BUD My

” shoul asse ss suicidal vouth as quickly ay possthle and, if they deem tt
eshte \ id be transferred to a medical or mental health
* undequpped to deal with suicudal vouth,
quipp
We also rece ‘ommend that agencies study the causes of high supervision
iP

2

ey staff turnover At levelop strategies to reduce high ni nover rates, and
“SG Or fiery th \6 turnover by inci reased training.

Y vives

met care

The most serious problem with health care is that health screenings (at admis-
sion) and health appraisals (within 7 days of admission) often are not completed
in a timely fashion. Speedy completion of health screenings is needed to ensure
that juveniles who are injured, who have acute health problems, or who are
intoxicated when presented for admission get immediate medical treatment.
Timely health appraisals are required to identify the juveniles’ health care needs
that require treatment during confinement and to control the spread of commu-
nicable diseases,

Over 90 perce ‘t of confined juveniles get health screenings at some point, but
only 43 percent get them within | hour of admission, as required by nationally
recognized standards. Smaller facilities are more likely to conform to this health
screening criterion. Health screening took more than 3 hours to be completed
for almost one-fifth of the population of confined juveniles. Similarly, although
95 percent get heaith appraisals at some point, only 80 percent get them within a
week, Larger facilities are more likely to conform to the health appraisal
criteria.

One-third of the juveniles in detention centers have health screenings done by
staff who have not been trained by medical personnel to perform health screen-
ing. Because the purpose of health screening is to identity juveniles with
injuries or conditions that require immediate medical care, using untrained statt
to perform the screening is cause for concern.

We recommend that juvenile jusuce agencies act to ensure that initial
health screenings are carried out promptly at admission and to ensure
that health appraisals are completed or received within a week after
admission. We also recommend thar juvenile justice agencies take steps
to develop and ensure the use of an adequate training program for
nonmedical staff who conduct health screenings.

In addition, there is no data base on individual health needs of confined juve-
niles, on the health care services provided to them, or on changes in their health
status while confined. Without such information, the adequacy of health care in
confinement facilities cannot be assessed. Of particular concer is the fact that
only 68 percent of confined juveniles are in facilities where tuberculin tests are
performed, and only 53 percent are in facilities that test for sexually transmitted
diseases.

We recommend that existing public health surveillance systems be
expanded to include and separately track confined juveniles. We alsa
recommend a general review of the health needs of confined juveniles

2n

juveniles i in detention
centers have health
screenings done by
staff who have not
been trained by medi-
cal personnel to per-
form health screening.


/
Second, the findings do not support the premise that high levels of conformance

Re Dives vr ares result in improved conditions of contine-
Uy LMZOF Hens Livas of facility operation, practitioners drafting

standards did not specil’y outcomes that should be achieved, Instead, a large O
verall confor-

Proportion of existing standards emphasize procedural regularity. which is.

a mittedly, an imponai@ objective. But we believe that in the future the stan-

ar salrating ag ules should emphasize performance-based standards that mance must be viewed
identity pie Mes facilities should achieve, Performance standards can in light of additional
quickly identil'y problems and can provide a benchmark against which improve- information about the
ments cun be measured. Performance standards are particularly needed in such es
areas ay education, treatment services. and health care—and ultimately, alt actual conditions and
aspects of facility operation. outcomes in facilities.

Third, we found that deficiencies were distributed widely across facilities. Most
had several deficiencies. and the types of deficiencies at these facilities varied
considerably, We tound few facilities with no deficiencies as well as a few with
deficiencies in mostareas. If the objective is to substantially improve conditions
that contined juveniles experience, then efforts to improve or close a few “badTM
tacilities. while laudable. will have little overatl impact. Rather, substantial
improvements will require that a kirge number of less seriously deficient
facilities improve several areas of their operations.

Nineteen recommendations, discussed on pages 8-14. are offered to improve
conditions af confinement.

Overview of conditions

Table 2 displays conformance to assessment criteria trom two viewpoints. First,
it shows the percentage of contined juveniles held in facilities that conform to
all assessment criteria in cach of the 12 topic areas (referred to as “juvenile-
based” conformance). Second, it shows the percentage of facilities that conform
1 all assessment criteria (or “facility -based” conformance), The relationship
between these (vo measures tells Us whether large or small facilities are more
likely to conto. For example, if two-thirds of the juveniles are held in facili-
ties that conform, but only one-third of the Factlities contom, that means that
bigger facilities are more likely lo contorm than smaller facilities, Conversely,
if two-thirds of the facilities conform. but only one-third of the juveniles are in
facilities that conform, then smaller lacilines are more likely to conform than
bigger ones.

Table 2 should be interpreted cautiously. [tis an inherently conservative indica-
tor because at facility must conform {o all criteria, Moreover, we emphasize that
averall conformance goes beyond conformance standi 1 conformance
must be viewed in light of additional information about the actual conditions
and outcomes in facilities,

Table 2 shows that summary conformance cates are seldom high, Only 5 of the
12 topte areas have juvenile-based overall conformance rates of 50 percent or
higher, and only 6 have Lacility-based conformance rates of 50 percent or
higher. Ialso shows that on some topics smaller facilities are more iikely to

14


av . - +
in danger or that their constitutional rights are being vialated. Coneormance

Ry Ra Te oi of other factors related to averal! conditions in

Second, on many matters pertaining to conditions of contirsment, juvenile
\Z justice practitioners Sean organizations that represent acm) have not

Rs ned conser ‘oals. As a result, a large proportion of existing nation-
alt ashi peDtessional standards specil'y procedures to be followed, out
not outcotnes to be achieved. If practitioners do not agiee on outcomes, they are
likely to interpret the data quite difterently. For example. one group may view
data on search authorization as indicating scund security pracrice, while another
may view it as indicating an excessive delegation sf authorizy to line staff.

Third, this study relied mainly on self-reported riata collected .n the mail survey
and the CIC census, An effort was mde to validate some information tems
during the site visits. However, only a few cculd be validated in a small number
of facilities. In all studies of this sort the reliability of self-reported data varies
according to the respordents’ understanding of the question, the availability of
data to answer it, and the respondents” willingness to answer candidly. In this
study all three are possible sources of error, The direction and magnitude of
such errors are generally rot knowi.

Fourth, given fixed resources and deadlines, the breadth of the study limited its
depth. Because we decided to measur: conditions in 12 different topic areas in a
mail survey tc all public and private detention centers, reception centers,
training schools and ranches, camps, and farms, we had to limit scrutiny to a
handful of indicators ia each togic area. Hence, some measures that arguably
are important indicators of conditions had t.- be excluded.

Fifth, the study was based on data about (acilities, not data about individual
juveniles in facilities. This made it move difficult, at times, to determine how
nonconformance affects juveniles within sacilities or to identify links between
variables. Without data on individual juveniles, we cannot determine, for ex-
ample, if juveniles who are more frecuently injured by other juveniles are more
apt to engage in suicidal behavior. We also do not have data on individual
juveniles’ demographic characteristics, needs, or problems, or programs used
while contiaed and performance in thove programs. Hence, we cannot determine
if programming in facilities adc zesses juveniles’ needs or whether juveniles
improse in meastirable ways ve.g., reading scores go up) while confined.

Finally, because this was the first systmztic assessment of conditions of
juvenile confinement, this is 4 prelimi-ary, not a definitive, report on the
subject. On several points, we "ound «nportant data gaps that prevent assess-
ment or problems or uevelopmee of informed recommendations. Some of those
gaps can be filled celatively ine .persivelv by altering routine data collection,
like the biennial Children is C ustesty census. Others will require new studies.

~ 16
#U.S. C.P.0.21994-.91-1772 30039 “
c4

W.

ithout important
data on juveniles’
individual needs, we
cannot determine if
facility programming
meets those needs or
whether juveniles
improve.


This report was prepared by Abt Associates. Inc.. under grant number 90-JN-CX-K004 from the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official posiuon or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics. the
National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.



ERIC Dott Rerodutin Ser

ahere are tw
j d cath and

rvices—in
which conformance to
assessment criteria is
generally high but in
which we have no
foundation for assess-
ing the adequacy of
services provided.

and of the health services they receive. based on a review of medical
records of a national sample of confined juveniles.

Areas with less substantial deficiencies
Education and treatment services

There are two areas—education and treatment services—-in which conformance
to assessment criteria is generally high but in which we have no foundation for
assessing the adequacy of services provided. Although there is extensive
anecdotal and experiential evidence on the educational deficiencies and the
emotional and mental health problems of juvenile offenders. we have no
systematic empirical data on confined youths’ educational or treatment needs
and problems. Thus, we cannot determine witether facilities provide appropriate
programs or whether juveniles make progress during confinement. Major new
initiatives are needed to periodically collect such data.

We recommend that Federal agencies support funding of a studs to
document educational needs and problems of a national sample of
confined juveniles and to evaluate the capacity of educational programs
in confinement facilities to serve those needs and to address those
problems.

We recommend that Federal agencies support funding of a study to
document the treatment needs of a national sample of confined juveniles
and of the treatment services they receive.

Inspections aud emergency preparedness

Most juveniles are confined in facilities that have passed recent State or local
fire, life safety, and sanitation inspections. Despite that, ring site visils we
observed a large number of facilities at which fire cxits were not marked or fire
escape routes were not posted in living units, and a few at which fire exits were
blocked with furniture or other object: .

We recommend that State and local fire codes for juvenile facilities be
toughened and enforced more vigorously, In particular, we recomniend
that facilities be inspected more frequently, and that available enforce-
ment authority he exercised more vigorously to correct violations. We
also reconmend that laws or regulations governing fire and life safety in
juvenile facilities be as rigorous as those that apply to sc hools, hospitals.
or other public buildings.

Access to the community

We eslimate that, on average, confined juveniles are held in facilities that are
58 miles from where they live (that distance varies by facility ty xe, so that
training schools are, on average, farther from juveniles’ homes than are deten-
tion centers). Distance and location (e.g., wi'derness-based programs) affect
juveniles’ access to the community. Most confined juveniles have adequate
opportunity to visit with families or attomeys, to contact volunteers, and to
communicate by mail. However. telephone calls are an exception: almost

12 él


ERIC Docuent Resaoduction Servicer

Lf

~ ~ Publications From OJJDP

The following lists OJJDP publications
available trom the Juvenile Justice
Cleannghouse. To obtain copies, call
‘or wnte: a

Pgvente Justice wnt

000,
Went:
pupal at 2p

Most OJJDP publications are available free
of charge from the Clearinghouse; requests
for more than 10 documents require pay-
ment for postage and handling. To obtain
intormation on payment procedures or to
speak to a juvenie justice information spe-
Clalist about additional services offered.
contact the Juvenile Justice Cleannghouse
Monday through Fnday, 8:30 a m. to 5:15
p.m. est.

Delinquency Prevention

Education in the Law" Promoting Citizen-
ship in the Schools. 1990, NCJ 125548.

Mobrhzing Community Support for Law-
Related Education 1989, NCJ 118217,

ODP and Boys and Girls Clubs of
America. Public Housing and High-Risk
Youth. 1992. NCJ 128412.

Preserving Fanukes To Prevent Detin-
quency. 1992, NCJ 136397.

Strengthening Amenca’s Famites: Promis-
ing Parenting Strategies for Desnquency
Prevention. 1993, NCJ 140781. $9.15.

Missing and Exploited Children

America s Missing and Expioited
Ctnidren—Thew Satety and Them Future.
1986, NCJ 100581

Child Abuse—Prelude to Delinquency?
1985. NCJ 104275, $7.10.
tnvestigator’s Guide to Missing Child
Cases’ For Law Enforcement Officers
Locating Missing Chuidren. 1987, NCJ
108768.

Missing. Abducted, Runaway. and
Thrownaway Children in Amenca. First
Report Numbers and Charactensuics.
National Incidence Studies. 1990, NCJ
123668. $14 40

Missing, Abducted. Runaway. and
Thrownaway Children in Amenca, Furst
Report. Numbers and Charactenstics.
National Incidence Studies—Executve
Summary. 1990, NCJ 123667

Massing Chuldren. Found Facts. 1990.

NCJ 130916

Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of
Parentaily Abducted Chuidren—Full Report
1993, NCJ 144535. $22.80

OJJDP Annual Report on Missing Children.
1990, NCJ 130582.

Sexual Exploitation of Missing Children A
Research Review. 1988, NCJ 114273.
Stranger Abduction Homicides of Children.
1989. NCJ 115213.

Status Offenders

Assessing the Effects of the
Damnsttutionatzation of Status Offenders.
1989, NCJ 115211

Runaways in Juverie Courts. 1990,
NCJ 124881

Law Enforcement

Drug Recognition Techniques: A Training
1990, NCJ 128785.

Evaluation of the Habitual Serious and
Violent Juveniie Offender Program—
Executive Summary. 1986, NCJ 105230.
fanovative Law Enforcement Training
Programs: Meeting State and Local
Needs. 1991. NCJ 131735.

Joint Investigations of Child Abuse. 1993,
NCJ 14205

Law Entorcement Custody of Juveniles:
Video. 1982, NCJ 137387, $13.50.

Law Enforcement Custody of Juveniles:
Video Training Guide. 1992, NCJ 133012.

Law Enforcement Policies and Practices

Regarding Missing Children and Homeless

Lr ‘ull Report, 1953, NCJ 143397,
13.00.

Targeting Serious Juvenie Offenders Can
Make a Difference. 1988, NCJ 114218.

Courts

The Child Victim as a Witness. 1989,
NCJ 118315.

Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders. 1988,
NCJ 110854, $8.40.

Helping Victims and Witnesses in the
Juvenile Justice System. A Program Hand-
book. 1991, NCJ 139731. $15.

Juvemle Court Property Cases. 1990,
NCJ 125625.

Juvenile Court's Response to Violent
Crime. 1989, NCJ 115338.

Juvenile Court Statistics 1990. 1993.
NCJ 145127

Offenders in Juvermie Court, 1990. 1993.
NCJ 133011

Offenders m Juvenite Count. 1989 1992
NCJ 138740.

Restitution
Guide to Juverile Resntution 1985.
NCJ 098466, $12.50

Juvemile Restitution Management Audi.
1989. NCJ 115215.

Liability and Legal issues in Juveriie
Restitution. 1990, NCJ 115405.

National Directory of Juvenile Resttuton
Programs 1987. 1987, NCJ 105188.

National Trends in Juvenile Restitution
Programming. 1989. NCJ 115214.

Restitution and Juvenile Recidivism, 1992.
NCJ 137774.

Restitution Experience m Youth Emptoy-
ment: A Monagraph and Training Guide to
Jobs Components. 1989, NCJ 115404.
Restitution improvement Currculum: A
Guidebook ‘or Juvenile Restitution
Workshop Planners 1988, NCJ 110007

am for Juvenile Justice Professionals.

Corrections

Amertcan Probation and Parole
Association's Drug Testing Guidetnes and
Practices for Juvenile Probation and Parole
Agencies. 1992, NCJ 136450.

Conditions of Confinement: Juverile Deten-
tion and Corrections Facilites—Research
Summary. 1994, NCJ 141873.

Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation
Practice. 1991, NCJ 128218.

National Juvenile Custody Trends: 1978-
1989, 1992, NCJ 131649.

National Survey of Reading Programs for
Incarcerated Juvenile Offenders. 1993,
NCJ 144017.

QUJDP Helps States Remove Juveniles
From Adult Jails and Lockups. 1990,
NCJ 126869.

Private-Sector Corrections Pi
Juveniles: Paint Creek Youth
NCJ 113214.

Privatizing Juvenile Probation Services:
Five Local Expenences. 1988, NCJ
121507.

Public Juvenie Faciines: Children mn Cus-
tody 1989. 1991, NCJ 127189.

Reduced Recidivism and Increased Em-
ployment Opportumty Through Research-
Based Reading Instruction. 1993, NCJ
141324, $7.70.

General Juvenile Justice

Comprenensive Strategy tor Serious,
Wolent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.
1993, NCJ 143453.

Gould-Wysinger Awards (1992): Mark of
Achievement. 1993. NCJ 142730.

Guide to the Data Sets in the Natiunal
Juvenile Court Data Archive. 191.
NCJ 132073

Habitual Juvenile Offenders: Guidelines tor
Citizen Action and Pubic Responses. 1991,
NCJ 141235,

Juvenile Justice. Volume 1, Number 2. Fall
Winter 1993, NCJ 145300.

Juvenile Justice. Volume 1, Number 1,
Spring/Summer 1993, NCJ 141870.
Minories and the Juvenile Justice System.
1992, NCJ 139556, $11.50.

Minonties and the Juvenile Justice Sys:
tem—Research Summary. 1993. NCJ
145849,

OQUJDP Brochure. 1993. BC 144527.
OJJDP Funds 21 New Projects During
Fiscal Year 1988. 1989, NCJ 116872.
Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse:
Initat Findings—Research Summary. 1993
NCJ 149454,

Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology.
1984, NCJ 095108, $28.00.

Statistics

National Juvenie Justice Staustics
Assessment: An Agenda for Action. 1989.
NGJ 119764,

ram tor
renter. 1988,



Coordinating reforms among organizations

Our recommendations for improving conditions of confinement will require
leaders of several national organizations to confer on the goals to be served by

W. juvenile confinement and to discuss strategies to improve conditions of conline-
'! recommend > ment, This collaboration likely will be needed for several years.

tata joint ¢O yttee We recommend that a commuttee be created whose membership

bec ated ‘Whose represents ail nations. professional organizations with an interest in
membership repre- juvenile confinement. Over the next 4 years members of this joint

. committee should work 1 implement recommendations in this report
sents all national and to coordinate acavities within their respective organizations
professional organiza- toward the common objective of improving conditions of juvenile
tions with an interest confinement. Appropriate Federal agencies should encourage and
oe + support the work of this joint committee.

in juvenile confine-

ment, Further research

There is substantial variation among facilities on three problem indicators—
rates of escape (and attempted escape), injury, and suicidal behavior—as well as
substantial variation among facilities on two control mechanisms—searches and
isolation. Only a small amount of that variation can be explained by juvenile or
facility characteristics in our analytical models.

We recommend further study of why facilities vary so dramatically in the
ways they exercise control and the extent to which they provide a safe and
secure environment.

We recommend that OJJDP support controlled research to study the
effects of crowding on juvenile and staff behavior and on outcomes in
detention and corrections facilities.

We recommend that the biennial Children in Custody census be modified
to routinely collect data on staff turnover rates, use of isolation and
searching, and the incidence of injuries, escapes, and suicidal behavior.

We recommend that OJJDP. support comparable studies of conditions

of confinement for three groups of juveniles not covered in this study:
(a) those placed in halfway houses, group homes, and shelters; (b) those
tried and sentenced as adults; and (c) those placed in secure hospital
treatment programs,

Limitations of the study

In spite of good response rates, efforts to develop objective measurement
criteria, and careful analysis of the data, there are several limits that must be
recognized.

First, the findings must be interpreted cautiously. Conformance to existing
nationally recognized standards does not tell the entire story about conditions of
confinement. In some instances, high rates of conformance may not mean that
all is well. In others, low rates of conformance may not mean that juveniles are



Vat \\

Ke oa lk, _. a. _—_

ne just 20 pen of contined juveniles are in Cacilities that conform

l)
ENC Di sia i eri

ays before the mail survey, nearly 2,000 juveniles (slightly over
3 percent ot the juvernle population) and 650 staff (slightly over 1. 7 percent of
ZA Bio staff) were inju cy juveniles in these facilities. Injury rates varied greatly.
* he aut 10 ae aps fi

juvenile and

ined juveniles were in facilities where 8 percent or staff injury rates were
Lat Nes were injured by other juveniles in the 30 days before the higher in crowded
i frei se 1 percent were in facilities where at least one of every four faciliti dj il
juveniles were injured during that time. A small number of facilities were acilities, and Juvenile-
similarly dangerous for staff. About 10 percent of juveniles were in facilities on-juvenile injury

where 5 percent or more of staff were injured in the 30 days before the mail rates increased as the
survey, and I percent were in facilities where 17 percent or more of staff were ’
injured during that time. percentage of juve-

Juvenile and staff injury rates were higher in crowded facilities, and juvenile- niles housed in large
on-juvenile injury rates increased as the percentage of juveniles housed in large dormitories increased.
dormitories increased. Injury rates for both staff and juveniles were higher in

facilities where living units were locked 24 hours a day. In facilities with locked

living units we visited, an emphasis on security dominated interactions between

staff and juveniles, Of note is that the percentage of juveniles convicted of

violent crimes was not related to injury rates.

Classitication is supposed to protect juveniles by assessing their propensity to
violence and by separating potential predators and victims. However, we found
no relationship between conformance to the classification assessment criteria
and rates of injury. The reasons are not clear. It is possible that existing classifi
cation procedures do not reliably distinguish violence-prone youth or whether
crowding diminishes facilities’ ability to adequately separate predators and
victims or increases the probability that confined youth will encounter violence-
prone peers. More study of juvenile classification practices is needed to deter-
mine how to improve classification.

During site visits facility administrators and staff frequently said there would be
fewer injuries if staffing ratios improved. The study did not support that posi-
tion. We found no relationship between supervision staffing ratios and rates of
injury. However, we found that higher supervision staff tumover rates were
associated with increased juvenile-on-staif injury rates. In facilities with high
turnover rates, overall levels of staff experience and training are likely to be
lower than in facilities with low turnover rates. While we lack data to establish a
direct link. during site visits administrators and practitioners frequently stated
that inexperienced and less-well-trained staff were more likely to be injured by
juveniles.

In the 30 days before the mail survey, slightly over 800 juveniles (about 1.2
percent of the confined population) escaped from confinement facilities. and
slightly more than 800 attempted to escape but failed.

We found no relationship between conformance to the classification criteria and
escape rates. A growing number of facilitics rely on perimeter fences as an
obstacle to escape. Since 1987 the percentage of facilities with perimeter fences

ee
18 °


f confinement:
jon and

S erious juvenile

ed the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

ention (OUI ess conditions of confinement for juveniles, to crime—particularly
oe: ent to which those conditions conform to recognized national violent offenses re-
professional standards, and to report findings to Congress, along with recom- eae
mendations for improvement. ported to authorities—

; ; grew rapidly in recent
The congressional mandate must be viewed against the backdrop of changes in

juvenile justice. Serious juvenile crime—particularly violent offenses reported years.
to authorities—grew rapidly in recent years. Arrests for violent juvenile of-

fenses and drug offenses rose sharply, even as overall juvenile drug use de-

clined. Policymakers increased the severity of punishments for violent or

habitual juvenife offenders, Many States made it easier to sentence serious

juvenile offenders as adults.

Admisstons to juvenile facilities rose after 1984 and reached an all-time high of
nearly 690,000 in 1990, The largest increase was in detention, where admis-
sions rose from just over 400.000 in 1984 to about 570,000 in 1990, The daily
population of confined juveniles, based on Children in Custody (CIC) census
I-day counts, increased [rom about 50,800 in 1979 to about 65,000 in 1991.
The populations of all types of facilities increased (except for ranches, where
populations declined).

The characteristics of confined juveniles also changed sharply in recent years.
Between 1987 and 1991 the proportion of minorities among contined juveniles
rose from 53 percent to 63 percent, with the biggest increases among blacks (37
percent to 44 percent) and Hispanics (13 percent to 17 percent). The percentage
confined for crimes against persons rose trom 22 percent to 28 percent. und
those contined for property offenses declined from 40 percent to 34 percent.

The percentage confined for drug-related offenses rose between 1987 and 1989,
and then declined somewhat in 1991, resulting in an overall increase of 4
percentage points (6 percent to 10 percent),

When Congress mandated the study. it was apparent that crowding was becom-
ing a serious problem in juvenile facilities. By 1987, 36 percent of confined
juveniles were held in tacilities whose populations exceeded their design
capacity. Key problems in adult corrections—crowding. litigalion on conditions
of confinement. major capacity expansion. and huge increases in costs—were
heginning to be evident in juvenile facilities as well. Thus, it was important to
Jearn more about conditions in juvenile confinement facilities. to pinpoint
serious problems. and to explore possible remedies,



This pioneering study would have been impossible without support and cooperation
J gm leading juvenile j swice organizations and practitioners at all levels, To obtain

tingudhey vention involved juvenile justice leaders in all phases of the
study, Their involvement improved response rates, sharpened the quality of the re-
search, and focused the field's attention on conditions of confinement as a national
policy issue.

Several organizations deserve specific recognition for endorsing the project. for
encouraging their members to fully cooperate. and for inviting us to appear at meet-
ings to tell their members about the study or its findings. These include the National
Juvenile Detention Association, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges, the National Association of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. the
American Correctional Association, and the American Bar Association.

Specific thanks are due to a cadre of tireless juvenile justice practitioners who con-
ducted 95 site visits and to their employers who let them take time from their regular
assignments to conduct the visits. The site visitors were:

Frederick R. Allen, Former Administrator, Department of Social Services/Division tor
Youth (New Yorks

Alfred Bennett. Criminal Jusuce Consultant tindianay

Melvin Brown, Jr. Director, Montgomery County Juvenile and Adult Probation Depart-
ments (Texas)

¥. Parkes Casselbury, Director. Policy Compliance and Accreditation Department of
Youth Nevelopmeni (Tennesseey .

Gwendolyn Chunn, Director. Diviston of Youth Services. Department of Human
Resources (North Carolina)

Joseph DeJames, Director, Juvenile Detention and Monitoring Gait, Deparment of
Corrections (New Jersey}

Donald DeVore, Executive Director. Montgomery County Youth Center (Pennys Ivantay
John M. Manuel, Supenmtendent. Cuy ahoga County Detention Center (Ohtor

Mary McHatton, Adminitrative AssttantUperations. Department ot
Corrections (indiana)

George M. Phyfer, Executive Director, Department of Youth Services (Alabarna)
Jane O'Shaughnessy, Rebound! (Coloradoy

Samuel Sublett, Jr.. Accreditation Manager, Adult and Juvenile. Depastiment of Correc-
tions ‘Ilinots)

Clarence A. Terhune. Former Depul, Secretary. Youth and Adult Correction Agency
tCalitormay

Celedonio Vigil, Superimendent, New Mexico Youth Diagnostic and Development Center

In addition we thank Thaddeus Aubry, Northem Regional Director lor the Virginia
Department of Youth and Family Services, who helped us by pretesting the site visit
protocol. preparing training materials, and helping to deliver a 2-day taining
program for site visitors. We also thank Eastem Kentucky University for logistical
support during our site visitor training.



Av)Roreword:

A
my pleasure tg present to you the research summary of Conditions of
Onfine Aoiehile Detention and Corrections Facilities, This study,
commissioned by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in
response to the 1988 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act. is the most comprehensive nationwide research ever conducted
on the juvenile detention and corrections field. It is remarkable that this research
became a study both for and by the field. It involved the leadership of an
exceptional research team, a pool of experienced and dedicated consultants, and
hundreds of administrators and staff who shared with us information about their
facilities’ operations and programs. {t is this combination of leadership, talent,
and commitment that has made this study a truly significant contribution to our
understanding of juvenile confinement conditions.

The results of this research present many challenges to policymakers and
practitioners nationwide. The need for consensus and action is clearly written in
these pages. How do we provide conditions of confinement that ensure that
basic needs are met and that a meaningful quality of life is provided? With
pervasive crowding. staff turnover, and violence both inside and outside of
institutions, the field must determine how to successfully accomplish its broader
mission:

..to create legitimate, alternative pathways to adulthood through equal
access to services that are least intrusive. culturally sensitive, and consistent
with the highest professional standards. —The 1992 Juvenile Detention and
Correctional Forum Mission Statement

To meet the challenge posed by this report and its recommendations will require
the cooperation of private organizations, courts and other governmental agen-
cies, legislators, legal advocates, and professionals in the field. We need to
begin a national movernent founded on a basic human concem about justice for
juveniles and the conditions of their confinement. As you read this document,
think carefully and creatively about what you can do individually and through
your employers and professional associations to respond to the challenges
facing the field of juvenile detention and corrections. It is time that we begin to
do the right thing by working together to achieve lasting improvements in the
conditions of confinement for juveniles in this country.

John J. Wilson
Acting Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

itp)


FRU Doce

uicidal vation
» a serious rai
in juverlécontine-

ment facilities,

I lini veri

increased from 38 percent to 47 percent. However, we found no conclusive
relationship between perimeter fences and escape rates.

We recommend that juvenile justice agencies conduct detailed compara-
tive studies of facilities with low und high escape and injury rates to
identify policies and practices that can materially improve safety and
security. These studies shouid pay special attention to procedures used to
classify juveniles and the ways in which classification is used.

Controlling suicidal behavior

Suicidal behavior is a serious problem in juvenile confinement facilities. Ten
confined juveniles killed themselves in 1990. In the 30 days before the mail
survey, 970 juveniles committed 1,487 acts of suicidal behavior (that is, at-
tempted suicide, made suicidal gestures, or engaged in self-mutilation), Thus,
about 1.6 percent of confined juveniles engaged in suicidal behavior, and there
were 2.4 suicidal behavior incidents for every 100 confined juveniles in the 30
days before the mail survey. On an annualized basis, more than 11,000 juveniles
engage in more than 17,000 incidents of suicidal behavior in juvenile facilities,

Just half of the confined juveniles are in facilities that monitor suicidal juveniles
at least once every 4 minutes (the length of time after which permanent brain
damage can occur in an attempted hanging—the most common method of
suicide attempt in juvenile facilities). About three-fourths are in facilities that
screen juveniles for indicators of suicide risk at the time of admission, and
about three-fourths are in facilities that train staff in suicide prevention. Almost
90 percent are in facilities that have written suicide prevention plans. However,
only about one in five confined juveniles are in facilities that conform to all four
assessment criteria.

Our analysis showed that facil:.ies that conduct suicide screening at admission
and that train staff in suicide prevention have tower rates of suicidal behavior.
Other suicide prevention measures—monitoring suicidal juveniles at least once
every 4 minutes and written suicide prevention plans—were not associated with
suicidal behavior rates. (However, these factors may be vitally important in pre-
venting an attempted suicide from becoming a completed suicide.) Detention
centers that conformed to the supervision staffing ratio criteria had lower sui-
cidal behavior rates. We found that as supervision staff tumover rates increased,
suicidal behavior rates increased, which underscores the importance of staff
training in suicide prevention.

Suicidal behavior rates increased as the percentage of juveniles in single rooms
increased, We found, however, that facilities frequently fail to cover housing for
suicidal juveniles in their written suicide prevention plans.

We recommend that all juveniles be screened for risk of suicidal behav-
ior immediately upon their admission to confinement facilities.

We recommen that suicidal juveniles be constantly monitored by staff.
This means that suicidal youth should not be isolated or placed ina
room by themselves, When suicidal juveniles are housed in single rooms,
Staff should he with them continuously, A mental health professional

10

1g


)
Y

Lf) %
ace Mb Gyients

Conditions of confinement: juvenile detention and
correciions facilities

Study description

Data collection and preparation
Survey data ...eccesseesnenen
Site visit data .

Strategy for assessing conditions
Summary of findings

Overview of condi
Areas with substantial deficiencies .
Living space
Security......
Controlling suicidal behavior
Health care... see
Ares with less substantia! deficiencies
Education and treatment services

Inspections and emergency preparedne:
Access to the community ......
Limits on staff discretion...
Areas with minimal deficiencies
Other recommendations ..........
Performance-based standards ...
Coordinating reforms among organizations
Further research ..scesccn cone
Lim‘tations of the study ..........



researchers

Hore detailed information about this study and issues surrounding
conditions of juvenile continement is available through the Juvenile
Justice Clearinghouse.

The full report discusses in detail the study's findings and its design
and research methodologies. The full report is useful for conducting
further research, making planning decisions, or drafting policy.

For your copy of the full report Conditions of Confinement, duvende
Detention and Corrections Facilities, complete and retum the order form
below.

. Tae
~« Justice topi eal the é ile tna ence

ey

To order a copy of the full report Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities (NCJ 145793), please
complete the following:

Please Send My Copy to:
Name: Title:

Organization:

Street Address:

City: State

zip: Telephone: ( )

Mail this order form to Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. P.O. Box 6000. Rockville, MD 20850
Orders may also be placed by calling the Clearinghouse al 800-638-8736

BEST COPY AVAILABLE


<n ))] DOCUMENT RESUME
x \\ )
ADS Nie CG 025 305
raw \e
XY
‘Y AUTHOR Parent, Dale G.; And Others

ERY Document

) A
Okore 43, * 28p.
Corea i

TITLE Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and

1 { perrections Facilities. Research Summary.

fll cy t Associates, Inc., Washington, DC.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention
(Dept. of Justice), Washington, D.C.

PUB DATE ((\) Feb 94

CONTRACT .\S"  90- IN-CX-K004

T Reports - Evaiuative/Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE MFO1/PCO2 Pius Postage.
DESCRIPTORS Adolescents; Children; “Correctional Institutions;

*Delinquency; ‘Institutionalized Persons; *Juvenile
Courts; *Juvenile Justice; Youth Problems

ABSTRACT

The most comprehensive nationwide research ever
conducted on the juvenile detention and corrections field was a study
by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
assessing conditions of confinement for juveniles and determining the
extent to which those conditions conform to recognized national
professional standards. The study covered all 984 public and private
juvenile detention centers, reception centers, training schools, and
ranches, camps, and farms in the United States. Youth halfway houses,
shelters, and group homes; police lockups, adult jaiis, and prisons
that hold juveniles tried and convicted as adults; and psychiatric
and drug treatment programs were excluded. Data came from the 1991
Children in Custody census, a special mail survey sent to all
facilities, and 2-day site visits to 95 facilities. The study's
findings suggest three major themes: (1) there are several areas in
which problems in juvenile facilities are substantial and widespread,
most notably living space, health care, security, and control of
suicidal behavior; (2) findings do not support the premise that high
levels of conformance to national recognized standards results in
improved conditions of confinement; and (3) deficiencies were found
to be distributed widely across facilities. This report presents a
summary of the findings from the OJJDP study, provides an overview of
conditions, examines areas with substantial and less substantial
deficiencies, looks at areas with minimal deficiencies, and offers 19
recommendations to improve conditions of confinement for juveniles.
(NB)

FRR TORI IIIT TRH IIR TRAIT AHIR TTR TTA IRIE II TRS TR TATA TATE TTT AI TKI FER

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *
Je SEES IO CISA TROIS TIIIR TAR TTT TTT TR IR TTT IT TAT IT I TE


4
(same type, same region, similar size), The final sample closely resembled the

Re Dota ERAT ‘nig Hb) segion and by method of operation (public
VA ULL GLYN

In addition ta interviewing facility administrators and staff members, we also
Z interviewed 5 ‘tua selected juveniles at each site, or a total of 475 juve-

files ac the faci We visited.

Li) AR y

Bauhaus focused on conditions faced by confined juveniles, conform-
ance rates generally were described in terms of the percentage of juveniles
confined in facilities that conform to each assessment criterion, rather than the
percentage of facilities that conform.

The results are reported by facility type for the Nation as a whole. In order to
protect respondents’ confidentiality, data cannot be presented by State or by
individual facilities. While this limits our ability to pinpoint specific States or
facilities that may need particular improvements. a guarantee of confidentiality
was deemed essential in order to get both high response rates and candid
answer; to sensitive questions.

Strategy for assessing conditions

We used three approaches, where possible. to assess conditions of confinement.

@ First, we measured conformance to 46 assessment criteria that reflected
existing national professional standards in 12 areas that represented advisers”
perceptions of contined juveniles’ most important needs.

M@ Second, we analyzed data (obtained from the mail survey, the Children in
Custody census. and site visits) on other selected aspects of conditions of
confinement for which no national standards existed.

Third, we analyzed data on selected incidents in facilities, including rates of
injuries to juveniles and staff. rates of escape and attempted escape. rates of
suicidal behavior, and selected security and ¢--ntrol practices, such as rates of
searches and isolation.

To decide whether serious problems existed. we reviewed data on all three
levels, where available. In some cases, conformance rates for a particular assess-
ment criterion were low, but other data on conditions suggested that nonconfor-
mance had minimal effects. For example. one assessment criterion required that
the interval between an evening meal and the following breakfast be no more
than 14 hours. A large proportion of juveniles were confined in facilities that
did not conform. However, when we examined facilities’ actual practices in
more detail. we found most nonconforming facilities missed the deadline by 15
or 20 minutes, and that on all other measures food service appeared generally
satisfactory.

In other instances, conformance was moderate or high, but data on conditions or
outcomes suggested problems. For example, almost all juveniles were in facili-
ties that conformed to an ment criterion requiring that facilities pass annual
fire inspections, But during site visits w 2 saw a disturbingly high proportion of
facilities that had obvious fire safety violations, such as not marking fire exits or
posting fire escape routes.

12

uring site visits

we saw a disturbingly
high proportion of
facilities that had
obvious fire safety
violations,


AM

eat egrocuctn Serve

y juvenile j
ganizati My

one ed-the stludy
and urged coopera-
tion from the field.

Study description

The study was funded in the fall ot 1990. The study covered all 984 public
(operated by State and local governments} und private juvenile detention
centers, reception centers, training schools, and ranches, camps, and farms in
the United States. These facilities held about 65,000 juveniles on the date of the
1991 CIC census, or about 69 percent of the juveniles confined on that date in
the United States.

Three types of facilities that confine juveniles were excluded: (a) youth halfway
houses, shelters, and group homes; (b) police lockups, adult jails, and prisons
that held juveniles tried and convicted as adults, and {c) psychiatric and drug
treatment programs. We have no data on conditions of confinement in these
facilities.

Prominent juvenile justice practitioners served as advisers, consultants, and site
visitors. Key juvenile justice organizations endorsed the study and urged
cooperation from the field.

Data collection and preparation

Data for the study came from three sources:

@ The 1991 CIC census.
@ A special mail survey sent to all 984 facilities.

@ 2-day site visits to 95 facilities.

Survey data

The 1991 CIC census had a 99-percent response rate for public facilities and an
86-percent response rate for private facilities. The project's mail survey had a
76-percent response rate. Data from the two were merged to produce a single
record for each facility, which was used to assess conditions of confinement.
CIC census data from 1979 to 1991 were used to describe trends in the use of
juvenile confinement.

Site visit data

Altogether, researchers visited a nationally representative, randomly selected
sample of 95 public and private juvenile facilities: 30 detention centers, 30
training schools, 30 ranches, camps, and farms, and 5 reception centers. Fifteen
prominent practitioners were selected and trained to collect data during site
visits. Project staff accompanied site visitors to the 20 largest facilities to
expedite data collection. During site visits we validated selected responses to
the mail survey, recorded observational data, and asked staff and juveniles
about conditions of confinement. Site visits began in September 1991 and ended
in January 1992.

The site visit sample was stratified by type of facility, Within the four strata,
samples were drawn so that larger facilities had a greater chance of being
selected for a site visit. Eighty percent of the facilities initially selected agreed
to host a site visit. Those that declined were replaced by comparable facilities

ll


ERC Docu

eprodactin Serve

A group of practitioners consul:ea with staff and OJJDP on design issues during
early phases of the project. They kept us focused on reality as we drafted data
collection instruments. They wer:

Robert C. Cushman, Justice Sy seit Speciahsi, Santa Clara County Cemer tar Urban
Analysis (Califomia)

Charles Kehoe, Director, Department o. ¥.-- ‘- ¢.1d Family Services (Virginia)

Lloyd Mixdorf, Director. Juvenile Programs ind Project, American Currectionai
Association

David Roush, Director, Calhoun County Juventle Home (hfichigan)

Joseph R. Rowan, Executive Director. Juvenile and Criminal Justice International, Inc.
(Minnesota)

Robert Schwartz, Executive Director, Juvenile Law Center : Pennsylvania

John Sheridan, Adminstrator, Bureau of Residential Services for Children and Youth
Services (New Hampshire)

A distinguished advisory board also deserves recognition and thanks. Advisers met
several times during late 1990 and early 1991 to help frame the project. They con-
vened again in February 1992 to review results of site visits, and again in August
1992 to critique the first draft of the report. In addition to their sage advice, they
were invaluable sources of contacts and information for project staff, Project
advisers were:

Allen Breed, Chairman. Board ot Directors, Natronal Couneil on Crime
and Delinquency

Earl Duntap, Executive Director, National Juvenile Detention Association

Jeffrey Fagan, Associate Professor. School of Criminal Justice.
Rutgers University

Hunter Hurst. Director, National Center for Juvenile Justice (Pennsylvantat
James Irving, Assistant Warden. Sheridan Correctional Center (Illinois)
James P. Lynch, Assistant Professor. School of Justice, American University
Patricia Puritz, Director, Juvenile Justice Center, American Bar Association
Denis Shumate, Superintendent. Youth Center at Beloit (Kansas)

Howard Snyder (alternate), National Center for Juvenile Justice (Pennsylvania)

We must acknowledge several officiais at the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention who played key roles: Irv Slot was Director of Research
at the time the study began and helped steer us from the shoals in the early months.
Dr. James C. Howell succeeded Mr. Slot and provided strategic guidance and
support during the final months. Throughout the effort, Barbara Allen-Hagen. our
project monitor, functioned in many roles. She was an active collaborator on all
major design anu implementation decisions. She met frequently with staff and
advisers, helped pretest data collection instruments in juvenile facilities. and
conferred with juvenile justice leaders to elicit their support for the project. She
smoothed the way, provided sage counseling. and was both critic and task master.

Untortunately, our pledge of confidentiality prevents us from publicly thanking the
hundreds of staff and administrators in juvenile agencies and facilities who com-
pleted the mail survey. hosted site visits, or helped us test and refine our data
collection instruments,

3.


» A
all juveniles can pi a limited number of telephone calls per week, but 45

RK Doeatuent aa rein facilities that do not permit them to

We recommend that juvenile facilities pernut juveniles to receive as well

va i as make telephone yas

“LR
tints; orrstatt discretion

There is generally high conformance to most criteria that limit staff discretion,
However, search authorization is an exception: most confined juveniles are in
facilities where line staff can authonze room searches and frisks. A substantial
minorily is in facilities where line staff can authorize strip searches, There was
substantial variation in rates of searching, isolation, and restraint use among

facilities. Relatively little of that variation could be explained by our analyses.

We recommend more extensive comparison of conditions in facilities with
high and low rates of use of search, isolation, and restraints in order te
identify and test the rationales and effects of these variauons In practice.

Areas with minimal deficiencies

There are three areas in which conditions of confinement appear to be adequate:

food, clothing, and hygiene: recreation: and living accommodations. With
respect to the latter, conditions are somewhat more problematic. Detention
centers generally have the least normalized and most institutionalized environ-
ments (sleeping rooms are starkly furnished, most residents wear uniforms,
ete.). Nearly one-third of detained juveniles sleep in rooms that do not have
natural fight.

We offer no specific recommendations hased on data collected and
analyzed to date.

Other recommendations
Performance-based standards

A substantial proportion of existing nationally recognized standards focus on

developing written policies and procedures or attaining specified stalling ratios.
rather than on defining outcomes that [acilities should achieve. Performan
based standards are more difficult to formulate because they require standa

drafters to agree on the oulcomes that should be achieved. In many instances we

found that conformance to procedural standards had no discemible effect on
conditions within facilities.

We recommend that organizations that develop nationally recognized
standards for juvenile facilities promutgate measurable performance
standards that can serve both as gouls for facilities to attain and as
benchmarks agaist which their progress can be measured. Such
standards are particularly important in areas of security, health
care, education, mental health services, and treatment programming.

13

n many
instances we found
that conformance to
procedural standards
had no discernible
effect on conditions
within facilities.


ha Ub artes
° Kae Justice Progr

SS
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delquencs Prevention

ERI ag

Offictal Business
Penalty for Private Use $300,

| DEST AAO AVAILABLE

BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/OJIDP
Permit No. G-9}

. Research Summary

NCP LISTS


VW mM
Nq\\ *

ay, SS

ERI Docent Repotucton Serve

“y Conditions of Confinement:
Juvenile Detention
and Corrections Facilities

Research Summary

Prepared by

Dale G. Parent, Project Director
Valerie Leiter, Deputy Project Director
Stephen Kennedy, Research Director
Lisa Livens, Research Assistant
Daniel Wentworth, Research Assistant
Sarah Wilcox, Research Assistant

Abt Associates, Inc.

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

February 1994



met fi

n living spel
care, cont rol.
ne OU ddl vchavior

and limits on staff
discretion, smaller
facilities are more
likely to conform than
larger facilities.

enoductn Serns

Table 2: Summary Conformance Rates by Topic Areas

Topic areas in which
conditions were assessed

Percentage of confined juveniles

Percentage of facilities
in facilities that conform*

that conform?

Basic needs
Living space (3 criteria) 4% BBG
Health care (6 criteria) 26% 35%
Food, clothing, and hygiene (4 criteria) 39% 35%
Living accommodations (4 criteria) 52% 49%
Order and security
Security (3 criteria) 2% 27%
Controlling surcidal behavior (4 cnitena) 25% 51%
Inspections and emergency
preparedness (4 criteria) 67% 55%
Programming
Education (4 criteria) 55% 57%
Recreation (1 criteria) B5% 5%
Treatment Services (2 criteria) O8% 60%

Juvenile rights
Access to community (5 criteria) 25% 25%
Limits on staff discretion (7 criteria) 49% 76%

* This is the percentage of juveniles held in facilities that conform to all assessment criteria in
each topic area.

* This is the percentage of facilities that conform to ull the assessment criteria in each topic area.
* This excludes the assessment criteria on search authorization, which required facility administra-
tors to authorize all searches. Only 14 percent of contined juveniles are in facilities that conform

to this criterion. With this criterion included, only 6 percent of confined juveniles are in facilities
that conform to all criteria.

Source: CIC census and Mail Survey. 1991

conform, while on others, bigger facilities are more likely to conform. For
example, on living space. health care, security, controlling suicidal behavior,
and limits on staff discretion, smaller facilities are more likely to conform than
larger facilities. On inspections and emergency preparedness and treatment
services, larger facilities are more likely 1o conform than smaller facilities.

Table 3 displays data on key incident measures we examined—injuries (juve-
niles-on-juveniles, juveniles-on-staff, and staff-on-juveniles), escapes (com-
pleted, unsuccessful attempts), acts of suicidal behavior (attempted suicides,
suicide gestures, self-mutilations }, incidents requiring emergency health care,
and use of isolation. All these are reported as incident rates per 100 confined
juveniles: For injuries, escapes, suicidal behavior, and longer-term isolation, the
rates are based on reported incidents during the 30 days before the mail survey.
For shorter-term isolation, the rate is based on incidents reported during the

7 days before the mail survey. For emergency health care, rates are based on
reported incidents during the 12 months before the mail survey. Table 3 also
shows the estimated annual number of incidents, based on these rates.

15


acilities

faye, responded aah
crowding by restr ict-
ing intake criteria,
by granting early
releases, and by
refusing to take new
admissions when
populations reach or
exceed capacity.

To eliminate crowded sleeping rooms. Mighty aver 11.000 juvendes would
have to be removed from the confinement facilities or an equal number of new
beds would have to be provided in adequately sized Sleeping rooms. I that were
done, tt would still leave about 2.650 juveniles in facilites whose population
exceeded design capacity,

Facilities have responded to crowding by restricting intake criteria (particularly
in detention), by granting early releases (particularly in traming schools), and by
refusing to fake new admissions when populations reach or exceed capacily
(particularly in ranches). As a result. although more ities have become
crowded since 1987. average population levels in crowded facilities have
remained at about 120 percent of reported design capacity.

We found that rates of injuries to staff by juveniles were higher in crowded
facilities. As the percentage of juveniles who sleep in dormitories with [1 or
more residents increased, rates of injuries inflicted by juveniles on juveniles
increased. Rates for short-term isolation and searches also were higher in
crowded facilives.

We recommend that large dormitortes be eliminated from juvenile factl-
nes. No new fucthnes should be ble that contain large dormitories.

In existing facilities. large dormuories should be replaced as soon as
Possthle.

Facilities can sometimes adjust intake or durations of confinement to cushion
the effects of crowding, but they cannot alter the decisions of police. prosecu-
tors, juvenile judges, and prohation and parole officers or the systemic proc-
esses that cause crowding.

We recommend that jurisdictions develop polictes that regulate the use
and duration of juvenile confinement and that guide future development of
confinement and nonconfinement placement options. To do this, States and
locaiities should implement a planning process that identifies dectstons
that affect use of detention and confinement, that identifies characteristics
ag puventtes processed through the system, and that docwnents capacities
of confinement and nonconfinement placement options

Security

Security practices are intended to prevent escapes and to provide a safe environ-
ment for both juveniles and staff. There are high levels of nonconformance with
our security assessment criteria and substantial problems with escapes and
injuries in juvenile facilities.

Although 81 percent of confined juveniles are in facilities with three or more
facilitywide counts per day, only 62 percent are in facilities that classify
juveniles on the basis of risk and use classification results to make housing
assignments. Larger facilities are more likely to conform to the counts and
classification criteria. Just 36 percent of confined juveniles are in facilities
whose supervision stalfing ratios conform to assessment criteria. Smatler
facilities are more likely to conform to the supervision staff ratio criteria,

17


4 WY

ERE’ Docent

uti (Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

Yy

Ay
ai hiveite Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Con-
‘ git the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93-415. as

amended Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice. OJIDP*s goal is to

provide national leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice.

3JJDP sponsors 2 broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice
system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by

seven components within OJJDP, described below.

Research and Program Development Division
develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile
delinquency: supports a program for data collection
and information sharing that incorporates elements
of statistical and systems development; identifies
how delinquency develops and the best methods
for its prevention, intervention, and treatment: and
analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice
system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division pro-
vides juvenile justice training and technical assist-
ance to Federal, State, and local governments: law
enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel:
and private agencies. educational institutions, and
community organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary
funds to public and private agencies, organizations.
and individuals to replicate tested approaches to
delinquency prevention, treatment. and control in
such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders,
community-based sanctions. and the disproportionate
representation of minorities in the juvenile justice
system.

State Relations and Assistance Division supports
collaborative efforts by States to carry out the man-
dates of the JJDP Act by providing formula grant
funds to States: furnishing technica! assistance to
States, local governments, and private agencies:

and monitoring State compliance with the JIDP Act.

Information Dissemination and Planning Unit
informs individuals and organizations of OJJDP
initiatives; disseminates information on juvenile jus-
tice. delinquency prevention, and missing children:
and coordinates program planning efforts within
OJJDP. The unit's activities include publishing re-
search and statisiical reports, bulletins, and other
documents, as well as overseeing the operations of
the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Concentration of Federai Efforts Program pro-
motes interagency cooperation and coordination
among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the
area of juvenile justice. The program primarily carries
out this responsibility through the Coordinating Coun-
cil on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an
independent body within the executive branch that
was established by Congress through the JIDP Act.

Missing and Exploited Children Program seeks lo
promote effective policies and procedures for address-
ing the problem of missing and exploited children,
Established by the Missing Children’s Assistance Act
of 1984. the program provides tunds for a variety of
activities to support and coordinate a network of re-
sources such as the National Center for Mis and
Exploited Children; training and technical assistance
to a network of 43 State clearinghouses. nonprofit
organizations, law enforcement personnel, and attor-
neys; and research and demonstration programs.

OUIDP provides leadership. direction, and resources to the juvenile justice community to help prevent and

control de'inqueney throughout the country.


FOLD, TAPE, BUT 20 NOT STAPLE

{PLACE
FIRST CLASS
STAMP.

HERE

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS
P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20850

<6


1
onfit rege af wenile Justice undh ency Prevention

ER DocameatRepinduto Sere

Conditions
of Confinement:

Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities

ED 367 928

RESEARCH
SUMMARY

D>

vay

vay

NL Office of Juvenile Justice and
D_ Delinquency Prevention

Oo
BESTS pe?

Qo


ERI DocueatRepotucton Serve

here are seve) y

acts p which prob
rental Pye en

ties are substantial
and widespread—
most notably living
space, health care,
security, and control
of suicidal behavior.

The 46 assessment criteria were organized into 12 topic areas that were, in tum,
grouped into 4 broad categories:

Table |; Assessing Conditions of Confinement

Number of Assessment Criteria

Basic Needs

+ Living space x

2. Health care 6

3. Food, clothing, and hygiene 4

4. Living accommodauions 4
Order and Safety

§. Securtty 3

6. Controlling suicidal behavior 4

7. Inspections and emergency preparedness 4
Programming

X. Education 4

9, Recreation 1

10. Treatment services 2
Jus -nifes* Rights

11. Access to community 5

12. Lamits on statt discretion, 6
otal 46

In developing measures for the a: ment criteria, requirements of nationally
recognized standards for juvenile facilities were reviewed. For example, advis-
ers decided that contined juveniles need adequate living space. Several bench-
marks of nationally recognized standards were identified. In terms of sleeping
space. standards required 70 square feet per juvenile in single rooms and 50
square feet per juvenile in rooms with three or more occupants. Standards also
recommended that no more than 25 juveniles be housed in one living unit and
that facilities’ populations not exceed their design capacity.

We relied mainly on three sets of standards:

B® American Correctional Association standards (as amended in 1991), which
are used as the basis for accrediting juvenile facilities.

The National Commission on Correctional Health Care. an affiliate of the
American Medical Association, also uses its standards (1984) to accredit
health care services in juvenile ficilities.

@ American Bar Association/Institute for Judicial Administration Standards
41980).

Summary of findings

The study's findings suggest three major themes:

First, there are several areas in which problems in juvenile facilities are substan-
tial and widespread—most notably living space, health care, security, and
control of suicidal behavior. There also are areas where deficiencies. though
less serious or widespread, are still important enough to warrant attention.

4



Sp 7a); ee
Vv _
Table 3: Incident Rates per 100 Juveniies and Annualized
Ny (D ; y ‘ura s of Incidents in Juvenile Facilities
EN Document Repth eie
Rate per 100 juveniles
‘Type of incident (ast 30 days) Estimated incidents per year mn rowding isa
(Injuries ay pervasive problem in
Oy ike a 24.200
Creare ; juvenile faciliti
fav ta \7 6.900 J mutes,
Stalt-on-juvenile 02 106
Escapes
Completed 12 9.700
Unsuccesstul attempts Ve 9,800
Acts of suicidal hehavier 4 17.600
Incidents requiring emergency health care 20 18,600
isolation incidents
Short-term (1 to 24 hours) 57.0" 435.800
Longer-term tmore than 24 hours: 110 8,900

‘This dues not include very-short-term tsolation (up to | hour) used to control behavior or instill
discipline, Such a practice 1s common in juvenile tacthues and largely not documented. so 1 1s
impossible to measure is occurrence with any accuracy.

Source: CIC census and Mail Survey, 1991.

There was substantial variation in these rates among facilities. A substantial
number of juveniles were held in facilities where rates were zero or were very
low. A smaller minority were held in facilities where rates were very high.

Areas with substantial deficiencies

There ure four areas—living space, security. control of suicidal behavior, and
health care—in which facilities display substantial and widespread deticiencies.

Living space

A substantial proportion of contined juveniles have inadequate living space.
Crowding is a pervasive problem in juvenile facilities. It is evident facilitywide,
in living units,' and in sleeping rooms.

In 1987. 36 percent of confined juveniles were in facilities whose populations
exceeded their reported design capacity. By 1991 that increased to 47 percent.
In 1991 one-third of confined juveniles were in living units with 26 or more
juveniles. and one-third slept in rooms that were smailer than required by
nationally recognized standards. Only ubout one-fourth of the confined juve-
niles were in facilities that conformed to ail three living space criteria. Hence.
almost three-fourths were in facilities that were crowded in some respect.
Crowding is more common in larger and less common in smaller facilities.

living unit rsa self-contamed area ot a tactlty where a vubgroup of confined juveniles sleep. participate
in fersure activities, and attend to hy gene. Generally, juventies eat, exercise (large muscle activity). and
participate in programming outside ther Hvis unity