Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2025

Four Temporary Waterslide Designs Adapted to Different Slope Conditions to Encourage Child Socialization in Playgrounds
Published on: December 9, 2022
Youth Detention and Incarceration Facilities in the United States (2010 to February 2023): Mapping Closure Intents
Emily J Johnson1, Hunter Pluckebaum1, Karin D Martin1
1Emily J. Johnson was with the King County Department of Community and Human Services, Seattle, WA, at the time of this study, and Hunter Pluckebaum was with Allies in Healthier Systems for Health & Abundance in Youth (AHSHAY), Seattle. Karin D. Martin is with the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington, Seattle. Sheila Ater Capestany is with the King County Department of Community and Human Services. Benjamin Danielson is with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle. Brenda Majercin and Vivian H. Lyons are affiliated with the AHSHAY Center, Seattle.
Abstract:
Objectives. To characterize youth detention and incarceration facility closure attempts in the United States from January 2010 to February 2023 and inform ongoing attempts for facility closure. Methods. We conducted a landscape analysis of youth facilities with stated intent to close during our study period. For each facility, we coded for jurisdiction (state vs local), year of attempt, stated reasons for closure, outcome of the facility (closed, remained open, or other), facility size, and what happened to youths after the facility closed. Results. We identified a total of 118 facilities in 33 states that had committed to closure in our study period. The most cited reasons for the intention to close were cost (69% of facilities), declining numbers (46%), operational and facilities issues (36%), reform (33%), and conditions of confinement and abuse (30%). Sixty-two percent of identified facilities closed (n = 73). Conclusions. Most facilities that had announced closures did close. For facilities that closed, the most commonly cited reasons were cost and decreasing numbers. Reform as a reason was more common in facilities that remained open than closed. (Am J Public Health. 2025;115(8):1299-1307. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308118).
Related Concept Videos
Specialized Care Centers and Settings-I
Daycare centers
They provide several functions. Some facilities care for healthy newborns and children whose parents work, while others are medically focused and care for...
Healthcare Agencies II
Parish nursing is a growing specialty nursing profession that focuses on holistic healthcare, health promotion, and illness prevention. It blends professional nursing practice with a health ministry, focusing on health and healing within the context of a Christian community. Parish nurses serve as health educators, referral sources,...
Specialized Care Centers and Settings-II
Rural health centers are specialized care facilities in remote locations with very few medical personnel. The primary care providers who run the centers are mostly Registered Nurse Practitioners. Here, emergency treatment is provided to critically ill or injured patients before they are transferred to the closest hospital. Fortunately, due to advancement in technology, many rural healthcare facilities and professionals have easy access to diagnostic and treatment...
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Continuing Care
Community Based Intervention
Foundations of Community Mental Health Programs
Central to the success of community-based interventions is the...

