U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Secure Detention Needs Assessment - Crawford, Hancock, Hardin, Seneca, and Wyandot Counties, Ohio

NCJ Number
83197
Author(s)
M L Woods
Date Published
Unknown
Length
110 pages
Annotation
Five Ohio counties were studied to determine their current practices and future needs with respect to the secure detention of juveniles.
Abstract
The five counties were Crawford, Hancock, Hardin, Seneca, and Wyandot. Case records from the juvenile courts in the five counties were examined. In addition, interviews and examinations of Ohio's laws and regulations were used to gather information on secure detention policies and practices. All five counties were found to detain too many juveniles. If the counties were to adopt more specific and objective eligibility criteria for secure detention, the number of appropriate detentions would be extremely low. Using the criteria of present charge and prior offense, only 6 percent of the study sample was eligible for secure detention. All five counties should also begin to record the reason for detention in the official court record to avoid arbitrary and potentially harmful decisions and to permit planning for the appropriate number of secure detention beds needed. The detention of juveniles in county jails and municipal lockups should stop immediately, since many studies have documented the adverse effects of this practice. In addition, status offenders should never be placed in secure detention. None of the counties can justify building its own secure detention facility. Counties should establish or continue their contractual agreements for secure juvenile detention with neighboring counties. If the counties plan to construct a new facility, they should build only a joint regional facility with no more than eight beds. A larger facility would be economically wasteful since it would be either only partly full or filled with inappropriate youth. Results from each county, tables, and appendixes presenting recommended standards on secure detention and sample models for alternatives to detention are provided.