Juvenile Detention Facilities - Summary Report of a Second National Survey

• NCJ Number: 87075
• Journal: Juvenile and Family Court Journal Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Dated: (November 1982) Pages: 3-14
• Author(s): T R Hughes; N A Reuterman
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 12 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Statistics
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This national survey of juvenile detention facilities covered the stated purpose of the detention home, the numbers of detainees, staff information, operating procedures, programs, facilities, budget, and staff training.

Abstract

A total of 400 detention homes were identified throughout the United States. Responses were obtained from 156 (about 39 percent). A total of 36.5 percent of the responding superintendents indicated the purpose of juvenile detention to be exclusively custody, while 33.3 percent accepted the purpose of detention to be primarily custody and secondarily rehabilitation. The average bed capacity for a home was 50.88, and total yearly admissions were 251,583, while the national mean average daily population per home was computed to be 38.32 juveniles. For the responding homes, the average percentage of the court caseload detained was 34 percent, thus exceeding the 20 percent ratio recommended as a maximum by national standards. The total number of staff reported was 4,185. Generally, 12 percent of the professional staff were administrative, 16 percent supervisory, and 71 percent direct child care. Almost one-fourth of the detention home employees had only a high school education. The average annual budget for the reporting homes as $657,093, with a range of $18,000 to $8,406,184. A total of 72.5 percent of the respondents had some kind of inservice training program for staff. The homes were compared by region (Northeastern, Central, Southern, and Western). Differences among the regions appeared to be in the areas of numbers of detainees handled, educational level of staff, and salary level. Virtually no differences were found in the programmatic or procedural areas. Differences among bed-capacity groupings were in the areas of the number of detainees handled, staff salaries, and certain programmatic aspects. Tabular data and 24 notes are provided.