Private vs. Public Operation of Juvenile Correctional Facilities

• NCJ Number: 192931
• Author(s): Gaylene Styve Armstrong
• Date Published: 2001
• Length: 189 pages
• Sale Source: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC
• Publication Format: Book (Hardbound)
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study assessed the implications of privatization in juvenile corrections through an analysis of conditions of confinement in both public and private juvenile correctional facilities.

Abstract

The analysis focused on residential correctional facilities for juveniles incarcerated for committing a legally defined offense. The research used data from 48 juvenile correctional facilities in 19 States throughout the country. The data pertained to the quality of conditions of confinement as perceived by 4,590 juvenile delinquents, 1,362 correctional personnel, and 48 facility administrators. The analysis compared perceptions of the conditions of confinement by both juvenile delinquents and staff and examined the effects of privatization on the adjustment of the juvenile delinquents and the work experiences of the correctional staff. Results revealed that the juveniles in public and private facilities were similar on demographic factors and criminogenic risk factors, although private facilities held more males and more juvenile delinquents incarcerated as a result of a property offense than did public facilities. The majority of private facilities were smaller and newer facilities that often operated programs other than detention centers and training schools with younger and less experienced staff. However, differences between the conditions of confinement did not differ significantly in private and public correctional facilities, based on perceptions of both staff and juvenile inmates. The analysis concluded that private facilities may hold potential for a more positive long-term impact on juvenile delinquents than do public facilities, although private facilities do not seem to provide either a superior environmental quality or tremendous cost effectiveness as compared to public facilities. Findings also indicated the need for research comparing the types and quality of treatment programs offered by private and public facilities. Footnotes, tables, figures, index, and 98 references (Author abstract modified)