U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

..

v'
,

7"

/

r"'" ... :"'

,

.
~

.......

. 'ff.'a'

.'

~...

,:".

.~..

~.~

#

r~ _

-0'''.

....~.~~

' . ' . -"'!II .
". .. .~.. . '

.....

.,.,......

:

.

.....

....:.1'.

-.

"'

.;-

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator

Office of Justice Programs	

Findings From the survey oF youth in residential Placement
Andrea J. Sedlak and Carol Bruce
The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) is the third component in the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s constellation of surveys providing
updated statistics on youth in custody in the juvenile justice system. It joins the Census of
Juveniles in Residential Placement and the Juvenile Residential Facility Census, which
are biennial mail surveys of residential facility administrators conducted in alternat­
ing years. SYRP is a unique addition, gathering information directly from youth through
anonymous interviews. This bulletin series reports on the first national SYRP, covering its
development and design and providing detailed information on the youth’s characteristics,
backgrounds, and expectations; the conditions of their confinement; their needs and the
services they received; and their experiences of victimization in placement.

SYRP’s findings are based on interviews
with a nationally representative sample of
7,073 youth in custody during 2003, using
audio computer-assisted self-interview
(ACASI) methodology. Researchers analyzed answers from all youth in custody
and assessed differences among subgroups based on their age, sex, and placement program (i.e., detention, corrections,

r"

community based, camp, or residential
treatment). When other studies offered
corresponding data about youth in the
general population, researchers compared
those findings to the SYRP results for
youth in custody. For more information,
see “Surveying Youth in Residential Place­
ment: Methodology.”
Many of the topics covered in this bul­
letin will be familiar to juvenile justice
researchers and practitioners. However,
SYRP results extend current information
and provide new perspectives. The follow­
ing discussion highlights several issues
where the findings underscore, clarify,
and enlarge current understanding of the
characteristics and backgrounds of youth
in custody.

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.gov

.'
December 2010

Innovation	•	Partnerships	•	Safer	Neighborhoods	

Youth’s Characteristics
and Backgrounds

This bulletin presents key findings from
the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement that describe the characteristics of
youth in placement. Specifically, this bulletin focuses on the youth’s demographic
characteristics, current and prior offenses,
current disposition, family and educational backgrounds, and expectations for
the future.

-

'.

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

A Message From OJJDP
To better understand the reasons that
youth in confinement have offended,
we need to examine their backgrounds and characteristics and
review the offenses that led to their
custody placement.
OJJDP’s Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) asks youth
to identify the offenses they have
committed and the personal and environmental factors that may have contributed to their delinquency. SYRP
complements related OJJDP research
such as the Census of Juveniles in
Residential Placement. However, as
the only national survey that gathers information directly from youth in
custody, SYRP provides data that are
not available from other sources.
This bulletin draws on SYRP’s findings to examine the characteristics
and backgrounds of youth in custody.
It describes their demographic characteristics and reports on their current
and prior offenses, disposition, family
and educational backgrounds, and
expectations for the future.
SYRP’s findings echo those from
local studies and indicate national
patterns. Moreover, its findings provide insights into how we might best
combat recidivism while promoting
positive outcomes.
As we strive to learn more about
youth who commit offenses so that
we may provide them with more
effective intervention and treatment
programs, OJJDP hopes that the
findings presented in this bulletin will
inform our strategies and programs.

Demographic
Characteristics
SYRP targets youth in custody between
ages 10 and 20. Based on the SYRP inter­
views in spring 2003, an estimated 101,040
youth in this age range are in residential
placement in the United States because
they were arrested for, charged with, or
adjudicated for an offense. This reflects a
custody rate of 224 youth per 100,000 in
the general youth population—about 0.22
percent of 10- to 20-year-olds nationwide.1

Surveying Youth in
Residential Placement:
Methodology
The Survey of Youth in Residential
Placement (SYRP) is the only national
survey that gathers data directly from
youth in custody, using anonymous
interviews. The Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention
designed the survey in 2000 and
2001. SYRP surveys offender youth
between ages 10 and 20. It draws
a nationally representative sample
from state and local facilities that are
identified by the Census of Juveniles
in Residential Placement and Juvenile
Residential Facility Census surveys.

Sex
Eighty-five percent of all youth in residen­
tial placement are male. The custody rate
for females is less than one-fifth the rate
for males (70 females versus 370 males per
100,000).2

Age
The majority (51 percent) of youth in
placement are 16 or 17 years old. More
than 15 percent are between ages 18 and
20. Preteens (ages 10–12) comprise 1 per­
cent of the placement population.3

Race/ethnicity
About one-third (35 percent) of youth
in residential placement are White nonHispanic and no other race. Nearly an­
other one-third (32 percent) are Black or

Considering custody rates, SYRP results
indicate that multiracial youth have a sub­
stantially greater custody rate as compared
with other race/ethnicity categories—an
estimated 751 of 100,000 multiracial youth
are incarcerated, compared with 123 White
youth per 100,000 and 463 Black/African
American youth per 100,000 (table 1).4
For more information about the demo­
graphic characteristics of youth in
custody, including race and ethnicity,
see table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Youth in Custody
Estimated
Number of
Youth

Percent

Custody Rate per
100,000 Youth
in the General
Population

101,040

100

224

85,720
15,320

85
15

370
70

1,240
3,460
9,720
19,320
26,210
25,130
10,710
3,250
2,000

1
3
10
19
26
25
11
3
2

10
80
233
469
646
612
262
86
53

White only, non-Hispanic

34,160

35

123

Black or African American only,
non-Hispanic
Hispanic (any race)
Other single race, non-Hispanic
Mixed race, non-Hispanic

31,180
23,880
3,110
6,380

32
24
3
6

463
317
145
751

Demographic Characteristic
All youth in custody
Sex
Male
Female

SYRP interviewed youth from a rep­
resentative selection of 205 eligible,
responsive facilities listed on the
census as of September 2002. The
survey team interviewed 7,073 youth
between the beginning of March and
mid-June 2003. Surveys were elec­
tronic and used an audio computerassisted self-interview system to ask
questions and record answers.

Age
10 to 12*
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

When using this system, youth wear
headphones and hear a prerecorded
interviewer’s voice read the words
on the screen. Youth indicate their
response choice by touching it on
the screen. The computer program
automatically navigates to the next
appropriate question based on the
youth’s earlier answers, storing all
the data anonymously and securely.
Statisticians assigned weights to re­
flect the sampling probabilities of the
facility and the youth respondents and
to adjust for nonresponse. In this way,
the survey of 7,073 provided accurate
estimates of the size and character­
istics of the national youth offender
population in custody (estimated as
more than 100,000 youth).

African American and no other race, and
close to one-fourth (24 percent) are His­
panic. Very few youth identify themselves
as any other single race category—3 per­
cent classify as American Indian/Alaska
Native, Asian, or Native Hawaiian/other
Pacific Islander. An estimated 6 percent
identify as multiracial.

Race/ethnicity†

Notes: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. The custody rates in the last column
are computed as ratios of the estimated number of youth in custody to the number of youth in the gen­
eral population in the demographic group. The general population information is derived from census
estimates for April 2003 (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, 2004).
*

Estimates for this category are less reliable because they are based on fewer than 100 participating youth.

†

Excludes youth who did not respond to the race/ethnicity categories and those who chose only the
“some other race” answer in response (n = 170 of the survey participants, or 2.3 percent of the esti­
mated youth in placement).

2

Current Offenses
SYRP asks youth about all the offenses
that led to their current stay in the resi­
dential facility (table 2). Nearly one-third
of the youth (31 percent) report just one
offense. Another one-third (33 percent)

indicate two or three offenses, and the
remaining one-third (34 percent) indicate
four or more offenses.5
Table 2 shows the percentages of youth
who say that the offenses led to their current custody. The greatest percentages of

youth report property offenses (45 percent),
person offenses (43 percent), and status
offenses (42 percent). The table also shows
how probation and parole violators com­
pared with other youth offenders—they are
more likely to report status offenses and
less likely to report person offenses.

SYRP Research Questions Addressing the Characteristics, Backgrounds, and Expectations
of Youth in Residential Placement
General Research Question

Specific Research Questions

Who are the youth in placement?

◆ How many youth are in placement?
◆ What is their distribution by age, sex, race/ethnicity?

What are their offenses?

◆ What offenses led to the youth’s current placement? Were they on probation at the

time?

◆ What percentages are adjudicated and committed?
◆ How long have they been in their current facility?
◆ What were the circumstances of the offenses that led to their current placement

(weapons use, accomplices and gang involvement, victims, substance use)?

◆ What percentage had prior contact with the juvenile justice system (convictions,

custody, probation)?

◆ Considering their overall offense history (current offenses and prior convictions),

what kinds of offenders are they? How does their current offense compare to any
prior conviction(s)? Are they repeat offenders in the same category or has the general
category of their offense increased or decreased in severity?
◆ How do females and males differ in their offense profiles?
What are their family backgrounds?

◆
◆
◆
◆
◆

What is their educational back­
ground and status?

◆ What are the youth’s grade levels? Are they educationally on track for their age? How

What are their expectations for
the future?

◆
◆
◆
◆

Who took care of the youth most of the time while they were growing up?
Who were they living with when they were taken into custody for their current stay?
What caretaking responsibilities did they have when they entered custody?
Are the adults in their family primarily non-English speakers?
Do they have children of their own? Are they pregnant or is someone pregnant with
their child? How do childbearing patterns differ for females and males in placement?
How do these findings compare to childbearing in the general youth population?

many had to repeat a grade? How do they compare to similar-age peers in the general
youth population?
◆ What percentage have a learning disability? How does this compare to youth in the
general population?
◆ What academic achievements and/or sanctions have they received? What percentage
were suspended or expelled? How does this compare to general population youth?
◆ Do males and females differ on educational status measures?

◆
◆
◆
◆
◆

Have youth been told when they will be released?
Do they know where they will go after they leave their current facility?
Do they know what will be expected of them when they are released?
Do they think they will reoffend in the future? If so, do they think they would be
arrested? If arrested, would they be placed again into custody? How do they think
their future punishment would compare with their current punishment (less, the
same, or more)?
Have they made any plans for finding a place to live, getting a job, going to school,
receiving treatment?
What do they see as their personal strengths?
When they think of their future life, do they expect to be married, have children, have
a steady job?
How much education would they like to attain? Do they think they will achieve that
level? If not, why not?
Do females and males in custody have different expectations for their futures?

3

Circumstances of the
Current Offense
Alcohol or drug use was a factor in cur­
rent offenses for a number of the youth.
Forty-four percent of youth in custody say
they were under the influence of alcohol
or drugs at the time of one or more of the
offenses that led to their being placed
in custody. Additionally, most youth (55
percent) had committed their current
offense with someone else. These findings
are consistent with earlier observations
of the tendency of juveniles to commit
their offenses with others (McCord and
Conway, 2005; Warr, 1996) and while under
the influence of drugs or alcohol (Wallisch,
1992; White et al., 2002). But although oth­
ers (e.g., Stormshak, Comeau, and Shepard,
2004) have observed that delinquent
youth tend to have both drug and alcohol
problems and deviant peers, SYRP reveals
a previously unreported finding: not only
do the same youth report both drug and
alcohol abuse and association with deviant
peers, but the youth who report them say
that both factors occurred during the same
crimes. SYRP finds that youth who commit
their offenses with others are also signifi­
cantly more likely to be under the influence
of drugs or alcohol at the time of those
offenses. Overall, the odds of youth being
under the influence are almost three times
as great when they are with an accomplice
than when they act alone. The difference is
even greater for youth who report the less
serious property offenses (e.g., trespass­
ing, vandalism), drug offenses, public order
offenses, or status offenses. In these cases,
the odds of youth being under the influence
are more than four times as great when
they are with an accomplice than when
they act alone.

Most Serious Current
Offense
More than two-fifths of youth in custody
(43 percent) are currently classified as
person offenders. Nearly one-half of them
(20 percent of youth) are classified with
some form of assault as their most serious
current offense. Most person offenders
(69 percent) say they knew their victims.
Another one-fourth of youth in custody (26
percent) have a property offense as their
most serious current offense, with most
of them (19 percent of youth) reporting
burglary, arson, or theft. For more infor­
mation about youth’s most serious current
offenses, see table 3.

Table 2: Offenses Leading to Youth’s Current Custody Situation

Estimated
Number

Percentage

Percentage of
Probation/
Parole Violators
(N = 58,180)

101,040

100%

100%

100%

43,320

43

36

53

Murder, rape,
kidnapping

10,730

11

5

18

Robbery

14,520

14

13

16

9,310

9

9

10

17,110

17

18

16

45,310

45

46

43

Burglary, arson,
or theft

35,190

35

36

34

Other property

28,060

28

32

22

Drug

28,590

28

34

21

Public order

23,080

23

24

21

Status

42,760

42

59

19

Technical violation*

30,730

30

53

na

Other

26,100

26

30

21

Youth in Custody
Current Offense

All offenses
Person

Assault with a weapon
Assault without a
weapon
Property

Percentage
of Nonviolators
(N = 42,700)

Notes: na = not applicable. Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Rows sum to
more than the estimated total number of youth in placement because youth are classified in every
offense category they reported. The table excludes 139 participating youth (representing 2.3 percent
of the estimated total custody population) who did not indicate any current offense among those
listed. Youth not yet adjudicated are classified according to the offense(s) they are charged with or are
accused of committing.

* This category includes violations of probation or parole that are not classifiable as offenses in other
categories in this table (e.g., testing positive for drugs, violating house arrest or electronic monitoring,
or running away from a placement or facility).

Differences Between
Male and Female
Offenders
Males and females differ in their offense
patterns (figure 1). Greater percentages
of males than females are in placement for
murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, drug
offenses, and public order offenses. Greater
percentages of females than males are in
placement for status offenses and assaults.
SYRP findings underscore the historically
greater rates of status offenses among
females (Chesney-Lind, 2001; ChesneyLind and Shelden, 2004). FBI data from
2003 (the year SYRP was conducted) on
arrests of youth younger than 21 years old
show that females are charged with status

4

offenses twice as frequently as males
(12 percent of arrested females versus 6
percent of arrested males).6 Related SYRP
findings, displayed in figure 1, indicate
that status violations are the most serious
offense leading to custody for twice as
many females as males (18 percent versus
9 percent).
During the past decade, arrests of juvenile
females increased more (or decreased
less) than male arrests for the same
offense categories. The Uniform Crime
Reports show that between 1999 and 2008,
juvenile arrests for aggravated assault
dropped 21.8 percent for males but only
2.5 percent for females. During this same
period, simple assault arrests for juvenile
males decreased 5.8 percent but increased

Table 3: 	 Most Serious Offense Leading to Youth’s Current Placement and
Youth’s Most Serious Career Offense
Most Serious Offense Leading to Current Placement

Youth’s Most Serious
Career Offense

Estimated
Number*

Percent

Estimated
Number †

Percent

101,040

100

101,040

100

43,320

43

57,410

57

Murder, rape, kidnapping

10,730

11

13,310

13

Robbery

13,010

13

17,610

18

6,130

6

8,460

8

13,440

14

18,030

18

25,420

26

25,990

26

18,920

19

20,120

20

6,510

7

5,880

6

Drug

9,380

10

7,340

7

Public order

3,220

3

1,750

2

Status**

9,880

10

4,930

5

Technical violation

3,080

3

630

1

Other

4,420

4

1,880

2

Offense
All youth
Person

Assault with a weapon
Assault without a weapon
Property
Burglary, arson, or theft
Other property

††

††

* Columns sum to slightly less than the estimated total number of youth in placement because of
participants who answered “none of the above” or “don’t know” to the offense questions or said they
would rather not answer these questions. This precluded current offense estimates for 2.3 percent of
the population (139 survey participants).
** A status offense is an offense only prohibited for a certain group of people (e.g., alcohol drinking
under age 21).
†

Columns sum to slightly less than the estimated total number of youth in placement because of
participants who answered “none of the above” or “don’t know” to the offense questions or said they
would rather not answer these questions. This precluded career offense estimates for 1.1 percent of
the population (64 survey participants).
Estimates for this category are less reliable because they are based on fewer than 100 participating youth.

15.9 percent for juvenile females (Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2009). Additional
research has shown that females have not
become more violent during this period
(Steffensmeier et al., 2005). Rather, the
evidence indicates that the shift is likely
an unintended result of changes in arrest
policies, specifically the use of mandatory
and proarrest laws for domestic violence.
In these cases, juvenile females are be­
ing arrested for altercations with family
members—incidents that were previ­
ously handled informally or documented

as status offenses (e.g., “ungovernable”)
(Strom et al., unpublished paper). This
trend is evident in analyses of arrest data
(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006), which find
that a greater percentage of aggravated
assaults by juvenile females are against
family members or intimate partners, as
well as in SYRP, which finds that females
in custody for violent offenses are more
likely than males to report that they know
or are related to their victims (82 percent
of females versus 67 percent of males with
current person offenses).
5

SYRP asks youth whether they were previ­
ously taken into custody, on probation or
parole, or convicted of any offenses—
information that enters into court deci­
sions about where to place them in the
juvenile justice system. The large majority
(85 percent) of youth interviewed have
prior convictions. Ten percent report only
prior custody, probation, or parole. Only 5
percent of youth in custody have no prior
involvement with the justice system.
The authors examined youth’s answers
about their current offenses and previous
convictions and classified youth according
to their most serious career offense. Youth
with no prior justice system involvement
are more likely to have committed murder,
rape, or kidnapping as their most serious
current (and career) offense (35 percent)
than youth with only prior custody or pro­
bation (13 percent) or with prior convic­
tions (12 percent). Most youth with prior
convictions (74 percent) have committed
another person offense or property crime7
as their most serious career offense.

Notes: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Percentages are based only on
youth who identified offenses. Career offenses consider youth’s prior convictions.

††

Justice System
Involvement

In addition, for most youth with prior
convictions, their current most serious
offense is less severe or at the same level
of severity as the most serious offense in

Figure 1: Males and Females in Custody by Their Most Serious
Current Offense
30
Female

Male

Percentage of Sex Group

25

At the time they were taken into custody,
more youth were living with one parent
(45 percent) than with two parents (30
percent), and one-fourth of youth (25
percent) were not living with any parent.
SYRP data describing where youth were
living when they entered custody indicate
that the risk of being taken into custody is
significantly greater for juveniles who live
with a single parent (558 per 100,000) or
with no parent (1,652 per 100,000) than for
juveniles living in two-parent households
(153 per 100,000).8 Table 4 shows more
information about who raised youth in
custody and whom they lived with when
taken into custody.

20

15

10

5

0

,
,
g,
th
rape
er ty
ery*
ault
t wi
Dru er*
der, pping* Robb Assaul apon* Assapon* Prop
d
r
r
u
o
M idna
e
lic
we
k
pub
no w

al
hnic
Tec n/other
latio

tus*

Sta

vio

Most Serious Current Offense
* Percentages of males and females differ significantly in these offense categories.

their prior convictions. Only 22 percent of
youth identified a current offense that is
more serious than their prior convictions.

Adjudication and
Placement in Programs
Two-thirds of youth in custody (66 per­
cent) have been adjudicated and assigned
to placement in their current program
(i.e., committed). Seven percent have been
adjudicated and await placement and/or
disposition, 14 percent have not yet been
adjudicated, and 13 percent have been
adjudicated but SYRP could not determine
their disposition status.

Committed Youth in
Detention Programs
The percentage of youth who are com­
mitted is substantially less in detention
programs than in other types of programs
(28 percent in detention versus 80 per­
cent in other programs). Although this
difference is expected, readers might be
surprised that the percentage of commit­
ted youth in detention is this high, in view
of the concerns in the juvenile justice field
regarding the use of detention facilities
for postadjudication placements (Roush,

custody (46 percent) report that both
parents helped raise them, although this
could have been in separate households. A
slightly lower percentage (42 percent) had
just one parent caring for them when they
were growing up. Eleven percent report no
parental care while growing up.

1999). Nevertheless, sentences to detention
have become increasingly popular and are
available as a disposition in 32 states. In ad­
dition, 40 states use detention as a sanction
for probation violations (National Center
for Juvenile Justice, 2006).

Length of Stay
The amount of time youth offenders spend
in a facility typically depends on many
factors, including time in detention prior
to adjudication, the nature and severity
of their offense(s), and their commitment
status. SYRP does not assess youth’s total
length of stay but can measure how long
they have been in their facility at the time
of their interview. About one-third (35
percent) of all youth in custody have been
in their facility for 60 days or less, and the
same percentage (35 percent) have been
held between 61 and 180 days. About 1 in
10 (11 percent) have been in their facility
for more than a year.

Family Background
SYRP asks youth about their family back­
grounds, including who raised them and
whom they lived with at the time they
were taken into custody. Many youth in

6

SYRP also indicates that significantly more
females than males enter custody from
no-parent living arrangements (32 percent
of females versus 24 percent of males) and
from foster family or agency care (7 per­
cent of females versus 4 percent of males).
However, more males than females lived
with a single parent (46 percent of males
versus 40 percent of females).

Childbearing
Fourteen percent of youth in custody re­
port that they have children. More males
have children than females (15 percent
versus 9 percent). These rates are much
greater than in the general population (2
percent of males and 6 percent of females
between ages 12 and 20) (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2004). Twelve percent of youth,
some of whom already have children, say
they are currently expecting a child (i.e.,
females report they are pregnant; males
report that someone is pregnant with their
child). A combined total of 20 percent of
youth in custody have or are expecting
children.
Other researchers have observed strong
associations between teen fatherhood
and delinquent behavior in smaller, local
samples of juvenile offenders and at-risk
youth (Thornberry et al., 2000; Unruh,
Bullis, and Yovanoff, 2003, 2004). SYRP
findings indicate that this association is
reflected in the national population of
male youth in residential placement. The
association is not as strong for female
youth in placement, probably because

Table 4: Family Background of Youth in Custody
Family Background

Estimated Number

Percentage

101,040

100

Two parents

46,770

46

One parent

42,690

42

No parent

11,580

11

All youth
Caretaker when growing up

Living arrangement when
taken into custody
Two parents

29,980

30

One parent

45,390

45

No parent

25,670

25

Notes: Estimated totals are rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. Parents include both biological par­
ents and stepparents. Youth who reported that two parents took care of them while they were growing
up did not necessarily live in a two-parent household.

pregnant females are less prevalent in the
placement population than males who are
expectant fathers.

Educational
Background
Researchers have consistently documented
a number of educational deficiencies
among delinquent youth in local samples.
Delinquent youth perform at less than ex­
pected academic levels (Wang, Blomberg,
and Li, 2005; Zabel and Nigro, 2001). They
have poor school attendance and greater
rates of grade retention9 (Laird, 1980;
Silberberg and Silberberg, 1971; Wang,
Blomberg, and Li, 2005; Zabel and Nigro,
1999). When they are in school, they
exhibit more disciplinary problems, re­
sulting in greater suspension rates (Finn,
Scott, and Zarichny, 1988; Loeber and
Farrington, 1998; Wang, Blomberg, and Li,
2005; Zabel and Nigro, 1999). SYRP results
corroborate these findings in the nation­
wide population of youth in custody.

already graduated from high school or
earned their general equivalency diploma.
More than one-half (53 percent) of youth
in custody admit skipping classes in the
year before they entered custody, and the
majority (57 percent) had been suspended
in the same year. Also, 26 percent of 12- to
17-year-olds say they repeated a grade in
the year prior to entering custody, which
is more than twice the lifetime rate of
grade retention (11 percent) among youth
of the same age in the general population
(Lugaila, 2003). Almost one-half (48 percent)

SYRP asks youth about their enrollment,
school experience, grade level, and learn­
ing disabilities. Although a majority (76
percent) of youth were enrolled in school
when they entered custody, this is signifi­
cantly less than the rate of youth in the
general population who are the same age
(88 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).
Only 3 percent of youth who were not
enrolled when they entered custody had
7

of youth in custody are at less than the typi­
cal grade level for their age, compared with
28 percent of youth in the general population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).
Additionally, SYRP data indicate that
youth in custody have disabilities that
would make school more difficult for
them. Thirty percent of youth in custody
report that they have been diagnosed with
a learning disability, compared with 5 per­
cent of youth between the ages of 10 and
20 in the general population (U.S. Office of
Special Education Programs, 2003).
Nonetheless, more than two-thirds of
youth in custody report that they have
aspirations of higher education. About
one-half (47 percent) say they want to go
to college and another one-fifth of youth
(21 percent) say they would like to go to
graduate school, medical school, or law
school. Females are significantly more
likely than males to aspire to some type
of advanced degree (37 percent of females
versus 18 percent of males). Most youth
in custody think they will achieve their
educational goals. When asked how far
they thought they would go in school, the
majority (57 percent) say they expect to
go at least as far as they want.
Youth’s positive aspirations also apply to
their future employment. Most youth in
custody (88 percent) say they expect to
have a steady job in the future.

Expectations About
Release
More than one-half (51 percent) of youth
in custody say they have been told when

they will be released. One-third (33 per­
cent) expect to be released in 1 month
or sooner, 23 percent think they will be
in custody for another 1 to 3 months,
one-fifth (20 percent) believe they will be
released in another 3 to 6 months, and
one-fifth (20 percent) expect to be in cus­
tody for longer than 6 more months.
Youth who have been committed (i.e.,
adjudicated and assigned to placement

in their current program) expect their
further time in custody to be considerably
longer than other youth. Only 26 percent
of committed youth believe they will be
released in 1 month, compared with 51
percent of other youth.
When they leave their current facility, onehalf of youth (50 percent) say they will be
placed on probation or parole, 11 percent
think they will be released with no court

supervision, and 8 percent expect to go to
another facility. Close to one-third of the
population in custody (30 percent) say
they have not been told what will happen
when they leave. Once released, majorities
of youth in custody think they will have
to report to a probation or parole officer
(59 percent) or attend school regularly
(56 percent). Some (42 percent) say they
will have to take drug tests and a similar
percentage (40 percent) say they will be

Similarities and Differences Between Youth Surveys
The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) and the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP)1 both pro­
vide information about the size of the custody population; its age, sex, and race/ethnicity composition; and youth’s most serious
current offenses. SYRP findings on age, sex, race/ethnicity, population size, and current offenses closely parallel those reported
for the 2003 CJRP (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2008). Any differences in population size and in age and sex distributions may
stem from methodology differences or from changes over time and seasonal fluctuations: SYRP describes the population in
spring, whereas CJRP reflects the population in October.
SYRP and CJRP custody rates differ slightly, with SYRP rates slightly lower than those given in the CJRP Databook (Sickmund,
Sladky, and Kang, 2008). This difference reflects the use of slightly different population denominators. CJRP rates are based on
the number of juveniles in the general population ages 10 through the upper age of the original court jurisdiction in each state,2
whereas SYRP rates are based on all juveniles ages 10 through the upper age of extended juvenile court jurisdiction.3
The two surveys also offer different race/ethnicity classifications, reflecting their different methodologies and answer categories:
CJRP requires administrators to assign a single race/ethnicity classification to each youth, whereas SYRP permits youth to
identify as multiracial. The CJRP-type classification has been used universally until only recently, and it still remains the standard
for available administrative data (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). SYRP’s expanded answer choices conform to the new Census
Bureau standard for measuring race/ethnicity. Moreover, this expansion reveals that multiracial youth have a substantially greater
custody rate (see page 2).
In comparison to CJRP data, SYRP findings indicate that the most serious offense leading to current placement is more com­
monly a person offense (Sickmund, 2004; Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2008). The SYRP data show that 43 percent of youth
are in their current placement because of a person offense, whereas the CJRP data show only 34 percent. This discrepancy is an
understandable consequence of measurement differences between the SYRP interview answers and administrative data used to
categorize offenses.
CJRP asks facility administrators for a single response that summarizes each youth’s offense record. In contrast, the SYRP selfreport interview explicitly asks separate questions about all offenses, affording youth more opportunities to report a more serious
offense. The vast majority of youth in placement have previous convictions, so when asked to recall and report the events that led
to their current placement, they may not clearly distinguish these events from their prior offenses. In actuality, their view on this
may be quite realistic because courts undoubtedly consider offense histories when deciding to place youth. Finally, differences
between what the youth did and the charges to which they finally pled should be systematic, with pled charges less serious. If
youth describe what they actually did and administrative records indicate the charge for which they were adjudicated after their
plea, then self-report data will convey offenses that are more serious. (For example, a youth may describe an assault while the
record may show a disorderly conduct charge.) Given these dynamics of memory, interpretation, and circumstances, neither the
self-report nor the administrative record is necessarily more valid. Both methods provide important, alternative perspectives on
offender youth in placement.
SYRP data concerning offense behaviors go well beyond what administrators (surveyed through CJRP) can currently provide.
SYRP gives details about the circumstances of current offenses, identifies patterns of past involvement in the justice system,
identifies first offenders, and classifies youth by their most serious career offense. Until records systems become substantially
more advanced, researchers must rely on interviews with youth to obtain this extensive information.
1

CJRP surveys residential facilities in the United States to collect data on youth in custody; SYRP collects data from facilities and the youth themselves.
Like SYRP, CJRP collects information on sex, age, race/ethnicity, most serious offense, court adjudication status, and more.

2

This is the oldest age at which a juvenile court has jurisdiction over an individual for law-violating behavior. In 38 states, the juvenile court has
original jurisdiction over all youth charged with an offense who were younger than age 18 at the time of the offense, arrest, or referral to court (King
and Szymanski, 2006). In many states, the juvenile court has original jurisdiction over young adults who committed offenses while they were juveniles.

3
This is the oldest age for which the juvenile court can retain jurisdiction over youth’s dispositions in delinquency matters. Extended jurisdiction laws
enable the juvenile court to provide sanctions and services even for older juveniles who have reached the age at which original juvenile court juris­
diction ends. This upper limit varies by state, depending on what is considered to be in the best interests of the juvenile and the public. In 33 states,
this is age 20 (King and Szymanski, 2006).

8

required to work at least part time. Only
a little more than one-third (35 percent)
say they will be expected to go to coun­
seling, and just more than one-fifth (22
percent) say they will have to pay for
damages they caused.

Youth Expectations
About Future Offending
and Sanctions
SYRP asks youth whether they think they
will reoffend in the future. To assess
youth’s thoughts on the workings of the
juvenile justice system and on graduated
sanctions,10 SYRP asks whether they ex­
pect to be apprehended and confined for
any future offenses and what they believe
their future punishments will be.
Most youth in custody (59 percent) say
they definitely will not reoffend in the
future. This belief is particularly prevalent
among first-time offenders (78 percent).
Although this is the socially desirable
response, the anonymity of the interview
should have minimized youth’s concerns
about conveying a good image. Despite
this, the majority of youth in all groups
affirm they will not reoffend. At the same
time, nearly two-fifths (39 percent) think
it unlikely they would be caught if they reoffended in the future. Nonetheless, the ma­
jority of youth recognize that if they were
caught for a future offense, they would
be punished. More than three-fourths (76
percent) think they would be remanded
to custody, and 75 percent believe their
future punishment would be greater than
their current punishment.
Youth’s expectations about the workings
of the juvenile justice system are revealing,
particularly considering that nearly twofifths of youth in custody think they are
unlikely to be apprehended for any
repeat offense (most of whom say they
“definitely will not be arrested”). Perhaps
these youth feel they will be better at
eluding law enforcement in the future,
or perhaps they recognize the consider­
able challenge that officers face in solving
crime and apprehending those respon­
sible. Whatever their reasoning, youth’s
answers on this series of SYRP questions
suggest that arrest or apprehension is the
weakest link in the sanctioning process.

Conclusion
The findings presented here represent a
major advance in statistics about youth
in custody. They provide a rich portrait

of the characteristics, backgrounds, and
expectations of these youth. SYRP results
provide information about the national
population of youth in placement that is
not available through any other source.
For example, until now no information has
been available for the national population
in custody regarding the overall preva­
lence of all offenses for which youth are
incarcerated or the characteristics of
these offenses, such as the presence of
accomplices and youth’s use of drugs or
alcohol during the offenses.
A number of the SYRP findings reiterate
results from small, local studies. These
findings provide a valuable contribution
to the research literature on delinquent
youth because they demonstrate that
the patterns are not just local but apply
more generally to the national population
of youth in custody. Other observations
provide unprecedented glimpses into the
backgrounds, expectations, and beliefs of
juveniles in custody.
Several findings have implications for re­
ducing recidivism and enhancing positive
outcomes:
◆	 Develop programs that address the
specific needs of youth who are
parents or expectant parents. SYRP
discovered that 20 percent of youth
in custody already have children or
are expecting a child. Juvenile justice
programs have not commonly focused
on the unique needs of these young
parents and have overlooked how
youth’s unmet needs may affect their
children. To reduce youth’s recidivism
and enhance the outcomes for their
children, future initiatives should focus
on programs that support parent-child
bonds, improve youth’s parenting
skills, develop realistic release plans
to preserve these new families, and
enhance youth’s ability to support
and safely parent their children in the
future.
◆	 Capitalize on youth’s aspirations to
motivate positive changes in their
lives. SYRP found that most youth say
they want to go to college, or even to
graduate school, and that the large
majority expect to hold a steady job in
the future. Intervention programs to re­
duce recidivism could motivate critical
changes in youth’s behavior by tapping
their own specific aspirations for their
further education and productive future
lives.

9

SYRP can inform program and policy
by providing details about the kinds of
offenders in custody. Further analyses of
the SYRP data can answer a wide range of
questions about youth’s offense patterns,
including the following:
◆	 Do certain combinations of offenses
typically occur together? What types
of offenses do the same youth tend to
commit?
◆	 How do the offenses that gang mem­
bers report differ from the offenses
that other youth report? Do gang mem­
bers have different offense profiles than
other youth? Are gang members more
likely to report using a weapon, injuring
their victims, having accomplices, or
being under the influence of alcohol or
drugs when they committed their cur­
rent offenses?
◆	 How do youth’s current offenses
relate to their family situations? What
are the current offenses of youth who
were living with two parents when they
entered custody, and do these offenses
differ from the offenses of youth who
were living with a single parent or with
no parent? What kinds of offenses do
youth commit if they have children of
their own or are expecting a child?
◆	 Do different types of offenders have
different expectations about their fu­
ture education or employment or about
their future offending and sanctions?
Are violent offenders less positive about
their future education or employment?
Are they more skeptical about the work­
ings of the justice system?

Endnotes
1. All SYRP custody rates are computed
as rates per 100,000 U.S. youth, including
youth in the ages covered by extended
juvenile court jurisdiction. Numbers of
youth ages 10 through 20 in the general
population were obtained from the U.S.
Census Bureau’s monthly population
estimates for April 2003, which was the
midpoint of SYRP data collection (U.S.
Census Bureau, Population Division, 2004).
These numbers were adjusted by remov­
ing youth not within the purview of the
juvenile court in states where extended
court jurisdiction ends before age 20.
2. The SYRP bulletins report only differ­
ences that are statistically significant.
3. Fewer than 100 SYRP respondents are
in this age category (n=82). Here and
throughout the SYRP bulletins, estimates

based on fewer than 100 respondents are
flagged as less reliable.
4. The body of research on multiracial
youth and delinquency is just emerging,
so although these findings suggest that
elevated rates of delinquency may be
evident among multiracial youth in the
custody population nationwide, the find­
ings should be considered in context. Only
recently have studies and data collection
activities—both small and large scale—
allowed respondents to indicate mixed
race/ethnicity. Further research is needed
to better understand the factors that may
influence this finding. Until these findings
are better understood, their implications
for disproportionate minority contact
programs and policies are unclear.

8. Corresponding statistics on 12- to
17-year-olds in the general population are
available (U.S. Census Bureau, Population
Division, 2004). The rates given in the
text reflect this subgroup (and exclude
younger and older SYRP youth).
9. Grade retention means that youth
repeated a grade in school.
10. “Graduated sanctions” refers to justice
system responses that can take a variety
of specific forms but always involve a
continuum of consequences (disposi­
tions, punishments, services, or interven­
tion programs) calibrated to address the
severity and chronic nature of the specific
crimes and the individual offender’s his­
tory and characteristics.

5. Some participants (n=139) did not select
any of the listed offenses.

References

6. The authors computed these rates from
information provided in tables 39 and 40
of Crime in the United States, 2003 (Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2004).

Chesney-Lind, M. 2001. Are girls closing
the gender gap in violence? Criminal Jus­
tice Magazine 16(1):1–9. Available online:
www.abanet.org/crimjust/cjmag/16-1/
chesneylind.html.

7. Property crimes include burglary, arson,
and theft as well as the less serious prop­
erty offenses—trespassing, joyriding, and
vandalism.

WesDax: Providing 

Survey of Youth in 

Residential Placement 

Data Online

WesDax is an online query and analysis
system that allows users to construct
their own results from the Survey of
Youth in Residential Placement. The
system is designed for audiences without
technical or statistical expertise, includ­
ing policymakers, service providers, and
the general public.
The WesDax system:
◆	 Operates in a standard Web browser
and requires no special software.
◆	 Offers a tutorial for new users, includ­
ing a glossary of terms.
◆	 Computes accurate totals and 

percentages.

◆	 Can provide statistical measures of 

precision (in the form of standard er­
rors or confidence intervals).

To use WesDax, see the “Online Analy­
sis” link at www.syrp.org.

Chesney-Lind, M., and Shelden, R.G. 2004.
Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice, 3d
ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2004.
Crime in the United States, 2003. Wash­
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2009.
Crime in the United States, 2008. Wash­
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Finn, J.D., Scott, M.W.R., and Zarichny,
K.T. 1988. School performance of adoles­
cents in juvenile court. Urban Education
23(2):150–161.
King, M., and Szymanski, L. 2006. National
overviews. In State Juvenile Justice Profiles.
Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juve­
nile Justice.
Laird, A.W. 1980. A comprehensive and
innovative attack of action programs for
delinquency prevention and classroom
success. Education 101(2):118–122.
Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 1998.
Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk
Factors and Successful Interventions. Thou­
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lugaila, T.A. 2003. A Child’s Day, 2000
(Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being).
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Available online: www.census.gov/
prod/2003pubs/p70-89.pdf.
McCord, J., and Conway, K.P. 2005. Co­
offending and Patterns of Juvenile Crime.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus­
tice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice.
National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2006.
State Juvenile Justice Profiles. Pittsburgh,
PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Available online: www.ncjj.org/
stateprofiles.
Roush, D. 1999. Helpful juvenile detention.
Reaching Today’s Youth 3(3):63–68.
Sickmund, M. 2004. Juveniles in Correc­
tions. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice

The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement
Further information about the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement can be
found in the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Technical Report and other
bulletins in this series, which include:
◆ Introduction to the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement.
◆ Youth’s Needs and Services: Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential
Placement.
◆ Conditions of Confinement: Findings From the Survey of Youth in Residential
Placement.
◆ Nature and Risk of Victimization: Findings From the Survey of Youth in Resi­
dential Placement.
For more complete results of the survey findings on youth’s characteristics and
backgrounds, see the “Reports” link at www.syrp.org.

10

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., and Kang., W.
2008. Census of Juveniles in Residential
Placement Databook. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. Available online:
ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp.
Silberberg, N.E., and Silberberg, M.C. 1971.
School achievement and delinquency. Re­
view of Educational Research 41(1):17–38.
Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 2006.
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 Na­
tional Report. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., Zhong, H.,
and Ackerman, J. 2005. An assessment
of recent trends in girls’ violence using
diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender
gap closing? Criminology 43(2):355–405.
Stormshak, E.A., Comeau, C.A., and
Shepard, S.A. 2004. The relative contribu­
tion of sibling deviance and peer deviance
in the prediction of substance use across
middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology 32:635–649.
Strom, K., Warner, T., Tichavsky, L., and
Zahn, M. Unpublished paper. Policing
daughters: The role of domestic violence
arrest policies in child-parent conflicts.
Thornberry, T.P., Wei, E.H., StouthamerLoeber, M., and Van Dyke, J. 2000. Teen­
age Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior.
Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Of­
fice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Unruh, D., Bullis, M., and Yovanoff, P. 2003.
Community reintegration outcomes for
formerly incarcerated adolescent fathers
and nonfathers. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders 11:144–156.
Unruh, D., Bullis, M., and Yovanoff, P. 2004.
Adolescent fathers who are incarcerated
juvenile offenders: Explanatory study of
the co-occurrence of two problem behav­
iors. Journal of Child and Family Studies
13:405–419.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Current Popula­
tion Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Eco­
nomic Supplement. (Table C2. Household
Relationship and Living Arrangements of

Children Under 18 Years/1, by Age, Sex,
Race, Hispanic Origin). Available online:
http://www.census.gov/population/
socdemo/hh-fam/cps2003/tabC2-all.pdf.

Wang, X., Blomberg, T.G., and Li, S.D. 2005.
Comparison of the educational deficien­
cies of delinquent and nondelinquent stu­
dents. Evaluation Review 29(4):291–312.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Single grade of
enrollment and high school graduation
status for people 3 years old and over, by
age (single years for 3 to 24 years), race,
and Hispanic origin: October 2003 (Table 2
at School enrollment—Social and eco­
nomic characteristics of students: October
2003, detailed tables). U.S. Census Bureau,
Population Division, Education and Social
Stratification Branch. Available online:
www.census.gov/population/www/
socdemo/school/cps2003.html.

Warr, M. 1996. Organization and instiga­
tion in delinquent groups. Criminology
34:11–37.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division.
2004. Monthly Population Estimates, 2000 to
2004. Monthly postcensal resident popula­
tion (by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin
for the United States). Available online:
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/
asrh/2004_nat_res.html.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP). 2003. Number of children served
under IDEA Part B, by disability and age
(table AA7). (Data tables for OSEP statereported data: Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) Data.) Available
online: www.ideadata.org/arc_toc5.asp.
Wallisch, L.S. 1992. Substance use among
youth entering Texas Youth Commis­
sion reception facilities in 1989. Austin,
TX: Texas Commission on Alcohol and
Drug Abuse. Available online: www.tcada.
state.tx.us/research/criminaljustice/
tyc/1989/89tyc2ndrpt.pdf.

11

White, H.R., Tice, P., Loeber, R., and
Stouthamer-Loeber, M. 2002. Illegal acts
committed by adolescents under the
influence of alcohol and drugs. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency
39:131–152.
Zabel, R.H., and Nigro, F.A. 1999. Juve­
nile offenders with behavioral disorders,
learning disabilities, and no disabilities:
Self-reports of personal, family, and school
characteristics. Behavioral Disorders
25(1):22–40.
Zabel, R.H., and Nigro, F.A. 2001. The influ­
ence of special education experience and
gender of juvenile offenders on academic
achievement scores in reading, language,
and mathematics. Behavioral Disorders
26(2):164–172.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

*NCJ~227730*

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91


Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin

Acknowledgments
Andrea J. Sedlak, Ph.D., Vice President and Associate Director of Human Ser­
vices Research at Westat, is Project Director of the Survey of Youth in Residential
Placement (SYRP). Carol Bruce, Ph.D., is a Senior SYRP Analyst. Other Westat
staff who made key contributions to the study included David Cantor, Ph.D., John
Hartge, John Brown, Alfred Bishop, Gary Shapiro, Sheila Krawchuk, Karla McPher­
son, Ph.D., Monica Basena, Kristin Madden, and Ying Long, as well as many other
dedicated Westat staff too numerous to name here.
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) assisted during the SYRP
design and preliminary analyses under a subcontract to Westat. Contributing
NCCD staff included Madeline Wordes, Ph.D., Eileen Poe-Yamagata, and Christo­
pher J. Hartney.
Several OJJDP program managers provided support and guidance over the course
of the project: Joseph Moone, Barbara Allen-Hagen, and Janet Chiancone. Many
members of the SYRP Advisory Board offered constructive advice at critical points.
Finally, this study would not have been possible without the generous cooperation
of the many state directors and hundreds of local facility administrators who pro­
vided the information, space, and staff support needed to conduct the survey and
the thousands of youth who agreed to participate and contributed their time and the
details of their lives and experiences in answering the SYRP questions.

NCJ 227730

This bulletin was prepared under grant number
2001–JR–BX–K001 from the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),
U.S. Department of Justice.
Points of view or opinions expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official position
or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department
of Justice.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention is a component of the Office of
Justice Programs, which also includes the
Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of
Justice Statistics; the Community Capacity
Development Office; the National Institute
of Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime;
and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing,
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and
Tracking (SMART).