Prison populations in the U.S. and around the world are far larger than many realize. In the U.S. alone, more than 1.8 million people are incarcerated, followed by nearly 1.7 million in China, and 900,000 in Brazil. Despite the fact that detention figures in the U.S. have been trending downward, there remain millions of Americans currently in the corrections system across state and federal prisons, local jails, youth detention centers, and more.

Given those numbers, thousands of detention and correctional facilities around the world rely on ASTM International standards to guide many of the construction and security measures that are implemented across the industry. Under the oversight of the committee on detention and correctional facilities (F33), these standards cover everything from materials to products to assemblies and systems used in the construction and operation of lockups and detention and correctional facilities for adults and juveniles. Their work focuses on security items most common to these facilities, including security glazing, physical barriers, detention hardware, detention hollow metal, furnishings, and equipment.

“Our focus as a committee is on detention and correctional facilities,” says Mike Barnes, committee chair and quality manager with SteelCell of North America. “Through our standards, we work to establish a safe environment for the staff and residents of these facilities. These standards are needed in order to ensure a level of understanding for everyone associated with these facilities from design to operation.”

Architects use F33’s standards on the design side to guide the construction of new detention and correctional facilities, while on-site staff rely on them to ensure that they can do their jobs safely. Over time, the committee’s standards have evolved as new and better products have been developed within the industry, offering different levels of performance for products such as frames, doors, locks, etc.

Among the most impactful standards the committee manages for the detention and correctional facilities industry are as follows.

1) Test Methods for Hollow Metal Swinging Door Assemblies (F1450): High on the list of security concerns for many prison administrators is the strength and effectiveness of the security barriers used in their facilities. The test methods outlined in this standard are designed to help manufacturers and end users determine just how much physical security their swinging detention hollow metal door assemblies can offer staff in practice. These test methods are intended to evaluate a door’s resistance to violent attacks using items such as benches, bunks, or tables, as well as by prying devices, fires, small firearms, and more.

2) Test Methods for Detention Hollow Metal Vision Systems (F1592): Fixed hollow metal vision systems are used in wall openings in detention and correctional institutions so that guards and other staff can easily see through the barrier while still being physically separated from the population. Like standard F1450 above, this standard outlines test methods for manufacturers and installers to determine how secure these products are, measuring resistance to battering devices, firearms, and fires.

3) Test Methods for Glazing in Detention Facilities (F1915): The predictable and reliable performance of detention glazing used on glass installations in detention and correctional facilities is another potential security concern for facility leaders. With this in mind, F1915 includes several test methods to determine how secure the glazing used in window and door assemblies is, with four security grades that correspond to the grades established in F1450. The standard is intended to establish a comparable level of performance for these installations against blunt and sharp impact attacks, fire, and overall performance in hot and cold conditions.

4) Test Methods for Detention Locks for Swinging Doors (F1577): Like the other standards under F33’s guidance, this test method is designed to test and prove the security effectiveness of the locks used on swinging doors in detention and correction facilities. In this case, the test methods evaluate resistance attacks using battering devices, prying devices, and fire, but not chemical agents, explosives, or environmental factors such as rain or snow. Similar test methods for locks used in sliding doors are outlined in standard Test Methods for Detention Sliding Door Locking Device Assembly (F1643).

Earlier this year, committee F33 met in Orlando to discuss the existing standards nearing their five-year mandatory review periods as well as to identify potential standards that need to be developed, revised, or modified based on current industry needs. Given the ongoing implementation of new detention and correctional facility technologies, Barnes expects these reviews and updates to be an ongoing process for F33.

“Currently, we are working to refine and strengthen our existing standards and include the increasing influx of electronics and technology within the industry,” he says. “Additionally, we are looking to grow our committee by adding new members.”

For more information about the committee on detention and correctional facilities (F33) or to join, contact staff manager Frank McConnell at: fmcconnell@astm.org.

Tim Sprinkle is a freelance writer based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He has written for Yahoo, The Street, and other websites.