delinquents placed in a jail or a lockup for up to six hours from the time they enter a secure custody status or 

immediately before or after a court appearance.”) 

28 42 U.S.C. §§ 5633(a)(11)(B), (a)(13) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(f) (1996). 

29 Although cited in regulations as the “removal exception,” this provision is more commonly referred to as the 

“rural exception” and for the purposes of this manual will continue to be referred to as the rural exception. 30 28 CFR 31.303(f)(4)(i)(v) (1996). 

31 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(12). 

32 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(d)(1)(i) (1996) requires that each State “describe its plan and procedure, covering the threeyear planning cycle, for assuring that the requirements of this section are met. The term contact includes any 

physical or sustained sight or sound contact between juvenile offenders in a secure custody status and incarcerated 

adults, including inmate trustees...Separation must be accomplished architecturally or through policies and 

procedures in all secure areas of the facility which include... such areas as admissions, sleeping, and shower and 

toilet areas.” 

33 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(d)(1)(v) (1996) (“This neither prohibits nor restricts the waiver or transfer of a juvenile to 

criminal court for prosecution, in accordance with State law, for a criminal felony violation, nor the detention or 

confinement of a waived or transferred criminal felony violator in an adult facility”). 34 Also see, 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(1)(i) and (f)(5). 

35 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(c)(3) (1996). 

36 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(11) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(i) (1996). Although the JJDP Act and the Code of Federal 

Regulations use the term “alien” juveniles, legal linguistic trends are moving away from the use of this term: in 

October 2009, the majority in the United States Supreme Court began to refer to these populations as 

“undocumented immigrants.” Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, __ U.S. __ (2009) [slip opinion 2]. 
65 

 37 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(b) (1996). 

38 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(d)(1)(i) (1996). 

39 42 U.S.C. § 5603(12) (2002). 

40 42 U.S.C. § 5603(13) (2002). 

41 This is the maximum delay allowed by the National Fire Protection Association, as published in the Life Safety 

Code Handbook. It should be noted that for these devices to be used, the Life Safety Code Handbook dictates that 

other requirements must be met, such as the existence of an “approved supervised automatic fire detection system or 

approved supervised automatic sprinkler system.” 

42 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(12) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(i) (1996). 

43 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(11) (2002) (“Juveniles who are charged with or who have committed an offense that would 

not be criminal if committed by an adult [status offenders]...shall not be placed in secure detention facilities or 

secure correctional facilities; and juveniles—(i) who are not charged with any offense; and (ii) who are—(I) aliens; 

or (II) alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused; shall not be placed in secure detention facilities or secure 

correctional facilities”). 

44 The 48-hour rule is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(13) (2002) (“provide that no juvenile shall be detained or 

confined in any jail or lockup for adults except... juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses, who are awaiting 

an initial court appearance that will occur within 48 hours after being taken into custody (excluding Saturdays, 

Sundays, and legal holidays)”) [emphasis added]. 45 Because state and local governments do not have jurisdiction over these juveniles, OJJDP will exclude these 

violations if their presence creates a noncompliance rate in excess of 29. 4 per 100,000 juvenile population. 46 42 U.S.C. § 5603(16) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(3)(v)(A-H) (1996). 

47 42 U.S.C. § 5603(28) (2002). 

48 42 U.S.C. § 5603(29) (2002). 

49 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(d)(1)(i) (1996). 

50 42 U.S.C. § 5603(26) (2002). 

51 Also see, 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(1)(i) and (f)(5). 

52 See section 2 for exceptions. 

53 42 U.S.C. § 5603(28) (2002). 

54 42 U.S.C. § 5603(29) (2002). 

55 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(e)(3)(iii) (1996) (“Facilities approved on or after the effective date of this regulation shall be 

reviewed against the regulatory criteria set forth herein”). 

56 “Policy Guidance for Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles in Adult Jails and Lockups: Notice of Final Policy,” 53 

Federal Register 212 (2 November 1988), p. 44366. 

57 Prisons are generally longer-term facilities owned by a state or by the Federal Government. Prisons typically hold 

persons convicted of felonies or with sentences of more than a year; however, sentence length may vary by state. Six 

states (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Alaska, and Hawaii) have an integrated correctional system 

that combines jails and prisons. The term “adult prison” thus also includes any institution used for the 

postconviction confinement of adult criminal offenders, including work camps and secure facilities located in the 

community. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Terms & Definitions: Corrections,” Office of Justice Programs, available 

at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tdtp&tid=1. 

58 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(14) (2002) (the state plan shall “provide for an adequate system of monitoring jails, detention 

facilities, correctional facilities, and non-secure facilities to insure that the requirements of paragraphs (11), (12), 

and (13) are met”). 

59 OJJDP’s Formula Grants program provides an annual grant which states may utilize to create, implement, and 

sustain an effective system for compliance with the core requirements of the JJDP Act. 60 For more information on what constitutes an adequate system for compliance monitoring, see 28 C.F.R. § 31 et 

seq. (1996). 61 OJJDP M 7140.7A(1)(2), “OJJDP Guidance Manual, Audit of Compliance Monitoring Systems,” August 21, 

2000 (“Each grantee must have a written plan providing for an adequate system of monitoring secure and nonsecure 

facilities to ensure that the requirements of the JJDP Act and the OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation (28 C.F.R. Part 

31) are being complied with”). 

62 28 C.F.R. § 31.101 (“The Chief Executive of each State which chooses to apply for a formula grant shall establish 

or designate a State agency as the sole agency for supervising the preparation and administration of the plan”); 

OJJDP M 7140.7A(1)(4), “OJJDP Guidance Manual, Audit of Compliance Monitoring Systems,” August 21, 2000 

(“The agency(s) responsible for monitoring should have legal authority to monitor all facilities in which juveniles 
66 

 might be placed under court authority. The authority should be sufficiently broad to permit the monitoring agency(s) 

to require each facility that could be classified”). 

63 OJJDP M 7140.7A(2)(18)(d), “OJJDP Guidance Manual, Audit of Compliance Monitoring Systems,” August 21, 

2000 (“there must be a timetable for carrying out all compliance monitoring tasks.”). 

64 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(1)(iii) (1996). 65 28 C.F.R. §§ 31.303(f)(1)(ii)-(iii) (1996). 66 OJJDP M 7140.7A(1)(5), “OJJDP Guidance Manual, Audit of Compliance Monitoring Systems,” August 21, 

2000 (“in classifying facilities and identifying the types of behavior of the juveniles to be counted for monitoring 

purposes, governmental units need to operate under definitions that are compatible with those found in the Formula 

Grants Regulation at 28 C.F.R. §31.304. Preferably, compatible definitions will be included in the state code. Where 

this is not the case, monitoring agencies should adopt and follow the OJJDP definitions for monitoring”). 

67 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(1)(i)(A) (1996). 

68 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(1)(i)(B) (1996). 

69 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(1)(i)(C) (1996). 

70 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(1)(i)(D) (1996); OJJDP M 7140.7A(1)(7), (2)(18)(g), “OJJDP Guidance Manual, Audit of 

Compliance Monitoring Systems,” August 21, 2000. 

71 59 F.R. 39204, 39206 (1994) (“In order for a unit of general local government to be eligible to apply for Title V 

funds, such unit, or each unit applying in combination, must be certified by the State Advisory Group as in 

compliance with Sections 223(a)(12)(A), 223(a)(13), 223(a)(14), and 233(a)(23) of the JJDP Act. If a State is not 

currently in full compliance with any of the first three of these mandates, i.e. the quantifiable mandates, or is in full 

compliance with de minimis exceptions, only those units of general local government which are within the de 

minimis parameters provided in 28 CFR 31.303(f)(6)(i) and (f)(6)(iii)(A), based on the locality's most current census 

data, may be deemed in compliance with the mandates of Sections 223(a)(12)(A), (13), and (14)”). 

72 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(i)(A) (1996). 

73 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(i)(B) (1996). 

74 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(i)(C) (1996). 75 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(i)(D) (1996). 

76 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(i)(E) (1996). 

77 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(i)(F) (1996). 

78 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(i)(G) (1996). 

79 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(A) (1996). 

80 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(B) (1996). 

81 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(C) (1996). 

82 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(D) (1996). 

83 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(E) (1996). 

84 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(F) (1996). 

85 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(G) (1996). 

86 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(H) (1996). 

87 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(I) (1996). 

88 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(J) (1996). 

89 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(K) (1996). 

90 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(L) (1996). 

91 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iv)(M) (1996). 

92 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iii)(A) (1996). 

93 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iii)(B) (1996). 

94 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iii)(C) (1996). 

95 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iii)(D) (1996). 96 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iii)(E) (1996). 97 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iii)(F) (1996). 

98 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iii)(G) (1996). 99 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(5)(iii)(H) (1996). 100 States may submit their reports electronically if they are scanned and sent as PDF documents, and only if there is 

an addition of an anti-fraud signature on both sides. 

101 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(j) (1996). 102 All from 46 FR 2566; 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(6)(i) (1996). 
67 

 103 Federal Register 46, no. 6 (January 9, 1981):2567–2568 (see appendix C). 104 To establish these numerical standards, in 1980 OJJDP calculated the average rate of DSO violations in eight 

states (i.e., two states from each of the four Bureau of Census regions). The eight states selected by OJJDP in 1980 

were those having the smallest institutionalization rate per 100,000 population and which also had an adequate 

system of monitoring for compliance. By applying this procedure and utilizing the information provided in the eight 

states’ most recently submitted monitoring reports, OJJDP determined that the eight states’ average annual rate was 

17.6 incidences of status offenders and nonoffenders held per 100,000 population under 18. In computing the 

standard deviation from the mean of 17.6, it was determined that a rate of 5.8 per 100,000 was one standard 

deviation below the mean and 29.4 was one standard deviation above the mean. 

105 From 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(6)(iii) (1996). 106 Under an exception to the numerical de minimis standard, when the annual rate for a state exceeds 9 incidents of 

noncompliance per 100,000 juvenile population, the state will be considered ineligible for a finding of full 

compliance with de minimis exceptions under the numerical de minimis standard unless the state has recently 

enacted changes in state law which have gone into effect and which the state demonstrates can reasonably be 

expected to have a substantial, significant, and positive impact on the state’s achieving full (100 percent) compliance 

or full compliance with de minimis exceptions by the end of the monitoring period immediately following the 

monitoring period under consideration. 

107 From 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(f)(6)(ii) (1996). 108 42 U.S.C. 5603 § 103(26) (2002). 

109 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(m) (1996). 110 42 U.S.C. § 5603(22) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(n) (1996). 111 42 U.S.C. § 5603(28) (2002). 112 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(d) (1996). 113 “Policy for Nonsecure Custody of Juveniles in Adult Jails and Lockups; Notice of final policy,” 53 Federal 

Register 212 (2 Nov 1988), pp. 44367-44368. 

114 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(g) (1996). 115 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(22) (2002). 116 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(c) (1996) 117 28 C.F.R. § 31.303(c)(3) (1996). 118 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(f) (1996). 

119 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(d) (1996). 120 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(e) (1996). 121 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(j) (1996). 122 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(11) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(i) (1996). Although the JJDP Act and the Code of Federal 

Regulations use the term “alien” juveniles, legal linguistic trends are moving away from the use of this term: in 

October 2009, the majority in the United States Supreme Court began to refer to these populations as 

“undocumented immigrants.” Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, __ U.S. __ (2009) [slip opinion 2]. 123 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(k) (1996). 124 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(l) (1996). 125 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(23)(C)(ii) (2002). 126 42 U.S.C. § 5603(28) (2002). 127 “Final Revision of the Existing Formula Grants Regulation: Final Rule,” 61 Federal Register 238 (10 December 

1996), p. 65132 (“A residential area is an area used to confine individuals overnight, and may include sleeping, 

shower and toilet, and day rooms”). 

128 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(b) (1996). 

129 42 U.S.C. § 5603(12) (2002). 130 42 U.S.C. § 5603(13) (2002). 131 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(12) (2002); 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(h) (1996). 132 42 U.S.C. § 5603(16) (2002).