A Review of Recreation Requirements in U.S. Juvenile Justice Facilities

Abstract

In the United States, the mission of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention includes the development and implementation of prevention and intervention programs. While many of these initiatives include recreation, there remains no standard for recreation programs. The purpose of this study was to review the written authorities for each state to identify the minimum requirements for recreation programming in juvenile justice facilities. Among other discoveries, we found that across all states, there is not a shared definition of recreation, only 70% of states have daily mandatory minimums requirements, only 44% of states require youth be given time outside, and only 56% of states include justifications for denying youth access to recreation. Implications for professionals and researchers are discussed, as well as suggestions for further inquiry and the integration of recreation into the treatment process.

Keywords

juvenile justice recreation leisure policy treatment youth

Introduction

The mission statement of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, includes the goal to “prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2019). It is the responsibility of juvenile justice institutions to prepare young people who have entered the system to return to their communities as “better functioning individuals” capable of leading fulfilling leisure lives in which they are challenged and experience connection without infringing on the rights of others (Robertson, 2001). Quality recreation programs strengthen protective factors in youth to mitigate risk factors, ultimately improving youth outcomes and reducing juvenile delinquency. The role of recreation within juvenile justice institutions has been largely unknown up to this point. This study attempts to answer begin to explore the connection by reviewing the legislative and administrative regulations related to recreation practices in juvenile justice facilities in the United States. In this article, we will provide a brief history of youth deviancy in the United States and advocate for recreation programs in juvenile justice settings. Then, the methods will be explained, results reported, followed by a discussion of the implications of this study for research, policy, and practice before a conclusion is provided.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, industrialization gave rise to juvenile crime in the cities where children were required to work in sweatshops and factories. The communities most affected were immigrant enclaves, like those in Chicago where the only opportunity for children to play was in the streets after the workday (Fradin & Fradin, 2006). The activities of immigrant youth were deemed delinquent, and in response Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr established the Hull House to provide opportunities to immigrant youth to continue their education, and learn life and leisure skills that aligned upper-middle class American values (Addams & Brown, 1999; Linn & Scott, 2000). In New York during the 1920s and 1930s, youth gangs grew with the surge of low paying jobs that drew runaways and orphans, followed by the rise in high school enrollment as youth left the workforce during the Great Depression (Savage, 2008). In the 1940s, adult fear of a youth rebellion grew because of the media’s perceived promotion of sexual immorality and deviancy (Cohen, 1997, Chapter 8; Savage, 2008).

Middle class crime rose in the 1950s and 1960s with suburbanization and the relationship between adults and children grew more contentious with pervasive media influence (Cohen, 1997, Chapter 8). Youth subcultures grew in the 1960s and were politically active through early engagement in the Civil Rights Movement (Savage, 2008). Drug use increased as part of the music and festivals across the nation in the 1970s (Savage, 2008). In the 1980s, youth subcultures continued to emerge and take new forms beyond the confines of geography through the Internet (Savage, 2008). The War on Drugs was declared and resulted in the enforcement of strict drug laws that disproportionately impacted communities of color (Bobo & Thompson, 2010; Savage, 2008). This focus on crime led to the influx in the creation of programs for “at-risk” kids (Weinstein, Fuller, Mulrooney, & Koch, 2014). It is important to be clear that although federal and state drug crime legislation has since been amended, these communities are still dealing with the consequences that include among other factors, increased incarceration and higher rates of fatherlessness (Bobo & Thompson, 2010). Fifty percent of the young people in the juvenile justice system have at least one parent who has been incarcerated (Evans-Chase, 2014).

Data continue to show that juvenile crime peaks in the afterschool hours (OJJDP, 2018; Weinstein et al., 2014). At present, there is no consensus for calculating the economic cost of crime; however, estimates range between $2.1 and $3.7 million dollars. Furthermore, a 2010 study found that the public was willing to pay for the rehabilitation for juvenile offenders if a reduction in crime rates was guaranteed (Piquero & Steinberg, 2010). The police chief of Los Angeles described playgrounds as “more essential to the police department than any other agency dealing with our citizens” in 1926, and in 1955 the Los Angeles Times reported that “wholesome recreation” could be provided for 100 children at a municipal playground for the cost of incarcerating a young person for 1 year (Caldwell & Witt, 2011).

Recreation is an activity that an individual chooses to participate in on their own because they find it personally enjoyable and is restorative to the mind, soul, and body (Kelly & Freysinger, 2000). There is increasing knowledge recognizing the positive impact recreation has on human development in addition to improving an individual’s overall quality of life (Patterson, 2007). With regard to the present population of individuals with justice system involvement, previous research of neurological development found that adults in prison had limited play opportunities as children (Frost, 1998). Putnam (2015) found that students who participated in extracurricular activities are 400 times more likely to attend college. It is evident that participation in recreation programs is a preventive measure to catalyze youth for the future.

The foundational belief of Positive Youth Development (PYD) is that young people are assets in the making, and PYD focuses on strengthening the protective factors to mitigate the negative impact of risk factors (Catalano, Lisa Berglund, Jean, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004). This approach does not focus on a single problem behavior and accounts for multiple contexts young people occupy (Catalano et al., 2004; Lerner & Castellino, 2002).

An evaluation of PYD programs across the United States conducted by Catalano et al. (2004) identified 15 foci ranging from fostering resilience, social, emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and moral competencies to self-determination. The specific activity in an out of school time program is not as critical as the structure of the program that is based on the principles of PYD.

Outcomes produced through PYD programs align with the mission of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that “(empowers) youth to live productive, law-abiding lives” (OJJDP, 2019). Social justice youth development is a branch of PYD that considers the impact of social, political, and economic contextual factors specifically on urban and minority youth (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). Through social justice youth development, young people recognize their own assets and abilities to challenge the external social and economic forces to create change (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). It is important to recognize that recreation programs are an effective means to leverage the abilities and experiences of youth in the justice system to foster an appreciation and awareness of one’s own abilities and contributions to the greater community. Accomplishing this reinforces the foundational mission of juvenile justice agencies that seek to simultaneously promote public safety and equitable, just treatment of youth (OJJDP, 2019).

Youth in juvenile justice facilities are provided with a team of professionals to monitor their progress. We postulate that including the recreation providers as a member of this team will better prepare youth while they are in placement and improve the outcomes of young people when they return to their home communities. Recreation activities offer an opportunity for youth to practice self-regulatory behaviors in situations that are similar to situations they will experience when they return home. This provides treatment providers to accurately assess a young person’s progress and see how they interact with peers and adults in a realistic setting. This makes the perspective of the recreation staff in juvenile justice settings invaluable.

The positive impact of recreation and out of school time programs in the community has been established; however, these same programs in the juvenile justice setting has been largely understudied up until this point, especially with regard to the voices of young people. When young people in Nevada were directly asked what would help them from re-offending, 47.4% reported that recreational activities would be “very helpful,” and only 3.2% reported them as “not helpful” (Killian, Brown, & Evans, 2002). It is especially important to pay attention to these responses of incarcerated youth and recognize them as experts that can provide insight of the juvenile justice system.

Another significant data point previously mentioned worth considering in the case for providing quality recreation programs for youth in correctional facilities is that juvenile crime peaks in the afterschool hours between 3 and 7 pm on weekdays (OJJDP, 2018). It is naïve to assume that this trend will change without being explicitly addressed by juvenile justice facilities that are charged with the goal of rehabilitating youth and preparing them for a life free of crime.

All of this is not to say that recreation is the silver bullet for delinquency, rather a proposition that evidence suggests we consider recreation to be a viable aspect of rehabilitation worthy of further exploration. Former prison warden, Garrett Heyns, described that the role of the correctional institution was to “aid the inmate in preparing for satisfactory social living . . . (including) the wise use of leisure” (Heyns, 1957). Hutchinson and Robertson (2012) emphasize leisure education for incarcerated youth as a necessary component of the rehabilitation of youth that is contingent on the purposeful planning of organization and intentional integration into the whole treatment program. Preparing young people to return back to their community with the skills, knowledge, and abilities to lead a positive, fulfilling leisure life goes provides benefits that extend beyond the individual youth. Public safety is enhanced when correctional institutions are effectively preparing individuals for all aspects of life when they return back to their communities. A review was reported in 2018 regarding the role of sport in penal institutions in the United Kingdom, with an emphasis on the physical and health benefits of sport programs (Meek, 2018). The United States has not yet produced a comparable report of the status of recreation in correctional institutions.

Present Study

It is our hope that this article will begin the conversation regarding the use of recreation in the juvenile justice context. We have taken a macrolevel approach by conducting a nationwide examination of the written authorities pertaining to recreation in juvenile justice facilities. The guiding question that prompted this investigation is “how is recreation being used in the treatment of young people in juvenile justice facilities?”

The current operations of juvenile justice in the United States are organized and governed by individual states. There is no statement from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the federal agency that provides leadership and resources to states, regarding the best practices and recommendations for recreation in these facilities.

The three specific questions that guide this study are as follows:

Does a written authority exist that governs a minimum amount of recreation time for youth held in juvenile facilities?

If yes, what type of written authority exists?

If a written authority exists, how are recreation, leisure, and exercise defined?

What is the type, frequency, location, and length of recreation allowed for youth in a juvenile facility?

Under what circumstances can youth be denied access to recreation time?

Method

In the spring of 2017, we conducted a systematic review of the written authorities pertaining to juvenile justice procedures and requirements in each of the 50 states. The review comprised two main parts. First, to ascertain if a written authority existed in each of the 50 states, we systematically reviewed official state documents (including social media sites) for any type of written author related to recreation. Second, to understand the context in which recreation was allowed and its various elements, a primary review of each state written authorities was completed.

Sample

We examined legislative and policy documents from all 50 states related to recreation to determine the extent to which recreation (and/or exercise and leisure as suitable conceptual substitutes) were required. Figure 1 presents conceptualizations of these terms utilized by the states. Our search was limited to the written authorities that were available at the time of data collection, and there may have been changes in these documents since that time. Each state has a unique organizational structure of the juvenile justice system that dictates the placement process and options adjudicated youth. As a result, we did not screen for a specific type of placement facility or security level.

Figure 1.

Types of written authority.

Residential care for juvenile justice involved youth in some states is contracted out and/or the development of recreation guidelines is delegated to individual placement facilities; therefore, the results of this study are general and include recreation requirements for some foster care and group homes in states that have the same written authority for all out-of-home placements.

Search Procedures

First, we searched each state department of juvenile justice website to identify written authority documents related to both recreation and its contexts and/or elements offered to juveniles. In addition, online legal research websites, LexisNexis Academic, and Thomas Reuters Westlaw databases were utilized as a secondary source of data. We created a document that was used to review each authority and capture the information in each written authority regarding the recreation guidelines in each state by the presence (or absence) of various elements. The elements included in the survey were the department affiliation, type of written authority, definitions used for recreation, staffing qualification, specific activities required or prohibited, designated space for recreation, provision of outdoor recreation, exceptions to providing recreation services, and any special guidelines for weekends and holidays.

Policy Documents Coding Procedures

For each document an initial reading and coding was conducted. An additional overview was conducted by doing a keyword search to verify that all relevant information had been obtained and coded. The first author completed all initial coding and entered all information and subsequent codes in Qualtrics, an online survey software. The second author also coded randomly a selected 35% of the states to ensure reliability. A comparison of codes was conducted to calculate interrater reliability. An overall 96% interrater reliability was achieved. However, state-level written authorities differed in the level of detail significantly.

Analysis

After using Qualtrics to review the written authorities, the data were exported to Microsoft Excel for analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated and data elements were summarized and compared.

Results

In general, the results indicate that there is no nationwide consensus regarding the status of recreation policy in juvenile justice facilities. These results serve as a baseline for understanding the landscape of recreation across juvenile justice facilities across the United States. These findings do not indicate the actual recreation programming that is currently being implemented in facilities, only the minimum guidelines that facilities are required to afford youth in placement. Overall, there is a lack of specificity within the documents that leaves the duty of designing and implementing recreation programs to the direct providers within the respective parameters outlined in the written authorities.

Does a Written Authority Exist That Governs a Minimum Amount of Recreation Time for Youth Held in Juvenile Facilities?

As Figure 1 illustrates, over half of all states house their juvenile justice agencies in Health, Human and Social Services, and Juvenile Justice departments. The placement of written authorities related to recreation varied in not only the governing bodies but also in the types of authorities and its corresponding language use. Twenty-two percent of states had recreation guidelines in the Administrative Code and the same percentage had guidelines in a Departmental Policy.

As we reviewed the written authorities, we screened each document for a purpose statement and found that only 40% of states had a purpose statement in their written authority. From these purpose statements, we coded for themes and found the top three themes to be the promotion of health and wellness, character development, and to alleviate idleness and boredom. These themes can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1.

Themes Found in Purpose Statements of Written Authorities.

Theme (n = 20)	State	%
Promote Health, Wellness	AL, AZ, CO, GA, LA, MD, ME, MI, MS, NH, OR, TN, UT	65%
Character Development	CO, IL, MI, NC, NH, OR, FL	35%
Alleviate Idleness & Boredom	CA, CO, GA, LA, OR, NH	30%
Teach New Leisure Time Skills	CO, GA, LA, NH	20%
Improve Self-Esteem	OR, NH	10%
Maintain Good Morale	GA, LA	10%
Meet Needs	MN, NM	10%
Meet Interests	MN, NM	10%
Incentivize Good Behavior	NC	5%
Assessment In Natural Environment	NH	5%
Educational	FL	5%
Non-Punitive Environment	NJ	5%

Our analysis included an examination of the terminology used in the written authorities and whether those terms are defined in the documents, and the results are shown in Figure 2. Recreation, leisure, and exercise were the three terms used in the documents. Four of the 50 states have included a definition of recreation, a term scholars define as an “organized activity with the purpose of the restoration of the wholeness of mind, body, and spirit” (Kelly & Freysinger, 2000, p. 18). Oregon provides the most inclusive definition of recreation and captures the elements of choice, satisfaction, and human development. Georgia is the only state to include a definition of leisure in its written authority, stating it is “structured time that promotes creativity and socialization.” Leisure scholars identify key components to be free-time, activity or non-activity, a state of mind, dimension of life, and un-coerced (Kelly & Freysinger, 2000; Stebbins, 2005). Exercise is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2017) as “a subcategory of physical activity that is planned, structured, repetitive, and aims to improve or maintain one or more components of physical fitness.” These guidelines include recommendations for “at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous intensity activity daily . . . (and) activities that strengthen muscle and bone, at least three times per week” (WHO, 2017). Utah and Georgia both define exercise and specify “aerobic” activity and provide examples like jogging in place, basketball, cycling, and rhythmic dance.

Figure 2.

Number of written authorities with definitions.

What Is the Type, Frequency, Location, and Length of Recreation Allowed for Youth in a Juvenile Facility?

Our review found there is a range of specificity regarding the type of recreation to be provided according to the written authorities. The top three types of activities were physical exercise/active activities, leisure/passive activities, and games. Four states did not include any guidelines for specific activities. At this point we also screened for activities that were prohibited and five states explicitly stated activities such as boxing, free weights, tackle football, horse shoes, pose a high risk of injury or are being used as punishment are not allowed. A summary of the types of allowable recreation activities that were specified in the written authorities can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2.

Types of Activities Described in Written Authorities.

Type of activity	States	%
Physical Exercise/Active Activities	AK, AR, CA, KY, LA, MA, MI, MT, NC, ND, NE, NV, OH, SC, TN, UT, VT, WI, WV	38%
Leisure/Passive Activities	AK, CA, CO, ID, LA, MD, MA, MI, MS, NE, TN, WV, WI, WY, MT	30%
Games	KS, MD, NM, NY, IA	10%
Arts & Crafts, Creativity	IA, KS, MD, WY	8%
Group	MD, NH, NM, VA	8%
Individual	MD, NH, VA	6%
Quiet Activity	MD, NM, NY	6%
Competitive	GA, NM	4%
Non-Competitive	CO, GA	4%
Adapted	MD	2%
Reading (Books, Magazines)	CA, KS	2%
TV (Regulations On News Programming & Movies)	CA	2%
Music	CA	2%
Video Games	CA	2%
Improve Exposure To Different Opportunities	DE	2%
Healthy Living	MA	2%
Social Awareness	CA	2%

The frequency of recreation is the number of times a week youth are to be given recreation opportunities. Thirty-five states had daily mandatory minimum recreation requirements, five had weekly requirements, and ten states did not have any requirements for the frequency of recreation.

Forty-four percent of states require that youth be given recreational opportunities outside when weather permits. Other recreation location specifications provide details on providing recreation in the community or provide specific measurement parameters, although most states did not include this information.

The length of recreation is the length of time allotted for recreation. The written authorities in 35 states included specifications for the length of time for recreation activities. Of these states, 46% require 1 hr of large muscle activity or exercise and 42% require 1 hr of unstructured or leisure time. Eighteen percent of states have special holiday recreation guidelines and 10% have extended weekend guidelines to 2 hrs per day.

Under What Circumstances Can Youth be Denied Access to Recreation Time?

We screened each document for justifications for denying youth recreation opportunities. Fifty-six percent of states included at least one exception, the top six reasons being security, weather, medical/health, safety, discipline, behavior, and segregation/isolation. Our search led us to identify other terms related to segregation and isolation given the present controversy surrounding the practice of solitary confinement of juvenile offenders. These terms include room restriction, resident-initiated separation, protective isolation, assessment isolation, segregation, and specialized housing.

To see a complete summary of the results of the study that was conducted, please see Appendix A and for the links to the written authorities, please see Appendix B.

Discussion

As the first study into this topic, we identified four discussion points as a basis that can be further investigated. Each state has unique implications given the parameters outlined in its written authority and contextual factors. The emergent themes come from the status of juvenile justice recreation written authorities as a whole and are therefore relevant and worthy of consideration within every state. The four primary conclusions that come from this study are as follows:

Inconsistent and absent definitions impose challenges for evaluation of recreation programs in juvenile correctional settings.

The difference in written authorities impacts the recreation programs.

The difference between recreation, leisure, and exercise if not clearly understood.

The benefits of recreation and leisure education programs are not widely understood.

The first conclusion is the challenge in evaluating juvenile justice facility recreation programs. There is not a consensus of the intended purpose of recreation programs across states, eliminating the possibility of a comparative evaluation of recreation programs. There is also limited accountability in states where there is not a stated purpose because the expected outcomes are not communicated, ultimately jeopardizing the existence of the program particularly when there is no legislative enforcement.

The second conclusion is that the level of autonomy of recreation programs ranges based on the type of written authority guidelines are found and what department the agency is housed in. Many states provide guidelines that are for children of all ages and are not necessarily developmentally appropriate for the needs of the young people involved in the juvenile justice system.

As the data demonstrated, the difference between recreation, leisure, and exercise is not clearly understood. Only four of the 48 states that use the term “recreation” define what that constitutes. This presents the same challenges posed by the lack of purpose statements, making it difficult to establish whether or not the activities young people are engaging in is actually recreation. It is especially important to be able to communicate that the recreation programs that young people are participating are in fact contributing to their rehabilitation.

All of the aforementioned conclusions can be summated to conclude that the benefits of recreation programs that provide leisure education are not widely understood. Up to this point, the understanding that high-quality recreation programs can improve public safety by promoting positive development of youthful offenders has not been widely accepted. Leisure education is the process of helping “people find optimal leisure lifestyles by partaking of leisure activities that individually and in combination help them realize their human potential, leading thereby to self-fulfillment and enhanced well-being and quality of life” (Cohen-Gewerc & Stebbins, 2007). Leisure education has been found to be particularly effective with individuals who have a physical or intellectual disability, and there is a high rate of young people with disabilities in the juvenile justice system (Burrell & Warboys, 2000).

Implications

The results of this study provide a foundation regarding the guidelines for the provision of recreation in juvenile correctional facilities, and abundant opportunity for further inquiry for researchers remains. An initial first step to be followed is the implementation of the written authorities examined in this article. Generating knowledge of the fidelity of recreation programs provides a context for researchers to explore barriers to implementation or discover exemplar cases. Regardless, research going forward must make a concerted effort to bridge the gap between research, policy, and practice. This includes participatory methods with young people that explore the leisure habits of youth involved in the juvenile justice system that can be used to develop prevention programs. Furthermore, this knowledge can be used to foster engagement in placement and promote healthy reintegration into communities. A related avenue of research significant to the future of all youth justice efforts is the economic incentive for recreation programming. Collecting data to conduct cost–benefit analyses and communicate potential futures savings through effective treatment will help secure funding for recreation programs in juvenile facilities. A final charge to researchers aiming to make an impact is to write one-pagers to disseminate to juvenile facilities, departmental staff, policy makers, and advocacy groups. Recognizing and respecting the voices of those directly impacted by recreation policies is the responsibility of researchers, and it is imperative that researchers do everything in their purview to use the data collected from communities to serve them.

Direct service providers in recreation programming should advocate to be included as a member of the treatment team. If one does not exist already, recreation staff in juvenile correctional facilities should work with their facility director or superintendent to create a written document that ensures protected recreation time that is understood and enforced. These efforts will help to integrate recreation as part of the facility culture. Staff can petition for continuing education specific to recreation and youth development, including conferences, trainings, and webinars. Staff can reach out to other facilities in the state or local community to identify opportunities for collaboration and sharing of resources. If possible, direct service providers should contact local colleges and universities with recreation or leisure programs as potential partners. Departmental administrators should evaluate their policies and ask for feedback from staff working with the youth and the young people themselves. If not already doing so, administrators need to visit the recreation programs in the juvenile facilities to gain a better understanding of the needs of youth and staff and dynamics in the facility.

Policy makers should request information that outlines child and adolescent development to better understand the impact that policies have on the individual person. Likewise, policy makers can request information and request experts to describe the significant role of recreation programming for youth and communities, specifically youth with juvenile justice system involvement. Consulting with system-involved youth, direct service providers, department administrators, and researchers to outline a purpose for recreation programs ensures that the guidelines written are realistic and more likely to be implemented. Investment from the policy level to ongoing evaluation of recreation written authorities and programs is required as well as a willingness to advocate for necessary change in the juvenile justice system.

Conclusion

Adults have 40 hr for leisure each week averaging to about 5.7 hr per day, while young people in custody based on our analysis are given 1.68 hr of recreation while in placement (Russell, 2002, p. 259). We raise this to ask whether or not the current programming for recreation is adequate to prepare youth to steward their time when they return to their communities knowing that 95% of individuals in state facilities will return back to their communities and rates for recidivism for youth in secure facilities are 50% higher than youth in community settings (National Reentry Resource Center, 2016). Robertson (2000) articulates that providing quality leisure education is essential to reduce recidivism since individuals who return from correctional institutions face higher rates of unemployment, thereby increasing free time for which they must be prepared to manage. The goals of leisure education and recreation program are not in contention with those outlined by juvenile justice agencies, rather, they are in fact complementary and contribute to public safety, and general and individual welfare.

If recreation is to be considered a vital aspect of rehabilitation, resources must be invested to train staff and provide sufficient resources for quality recreation programs. Research into recreation in juvenile justice settings must continue in partnership with state and local juvenile justice facilities. Evaluations of programs must be conducted with the results communicated to policy makers, agency, and facility officials to heighten the legitimacy of recreation. Juvenile justice recreation staff should be consulted and respected as part of the treatment team for youth and work with community recreation providers to help prepare young people for the transition back home and make programs more accessible (Robertson, 2000).

Acknowledging the opportunity that exists for juvenile justice agencies to prepare youth to return home through recreation programs is a step in the right direction to reimagining juvenile justice reform. We hope this assessment prompts agency and facility officials to examine their requirements and encourages researchers to further explore this important intersection of recreation and leisure and juvenile justice. Public safety and recreation in juvenile justice settings are not mutually exclusive; public safety is promoted when recreation is provided to young people and understanding this opens opportunity for better outcomes for all to be realized.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B

State	Link
Alabama	http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/ys/4ys9.htm
Alaska	http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/aac/title07/chapter052/section160.htm
Arizona	http://www.dev.azcourts.gov/Portals/29/JJSD%20Publication%20Reports/DetentionStandards04202011.pdf
Arkansas	http://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/offices/criminalDetention/Documents/proposedjuvenileStandards.pdf
California	http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Juvenile_Title_15_Strike_Out_Underline_REVISIONS_effective_2014-4–1.pdf
Colorado	https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B32vshZrERKsQ2Z5S2dHN2hrR00/view
Connecticut	https://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/StrategicPlan_2013-15.pdf///emailedACAstandards
Delaware	ACA
Florida	https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=SECURE%20DETENTION%20SERVICES&ID=63G–2.023
Georgia	https://www.gahsc.org/nm/2012/176361979DSO-Georgia%20Code%20and%20Federal%20Law.pdf; Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Policy #18.2
Hawaii	http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol07_Ch0346-0398/HRS0352/HRS_0352-.htm
Idaho	emailed http://www.idjc.idaho.gov/community-operations-program-services
Illinois	ftp://www.ilga.gov/JCAR/AdminCode/020/020026020002500R.html
Indiana	ACA
Iowa	https://www.legis.iowa.gov/publications/search/document?fq=id:490040&pdid=702002&q=juvenile%20detention#441.105.10
Kansas	http://www.dcf.ks.gov/Agency/GC/FCRFL/Documents/FC_Regs_detention_secure/Regulations_for_Detention_Secure_Care.pdf; https://www.doc.ks.gov/kdoc-policies/table-of-contents/view
Kentucky	http://djj.ky.gov/200%20Policy%20Manual/DJJ%20208%20Youth%20Rights.pdf
Louisiana	http://ojj.la.gov/ojj/files/file/Policy3%201-31-2,014/C-Field/C%201%2012%20Leisure%20and%20Recreational%20Activities.pdf
Maine	http://www.maine.gov/corrections/PublicInterest/policies.shtml#JuvenileFacility
Maryland	http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/000000/000429/unrestricted/20040832e.pdf
Massachusetts	http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/laws-regs/dys/policies/chapter-03-daily-living-policies.html
Michigan	https://dhhs.michigan.gov/OLMWeb/ex/JR/Mobile/JRM/JRM%20Mobile.pdf
Minnesota	http://www.doc.state.mn.us/DocPolicy2/html/DPW_Display_TOC.asp?Opt=204.081.htm
Mississippi	http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2012/html/SB/2500-2599/SB2598CS.htm
Missouri	https://www.courts.mo.gov/file/AppendixA-JuvenileDetentionStandards02-14.pdf
Montana	http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=20%2E9%2E624
Nebraska	https://1.next.westlaw.com.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/Document/I2FEB59301C1811DFB450E92C604A2638/View/FullText.html?originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
Nevada	http://dcfs.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dcfsnvgov/content/Programs/JJS/JuvenileDetentionFacilityStandards.pdf
New Hampshire	http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/state_agencies/he-c6300.html
New Jersey	http://www.nj.gov/lps/jjc/pdf/13-93_Standards-for-Juvenile-Detention-Commitment-Programs_Readopted-080210.pdf http://www.nj.gov/lps/jjc/pdf/13-93_Standards-for-Juvenile-Detention-Commitment-Programs_Readopted-080210.pdf
New Mexico	http://164.64.110.239/nmac/parts/title08/08.014.0014.htm
New York	https://1.next.westlaw.com.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/Document/I57B2C368E61847EE8E22E01F60AA1BD9/View/FullText.html?originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
North Carolina	DJJDP Youth Development Center Policy and Requirements and Procedures (R & P) Document 4.5
North Dakota	https://www.nd.gov/docr/juvenile/rec/rec.html
Ohio	http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/5139-37-18v1
Oklahoma	http://www.oar.state.ok.us/oar/codedoc02.nsf/frmMain?OpenFrameSet&Frame=Main&Src=_75tnm2shfcdnm8pb4dthj0chedppmcbq8dtmmak31ctijujrgcln50ob7ckj42tbkdt374obdcli00_
Oregon	https://1.next.westlaw.com.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/Browse/Home/Regulations/OregonRegulations?guid=I339F3700933C11E38311180373BC2DDF&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Category)
Pennsylvania	http://www.pacode.com/secure/search_results.asp?
Rhode Island	https://1.next.westlaw.com.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/Document/N5A36E9A0500D11E08AA69B023DD32660/View/FullText.html?originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
South Carolina	http://www.state.sc.us/djj/sc-statutes.php#CUSTODY_AND_DETENTION
South Dakota	https://1.next.westlaw.com.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/Document/N5A36E9A0500D11E08AA69B023DD32660/View/FullText.html?originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
Tennessee	https://files.dcs.tn.gov/policies/chap18/18.2.pdf
Texas	https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=37&pt=11&ch=343&rl=498
Utah	https://hspolicy.utah.gov/files/jjs/Section%2003%20-%20Juvenile%20Treatment%20-%20Programming/03-05%20Juvenile%20Wellness.pdf
Vermont	http://dcf.vermont.gov/sites/dcf/files/FSD/Docs/woodside-wellness.pdf http://dcf.vermont.gov/sites/dcf/files/Youth/Woodside-Resident-Handbook.pdf
Virginia	http://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title6/agency35/chapter101/section770/
Washington	ACA
West Virginia	http://djs.wv.gov/Quality%20Assurance/Documents/507.00%20-%20Recreation%20Activities.pdf
Wisconsin	http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/doc/346/VI/39
Wyoming	https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/IFE09A9E0D84711E2A3BEAE4168993EE1/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv3%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad740370000015ba1ab386d3f2ab030%3FNav%3DREGULATION%26fragmentIdentifier%3DIFE09A9E0D84711E2A3BEAE4168993EE1%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=cd2bea1a87587ee0f6198ed8e3d0f74d&list=REGULATION&rank=4&sessionScopeId=5b6058b66ab6413dae4d894a28f70615310c0b2062485dad2015c318db8aa908&originationContext=Search%20Result&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Maria León

Author Biographies

Maria León is doctoral student in the Youth Development program at Texas A&M University. She concentrates on youth involved in the juvenile justice system and the provision of equitable and developmentally appropriate recreation services for all young people.

Corliss Outley is an associate professor in Youth Development and Associate Department Head of the Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences Department at Texas A&M University. She specializes in youth development, race and ethnicity, and urban parks.

Miner Marchbanks is an associate research scientist at the Public Policy Research Institute at Texas A&M University. His expertise is in the use of advanced statistical methodologies to answer public policy questions.

Brandy Kelly Pryor is an assistant professor in Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Louisville and is the Senior Director of Programs at the Humana Foundation. Her work centers on participatory and critical approaches to research and teaching in the areas of youth development, public health, social justice and policy.

References

Addams

Brown

(1999). Twenty years at hull-house: With autobiographical notes by Jane Addams; edited with an introduction by Victoria Bissel Brown. Boston, MA: Bedford. Retrieved from http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat03318a&AN=tamug.1858391&site=eds-live

Bobo

L. D.

Thompson

(2010). Racialized mass incarceration: Poverty, prejudice, and punishment. Doing Race, 21, 322-355.

Burrell

Warboys

(2000). Special education and the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://libcat.tamu.edu/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=1921894

Caldwell

L. L.

Witt

P. A.

(2011). Leisure, recreation, and play from a developmental context. New Directions for Youth Development, 2011(130), 13-27. doi:10.1002/yd394

Catalano

R. F.

Lisa Berglund

Jean

A. M. R.

Lonczak

H. S.

Hawkins

J. D.

(2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Sage. Retrieved from http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.4127638&site=eds-live

Cohen-Gewerc

Stebbins

R. A.

(2007). The pivotal role of leisure education: Finding personal fulfillment in this century ( Cohen-Gewerc

Stebbins

R. A.

, Eds.). State College, PA: Venture. Retrieved from http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat03318a&AN=tamug.2975505&site=eds-live

Cohen

(1997). Rethinking the youth question. In Rethinking the youth question (pp. 179-249), London, England: Palgrave.

Council for State Government Justice Center. Center

(2016). NRRC facts & trends.

Evans-Chase

(2014). Addressing trauma and psychosocial development in juvenile justice-involved youth: A synthesis of the developmental neuroscience, juvenile justice and trauma literature. Laws, 3, 744-758.

10.

Fradin

J. B.

Fradin

D. B.

(2006). Jane Addams: Champion of democracy ( Fradin

J. B.

Fradin

D. B.

, Eds.). New York, NY: Clarion Books. Retrieved from http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat03318a&AN=tamug.2809075&site=eds-live; http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0634/2006011029-d.html; http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0611/2006011029.html

11.

Frost

J. L.

(1998). Neuroscience, play, and child development. Retrieved from http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED427845&site=eds-live

12.

Ginwright

Cammarota

(2002). New terrain in youth development: The promise of a social justice approach. Social Justice, 29(90), 82-95.

13.

Heyns

(1957). Penal institutions. American Academy of Political and Social Science. Retrieved from http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.1031756&site=eds-live

14.

Hutchinson

Robertson

(2012). Leisure education: A new goal for an old idea whose time has come. Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 19, 127-139.

15.

Kelly

J. R.

Freysinger

V. J.

(2000). 21st century leisure: Current issues. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

16.

Killian

Brown

Evans

(2002). What incarcerated youth say would help them succeed: Can extension play a role? Journal of Extension, 40(4). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2002august/iw2.shtml

17.

Lerner

R. M.

Castellino

D. R.

(2002). Contemporary developmental theory and adolescence: Developmental systems and applied developmental science. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6.Suppl), 122-135. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00495-0

18.

Linn

J. W.

Scott

A. F.

(2000). Jane Addams: A biography ( J. W.

Linn

A. F.

Scott

). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Retrieved from http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat03318a&AN=tamug.1926469&site=eds-live

19.

Meek

(2018). A sporting chance: An independent review of sport in youth and adult prisons. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/733184/a-sporting-chance-an-independent-review-sport-in-justice.pdf

20.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2018). Statistical briefing book. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03301.asp?qaDate=2016

21.

Patterson

(2007). Leisure education for special groups In Cohen-Gewerc

Stebbins

R. A.

(Eds.), The pivotal role of leisure education: Finding personal fulfillment in this century (111-130). State College, PA: Venture.

22.

Piquero

A. R.

Steinberg

(2010). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 1-6.

23.

Putnam

R. D.

(2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. first Simon & Schuster hardcover edition. Robert D. Putnam. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Retrieved from http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat03318a&AN=tamug.4837386&site=eds-live

24.

Robertson

(2000). Leisure education as a rehabilitative tool for youth in incarcerated settings. Journal of Leisurability-Ontario, 27, 27-34. Retrieved from http://lib-ezproxy.tamu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN083853906&site=eds-live

25.

Robertson

B. J.

(2001). The leisure education of incarcerated youth. World Leisure Journal, 43, 20-29.

26.

Russell

R. V.

(2002). Pastimes: The context of contemporary leisure (2nd ed.).Champaign: Sagamore Publishing.

27.

Savage

(2008). Teenage: The creation of youth culture. London: Random House.

28.

Stebbins

R. A.

(2005). Project-based leisure: Theoretical neglect of a common use of free time. Leisure Studies, 24(1), 1-11.

29.

Weinstein

M. B.

Fuller

Mulrooney

Koch

(2014). The benefits of recreational programming on juvenile crime reduction: A review of literature and data. Retrieved from http://www.nccu.edu/formsdocs/proxy.cfm?file_id=2907

30.

World Health Organization. (2017). Physical activity (Fact Sheet No. 385). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs385/en/