JRFC Bulletin

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

National
Report Series
August 2013

This bulletin is part of the
Juvenile Offenders and
Victims National Report Series.
The National Report offers a
comprehensive statistical
overview of the problems of
juvenile crime, violence, and
victimization and the response
of the juvenile justice system.
During each interim year, the
bulletins in the National
Report Series provide access
to the latest information on
juvenile arrests, court cases,
juveniles in custody, and other
topics of interest. Each bulletin in the series highlights
selected topics at the forefront
of juvenile justice policymaking, giving readers focused
access to statistics on some
of the most critical issues.
Together, the National Report
and this series provide a
baseline of facts for juvenile
justice professionals, policymakers, the media, and concerned citizens.

Juvenile Residential
Facility Census, 2010:
Selected Findings
Sarah Hockenberry, Melissa Sickmund, and Anthony Sladky

A Message From OJJDP
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s biennial Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) collects information about facilities in which juvenile offenders are held.
Respondents provide information about facility characteristics, including facility type, capacity, and type of security. JRFC also reports the number of youth who were injured or died in
custody during the past 12 months.
This bulletin provides findings from the 2010 survey. The juvenile offender population
dropped 18% from 2008 to 2010. Issues of crowding and overcapacity at these facilities,
however, continue to be of concern. In 2010, about 18% of facilities were at their standard
bed capacity, and 2% were over capacity.
The 2010 JRFC data also describe the range of services that facilities provide to youth in their
care. Almost all facilities (92%) reported that a portion of or all residents attended some type
of schooling. Most responding facilities routinely evaluated all juvenile offenders for substance use (70%), mental health needs (57%), and suicide risk (89%).
Together, JRFC and its companion survey, the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement,
which describes the demographics of youth in custody, allow the corrections community, juvenile justice professionals, youth advocates, and policymakers to monitor conditions of confinement and ensure that the nation’s juvenile residential facilities are safe and that youth in
custody receive the necessary treatment and services.
Robert L. Listenbee
Administrator

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.gov

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census provides
data on facility operations
Facility census describes
2,519 juvenile facilities
In October 2010, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) administered the sixth Juvenile
Residential Facility Census (JRFC). JRFC
began in 2000 with data collections occurring every other year.
JRFC routinely collects data on how facilities operate and the services they provide. It includes detailed questions on
facility security, capacity and crowding,
injuries and deaths in custody, and facility ownership and operation. Supplementary information is also collected each
year on specific services, such as mental
and physical health, substance abuse, and
education.

JRFC does not capture data on adult prisons or jails, nor does it include facilities
used exclusively for mental health or substance abuse treatment or for dependent
children. Thus, JRFC includes most, but
not all, facilities that hold juvenile offenders. The reporting facilities may also hold
adults or “nonoffenders,” but data were
only included if the facility held at least
one juvenile offender on the census date.

JRFC is one component in a multitiered
effort to describe the youth placed in
residential facilities and the facilities
themselves. Other components include:

The 2010 JRFC collected data from 2,519
juvenile facilities. Analyses in this bulletin
were based on data from 2,111 facilities,
which held a total of 66,322 offenders
younger than 21 on the census date (October 27, 2010). JRFC excluded data from
6 facilities in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands, 19 tribal facilities, and 383 facilities that held no juvenile offenders on
that date.



The National Juvenile Court Data
Archive, which collects information
on sanctions that juvenile courts
impose.



The Census of Juveniles in Residential
Placement, which collects information on the demographics and legal
attributes of each youth in a juvenile
facility on the census date.



The Survey of Youth in Residential
Placement, which collected a broad
range of self-reported information
from interviews in 2003 with individual youth in residential placement.

On October 27, 2010, 51% of juvenile facilities were publicly operated; they held 70% of juvenile offenders
State

Juvenile facilities
Total Public Private

U.S. total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

2,111
49
19
33
33
202
44
10
7
9
97
33
5
20
40
70
63
34
33
34
4
30
52
62
54
16

1,074
13
8
15
11
109
13
4
6
2
34
25
3
14
27
34
14
16
28
17
2
14
19
30
22
13

1,037
36
11
18
22
93
31
6
1
7
63
8
2
6
13
36
49
18
5
17
2
16
33
32
32
3

Juvenile offenders
Total Public Private
66,322 46,677 19,645
1,059
504
555
274
216
58
1,398
947
451
748
260
488
10,908
9,781
1,127
1,367
819
548
286
216
70
208
195
13
250
196
54
4,526
1,565
2,961
2,055
1,694
361
86
79
7
477
411
66
2,161
1,949
212
1,968
1,275
693
989
298
691
889
695
194
851
806
45
1,087
837
250
185
181
4
892
702
190
694
261
433
1,793
939
854
955
585
370
243
211
32

State

Juvenile facilities
Total Public Private

Juvenile offenders
Total Public Private

Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

64
13
12
22
7
39
21
126
41
13
77
35
44
131
11
21
21
38
97
28
3
52
34
26
66
16

1,237
153
680
875
130
1,209
504
2,356
824
193
2,683
698
1,267
4,403
292
864
426
884
4,916
637
26
1,759
1,182
467
1,077
231

60
8
5
13
2
34
15
31
24
4
63
15
23
29
1
8
8
26
82
16
1
49
31
11
20
2

4
5
7
9
5
5
6
95
17
9
14
20
21
102
10
13
13
12
15
12
2
3
3
15
46
14

1,168
130
412
676
64
1,178
458
1,005
577
76
2,508
460
1,009
1,012
144
556
228
675
4,451
383
13
1,709
1,134
341
583
105

69
23
268
199
66
31
46
1,351
247
117
175
238
258
3,391
148
308
198
209
465
254
13
50
48
126
494
126

Notes: “State” is the state where the facility is located. Offenders sent to out-of-state facilities are counted in the state where the facility is located, not the
state where they committed their offense. Data collected from 6 facilities in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and 19 tribal facilities are not included.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

2

National Report Series Bulletin

Although most facilities were small and private,
most offenders were held in large public facilities
Local facilities were
more numerous, but
state facilities held as
many offenders
Historically, local facilities (those staffed
by county, city, or municipal employees)
held fewer juvenile offenders than state
facilities, despite accounting for more
than half of all public facilities. In recent
years the gap narrowed and, in 2010,
local and state facilities held the same
amount of offenders.

Total
Public
State
Local
Private

Facilities

Juvenile
offenders

Number Percent

Number Percent

2,111
1,074
440
634
1,037

66,322
46,677
23,237
23,440
19,645

100%
51
21
30
49

100%
70
35
35
30

Training schools tend to be state facilities, detention centers tend to be
local facilities, and group homes tend to be private facilities
Facility type

Facility operation

Number of facilities
Operations profile
All facilities
Public
State
Local
Private
Facility profile
All facilities
Public
State
Local
Private


Note: Detail may not total 100% because of
rounding.

In 2010, JRFC asked facilities if a forprofit agency owned and/or operated
them. Of reporting facilities, only a small
percentage said that these types of agencies owned (4%) or operated (7%) them.
In both cases, these facilities tended to
hold 100 or fewer residents and were
most likely to classify themselves as residential treatment centers.

Residential treatment
centers and group
homes outnumbered
other types of facilities
JRFC asks respondents to identify the
type of facility (e.g., detention center,
shelter, reception/diagnostic center, group
home/halfway house, boot camp, ranch/
forestry/wilderness camp/marine program, training school/long-term secure
facility, or residential treatment center).
JRFC allowed respondents to select more

August 2013






Reception/
Ranch/
Residential
Detention
diagnostic Group wilderness Training treatment
Total
center Shelter
center
home
camp
school
center

2,111

705

137

100% 100% 100%
51
87
35
21
20
3
30
67
32
49
13
65
100%
100
100
100
100

33%
57
33
74
9

6%
4
1
7
9

72

528

68

188

763

100%
69
57
13
31

100%
18
10
9
82

100%
47
9
38
53

100%
91
80
11
9

100%
34
18
15
66

3%
5
9
1
2

25%
9
12
7
42

3%
3
1
4
3

9%
16
34
3
2

36%
24
32
18
49

Detention centers, reception/diagnostic centers, and training schools were more likely
to be public facilities than private facilities; however, a substantial proportion of
reception/diagnostic centers were private.
Most shelters were private facilities, as were group homes and residential treatment
centers.
Detention centers made up the largest proportion of all local facilities and more than
half of all public facilities.
Training schools constituted 34% of all state facilities.
Group homes accounted for 42% of all private facilities.

Note: Counts (and row percentages) may sum to more than the total number of facilities because facilities
could select more than one facility type.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

than one facility type, although the vast
majority (85%) selected only one.
Slightly more than 760 facilities identified
themselves as residential treatment centers and were holding juvenile offenders
on the 2010 census date. Residential
treatment centers made up 36% of all
facilities and held 36% of juvenile offenders. Nearly 530 facilities identified themselves as group homes/halfway houses
and were holding juvenile offenders.
Group homes made up 25% of facilities
and held 10% of juvenile offenders.
There were 109 facilities that identified

themselves as both residential treatment
centers and group homes. In fact, the
group home/residential treatment center
combination was the most common
facility type combination. There were 705
facilities that identified themselves as detention centers—they accounted for 33%
of facilities and held 41% of juvenile offenders in residential placement on the
census date. Facilities identified as detention centers most commonly also identified themselves as residential treatment
centers (64 facilities), training schools
(35), and reception/diagnostic centers (22).

3

Security features and size varied across types
of facilities
Facilities varied in their
degree of security
Overall, 43% of facilities said that, at least
some of the time, they locked youth in
their sleeping rooms. Among public facilities, 78% of local facilities and 64% of
state facilities reported locking youth in
sleeping rooms. Few private facilities
locked youth in sleeping rooms (9%).
Percentage of facilities locking
youth in sleeping rooms
Total
Public
State
Local
Private

43%
72
64
78
9

Note: Percentages are based on facilities that reported security information (152 of 2,111 facilities [7%]
did not report).

Among facilities that locked youth in
sleeping rooms, most did this at night
(85%) or when a youth was out of control
(79%). Locking doors whenever youth
were in their sleeping rooms (59%) and
locking youth in their rooms during shift
changes (50%) were also fairly common.
Fewer facilities reported locking youth in
sleeping rooms for a part of each day
(28%) or when they were suicidal (26%).
Very few facilities locked youth in sleeping
rooms most of each day (2%) or all of
each day (less than 1%). Seven percent
(7%) had no set schedule for locking
youth in sleeping rooms.
Facilities indicated whether they had various types of locked doors or gates intended to confine youth within the facility (see
sidebar, this page). More than half of all
facilities that reported security information
said they had one or more confinement
features (other than locked sleeping
rooms). A greater proportion of public facilities (84%) than private facilities (26%)
had confinement features.

4

Percentage of facilities
One or more
No confinement confinement
features
features
Total
Public
State
Local
Private

43%
16
15
16
74

57%
84
85
84
26

Note: Percentages are based on facilities that reported security information (152 of 2,111 facilities [7%]
did not report).

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

JRFC asks facilities about their
security features
Are any young persons in this facility
locked in 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?

Facilities reporting one or more
confinement features (other than
locked sleeping rooms):
Facility type
Number Percentage
Total facilities
1,113
Detention center
642
Shelter
33
Reception/diagnostic
center
55
Group home
76
Ranch/wilderness
camp
17
Training school
167
Residential treatment
center
338

57%
95
25
79
16
29
96
48

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

Among group homes, fewer than 1 in 5
facilities said they had locked doors or
gates to confine youth. A facility’s staff,
of course, also provides security. In some
facilities, a remote location is a security
feature that also helps to keep youth from
leaving.
Overall, 23% of facilities reported external
gates in fences or walls with razor wire.
This arrangement was most common
among training schools (46%), detention
centers (45%), and reception/diagnostic
centers (36%).

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.

National Report Series Bulletin

Security increased as
facility size increased
Among the largest facilities (those with
more than 200 residents) that provided
security information, 74% locked youth in
their sleeping rooms to confine them at
least some of the time. The vast majority
of large facilities (80%) had one or more
features (locked doors or gates) intended
to confine youth.

Facility size

Percentage of
facilities reporting
One or
Youth
more
locked confinein sleep ment Razor
rooms features wire

Total facilities
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201+ residents

43%
22
39
55
60
75
74

57%
31
55
71
82
85
80

23%
7
20
30
42
43
60

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

More than half of facilities were small (holding 20 or fewer residents),
although nearly half of juvenile offenders were held in medium
facilities (holding 21–100 residents)
Facility size

Few (13%) state-operated facilities (58 of
440) held 10 or fewer residents in 2010.
In contrast, 45% of private facilities (468
of 1,037) were that small. In fact, these
small private facilities made up the largest proportion of private facilities.

Facility size

Facility operation
State Local Private

Total facilities
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201+ residents

August 2013

440
58
95
142
71
57
17

634
150
152
203
89
28
12

1,037
468
234
218
83
23
11

Percentage of
facilities

Number of
juvenile
offenders

Percentage of
juvenile
offenders

2,111
676
481
563
243
108
40

100%
32
23
27
12
5
2

66,322
3,500
6,220
16,340
15,705
13,928
10,629

100%
5
9
25
24
21
16

Total facilities
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201+ residents


Although the largest facilities—those holding more than 200 residents—accounted for
only 2% of all facilities, they held 16% of all juvenile offenders in custody.



Inversely, although the smallest facilities—those holding 10 or fewer residents—
accounted for 32% of all facilities, they held only 5% of all juvenile offenders in
custody.

Note: Column percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Small group homes holding 20 or fewer residents were the most
common type of facility
Facility type

Facility size

Large facilities were
most likely to be state
operated

Number of
facilities

Number of facilities
Total facilities
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201+ residents

Detention
center

705
100%
22
24
34
13
6
3

Shelter

Reception/
diagnostic
center

Group
home

Ranch/
wilderness
camp

Training
school

Residential
treatment
center

137
100%
53
28
14
3
1
1

72
100%
11
17
28
21
17
7

528
100%
65
18
12
3
1
1

68
100%
7
19
40
25
6
3

188
100%
3
11
29
24
23
10

763
100%
20
25
33
15
4
2



65% of group homes and 53% of shelters held 10 or fewer residents. For other facility
types, this proportion was less than 23%.



10% of training schools and 7% of reception/diagnostic centers held more than 200
residents. For other facility types, this proportion was less than 4%.

Note: Facility type counts sum to more than 2,111 facilities because facilities could select more than one
facility type. Column percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

State-operated facilities made up just
21% of all facilities, and they accounted
for 42% of facilities holding more than
200 residents. Private facilities constituted

49% of all facilities, and they accounted
for 69% of facilities holding 10 or fewer
residents.

5

Facility crowding affected a substantial proportion
of youth in custody
Many juvenile offenders
were in facilities with
more residents than
standard beds
Facilities reported both the number of
standard beds and the number of makeshift beds they had on the census date.
Occupancy rates provide the broadest assessment of the adequacy of living space.
Although occupancy rate standards have
not been established, as a facility’s occupancy surpasses 100%, operational functioning may be compromised.
Crowding occurs when the number of residents occupying all or part of a facility exceeds some predetermined limit based on
square footage, utility use, or even fire
codes. Although it is an imperfect measure
of crowding, comparing the number of
residents to the number of standard beds
gives a sense of the crowding problem in a
facility. Even without relying on makeshift
beds, a facility may be crowded. For example, using standard beds in an infirmary
for youth who are not sick or beds in
seclusion for youth who have not committed infractions may indicate crowding
problems.
Twenty percent (20%) of facilities said that
the number of residents they held on the
2010 census date put them at or over the
capacity of their standard beds or that they
relied on some makeshift beds. These facilities held 12,001 residents, the vast majority of whom were offenders younger
than 21. Thus, 15% of all residents held
on the census date and 16% of offenders
younger than 21 were held in facilities
operating at or above their standard bed
capacity. In comparison, such facilities
held 21% of all residents in 2008, and they
held 40% in 2000. In 2010, 2% of facilities
reported being over capacity (having fewer
standard beds than they had residents or
relying on makeshift beds). These facilities
held 3% of juvenile offenders.

6

Compared with other types of facilities, public training schools,
detention centers, and reception/diagnostic centers were more likely
to be over their standard bed capacity

Facility type
Total
Detention center
Shelter
Reception/diagnostic
center
Group home
Ranch/wilderness camp
Training school
Residential treatment
center

Percentage of facilities at
their standard bed capacity
Total
Public Private

Percentage of facilities over
their standard bed capacity
Total
Public Private

18%
10
10

12%
9
8

25%
13
11

2%
4
0

3%
4
0

0%
2
0

11
30
15
11

8
16
19
9

18
33
11
29

3
0
0
4

4
1
0
5

0
0
0
0

22

17

24

1

2

0

The largest facilities were the most likely to be crowded

Facility size
Total facilities
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201+ residents

Number of
facilities
2,111
676
481
563
243
108
40

Percentage of facilities
Mean number of
under, at, or over
makeshift beds
their standard bed capacity
at facilities
<100%
100%
>100%
over capacity
80%
77
80
79
86
83
93

18%
22
19
18
11
10
5

2%
1
1
2
4
6
3

6
2
2
3
4
17
16

Note: A single bed is counted as one standard bed, and a bunk bed is counted as two standard beds.
Makeshift beds (e.g., cots, roll-out beds, mattresses, and sofas) are not counted as standard beds.
Facilities are counted as over capacity if they reported more residents than standard beds or if they
reported any occupied makeshift beds. Facilities could select more than one facility type.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

43 states held fewer juvenile offenders in 2010 than in 2008
Overall, the juvenile offender custody population dropped 18% from 2008 to 2010.
States with declines held an average of 19% fewer juvenile offenders on the census
date in 2010 than in 2008—ranging from 46% in Vermont to 3% in Arizona.
Among the seven states that had more juveniles in residential placement in 2010 than
in 2008, the average growth was 27%. The number of juvenile offenders at facilities
in North Dakota more than doubled (127%). Five states had increases of 13% or less
(Alaska, District of Columbia, Maryland, Missouri, and Montana), and New Mexico
reported an increase of 23%. Rhode Island reported virtually no change in their
custody population between 2008 and 2010.

National Report Series Bulletin

State-operated public facilities had a
slightly greater proportion of facilities that
exceeded capacity (4%) than did locally
operated facilities (3%).

Public facilities were
more likely than private
facilities to be crowded
Among publicly operated facilities, 3%
exceeded standard bed capacity or had
residents occupying makeshift beds on
the 2010 census date. For privately operated facilities, the proportion was less
than 1%. However, a larger proportion
of private facilities (25%) compared to
public facilities (12%) said they were
operating at 100% capacity.

Facility
operation

Percentage of facilities
at or over their
standard bed capacity
>100% 100% >100%

Total
Public
State
Local
Private

20%
15
18
13
25

18%
12
13
10
25

2%
3
4
3
0

Note: Detail may not add to totals because of
rounding.

Use of makeshift beds
varied widely
About 40 facilities reported having occupied makeshift beds, averaging 6 such
beds per facility. Many facilities rely on
makeshift beds, whereas many others operate well below standard bed capacity.
On average, there were three unoccupied
standard beds per facility. This average
masks a wide range: 1 facility with 122
residents had 72 standard beds and 50
residents without standard beds; another
facility with 432 standard beds had 253
residents, leaving 179 unoccupied beds.

Nationwide, 422 juvenile facilities (20%) were at or over standard capacity or relied on makeshift beds
Number of
facilities under, at,
or over capacity

State

Total
facilities <100% 100% >100%

U.S. total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi

2,111
49
19
40
33
202
45
10
7
9
97
33
5
20
40
70
63
34
33
34
4
30
52
63
55
17

1,689
44
18
33
24
138
40
10
6
6
73
28
5
20
39
60
52
22
27
27
4
21
44
59
49
16

383
5
1
6
8
62
3
0
1
1
22
1
0
0
1
9
11
10
6
6
0
9
8
4
6
1

39
0
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

Percentage of
juvenile offenders
in facilities at or
over capacity
100% >100%
13%
5
3
8
31
16
4
0
8
5
18
2
0
0
1
8
13
11
14
31
0
39
16
4
13
1

3%
0
0
1
6
1
13
0
0
78
1
16
0
0
0
1
0
10
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0

Number of
facilities under, at,
or over capacity

State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Total
facilities <100% 100% >100%
64
15
12
22
7
39
22
126
41
14
77
36
44
131
11
21
24
38
97
28
3
52
34
26
66
16

42
13
9
14
5
35
20
96
33
10
59
20
35
98
4
18
20
30
89
22
3
48
29
21
54
14

17
2
1
6
2
4
1
29
7
4
13
16
9
32
7
3
4
7
6
6
0
3
5
5
12
2

5
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

Percentage of
juvenile offenders
in facilities at or
over capacity
100% >100%
27%
6
0
12
11
3
16
9
11
29
20
27
22
21
29
5
20
8
2
20
0
5
14
23
11
5

13%
0
17
28
0
0
10
0
1
0
10
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

Note: A single bed is counted as one standard bed, and a bunk bed is counted as two standard beds. Makeshift beds (e.g., cots, roll-out beds, mattresses, and sofas) are
not counted as standard beds. Facilities are counted as over capacity if they reported more residents than standard beds or if they reported any occupied makeshift beds.
Facilities could select more than one facility type. “State” is the state where the facility is located. Offenders sent to out-of-state facilities are counted in the state

where the facility is located, not the state where they committed their offense.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

August 2013

7

Most juvenile offenders were evaluated for educational
needs and attended school while held in facilities
Facilities that screened
all youth for educational
needs held 86% of the
offenders in custody
As part of the information collected on
educational services, the JRFC questionnaire asked facilities about their procedures regarding educational screening.
In 2010, 87% of facilities that reported
educational screening information said
that they evaluated all youth for grade
level and educational needs. An additional
5% evaluated some youth. Only 9% did
not evaluate any youth for educational
needs.
Of the 91 facilities in 2010 that screened
some but not all youth, 73% evaluated
youth whom staff identified as needing an
assessment, 61% evaluated youth with
known educational problems, 55% evaluated youth for whom no educational record was available, and 16% evaluated
youth who came directly from home rather than from another facility.
In 2010, those facilities that screened all
youth held 86% of the juvenile offenders
in custody. An additional 3% of juvenile
offenders in 2010 were in facilities that
screened some youth.

The smallest facilities were the least likely to evaluate all youth for
grade level
Facility size based on residential population

Education screening

Total

1–10 11–20 21–50 51–100 101–200 201+

Total facilities
Facilities reporting
All reporting facilities
All youth screened
Some youth screened
No youth screened

2,111
1,959
100%
87
5
9

676
624
100%
75
8
18



481
456
100%
89
4
7

563
519
100%
94
3
3

243
226
100%
94
4
3

108
40
99
35
100% 100%
96
100
3
0
1
0

The largest facilities evaluated 100% of youth for grade level in 2010.

Note: Column percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Most facilities evaluated youth for grade level between 24 hours and
7 days after arrival

When youth are
evaluated for
educational needs
Total facilities
Less than 24 hours
24 hours to 7 days
7 or more days
Other
No youth evaluated
(or not reported)

As a percentage of facilities that
Number of juvenile facilities evaluated youth for grade level
All
Some
Facilities
All
Some
All
youth
youth
that
youth
youth
facilities evaluated evaluated evaluated evaluated evaluated
2,111
385
1,383
177
73

1,701
378
1,334
151
55

91
7
49
26
18

100%
21
77
10
4

319

–

–

–

95%
21
74
8
3
–

5%
0
3
1
1
–

Note: Facilities sum to more than 2,111 because they could select more than one time period.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Most facilities used
previous academic
records to evaluate
educational needs
The vast majority of facilities (89%) that
screened some or all youth for grade
level and educational needs used previous academic records. Some facilities
also administered written tests (67%) or
conducted an education-related interview
with an education specialist (61%), intake
counselor (38%), or guidance counselor
(25%).

8

Most facilities reported
that youth in their facility
attended school
Ninety-two percent (92%) of facilities reported that at least some youth in their facility attended school either inside or
outside the facility. Facilities reporting that
all youth attended school (73% of facilities) accounted for 72% of the juvenile

offender population in residential placement. Ranch/wilderness camps were the
least likely to report that all youth attended school (63%) and the most likely to report that no youth attended school (15%).
Facilities with 11–20 residents and 21–50
residents were most likely to report that
all youth attended school (77% each),
while facilities with 201+ residents were
least likely (58%) to have all youth attend

National Report Series Bulletin

Ranch/wilderness camps and small facilities were the least likely to
report that youth in their facility attended school

Facility type

Total

Total facilities
Detention center
Shelter
Reception/diagnostic
center
Group home
Ranch/wilderness
camp
Training school
Residential treatment
center
Facility size
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201+ residents

Percentage of facilities with
youth attending school
All youth
Some youth
No youth

100%
100
100

73%
79
72

19%
16
23

8%
4
5

100
100

75
65

19
25

6
10

100
100

63
70

22
22

15
7

100

75

17

9

100%
100
100
100
100
100

69%
77
77
75
68
58

22%
18
15
17
24
30

9%
6
8
7
8
13

Note: Row percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

school. Facilities reporting that no youth
attended school (8%) accounted for 9%
of all juvenile offenders in residential
placement.

Facilities offered a variety
of educational services
Facilities that provided both middle and
high school-level education housed 83%
of all juvenile offenders. Ninety-one percent (91%) of all facilities provided high
school-level education, and 84% provided
middle school-level education. Most facilities also reported offering special education services (82%) and GED preparation
(71%). A much smaller percentage of facilities provided vocational or technical
education (38%) and post-high school
education (31%).
In 2010, facilities were asked if they
communicated information regarding the
education status, services, and/or needs
to the young person’s new placement or
residence; 86% of facilities said that they
did. Most of these (87%) said that they
communicated education status information for all youth departing the facility.

Most facilities provided middle and high school-level education
Facility type

Education level

Elementary level
Middle school
High school
Special education
GED preparation
GED testing
Post-high school
Vocational/technical
Life skills training

Reception/
Ranch/
Residential
All Detention
diagnostic Group wilderness Training treatment
facilities center Shelter
center
home
camp
school
center

50%
84
91
82
71
51
31
38
62

73%
93
93
83
68
36
18
17
55

61%
93
93
80
73
50
19
26
58

49%
93
94
89
71
56
40
50
65

30%
79
90
79
75
60
40
48
64

49%
78
85
82
59
47
29
50
60

45%
82
93
88
79
82
63
74
70

43%
85
91
83
74
56
34
49
68

Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

August 2013

9

Most facilities reported screening youth for
substance abuse problems
Facilities that screened
all youth held 66% of the
juvenile offenders in
custody
In 2010, 70% of facilities that reported
substance abuse evaluation information
said that they evaluated all youth, 17%
said that they evaluated some youth, and
13% did not evaluate any youth.
Of the 330 facilities that evaluated some
but not all youth, 85% evaluated youth
that the court or a probation officer identified as potentially having substance abuse
problems, 74% evaluated youth that facility staff identified as potentially having
substance abuse problems, and 57% evaluated youth charged with or adjudicated
for a drug- or alcohol-related offense.
Those facilities that screened all youth
held 66% of the juvenile offenders in custody. An additional 16% of juvenile offenders were in facilities that screened
some youth.

The most common
form of evaluation
was a series of staffadministered questions
The majority of facilities (74%) that evaluated some or all youth for substance
abuse problems had staff administer a
series of questions that ask about substance use and abuse, 59% evaluated
youth by visual observation, 52% evaluated youth by using a self-report checklist
inventory that asks about substance use
and abuse, and 41% said they used a
standardized self-report instrument such
as the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening
Inventory.

10

Both the smallest and the largest facilities were the least likely to
evaluate all youth for substance abuse problems
Facility size based on residential population

Substance abuse
screening

Total

1–10

Total facilities
Facilities reporting
All reporting facilities
All youth screened
Some youth screened
No youth screened

2,111
1,959
100%
70
17
13

676
624
100%
65
19
16

11–20 21–50
481
456
100%
74
14
12

563
519
100%
72
15
12

51–100 101–200
243
226
100%
71
18
11

201+

108
40
99
35
100% 100%
73
66
22
20
5
14

Note: Column percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

More than half of facilities reported evaluating youth for substance
abuse within their first day at the facility

When youth are
evaluated for
substance abuse
Total facilities
Less than 24 hours
24 hours to 7 days
7 or more days
Other
No youth evaluated
(or not reported)

Number of juvenile facilities
All
Some
All
youth
youth
facilities evaluated evaluated

As a percentage of facilities
that evaluated youth for
substance abuse
Facilities
All
Some
that
youth
youth
evaluated evaluated evaluated

2,111
1,023
652
166
174

1,376
937
525
103
67

330
86
127
63
107

100%
60
38
10
10

405

–

–

–

81%
55
31
6
4

19%
5
7
4
6

–

–

Note: Facilities sum to more than 2,111 because they were able to select more than one time period.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Drug testing was a
routine procedure in
most facilities in 2010
As part of the information collected on
substance abuse services, JRFC asked
facilities if they required any youth to undergo drug testing after they arrived at the

facility. The majority of facilities (73%)
reported that they required at least some
youth to undergo drug testing. Of facilities
that reported testing all or some youth,
the reason for testing was most commonly due to a request from the court or probation officer (62% for facilities that
tested all youth, 72% for facilities that

National Report Series Bulletin

tested youth suspected of recent drug
or alcohol use, and 69% for facilities
that tested youth with substance abuse
problems).
Percentage of
Circumstances of testing
facilities
All youth
After initial arrival
26%
At each reentry
23
Randomly
31
When drug use is suspected
or drug is present
52
At the request of the court
or probation officer
62
Youth suspected of recent drug/alcohol use
After initial arrival
34%
At each reentry
26
Randomly
33
When drug use is suspected
or drug is present
59
At the request of the court
or probation officer
72
Youth with substance abuse problems
After initial arrival
27%
At each reentry
26
Randomly
35
When drug use is suspected
or drug is present
53
At the request of the court
or probation officer
69

Substance abuse education was the most common service provided at
all reporting facilities
Facility size based on residential population

Substance abuse
service
Total facilities
Facilities reporting
Substance abuse
education
Case manager to
oversee treatment
Treatment plan for
substance abuse
Special living units
None of above services
provided


Total

1–10

11–20 21–50

51–100 101–200

201+

2,111
1,567

676
490

481
364

563
420

243
176

108
88

40
29

96%

95%

98%

96%

98%

94%

100%

49

44

45

50

58

60

59

74
10

75
6

69
3

72
7

76
21

83
38

86
55

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

Of the facilities holding more than 200 residents that reported providing substance
abuse services, all provided substance abuse education and were more likely than
smaller facilities to have special living units in which all young persons have substance
abuse offenses and/or problems.

Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

The majority of facilities that provided substance abuse counseling or
therapy were most likely to provide services on an individual basis
Facility type

In 2010, JRFC asked facilities if they
communicated information regarding the
substance abuse status, services, and/or
needs to the young person’s new placement or residence; 58% of facilities said
that they did. Of these facilities, many
(69%) said that they communicated substance abuse status information for all
youth departing the facility.

Service provided

Reception/
Ranch/
Residential
Detention
diagnostic Group wilderness Training treatment
Total
center Shelter
center
home
camp
school
center

Total facilities

2,111

705

137

72

528

68

188

763

Facilities reporting
counseling
Individual
Group
Family

1,066
91%
85
48

252
89%
78
36

66
95%
74
45

28
93%
89
43

310
92%
83
55

33
82%
91
39

114
89%
94
40

460
92%
88
54

Facilities reporting
therapy
Individual
Group
Family

1,347
96%
86
50

325
94%
77
44

87
98%
85
56

39
97%
100
46

414
96%
84
51

40
88%
98
38

144
97%
91
46

561
96%
92
56



In 2010, shelters were most likely to provide individual counseling and individual
therapy.



Training schools were the most likely to provide group counseling, and 100% of reception/diagnostic centers reported providing group therapy.



Almost half of all facilities provided family counseling or family therapy.

Note: Counts (and row percentages) may sum to more than the total number of facilities because facilities
could select more than one facility type.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

August 2013

11

Half of juvenile offenders were in facilities where inhouse mental health professionals assess all youth
In approximately 6 of 10
facilities, in-house mental
health professionals
evaluated all youth held
Facilities provided information about their
procedures for evaluating youth’s mental
health needs. Among facilities that responded to mental health evaluation questions in 2010, 57% reported that they
evaluated all youth for mental health
needs, and 42% evaluated some but not
all youth. Only 1% said that they did not
evaluate any youth (either inside or outside the facility) during their stay.
In 2010, a greater proportion of privately
operated than publicly operated facilities
said that in-house mental health professionals evaluated all youth (79% vs. 49%
of facilities reporting mental health evaluation information). However, in a greater
proportion of public facilities than private
facilities (51% vs. 21%), in-house mental
health professionals evaluated some
youth.
Evaluation by
in-house mental
health professional
Total reporting facilities
All reporting facilities
All youth screened
Some youth screened

Facility type
Public Private
889
100%
49
51

695
100%
79
21

Facilities also identified themselves according to the type of treatment they
provided (if any). Facilities that said they
provided mental health treatment inside
the facility were more likely than other
facilities to have a mental health professional evaluate all youth (66% vs. 34% of

12

The smallest facilities were most likely to have in-house mental health
professionals evaluate all youth for mental health needs
Facility size based on residential population

In-house mental
health evaluation

Total

1–10 11–20 21–50 51–100 101–200 201+

Total facilities
Facilities reporting
All reporting facilities
All youth evaluated
Some youth evaluated

2,111
1,584
100%
62
38

676
415
100%
66
34

481
359
100%
61
39

563
464
100%
59
41

243
215
100%
64
36

108
97
100%
64
36

40
34
100%
59
41

Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Group homes and residential treatment centers were more likely than
other types of facilities to have in-house mental health professionals
evaluate all youth for mental health needs
Facility type
In-house mental
health evaluation

Total facilities
Facilities reporting
All reporting
facilities
All youth evaluated
Some youth
evaluated

Detention
center

Shelter

Reception/
diagnostic
center

Group
home

Ranch/
wilderness
camp

Training
school

Residential
treatment
center

705
570

137
80

72
66

528
331

68
43

188
169

763
638

100%
34

100%
40

100%
71

100%
79

100%
56

100%
74

100%
77

66

60

29

21

44

26

23

Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

those reporting mental health evaluation
information).
Evaluation by
in-house mental
health professional
Total reporting facilities
All reporting facilities
All youth screened
Some youth screened

Onsite mental
health treatment?
Yes
No
1,410
100%
66
34

174
100%
34
66

In 2010, JRFC asked facilities if they communicated information regarding the mental health status, services, and/or needs to
the young person’s new placement or residence; 96% of facilities said that they did.
Most of these (70%) said that they communicated mental health status information for all youth departing the facility.

National Report Series Bulletin

The most common approach to in-house mental health evaluation was to screen all youth by the end of their
first day or first week at the facility

When youth are evaluated for
mental health needs
Total facilities reporting
Less than 24 hours
24 hours to 7 days
7 or more days
Other


Number of juvenile facilities
All
All youth
Some youth
facilities
evaluated
evaluated
1,584
614
620
101
249

989
455
456
53
25

595
159
164
48
224

As a percentage of facilities that evaluated
youth in-house for mental health needs
Facilities that
All youth
Some youth
evaluated
evaluated
evaluated
100%
39
39
6
16

62%
29
29
3
2

38%
10
10
3
14

In 58% of facilities that reported using an in-house mental health professional to perform mental health evaluations, they evaluated all
youth for mental health needs by the end of their first week in custody.

Note: Percentage detail may not add up to total due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Of facilities that reported using in-house mental health professionals to conduct mental health evaluations,
33% of juvenile offenders were in facilities that evaluated all youth on the day they arrived at the facility

When youth are evaluated for
mental health needs
Total juvenile offenders
residing in reporting facilities
Less than 24 hours
24 hours to 7 days
7 or more days
Other


Number of juvenile offenders
All
All youth
Some youth
facilities
evaluated
evaluated
55,469
25,815
18,726
2,693
8,235

33,594
18,168
12,890
1,479
1,057

21,875
7,647
5,836
1,214
7,178

As a percentage of juvenile offenders
in facilities that provided in-house
evaluation for mental health needs
Facilities that
All youth
Some youth
evaluated
evaluated
evaluated
100%
47
34
5
15

61%
33
23
3
2

39%
14
11
2
13

Facilities reporting that they evaluated all youth by the end of their first week held 56% of juvenile offenders who resided in facilities that
reported using in-house mental health evaluation procedures.

Note: Percentage detail may not add up to total due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

August 2013

13

Most juvenile offenders were held in facilities that
evaluate all youth for suicide risk on their first day
Facilities that screened
all youth for suicide risk
held 93% of the juvenile
offenders in custody

An additional 3% said that they evaluated
some youth. Some facilities (7%) said
that they did not evaluate any youth for
suicide risk.

2002 and 78% in 2000. An additional 3%
of juvenile offenders in 2010 were in facilities that screened some youth.

As part of the information collected on
mental health services, the JRFC questionnaire asks facilities about their procedures regarding screening youth for
suicide risk.

In 2010, a larger proportion of public than
private facilities said that they evaluated
all youth for suicide risk (94% vs. 84%).

Total juvenile offenders 110,284
Offenders in reporting
facilities
104,956
Total offenders
100%
All youth screened
78
Some youth screened
16
No youth screened
6

In 2010, among facilities that reported
suicide screening information, those that
screened all youth for suicide risk held
93% of juvenile offenders who were in
residential placement—up from 81% in

In 2010, 89% of facilities that reported information on suicide screening said that
they evaluated all youth for suicide risk.

Facility size based on residential population

Suicide screening

Total

1–10 11–20 21–50 51–100 101–200 201+

Total facilities
Facilities reporting
All reporting facilities
All youth screened
Some youth screened
No youth screened

2,111
1,959
100%
89
3
7

676
624
100%
82
6
12

563
519
100%
93
3
4

243
226
100%
93
2
5

108
40
99
35
100% 100%
93
94
4
3
3
3

Note: Column percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Ranch/wilderness camps and group homes were the least likely to
screen youth for suicide risk
Facility type

Suicide screening

Total facilities
Facilities reporting
All reporting
facilities
All youth screened
Some youth
screened
No youth screened

2000

2010
66,322
60,678
100%
93
3
5

Note: Detail may not total 100% because of rounding.

Some facilities used
trained counselors or
professional mental
health staff to conduct
suicide screening

Suicide screening was common across facilities of all sizes

481
456
100%
93
1
6

Suicide screening

Detention
center

Shelter

Reception/
diagnostic
center

Group
home

Ranch/
wilderness
camp

Training
school

Residential
treatment
center

705
679

137
132

72
70

528
479

68
58

188
174

763
698

100%
97

100%
88

100%
93

100%
76

100%
72

100%
97

100%
92

1
2

2
10

4
3

9
15

5
22

2
1

3
6

Less than half (44%) of facilities that
screened some or all youth for suicide
risk reported that mental health professionals with at least a master’s degree in
psychology or social work conducted the
screenings. One-third (33%) used neither
mental health professionals nor counselors whom a mental health professional
had trained to conduct suicide screenings.
Facilities reported on the screening methods used to determine suicide risk. Facilities could choose more than one method.
Of facilities that conducted suicide risk
screening, the majority (76%) reported
that they incorporated 1 or more questions about suicide in the medical history
or intake process to screen youth; 41%
used a form their facility designed, and
21% used a form or questions that a
county or state juvenile justice system designed to assess suicide risk. Approximately 4 in 10 facilities (39%) reported
using the Massachusetts Youth Screening
Instrument (MAYSI); 32% reported using

Note: Column percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

14

National Report Series Bulletin

the MAYSI full form, and 7% used the
MAYSI suicide/depression module. Very
few facilities (1%) used the Voice Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children.
Of facilities that reported screening youth
for suicide risk, 86% reassessed youth at
some point during their stay. Most facilities (88%) reported rescreening on a
case-by-case basis or as necessary. An
additional 33% of facilities also reported
that rescreening occurred systematically
and was based on a variety of factors
(e.g., length of stay, facility events, or
negative life events). Less than 1% of
facilities did not reassess youth to determine suicide risk.

All facilities used some
type of preventive
measure once they
determined a youth
was at risk for suicide
Facilities that reported suicide screening
information were asked a series of questions related to preventive measures taken
for youth determined to be at risk for suicide. Of these facilities, 65% reported
placing at-risk youth in sleeping or observation rooms that are locked or under
staff security. Aside from using sleeping
or observation rooms, equal proportions
of facilities (83%) reported using line-ofsight supervision and removing personal
items that could be used to attempt suicide, and approximately 7 in 10 facilities
(71%) reported using one-on-one or
arm’s-length supervision. More than 4 in
10 facilities (42%) reported using special
clothing to prevent suicide attempts, and
33% reported removing the youth from
the general population. Twenty-one percent (21%) of facilities used restraints to
prevent suicide attempts, and 18% of facilities used special clothing to identify
youth at risk for suicide.

August 2013

In 2010, the majority (91%) of juvenile offenders in facilities that
screened for suicide risk were in facilities that conducted suicide
screenings on all youth on the day they arrived
When suicide risk screening occurs
Less than 24 hours
24 hours to 7 days

7 days
or more

Other

Never
or not
reported

Suicide screening

Total

Number of facilities:
All
All youth screened
Some youth screened

2,111
1,753
68

1,602
1,563
39

162
147
15

13
11
2

44
32
12

290
–
–

Percentage of facilities
that screened:
Total
All youth screened
Some youth screened

100%
96
4

88%
86
2

9%
8
1

1%
1
0

2%
2
1

–
–
–

66,322

53,067

3,125

178

1,469

8,483

56,316

52,438

2,914

166

798

–

1,523

629

211

12

671

–

Number of juvenile
offenders:
In all facilities
In facilities that screened
all youth
In facilities that screened
some youth
Percentage of juvenile
offenders:
In facilities that screened
In facilities that screened
all youth
In facilities that screened
some youth

100%

92%

5%

0%

3%

–

97

91

5

0

1

–

3

1

0

0

1

–



More than 9 in 10 facilities (94%) that reported screening for suicide risk said they
screened all youth by the end of the first week of their stay at the facility. A large
portion (86%) said they screened all youth on their first day at the facility. These
facilities accounted for 91% of juvenile offenders held in facilities that conducted
suicide screenings.



Very few facilities that reported screening for suicide risk reported that they conducted
the screenings at some point other than within the first week of a youth’s stay (3%).
Facilities that conducted screenings within other time limits gave varying responses.
For example, some facilities reported that screenings occurred as needed or as deemed
necessary. Some reported that screenings were court ordered. Other facilities reported
that screenings occurred when the youth indicated suicidal behavior or expressed suicidal thoughts. A small number of facilities indicated that screenings occurred before
the youth was admitted.

Note: Percentage detail may not add up to total due to rounding.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

15

JRFC asks facilities about certain activities that may
have occurred in the month before the census date
In addition to information gathered on the
census date, JRFC collects data on the
following questions for the 30-day period
of September 2010:

One fifth of facilities (20%) reported unauthorized departures
in the month before the census date

 Were there any unauthorized

Facility type

Number of facilities
Total
Reporting

Total facilities
Detention center
Shelter
Reception/diagnostic center
Group home
Ranch/wilderness camp

2,111
705
137
72
528
68

1,959
679
132
70
479
58

Training school
Residential treatment center

188
763

174
698

departures of any young persons
who were assigned beds at this facility?
 Were any young persons assigned beds

at this facility transported to a hospital
emergency room by facility staff, transportation staff, or by an ambulance?
 Were any of the young persons

assigned beds here restrained by facility
staff with a mechanical restraint?
 Were any of the young persons

assigned beds here locked for more
than 4 hours alone in an isolation,
seclusion, or sleeping room to regain
control of their unruly behavior?



Percentage of reporting
facilities with
unauthorized departures
20%
3
38
21
35
24
9
26

Shelters and group homes were most likely to report one or more unauthorized
departures.

Note: Detail may sum to more than the totals because facilities could select more than one facility type.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Sports-related injuries were
the most common reason for
emergency room visits in the
previous month

Approximately 1 in 4 facilities reported using mechanical restraints;
1 in 5 reported locking youth in some type of isolation

Reason for ER visit

Facility type

Total
Injury
Sports-related
Work/chore-related
Interpersonal conflict
(between residents)
Interpersonal conflict
(by nonresident)
Illness
Pregnancy
Complications
Labor and delivery
Suicide attempt
Non-emergency
No other health
professional available
No doctor’s appointment
could be obtained
Other

Percentage
of facilities
33%
42
2
21
4
37

Total facilities
Detention center
Shelter
Reception/diagnostic center
Group home
Ranch/wilderness camp
Training school
Residential treatment center

Percentage of reporting facilities
Used mechanical
Locked youth in room
restraints
for 4 or more hours
23%
41
4
47
1
28
72
14

22%
47
4
32
1
12
47
10



Training schools were the most likely type of facility to use mechanical restraints (i.e.,
handcuffs, leg cuffs, waist bands, leather straps, restraining chairs, strait jackets, or
other mechanical devices) in the previous month. Detention centers and training
schools were the most likely to lock a youth alone in some type of seclusion for 4 or
more hours to regain control of their unruly behavior.

13



Group homes were the facility type least likely to use either of these measures.

10
25

Note: Percentages are based on 1,958 facilities that reported mechanical restraints information and locked
isolation information, of a total 2,111 facilities.

5
1
6

Note: Percentages are based on facilities that
reported emergency room information (32 of
2,111 facilities [1%] did not report).

Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential
Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

16

National Report Series Bulletin

Facilities reported 11 deaths of juvenile offenders in
custody over 12 months—5 were suicides
Juvenile offenders rarely
died in custody
Juvenile facilities holding juvenile offenders reported that 11 youth died while in
the legal custody of the facility between
October 1, 2009, and September 30,
2010. Each death occurred at a different
facility.
Routine collection of national data on
deaths of juveniles in custody began with
the 1988/89 Children in Custody (CIC)
Census of Public and Private Juvenile
Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities. Accidents or suicides have usually
been the leading cause of death. Over the
years 1988–1994 (CIC data reporting
years), there were an average of 46
deaths reported nationally per year, including an annual average of 18 suicides.
Over the years 2000–2010 (JRFC data
reporting years), those averages dropped
to 20 deaths overall and 8 suicides. In
2006, the number of suicides that occurred at residential facilities (four) was
the lowest since OJJDP first started collecting data from JRFC in 2000. There
were five suicides in 2010.
Detention centers and residential treatment centers reported equal numbers of
deaths in 2010 (four each). Detention
centers accounted for two deaths due to
illness or natural causes, one suicide, and
one death as a result of an accident. Residential treatment centers accounted for
two deaths as the result of illness or natural causes, one suicide, and one death as
the result of an unknown cause. Group
homes accounted for 2 of the 11 deaths;
both were suicides. Training schools accounted for 1 of the 11 deaths—a suicide.

August 2013

During the 12 months prior to the census, suicides were the most
commonly reported cause of death in custody
Cause of death

Total

Total
Suicide
Illness/natural
Accident
Homicide
Other/unknown

11
5
4
1
0
1



Inside the facility
All
Public Private
6
3
1
1
0
1

5
3
1
1
0
0

Outside the facility
All
Public Private

1
0
0
0
0
1

5
2
3
0
0
0

1
0
1
0
0
0

4
2
2
0
0
0

None of the deaths from illness were AIDS related.

Notes: Data are reported deaths of youth in custody from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

In 2010, the death rate was generally higher for private facilities than
for public facilities

Cause of death
Total
Suicide
Illness/natural
Accident
Homicide
Other

Type of facility
Detention center
Training school
Group home
Residential treatment center


Deaths per 10,000 juveniles held on
the census date, October 27, 2010
Total
Public facility
Private facility
1.6
0.7
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.1

1.3
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

2.5
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.5

Deaths per 10,000 juveniles held on
the census date, October 27, 2010
Total
Public facility
Private facility
1.4
0.6
3.1
1.6

1.6
0.7
8.4
0.0

0.0
0.0
1.9
3.1

The death rate in 2010 (1.6) was substantially lower than that in 2000 (2.8). There were
30 reported deaths of youth in custody in 2000; accidents were the most commonly
reported cause. In 2010, suicides were the most commonly reported cause (followed
closely by illness/natural causes).

Note: Data are reported deaths of youth in custody from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

17

Of the total deaths in custody (11), 5 involved white non-Hispanic males and 4 involved black non-Hispanic
males

Race/ethnicity
Total
White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
Other race/ethnicity

Total
Male Female
11
5
4
1
0
0
1

Suicide
Male Female

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

5
3
0
1
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Cause of death
Illness/natural
Accident
Male Female Male Female
4
1
3
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
1
0
0
0
0

Homicide
Male Female

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Other
Male Female
1
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Note: Data are reported deaths of youth in custody from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.
Source: Authors’ analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2010 [machine-readable data file].

Generally, suicides did
not occur in the first
days of a youth’s stay
One suicide occurred 2 days after the
youth was admitted to the facility, one
occurred 4 weeks after admission, one
occurred 23 weeks after admission, and
the remaining two suicides occurred just
over 1 year after admission. The least
number of days since admission for
deaths was the suicide that occurred 2
days after admission, and the greatest
number of days was a death as a result of
an illness after the youth had been in custody for 514 days (about a year and a
half). The overall median number of days
since admission for deaths of juveniles in
custody was 159.

18

JRFC asks facilities about deaths of young persons at locations inside
and/or outside the facility
During the year between October 1,
2009, and September 30, 2010, did
ANY young persons die while assigned
to a bed at this facility at a location either INSIDE or OUTSIDE of this facility?



AIDS



Suicide



Homicide by another resident



Homicide by nonresident(s)

If yes, how many young persons died
while assigned beds at this facility during the year between October 1, 2009,
and September 30, 2010?



Accidental death



Other (specify)

What was the cause of death?


Illness/natural causes (excluding
AIDS)



Injury suffered prior to placement
here

What was the location of death, age,
sex, race, date of admission to the facility, and date of death for each young
person who died while assigned a bed
at this facility?

National Report Series Bulletin

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census includes data submitted by
tribal facilities
OJJDP worked with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) to ensure a greater representation of tribal facilities in the CJRP
and JRFC data collections. As a result,
the 2010 JRFC collected data from 19
tribal facilities (up from 8 in 2008). The
tribal facilities were in Arizona, Colorado,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota and held 235
juvenile offenders (up from 101 in 2008).
Of the reporting tribal facilities, the tribe
owned and operated 10, the federal government owned and operated 3, the
tribed owned and the federal government
operated 1, and the federal government

owned and the tribe operated 1. The tribe
owned but an “other” organization
(BIA and PL 93–638 contract) operated
two facilities. One facility did not report
ownership information but was privately
operated. The remaining facility did
not report ownership or operation
information.
All 19 tribal facilities identified themselves as detention centers. One facility
also identified itself as an “other” type of
facility. They held from 28 to 109 residents, with 42% of facilities holding
between 11 and 20 residents. On the
census day, almost all facilities (17) were
operating at less than their standard bed

Resources

Data sources

OJJDP’s online Statistical Briefing Book
(SBB) offers access to a wealth of information about juvenile crime and victimization and about youth involved in the
juvenile justice system. Visit the “Juveniles in Corrections” section of the SBB at
ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/faqs.asp
for the latest information about juveniles
in corrections. The Census of Juveniles
in Residential Placement Databook contains a large set of predefined tables
detailing the characteristics of juvenile
offenders in residential placement facilities. Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement is a data
analysis tool that gives users quick access to national data on the characteristics of youth held in residential placement
facilities.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007,
2009, and 2011. Juvenile Residential Facility Census for the years 2000, 2002,
2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 [machinereadable data files]. Washington, DC: U.S.
Census Bureau (producer).

August 2013

This bulletin was prepared under cooperative agreement number 2010–MU–FX–K058
from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 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 position or policies of OJJDP or the
U.S. Department of Justice.

capacity, one was operating at capacity,
and one exceeded capacity. Standard bed
capacities ranged from 13 to 186; only 2
facilities had more than 100 beds.
Seventeen of the 19 tribal facilities reported locking youth in their sleeping rooms.
Among tribal facilities that locked youth in
their rooms, most (16 facilities) did so at
night, 11 did so when youth were out of
control, 10 did so when youth were in
their sleeping rooms, 9 did so during shift
changes, and 7 did so when a youth was
considered suicidal. Three facilities locked
youth in their rooms all day, and 1 facility
reported rarely locking youth in their
rooms.

Acknowledgments
This bulletin was written by Sarah
Hockenberry, Research Associate,
and Anthony Sladky, Senior
Computer Programmer, with assistance from Melissa Sickmund,
Director at the National Center for
Juvenile Justice, with funds provided by OJJDP to support the National
Juvenile Justice Data Analysis
Project.

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; the Office
for Victims of Crime; and the Office of
Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,
Apprehending, Registering, and
Tracking.

19

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

*NCJ~241134*

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/OJJDP
PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

National Report Series Bulletin

NCJ 241134