construction, operations, and staff training for juvenile ... · construction, operations, and...

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Juvenile Accountability IncentiveBlock Grants Program

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

January 2000

Construction, Operations, andStaff Training for JuvenileConfinement FacilitiesDavid Roush and Michael McMillen

This Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s JuvenileAccountability Incentive Block Grants(JAIBG) Best Practices Series. The basicpremise underlying the JAIBG program,initially funded in fiscal year 1998, is thatyoung people who violate the law need to beheld accountable for their offenses if society isto improve the quality of life in the Nation’scommunities. Holding a juvenile offender“accountable” in the juvenile justice systemmeans that once the juvenile is determinedto have committed law-violating behavior,by admission or adjudication, he or she isheld responsible for the act through conse-quences or sanctions, imposed pursuant tolaw, that are proportionate to the offense.Consequences or sanctions that are appliedswiftly, surely, and consistently, and aregraduated to provide appropriate and effec-tive responses to varying levels of offenseseriousness and offender chronicity, workbest in preventing, controlling, and reducingfurther law violations.

In an effort to help States and units of localgovernment develop programs in the 12 pur-pose areas established for JAIBG funding,Bulletins in this series are designed to presentthe most up-to-date knowledge to juvenilejustice policymakers, researchers, and practi-tioners about programs and approaches that

From theAdministrator

“If you build it, they will come”appears to ring true when itcomes to the construction ofnew or expanded juveniledetention facilities. Beforeembarking on such a costlycourse of action, however, acommunity should carefullyassess its facility needs andensure that it is effectivelyusing alternatives to secureconfinement when appropriate.

The Juvenile AccountabilityIncentive Block Grants (JAIBG)program provides assistance inbuilding or expanding juvenilecorrection and detention facili-ties and in training correctionalstaff. This Bulletin, one in aseries featuring JAIBG BestPractices, offers helpful infor-mation about such key aspectsas construction decisions,master planning, facilitydevelopment, and training. Italso provides sources ofadditional information, includ-ing useful publications.

Shay BilchikAdministrator

OverviewJAIBG funds may be used to developprograms in any of 12 program purposeareas established by Congress. The firstof these areas—“building, expanding,renovating, or operating temporary orpermanent juvenile correction or deten-tion facilities, including training of cor-rectional personnel”—addresses con-struction, operation, and training. Beforebeginning construction, however, juris-dictions should complete a master plan,determine what type of facility will bestmeet their needs and expectations, andreach a decision to construct. Masterplanning is a key component because itestablishes the specific policies to preventand reduce crowding and control thelength of stay (DeMuro and Dunlap,1998).

To provide practitioners practical guid-ance and advice on best practices underJAIBG Program Purpose Area 1, this

hold juvenile offenders accountable for theirbehavior. An indepth description of theJAIBG program and a list of the 12 programpurpose areas appear in the overview Bulle-tin for this series.

2

paper addresses five main themes:construction decisions, master plan-ning, facility development, opera-tions, and training.

■ Construction decisions. Construc-tion under Program Purpose Area1 includes building new facilities,expanding existing capacitythrough new construction, andrenovating existing facilities.There are many reasons to build,including the large number of ju-veniles currently incarcerated incrowded facilities (Parent et al.,1994), the pressing need for securebeds in jurisdictions without juve-nile detention, and the deteriorat-ing condition of many facilities.

Because construction is expensive,decisions to build, expand, orrenovate facilities should bereached by using systematic,data-driven, and rational meth-ods. Decisionmakers, for example,should be able to provide empiri-cal evidence of a need for con-struction. If data indicate a needto build, then jurisdictions have astrong rationale for construction.

■ Master planning. Master planningis a systematic process that in-creases the effectiveness of long-term decisionmaking. Using ateam of juvenile justice specialistsand planners from outside a juris-diction, the process leads key juve-nile justice and community stake-holders through activities that willelicit a locally defined vision andmission for the jurisdiction’s juve-nile justice system. Data collectionand operational recommendationsare then based on these core val-ues and principles.

■ Facility development. The facilitydevelopment process, which beginswith operational/architecturalprogramming, involves document-ing operational priorities and de-termining spatial requirements andarrangements that will respond toa facility’s management, daily

programming, and environmentalneeds. During facility developmentand prior to the start of physical de-sign activities, jurisdictions shouldalso define cost parameters for staff-ing and construction and identifysite issues.

■ Operations. Program Purpose Area1 includes operations, which forjuvenile detention and correctionsfacilities involves programs andservices. Consistent with the com-petency development aspect of theBalanced and Restorative Justice(BARJ) model,1 the operation ofjuvenile facilities rests on the as-sumption that the best way to im-prove public safety is by changingan offender’s behavior. Success indoing so, however, is people-driven and, therefore, expensive(with staff costs for salaries, ben-efits, and training constituting alarge part of operational costs). Tohelp jurisdictions develop effectiveoperating practices, this Bulletinidentifies the fundamental needs offacilities and the key elements ofoperations, such as organizationalprerequisites and program, staff-ing, and management principles.

■ Staff Training. Accountability-basedinterventions change juvenile of-fenders’ behavior by providing themwith opportunities to experiencepositive relationships with healthyadults in appropriate settings. Stafftraining is the most cost-effectiveway to integrate accountability-based principles into staff develop-ment in juvenile confinement andcustody facilities.2 Staff trainingtechnology has expanded greatly

through the programs and servicesof the American Correctional Asso-ciation (ACA), the Juvenile JusticeTrainers Association (JJTA), theNational Institute of Corrections(NIC) Academy Division, the Na-tional Juvenile Detention Associa-tion (NJDA), the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Preven-tion’s (OJJDP’s) Training and Tech-nical Assistance Division (TTAD),and an increasing number of State-operated training academies. Al-though this Bulletin presents severaltraining models and resources, itcannot capture all of the abundantknowledge on best practices in thisarea. Summaries of effective pro-grams, along with a list of resourcesand an extensive bibliography, areprovided to help practitioners re-trieve original works and supple-mental materials.

Construction Decisions—Assessingthe Need To BuildJuvenile detention and correctionshave become big business, with moreand more jurisdictions spending in-creasing amounts of time, energy, andmoney to expand detention and cor-rections capacity.3 As public agencies,private organizations, architects, andcourt systems approach constructionmore aggressively than ever, moreand larger juvenile facilities come offthe drawing boards every day in abuilding surge that has begun to rivalthe exponential growth of adult facili-ties in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Facili-ties for young people are no longer an

1 The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) model, acore component of the OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy,is a combination of the Balanced Approach and theRestorative Justice models. It includes communityprotection, offender accountability, offender compe-tency development, and restoration.

2 Confinement refers to a physically restricting place-ment, and custody describes places and programs(such as shelter care, day treatment, and home deten-tion) that involve supervision but may allow youth toleave at specified times.

3 Juvenile detention refers to the custody process that oc-curs between the time of a juvenile’s arrest and the time ofhis or her adjudication or disposition. It includes a range ofplacement alternatives that vary in restrictiveness fromhome detention to secure detention. Correctional place-ments, by contrast, take place after a juvenile has beenadjudicated as an offender and a dispositional plan (orsentence) has been determined. Correctional placementalternatives range from small and open residential settingsto large, State-operated, maximum-security correctionsfacilities. Some jurisdictions allow the dispositional place-ment of juveniles in detention facilities, an action that com-plicates the distinction between detention and corrections.

3

afterthought, buried in the recesses ofcivic concern and public budgets; theyare “big-ticket” items occupying com-munities’ full and serious attention.

Reasons for ConstructionReasons for the recent explosion inconstruction of juvenile residential fa-cilities are found in both fact and per-ception. On the factual side, crowdingis widespread (Parent et al., 1994),making affected residential programsdifficult to manage and not as safe asthose operating at recommended ca-pacities. Residents spend more time inlockdown, and program quality suf-fers (Previte, 1997). When staff mustfocus primarily on safety and security,effective intervention and treatmentare compromised. In addition, becausestaffing levels rarely increase asquickly as the number of residents,crowded facilities often do not haveenough staff to do the job well.

Another reason for the recent growthin construction is the large number ofaging and outdated physical plants,many built during the constructionbooms following World War II (seeNorman, 1961). Facilities built duringthe 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s are fastapproaching the end of their usefullifespan, an end brought nearer bythe ravages of crowding and (formany facilities) inadequate mainte-nance and repair budgets. Such olderfacilities also were never intended towithstand the intense uses they nowfrequently must serve. While juvenilefacilities once served a largely non-violent and manageable population(with few serious offenders), theynow serve juveniles with profoundbehavioral problems and learningdeficits and significant mental healthneeds, many of whom present secu-rity problems (Cocozza, 1992; Otto etal., 1992). A large number of facilitiesare inappropriately configured tomeet these needs.

A need for increased capacity is an-other factor driving construction. Untilrecently, jurisdictions nationwide have

experienced an increase in juvenilearrests overall and in arrests for in-creasingly serious offenses. In commu-nities that have their own secure facili-ties, the increase has caused buildingsto become crowded and/or juvenilesto be turned away. Jurisdictions thatrely on other communities for securebeds are frequently told that no roomis available. In both situations, oneimmediate solution has been to con-struct new bed space. With morebeds, communities reason, there willbe no crowding, operations will im-prove, and problems will go away.

In many instances, communities havebeen correct in perceiving a need foradded capacity. For example, in juris-dictions where population hasdoubled or tripled over the past 20years (often with accompanyingchanges in juvenile offenders and inthe general social fabric), institutionalcapacities may now be totally inad-equate. In many communities, espe-cially those where juvenile courtplacement practices have not changed,comprehensive master planning hasconfirmed a need for additional capac-ity to respond to current and futureneeds. In other communities, however,studies have shown that juvenile fa-cilities are housing youth who pose nosignificant threat to community safetyor the court process and who could bemanaged as effectively in less restric-tive and less costly programs and set-tings (Boersema, 1998; Boersema et al.,1997; Jones and Krisberg, 1994). Inthese instances, the perception thatsecure custody is necessary for all ju-veniles being detained (and perhapsmany more) conflicts with the reality.When placement in a secure facility isa jurisdiction’s primary or only treat-ment option, it becomes an expensivecatchall, one that replaces less restric-tive and equally (or more) appropriatealternatives (Dunlap and Roush, 1995).

Alternatives to ConstructionWhen the perceived need for addedcapacity conflicts with reality, a

business-as-usual approach to securecustody generates high bed-needprojections, which, in turn, result inexcess capacity. Excess capacity thenleads to continued overuse of securecustody for juveniles and an immedi-ate and lasting strain on financial re-sources. A jurisdiction may build itsway out of problems, but only tempo-rarily. The numbers usually catch upwith the space available—and usuallymore quickly than anyone expected.

In response to these concerns, manyjurisdictions are pursuing alternativesto construction. This approach, whichuses a range of variably restrictiveresidential and nonresidential ser-vices, is commonly called “the con-tinuum of care.” Similar to the gradu-ated sanctions model set forth inOJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Se-rious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Of-fenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993), thecontinuum-of-care approach requiresjurisdictions to examine closely howto direct resources toward managingpublic safety and meeting the needsof the greatest number of juveniles(Bilchik, 1998). The continuum-of-care approach commonly considersand implements a variety of services(such as home detention, electronicmonitoring, afterschool and eveningreport programs, day treatment, resti-tution, shelter care, and staff-secureresidential programs) as alternativesto physically restrictive detentioncustody (DeMuro, 1997; Guarino-Ghezzi and Loughran, 1996; Howell,1997).

The JAIBG program raises two im-portant questions related to maintain-ing a strong continuum of services.First, given JAIBG’s endorsement ofthe concept of graduated sanctions,will jurisdictions develop and expandthe range of sanctions to serve as con-sequences for delinquency? Second,will an overreliance on juvenile insti-tutions as a first or primary sanctionoccur that will weaken other sanctionsor the continuum itself? The develop-ment of a strong continuum of services

4

would seem to help achieve JAIBG’sgoal of having sanctions that aregraduated, immediate, and account-ability oriented. In addition, a strongcontinuum may address many juris-dictions’ lack of dispositional options(sanctions) between probation andincarceration. By providing juvenilecourt judges with options, a strongcontinuum of care will improve thejuvenile justice system’s ability to de-liver appropriate sanctions and holdoffenders accountable.

Master Planning—Gettingthe Numbers RightIn those instances when increased ca-pacity is necessary, deciding to build anew facility is only the first of manydifficult and critical decisions that ajurisdiction must make. Becausephysical facilities exist for a long time,jurisdictions should make every effortto ensure that the process leading toconstruction will produce the best andmost appropriate buildings possible.

Master planning is the most importantstep in the construction process (Eliasand Ricci, 1997; Farbstein/Williams andAssociates, 1981; Kimme et al., 1988;McMillen and Hill, 1997). Juvenilejustice system literature emphasizesthe importance of using planningmodels to make responsible decisionsabout bed space and constructionneeds (Boersema, 1998; DeMuro,1997; Jones and Steinhart, 1994).Chinn (1996) outlines a planningstrategy to find new solutions forhousing habitually violent youngoffenders. The National Center forJuvenile Justice recommends a 10-step master planning process to ad-dress a range of problems (Steensonand Thomas, 1997); and Barton(1994), Guarino-Ghezzi andLoughran (1996), and Schwartz (1994)commend the steps in the masterplanning process as a strategy to ef-fect broad systems reform. NIC con-ducts Planning of New Institutions(PONI) workshops and provides ma-terials that address the construction

planning process (National Clearing-house for Criminal Justice Planningand Architecture, 1996; Taylor et al.,1996; Voorhis, 1996). PONI work-shops for juvenile institutions arecurrently available to juvenile justicepractitioners.

Responding to crowding and a needfor less restrictive services, NJDA as-sembled teams of planners, architects,juvenile justice systems specialists,and law enforcement specialists todevelop juvenile justice master plansfor several judicial circuits in Illinois(Boersema, 1998). In each circuit,teams considered how many securedetention beds would be needed inthe future and developed masterplans with a wide range of alterna-tives, including construction of secureand staff-secure detention beds.4 Eventhough the jurisdictions describedthemselves as very similar to one an-other, the planning process revealedsignificant differences to key stake-holders. Given these differences, theassumption that “one size fits all” canbe misleading and costly—especiallywhen the proposed solution requiresconstruction of new secure beds.

The master planning process canchange a jurisdiction’s understand-ing of its needs, including the sizeof the facility it thinks that it needs(McMillen, 1998). In one jurisdic-tion, for example, a review of intakedecisions prompted the chief juve-nile court judge and circuit courtadministrator to modify the intakeprocess for all juvenile justice sys-tem components, including law en-forcement. This change led to an im-mediate and lasting 40-percent dropin the detention facility’s averagedaily population. Intake data notpreviously considered also allowedthe jurisdiction to lower its bed-spaceprojections. Given serious structuralproblems with the existing facility,

the final recommendation was tobuild a new secure detention centerwith a capacity that was 10 bedshigher than that of the existing facil-ity. The jurisdiction’s initial request,by contrast, had been to construct afacility with almost twice the num-ber of new beds actually needed.Without a systematic assessment byindividuals outside the system, thejurisdiction would have signifi-cantly overbuilt.

Planning Team MembersGiven the high cost of juvenile facilityconstruction, a jurisdiction shouldcarefully review the qualifications ofmaster planning team members andmake sure that the team includes thefollowing: an architect experienced inbuilding juvenile facilities, a plannerwith juvenile justice and master plan-ning experience who is knowledge-able in data collection and analysisprocedures, a juvenile justice systemsspecialist experienced in operatingmodel or effective programs and ser-vices, and a local law enforcementspecialist who can provide access toinformation and services from locallaw enforcement agencies.

Planning StepsJurisdictions assessing space needsshould complete the followingimportant planning steps:

Step 1: Form an advisory groupEach jurisdiction should form an ad-visory group to guide planning ef-forts. Whether called a stakeholdersgroup, steering committee, commu-nity advisory group, or interagencyworkgroup, the group should includethe jurisdiction’s chief probation of-ficer; its superintendent(s) of juvenileconfinement facilities; responsiblelocal juvenile justice advocates; andrepresentatives from the juvenilecourt, local law enforcement, thepublic defender’s and prosecutor’soffices, youth-serving agencies, place-ment agencies for adjudicated youth,

4 The term “staff-secure” refers to security resultingfrom the presence of and measures taken by staffmembers, rather than conditions created by the pres-ence of locks or other hardware.

5

and community organizations(DeMuro and Dunlap, 1998).

Step 2: Define advisorygroup tasksThe community advisory group’smain tasks are establishing goals forthe planning process and monitoringprogress toward those goals (Ricci,1995). Establishing goals involvesagreeing on those goals that will ap-pear in a local juvenile justice system’svision and mission statements andidentifying the objectives, policies,procedures, and practices related tothose goals. Monitoring goals involvesconsidering how critical decisions andoutcomes will affect all stakeholders inthe system. Careful monitoring willkeep decisionmaking balanced andprovide the accountability needed toensure that the process remains consis-tent with a group’s vision and missionstatements.

Step 3: Collect and analyze dataAdvisory groups should use data col-lection and analysis resources fromboth within and outside their jurisdic-tions. Although local data experts maybe familiar with local systems andsources of information, consultantsfrom outside the area may possessbroader knowledge of the quality andimplications of data and variousanalysis strategies. The planning teamwill oversee the data collection pro-cess, but the community advisorygroup should determine the quantityand quality of data to be collected. Be-cause many jurisdictions have inad-equate information management sys-tems and important data may be hardto access or of poor quality, data col-lection and analysis are often tedioussteps in the master planning process.To address these obstacles, advisorygroups should include data collectionprocedures in the initial plan.

Data analysis should encompass thefull range of services and programsavailable in the jurisdiction. Accord-ing to the National Association of

Counties (NACO), a jurisdiction’scontinuum of care may suffer when anew facility is built (Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention,1998). In jurisdictions with limitedresources, a new facility can become afinancial drain, leaving fewer re-sources for alternatives (noninstitu-tional) and prevention programs.

Schwartz (1994) opposes the use ofarchitects or architectural planningfirms to collect and analyze data be-cause a potential conflict of interestbetween an architect’s financial inter-ests and a jurisdiction’s best interestsmay exist when a large constructionproject is involved. Other practition-ers, however, cite examples of archi-tectural planning firms that havecompleted master plans and advisedjurisdictions against building juvenileconfinement facilities even when con-struction would have benefited thefirms financially.

Step 4: Obtain technical assistanceTechnical assistance regarding howto create a master plan and assess ajurisdiction’s need for new or ex-panded facility construction is avail-able through OJJDP and other sourceslisted in the “For Further Informa-tion” section of this Bulletin.

Step 5: Involve staffPlanning teams and advisory groupsshould involve facility staff, particu-larly line staff and first-level supervi-sors, in the master planning process(Taylor et al., 1996). Experience indi-cates that youth can also play an im-portant role.

Facility Development—Determining the Type ofFacility NeededFor a secure juvenile facility to workwell, it must first and foremost be asafe place. Residents should be ableto leave and the public enter only atstaff’s discretion. The facility must

be easy to manage, supervise, andmaintain, and it must resist the harduse—and at times abuse—of theyoung people who reside there. Itneeds adequate space for requiredand desired programs and services.The space must be arranged in a waythat allows staff to do their jobs andresidents to do what is required ofthem in a flexible manner.

A review of plans and programs forjuvenile facilities reveals a variety ofphysical and operational approaches.The approach chosen depends on acommunity’s circumstances and atti-tudes. Architects generally try to beresponsive to both the specific needsof their clients and the constraints im-posed by budgets and sites.

Unfortunately, many facilities aredesigned without information on thespecific expectations and needs of thosewho will use and manage the build-ings. In these instances, designers maypropose physical structures based onavailable juvenile or adult system mod-els, which may or may not be appro-priate. Without carefully consideringthe following factors, jurisdictions willbe unable to determine the best pos-sible approach for the physical designof their facilities:

■ Diverse methods of managing ju-venile behavior.

■ Resident and staff responses to thephysical environment.

■ Daily program structure.

■ Staffing patterns and costs.

■ Circulation and space-sharing pat-terns in a facility.

■ Responses to emergencies andother situations.

Considering these factors may leadplanners to discover that a proposeddesign provides security but fails toachieve other essential goals. Becausea successful design is based on theoperational priorities of a particularproject, rote design (i.e., one that

6

proceeds without considering suchpriorities) will only compromise a pro-ject’s goals and ultimate effectiveness.

There is no magical “best approach”to facility design. In developing anynew or expanded facility, jurisdictionsand their planners must find their ownbest approach, basing designs on theirown expectations, rather than on pre-conceived architectural notions. Thearchitectural/operational program-ming process described below permitssuch an individualized approach.

Architectural/OperationalProgrammingWith growing demands for improvedsecurity, program quality, and archi-tectural sophistication, predesignplanning has become increasingly im-portant. Operational programming—which should involve key agency andcommunity decisionmakers, courtrepresentatives, service providers,and other community stakeholders—involves having these parties exam-ine closely what they intend to ac-complish with a proposed facility.Failure to involve all concerned par-ties in the process can lead to confu-sion and dissension.

The operational programming pro-cess typically begins with a review ofa facility’s proposed vision and mis-sion statements (e.g., to protect thepublic and prevent flight from pros-ecution, provide a safe and secure en-vironment, deliver programming andservices consistent with legal require-ments, and ensure resident healthand welfare). These statements mayserve as the foundation for building ahierarchy of programs and spaces. Inmany cases, however, the statementsonly begin to scratch the surface ofexpectations for a facility.

A comprehensive range of philo-sophical and operational imperativesshould be established before physicalplanning activities begin. Such im-peratives may include:

■ Implementing behavior manage-ment methods.

■ Respecting juvenile rights andrecognizing juvenile needs.

■ Providing programs that addressjuvenile, system, and family needs.

■ Implementing methods for foster-ing resident accountability, coop-eration, and participation.

■ Recognizing the importance ofresident skills assessment anddevelopment.

■ Recognizing the importance offamily involvement with residents.

■ Emphasizing effective interventionand treatment or punishment.

■ Appreciating and responding toresident gender, culture, religion,and ethnicity.

■ Recognizing the value of links tocommunity and transition services.

■ Emphasizing the importance ofreturning juveniles to productiveroles in the community.

These factors, among others, shouldguide the continuing developmentand refinement of programs, staffingpatterns, environmental quality, andspaces at a proposed facility. If a facil-ity and its services are to succeed,planners should address the use ofspace only after all other prioritieshave been established.

Next, operational programmingshould investigate the followingspecific issues:

■ Security and supervision methods.

■ Optimal residential group size forhousing and activities.

■ Classification.

■ Special needs groups.

■ Scope of daily programs andservices.

■ Scheduling of activities.

■ Visual/physical connectionsbetween activities.

■ Resident circulation and movement.

■ Environmental priorities (sound,lighting, furnishings, appearance,image).

■ Maintenance and repair (durabil-ity, life cycle costs).

■ Staff communications and support.

■ Potential staffing requirements andcosts.

■ Staff qualifications and trainingrequirements.

■ Codes and standardsrequirements.

■ Operational flexibility.

■ Future expansion potential.

■ Construction cost parameters.

A review of these specific issues willhelp to determine a facility’s essentialoperational concepts and identify de-velopmental options that are respon-sive to these essential concepts.

Following close on the heels of opera-tional programming, architecturalplanning takes all of the previouslyassembled information and beginsto enter real numbers and specificspaces into the equation.

Once a facility’s major functions havebeen identified, the architectural plan-ning process examines the various ac-tivities that take place in different areas,the number of people involved, and thetimes these activities occur. This analy-sis generates net area (square footage)requirements for anticipated activities.Net area requirements are then com-bined with circulation and other re-quirements related to resident andstaff movement within the building,the need for other spaces (mechanicalrooms, electrical closets, and variousundefined spaces), and additionalspace required for wall thickness andother structural elements. This calcula-tion yields the gross building area or

7

total square footage required for thebuilding. It is not unusual for the totalsquare footage required by a residentialfacility to be up to 50-percent greaterthan the net area required for actualuser activities.

While individual space require-ments for facility functions are be-ing developed (see table 1), archi-tects should explore with facilityoperators factors—scheduling, po-tential circulation patterns, supervi-sion and staffing requirements, andoptions for connecting variousspaces and activity zones—to beconsidered in determining spatialarrangements. Architects shouldthen develop construction diagramsthat show the most efficient visualand physical connections (func-tional adjacencies) and indicateaccess control points and circulationpatterns (see figure 1, page 8).

A facility’s design can succeed onlyto the extent that it meets the needsand expectations of its users. Build-ing a residential facility is expen-sive and, once construction begins,there is generally no chance to cor-rect errors in design. Comprehen-sive operational programming andarchitectural planning provide fa-cility planners with an opportunity

to make the best possible decisionsfrom the outset, before committingplans to brick and mortar.

Space ConsiderationsDefining the gross building area andgeneral spatial arrangements makes itpossible to project capital construc-tion costs and related expendituresfor furnishings, fees, and site work.Because these projections may formthe basis for funding procurementand for ensuring that a building isconstructed within budget, the re-lated analysis of space considerationsmust be thorough. The process of ex-amining space considerations andprojecting costs must precede physi-cal design efforts to ensure that alloperational objectives are achievedand to prevent costly changes inscope during subsequent designphases (DeWitt, 1987).

The amount of space required forvarious facility functions depends onmany factors, including State licens-ing and building codes, professionalstandards of practice (American Cor-rectional Association, 1991a, 1991b,1991c), and the operational prioritiesand methods governing where, when,and how activities are to take place.Operational factors should be given

high priority because building codesand standards typically do little morethan prescribe minimum spatial re-quirements (American CorrectionalAssociation, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c).Facility staff may require the flexibilityto depart from certain professional stan-dards of practice to fulfill operationalneeds specific to their own facility.

Although spatial requirements for se-cure juvenile facilities vary dependingon a facility’s capacity and scope ofactivities, these requirements usuallyinclude more space per resident thanis required in facilities designed foradults. The demand for a high levelof service and activity at juvenilefacilities—to keep juveniles occupiedduring the day and to facilitate the intervention process—requires morespace.

In facilities with 50 or fewer residents,spatial allocations of 700 to 800 squarefeet per resident are not uncommon.Larger facilities, which achieve certaineconomies of scale, may reasonablyaverage 600 to 700 square feet per resi-dent. A design that significantly exceedsthese ranges without offering compel-ling justification may be seen as overlygenerous. On the other hand, one thatprovides significantly less space mayjeopardize a facility’s functionality.

Table 1: Sample Space Listing (Housing Component)

Space Square Total NetNumber Space/Area Quantity Feet Square Feet Comments

5.100 Bedrooms (Standard) 9 70 630 Single User, Toilet5.101 Bedroom (ADA Access)* 1 100 100 Single User, Toilet5.102 Quiet Living/Dayroom 1 500 500 10 Users, Natural Lighting5.103 Staff Desk 1 30 30 Open Station, Telephone5.104 Restroom/Shower 1 70 70 Single User, ADA Access5.105 Shower 1 40 40 Single User5.106 Storage/Janitor Closet 1 80 80 With Janitor Sink

Note: Space Listing covers general population housing units with 10 beds.Source: Mike McMillen, AIA* Bedroom must be accessible according to standards of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Total Net Square Feet 1,450

Six Units (60 Beds) @ 1,450 NSF/Unit 8,700

8

Design IssuesAn effective juvenile facility, through acombination of spaces, security fea-tures, and environment, allows staff toperform their jobs with ease and pro-fessionalism. Although operating aneffective residential program for juve-niles is never easy, the physical settingcan help or hinder operations. If staffmembers have to struggle with a build-ing to accomplish their objectives, theymay not make the effort to do their jobswell or they may seek easier but lessbeneficial ways to perform their duties.In addition, a building with designelements that provoke undesired re-sponses from residents will only makestaff members’ jobs harder.

Although no single combination ofspaces, security features, and environ-ment is appropriate for every situation,

certain aspects of secure residentialdesign are of universal importance.These aspects are discussed below.

Security and safetyHaving a secure and safe facility—thefirst requisite in secure juvenileconfinement—involves more thanconstruction materials and hardware.True security and safety derive froma combination of physical materials,management methods, resident su-pervision, program features, staffsupport, and access control.

A sharp philosophical shift in theplanning and design of juvenile fa-cilities has followed the generaltrend toward tougher penalties onjuvenile offenders (Niedringhousand Goedert, 1998). New juvenile

correctional facilities are larger, bet-ter equipped with security hardwareand technology, and better able toaccommodate growth. They alsoemphasize the use of materials thatresist abuse, destruction, and pen-etration by residents. Although ma-terials that create a less restrictiveenvironment may be available, usingdurable materials is a way to ensurethat a building provides a first lineof defense that staff do not need toworry about. If juveniles cannot es-cape or engage in damaging behav-ior as a way to exert control or gainattention, then both staff and resi-dents will be able to focus on moreproductive activities.

Most new facilities feature a securebuilding perimeter that minimizes thepotential for unauthorized resident

Figure 1: Sample Spatial Relationships Diagram

New Construction Diagram30-Bed Initial Capacity With Expansion to 50 Beds

Secure Access Control Secondary Access Control Secure Areas

IndoorRecreation

Support Areas

OutdoorRecreation

HousingUnit

1

HousingUnit

2

FutureHousing Unit

4

FutureHousing Unit

5

Laun-dry

Stor-age

Future Multipurpose

OutdoorRecreation Admissions

Education KitchenStaff

Adminis-tration

Vest Lobby PublicAccess

PoliceAccess

ServiceAccess

Primary Security Perimeter

Multipurpose Activities Area

Exam

DiningVisiting

HousingUnit

3

Control



IndoorRecreation

Support Areas

OutdoorRecreation

HousingUnit

1

HousingUnit

2

FutureHousing Unit

4

FutureHousing Unit

5

Laun-dry

Stor-age

Future Multipurpose



Adminis-tration


PoliceAccess

ServiceAccess



Exam

DiningVisiting

HousingUnit

3

Control



IndoorRecreation

Support Areas

OutdoorRecreation

HousingUnit

1

HousingUnit

2

FutureHousing Unit

4

FutureHousing Unit

5

Laun-dry

Stor-age

Future Multipurpose



Adminis-tration


PoliceAccess

ServiceAccess



Exam

DiningVisiting

HousingUnit

3

Control



IndoorRecreation

Support Areas

OutdoorRecreation

HousingUnit

1

HousingUnit

2

FutureHousing Unit

4

FutureHousing Unit

5

Laun-dry

Stor-age

Future Multipurpose



Adminis-tration


PoliceAccess

ServiceAccess



Exam

DiningVisiting

HousingUnit

3

Control



IndoorRecreation

Support Areas

OutdoorRecreation

HousingUnit

1

HousingUnit

2

FutureHousing Unit

4

FutureHousing Unit

5

Laun-dry

Stor-age

Future Multipurpose



Adminis-tration


PoliceAccess

ServiceAccess



Exam

DiningVisiting

HousingUnit

3

Control

Source: Mike McMillen, AIA

9

egress, public access, and residentcontact with the public. Within thebuilding, major functional spacessuch as housing, education, recre-ation, dining, and visiting areas arezoned so that staff can control resi-dent access and maintain appropriategroup size and separation. Many fa-cilities control access between zonesremotely (from a central security orcontrol station), making it unneces-sary for staff to carry keys (often atarget of residents). To ensure contin-uous visual contact between residentsand staff, walls of damage-resistantglazing are used extensively in parti-tions separating residential areas.Nearly all housing in new facilitiesconsists of single-occupancy bed-rooms with integral sanitary fixtures.

If these features seem like those al-ready common in adult facilities,there is good reason. Juvenile justicepractitioners today face many of thesame safety and security problemsthat their adult system counterpartshave long faced, making a similarlevel of protection necessary in juve-nile facilities. In many ways, how-ever, differences between juvenileand adult operations are more pro-nounced now than in the past.

Direct supervisionDirect supervision in adult correc-tions (Farbstein, Liebert, andSigurdson, 1996; Nelson, 1993; Nelsonet al., 1984) is not the same as directsupervision in juvenile facilities. Thestaffing ratio is one source of differ-ence. Adult facilities commonly use1 correctional officer for every 40 ormore inmates (Nelson et al., 1984;Wright and Goodstein, 1989). Tomaintain safety and security with thisratio, adult facilities rely on electronicsurveillance, security construction,and behavior management teams ortherapeutic Special Weapons and Tac-tics (SWAT) teams charged with crisismanagement. By contrast, juvenilefacilities usually need 1 staff personworking directly with every 8 to 10

juveniles to ensure effective involve-ment and behavior management.(Having 1 staff member supervise40 juveniles would be a prescriptionfor serious problems.) In addition,almost all juvenile facilities use directsupervision staffing patterns, withstaff physically present and directlyinvolved with residents at all times.Juveniles are not (and should not be)left to their own devices or managedby remote control.

Higher staff-resident ratios at juvenilefacilities allow for more effective inter-action. When staff have many oppor-tunities to work with residents, prob-lems can be identified and resolvedbefore they pose a threat to safety. Ju-veniles themselves will feel safer, willfeel less exposed to unknown threats,and will be less likely to act out.

Another common and effective super-vision strategy at juvenile facilities ishaving residents participate regularlyin programs and services such as edu-cation, recreation, and counseling. Ajuvenile who is occupied and engagedis far less likely to present behaviorproblems. He or she will also realizegeneral benefits in such areas as per-sonal skills development, health main-tenance, academic achievement, andcooperation (Glick and Goldstein, 1995;Henggeler, 1998; Rubenstein, 1991).

Normalization of the residentialenvironment—both the physical andoperational character of a facility—isanother essential element in develop-ing a safe and secure setting. Al-though a secure detention facility isnot an environment that most resi-dents would describe as normal,many facilities today are designedwith the intent of minimizing overtlyinstitutional characteristics so thatresidents will not engage in the nega-tive behaviors that an institutionalenvironment may prompt. Spatial va-riety, movable furnishings, naturallighting, acoustic control, housing/group size, and opportunities for resi-dent movement are design elementsthat can help to reduce the sense of

crowding and restrictiveness that of-ten leads residents to engage inthoughtless and unsafe behavior.

Despite the need for increasingly re-strictive physical features, juvenile jus-tice professionals continue to empha-size the need for facilities to reflectintense concern for the juveniles whoreside in them. For example, profes-sionals demand buildings that supporta wide range of activities and encour-age ongoing contact between residentsand staff. In this context, security andsafety are recognized as necessary toaccommodate people and places—rather than as ways to create coerciveand restrictive confinement.

Group size/classificationAnother fundamental difference be-tween juvenile and adult facilities isthe typical size of resident groups orhousing units. Although housingunits with capacities of 25 to 40 arecommon at adult facilities, juvenilefacilities rarely have units that housemore than 12 to 16 residents and of-ten have units that house as few as 8residents. Juvenile programs avoidlarger resident groups for various rea-sons, including the following:

■ Larger groups of juveniles aremore difficult to manage.

■ It is harder for staff (who are oftenboth counselors and supervisors)to work effectively with individu-als in larger groups.

■ It is more difficult to move largergroups for various programactivities.

An increasingly important reason forsmall group sizes at juvenile facilitiesrelates to resident classification pri-orities. In the past, most juvenile fa-cilities had relatively small capacities.These small facilities needed smallresident groups in order to separateboys from girls and older youth fromyounger and to make it possible forstaff to work with residents on a moreindividualized basis. Today, juvenile

10

facilities are becoming larger, but theneed for more refined classificationmethods (and for the ability to placeresidents in small groups) is moreapparent than ever. Juvenile facilitiesare receiving a higher percentage ofserious offenders, sexual offenders,juveniles with identified substanceabuse and mental health problems,and female offenders. Accordingly,facilities need something other thana one-size-fits-all management ap-proach. They need an approach thatincludes specially structured pro-gramming and services and the abil-ity to classify and separate juvenilesinto small groups for housing andprogram purposes. Although pro-gram staff rarely, if ever, want to as-semble large groups of juveniles, theyshould be able to do so when neces-sary or appropriate without being re-stricted by the organization or spatiallimitations of a building.

The issue of what housing unit size isbest has by no means been resolvedand probably never will be. Economicconsiderations (smaller units usuallymean higher staffing costs) often con-flict with operational needs (smallerunits can mean better staff manage-ment of residents). Therefore, differ-ent balances must be struck in differ-ent communities. Although mostprograms call for smaller units (up to12 residents), some prefer larger unitswith multiple staff assigned to eachunit to allow staff present to provideimmediate support. Some jurisdic-tions insist on making all housingunits in a single facility the same size,thereby permitting consistent and ef-ficient staff allocation (because it isvirtually impossible to predict howthe number of residents in each clas-sification will change over time).Others require the development ofvariable-size housing units so thatcertain groups of residents can belodged in smaller groups, based onmanagement and program needs. Al-though there is more than one way ofdoing things correctly, juvenile facili-ties generally lean toward smaller

group sizes and staffing levels thatsupport this approach.

Environmental concernsThe wisdom of Vitruvius (the Greekscholar who explained that a buildingmay be judged by its adherence to theprinciples of commodity, firmness,and delight) has certain relevance toenvironmental concerns that are per-tinent to juvenile facilities. By com-modity, Vitruvius meant that a build-ing must serve the function for whichit was intended. By firmness, hemeant that a building should be ableto withstand the rigors of wind, rain,and inhabitants. By delight, he meantthat a building should provide enjoy-ment to its users.

Although it is easy to see how theconcepts of commodity and firmnessapply to secure juvenile facilities, it isharder to see the connection betweensecure juvenile facilities and the prin-ciple of delight. The concept of de-light, however, applies in many waysto these facilities. The spaces thatpeople live and work in profoundlyaffect their attitudes, comfort levels,and feelings about how good or badtheir circumstances are. In turn, theseperceptions influence people’s ap-proaches to getting through each day.A person in an inhospitable, threaten-ing, or demeaning environment, forexample, may feel overcome by cir-cumstances and seek relief throughisolation. A person in a restrictive en-vironment might try to exert controlover his or her situation by attempt-ing to change things or simply tryingto get up and leave.

In a secure juvenile facility, none ofthese responses is desirable. Juvenileswho isolate themselves (emotionallyor physically) become unreachableand pose special management prob-lems. Juveniles who try to exert con-trol through aggressive, confronta-tional, or manipulative behaviorpresent a danger to staff and otherresidents and disrupt the smoothflow of daily activities. Although

leaving a secure custodial setting isnot an option for residents, the possi-bility that they will plot such anaction is a continuing source of staffconcern.

Some secure residential facilities forjuveniles are designed to inhibit orprevent these undesirable responsesby physically restricting residents atall times and using materials andspaces that allow no opportunity forentry or escape. Such buildings, how-ever, often evidence little consider-ation for the sensibilities of their oc-cupants. At the opposite extreme,other buildings are completely non-restrictive and are designed for man-agement methods that rely entirelyon staff and program structure to re-spond to and control any potentialproblem behaviors.

The majority of juvenile facilitiesfall somewhere in between these ex-tremes, depending on the populationbeing served and local attitudes. Mostare designed both to be physically du-rable and to take human factors intoaccount. Providing residents opportu-nities to cooperate and behave respon-sibly encourages them to do so and tobecome more accountable for their ac-tions. The physical setting, while dis-couraging abuse or destruction of thebuilding and its furnishings by resi-dents, must also project an image thatreinforces society’s positive expecta-tions of juveniles (rather than onethat will provoke counterproductiveresponses).

Such a setting offers a normalized ornoninstitutional environment, onewhose features will moderate the per-ception of institutional confinement.Small group living arrangements re-lieve the sense of crowding and thestrain of fitting in with other youth.Natural lighting and regular physicaland visual access to outdoor spacesreduce impressions of confinement,as does the ability to move amonglocations with varied spatial charac-ter. A quiet acoustic environment,achieved through carpeting and other

11

surface treatments, furnishings, andspatial configurations, can be used tocreate the perception of a calm andcontrolled setting.

In a 1998 keynote address to theAmerican Institute of Architects Con-ference, James Bell, a staff attorneyfor the Youth Law Center, describedthe optimal features of a juvenile fa-cility as follows:

While technology may be goodfor adult incarceration, it hasproven repeatedly to be a poorway to administer juvenile facili-ties. Use your designs as a tool totry to reduce warehousing ofyoung people, many of whomhave still not been adjudicateddelinquent.

Make sure there is plenty of lightand space. Juveniles in generalare mercurial, and they definitelyare so while detained. A light,spacious setting can improvetheir spirits when they returnfrom court or from a visit thatgoes poorly.

Make sure there is enough spacefor large muscle exercise and forclassrooms and contact visiting.Be wary of multiple use roomsthat are supposed to serve as theprimary classroom. You can be-lieve that any space not desig-nated specifically for classroomswill probably not be used as such.There are too many competingneeds for any large space andschool will be one of the firstcasualties.

I know that you can design facili-ties that downplay the negativeaspects of confinement and pro-vide positive space through youruse of natural light, glass, colors,textures, and furnishings.

Staff support, communication,and supervisionOne of the great challenges in de-veloping effective operations and

management practices in a juvenilefacility is the need for staff to workconsistently and effectively with resi-dents. To do so, staff must be confi-dent of both their personal safety andthe overall security of the facility.When staff are responsible for toomany residents, when they doubt theavailability of assistance in emergen-cies, or when they have a limitednumber of responses to resident be-havior, they are likely to avoid closecontact with residents under theircare and rely on physically restrictivemeasures to achieve control. As a re-sult, program quality suffers, and amore institutional character prevails.

Appropriate group size is a decisivefactor in staff members’ perception ofcontrol. The ability to keep groupswithin various zones also contributesto a sense of control. Other designfeatures affect staff perception of con-trol. Housing and activity spaces, forexample, should be arranged in away that promotes a high degree ofvisibility for staff within and outsidethose areas. Juveniles should not beable to conceal themselves in cornersor rooms that are not directly super-vised. Resident circulation betweenphysically controlled security zones(housing, education, recreation, visit-ing, dining) should also be direct andeasily observed by staff. Residentsshould know that they are being ob-served at all times and that there areno gaps in surveillance—even whenstaff are not working with them di-rectly. Remote audio and visual moni-toring systems should be used, as ap-propriate, to supplement directsupervision and to ensure backupduring periods of low staffing.

Staff members must also be able tocommunicate immediately with oneanother at all times. Access to audiocommunication systems should beuncomplicated and widely available.In many new facilities, staff areequipped with cordless telephones orother wireless communication de-vices to ensure instant connection to

other staff and prompt notification ofothers in the event of an emergency.

HousingHousing is a critical issue in design-ing a successful juvenile facility. Asdiscussed above (under “Group size/classification”), housing units for ju-veniles tend to be smaller than thosein adult facilities. The vast majority ofunits in juvenile facilities support 8 to12 residents—the maximum number,according to juvenile authorities, thata single staff person can manage ef-fectively with a high level of staff in-teraction and safety (Parent et al.,1994). Although smaller units mayresult in less efficient staffing pat-terns, they may be necessary for cer-tain categories of offenders. Largerhousing units—though more com-mon in recent large facilities—aregenerally considered unacceptable insmall facilities because it is harder toclassify residents when they are partof larger groups.

Housing units must support suchvaried activities as sleeping, counsel-ing, studying, reading, writing, play-ing board games, using a computer,and watching television. Staff gener-ally want housing areas to be quietspaces that provide residents with asense of calm, reflection, and privacyafter days filled with structured pro-grams and activities. To control noiseand intensity levels, active pursuitssuch as table games, exercise, and rec-reation often occur outside of, butclose to, housing areas.

To create spatial flexibility and allowfor certain program activities in hous-ing areas, many housing unit designsinclude living space beyond the mini-mum levels required by national stan-dards. Many facilities also now incor-porate easily accessible activityspaces, both indoor and outdoor, inclose proximity to housing.

Some new facilities feature housingunits based on the “unit managementconcept,” meaning that the majority

12

of resident activities (including din-ing and education) occur within thehousing unit. This approach mini-mizes resident circulation. Most resi-dential programs, however, involveextensive movement of residentsamong spaces and reserve housingunits for sleeping, studying, and en-gaging in certain small group activi-ties. Although either approach can besuccessful, the decision to pursue oneover the other should be carefullyconsidered during project planningphases because the two approachesrequire radically different designs.

Regardless of the amount of residentmovement envisioned, most housingareas in new juvenile facilities includethe following:

■ Single-occupancy sleeping rooms.

■ Group living spaces.

■ Individual showers and restrooms.

■ Storage spaces for clothes, linens,and other items used on the unit.

■ Accessible janitor closets (whichfacilitate resident participation incleaning).

Staff desk areas are often included inhousing areas to allow staff membersto complete paperwork and relatedactivities in close proximity to resi-dents. According to the mandates ofthe 1990 Americans With DisabilitiesAct, housing unit designs must alsonow include a certain number of bed-rooms with wheelchair access. Manyhousing units and the areas withinand immediately adjacent to themalso have laundry facilities that allowresident participation, interviewrooms that may be used by social ser-vices and other staff members, addi-tional storage space, and “timeout”rooms that permit temporary separa-tion of residents who are exhibitingdisruptive behavior.

Single-occupancy sleeping rooms arepreferred in most juvenile confine-ment settings. Although professionalstandards and case law permit the use

of multiple-occupancy sleeping rooms,practitioners have found that sharedsleeping spaces—even with intensivesupervision—are often a source of in-creased juvenile injuries, intimidation,and other undesirable behaviors. ACAstandards require facilities’ livingunits to be designed primarily forsingle-occupancy sleeping, allowingno more than 20 percent of housingcapacity to be multiple-occupancysleeping rooms (American CorrectionalAssociation, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c). Thecourt in T.I. et al. v. Delia et al. (KingCounty, WA), for example, held thathaving three or more youth in onesleeping room constituted a potentiallydangerous, and even unconstitutional,threat to individual safety and ordereda stop to multiple-occupancy sleepingrooms (i.e., those with three or moreresidents) in juvenile detention facili-ties (cf., Puritz and Scali, 1998).

OJJDP’s Research Report Conditionsof Confinement: Juvenile Detention andCorrections Facilities (Parent et al.,1994) has similarly linked increasedjuvenile-on-juvenile injuries to largedormitories (11 or more residents inone large room) and recommendseliminating dormitory sleeping ar-rangements in all juvenile facilities.Because of these concerns, many pro-gram operators faced with crowdingrefuse to place more than one residentin a sleeping room, opting instead toput extra mattresses in separate andeasily supervised dayrooms or hall-ways to minimize the potential forinjury or other dangers.

Because sleeping rooms are the hard-est areas to supervise, they should bea facility’s most durable and abuse-resistant spaces. Hard finishes andstainless steel sanitary fixtures arecommonly used, windows andframes are designed to be durable,and windows are designed and lo-cated to prevent external communica-tion. Sleeping rooms should includeaudio communications systems to al-low residents to contact staff and staffto contact and monitor residents as

necessary. Doors, whether made ofheavy-gauge metal or solid wood,should have vision panels. Althoughfire safety regulations may requireremote release doors, normal opera-tions usually allow staff to controlsleeping room doors with a key.

Suicide prevention is a paramountconcern in designing facilities. Thetime that a juvenile spends in his orher room, when contact with staff andother residents is limited, can be themost emotionally disturbing period ofthe juvenile’s entire incarceration(Hayes, 1998; Rowan, 1989). Recogniz-ing the potential for suicidal and otherdangerous behavior, most residentialprograms seek to minimize the timethat juveniles spend in their rooms. Inaddition, programs attempt to elimi-nate protrusions and sharp edges insleeping rooms and limit residents’access to hardware or other materialsthat might be used for self-destructivepurposes. Sleeping rooms today areconsequently more spartan than in thepast, an environmental tradeoff con-sidered acceptable given the need forincreased safety and the limited timethat residents spend there. By contrast,group living spaces in housing unitstoday are generally more open, lessconfining, and more easily supervisedthan in the past.

Most program operators favor single-level housing arrangements overmultilevel arrangements becausesingle-level arrangements permiteasier access to and better supervi-sion of sleeping rooms. Site restric-tions, staffing levels, cost constraints,and other factors, however, some-times require facilities to considersplit-level or two-story housing ar-rangements, with bedrooms stackedvertically around a common living ordayroom area. Although many newerfacilities have used this approach suc-cessfully (Dugan, 1998), it poses sig-nificant design and operational chal-lenges, including potential difficultieswith vertical circulation, resident ac-cess, emergency egress, room checks

13

and supervision, and ADA compli-ance and the potential for behaviorproblems (e.g., jumping or throwingobjects from upper levels).

For the most part, secure detentionhousing spaces are intended to pro-vide a constant level of physical secu-rity and supervision that supportsflexible use (based on needs deter-mined by staff). Spatial and materialdistinctions are less important designconsiderations than a facility’s abilityto use housing spaces in a variety ofways that may be modified over time.

Programs and ServicesHaving a full schedule of programsand services available to residents fa-cilitates effective management of theirbehavior. Keenly aware that residentsmay find unproductive or damagingoutlets for youthful energy when lim-ited opportunities for positive activ-ity are available, program staff in ju-venile facilities believe that structurededucational and recreational activitiesare the best defense against misbe-havior (Roush, 1996c).

In addition to their behavior manage-ment benefits, program and serviceopportunities are essential to resi-dents’ health and well-being (Bell,1990, 1992, 1996; National Commis-sion on Correctional Health Care,1999; Soler et al., 1990). Facilities ac-cordingly allow visitation and pro-vide comprehensive education, recre-ation, counseling, religious, andmedical services (Roush, 1993). Al-though specific requirements for pro-grams in each of these areas are notalways defined, professional stan-dards, case law, and State codesmandate provision of these services(Roush, 1993), and best practicesdemand something more than aminimalist approach.

EducationAlthough educational programs maymeet the letter of the law by assigningresidents a few hours of homework

each day or requiring them to com-plete self-directed learning packetsand related activities, program opera-tors usually believe that more exten-sive academic activities are necessaryto meet residents’ needs (Leone, Ru-therford, and Nelson, 1991; Wolfordand Koebel, 1995). The time that a ju-venile spends in custody, when edu-cators can have his or her undividedattention, is often described as a“teachable moment,” a time whenconsiderable learning can take place(Cavanagh, 1995). Given this oppor-tunity, many residential programsfeature hours of year-round educa-tional activities (formal and informal)that focus not only on standardacademic subjects, but also on thefollowing:

■ Life skills development.

■ Communications skills assessment.

■ Remedial reading and writinginstruction.

■ Conflict resolution skills develop-ment (including instruction on so-cial skills, anger management, andhealthy lifestyles).

■ Computer literacy.

■ Learning skills assessment.

Daytime learning activities frequentlycarry over into the evening and mayalso include counseling and groupinstruction in subjects such as angermanagement, peer pressure re-sponses, and substance abuse resis-tance. A well-founded residential pro-gram seeks both to identify problemsthat may contribute to delinquencyand to initiate coordinated educa-tional responses to these problems.

RecreationRecreation includes such diverse ac-tivities as exercise and sports, con-structive leisure activities for indi-viduals and groups (e.g., crafts, cards,and board games), intellectual activi-ties (e.g., reading, writing, and prob-lem solving), and certain less active

pursuits (e.g, computer games)(Calloway, 1995; Grimm, 1998; Roush,1996c). Active recreational activities(which involve vigorous competitiveand noncompetitive activities) are anessential part of daytime and eveningprogramming (Bell, 1990, 1992, 1996;Soler et al., 1990). The availability ofindoor space for these activities al-lows residents to pursue active exer-cise regardless of weather conditions.Outdoor recreational opportunitiesshould also be available to relieve thestress of constant indoor confinement.For these, practitioners generally fa-vor easily supervised outdoor areasthat are close to housing and indooractivity areas (for easy access) andsuitable for small groups.

VisitationVisitation with family members usu-ally involves scheduled periods forgroup contact visitation,5 supple-mented by prearranged private visitsas appropriate. Most facilities includegroup visiting rooms and privatevisiting rooms (for meetings withfamily and legal counsel) within abuilding’s secure perimeter but out-side its primary residential areas.Some program operators opposebringing visitors into any residentialareas, given the possible disruption ofprogramming for juveniles receivingvisitors, the need to control contra-band, and other safety concerns.Some facilities also have a limitednumber of noncontact visiting roomsto be used in the rare circumstancewhen potential harm to residents orvisitors is anticipated.

Health careMost juvenile facilities’ medicalservices include medical screening,regular examinations, sick call, anddistribution of medications (Morris,Anderson, and Baker, 1996; National

5 During contact visitation, a detained individual andhis or her visitor(s) are in the same area; in noncontactvisits, they are separated by safety glass.

14

Commission on Correctional HealthCare, 1999; Owens, 1994). Becausethey require round-the-clock medicalstaffing, infirmaries are provided inonly the largest facilities. Emergencymedical services and ongoing medi-cal supervision are usually providedas needed at designated offsite loca-tions, except in the largest facilities.

Because of the number and diversityof health-related problems experi-enced by juveniles and the prolifera-tion of medications being adminis-tered to juveniles in custody, theavailability of regular care and atten-tion by qualified medical professionalshas become a matter of increasing con-cern for juvenile facilities. The expand-ing scope of medical services neededfor juveniles in secure residential cus-tody has resulted in increased spaceneeds. Many facilities also now in-clude health education for juvenilesas an integral part of their programs.

Site Selection IssuesSite selection is one of the most per-plexing decisions jurisdictions facewhen developing juvenile residentialfacilities. Many projects encounter re-sistance from community memberswho fear that placing a facility neartheir homes will make their neighbor-hoods unsafe and cause property val-ues to plummet. Responses of this na-ture are inevitable when a project isannounced without community inputand participation. Community involve-ment should begin at a project’s earlieststages and should include meetings toprovide background information andpublic hearings to respond to citizenconcerns. Although involving thecommunity will not guarantee afacility’s acceptance, failure to addresslocal concerns publicly and directlywill invite conflict.

Unfortunately, the fear of politicalbacklash or community oppositiontoo often prompts planners to selectremote sites that are incompatiblewith operational needs. From apractical planning perspective, site

selection should focus on identifyinglocations that satisfy a range ofoperational needs, including thefollowing:

■ Public access. The site shouldprovide convenient access to fami-lies, legal counsel, and local agen-cies that will have contact withresidents. It should be easily acces-sible by private vehicle or publictransportation.

■ Adequate land area. The siteshould have sufficient space for afacility’s initial construction needsand possible future expansion. Ad-equate space for a buffer betweenpublic areas and secure residentialareas is also desirable. A site that istoo small may necessitate undesir-able vertical development and cir-culation or may limit outdoor rec-reation capabilities and futureexpansion potential.

■ Proximity to population served.Juvenile facilities should be locatednear the districts from which theirpopulations are drawn. Such prox-imity ensures convenient accessby families. It also helps facilitiesrecruit staff with cultural/ethnicbackgrounds similar to those ofthe residents being confined. Un-fortunately, lower property costsfor land in remote locations some-times lead jurisdictions to selectsites in areas that pose access andstaffing difficulties.

■ Proximity to courts. For facilitiesthat hold youth prior to adjudica-tion, sites should be close to boththe courts and the facilities whereyouth may be placed after adjudi-cation and disposition. Such prox-imity will minimize the time thatstaff and residents need to spendaway from the facility and reducestaffing needs and transportationcosts.

■ Compatibility of adjacent landuses. Site selection should focus onlocations that support the residentialcharacter of intended operations.

Heavily industrialized areas aregenerally inappropriate, as areareas with traffic volumes thatwould threaten effective monitor-ing of a site’s perimeter. Excessivenoise (for example, from transpor-tation or a nearby commercial en-terprise) should also be avoided.

Site selection and land acquisition areoften highly politicized processes andmay ultimately require compromise. Itis difficult to find a site that satisfies allconcerns (Ricci, 1995). Unfortunately,some institutions built in remote areasbecause of economic incentives endup being staffed by underpaid andundertrained individuals who differculturally and racially from the residentpopulation (Butterfield, 1998; Kearns,1998). To avoid such situations, plan-ners should make every effort to iden-tify the characteristics of critical con-cern to operators and address potentialobstacles before the site selection pro-cess is finalized.

Construction CostsAlmost every jurisdiction contemplat-ing the construction of a new juvenilefacility agonizes about the high costsinvolved. Although there are ways ofreducing costs (e.g., through moreefficient systems designs of physicalplants and buildings), jurisdictionscan go only so far in this directionwithout compromising operationalintegrity and environmental quality.The costs of juvenile facilities are es-pecially troubling to funding authori-ties who compare such costs with thesignificantly lower relative costs (on aper resident basis) of adult facilities.This comparison is unfair, however,because juvenile facilities usually re-quire substantially more square foot-age per resident.

At present, juvenile facilities that arehighly durable and include a fullcomplement of education and recre-ation areas and associated administra-tive, admissions, food service, andother support spaces cost an averageof $140 to $160 per square foot for the

15

building itself (McMillen, 1998). Thisamount includes all construction ma-terials, mechanical/electrical systems,security equipment, and hardware.It does not include additional costsfor site work, parking, landscaping,architectural/engineering services, orfurnishings; nor does it allow for anycontingencies during construction (i.e.,changes required because of unfore-seen circumstances). These additionalcosts can increase the cost of facilitydevelopment by 30 to 35 percent(McMillen, 1998). Even higher costsshould be anticipated in locations withhigh construction cost indexes (e.g.,large metropolitan areas).

The cost per bed space is also influ-enced by a facility’s size. Small facilities(25 to 50 beds) require support spacesnot appreciably smaller than those inlarger facilities (50 to 100 beds), whichare able to achieve economies of scale.For this reason, small facilities fre-quently average between 700 and 800square feet per resident, while largerdetention facilities average 600 to 700square feet per resident. Long-termcare facilities frequently provide morespace in support of expanded pro-gramming options.

Using average costs for constructionand development expenses, table 2provides examples that illustrate totalproject costs expected for facilities with40- and 80-bed capacities.

These examples do not by any meansencompass the complete range of de-velopment costs for juvenile facilities.A review of recent juvenile facilityprojects, in fact, reveals that costsvary considerably (above and below)those presented in table 2.

Operational CostsAs high as construction costs may be,they represent only a fraction of thecosts that a jurisdiction developingexpanded detention capacity willhave to bear each year during the lifeof a facility. For example, the authors’experience has shown that staffingexpenses—which account for ap-proximately 80 to 85 percent of an-nual operating expenditures in facili-ties with a direct supervision staffingpattern—require annual expendituresamounting to about 25 to 27 percentof a facility’s total development cost.The percentage is somewhat lowerfor large facilities and somewhathigher for small facilities. Staffing ex-penses include all direct supervision,administration, and program andsupport services staff that most facili-ties require. When other expenses(food, clothing, supplies, utilities,communications, normal mainte-nance, travel, training, and relateditems) are added to staffing expenses,a facility’s total annual operating ex-penditures may approach 30 to 33percent of the total facility develop-

ment cost. To operate a facility, there-fore, jurisdictions must allocate ap-proximately one-third of a building’scost for each year the building re-mains open. (For example, a facilitythat costs $10 million to build willcost approximately $3 million to op-erate each year.)

For a new facility that will be used forat least 30 years, total operating costsover the lifetime of the facility willexceed construction costs by 10 timesor more. Expenditures will actuallybe even higher, because the operatingbudget described above does not in-clude expenses associated with debtservice of initial construction bondsor the cost of the inevitable repair andreplacement of structural and me-chanical systems over the life of abuilding.

A physical design based on staffingefficiency—even if it will involvehigher construction expenditures—isof utmost importance. In the interestof fiscal responsibility, however, juris-dictions should carefully considerlong-term operational costs through-out the planning process. Only byexamining all potential operationalexpenses rigorously will plannersachieve the best possible balance ofphysical design and supervisionneeds. The high cost of secure opera-tions further underscores the impor-tance of seeking cost-effective deten-tion alternatives that reduce residentialcapacity needs while providing nec-essary supervision, management, andsystem flexibility (Moon, Applegate,and Latessa, 1997).

Juvenile FacilityOperations

Fundamental NeedsOJJDP’s Conditions of ConfinementResearch Report (Parent et al., 1994)provides a comprehensive analysisof conditions in juvenile confinementfacilities. In particular, the studymeasured facilities’ conformance to

Table 2: Construction/Development Cost Examples

Cost Factor 40-Bed Capacity 80-Bed Capacity

Total Square Feet/Resident 750 650Cost per Square Foot (1999) $150 $150

Total Construction Cost $4,500,000 $7,800,000

Sitework @ ±9.5% of Construction $427,500 $741,000Furnishings @ ±5.0% of Construction $225,000 $390,000Arch./Eng. Fees @ ±8.5% of Construction $382,500 $663,000Contingency @ ±10.0% of Construction $450,000 $780,000

Total Project Cost $5,985,000 $10,374,000

Total Cost per Resident $149,625 $129,675

Note: The table does not include financing/bond costs or administrative fees.

16

46 assessment criteria that reflectedexisting minimum national and pro-fessional standards in 12 areas:

■ Living space.

■ Health care.

■ Food, clothing, and hygiene.

■ Living accommodations.

■ Security.

■ Control of suicidal behavior.

■ Inspections and emergencypreparedness.

■ Education.

■ Recreation.

■ Treatment services.

■ Access to community.

■ Limits on staff discretion.

The 12 areas were each placed in 1 of 4broad categories (basic needs, orderand safety, programming, and juvenilerights). The study examined eachfacility’s conformance with the 12 areasof conditions of confinement. The per-centage of facilities that conformed toall criteria in any of the 12 areas rangedfrom 25 to 85 percent, underscoring adisparity in practices and a nationalneed for improved operations.

Some special problems—such as sui-cidal behavior, injuries to residents, in-juries to staff, and lawsuits—were at-tributable to isolated events. The studyfound, however, that most operationalproblems were correlated with perva-sive deficiencies in conditions of con-finement. To improve such conditions,the study recommended developingperformance-based standards for juve-nile facilities. Conditions of confine-ment, however, are only one part of thelarger and more complex measure ofjuvenile facilities commonly referred toas “quality of life.” The study’s recom-mendation of performance-based stan-dards resulted from the finding thathigh levels of compliance with policy-based criteria did not necessarily result

in improved conditions of confinement,suggesting the need for improved stan-dards and different ways to evaluatequality of life.

Key Elements for OperationJAIBG Program Purpose Area 1 sug-gests that a new facility’s operationshould be as efficient as possible. Ide-ally, the facility should be a best prac-tices program. The idea of starting aprogram from scratch or building afacility or operation from the groundup appeals to most juvenile justicepractitioners largely because it freesthem from all of the “baggage” ofpast practices. Problems arise, how-ever, when practitioners must con-ceptualize what kind of program theywant (i.e., the principles of runningan institution) and determine how tomake it happen (i.e., the practice ofinstitutional operations or process).

If successful facility operations wereeasy to develop, more model programswould exist. Although a model pro-gram is difficult to develop, there aresufficient resources (knowledge de-rived from lessons learned and tech-nology derived from best practices) toguide the development of exemplaryprograms. This section serves as anoperations guide, setting forth steps totake, knowledge and resources to ac-quire, and people to talk to in order tooperate an effective facility. In particu-lar, it outlines three categories of infor-mation: (1) organizational prerequisites(components that must be in placebefore program development can oc-cur), (2) program principles to guideoperations, and (3) staffing and man-agement principles to guide implemen-tation. The information provided heredoes not include standards by whichto measure or evaluate facility opera-tions. Instead, this section identifieskey elements that should be addressed.If any one of these elements is miss-ing or not fully developed, a facilityadministrator should be prepared toexplain why.

Organizational prerequisitesSafety and security. Safety and secu-rity are fundamental prerequisites ofprogram development. Programscannot grow and evolve unless resi-dents and staff are safe and secure—both physically and emotionally.Physical aspects of safety and secu-rity include a new facility’s designand construction and policies andprocedures that control or preventjuveniles’ access to contraband and/or weapons. Emotional safety and se-curity means that residents and stafffeel safe from fear or harm.

Order and organization. Organiza-tion is the backbone of program de-velopment, the structure upon whicheffective programs are built. Previte(1994) refers to this structure as “TheCode” and identifies three compo-nents: order, tradition, and discipline.

■ Order includes a building’s neat-ness and cleanliness, its adherenceto a daily routine or schedule, anda feeling—among residents andstaff—of knowing what will hap-pen next. To achieve order, an in-stitution must have a clear andcomprehensive policy and proce-dures manual. To develop themanual, facilities should refer tothe series of publications on ACAstandards (American CorrectionalAssociation, 1991a, 1991b, 1991c,1994), the series’ companion works(American Correctional Associa-tion, 1987, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c),chapter 7 of the Desktop Guide toGood Juvenile Detention Practice(Roush, 1996b), and products fromthe OJJDP-sponsored Performance-Based Standards Project managedby the Council of Juvenile Correc-tional Administrators (CJCA).

■ Tradition includes customs, rou-tines, songs, and other activitiesunique to a facility. With a new fa-cility, the possibilities for traditionare endless. Traditions need not belarge or complicated; they may be

17

as simple as serving chocolate milkat meals or celebrating birthdayswith cake and ice cream. The pur-pose of tradition is to generate anidentity within the facility.

■ Discipline, by identifying appropri-ate behaviors and correcting inap-propriate behaviors, is a facility’smethod of building character,pride, and integrity. It involvesteaching a collectively endorsed setof appropriate behaviors and val-ues for staff and residents. Thesebehaviors and values are explainedin greater detail in the discussionof program principles below.

Conditions of confinement. Condi-tions of confinement, a model of orga-nizational structure based on the YouthLaw Center’s C.H.A.P.T.E.R.S. model(Soler et al., 1990), identifies eight areasof institutional operations most likelyto be targets of litigation. NJDA recom-mends that facilities use this model toassess their potential liability beforedeveloping programs. Each area in theC.H.A.P.T.E.R.S. model is identifiedbelow, and sources of information rel-evant to each area are cited.

■ Classification and Admissions. Classi-fication systems are explained indetail in Howell (1997) and OJJDP’sGuide for Implementing the Compre-hensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,and Chronic Juvenile Offenders(Howell, 1995a). Information aboutadmissions appears in AmericanCorrectional Association, 1987,1992c; Christy, 1994; and Roush,1994, 1996c.

■ Medical and Health Care Services.Although the National Commis-sion on Correctional Health Care(NCCHC) (1999) and ACA (1991a,1991b, 1991c) both have standardsthat address medical and healthcareservices, NCCHC’s are more com-prehensive. Additional informa-tion on this topic appears in Mor-ris, Anderson, and Baker (1996)and Owens (1994).

■ Access Issues. These issues concern aconfined juvenile’s right to haveaccess to information and individu-als outside the facility (e.g., throughmail, telephone, visitation, andcommunication with attorneys andthe courts). Bell (1990, 1992, 1996)explains these rights and discussesrelated standards and case law.

■ Programs. ACA standards again pro-vide guidance and direction. Ac-cording to Soler et al. (1990), thecourts’ primary programming inter-ests are recreation and education.Information about recreation isavailable in the Desktop Guide(Roush, 1996b) and Calloway (1995).Developmentally appropriate bestpractices are found in Barrueta-Clement et al. (1984) and Kostelnik,Soderman, and Whiren (1999), andguidance on correctional educationprograms is available in the DesktopGuide (Roush, 1996b); Gemignani(1994); Hodges, Giuliotti, andPorpotage (1994); Leone, Ruther-ford, and Nelson (1991); andWolford and Koebel (1995).

■ Training. See “Training” section inthis Bulletin.

■ Environmental Issues. ACA stan-dards address these issues, whichinclude compliance with State andlocal regulations on health, safety,and sanitation.

■ Confinement and Restraints. Infor-mation appears in the ACA stan-dards, the Desktop Guide (Roush,1996b), Mitchell and Varley (1991),and the NCCHC standards (1999).

■ Safety. The best sources of informa-tion on resident safety are Soler etal. (1990), Hayes (1998), Rowan(1989), Parent et al. (1994), the ACAstandards, and the Desktop Guide.

Staff. Two organizational prerequisitesrelate to staff. First, through a centralpersonnel office or consultation withpersonnel specialists, a new facilityshould develop an effective programfor staff recruitment, selection, reten-

tion, training, and development. Stafftraining and development are ad-dressed in detail later in this Bulletin.

Second, through its policies and proce-dures, a facility must ensure that it hassufficient staff to sustain program-ming. This is a controversial issue, be-cause staffing is the single largest costin a facility’s operational budget andbecause best practices offer no hard-and-fast rules about staffing levels.Staffing levels depend on many fac-tors, including a program’s philoso-phy, the quality of interactions betweenstaff and residents, the education andtraining levels of staff, and the physi-cal plant. Best practices are typicallyassociated with facilities that have asmall number of youth (6–10) underthe direct supervision of any one linestaff member (Roush, 1997).

Density. Density (the number ofpeople per unit of space in a facility) isa significant factor in the effectivenessof an institutional program (Roush,1999). When density creates problemsin a juvenile facility, the institution issaid to be crowded. The best facilitieshave plans, policies, procedures, orstrategies to address crowding (Burrellet al., 1998; Previte, 1997).

Program principlesSuccessful programs have core prin-ciples or assumptions to guide prob-lem solving and decisionmaking.These principles define a program’spurpose and content, articulate whatan institution hopes to accomplish,and specify the operations that itwill use to accomplish its goals. Fre-quently called core values, programprinciples are decisions about thetype of facility required to accomplishprogram goals and the number andtype of staff members needed toimplement the program.

Many different program models ad-dress a wide array of offenders and in-tervention strategies. In completing amaster plan, a jurisdiction identifies thecharacteristics of its juvenile offender

18

population. It then chooses a programmodel best suited to the offender popu-lation. Research into best practices hasrevealed that the following programcomponents are successful in juveniledetention and corrections:

Effective assessment. The better thematch between offender needs andfacility programs and services, thegreater the likelihood of success. Toassess offender needs, a facility mustuse effective needs assessment strate-gies (Agee, 1995; Bell, 1996; Howell,1995b, 1997).

Behavior contracting. The use of be-havior contracts with juvenile offendersis effective, especially when contractsfocus on changing behaviors associatedwith criminal acts (Agee, 1995; Lipsey,1992; Stumphauzer, 1979).

Cognitive programs. Cognitive re-structuring (i.e, changing a juvenile’s“self-talk”) has produced successfuloutcomes for several decades. Adoles-cents, especially juvenile offenders,may have deficits in consequentialthinking and alternative thinking.Their thinking is frequently illogical,and they have trouble changing irra-tional beliefs. Cognitive strategies thataddress these deficits further the goalsof JAIBG by emphasizing accountabil-ity and personal responsibility (Agee,1995; Gibbs et al., 1997; Glick, Stur-geon, and Venator-Santiago, 1998;Lipsey, 1992; Traynelis-Yurek, 1997).

Positive peer cultures. Althoughpositive group dynamics is an impor-tant part of successful programs, theultimate empowerment for youth ishaving the opportunity to solve theirown problems. Researchers haveshown that youth are more motivatedto behave appropriately when otheryouth participate in decisionmakingabout the intervention. They also gaina greater sense of self-worth whenthey are able to help themselves andothers (Brendtro and Ness, 1983;Ferrara, 1992; Vorrath and Brendtro,1984; Wasmund, 1988).

Anger management. With violencebecoming increasingly common inAmerican society, youth in juvenileconfinement facilities are becomingmore comfortable using violence as aproblem-solving strategy. Anger man-agement, however, can be learned,and it is a prerequisite for meaningfuland lasting behavior change amongyouth who have exhibited violentbehavior (American PsychologicalAssociation, 1993; Chinn, 1996;Dobbins and Gatowski, 1996).

Discipline. Discipline, a vital part ofeffective programs, creates character,courage, pride, and integrity. An ines-capable part of every juvenile con-finement facility, discipline also setsthe tone for all other program interven-tions. Effective discipline programs sethigh expectations for youth; employgraduated sanctions; emphasize cor-rective measures; encourage andcelebrate appropriate behaviors,achievements, and accomplishments;and help youth to understand thatdisciplinary procedures are in theirown best interest. Effective disciplineprograms require strong and commit-ted staff members, who must makediscipline part of their own lives—notjust part of their jobs.

Empathy training. Empathy training(one of the BARJ model’s restorativeelements) includes helping juvenilesbecome aware of and empathize withtheir victims. Awareness and empa-thy are necessary precursors to feel-ings of guilt, shame, and remorse.

Social skills training. Most juvenileoffenders lack adequate social skills.Many do not know how to relate topersons outside their family or gang.Experience indicates that social skillsprogramming is an important part ofjuvenile detention and correctionsprograms (Roush, 1998).

Drug and alcohol abuse counseling.Many youth entering juvenile confine-ment facilities are under the influenceof alcohol and/or other drugs or havea history of abusing these substances.

Drug and alcohol counseling pro-grams are therefore important ancil-lary services that can improve the ef-fectiveness of model programs (Agee,1995; Cellini, 1994; Howell, 1997).

Transition and aftercare services.Without transition and aftercare pro-grams, changes occurring within aninstitutional setting are unlikely tohave long-lasting effects. Transitionprograms move youth back into thecommunity gradually. Aftercare in-volves having a specially trained af-tercare worker or probation officerwork with youth in the communityfor an extended period of time (untilthe youth is comfortable being backin the community or has met a spec-ified set of criteria). As the number ofyouth in the juvenile justice systemhas increased, caseloads have becomeso large that aftercare and parole ser-vices officers have insufficient timeto address all of the problems of theyouth on their caseloads. Therefore,many youth’s problems are unad-dressed or neglected; without super-vision, youth often quickly return tolives of drugs and crime (Agee, 1995;Altschuler and Armstrong, 1995;Howell, 1997; Lipsey, 1992).

When using any of the techniquesabove, facilities should explain re-lated expectations clearly to each ju-venile entering the facility. Expecta-tions should be systematic (use amethod to achieve goals); logical(make sense); rigorous (place highexpectations on youth for improvedperformance); and balanced (empha-size strengths while administeringsanctions/punishments).

Staffing and managementprinciplesRecruitment, selection, retention, anddevelopment of good staff membersare strengths of every successful pro-gram. Several organizations and indi-viduals have examined the character-istics of effective juvenile justice staff(Glick, Sturgeon, and Venator-Santiago,

19

1998; Goldstein and Glick, 1987;Previte, 1994; Roush, 1996b). Lists ofattributes compiled by researchershave been fairly similar and includesuch traits as patience, the ability tointeract effectively with other people(i.e., social, communication, and rela-tionship skills), cooperation, respect,empathy, the ability to work as a teamplayer, alertness, physical strength,and optimism.

Once a facility hires good staff mem-bers, it needs to determine whichmanagement principles are linked tobest practice operations. Four prin-ciples are presented below.6

Consistency. Best practice programshave highly consistent managementprinciples. Consistency involves atleast three elements.

■ Rules that provide structure and de-pendability but do not overwhelmyouth. Rules should be clear andunderstandable. They should befew in number and general in na-ture. Realizing that not every mis-behavior can be addressed by a spe-cific rule, best practices programshave rules based on general prin-ciples (e.g., cooperation, respect,and responsibility). Rules and struc-ture are the backbone of emotionaland physical safety and provide thefoundation for discipline and self-control in children (Humphrey,1984). According to Previte (1994),rules are an institution’s way ofsaying “I care” to youth.

■ Rule enforcement that is firm but fair.Because adolescents are often con-cerned with fairness, facilitiesshould enforce rules in a firm andfair manner. While perceptions ofunfairness generate feelings of an-ger and resentment, perceptions offairness generate cooperation and

increased safety. Being firm but fairmeans several things. It means thatrules are enforced uniformly, withno second chances, excuses, orwarnings (unless rules call fora warning). Rules are enforcedmatter-of-factly, without emotionon the part of staff. The staff mem-ber’s role is simply to enforce rules,not to provide a lecture, sermon, orinterrogation about a youth’sknowledge of the rules. Violating arule is a youth’s choice; if the con-sequences for rule violations havebeen clearly specified in advance,the youth also chooses the conse-quence when he or she violates arule. Being fair also means provid-ing procedures for changing oreliminating unreasonable rules.

■ A social order. A facility needs todevelop a social order (i.e., consis-tent rules that govern everyone inthe facility, including staff) (Roush,1984). There will always be twosets of rules—one for staff (includ-ing rules that apply to facility op-eration) and one for residents. Bestpractices programs, however, havecertain rules of conduct that applyto everyone. Such a social orderencourages the development ofrespect and dignity.

Involvement. Involvement meansthat a program includes activity, in-teraction, and staff-resident relation-ships. Regardless of their content, alleffective programs are active—withyouth in the best programs spendingas many as 14 hours each day instructured and supervised activities(American Correctional Association,1991a, 1991c). In addition to beingenjoyable, active programs are physi-cally and mentally challenging. Theyare purposeful, educational, andhelpful (Roush, 1993). They are alsooutlets for youthful energy: youth inactive programs are tired and readyto sleep at the end of the day.

Involvement also requires interactionbetween staff and residents, rangingfrom active supervision of an activity

(residents are within earshot of oronly a few feet away from staff) toactual staff participation in an activity.

The essence of involvement in juve-nile facilities is the relationship be-tween residents and staff. Staff mem-bers should be involved in juveniles’lives in a constructive way. In the bestprograms, staff members have chosentheir jobs primarily because they likeyouth and genuinely want to help.Without compromising a facility’sstructure and order, these staff mem-bers listen to the residents, and, asPrevite (1994) explains, “Listeningcreates hope, and hope is power.”

Emphasis on positive consequences.Successful programs emphasize thepositive (Carrera, 1996). In fact, theyuse positive consequences at leastfour times more often than negativesanctions (Madsen, Becker, and Tho-mas, 1968). Effective programs mustbe both demanding and encouragingand must communicate both positiveand negative messages appropriately,clearly, and without compromise.

To achieve the balance referred to inthe BARJ model, juvenile justice prac-titioners must be open to includingpositive youth development pro-grams, rather than focusing exclu-sively on problems, needs, skill defi-cits, and other “negatives.” Matchingprograms and services to offenderneeds and deficits may be effective;however, as Karen Pittman of the In-ternational Youth Foundation has ob-served, being problem free is not thesame as being fully prepared (1996).A positive approach focusing on thestrengths of youth—rather than onefocusing solely on their problems orneeds—has produced effective out-comes (Brendtro and Ness, 1995;Checkoway and Finn, 1992; Clark,1995, 1996; Leffert et al., 1996; Seita,Mitchell, and Tobin, 1996). Positiveyouth development programs thatcan be used in juvenile confinementfacilities include sports and recreationactivities, camping programs, serviceprograms, mentoring programs,

6 For more information on management principles andother operations issues, jurisdictions should call theOJJDP National Training and Technical Assistance Cen-ter at 800–830–4031. Additional sources of informationon operating a juvenile facility also appear at the end ofthis Bulletin, under “For Further Information.”

20

school-to-work programs, and sup-port for teen parents.

Respect. No management principleswill work without respect. Respectmeans treating juveniles like worth-while human beings, regardless oftheir behavior, appearance, offensehistory, psychological assessment, hy-giene, or volatility. It means refrain-ing from name calling, threats, put-downs, and cursing. According toyouth, respect is the single most im-portant trait of a good staff memberin any type of program. A respectfuland nonjudgmental approach sepa-rates the deed from the doer, allowingstaff to treat youth with respect nomatter how reprehensible the youth’sconduct may be.

Respect leads staff to focus on similari-ties (rather than differences) betweenthemselves and the juveniles undertheir care. For example, when staff ofthe Utah County Juvenile DetentionCenter (Provo, UT) were asked to ex-plain their motivation for workingwith youth in the juvenile justice sys-tem, the majority stated, “These aremy brothers and sisters who are introuble. I am here to help them.”

Juvenile Facility StaffTraining

Fundamental NeedsCiting numerous links between inad-equate staff training and seriousproblems (e.g., suicidal behaviors byresidents), OJJDP’s study on condi-tions of confinement confirmed theneed for additional staff training (Par-ent et al., 1994). Many problems withconditions of confinement occurred infacilities where staff had deficits inspecific knowledge and skill areas.The study also reinforced the beliefthat juvenile institutions should givepriority to improving training for newstaff (given the high levels of staff turn-over) and adding training for all staffin the areas of adolescent health care,education, treatment, access issues,

juveniles’ rights, and limits or con-trols on staff discretion.

OJJDP’s Juvenile Detention TrainingNeeds Assessment (Roush, 1996c) iden-tified factors that heighten the needfor improved training. These factors in-clude uneven levels of preemploymenteducation among staff, high rates ofstaff turnover, lateral shifts in person-nel, increasingly complex needs ofjuvenile offenders, worker liabilityissues, and development of new tech-nologies. According to detention ad-ministrators in Michigan, scarcefunding was the primary problemfacing facilities that wanted to im-prove training (Michigan Juvenile De-tention Association, 1981). More thantwo-thirds of New Jersey detentionfacilities did not even have a trainingbudget in 1990 (Lucas, 1991). Juvenilefacility staff cite scheduling difficul-ties (e.g., interruptions in training be-cause of staffing problems andcrowding) as the major obstacle toimplementing training programs(Brown, 1982; Roush, 1996c).

Staff TrainingEven though juvenile facility staff train-ing has made significant progress overthe past decade, and access to traininginformation, resources, and serviceshas never been better, training remainsone of the highest ranked needs amongline staff. One promising sign thattraining is becoming more widelyavailable is the rapid growth of State-operated training academies: only sixsuch academies existed in 1944, whiletoday more than half of the States op-erate academies.

The recent overall improvement in stafftraining is attributable to three factors.First, knowledge about effective train-ing in general has been applied to ju-venile justice specifically, resulting ina knowledge base and technology thatare specific to juvenile justice systemneeds (National Training and Techni-cal Assistance Center, 1998; Blair et al.,undated; Cellini, 1995; Christy, 1989).Second, professional associations

and organizations—particularly theAmerican Correctional Association(ACA); the Association for Staff Train-ing and Development (ASTD); theJuvenile Justice Trainers Association(JJTA) (a professional organizationdevoted entirely to training); the Na-tional Institute of Corrections (NIC)Academy Division (the training armof the Federal Bureau of Prisons); andthe National Juvenile Detention Asso-ciation (NJDA)—have expanded thenetwork of skilled trainers. Third,OJJDP has provided strong leader-ship and support through its Trainingand Technical Assistance Division.Some of the contributions to trainingmade by ACA, NJDA, JJTA, andOJJDP are described below.

ACAThrough standards that specify anannual minimum number of traininghours for each category of employeeat various periods in his or her em-ployment, ACA has confirmed the im-portance of staff training (AmericanCorrectional Association, 1991a,1991c). With facilities’ accreditationdependent upon compliance withACA training standards, comprehen-sive staff training programs havegained legitimacy, and training fundshave increased. What was once thoughtto be an excessive amount of time fortraining (160 hours for new employeesduring their first year) is now gener-ally accepted as a best practice (Roush,1996c). To sustain this level of training,at least 2 to 4 percent of a facility’s an-nual operations budget should be allo-cated to staff training services. For moreinformation about accredited juvenilejustice facilities, practitioners shouldcontact the ACA Standards and Ac-creditation Division (800–222–5646)and request a list of facilities, contactpersons, and phone numbers.

ACA has also developed useful train-ing materials, including videos andcorrespondence courses. ACA train-ing videos address topics such as fa-cility admissions, suicide prevention,

21

and cultural diversity. Correspondencecourses through ACA address basiccareworker skills, behavior manage-ment, suicide prevention, and super-vision of youthful offenders. Uponsuccessfully completing courses andpassing an examination, an employeereceives a certificate from ACA.

NJDANJDA research (Roush, 1996c) has af-firmed ACA’s training requirements,identified five discrete training catego-ries for juvenile justice employees, anddeveloped learning objectives to supp-lement the training topics identified byACA. Through OJJDP grants, NJDAand JJTA developed and tested two 40-hour training curriculums for line staffin juvenile detention and correctionsfacilities. The curriculums are based onnational training needs assessmentdata (Roush and Jones, 1996), and thelesson plans developed follow theInstructional Theory Into Practice(ITIP) model recommended by NIC.NJDA also has developed a trainingimplementation model intended tostrengthen and expand facilities’ in-house training capabilities (Roush,1996a). Through the use of the TrainingNeeds Assessment Inventory (TNAI)and interchangeable lesson plans, insti-tutions can tailor training interventionsto meet their specific needs.

JJTAWith the development of Guidelines forQuality Training (Blair et al., undated)and OJJDP Training, Technical Assis-tance, and Evaluation Protocols: A Primerfor OJJDP Training and Technical Assis-tance Providers (National Training andTechnical Assistance Center, 1998),JJTA has provided basic informationabout the necessary components of amodel staff training program. Com-posed primarily of staff developmentand training specialists, JJTA providesa national network of information ontraining services and technical assis-tance for juvenile justice trainers.

NIC has also developed a 27-steptraining implementation strategy.Combined with Training, TechnicalAssistance, and Evaluation Protocols: APrimer for OJJDP Training and TechnicalAssistance Providers, this strategyprovides sufficient knowledge to gen-erate a comprehensive staff trainingprogram. Facilities can secure infor-mation on the entire network of re-sources available by referring to theTraining and Technical Assistance Re-source Catalog, updated and publishedannually by the National Trainingand Technical Assistance Center, orby calling the center at 800–830–4031.

OJJDPIn 1990, OJJDP entered into an inter-agency agreement with the NIC Acad-emy Division to provide leadershipdevelopment programs for juveniledetention and corrections personnel.Under the agreement, NIC offers cor-rectional leadership development(CLD) programs for new chief execu-tive officers, managers, and supervi-sors. OJJDP produced a video on lead-ership in juvenile justice based onNIC’s leadership development cur-riculum. NIC’s training-for-trainersworkshop, which uses the ITIP model,is rated by juvenile justice practition-ers as one of the best programs fordeveloping foundation skills for train-ers. OJJDP also provides technical as-sistance resources for line staff trainingthrough NJDA’s Center for Researchand Professional Development (517–432–1242) and for management stafftraining through the NIC AcademyDivision (800–995–6429).

Six Major Steps toImplementationSeveral important steps must be com-pleted to construct a model staff train-ing program. As in the master plan-ning process, a facility should beginby articulating vision and missionstatements. The subsequent steps aredescribed below.

Step 1: Conduct a training needsassessmentA facility should first conduct a train-ing needs assessment to identify gapsbetween the knowledge, skills, andabilities needed to perform jobs effec-tively and the knowledge, skills, andabilities currently possessed by staffmembers. The larger the gap, thegreater the training need. Assessmentinstruments and procedures can beused to collect this information, andjuvenile justice trainers are availableto conduct needs assessments foragencies and organizations.

Step 2: Develop a formaltraining planBased on information revealed by itsneeds assessment, a facility should for-malize its training strategy. This strat-egy generally takes the form of train-ing policies and procedures in whichthe facility identifies who the trainerswill be, what types of training will beoffered, which staff members will betrained, and how many hours of train-ing are to be provided annually foreach position. Training policies andprocedures should also establish mini-mum training requirements for staff atdifferent levels and identify any ad-ministrative, professional, and/orstatutory standards or requirementsthat the facility will meet.

Step 3: Adopt, adapt, or developa core curriculumBased on the training needs identifiedand the training plan developed, a fa-cility should adopt, adapt, or developa core curriculum as its primary train-ing vehicle. Several curriculums areavailable, including three developedby OJJDP grants: the National De-tention Careworker Curriculum, theJuvenile Corrections Careworker Cur-riculum, and the National TrainingCurriculum for Educators in JuvenileConfinement Facilities. To obtain cop-ies of these curriculums, practitionersshould contact NJDA, listed in the“For Further Information” section.

22

Step 4: Adopt an action strategyA facility should next adopt an actionstrategy for delivering trainingservices. As discussed above, a major-ity of States have training academiesresponsible for training all personnelin State-operated juvenile correctionaland detention facilities. Facilities notcovered by a State training academyare responsible for devising their owntraining delivery strategies.

Responding to the need for a trainingdelivery strategy for locally operatedjuvenile facilities and facilities in Stateswithout training academies, NJDA de-veloped and tested a training imple-mentation strategy. NJDA’s strategyincludes developing vision and missionstatements, conducting a trainingneeds assessment, developing a formaltraining plan, and selecting a trainingcurriculum. NJDA’s strategy also ad-dresses identification of key staff mem-bers (middle managers, shift supervi-sors, and lead workers) to serve as stafftrainers. After completing a basic train-ing curriculum in a separate trainingworkshop, these key staff members aredivided into two groups: trainers andmentors. Trainers complete a 40-hourprogram on building training founda-tion skills using the NIC model. Men-tors (those key staff who do not wantor should not have staff training re-sponsibilities) receive training onmentoring so that they can help guidenew employees through the trainingprocess. The NJDA strategy has provensuccessful in strengthening in-housetraining capabilities.

Step 5: Schedule trainingThe next major step is to scheduletraining, a task that is extremely diffi-cult when a facility lacks sufficientresources to provide coverage for staffmembers attending training. TheNJDA makes scheduling easier byexpanding the cadre of in-house stafftrainers.

Several scheduling strategies havebeen successful. The Cook County

Temporary Juvenile Detention Center(Chicago, IL), for example, has a full-time training staff devoted to organiz-ing and delivering training servicesthat meet ACA standards. To improveongoing training efforts, particularlyin-service training, at the BexarCounty Juvenile Detention Center(San Antonio, TX), Kossman (1990)implemented an innovative, four-shiftstaffing pattern. Instead of the routinethree-shift (a.m., p.m., and night)scheduling assignments, he added afourth shift as a replacement for thoseshifts attending staff training. Usingthe four-shift pattern, Kossman re-ported reductions in overtime costsand a greater commitment to training.

Step 6: Evaluate trainingAs a final step, facilities should evalu-ate training. Evaluations should in-clude trainees’ reactions and sugges-tions for improvement and plans orcommitments to implement traininglessons in daily practice. Facilitiesshould conduct evaluations on an on-going basis to determine whetherstaff behavior and institutional prac-tices have changed as a result oftraining and whether the direction ofany change is compatible with thegoals of training. Results of evalua-tion efforts also provide informationabout the nature and extent of afacility’s training needs. This infor-mation, in turn, becomes data fortraining needs assessment. The pro-cess has now come full circle, withevaluation data guiding future train-ing needs assessment, annual revi-sions and modifications to the train-ing plan, and updates to a facility’straining curriculum.

ConclusionEven though extensive literature onjuvenile justice exists, best practices aredifficult to define (Elliot, 1998). Thepurpose of this Bulletin is not to pre-scribe a specific best practice. Rather, itseeks to identify resources (especiallyknowledge, principles, and people)

that can inform practitioners, policy-makers, and the public in their quest todevelop and implement best practicesin the areas of juvenile facility construc-tion, operations, and staff training. Thisis really a search for “best knowledge”;once this knowledge is located, bestpractice is not far behind.

It is often easier to ascertain bestpractices in the area of constructionbecause the physical structures thatresult are available for a wide array ofexamination and analysis. This is notalways the case when searching forbest practices in the areas of opera-tions and staff training. In these areas,the search for models and examplesof best practice is most productivewhen it begins with people—as op-posed to places. Best practice is foundthrough best practitioners.

There has never been a better time toacquire knowledge from practition-ers. The expansion of juvenile justicehas brought many new and talentedpeople into the field. Communicationtechnologies are also better than ever.Professional organizations (includingthe Alliance for Juvenile Justice, theAmerican Correctional Association,the American Probation and ParoleAssociation, the Council of JuvenileCorrections Administrators, the Juve-nile Justice Trainers Association, theNational Association of JuvenileCorrectional Agencies, the NationalCouncil of Juvenile and Family CourtJudges, the National Council onCrime and Delinquency, the NationalJuvenile Court Services Association,and the National Juvenile DetentionAssociation) offer access to abundantinformation, resources, and personalcontacts. The excuses for not knowingare rapidly disappearing.

ReferencesAgee, V.M. 1995. Managing clinicalprograms for juvenile delinquents. InManaging Delinquency Programs ThatWork, edited by B. Glick and A.P.Goldstein. Laurel, MD: AmericanCorrectional Association.

23

Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L.1995. Managing aftercare services fordelinquents. In Managing DelinquencyPrograms That Work, edited by B.Glick and A.P. Goldstein. Laurel, MD:American Correctional Association.

American Correctional Association.1987. Admissions in Juvenile Detention:The Critical Hour. Videotape. Wash-ington, DC: Capitol CommunicationSystems, Inc.

American Correctional Association.1991a. Standards for Juvenile DetentionFacilities, 3d ed. Laurel, MD: Ameri-can Correctional Association.

American Correctional Association.1991b. Standards for Juvenile TrainingSchools, 3d ed. Laurel, MD: AmericanCorrectional Association.

American Correctional Association.1991c. Standards for Small Juvenile De-tention Facilities. Laurel, MD: Ameri-can Correctional Association.

American Correctional Association.1992a. Guidelines for the Development ofPolicies and Procedures: Juvenile Deten-tion Facilities. Laurel, MD: AmericanCorrectional Association.

American Correctional Association.1992b. Handbook on Facility Planningand Design for Juvenile Corrections.Laurel, MD: American CorrectionalAssociation.

American Correctional Association.1992c. Juvenile Careworker ResourceGuide. Laurel, MD: American Correc-tional Association.

American Correctional Association.1994. 1994 Standards Supplement.Laurel, MD: American CorrectionalAssociation.

American Psychological AssociationCommission on Violence and Youth.1993. Violence and Youth: Psychology’sResponse. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Barrueta-Clement, J.R., Schweinhart,L.J., Barnett, W.S., Epstein, A., andWeikart, D. 1984. Changed Lives: The

Effects of the Perry Preschool Program onYouth Through Age 19. Ypsilanti, MI:High/Scope Educational ResearchFoundation.

Barton, W.H. 1994. Implementing de-tention policy changes. In ReformingJuvenile Detention: No More HiddenClosets, edited by I.M. Schwartz andW.H. Barton. Columbus, OH: OhioState University Press.

Bell, J.R. 1990. Litigation in juvenilejustice: A tool for advancement. Cor-rections Today (August):22–23, 26, 28.

Bell, J.R. 1992. Rights and responsi-bilities of juveniles. In Juvenile Care-worker Resource Guide. Laurel, MD:American Correctional Association.

Bell, J.R. 1996. Rights and responsi-bilities of staff and youth. In DesktopGuide to Good Juvenile Detention Prac-tice, edited by D.W. Roush. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Bell, J.R. 1998. National perspectiveson juvenile justice. Keynote addressto the American Institute of Architec-ture Conference.

Bilchik, S. 1998. A Juvenile Justice Sys-tem for the 21st Century. Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Blair, J., Collins, B., Gurnell, B.,Satterfield, F., Smith, M.G., Yeres, S.,and Zuercher, R. Undated. Guidelinesfor Quality Training. Ithaca, NY: Juve-nile Justice Trainers Association.

Boersema, C. 1998. Strategic planningas a means to address detention over-crowding. Journal for Juvenile Justiceand Detention Services 13(Spring):20–31.

Boersema, C., Dunlap, E., Gulley, J.,and Roush, D.W. 1997. Juvenile JusticeSystem Master Plan for Detention Ser-vices: Final Report. Richmond, KY: Na-tional Juvenile Detention Association.

Brendtro, L.K., and Ness, A.E. 1983.Re-educating Troubled Youth: Environ-ments for Teaching and Treatment. NewYork, NY: Aldine Publishing.

Brendtro, L.K., and Ness, A.E. 1995.Fixing flaws or building strengths?Reclaiming Children and Youth 4:2–7.

Brown, M., Jr. 1982. Training officersin juvenile detention. Corrections To-day (June):14–16, 18.

Burrell, S., DeMuro, P., Dunlap, E.,Sanniti, C., and Warboys, L. 1998.Crowding in Juvenile Detention Centers: AProblem-Solving Manual. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Butterfield, F. 1998. Hard times: Prof-its at a juvenile prison come with achilling cost. The New York Times onthe Web (July 15):1–17.

Calloway, J. 1995. Managing recre-ation and leisure for juvenile delin-quents. In Managing Delinquency Pro-grams That Work, edited by B. Glickand A.P. Goldstein. Laurel, MD:American Correctional Association.

Carrera, M.A. 1996. Lessons for Life-guards: Working with Teens When theTopic Is Hope. NewYork, NY: DonkeyPress.

Cavanagh, M.F. 1995. Remarks. Jour-nal for Juvenile Justice and DetentionServices 10(Fall):37–40.

Cellini, H.R. 1994. Management andtreatment of institutionalized violentjuveniles. Corrections Today (July):98,100–102.

Cellini, H.R. 1995. Training programsand staff development. In ManagingDelinquency Programs That Work, ed-ited by B. Glick and A.P. Goldstein.Laurel, MD: American CorrectionalAssociation.

Checkoway, B., and Finn, J. 1992.Young People as Community Builders.Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study ofYouth Policy, University of Michigan.

24

Chinn, K.L. 1996. National trends injuvenile violence. Corrections Today(July):70, 72–73.

Christy, J.T. 1989. A curriculum fortraining juvenile detention staff. Jour-nal for Juvenile Justice and DetentionServices 4(Winter):23–29.

Christy, J.T. 1994. Toward a model se-cure detention program: Lessonsfrom Shuman Center. In ReformingJuvenile Detention: No More HiddenClosets, edited by I.M. Schwartz andW. Barton. Columbus, OH: Ohio StateUniversity Press.

Clark, M.D. 1995. The problem withproblem solving: A critical review.Journal for Juvenile Justice and Deten-tion Services 10(Spring):30–35.

Clark, M.D. 1996. Solution-focusedinterviewing: A strength-basedmethod for juvenile justice. Journal forJuvenile Justice and Detention Services11(Spring):33–38.

Cocozza, J.J., ed. 1992. Responding tothe Mental Health Needs of Youth in theJuvenile Justice System. Seattle, WA:National Coalition for the Mentally Illin the Criminal Justice System.

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention.1996. Combating Violence and Delin-quency: The National Juvenile JusticeAction Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

DeMuro, P. 1997. Overcrowding injuvenile detention: Some concretesuggestions. Texas Probation12(July):11–17.

DeMuro, P., and Dunlap, E.L. 1998. Areasonable alternative to locking upmore kids: The development of juris-dictional core groups. Journal for Juve-nile Justice and Detention Services13(Spring):3–19.

DeWitt, C.B. 1987. Building on Experi-ence: A Case Study of Advanced Con-struction and Financing Methods forCorrections. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Jus-tice Programs, National Institute ofCorrections.

Dobbins, S.A., and Gatowski, S.I.1996. A Guide to Research on JuvenileViolence. Reno, NV: State Judicial In-stitute and the National Council ofJuvenile and Family Court Judges.

Dugan, R.J. 1998. A juvenile detentionfacility that works. In Best Practices:Excellence in Corrections, edited by E.Rhine. Lanham, MD: American Cor-rectional Association.

Dunlap, E.L., and Roush, D.W. 1995.Juvenile detention as process andplace. Juvenile and Family Court Jour-nal 46(Spring):3–16.

Elias, G.L., and Ricci, K. 1997. Womanin Jail: Facility Planning Issues. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, Office of Justice Programs, Na-tional Institute of Corrections.

Elliot, D.E. 1998. What makes a “bestpractice”? In Proceedings of the 1998Governor’s Juvenile Justice Summit.Columbus, OH: Office of CriminalJustice Services.

Farbstein, J., Liebert, D., andSigurdson, H. 1996. Audits of PodularDirect-Supervision Jails. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, National Insti-tute of Corrections.

Farbstein/Williams and Associates.1981. Corrections Planning Handbooks.Sacramento, CA: California Board ofCorrections, Youth and Adult Correc-tional Agency.

Ferrara, M.L. 1992. Group Counselingwith Juvenile Delinquents: The Limit andLead Approach. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.

Gemignani, R.J. 1994. Juvenile Correc-tional Education: A Time for Change.OJJDP Update on Research. Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Gibbs, J., Potter, B., Goldstein, A., andBrendtro, L. 1997. Equipping youth tothink and act constructively. Reclaim-ing Children and Youth: Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Problems6(Summer):120–127.

Glick, B., and Goldstein, A.P., eds.1995. Managing Delinquency ProgramsThat Work. Laurel, MD: AmericanCorrectional Association.

Glick, B., Sturgeon, W., and Venator-Santiago, C.R. 1998. No Time to Play:Youthful Offenders in Adult CorrectionalSystems. Lanham, MD: American Cor-rectional Association.

Goldstein, A.P., and Glick, B. 1987.Aggression Replacement Training: AComprehensive Intervention for Aggres-sive Youth. Champaign, IL: ResearchPress.

Grimm, R. 1998. Is there life after bas-ketball? Presentation to the 18th An-nual Governor’s Conference on Juve-nile Justice, New Orleans, LA.

Guarino-Ghezzi, S., and Loughran, E.J.1996. Balancing Juvenile Justice. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Hayes, L.M. 1998. Suicide preventionin correctional facilities: An overview.In Clinical Practice in CorrectionalMedicine, edited by M. Puisis. St.Louis, MO: Mosby.

Henggeler, S.W. 1998. Treating SeriousAnti-Social Behavior in Youth: The MSTApproach. Bulletin. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hodges, J., Giuliotti, N., andPorpotage, F.M., II. 1994. ImprovingLiteracy Skills of Juvenile Detainees.Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C., ed. 1995a. Guide forImplementing the Comprehensive Strat-egy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Ju-venile Offenders. Summary. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

25

Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Howell, J.C. 1995b. A national per-spective. In Managing Delinquency Pro-grams That Work, edited by B. Glickand A.P. Goldstein. Laurel, MD:American Correctional Association.

Howell, J.C. 1997. Juvenile Justice andYouth Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.

Howell, J.C., Krisberg, B., Hawkins,J.D., and Wilson, J.J., eds. 1995. Seri-ous, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Of-fenders: A Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Humphrey, L.L. 1984. Children’s self-control in relation to perceived socialenvironment. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 46:178–188.

Jones, M.A., and Krisberg, B. 1994.Images and Reality: Juvenile Crime,Youth Violence, and Public Policy. SanFrancisco, CA: National Council onCrime and Delinquency.

Jones, M.A., and Steinhart, D. 1994.Assessing the need for secure deten-tion: A planning approach. NCCD Fo-cus (August):1–7.

Kearns, R. 1998. No profit for kids inGlen Mills’ Florida plunge. Youth To-day 7(June):1, 37–38.

Kimme, D.A., Bowker, G., Deichman,R., Bounds, B., Reisteck, C., andFarbstein, J. 1988. Small Jail DesignGuide: A Planning and Design Resourcefor Local Facilities of Up to 50 Beds.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs,National Institute of Corrections.

Kossman, S.P. 1990. Staffing patterndynamics: A new approach to oldproblems. Journal for Juvenile Justiceand Detention Services 5(Fall):9–12.

Kostelnik, M.J., Soderman, A.K., andWhiren, A.P. 1999. Developmentally Ap-propriate Curriculum: Best Practices inEarly Childhood Education. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Leffert, N., Saito, R.N., Blyth, D.A.,and Kroenke, C.H. 1996. Making theCase: Measuring the Impact of Youth De-velopment Programs. Minneapolis,MN: The Search Institute.

Leone, P.E., Rutherford, R.B., andNelson, C.M. 1991. Special Educationin Juvenile Corrections. Reston, VA:Council for Exceptional Children.

Lipsey, M.W. 1992. Juvenile delin-quency treatment: A meta-analyticinquiry into the variability of effects.In Meta-Analysis for Explanation: ACasebook, edited by T.D. Cook, H.Cooper, and D.S. Cordray. New York,NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lucas, C. 1991. Juvenile Detention StaffDevelopment Initiative: Survey of Train-ing Resources. Trenton, NJ: New JerseyDepartment of Corrections.

Madsen. C.H., Becker, W.C., and Tho-mas, D.R. 1968. Rules, praise, and ig-noring: Elements of elementary class-room control. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis 1:139–150.

McMillen, M. 1998. Planning juveniledetention facilities: The real costs.Journal for Juvenile Justice and Deten-tion Services 13(Spring):49–57.

McMillen, M., and Hill, J.R. 1997.Jadults and adulniles. Corrections To-day (April):100–101, 102–104.

Michigan Juvenile Detention Associa-tion. 1981. Child Care Staff Training: TwoUnresolved Issues. Marshall, MI: Michi-gan Juvenile Detention Association.

Mitchell, J., and Varley, C. 1991. Isola-tion and restraint in juvenile correc-tional facilities. Journal for Juvenile Jus-tice and Detention Services 6(Fall):31–37.

Moon, M.M., Applegate, B.K., andLatessa, E.J. 1997. RECLAIM Ohio: Apolitically viable alternative to treat-ing youthful felony offenders. Crime& Delinquency 43(October):438–456.

Morris, R., Anderson, M., and Baker,C. 1996. Health care for incarceratedadolescents. In Desktop Guide to GoodJuvenile Detention Practice, edited by

D.W. Roush. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Jus-tice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention.

National Clearinghouse for CriminalJustice Planning and Architecture. 1996.Criminal justice planning process: Atotal systems model. Planning of NewInstitutions Workshops. Longmont, CO:National Institute of Corrections.

National Commission on CorrectionalHealth Care. 1999. Standards for HealthServices in Juvenile Detention and Con-finement Facilities. Chicago, IL: Na-tional Commission on CorrectionalHealth Care.

National Commission on CorrectionalHealth Care. 1998. Health services toadolescents in adult correctional facili-ties: Position statement. Journal of Cor-rectional Health Care 5(Spring):113–117.

National Training and Technical As-sistance Center. 1998. OJJDP Trainingand Technical Assistance Protocols: APrimer for OJJDP Training and TechnicalAssistance Providers. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Nelson, W.R. 1993. New generationjails. In Podular Direct Supervision Jails.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Correc-tions, Jails Division.

Nelson, W.R., O’Toole, M., Krauth, B.,and Whitmore, C.G. 1984. Direct Su-pervision Models. Boulder, CO: Na-tional Institute of Corrections Infor-mation Center.

Niedringhous, R.T., and Goedert, P.1998. New rules in juvenile justicedesign. Corrections Today (February):58–60.

Norman, S., ed. 1961. Standards andGuides for the Detention of Children andYouth, 2d ed. New York, NY: NationalCouncil on Crime and Delinquency.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention. 1998. 1997 Reportto Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for

26

Local Delinquency Prevention Programs.Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Otto, R.K., Greenstein, J.J., Johnson,M.K., and Friedman, R.M. 1992. Preva-lence of mental disorders amongyouth in the juvenile justice system. InResponding to the Mental Health Needs ofYouth in the Juvenile Justice System, ed-ited by J.J. Cocozza. Seattle, WA: Na-tional Coalition for the Mentally Ill inthe Criminal Justice System.

Owens, J. 1994. Juvenile health care incorrectional facilities: A public healthopportunity. New York Health ServicesJournal 1(Spring):55–66.

Parent, D., Leiter, V., Kennedy, S., Liv-ens, L., Wentworth, D., and Wilcox, S.1994. Conditions of Confinement: Juve-nile Detention and Corrections Facilities.Research Report. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Pittman, K.J. 1996. Community,youth, development: Three goals insearch of connection. New Designs forYouth Development (Winter).

Previte, M.T. 1994. Hungry Ghosts:One Woman’s Mission to Change TheirWorld. Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House.

Previte, M.T. 1997. Preventing secu-rity crises at youth centers. CorrectionsToday (February):76–79.

Puritz, P., and Scali, M.A. 1998. Beyondthe Walls: Improving Conditions of Con-finement for Youth in Custody. Report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Ricci, K. 1995. What county commis-sioners can do about overcrowding intheir jails. The Prison Journal 61:1–3.

Roush, D.W. 1984. Contributions tothe therapeutic milieu: Integrating

key theoretical constructs. Child CareQuarterly 13:233–250.

Roush, D.W. 1993. Juvenile detentionprogramming. Federal Probation57(September):20–33.

Roush, D.W. 1994. Admission to juve-nile detention. Journal for Juvenile Jus-tice and Detention Services 9(Fall):32–39.

Roush, D.W. 1996a. A comprehensivestrategy for implementing the NJDAcareworker training curriculum.JERITT Bulletin 7(2):1–4.

Roush, D.W., ed. 1996b. Desktop Guideto Good Juvenile Detention Practice.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Roush, D.W. 1996c. Juvenile DetentionTraining Needs Assessment. Report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Roush, D.W. 1997. Staffing patterns injuvenile detention facilities. Journal forJuvenile Justice and Detention Services12(Fall):87–94.

Roush, D.W. 1998. The importance ofcomprehensive skills-based programsin juvenile detention and corrections.In Juvenile Justice: Policies, Programsand Services, 2d ed., edited by A.R.Roberts. New York, NY: Nelson-HallPublishing Company.

Roush, D.W. 1999. Crowding and itseffects. In Juvenile Detention Centers:Applied Resources Manual, edited byD.W. Roush. Richmond, KY: NationalJuvenile Detention Association.

Roush, D.W., and Jones, M.A. 1996.Juvenile detention training: A statusreport. Federal Probation 60(June):54–60.

Rowan, J.R. 1989. Suicide detectionand prevention: A must for juvenilefacilities. Corrections Today(August):218, 219, 226–227.

Rubenstein, F.D. 1991. A facility-wideapproach to social skills training.

Journal of Correctional Education42(June):88–93.

Schwartz, I.M. 1994. What policymakersneed to know about juvenile deten-tion reform. In Reforming Juvenile De-tention: No More Hidden Closets, editedby I.M. Schwartz and W.H. Barton.Columbus, OH: Ohio State UniversityPress.

Seita, J., Mitchell, M., and Tobin, C.1996. In Whose Best Interest? OneChild’s Odyssey, a Nation’s Responsibil-ity. Elizabethtown, NJ: ContinentalPress.

Soler, M.I., Shotton, A., Bell, J.,Jameson, E., Shauffer, C., andWarboys, L. 1990. Representing theChild Client. New York, NY: MatthewBender.

Steenson, D., and Thomas, D. 1997.Managing change through strategicplanning. In Juvenile Probation Admin-istrators’ Desktop Guide, edited by D.Thomas and P. Torbet. Pittsburgh, PA:National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Stumphauzer, J.S., ed. 1979. Progressin Behavior Therapy with Delinquents.Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas,Publisher.

Taylor, J., Gottheil, D., Kimme, D.,Bishop, K., and Maase, D. 1996. Sevensteps to plan a better jail. In Planningof New Institutions Workshops.Longmont, CO: National Institute ofCorrections.

Traynelis-Yurek, E. 1997. Thinkingclearly through positive peer culture.Reclaiming Children and Youth: Journalof Emotional and Behavioral Problems6(Summer):87–89.

Treahy, J. 1995. Detention services forjuveniles. In Managing DelinquencyPrograms That Work, edited by B.Glick and A.P. Goldstein. Laurel, MD:American Correctional Association.

Voorhis, D.J. 1996. The seven stum-bling blocks to effective jail planning.In Planning of New Institutions Work-shops. Longmont, CO: National Insti-tute of Corrections.

27

Vorrath, H., and Brendtro, L. 1984.Positive peer culture, 2d ed. New York,NY: Aldine Publishing.

Wasmund, W.C. 1988. The social cli-mates of peer group and other resi-dential programs. Child & Youth CareQuarterly 17(Fall):146–155.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993.Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Wolford, B.I., and Koebel, L.L. 1995.Reform education to reduce juveniledelinquency. Criminal Justice(Winter):2–6, 54–56.

Wright, K.N., and Goodstein, L. 1989.Correctional environments. In TheAmerican Prison: Issues in Research andPolicy, edited by L. Goodstein andD.L. MacKenzie. New York, NY:Plenum Press.

For Further InformationThe following sources of informationmay be helpful before beginning thesearch for best knowledge and bestpractices relating to juvenile facilityoperations:

■ American Correctional Associa-tion (800–222–5646) has assembledand published information on avariety of best practices.

■ American Institute of Architects(202–626–7300), through its library,archives, and online services, is thepreeminent source of informationin the United States on the practiceand profession of architecture.

■ The Juvenile Justice Clearing-house (JJC) (800–638–8736) sup-plies information to the fieldthrough the dissemination of pub-lications, monographs, and re-ports. Clearinghouse staff providesome research services. Informa-tion relevant to best knowledge

and practices includes OJJDP pub-lications describing its Gould/Wysinger Award recipients.

■ The National Council of Juvenileand Family Court Judges (702–784–6012) has developed curricu-lum materials that explain manybest practices concepts.

■ The National Criminal JusticeReference Service (NCJRS) (800–851–3420) will conduct a computersearch of relevant criminal and ju-venile justice literature.

■ The National Institute of Correc-tions Academy Division (800–995–6429) develops curriculummaterials that explain many bestpractices concepts.

■ The National Juvenile DetentionAssociation (517–432–1242) hascollected information on innova-tive programs and services for ju-venile detention.

■ OJJDP’s National Training andTechnical Assistance Center(NTTAC) (800–830–4031) has infor-mation on individuals, agencies,associations, and grant recipientsthat address best practices inoperations.

■ OJJDP’s JAIBG Technical Assis-tance Development ServicesGroup (877–GO–JAIBG) providesand coordinates technical assistancewithin the 12 JAIBG purpose areas.

Useful Publications

The following guides, handbooks,and manuals provide valuableinformation on the constructionand operation of juvenile detentionand corrections facilities:

■ Best Practices: Excellence in Correc-tions, a 1998 compilation of bestpractices, edited by E. Rhine andpublished by the AmericanCorrectional Association.

■ Conflict Resolution Education: AGuide to Implementing Programs inSchools, Youth-Serving Organiza-tions, and Community and JuvenileJustice Settings, a 1996 guidebookedited by D. Crawford and R.Bodine and published by OJJDP.

■ A Directory of Programs That Work,a 1996 directory compiled by theAmerican Correctional Associa-tion and published in the August1996 issue of Corrections.

■ Effective and Innovative Programs:Resource Manual, a 1994 manualdeveloped by the National

Juvenile Detention Associationand edited by D. Roush and T.Wyss.

■ OJJDP Training and TechnicalAssistance Protocols: A Primer forOJJDP Training and TechnicalAssistance, a 1998 collection ofprotocols compiled by theNational Training and TechnicalAssistance Center and pub-lished by OJJDP.

■ Training and Technical AssistanceResource Catalog, a 1997catalog of resources compiledby the National Training andTechnical Assistance Centerand published by OJJDP.

■ What Works: Promising Interven-tions in Juvenile Justice, a 1994manual published by OJJDPand edited by I. Montgomery,P.M. Torbet, D.A. Malloy, L.P.Adamcik, M.J. Toner, and J.Andrews.

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 178928

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

AcknowledgmentsThis Bulletin was written by DavidRoush, Ph.D., and Michael McMillen,AIA. David Roush has provided leader-ship in institutional programs and ser-vices for juveniles and staff since 1971.He is currently an assistant professorin the School of Criminal Justice atMichigan State University and Directorof the National Juvenile DetentionAssociation’s Center for Research andProfessional Development. MikeMcMillen, Champaign, IL, has specializedin the design and planning of juvenilejustice facilities for more than 23 years.In addition to providing operationsanalysis, architectural programming, andfacility design services for youth-relatedprojects nationwide, he has developedand currently teaches seminars onoperational and architectural program-ming for the National Institute of Cor-rections’ Planning of New Institutionsfor Juveniles (PONI) training program.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and donot necessarily represent the official positionor policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Departmentof Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureauof Justice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Share With Your ColleaguesUnless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected.We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your col-leagues, and reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint,please cite OJJDP and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested inyour feedback, such as how you received a copy, how you intend to use theinformation, and how OJJDP materials meet your individual or agencyneeds. Please direct your comments and questions to:

Juvenile Justice ClearinghousePublication Reprint/FeedbackP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000800–638–8736301–519–5212 (fax)E-Mail: [email protected]

construction, operations, and staff training for juvenile ... · construction, operations, and...

Documents