This survey of departments of corrections in the UnitedStates was undertaken to provide correctional staff with design,implementation, and management strategies to meet the needs ofprisoners under the age of 18. The study examined what happens whenindividuals under age 18 are placed in adult correctional facilities,and explored the ways in which departments of corrections areattempting to deal with the growing population of youthfulinmates. The following three objectives were the focus of this study:(1) to describe the number of incarcerated youths (at time ofadmission) being held in the nation's prison system, (2) to examinethe different methods being used to house inmates under 18 years old,and (3) to explore different management approaches used with youthfulinmates in terms of the size of the prison system and the area of thecountry in which they were located. For this study, respondents in 51departments of corrections (50 states and the District of Columbia)were contacted by telephone regarding survey questions that weremailed prior to the phone interviews. The survey contained fivequestions concerning current practices for handling offenders underthe age of 18 who had been placed in adult correctionalinstitutions. Data were collected on the method used to houseunderaged inmates and the size of each system's population of inmatesunder 18 years old. Subsequently, the method and size data werecombined to form categories describing four management approaches fordealing with offenders under the age of 18 in adult prisons: (1)separated/big, (2) separated/little, (3) integrated/big, and (4)integrated/little. Demographic variables include the population sizeand region (Northeast, South, Midwest, or West) of each jurisdiction,as well as the number and proportion of offenders under 18 years oldwithin each state. Also present in the file is the location and nameof the facility with the largest under-18 population in eachjurisdiction.

This survey of departments of corrections in the UnitedStates was undertaken to provide correctional staff with design,implementation, and management strategies to meet the needs ofprisoners under the age of 18. The study examined what happens whenindividuals under age 18 are placed in adult correctional facilities,and explored the ways in which departments of corrections areattempting to deal with the growing population of youthfulinmates. The following three objectives were the focus of this study:(1) to describe the number of incarcerated youths (at time ofadmission) being held in the nation's prison system, (2) to examinethe different methods being used to house inmates under 18 years old,and (3) to explore different management approaches used with youthfulinmates in terms of the size of the prison system and the area of thecountry in which they were located. For this study, respondents in 51departments of corrections (50 states and the District of Columbia)were contacted by telephone regarding survey questions that weremailed prior to the phone interviews. The survey contained fivequestions concerning current practices for handling offenders underthe age of 18 who had been placed in adult correctionalinstitutions. Data were collected on the method used to houseunderaged inmates and the size of each system's population of inmatesunder 18 years old. Subsequently, the method and size data werecombined to form categories describing four management approaches fordealing with offenders under the age of 18 in adult prisons: (1)separated/big, (2) separated/little, (3) integrated/big, and (4)integrated/little. Demographic variables include the population sizeand region (Northeast, South, Midwest, or West) of each jurisdiction,as well as the number and proportion of offenders under 18 years oldwithin each state. Also present in the file is the location and nameof the facility with the largest under-18 population in eachjurisdiction.

This study sought to identify and examine current policies and strategies for controlling prison gangs and to determine the ways in which correctional facilities were dealing with gangs in their institutions. Respondents to the mail survey included 55 local jail systems and 52 state prison systems (the 50 state Departments of Corrections, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons). The survey question text used the term "security threat group" (STG), which was defined as "two or more inmates, acting together, who pose a threat to the security or safety of staff/inmates and/or are disruptive to programs and/or to the orderly management of the facility/system," rather than the generic term "gang." Data contain information on total inmate population, number of STGs, number of inmates identified as confirmed, suspected, associate, and drop-out members of STGs, total incidents of violence, number of violent incidents by STG members, management strategies to deal with gangs, and names of STGs known to bepresent within the system.

This study sought to identify and examine current policies and strategies for controlling prison gangs and to determine the ways in which correctional facilities were dealing with gangs in their institutions. Respondents to the mail survey included 55 local jail systems and 52 state prison systems (the 50 state Departments of Corrections, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons). The survey question text used the term "security threat group" (STG), which was defined as "two or more inmates, acting together, who pose a threat to the security or safety of staff/inmates and/or are disruptive to programs and/or to the orderly management of the facility/system," rather than the generic term "gang." Data contain information on total inmate population, number of STGs, number of inmates identified as confirmed, suspected, associate, and drop-out members of STGs, total incidents of violence, number of violent incidents by STG members, management strategies to deal with gangs, and names of STGs known to bepresent within the system.