Information on the number of juveniles taken into custody reveals much about how the nation responds to juvenile offending. In many respects, juvenile detention and corrections facilities are a vital part of the juvenile justice system. In these residential facilities, juvenile justice agencies attempt to change patterns of behavior in youth so they can become responsible members of the community. At the same time, these facilities must maintain a secure environment to protect both the residents and the community at large.

OJJDP has collected information for nearly 30 years on the number of juveniles held in detention and other facilities. Until 1995, these data were gathered through the biennial Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities, better known as the Children in Custody (CIC) Census. Starting in 1997, OJJDP began a new, more comprehensive, data collection effort, the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP). This census was conducted a second time in 1999. Data collection for the third CJRP, in 2001, will be completed in 2002. OJJDP inaugurated another data collection effort in 2000, the Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC). This census collects information about the facilities rather than the residents. The questions on the census address facility security, the number of beds available, education services, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, and physical health care. This census also asks about deaths of residents in custody. OJJDP administers the CJRP and JRFC in alternating years, thus providing a comprehensive picture of U.S. juvenile corrections overall. The data included in this chapter derive mainly from these two efforts, although other data sources are also used.

Juvenile Arrests in 2000

Data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting system show that in 2000 (the most recent year for which complete data are available) law enforcement agencies made an estimated 2.4 million arrests of persons younger than 18, a 15-percent drop from 1996. Juvenile arrests for violent crimes in 2000 were at their lowest level since 1988. In 2000, there were an estimated 98,900 arrests of persons younger than 18 for Violent Crime Index offenses (including murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault). Between 1996 and 2000, juvenile arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses dropped 23 percent; adult arrests for these offenses dropped 9 percent. During this period, juvenile arrests declined 55 percent for murder, 28 percent for weapons law violations, and 38 percent for robbery. An estimated one-third of 1 percent of all juveniles ages 10–17 were arrested for a violent crime in 2000.

While the number of juvenile arrests for violent crimes was falling, arrests for certain other types of offenses by juveniles also declined. Between 1996 and 2000, juvenile arrests dropped 28 percent for all property offenses, 34 percent for motor vehicle theft, and 30 percent for burglary. In some offense categories, however, juvenile arrests increased: driving under the influence (13 percent), liquor law violations (4 percent), and sex offenses other than rape and prostitution (8 percent).

In considering data on arrests and custody, distinguishing between persons younger than 18 and persons legally considered juveniles is important. The former refers solely to the age of a person at a given time; law enforcement agencies provide arrest data in this manner. Depending on the law in the State where an offense is committed, a youth may or may not be legally considered a juvenile subject to the original jurisdiction of the juvenile court. For example, original juvenile court jurisdiction for delinquent offenses ends on an offender’s 17th birthday in 10 States and on the 16th birthday in 3 States. Further, many States have enacted mandatory waiver or transfer legislation that removes particular types of offenses from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and places them under the jurisdiction of the criminal (adult) court. Thus, some young offenders may be of juvenile age but face criminal court trial and adult sanctions.

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement

As noted earlier in this chapter, OJJDP conducted the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement in 1997 and 1999. The census covers all residential facilities, secure and nonsecure, that hold juvenile offenders. For the purposes of CJRP, a juvenile offender is defined as a person younger than 21 who is held in a residential setting because of an offense and as a result of some contact with the justice system. The census, then, encompasses both status offenders and delinquent offenders, whether detained or committed for an offense. In 1997, more than 96 percent (n =3,308) of surveyed facilities (n =3,431) responded. In 1999, all surveyed facilities (n =3,712) provided at least some information. Based on data collected in the 1997 census, an estimated 105,790 juvenile offenders were in residential placement. In 1999, the number was 108,931, a 3-percent increase from 1997. In 1997, juvenile offenders were held in 2,844 residential facilities—1,108 public and 1,736 private. In 1999, juveniles were held in 2,939 residential facilities—1,136 public, 1,794 private, and 9 tribal. Public facilities held 71 percent of juvenile offenders in residential placement in 1999, private facilities held 29 percent, and tribal facilities held less than 1 percent.

Compared with data reported by public and private juvenile facilities in the 1991 CIC Census, the 1999 CJRP data show a 43-percent increase in the number of juvenile offenders held, and a 50-percent increase in the number of delinquents held. However, because the two data collections are not strictly comparable, determining whether any of this apparent growth is actually an artifact of the change in methods is not possible. For example, the CJRP’s October census date may have resulted in a larger count compared with the CIC’s February date. The CJRP’s “roster” format, more explicit definitions, and the use of electronic reporting also may have facilitated a more complete and accurate accounting of facility residents.

However, the data do give a strong indication that the changes are real. For example, it seems unlikely that the CJRP method is merely counting more residents than the CIC method because population increases between the last wave of CIC in 1995 and the first wave of CJRP in 1997 were not necessarily greater than the normal 2-year fluctuations previously observed between waves of the CIC Census. In addition, the trends in the custody data are comparable to those in data from juvenile courts. Further, the 1999 CJRP shows a drop in the number of status offenders compared with the 1997 CIC Census (see figure). This drop is consistent with the general CIC Census and provides further evidence that the CIC Census and CJRP are comparable.

As in previous years, males accounted for the vast majority of juveniles in residential placement in 1999 (87 percent). Of all juveniles in residential placement in 1999, minorities accounted for 62 percent and nonminority whites for 38 percent; blacks were by far the largest minority group, accounting for 39 percent of all juveniles in residential placement. Hispanics were the second largest minority group (18 percent). The racial/ethnic composition of juveniles in custody was similar in 1997: 63 percent minority (including 40 percent black) and 37 percent nonminority white.

CJRP also collects data on the legal status of juveniles in custody. In 1999, most juveniles (74 percent) were held in the facilities where they were placed following adjudication. Twenty-five percent were detained while awaiting adjudication, and the remaining few were in residential placement as part of a diversion agreement entered in lieu of adjudication.

Over the past 2 years, OJJDP has made the information gathered through CJRP more available to interested parties. The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook is currently available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp for those who want to learn more about youth in custody.

Juvenile Residential Facility Census

In addition to conducting the CJRP, OJJDP also conducts the Juvenile Residential Facility Census. First administered in October 2000, JRFC will be administered by OJJDP every 2 years. In 2000, JRFC collected information from 3,690 juvenile residential facilities. Of these facilities, 3,061 held a total of 110,284 offenders younger than 21 on the census date. JRFC will routinely collect information on how residential facilities operate.

The census includes detailed questions on facility security, crowding, deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. It also asks about specific services for mental and physical health care, substance abuse, and education. Facilities are asked about onsite treatment provided to residents. Although only 2 in 10 facilities reported providing onsite treatment for sex offenders, nearly two-thirds of violent juvenile sex offenders surveyed in the 1999 CJRP were held in facilities that said they provide sex offender treatment. More than 25 percent of facilities that provide sex offender treatment indicated that they have separate living or sleeping units for sex offenders (27 percent). Some facilities that said they do not provide sex offender treatment also reported having separate sex offender units (4 percent). JRFC is described in more detail in the OJJDP Fact Sheet Innovative Information on Juvenile Residential Facilities (FS–200011), which is available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Assessing the Need for Juvenile Corrections Space

In 1998, Congress mandated that OJJDP examine the basic needs of the juvenile justice system for future bed space. The study was to focus on national needs in addition to the specific needs in 10 indicated States. OJJDP provided Congress the Report An Assessment of Space Needs in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities in July 1998 (available on OJJDP’s Web site). In addition, OJJDP awarded a cooperative agreement to The Urban Institute to study the issue in greater depth. OJJDP published the Bulletin Anticipating Space Needs in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities (NCJ 185234) in March 2001. These studies illustrate clearly that the flow of juveniles into and out of residential placement relies mainly on the policy considerations and the practices of officials in individual jurisdictions.

Although trends in juvenile offending do have an impact on the number of youth in custody, ultimately, policy decisions made at State and local levels determine what the juvenile custody population looks like and how individual juveniles experience custody. In the near future, OJJDP will disseminate more information that reveals in greater detail how policy and populations affect one another.

Deaths in Custody

The death of a juvenile in custody is relatively rare. In 1994, facilities reported that 45 juveniles died while in custody; in 1992, they reported that 40 juveniles had died. According to the 2000 JRFC data on deaths in custody, facilities holding juvenile offenders reported that 30 juveniles died while in the legal custody of a facility. Accidents were the most commonly reported cause of death. Public facilities reported 14 deaths; private facilities reported 16 deaths. More than half of the deaths reported occurred outside the facility (n =17 of 30). Deaths reported by public facilities most often occurred inside the facility. Deaths reported by private facilities usually occurred outside the facility.

All facilities reporting suicides said residents are evaluated within 24 hours of their arrival to determine whether they are at risk for suicide. All but one facility reported that every resident is evaluated for suicide risk. The one facility said it evaluates only youth who attempt suicide, who display or communicate suicide risk, or for whom no mental health record is available.

One hundred and thirty-five facilities holding juvenile offenders reported transporting juveniles to a hospital emergency room because of suicide attempts. None of these facilities reported a suicide death.

Upcoming Surveys

OJJDP has designed a statistical system that will enable local, State, and Federal policymakers and practitioners to monitor juvenile detention and corrections populations and practices. In addition to supporting the collection of important information through CJRP and JRFC, OJJDP recognizes the value of interviewing youth in juvenile justice system facilities. Such interviews provide a wealth of information on past offending behavior, pathways to delinquency, family and social environments, and experiences in custody. Using Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) funds, OJJDP awarded a cooperative agreement in 1998 to Westat, Inc., of Rockville, MD, to develop the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP). SYRP will collect self-report data from 10,000 juveniles residing in juvenile facilities—both long-term placements such as training schools and residential treatment facilities and short-term placements such as detention centers, shelters, and group homes.

SYRP will complement other OJJDP research on delinquency careers and offending behavior and monitor the range of residential placements used for juvenile offenders. The survey addresses the youth’s experiences at and before coming to the facilities and includes questions on topics such as education, home environment, and substance abuse. SYRP will provide data for monitoring placements by tracking the number and types of offenses committed by juveniles in placement and the types of sanctions they received for previous offenses. SYRP supports the goals of the JAIBG program, which include holding juveniles accountable for their delinquent acts. Westat will conduct the first SYRP in March and April 2003.

Beyond routine data collection, OJJDP has a strong interest in and responsibility to research specific policy-related aspects of juvenile detention and corrections. For example, in FY 1998, OJJDP funded the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Juvenile Justice Programs. This initiative is examining in detail the costs associated with juvenile corrections and probation and will compare the costs with the benefits (both tangible and intangible) of each sanction. Data from this study will enable OJJDP to compare the cost-benefit structure of custody with that of probation. Although the study will not provide national information, it will provide significant insight into how such analyses can be accomplished in other jurisdictions. The University of Texas at Dallas and the Dallas County Juvenile Department are conducting the analysis.

To help determine the number of juveniles under some form of community supervision, OJJDP is funding development of the Survey of Juvenile Probation, which will estimate the number of juveniles on probation nationally at a specific time, the nature of their offenses, and the conditions of their probation. In a certain sense, the numbers and types of juveniles in residential placement depend on the availability of alternative sanctions. Although some juveniles clearly need residential placement to ensure their own safety and/or the safety of the community, others can be handled more appropriately in the community. The Survey of Juvenile Probation will routinely gather sufficient information about juveniles on probation to permit comparisons between these youth and juveniles in custody. OJJDP expects to field test the survey in 2002. The first survey will be administered in 2004.