Juvenile Detention Facilities: Summary Report of a Second National Survey

• Author: Nicholas A. Reuterman,Thomas R. Hughes
• Date: 01 November 1982
• Published date: 01 November 1982
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.1982.tb01256.x

Juvenile Detention Facilities:

Summary Report

of

a

Second National Survey

By

Thomas

R.

Hughes and

Nicholas

A.

Reuterman

Juvenile detention has been an integral part

of our correctional history since the turn of

the century. The emergence of these facilities,

in conjunction with the concept of govern-

ment benevolence toward youth, contributed

to the development of exemption of youth

from criminal responsibility.’ Historical

research suggests that early juvenile courts

and the attendant secure custody of juvenile

detention were significantly influenced by the

spirit of “progressivism” and the “child sav-

ers” movement.2

The first detention facility for juveniles

evolved as a result of the implementation of

the initial juvenile court in Cook County, Ill.

An old house was converted to more or less

meet the needs of the juvenile court and

detention made its awkward existence

known.3 From this inauspicious beginning

the field of juvenile detention has grown dur-

ing the past

80

years

so

that today there are

approximately

400

detention homes in this

country, employing more than

11,000

staff

and handling nearly

700,000

juveniles per

year.4 This growth has by no means been free

of problems and difficulties, many of which

are still common in the contemporary deten-

tion situation.

Detention appears to have become a per-

manent 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 deten-

tion home generally is considered the “black

sheep” of the family of juvenile delinquent-

serving agencies: juvenile probation depart-

ments quite often regard the detention home

as simply a training situation for persons they

may later employ; many of the other com-

munity agencies see detention as a perhaps

unnecessary evil; and the general public is

often misinformed concerning the purpose

and function of detention, if indeed the public

possesses any information at all. The overall

result of this situation is that the detention

home is frequently ignored, more frequently

criticized and generally deprived of the sup-

port and assistance available to its sister

agencies.

There are, however, some tentative indica-

tions that the situation may be improving.

The potentially most significant development

is the formation some

10

years ago of the

National Juvenile Detention Association.

The Association aims and goals are:

. .

.

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

stimulate the development and operation

of

November 19821

Juvenile

&

Family Court Journal

3