JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES:

Summary Report of a National Survey

Nicholas A. Reuterman, Thomas R. Hughes,

and Mary J. Love

t he first detention facility for juveniles developed as a direct outgrowth of the establishment of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois. This first detention home consisted of an old house which was converted into a more or less suitable detention facility by the Illinois Industrial Association (Jordan, 1968). From this humble beginning, the field of juvenile detention has grown over the past seventy years so that today there are over three hundred detention homes in this country, employing several thousands of persons, and handling many thousands of juveniles.' This

AUTHORS' NOTE: The survey wcls supported by Grant 67227fiom the Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, Social and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Health, Education, and Welfae.

NICHOLAS A. REUTERMAN is an Assistant Professor in the Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections and in the Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois. THOMAS R. HUGHES is an Instructor and Program Coordinator for Detention Home Training, Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois.

MARY J. LOVE is a graduate student in psychology and a Graduate Assistant at the Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois.

[41 CRIMINOLOGY /MAY 1971

growth has by no means been free of problems and difficulties, many of which are still common in the con- temporary detention situation (Jordan, 1968).

Detention appears to have become a permanent aspect of our society’s system for responding to juvenile law violators. Yet in terms of prestige (and the accompanying support and concern), juvenile detention occupies an unenviable position. The detention home generally is considered the “black sheep” in the family of juvenile delinquent-serving agencies. Juvenile judges often misuse detention; juvenile probation departments quite often regard the detention home as simply a “proving ground” for persons they may later employ; many of the other community agencies see detention as a perhaps unnecessary evil; the general public is often misinformed concerning the purpose and function of detention-that is, if it possesses any information at all. The overall result of this inauspicious situation is that the detention home is fre- quently ignored, more frequently criticized, and generally deprived of the support and assistance available to its sister agencies.

There are, however, some tentative indications that the situation may be beginning to improve. There are a number of isolated incidents where the juvenile court judge has taken an active part in determining the detention home program, where a new detention home has been at least partially staffed with experienced probation personnel (it must be remembered that the properly functioning detention home handles the “worst” cases in the juvenile court caseload), and where staff qualifications and salaries have been made comparable to those of the juvenile probation department.

In addition, a recent issue of the Juvenile Court Judges Journal was devoted entirely to the detention field. This represents a significant attempt to bring the detention situation to the attention of juvenile court judges2

The potentially most significant development is the forma- tion several years ago of the National Juvenile Detention

Reuterman et al. I JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES 151

Association (Hilson, 1968). The Association has as its aims and goals:

to interpret and promote the concepts of juvenile detention services at the national, state, and local level; To define the mission and interpret the detention process; To establish and review detention standards and practices; To develop standards of personnel practices; To stimulate the development and operation of training programs for detention staffs; To work for legislation in support of adequate detention practices; To encourage more creative writing in the field; To facilitate the collection and dissemination of data; To stimulate research; To serve as a forum group and to provide liaison with other organizations and professional groups [Hilson, 1968: 721.

In short, the Association is attempting to upgrade and professionalize the field of juvenile detention; to make it an integral part of the system of services for delinquent youth.

Previous Surveys

A number of surveys of juvenile detention facilities, either nationwide or in a particular state, have been previously conducted. In general, the state-level surveys have been principally concerned with identifying detention needs for the given state, and noting unsatisfactory detention prac- t i c e ~ . ~

The first nationwide survey was conducted in 1932 by the National Probation and Parole Association (Warner, 1933). In 1945, the Association conducted a second nationwide survey, the results of which served as a basis for the first publications dealing with detention standards (Norman, 1946; Norman and Norman, 1946). In 1959, the Association conducted a third survey concerned specifically with what has been done in detention homes in order to meet recommended standards (Norman, 1960). These earlier nationwide surveys were generally concerned with the establishment of good deten- tion practices and with the determination of how close actual

[Sl CRIMINOLOGY I MAY 1971

detention practices approached what came to be regarded as “good practices.”

Two more recent surveys had somewhat different pur- poses. In 1966, the National Council on Crime and Delin- quency was requested by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice to undertake a nationwide survey of correctional agencies and institutions. The purpose of this survey was to establish the current status of correction in the United States in order to enable the Commission to make recommendations to the President. The survey included juvenile detention (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1967). In 1968, the Joint Commis- sion on Correctional Manpower and Training conducted a nationwide survey of juvenile detention, focusing primarily on manpower, although some additional data were obtained (Haller, 1968).

The Present Survey

The purpose of the present nationwide survey of juvenile detention differs considerably from the purposes of the previously mentioned surveys.

The present survey was intended to achieve two primary purposes. The first purpose was to ascertain the need for a training program for all levels of detention home personnel. This objective included not only the expressed need for such a program, but also some indication of participation by detention home personnel should such a program be estab- lished, and suggestions as to both substantive content and instructional methods which respondents viewed as being most valuable in a training program.

The second primary objective was to begin the develop- ment of a “data bank” of information on detention homes throughout the country. This “data bank” is to contain a wide variety of information, including such things as the number of detainees, manuals of operation, operational

Reuterman et al. /JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES [71

rehabilitative programs, state laws relevant to detention homes, and so on.

The present report is a summary of the information which has been collected in order to provide the basis of the “data bank.”

Survey Model and Procedures

The model used in the present survey consisted of the following: (1) Aspects-these included the stated purpose of the detention home; the numbers of detainees handled; information pertaining to staff; routine operating procedures; programs intended to improve or assist detainees; physical facilities; budget; and information pertaining to staff training. (2) Phases-these included the actual existing situation; the planned situation; the predicted future; and the ideal situation 3 Two methods of data collection were employed. First, a

questionnaire was sent to all known detention homes throughout the country. The questionnaire obtained informa- tion on the existing situation for all model aspects except the stated purpose of the detention home. Second, personal interviews were conducted at 92 randomly selected detention homes. In the interviews, data were obtained for all phases of all aspects except stated purpose and number of detainees handled (only the existing situation was considered for these aspects). Data were obtained by either questionnaire or interview from 174 detention homes (approximately 60% of the total).

Summary of Results

The data collected in the survey permit the development of several types of portraits of detention homes in the United States. An overall description of the present situation, and also some indication of the future, may be obtained.

181 CRIMINOLOGY I MAY 1971

Comparisons of detention homes differing in both capacity and geographical location can be made.

Present Overall Situation

Approximately 30% of the homes responding indicated that their primary purpose is to provide custody for juveniles. Over 26% indicated that their primary purpose is to make some efforts in the rehabilitative process. Approximately 18% indicated that their primary purpose is custody and their secondary purpose is rehabilitation. The latter combination of purposes is generally regarded as the most appropriate for juvenile detention homes. The relatively low rate of endorse- ment of the combined custody-rehabilitation orientation suggests the need for extensive clarification and education regarding the purpose of detention.

The detention homes contacted in the survey reported a total bed capacity of 10,459 and an average bed capacity of 60.8. The total yearly admissions of these homes was near 318,934. If this is projected to all detention homes, the estimated number of yearly admissions to detention becomes 488,800. The mean average daily population for the respond- ing homes was 59.65 with a range of 0 to 635. The total average daily population of the responding homes was 9,192. If this is projected to all homes, the average daily population becomes 13,567. The projected mean average daily popula- tion for all homes becomes 47.

Approximately 26% of the responding homes reported an average daily population which exceeded their reported bed capacity. An additional 28% reported a maximum daily population which exceeded bed capacity. Thus over half the responding homes were at some time during the reporting period overcrowded. This strongly suggests that either a large number of detention homes are too small in terms of bed capacity or that intake controls are not functioning effec- tively in a large number of homes. In the vast majority of

Rwterman et al. I JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES I91

cases, indications are that the problem lies with the intake controls rather than with the actual capacity.

The average percentage of the court caseload detained was 35% with a range of 1% to 100%. Most notable about this is the wide variation across homes of the rate of detaining. National standards for detention homes suggest that a practical legitimate rate of detaining is 20% of the total juvenile court caseload. On this basis, 72% of the responding homes are exceeding the recommended maximum rate. This very strongly suggests that in many detention homes intake controls are not functioning effectively.

It is estimated that the total population served by responding homes is over 97.6 million. If this is projected to all detention homes, the total population served is approxi- mately 130.8 million or approximately 66% of the total population of the country.

The total number of employees reported was 4,473 and the average number per home was 27.4. If the number of employees is projected to all homes, the total becomes 6,423.

The overall child-staff ratio is 10.3 to 1. Approximately 17% of the homes have a child-staff ratio which exceeds the recommended maximum ratio. Thus, relatively few homes are understaffed in terms of number of child-care employees.

In approximately 29% of the responding homes the administrator of the home reports to the chief probation officer; in 15% of the cases, he reports to the director of court services; in 26%, to the judge; and in 30% to some other agency or individual.

Approximately 6% of the detention home employees have less than a high school education. Over half do not have a college degree. This suggests that the formal education of detention home employees is relatively low, considering that they are required to handle fairly serious juvenile offenders.

The average minimum monthly salary for detention home administrators is $673, with a range of $300 to $1,203. The average maximum monthly salary for administrators is $95 1 ,

[lo] CRIMINOLOGY I MAY 1971

with a range of $467 to $1,561. The average minimum monthly salary for supervisory personnel is $535, with a range of $292 to $889. The average maximum monthly salary for supervisory personnel is $704, with a range of $350 to $1,306. The average minimum monthly salary for child- care workers is $391, with a range of $152 to $642. The average maximum monthly salary for child-care workers is $557, with a range of $200 to $1,048.

Only 2 1 % of the responding homes indicated that they had a regular means of advancement involving civil service or merit system.

Only 19% of the responding homes do not permit moonlighting by employees. Approximately 48% permit moonlighting at any time. Only 19% of all detention home employees are moonlighting, however. This is an average of 7.8 employees per home.

In general, detention home administrators seem to regard the family situation as the principal cause of delinquency. There is, however, little agreement as to exactly what factors in the family contribute to delinquency.

Although actual detention usually requires a court order, a wide variety of agencies, in practice, refer juveniles for detention. The court was the only agency which could refer juveniles for detention in approximately 30% of the respond- ing homes.

Approximately 80% of the responding homes reported that they provided some sort of orientation at admission. Orientation should probably be provided in all detention homes.

Approximately 14% of the responding homes practice routine isolation upon admission. Routine isolation is gener- ally regarded as an unsatisfactory procedure.

Approximately 40% of the responding homes reported that the “time of retiring” for detainees was earlier than that generally recommended.

The overall average number of “rehabilitative” programs is 5.3 with a range of 0 to 15. The majority of homes have

Reuterman et al. /JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES (111

between 3 and 6 programs in operation. A recreation program is the most common, while group counseling is least common. A relatively large number of homes is not meeting recommended minimum program standards.

In approximately 84% of the homes having a school program, the school was a part of the public school system. This is generally recommended as good practice. The average number of hours spent in school was 4.2, with a range of 1 to 7.5. Only 35% of the homes conduct their school program for the recommended period of time (12 months). The average number of weeks that school is in session was 45.8, with a range of 16 to 52.

Slightly less than onequarter of the responding homes reported that they served as regional detention facilities. Approximately one-half the responding homes reported that juveniles are sometimes placed in jails. Approximately 10% reported that juveniles are sometimes placed in police

The mean annual budget for the responding homes was $378,671, with a range of $8,000 to $5,000,000. The vast majority of responding homes have the county as their primary source of funds. In approximately 39% of the cases the county commissioners have some control of detention home expenditures. In only 20% of the cases does the detention home administrator have complete control of expenditures.

Approximately 46% of the responding homes reported an operational in-service staff training program. The quality of these programs varied widely. Only 19% reported that they had a designated staff trainer. None of the respondents was aware of any out-of-home training program specifically for detention personnel.

The most common area in which problems or needs occurred was that of staff. Over 95% of the responding homes reported difficulties in the area of staff. The second most common problem area was physical facilities. Approxi-

lock-ups.

[121 CRIMINOLOGY / MAY 1971

mately 73% reported difficulties in this area. Over half the responding homes reported difficulties in the areas of operating procedures, program, and budget.

Over 90% of the responding homes indicated that there is a need for a national training program intended specifically for detention home personnel.

The Probable Future

Approximately 64% of the responding homes indicated that they had definite plans for staff-related changes. Almost one-half reported plans for increases in staff numbers. Approximately 65% predicted occurrences which were likely to affect their staffing. The most common predictions were increases in detained population and expanded facilities. Both of these were seen as requiring additional staff. Approximately 68% regarded a general increase in staff as ideal. The average ideal child-staff was 5.8 to 1, with a range of 1 to 1 to 15 to 1.

Only 18% of the responding homes reported plans for changes in operating procedures. These plans usually involved changes in intake procedures. Approximately 37% of the homes predicted occurrences which might influence their operating procedures. The most common predictions were increases in detained population and expanded facilities. Relatively few homes (1 3%) could identify modifications in operating procedures which they would regard as ideal. Almost onequarter regarded their present procedures as ideal.

Approximately 55% of the responding homes reported specific plans for changes in the program area. Most commonly reported were plans for changes in the school program. Approximately one-half the homes predicted occur- rences which might influence their program. Again, the most common predictions involved increases in the detained population and expanded facilities. A wide variety of

Reuterman et al. /JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES [131

program ideals were identified. Most common involved the education, recreation, arts and crafts, and group counseling programs.

Almost one-half the homes reported plans for changes in physical facilities, usually expansion of present facilities or construction of new facilities. Approximately 58% of the homes predicted factors which might influence their physical facilities. The most common prediction was increase in detained population. Over onequarter of the homes regard their present physical facilities as ideal. Almost 12% noted that an ideal facility must be specifically constructed for detention.

Only 35% of the responding homes reported plans for changes in budget. These plans usually involved increases in budget related to new facilities or increases in staff numbers or salaries. Over half the homes predicted factors which might affect their budget. The most common were increases in detained population and expanded facilities. The average ideal amount of money per child per day was $15.9 1, with a range of $2.00 to $30.00.

Approximately 37% of the responding homes reported plans to either instigate an in-service staff training program or to change their existing program.

Approximately 68% of the homes not presently having a staff trainer indicated that they would be willing to appoint a trainer and send him to a national training program.

Approximately 75% of the responding homes indicated that their administrator would be able to participate in a national training program over a two-year period. It was also indicated that about 400 supervisory personnel would partici- pate in a national training program over a three-year period. Almost 1,400 child-care staff would be able to participate over a three-year period. The combined predicted participa- tion of all types of personnel represents a minimum of 46% of the total nuniber of detention home employees in the responding homes.

[141 CRIMINOLOGY I MAY 1971

Approximately 70% of the responding homes indicated that participation in a national training program is likely to increase the chances of the participants for promotion or salary increases.

The most commonly suggested content afeas to be included in a national training program were ways to improve the general program, handling disturbed and special problem detainees, techniques of supervision, and psychology.

The most commonly suggested training methods to be employed in a national training program were small group discussion, role-playing, and lectures.

Comparisons in Terms of Location

Each detention home was located in one of four geographi- cal regions. The regions were northeastern, central, southern, and western.

Detention homes in the southern region are characterized by having a custody orientation. Those in the central region tend to have a rehabilitation orientation.

Homes in the western region have the highest average yearly admission rate (3,402). Those in the northeastern region have the second highest (2,304). Those in the southern region have the lowest rate, although there is little difference between homes in the southern and central regions (1,357 and 1,39 1 respectively).

The average percentage of the juvenile court caseload held in detention is higher in the Northeast than in the other regions.

The highest percentage of total population served by detention homes occurs in the western and northeastern regions (both slightly over 80% of the total population). Homes in the central region serve slightly over 60% of the total population. Those in the South serve slightly over 40%.

Detention homes in the northeastern region tend to meet minimum staff requirements. Homes in the southern region tend not to meet the minimum staff requirements.

Rwterman et al. /JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES [151

Directors of detention homes in the western region are most often responsible to chief probation officers. Directors of homes in the central region are more often responsible to the directors of court services or to the juvenile judges. In the northeastern region, detention home directors are more often responsible to persons unrelated to the juvenile court.

The number of staff at various educational levels is very strongly related to the location of the detention home. The northeastern region is high on staff with some graduate work and low on staff with associate of arts degrees and bachelor’s degrees in other than the social sciences. The central region is high on staff with high school and less, and low on staff with bachelor’s degrees in the social sciences. The southern region is high on staff with high school and low on staff with bachelor’s degrees in the social sciences. The western region is low on staff with high school, and high on staff with bachelor’s degrees of some kind. In general, the betteredu- cated staffs seem to be located in the western and north- eastern regions.

Both the average minimum and average maximum salaries of supervisory personnel are highest in the western region, second highest in the Northeast, and lowest in the South.

Location of home is related to whether there is a civil service or merit system of advancement. A merit or civil service system is more common in the western region and less common in the central region.

Location of home is related to the number of employees moonlighting. There is a tendency for more employees to moonlight in the Northeast, while fewer employees moon- light in the West.

There is a strong relationship between the location of the home and the source of the referrals to the home. The central region has more homes which accept referrals only from the court. The western region has fewer homes which accept only court referrals. Homes in the western region tend to accept referrals from a wide variety of sources. In the southern

[I61 CRIMINOLOGY I MAY 1971

region, the variety of referral sources tends to be relatively limited.

Homes located in the northeastern and western regions tend not to have orientation programs for new detainees.

Homes in the Northeast tend to be responsible for their own school programs. Fewer homes in the western region are responsible for their own school programs.

Homes located in the Northeast have the highest mean annual budgets. Those in the West have the second highest, and those in the South the lowest.

Compared to other regions, detention homes in the Northeast are characterized by the following:

(1) a large number of yearly admissions; (2) a high percentage of the juvenile court caseload held in

(3) a high percentage of the total population served by a detention

(4) a high probability of meeting the minimum staff requirements; (5) a high probability of the detention home directors being

responsible to someone unrelated to the juvenile court; (6) more likely to be staffed by persons with some graduate-level

education; (7) less likely to be staffed by persons holding associate of arts

degrees and bachelor’s degrees in other than the social sciences; (8) a relatively high salary range for supervisory personnel; (9) a greater likelihood of employees engaging in additional

(10) a low probability of having an orientation program for new

(1 1) a high probability of being responsible for the school program; (1 2) a high annual budget.

detention;

home;

outside employment;

detainees;

Relative to other regions homes in the central region can be characterized by the following:

(1) a high probability of having a rehabilitation orientation; (2) a fairly low yearly admission rate;

Reuterman et al. /JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES (171

(3) a high probability of the detention home director being responsible to the director of court services or the juvenile judge;

(4) more likely to be staffed by persons with less than high school and high school educations;

( 5 ) less likely to be staffed by persons with bachelor’s degrees in the social sciences;

(6) a relatively low salary range for supervisory personnel; (7) a low probability of advancement being based on a merit or civil

(8) a high probability of accepting referrals only from the juvenile

(9) a relatively low annual budget.

service system;

court ;

Detention homes in the southern region can be character- ized by the following:

(1) a high probability of having a primarily custody orientation; (2) a low yearly admission rate; (3) serving a relatively low percentage of the total population; (4) a low probability of meeting the minimum staff requirements; ( 5 ) a high probability of being staffed by persons with a high school

(6) a low probability of being staffed by persons with bachelor’s

(7) a low salary range for supervisory personnel; (8) a low probability of accepting referrals from a large number of

(9) a low annual budget.

education;

degrees in the social sciences;

sources;

Detention homes in the western region are characterized by the following:

(1) a high yearly admission rate; (2) serving a large percentage of the total population; (3) a high probability of the detention home director being

responsible to the chief probation officer;

[lSl CRIMINOLOGY I M A Y 1971

TABLE 1

RESULTS OF STATISTICAL TESTS FOR DIFFERENCES AMONG THE FOUR REGIONS ON ALL VARIABLES

Significant Variable Tested Differencea

Purpose or orientation Average capacity Average yearly admissions Mean average daily population Overcrowded Meeting minimum staff requirements for 20 bed capacity Average child-staff ratio Who the detention home administrator is responsible t o Educational level of employees Average maximum salary of administrators Average minimum salary of administrators Average maximum salary of supervisors Average minimum salary of supervisors Average maximum salary of child-care Average minimum salary of childcare Civil service or merit advancement Homes permitting moonlighting Number of employees moonlighting Source of referrals Detainee orientation program Average ”time of arising” Average “time of retiring” Average number o f programs Type of programs Responsibility for school program Average number o f hours/day in school Average number of weekdyear school is conducted Regional detention homes Juveniles placed in jail Average annual budget In-service training program Staff trainer Types of problems andlor needs Predicting that a staff trainer would be appointed

.025 NS .01 NS NS .005 NS .005 .005 NS NS .oo 1 .001 NS NS -005 NS .005 .005 .05 NS NS NS NS .001 NS NS NS NS .001 NS NS NS NS

~ ~~~~ ~~~

a. Figures are the probability levels at which differences among regions are signifl- cant. “NS” indicates t h a t the differences are not significant.

Rwterman et al. I JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES [191

(4) less likely to be staffed with persons with a high school

( 5 ) more likely to be staffed with persons with bachelor’s degrees

(6) more likely to be staffed with persons with bachelor’s degrees

(7) a high salary range for supervisory personnel; (8) a high probability of advancement being based on merit or civil

(9) a low probability of employees moonlighting;

education;

in the social sciences;

in other than the social sciences;

service systems;

(10) a high probability of accepting referrals from a wide variety of

(1 1) a low probability of being responsible for the school program; (12) a high annual budget.

sources;

Statistical tests for differences among the four regions were performed for a variety of variables. Table 1 provides a summary of the results of these tests.

Comparisons in Terms of Capacity

Detention homes were placed into one of five groups based on bed capacity. The five capacity groups were: less than 20, 20 to 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 200, and greater than 200. The average bed capacities of these five groups are significantly different.

The average annual admission rate increases with the capacity of the home, as does the mean average daily population. The number of homes overcrowded is related to capacity. More of the larger homes tend to be overcrowded, while fewer of the small homes are overcrowded.

The highest percentage of the court caseload detained occurred in the 101 to 200 capacity homes, the second highest in the 20 to 50 and 51 to 100, and the lowest in the less than 20 capacity group.

[ZOl CRIMINOLOGY /MAY 1971

The average number of employees increases with the capacity of the home. The two groups of smallercapacity homes have a lower child-staff ratio than the larger homes. Fewer of the smaller homes fail to meet the minimum recommended childstaff ratios.

The smallest homes tend to be responsible to the juvenile court judge and tend not to be responsible to someone outside of the court system. The reverse is true for the largest detention homes.

In general, the educational level of employees increases with the capacity of the home.

Both the maximum and minimum salaries of supervisory personnel increase with the capacity of the home, as does the maximum salary of administrators.

Larger homes tend t o have a merit or civil service system of advancement. Few small homes have such a system.

There is more of a tendency for the employees of the largest homes to moonlight. Fewer employees than expected in the other capacity homes moonlight.

The larger homes have a greater average number of programs for detainees than do the smaller homes.

The larger homes have greater mean annual budgets than do smaller homes.

Fewer of the smallest homes than expected have an inservice staff training program. The larger homes tend to have inservice training programs.

Fewer of the smaller homes than expected have a staff trainer, while more of the larger homes do have a trainer.

Slightly fewer of the administrators of the less than 20 capacity homes indicated that there was a need for a national training program specifically for detention home personnel.

Small homes tend not to be favorable to appointing a staff trainer and sending him to a national training program. The larger homes are more agreeable to this.

Compared to homes in the other capacity groups the less than 20 capacity detention homes can be characterized by the following:

Reuterman et al. I JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES j211

(1) relatively low annual admission rates; (2) relatively low average daily populations; (3) a low probability of being overcrowded; (4) a low percentage of the juvenile court caseload held in

(5) a low child-staff ratio; (6) a high probability that the administrator is responsible directly

(7) a low probability that the administrator is responsible to

(8) a high probability that employees have less than a high school

(9) a low maximum salary for administrators; (10) a low salary range for supervisory personnel; (1 1) a low probability of having a merit or civil service system of

(12) a low probability of employees moonlighting; (13) a low number of programs for detainees; (14) a low annual budget; (15) a low probability of having an in-service staff training program; (16) a low probability of having a staff trainer; (17) a low probability of being willing to appoint a staff trainer and

detention;

to the juvenile court judge;

someone outside the juvenile court system;

or a high school education;

advancement;

send him to a national training program.

Relative to homes in the other capacity groups the 20 to 50 capacity detention homes can be characterized by the following:

(1) relatively moderate annual admission rates; (2) relatively low average daily populations; (3) a low probability of being overcrowded; (4) a fairly high percentage of the court caseload held in detention; (5) a low average child-staff ratio; (6) a fairly high probability of the administrator not reporting to

the juvenile court judge;

221 CRIMINOLOGY I MAY 1971

(7) a fairly high probability of the administrator reporting to some- one outside of the court system;

(8) a high probability of being staffed with persons with less than high school, high school, and less than two years’ college education;

(9) a low probability of being staffed by persons having associate of arts degrees or bachelor’s degree;

(10) a fairly low maximum salary for administrators; (1 1) a low salary range for supervisory personnel; (12) a low probability of employees moonlighting; (13) a moderate number of programs; (14) a fairly low annual budget; (1 5 ) a low probability of having a staff trainer.

Compared to homes in the other capacity groups the 51 to 100 capacity detention homes can be characterized by the following:

(1) a fairly high annual admission rate; (2) a moderate average daily population; (3) a fairly high percentage of the court caseload held in detention; (4) a high child-staff ratio; ( 5 ) likely to be staffed by persons with less than high school, high

(6) a low probability of being staffed by persons with a bachelor’s

(7) a moderate maximum salary for administrators; (8) a moderate salary range for supervisory personnel; (9) a low probability of employees moonlighting;

(10) a fairly large number of programs for detainees; (1 1) a moderate annual budget; (12) a fairly high probability of having an inservice training

(13) a fairly high probability of having a staff trainer;

school, and less than two years’ college education;

degree in the social sciences;

program;

Reuterrnan et al. / JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES I231

(14) a low probability of being unwilling to appoint a staff trainer and send him to a national training program.

Relative to homes in the other capacity groups, detention homes in the 101 to 200 capacity group are characterized by the following:

(1) a fairly high annual admission rate; (2) a fairly high average daily population; (3) a fairly high probability of being overcrowded; (4) a high percentage of the court caseload held in detention; (5) a high child-staff ratio; (6) a high probability of the administrators reporting to sources

(7) a low probability of the administrator reporting to the juvenile

(8) likely to be staffed by persons with associate of arts degrees; (9) unlikely to be staffed by persons with a high school education;

outside of the court system;

court judge;

(10) a fairly high maximum salary for administrators; (1 1) a fairly high salary range for supervisory personnel; (12) a low probability of employees moonlighting; (13) a large number of programs for detainees; (14) a fairly large annual budget.

Relative to homes in the other capacity groups the greater than 200 capacity detention homes are characterized by the following :

(1) a high annual admission rate; (2) a high average daily population; (3) a high probability of being overcrowded; (4) a moderate percentage of the court caseload detained; (5) a high child-staff ratio; (6) a low probability of being staffed by persons with less than

high school or high school education;

[24] CRIMINOLOGY /MAY 1971

(7) likely to be staffed by persons with bachelor’s degrees in some

(8) a high maximum salary for administrators; (9) a high salary range for supervisory personnel;

area or some graduate work;

(10) a high probability of having a merit or civil service system of

(1 1) a high probability of employees moonlighting; (12) a fairly large number of programs for detainees; (13) a large annual budget; (14) a high probability of having an in-service staff training

(15) a high probability of having a staff trainer.

advancement;

program ;

Statistical tests for differences among the five capacity groups were performed for a variety of variables. Table 2 provides a summary of the results of these tests.

In terms of simply the percentage of variables for which significant differences were found, there are greater dis- parities among homes in the various size groups than there are among homes located in the various geographical regions. Significant differences among capacity groups were found for 17 variables ( 5 1%). Significant differences among regions were found for 13 variables (38%).

NOTES

1. A more detailed discussion of the history of juvenile detention in the United States is presented by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency

2. See the entire Summer 1968 issue of the Juvenile Court Judges Journal. 3 . Representative of the state-level surveys are those conducted by the

California Committee on Temporary Care (1954). the New York State Depart- ment of Social Welfare (1958), and Norman (1952).

4. The model was originated for use in state-level comprehensive planning for the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency. Cartwright (1968) presents a complete description and discussion of the model.

(1967: 12-14).

Reuterman e t al. /JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES I251

TABLE 2

RESULTS OF STATISTICAL TESTS FOR DIFFERENCES AMONG THE FIVE CAPACITY GROUPS ON ALL VARIABLES

Variables Tested

Purpose or orientation Average capacity Average yearly admissions Mean average daily population Overcrowded Average child-staff ratio Who the detention home administrator is responsible to Educational level of employees Average maximum salary of administrators Average minimum salary of administrators Average maximum salary of supervisors Average minimum salary of supervisors Average maximum salary of childcare Average minimum salary of childcare Civil service or merit advancement Homes permitting moonlighting Number of employees moonlighting Source of referrals Detainee orientation program Average "time of arising" Average "time of retiring" Average number of programs Type of programs Responsibility for school programs Average number of houdday in school Average number of weeks/year school is conducted Regional detention homes Juveniles placed in jail Average annual budget In-service training program Staff trainer Types of problems and/or needs Predicting that a staff trainer would be appointed

Significant Differencea

NS .001 .001 .01 .005 .01 .025 .005 .01 NS .001 .01 NS NS ,005 NS .005 NS NS NS NS .oo 1 NS NS NS NS NS NS .001 .005 .005 NS .025

a. Figures are the probability levels a t which differences among regions are signifi- cant. "NS" indicates that the differences are not significant.

[261 CRIMINOLOGY / MAY 1971

REFERENCES

California Committee on Temporary Care (1954) California Children in Detention and Shelter Care. Los Angeles.

CARTWRIGHT, D. S. (1968) “A model for surveying services for children and youth who are predelinquent, delinquent, or in need of supervision.” SM 1 in G. Walton (4.) Child and Youth Services Planning Project Report. Ft. Logan, Colorado: State of Colorado, Department of Institutions, Youth Services Division.

HALER. M. (1968) Juvenile Detention Manpower Survey. Washington, D.C.: Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training. (mimeo)

HILSON. R. C. (1968) “National juvenile detention association.” Juvenile Court Judges J. 19 (Summer): 71-73.

JORDAN, J. M. (1968) ‘The responsibility of the superintendent to maintain the function of detention.” Juvenile Court Judges J. 19 (Summer): 50-54.

National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1967) “Correction in the United States.” Crime and Delinquency 13 (January): 11-38.

New York State Department of Social Welfare (1958) Child Detention Care in Upstate New York. Albany.

NORMAN, S. (1960) Detention Practice. New York: National Probation and Parole Association.

--(1952) The Detention of Children in Michigan. New York: National Probation and Parole Association.

-- (1946) The Design and Construction of Detention Homes for the Juvenile Court. New York: National Probation and Parole Association.

-- and H. NORMAN (1946) Detention for the Juvenile Court, a Discussion of Principles and Practices. New York: National Probation and Parole Associ- ation.

WARNER, F. M. (1933) Juvenile Detention in the United States. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.