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

National
Report Series
Office of Justice Programs
Partnerships for Safer Communities
www.ojp.usdoj.gov

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.

June 2006

Juvenile Residential
Facility Census, 2002:
Selected Findings
Melissa Sickmund

A Message From OJJDP
OJJDP developed the Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) to collect information about the
facilities in which juvenile offenders are held. The census is designed to collect information on such
characteristics as type, size, structure, security arrangements, and ownership. The biannual survey
also examines a range of services provided to youth in residential facilities. In keeping with OJJDP’s
congressional mandate, JRFC also reports on the number of deaths of juveniles in custody. This Bulletin presents findings from the 2002 JRFC—findings that are generally positive.
JRFC data indicate that the number of juvenile offenders in custody nationwide decreased 7%
between 2000 and 2002; decreases averaging 13% were seen in 36 states, while 12 states had
increases averaging 11%. The number of youth who died in custody also declined between 2000
and 2002, from 30 to 26; deaths of youth in custody were substantially fewer than would be expected
if the death rate for these youth were the same as that for youth in the general U.S. population.
JRFC data suggest that crowding is a problem in a significant number of residential facilities, but
there are signs of improvement. In 2002, 30% of the facilities reported residential populations at
the limit of available standard beds, and 6% had more residents than standard beds. Facilities that
were at or over capacity held 34% of residents in 2002, down from 40% in 2000.
JRFC alternates with the biannual Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, which gathers information on youth in custody. In developing its data collection efforts in this area, OJJDP seeks to support the vital role of corrections in maintaining the safety of the community and providing essential
services to confined youth.
J. Robert Flores
OJJDP Administrator

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census provides
data on facility operations
Facility census describes
3,534 juvenile facilities

includes most, but not all, facilities that
hold juvenile offenders.

In October 2002, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
administered the second Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC). OJJDP administers JRFC every other year. The 2002 JRFC
collected data from 3,534 juvenile facilities,
2,964 of which held a total of 102,388
offenders younger than 21 on the census
date (570 facilities reported no juvenile
offenders). JRFC does not capture data on
adult prisons or jails, nor does it include
facilities that are used exclusively for mental health or substance abuse treatment or
for dependent children. Thus, JRFC

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

■ The Survey of Youth in Residential

Placement, which collects a broad
range of self-report information (on
youth’s custody experience, past offense
histories, education, and other important
life events) from interviews with individual youth in residential placement.

■ The National Juvenile Court Data

Archive, which collects information on
the processing of juvenile court cases and
the sanctions imposed by juvenile courts.
■ The Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement, which collects information
on each youth held in residential placement as a result of contact with the
juvenile justice system.

JRFC is designed to routinely collect information on how facilities operate and the
services they provide. It includes detailed
questions on facility security, crowding,
injuries and deaths in custody, and facility
ownership and operation. It also asks
about specific services (e.g., mental health
and substance abuse services).

On October 23, 2002, 40% of juvenile facilities were publicly operated; they held 69% of juvenile offenders
Juvenile facilities
State

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

2,964
48
23
51
35
286
65
26
6
13
181
53
5
22
45
95
65
56
50
62
14
43
68
94
100
17

1,182
12
7
16
9
122
12
4
4
2
53
30
2
14
25
42
16
17
32
21
2
10
18
37
24
15

1,773
36
16
32
26
164
52
22
2
11
128
23
3
8
20
53
49
39
18
41
12
33
50
57
76
2

Juvenile offenders
Total

Public Private State

102,388 70,243
1,539
827
402
303
1,892 1,488
733
211
17,294 15,561
2,063
928
665
244
271
243
280
183
8,508 3,043
2,681 2,224
112
99
466
402
2,921 2,539
3,433 2,386
941
376
809
1,114
985
814
2,363 1,830
278
242
1,216
611
1,400
452
2,856 1,353
1,699
886
688
600

31,992
712
99
320
522
1,733
1,131
421
28
97
5,465
457
13
64
382
1,047
565
305
171
533
36
605
948
1,503
813
68

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

Juvenile facilities

Juvenile offenders

Total Public Private

Total Public Private

72
24
19
18
8
49
27
221
66
11
97
56
45
179
14
38
22
58
129
47
5
71
40
23
81
21

60
7
5
10
2
42
18
51
27
4
66
14
26
33
1
14
8
26
78
17
1
63
30
6
25
2

12
15
14
8
6
7
9
170
39
7
31
41
19
146
13
24
12
32
51
30
4
8
10
17
56
19

1,559
308
732
1,169
234
2,043
803
4,455
1,286
246
4,480
1,010
1,473
5,080
346
1,461
598
1,659
8,371
1,073
61
2,635
1,931
394
1,784
417

1,332
177
513
861
137
1,972
698
2,328
870
131
4,023
634
1,262
1,262
233
966
334
830
6,726
472
27
2,448
1,759
281
1,182
141

227
99
219
308
97
71
105
2,127
416
115
457
351
211
3,818
123
495
256
829
1,645
601
34
187
172
113
602
276

Note: 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 their offense occurred.
*U.S. total includes 153 offenders in 9 tribal facilities. These tribal facilities were located in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
Source: Author’s analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable data file].

2

National Report Series Bulletin

Most states had fewer juvenile offenders held in
residential placement facilities in 2002 than in 2000
The number of juvenile offenders in placement in juvenile facilities
nationwide decreased 7% between 2000 and 2002
Percent change in
juvenile offenders in custody
State
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

Total
–7%
–3
19
–16
15
–10
0
–51
–8
3
17
–18
–8
–20
–14
3
–19
–6
4
–11
–7
–18
–5
–27
–12
–15

Public

Private

–10%
–11
16
–15
–28
–11
–17
–73
–1
15
–7
–14
–7
–14
–17
7
–5
–3
8
–13
–2
–11
–20
–24
–10
–24

–1%
8
27
–20
52
0
20
–8
–43
–14
36
–32
–13
–42
16
–4
–27
–14
–11
–4
–31
–25
4
–29
–13
–

Percent change in
juvenile offenders in custody
State

Total

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

1%
18
–7
–1
21
–10
–9
–12
–17
21
–8
–2
–10
0
–4
–8
–7
–9
0
–5
–61
–8
–6
3
–12
10

Public

Private

3%
2
–11
15
11
–9
–17
–19
–30
25
–7
19
–11
2
6
–10
–8
–20
4
4
4
–6
–9
17
–7
–18

–9%
52
3
–28
39
–31
123
–3
31
17
–17
–27
–5
–1
–17
–5
–3
6
–12
–12
–74
–26
37
–19
–19
34

In 23 states, reductions in public facility populations drove
declines in the number of juvenile offenders in custody
■ In nine of these states, this drop
occurred despite an increase in the
number of juveniles held in private
facilities.
District of
Columbia

Population change
driven by
Increase-Private
Increase-Public
Decline-Private
Decline-Public

■ Six states experienced growth in
their juvenile offender population
between 2000 and 2002 driven by
growth in their private facility population. In four of these states, this
growth occurred despite reductions
in the number of juveniles held in
public facilities.

From 2000 to 2002,
the number of juvenile
offenders in custody
decreased in 36 states
On average, these states held 13% fewer
juvenile offenders on the 2002 census date
than on the 2000 census date. The decline
ranged from more than 50% in some
states (Connecticut and Vermont) to less
than 5% in others (Alabama, Nevada,
Oklahoma, and Rhode Island).
Among the 12 states that had more juveniles in residential placement in 2002 than
in 2000, the average growth was 11%. Half
of these states had increases of 15% or
more (Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Montana,
New Hampshire, and North Dakota). With
the exception of Florida, the absolute increases in these states were small. Florida’s
juvenile offender population increased more
than 4 times the other five states combined.

The decline in juvenile
arrests may explain
the decline in youth in
custody
Juvenile arrest statistics are a measure of
the flow of youth into the justice system.
Nationwide, the juvenile arrest rate peaked
in 1996 and has declined substantially
since then (29%). The juvenile arrest rate
dropped 7% between 2000 and 2002.

Arrests per 100,000 juveniles ages 10–17
10,000
All crimes
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02

Note: 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 their offense occurred.
*U.S. total includes nine tribal facilities. These tribal facilities were located in Arizona, Colorado,
Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
Source: Author’s analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable data file].

June 2006

3

In 20 states, the custody rate in 2002 was higher
than the national custody rate
In 2002, 326 juvenile offenders were in custody per 100,000 youth
ages 10 through the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction in each state
Custody rate per 100,000
juveniles, 10/23/2002
State
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

Total
326
302
435
291
236
407
397
215
311
599
473
303
85
273
227
472
285
346
231
496
197
190
236
270
285
192

Public
224
162
328
229
68
366
179
79
279
392
169
251
75
235
198
328
114
251
191
384
171
96
76
128
149
173

Private
102
140
107
49
168
41
218
136
32
208
304
52
10
37
30
144
171
95
40
112
25
95
160
142
136
20

Custody rate per 100,000
juveniles, 10/23/2002
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

Public

Private

273
286
358
469
176
211
342
277
182
343
336
251
371
369
306
369
640
259
352
354
86
325
273
211
319
688

233
164
251
345
103
204
297
145
123
183
302
158
318
92
197
244
357
130
283
156
38
301
249
151
211
233

40
92
107
124
73
7
45
132
59
160
34
87
53
277
109
125
274
130
69
198
48
23
24
61
108
456

States with the highest custody rates included both densely and sparsely
populated states

The extent to which
states depend on
private facilities varies
substantially
In most states, public facilities had more
offenders younger than 21 in residential
placement than private facilities; thus, public facility custody rates were higher than
private facility rates. Some states rely
heavily on public facilities. In seven states
(California, Delaware, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington), the
public facility custody rate was more than
8 times the private facility rate.
In 11 states (Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, and
Wyoming), the custody rate for private
facilities was greater than the rate for public facilities. Some states rely heavily on
private facilities. In Wyoming, the state
with the highest overall custody rate, the
private facility rate was nearly double the
public facility rate. In Pennsylvania, the
state with the largest proportion of juvenile
offenders in private facilities (75%), the
private facility custody rate was more than
3 times the public facility custody rate. Private facilities in some states, like Pennsylvania, also house significant numbers of
youth from other states.

District of Columbia

Custody rate per 100,000
400 to 688 (9 states)
300 to 400 (17 states)
250 to 300 (11 states)
84 to 250 (14 states)

Note: 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 their offense occurred.
*U.S. total includes nine tribal facilities. These tribal facilities were located in Arizona, Colorado,
Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
Source: Author’s analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable data file].

4

National Report Series Bulletin

Facility type is related to the kind of agency that
operates/staffs the facility
Local public facilities
are more numerous,
but state facilities hold
more youth
Local facilities (those staffed by county,
city, or municipal employees) made up
more than half of all public facilities but
held fewer than half the juvenile offenders
who were in custody in public facilities on
the census date in 2002.
Facilities

Detention centers tend to be local facilities, training schools tend to
be state facilities, and group homes tend to be private facilities
Facility type
Facility
operation

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

Number of
facilities

2,964

Total facilities

769

100% 100%

289

104

100%

100%

1,136

56

100% 100%

157

389

100%

100%

Public

40

80

28

52

18

68

39

67

State

17

18

5

42

10

25

16

56

Local

23

62

22

10

7

43

23

12

Private

60

19

72

48

82

32

61

33

26%

10%

Juvenile offenders

Number Percent Number Percent
Total

2,964

100%

102,388

100%

Public

1,182

40

70,243

69

State

513

17

41,138

40

Total facilities

Local

669

23

29,105

28

Public

100

52

7

5

17

3

5

22

Private 1,773

60

31,992

31

State

100

27

3

9

23

3

5

42

Local

100

71

10

1

12

4

5

7

Private

100

8

12

3

53

1

5

7

Note: Total includes 9 tribal facilities holding
153 juvenile offenders.

During the course of a year, more juveniles
pass through local facilities than state
facilities. This is because the majority of
local facilities are detention centers, where
youth stay for relatively short periods of
time. In state facilities, such as training
schools, stays are generally longer.

Group homes outnumber all 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, or training school/long-term secure facility).
Respondents were allowed to select more
than one facility type category, although
the vast majority (88%) selected only one.

June 2006

100%

4%

38%

2%

5%

13%

■

Reception/diagnostic centers are nearly as likely to be private facilities as they are to
be public facilities. Boot camps are more likely to be public facilities than private
facilities; however, a substantial proportion of boot camps are private.

■

Most shelters are private facilities, as are most ranch/wilderness camps.

■

Detention centers make up 71% of all local facilities and 52% of all public facilities.

■

Training schools constitute 42% of all state facilities.

■

Group homes account for 53% of all private facilities.

Note: Counts (and row percents) may sum to more than the total number of 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].

More than 1,100 facilities identified themselves as group homes/halfway houses and
were holding juvenile offenders on the census date in 2002. Group homes made up
38% of all facilities and held 12% of
juvenile offenders. Facilities identifying

themselves as detention centers (26%)
were the second most common type of
facility. Detention centers held 40% of
juvenile offenders in residential facilities
on the census date.

5

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
Public
State
Local
Private

32%
66
58
73
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).

6

among detention centers (39%), training
schools (37%), and boot camps (32%).

Among public facilities, the proportion was
78%; among private facilities, it was 24%.
Percent of facilities
No confinement
features
Total
Public
State
Local
Private

One or more
confinement
features

53%
22
20
23
76

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?

47%
78
80
77
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).

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
Number
Total facilities
1,320
Detention center
689
Shelter
71
Reception/diagnostic
center
71
Group home
171
Boot camp
42
Ranch/wilderness camp
29
Training school
336
Other
166

Percent
47%
91
25
70
16
75
19
87
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

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 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.

More than half of facilities were small, but nearly half of juvenile
offenders were held in large facilities
Facility size
Total facilities
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201–972 residents

Facility size

Total facilities
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201–972 residents

32%
10
24
45
47
69
86

47%
19
41
64
70
85
90

16%
3
10
24
29
34
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
Facility operation
Facility size

State Local Private

Total facilities
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201–972 residents

513
48
87
173
76
71
58

669
144
148
208
96
58
15

1,773
807
410
322
177
42
15

Note: Data for the nine tribal facilities are not
displayed.

June 2006

2,964
1,003
648
704
350
171
88

100%
34
22
24
12
6
3

102,388
4,845
7,806
19,819
20,630
21,664
27,624

100%
5
8
19
20
21
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.

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

Number
Percent
Number of
Percent of
of facilities of facilities juvenile offenders juvenile offenders

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
Number of
facilities
Total facilities
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201–972 residents

Reception/
Ranch/
Detention
diagnostic Group Boot wilderness Training
center Shelter center home camp camp
school
769
100%
18
20
34
15
9
5

289
100%
46
31
15
6
2
0

104
1,136
56
100%
100% 100%
13
59
0
15
26
9
18
10
36
24
4
34
18
0
20
12
0
2

157
100%
4
10
50
25
10
2

389
100%
2
10
29
21
23
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 cen-

ters, 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].

small. In fact, these small facilities made up
the largest share of private facilities.
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.

7

Facility crowding affects a substantial proportion
of youth in custody
Many juvenile offenders
are in facilities with
more residents than
standard beds
Facilities reported both the number of
standard beds and the number of occupied
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 approaches 100%, operational
functioning may be impaired.
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. While 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,
however, 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.
Thirty-six percent of facilities said that the
number of residents they held on the 2002
census date put them at or over the capacity of their standard beds or that they relied
on some makeshift beds. These facilities
held more than 39,300 residents, the vast
majority of whom were offenders younger
than 21. Thus, 34% of all residents held
on the census date and 34% of offenders
younger than 21 were held in facilities
operating at or above their standard bed
capacity. In comparison, in 2000 such
facilities held 40% of all residents. In 2002,
facilities that reported being over capacity
(having fewer standard beds than they had
residents or relying on makeshift beds)
accounted for 6% of facilities, but they
held 14% of juvenile offenders.

8

Compared with other types of facilities, public detention centers and
reception/diagnostic centers were more likely to be at or over standard bed capacity
Percent of facilities at
their standard bed capacity
Facility Type

Total

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

Percent of facilities over
their standard bed capacity

Public

Private

Total

Public

Private

30%
14
17

16%
10
15

39%
34
18

6%
18
2

15%
21
5

1%
2
0

26
43
16

19
29
13

34
46
22

10
1
5

17
3
5

2
1
6

25
23

26
19

24
31

2
9

2
13

2
1

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 category. Totals include data from nine tribal facilities.
Source: Author’s analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable
data file].

Larger facilities were more likely than smaller facilities to be
crowded

Facility size
Total
1–10 residents
11–20 residents
21–50 residents
51–100 residents
101–200 residents
201–972 residents

Percent of facilities at or
over
their standard bed capacity
Number of
facilities
≥100%
100%
>100%
2,964
1,003
648
704
350
171
88

Mean number of
makeshift beds

36%
39
37
34

30%
38
34
24

6%
1
3
10

10
2
3
7

31
37
34

17
20
17

14
16
17

11
21
18

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

National Report Series Bulletin

Public facilities were
more likely than private
facilities to be crowded

were over capacity (17%) than did locally
operated public facilities (13%).

Among publicly operated facilities, 15%
were over standard bed capacity or had
residents occupying makeshift beds on the
2002 census date. For privately operated
facilities, the proportion was 1%. A large
proportion of private facilities (39%),
however, said they were operating at
100% capacity.

Facility
operation

State-operated public facilities had a somewhat greater proportion of facilities that

Percent of facilities at or over
their standard bed capacity
≥100%

100%

>100%

36%

30%

6%

Public

31

16

State

37

20

17

Local

26

13

13

Private

40

39

1

Total

15

Note: Totals include data from nine tribal
facilities.

Use of makeshift
beds varied widely
More than 250 facilities reported having
occupied makeshift beds, averaging 10
such beds per facility. Many facilities rely
on makeshift beds, yet many operate well
below standard bed capacity. On average,
there were seven unoccupied standard
beds per facility. This average masks a
wide range: one facility with 162 residents
had 72 standard beds and 90 residents
without standard beds; one facility with
1,272 standard beds had 972 residents,
leaving 300 unoccupied beds.

Nationwide, 1,069 juvenile facilities (36%) were at or over standard capacity or relied on makeshift beds

State

Percent of
juvenile offenders
Number of facilities
in facilities at or
Total under, at, or over capacity over capacity
facilities <100% 100% >100% 100% >100% State

U.S. Total*
2,964
Alabama
48
Alaska
23
Arizona
51
Arkansas
35
California
286
Colorado
65
Connecticut
26
Delaware
6
District of Columbia
13
Florida
181
53
Georgia
Hawaii
5
Idaho
22
Illinois
45
95
Indiana
Iowa
65
Kansas
56
50
Kentucky
Louisiana
62
Maine
14
Maryland
43
68
Massachusetts
Michigan
94
100
Minnesota
Mississippi
17

1,894
39
14
40
25
135
41
17
3
9
88
27
4
17
38
75
46
38
39
40
10
22
20
67
79
14

882
7
5
9
10
136
16
8
4
83
11
4
6
18
19
16
11
19
4
19
44
24
21
2

187
2
4
2
15
8
1
3
10
15
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
4
3
1

20%
7
12
7
22
19
25
26
0
14
40
8
0
6
4
19
36
47
13
13
42
41
59
14
16
2

14%
9
59
16
0
10
36
7
83
0
11
30
65
5
2
8
0
5
0
5
0
13
9
4
0
1

Percent of
juvenile offenders
Number of facilities
in facilities at or
Total under, at, or over capacity over capacity
facilities <100% 100% >100% 100% >100%

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

72
24
19
18
8
49
27
221
66
11
97
56
45
179
14
38
22
58
129
47
5
71
40
23
81
21

48
19
16
11
5
36
20
113
52
5
58
24
29
125
4
29
13
39
86
29
3
49
33
13
69
20

20
4
1
5
3
5
4
94
12
5
23
32
13
48
9
5
8
16
27
16
2
13
2
6
12
1

4
1
2
2
8
3
14
2
1
16
3
6
1
4
1
3
16
2
9
5
4

27%
5
0
39
70
9
9
25
7
28
12
42
25
33
23
7
31
15
11
26
28
16
1
10
29
2

7%
6
33
31
0
31
15
19
4
3
21
0
8
5
64
27
1
13
28
4
0
18
18
24
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. State is the state where the facility is located. Offenders sent to outof-state facilities are counted in the state where the facility is located, not the state where their offense occurred.
*U.S. total includes nine tribal facilities. These tribal facilities were located in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
One of the nine tribal facilities held more residents than it had standard beds.
Source: Author’s analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable data file].

June 2006

9

Most juvenile offenders are held in facilities that
evaluate all youth for suicide risk on their first day
Facilities that screen all
youth for suicide risk
hold 81% of the juvenile
offenders in custody
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 2002, 68% of facilities that reported
information on suicide screening said that
they evaluated all youth for suicide risk. An
additional 17% said that they evaluated
some youth. The proportion of facilities
reporting that all youth are evaluated for

suicide risk increased 6 percentage points
from 2000 to 2002. Some facilities said
they didn’t evaluate any youth for suicide
risk (15%).

JRFC asks facilities about their
suicide screening procedures

Suicide screening

After arrival at this facility, are any young
persons evaluated to determine whether
they are at risk for suicide?

2000

2002

Total facilities

3,061

2,964

Facilities reporting

2,754

2,837

All reporting facilities
All youth screened
Some youth screened
No youth screened

100%
62
24
15

100%
68
17
15

In 2002, a greater proportion of public than
private facilities said that they evaluated all
youth for suicide risk (79% vs. 60%).

Larger facilities were more likely than smaller facilities to screen all
youth for suicide risk and less likely to not screen any youth in 2002
Facility size based on resident population
Suicide screening

Total

1–10

11–20

21–50

Total facilities

2,964

1,003

648

704

Facilities reporting

2,837

51–100 101–200 200+
350

171

88

957

614

673

339

167

All reporting facilities

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

87

All youth screened

68

52

70

78

76

79

90

Some youth screened

17

23

15

13

16

11

9

No youth screened

15

25

15

9

8

10

1

Detention centers, reception/diagnostic centers, and training schools
were more likely than other types of facilities to screen all youth for
suicide risk in 2002
Facility type

Facility size

Reception/
Ranch/
Detention
diagnostic Group Boot wilderness Training
center Shelter center home camp camp
school

If yes . . . Are all young persons evaluated after arrival in this facility to determine whether they are at risk for
suicide?
If not all . . . Which young persons are
evaluated for suicide risk?
When are young persons evaluated for
suicide risk?
Who evaluates young persons for suicide risk?

Of the 476 facilities in 2002 that said they
screened some but not all youth, 99% said
they screened youth who display or communicate suicide risk; 47% said they also
screened those who were known to have a
prior suicide attempt; 11% said they also
screened other groups of youth (e.g., youth
with no mental health record available or
youth who came to the facility directly from
home rather than from another facility).
In 2002, among facilities that reported suicide screening information, those that
screened all youth for suicide risk held 81%
of juvenile offenders who were in residential
placement—up from 78% in 2000. An additional 12% of juvenile offenders in 2002
were in facilities that screened some youth.
Suicide screening

2000

2002

Total facilities

769

289

104

1,136

56

157

389

Total juvenile offenders 110,284 102,388

Facilities reporting

754

280

101

1,074

56

153

386

All reporting facilities

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Offenders in reporting
facilities

All youth screened

100% 100%

84

57

85

55

68

62

82

Some youth screened 10

24

12

20

16

13

12

6

19

3

24

16

25

6

No youth screened

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

10

Total offenders
All youth screened
Some youth screened
No youth screened

104,956 100,110
100%
78
16
6

100%
81
12
7

National Report Series Bulletin

The most common approach to suicide risk evaluations in 2002 was
to screen all youth on the day they arrive at the facility
Number of juvenile facilities

As a percent of facilities that
screened for suicide risk

Suicide
screening
When youth
are screened
Total facilities

Suicide
screening

All
All
Some
facilities screened screened

Facilities that
All
screened
screened

Some
screened

2,964

1,925

476

100%

By end of first day

1,581

1,454

127

66

61

5

Day two through
end of first week

368

271

97

15

11

4

94

67

27

4

3

1

Other

358

133

225

15

6

9

No youth screened
(or not reported)

563

–

–

–

–

–

After first week

80%

20%

In 2002, 7 in 10 juvenile offenders in facilities that screened for
suicide risk were in facilities that conducted suicide screenings
on all youth on the day they arrived at the facility

Number of juvenile offenders

As a percent of juvenile
offenders in facilities that
screened for suicide risk

Suicide
screening

Suicide
screening

When youth
are screened

All
All
Some
facilities screened screened

Total juvenile
offenders
By end of first day

102,388
68,853

81,486
65,343

11,577
3,510

100%
74

Day two through
end of first week
After first week

11,121
3,714

9,075
2,838

2,046
876

12
4

10
3

2
1

9,375

4,230

5,145

10

5

6

9,325

–

–

–

–

–

Other
No youth screened
(or not reported)

Facilities that
All
screened
screened
88%
70

Some
screened
12%
4

■ Two-thirds of facilities (66%) that reported screening for suicide risk said they conducted the
screenings on youth’s first day at the facility. Facilities that said they screened all youth and did
so on the youth’s first day made up 61% of facilities that screened for suicide risk; they held
70% of the juvenile offenders in facilities that reported suicide screening.
■ Other facilities that reported they screened all youth said they conducted their suicide screenings during youth’s first week at the facility. Taken together, facilities that screened all youth on
the first day and those that screened all youth by the end of the first week accounted for more
than 7 of 10 facilities that reported suicide screening and held 80% of juvenile offenders who
were in facilities that screened for suicide risk.
■ A small proportion of facilities conducted suicide risk screenings only after the youth had been
in the facility for a week. Some facilities indicated that they conducted screenings within other
time limits. A number of facilities said they conducted suicide risk evaluations “at intake” but
did not specify a particular timeframe. Some facilities said such screenings occurred before the
youth was admitted, as part of pre-intake assessments; however, most said they made an evaluation of suicide risk based on youth’s behavior or staff recommendation rather than by a particular deadline. Seven percent of facilities that screened for suicide risk used this “as needed”
approach in addition to initial screenings.
– Not applicable
Source: Author’s analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable data file].

June 2006

Most facilities use
professional mental
health staff to conduct
suicide screening
More than half (56%) of facilities that
screened some or all youth for suicide risk
reported that the screenings were conducted
by mental health professionals with at least a
master’s degree in psychology or social work.
Some facilities also used counselors to conduct screenings. Fewer than 1 facility in 5
used neither mental health professionals nor
counselors trained by a mental health professional to conduct suicide screenings.

Few facilities experience
suicides or serious
attempts
Eight facilities reported having a resident die
of suicide during the year, and 114 reported
a suicide attempt during the month prior to
the census that was serious enough to
require hospitalization. Together, this was
122 facilities—fewer than 4% of all facilities.
Facilities identified only as “detention centers” were the most common type of facility
to report a suicide or serious suicide attempt.
Facilities identified only as a “group home/
halfway house” were the second most common type of facility to report a suicide or
serious attempt. Facilities identified only as a
“training school/long-term secure” facility
(with no other purpose) constituted 8 of the
122 with a suicide or serious attempt.
Facilities reporting a suicide or a pastmonth attempt requiring hospitalization
Facility type

Singlepurpose

Multipurpose*

97
37
4
1
22
1
5
8
19

25
6
10
7
10
1
1
15
9

Total
Detention
Shelter
Reception/diagnostic
Group home
Boot camp
Ranch/wilderness camp
Training school
Other type

*Counts sum to more than the total number of
facilities because facilities could select more than
one facility type category

11

Half of juvenile offenders are in facilities where inhouse mental health professionals assess all youth
In 5 of 10 facilities,
in-house mental health
professionals evaluate
all youth held
In addition to information on suicide
screening, facilities provided information
about their procedures for evaluating
youth’s mental health needs.
Among facilities that reported mental
health evaluation information in 2002, 53%
said that in-house mental health professionals evaluate all youth to determine their
mental health needs. An additional 34%
said in-house mental health professionals
evaluate some, but not all youth. The proportion of facilities reporting that a mental
health professional inside the facility evaluates all youth was somewhat higher in
2002 than in 2000. Only 13% of facilities
did not have an in-house mental health
professional evaluate youth.
Evaluation by
in-house mental
health professional

2000

2002

Total facilities

3,061

2,964

Facilities reporting
mental health
evaluation info

2,201

2,287

All reporting facilities

100%

100%

All youth evaluated

50

53

Some youth evaluated

36

34

No youth evaluated

14

13

Larger facilities were more likely than smaller facilities to have
in-house mental health professionals evaluate all youth for mental
health needs and less likely to not evaluate any youth in 2002
Facility size based on resident population

Evaluation by in-house
mental health professional

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

Total facilities

2,964 1,003

648

704

350

171

88

Facilities reporting mental
health evaluation info

2,288

503

592

317

160

86

100%

100% 100%

All reporting facilities

629

100% 100% 100% 100%

All youth evaluated

53

54

50

51

57

54

60

Some youth evaluated

34

25

32

39

36

44

40

No youth evaluated

13

21

18

10

7

3

0

Reception/diagnostic centers and training schools were more likely
than other types of facilities to have in-house mental health professionals evaluate all youth for mental health needs in 2002
Facility type
Evaluation by
Reception/
Ranch/
in-house mental
Detention
diagnostic Group Boot wilderness Training
health professional center Shelter center home camp camp
school
Total facilities

769

289

104

1,136

56

157

389

Facilities reporting
mental health
evaluation info

591

179

96

825

52

130

372

All reporting facilities

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

All youth evaluated

30

33

66

57

46

45

64

Some youth evaluated 62

46

34

22

40

35

32

No youth evaluated

21

0

21

13

20

4

8

100% 100%

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

JRFC asks facilities about their mental health evaluation procedures
Mental health professionals conduct
evaluations or appraisals to diagnose or
identify mental health needs.
Are any young persons evaluated or
appraised by a mental health professional (with at least a master’s degree in

12

psychology or social work) at a location
inside this facility?
If yes . . . Are all young persons evaluated or appraised by a mental health
professional inside this facility?

If not all . . . Which young persons are
evaluated or appraised by a mental
health professional inside this facility?
When are young persons evaluated or
appraised by a mental health professional inside this facility?

National Report Series Bulletin

A greater proportion of privately operated
than publicly operated facilities said in
2002 that in-house mental health professionals evaluated all youth (62% vs. 41%
of facilities reporting mental health evaluation information). However, compared with
private facilities, public facilities reported a
greater proportion of facilities that had at
least some youth evaluated by an in-house
mental health professional (91% vs. 84%
of facilities reporting mental health evaluation information).

The most common approach to mental health evaluation in 2002 was
to screen all youth by the end of their first week at the facility
Number of juvenile facilities

As a percent of facilities that
evaluated for mental health needs

Evaluation by
in-house mental
health professional

When youth
are evaluated

2,964

1,214

768

100%

By end of first day

357

298

59

18

15

3

Facility operation

Day two through
end of first week

795

597

198

40

30

10

Public

Private

After first week

375

229

145

19

12

7

Total reporting facilities

950

1,332

Other

456

90

366

23

5

18

All reporting facilities

No youth evaluated
(or not reported)

981

–

–

–

–

–

Evaluation by
in-house mental
health professional

100%

100%

All youth evaluated

41

62

Some youth evaluated

50

22

No youth evaluated

10

16

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 (64% vs. 32%
of those reporting mental health evaluation
information). However, not all facilities that
said they provided onsite mental health
treatment said they had an in-house mental
health professional evaluate youth for mental health needs. It may be that youth were
evaluated before arriving at these facilities
or that outside professionals were contracted to conduct the evaluations.

Evaluation by
in-house mental
health professional

Onsite mental
health treatment?
Yes

No

Total reporting facilities 1,500

787

100%

100%

All youth evaluated

64

32

Some youth evaluated

27

47

9

21

All reporting facilities

No youth evaluated

Total facilities

Evaluation by
in-house mental
Facilities health professional
All
All
Some
that
All
Some
facilities evaluated evaluated evaluated evaluated evaluated
61%

39%

In 2002, 17% of juvenile offenders were in facilities that had in-house
mental health professionals evaluate all youth on the day they arrived
at the facility

Number of juvenile offenders

As a percent of juvenile
offenders in facilities that
evaluated for mental health needs

Evaluation by
in-house mental
health professional

When youth
are evaluated

Evaluation by
in-house mental
Facilities health professional
All
All
Some
that
All
Some
facilities evaluated evaluated evaluated evaluated evaluated

Total juvenile
offenders

102,388

50,326

37,237

100%

By end of first day

17,408

14,531

2,877

20

17

57%

43%
3

Day two through
end of first week

34,224

22,120

12,104

39

25

14

After first week

15,285

8,920

6,365

17

10

7

Other

20,646

4,755

15,891

24

5

18

No youth evaluated
(or not reported) 14,825

–

–

–

–

–

■ In 45% of facilities that reported information on their mental health evaluation proce-

dures, all youth were evaluated for mental health needs by an in-house mental health
professional by the end of their first week in custody.
■ These facilities held 42% of juvenile offenders who resided in facilities that reported
information on their mental health evaluation procedures.
– Not applicable
Source: Author’s analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable data
file].

June 2006

13

Deaths of juveniles in custody are relatively rare—
suicide was the leading cause in 2002
In 2002, 24 juvenile
facilities reported a
total of 26 deaths
In 1994, juvenile facilities reported that 45
juveniles died while in custody. According
to the 2000 JRFC, 30 youth died in custody. In 2002, juvenile facilities holding
juvenile offenders reported that 26 youth
died while in the legal custody of the facility.
These deaths occurred in 24 facilities.
Twenty-two facilities reported single deaths;
two facilities reported two deaths each.

During the 12 months prior to the census, suicide was the most commonly reported cause of death in custody, followed by accidents
Inside the facility
Cause of death

Outside the facility

Total

All

Public

Private

All

Public Private

Total

26

14

11

3

12

5

7

Suicide

10

8

7

1

2

1

1

Accident

6

1

1

5

2

3

Illness/natural

6

4

2

2

2

1

1

Homicide

2

0

2

1

1

Other

2

1

1

0

1

0

1

■ Accidents were the leading cause of death for youth ages 13–17 in the general popu-

More than half of the deaths reported
occurred inside the facility (14 of 26).
Public facilities accounted for most of the
deaths that occurred inside the facility;
private facilities accounted for most of the
deaths that occurred outside the facility.
Deaths inside the facility accounted for
most deaths reported by public facilities;
deaths outside the facility accounted for
most deaths reported by private facilities.
Overall, public facilities reported 16 deaths;
private facilities reported 10 deaths.
All facilities reporting suicides said they
evaluate all residents for suicide risk. All
but two said they evaluate residents within
24 hours of arrival to determine whether
the offender is at risk for suicide. Of those
two, one facility said it evaluates by the end
of the first week. The other said youth are
screened for suicide risk at detention intake
or if referred for screening by a counselor.
In 2002, 122 facilities holding juvenile
offenders reported transporting juvenile(s)
to a hospital emergency room because of
suicide attempt(s). None of these facilities
also reported a suicide death.

14

lation, followed by homicide and suicide.
Note: Data are reported deaths of youth in custody from October 1, 2001, through September
30, 2002. Reported homicides were attributed to nonresidents.
Source: Author’s analysis of Juvenile Residential Facility Census 2002 [machine-readable
data file].

The death rate was lower for youth in custody than for youth in the
general population
There has been concern about the risk
of death for youth in custody and
whether that risk is greater than the risk
faced by youth in general. Death rates
for the general population (detailed by
age, sex, race, ethnicity, and cause of
death) can be applied to data on the
population held in juvenile residential
facilities to calculate the number of

deaths that would be expected if the
custody population had the same rate
of death as the general population.
Based on this analysis, more than 60
deaths would be expected in the custody population during 2002. This is
more than double the number of deaths
that were reported to JRFC.

National Report Series Bulletin

Sources
National Center for Health Statistics. 2003.
U.S. Census Populations with
Bridged-race Categories. Online
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/
popbridge/popbridge.htm.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. 2001 and 2003. Juvenile
Residential Facility Census 2000
and 2002 [machine-readable data files].
Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census (producer).
Snyder, H. 2004. Juvenile Arrests 2002.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Resources
The following publications may be viewed
and downloaded at ojjdp.ncjrs.org/
publications.
Juvenile Arrests 2003. Summarizes and
analyzes national and state juvenile arrest
data presented in the FBI report Crime in
the United States 2003 (Bulletin, 2005,
NCJ 209735).
Juvenile Court Statistics 2000. Profiles
more than 1.6 million delinquency cases
handled by juvenile courts in 2000 and
reviews judicial trends since 1985 (Report,
2005, NCJ 209736).
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999
National Report. Presents comprehensive
information on juvenile crime, violence,
and victimization and on the juvenile justice system (Report, 1999, NCJ 178257).
Note: An updated edition of the National
Report is scheduled for publication in
2006.

Juveniles in Corrections. Presents the latest available national and state-level data
from the Census of Juveniles in Residential
Placement (National Report Series Bulletin,
2004, NCJ 202885).
An OJJDP Bulletin on the Survey of Youth
in Residential Placement is scheduled for
release in 2006. The Bulletin will present
information on juveniles’ custody experiences, past offense histories, education,
victimization, and other topics, based
on interviews with youth in residential
placement.
OJJDP’s Statistical Briefing Book
(ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb) is a comprehensive online resource covering various topics related to delinquency and the juvenile
justice system. The Census of Juveniles in
Residential Placement Databook, accessible through the Briefing Book, contains a
large set of predefined tables detailing the
characteristics of juvenile offenders in residential placement facilities. The Compendium of National Juvenile Justice Data
Sets, also available through the Briefing
Book, is an online resource for researchers
that is intended as an aid to investigations
of juvenile offending, victimization, and
contact with the juvenile justice system.
The compendium summarizes data sets,
including the Juvenile Residential Facility
Census, and provides information on sampling,
data collection procedures, instrumentation
(including data collection forms), key variables, quality controls, periodicity, representativeness, data access procedures, and
contacts for further information.

National Report Series Bulletin

This Bulletin was prepared under cooperative agreement number 1999–JN–FX–K002
from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the official position or
policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department
of Justice.

Acknowledgments
This Bulletin was written by Melissa
Sickmund, Senior Research Associate
at the National Center for Juvenile
Justice, with funds provided by
OJJDP to support the National Juvenile Justice Data Analysis Program.

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, and the Office
for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 211080
15