Security features and size vary across types of facilities

Facilities vary in their degree of security

Overall, 32% of facilities that reported security information said that at least some of the time they lock youth in their sleeping rooms. Few private facilities locked youth in sleeping rooms (7%). Among public facilities, 73% of local facilities and 58% of state facilities reported locking youth in sleeping rooms.

  Percent of facilities locking youth in sleeping rooms
Total    32%
Public 66
   State 58
   Local 73
Private  7

Note: Percentages are based on facilities that reported security information (127 of 2,964 facilities [4%] did not report—114 of nonreporting facilities were private facilities).

Among facilities that said they locked youth in sleeping rooms, three-quarters said they did this when the youth were out of control. One-quarter did so when youth were suicidal. Locking youth in their rooms during shift changes was fairly common (43%). More than half (54%) said they locked youth in their rooms whenever they were in their sleeping rooms. Locking youth in their sleeping rooms at night was even more common (87%). Just over one-quarter said youth were locked in their sleeping rooms part of each day. A handful of facilities said they locked youth in their rooms most of each day (1%) or all of each day (1%). Six percent said they rarely locked youth in sleeping rooms (they had no set schedule).

Facilities indicated whether they had various types of locked doors or gates intended to confine youth within the facility (see sidebar). Nearly half of all facilities that reported security information said they had one or more confinement features (other than locked sleeping rooms).

Among public facilities, the proportion was 78%; among private facilities, it was 24%.

  Percent of facilities
  No confinement features
 One or more confinement features
Total    53%    47%
Public 22 78
   State 20 80
   Local 23 77
Private 76 24

Note: Percentages are based on facilities that reported security information (127 of 2,964 facilities [4%] did not report—114 of nonreporting facilities were private facilities).

Among detention centers and training schools that reported security information, about 9 in 10 said they had 1 or more confinement features (other than locked sleeping rooms).

Facilities reporting one or more confinement features other than locked sleeping rooms

 

Number

Percent

Total facilities

1,320    

   47%

Detention center

689  

91

Shelter

71

25

Reception/diagnostic center

71

70

Group home

171  

16

Boot camp

42

75

Ranch/wilderness camp

29

19

Training school

336 

87

Other

166 

35

Note: Detail sums to more than totals because facilities could select more than one facility type category.

Among group homes and ranch/wilderness camps, fewer than 2 in 10 facilities said they had locked doors or gates to confine youth. A facility’s staff, of course, also provides security. In some facilities, remote location is a security feature that also helps to keep youth from leaving.

Overall, 16% of facilities reported external gates in fences or walls with razor wire. This arrangement was most common among detention centers (39%), training schools (37%), and boot camps (32%).

JRFC asks facilities about their security features

Are any young persons in this facility locked into their sleeping rooms by staff at any time to confine them?

Does this facility have any of the following features intended to confine young persons within specific areas?

  • Doors for secure day rooms that are locked by staff to confine young persons within specific areas?

  • Wing, floor, corridor, or other internal security doors that are locked by staff to confine young persons within specific areas?

  • Outside doors that are locked by staff to confine young persons within specific buildings?

  • External gates in fences or walls WITHOUT razor wire that are locked by staff to confine young persons?

  • External gates in fences or walls WITH razor wire that are locked by staff to confine young persons?
Are outside doors to any buildings with living/sleeping units in this facility ever locked? If yes, why?

  • To keep intruders out?

  • To keep young persons inside this facility?
JRFC did not ask about security features such as resident counts (roll calls), cameras, or guard towers.

Security increases as facility size increases

Among the largest facilities (those with more than 200 residents) that reported security information, 86% said they lock youth in their sleeping rooms to confine them at least some of the time. The vast majority of large facilities (90%) said they had one or more features (locked doors or gates) intended to confine youth.

  Percent of facilities reporting
Facility size
 Youth locked
in sleep rooms
 One or more
confinement features
 Razor wire
Total facilities     32%    47%   16%
1–10 residents 10 19 3
11–20 residents 24 41 10
21–50 residents 45 64 24
51–100 residents 47 70 29
101–200 residents 69 85 34
201–972 residents 86 90 64

Although the use of razor wire is a far less common security measure, more than 6 in 10 of the large facilities said they had locked gates in fences or walls with razor wire.

Large facilities were most likely to be state operated

Few state-operated facilities held 10 or fewer residents in 2002. In contrast, 46% of private facilities (807 of 1,773) were that small. In fact, these small facilities made up the largest share of private facilities.

  Facility operation
Facility size State Local Private
Total facilities 513   669 1,773  
1–10 residents 48 144 807
11–20 residents 87 148 410
21–50 residents 173   208 322
51–100 residents 76   96 177
101–200 residents 71  58  42
201–972 residents 58  15  15
Note: Data for the nine tribal facilities are not displayed.

Although state-operated facilities made up just 17% of all facilities, they accounted for 66% of facilities holding more than 200 residents. Although private facilities constituted 60% of all facilities, they accounted for 80% of facilities holding 10 or fewer residents.

More than half of facilities were small, but nearly half of juvenile offenders were held in large facilities
Facility size Number of facilities Percent of facilities Number of juvenile offenders Percent of juvenile offenders
Total facilities 2,964   100% 102,388     100%
1–10 residents 1,003 34 4,845  5
11–20 residents    648 22 7,806  8
21–50 residents    704 24 19,819  19
51–100 residents    350 12 20,630   20
101–200 residents    171  6 21,664   21
201–972 residents     88  3 27,624   27

  • Although the largest facilities—those holding more than 200 residents—accounted for only 3% of all facilities, they held 27% of all juvenile offenders in custody nationwide.

  • Inversely, although the smallest facilities—those holding 10 or fewer residents—accounted for 34% of all facilities, they held only 5% of all juvenile offenders in custody.
Note: Small facilities are those holding 20 or fewer residents, and large facilities are those holding more than 100 residents.

Source: Author's analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable data file].


Small group homes holding 20 or fewer residents were the most common type
of facility—accounting for 1 in 3 facilities overall
  Facility type
Facility size Detention center Shelter Reception/ diagnostic center Group home Boot camp Ranch/ wilderness camp Training school
Number of facilities 769 289 104 1,136 56 157 389
Total facilities   100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%
1–10 residents 18 46 13 59  0  4  2
11–20 residents 20 31 15 26  9 10 10
21–50 residents 34 15 18 10 36 50 29
51–100 residents 15  6 24  4 34 25 21
101–200 residents  9  2 18  0 20 10 23
201–972 residents  5  0 12  0  2  2 16

  • 59% of group homes held 10 or fewer residents; for shelters, the proportion was 46%. For other facility types, the proportion was less than 20%.

  • 16% of training schools held more than 200 residents; for reception/diagnostic centers, the proportion was 12%. For other facility types, the proportion was 5% or less.

Note: Facility type counts sum to more than 2,964 facilities because facilities could select more than one facility type category.

Source: Author's analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable data file].


Previous Contents Next

Juvenile Residential Facility Census,
2002: Selected Findings		 OJJDP National Report Series Bulletin
June 2006