Security status of juveniles in residential placement by race/ethnicity, 1997

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Working for Youth Justice and Safety

Printer-friendly

Custody Data (1997-Present)

Q:	How did the security status of juvenile offenders in residential placement vary by race/ethnicity in 1997?
A:	Minority juveniles were more likely than nonminority white juveniles to be held behind locked doors.

Race/ethnicity	All facilities				Public facilities				Private facilities
Race/ethnicity	Staff secure		Locked		Staff secure		Locked		Staff secure		Locked

Total	29	%	71	%	14	%	86	%	70	%	30	%
White	36		64		16		84		76		24
Minority	25		75		12		88		66		34
Black	25		75		12		88		62		39
Hispanic	23		77		12		88		76		24
All other	35		65		17		83		78		22

Notes: The "Hispanic" category includes persons of Latin American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. These persons are not included in the other race/ethnicity categories.

To protect the confidentiality of juvenile residents all published data from the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) are rounded to the nearest multiple of three. Each cell is rounded independently, without consideration as to row or column totals. As a result, in many tables, the internal cells do not add to the marginal totals. Rates and percentages presented from CJRP are also based on rounded totals. More information on this rounding rule is available on the EZACJRP Web site.

[ Excel file ]

Juvenile residential placement facilities vary in their degree of security. The use of fences, walls, and surveillance equipment is increasingly common in juvenile facilities, although security hardware in juvenile facilities is generally not as elaborate as that found in adult jails and prisons. In fact, national accreditation standards for juvenile facilities express a preference for relying on staff, rather than on hardware to provide security. The guiding principle is to house juvenile offenders in the "least restrictive placement alternative." Staff security measures include perimeter checks, periodically taking counts of the youth in custody, using classification and separation procedures, and maintaining an adequate ratio of security staff to juveniles.
For each juvenile in residential placement, the Census of Juveniles Residential Placement asked respondents about the "locked doors and/or gates [that] confined THIS young person within the facility and its grounds during the afterschool, daytime hours on October 29, 1997."
Overall, 64% of nonminority white juveniles were held behind locked doors compared with 75% of minorities, a difference of 11 percentage points. This racial/ethnic difference was reduced to four percentage points for juveniles in placement in public facilities where most juveniles were behind locked doors (86% overall). In private facilities, there was a 10 percentage point difference between the proportion of whites juveniles behind locked doors and the proportion for minority juveniles, although the proportions were substantially lower than for juveniles in public facilities.

Internet citation: OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qa08513.asp?qaDate=20010228. Released on February 28, 2001.

Adapted from Sickmund, M. (2000). Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 1997. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Data Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 1997 [machine-readable data files]. Washington, D.C.: OJJDP.