When it comes to writing a literature review on the juvenile justice system, many students and

researchers face significant challenges. Gathering and analyzing a vast array of academic sources,
synthesizing complex information, and presenting cohesive arguments can be daunting tasks.
Moreover, navigating through the extensive literature available on such a complex and multifaceted
topic requires expertise and time.

A literature review on the juvenile justice system demands meticulous attention to detail, critical
thinking skills, and a deep understanding of the subject matter. It involves sifting through numerous
scholarly articles, books, reports, and other sources to identify relevant studies, theories, and
methodologies. Additionally, synthesizing the findings of various sources while maintaining
coherence and clarity is crucial.

Furthermore, interpreting the data and drawing meaningful conclusions require analytical prowess
and a comprehensive understanding of the nuances of the juvenile justice system. Researchers often
encounter challenges in reconciling conflicting viewpoints, addressing gaps in the literature, and
providing insightful interpretations.

Given the demanding nature of writing a literature review on the juvenile justice system, seeking
assistance from professional writing services can be immensely beneficial. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔
offers expert assistance to students and researchers struggling with their literature reviews. Our team
of experienced writers specializes in various academic disciplines, including criminal justice and
sociology.

By entrusting your literature review to ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can ensure that your paper is
meticulously researched, well-organized, and expertly written. Our writers are adept at synthesizing
complex information, analyzing data, and crafting compelling arguments. Whether you need
assistance with literature review writing, editing, or proofreading, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ provides
customized solutions to meet your specific needs.

Don't let the challenges of writing a literature review on the juvenile justice system overwhelm you.
Order from ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ today and take the first step towards achieving academic success.
As of the end of 1997, 42 states allowed the release of a minor's name or picture under certain
conditions, such as being found guilty of a serious or violent offense (Torbet and Szymanski, 1998).
There was no difference between the groups in status offense referrals. Some youth are treated
harshly and receive severe punishments, including long periods of confinement, and others are
handled informally and even diverted from the process without any legal record of the encounter. It
confirmed the extent of disparities for black, Hispanic, and white youth on such issues as juvenile
justice involvement, specific disciplinary actions, use of discretion, and minority students with
disabilities. It is also unclear from existing intensive supervision evaluations which specific
rehabilitation and treatment programs are effective and for whom (Altschuler et al., 1999). Several
intensive after-care programs are currently being evaluated through grants from the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. As a result, the composition of delinquency cases
processed by police after the youth violence peak of the 1990s and the workload of the juvenile
court system at that time were not identical to the caseload mix that existed prior to the mid-1990s.
How juvenile courts operate may vary from county to county and municipality to municipality
within a state. Some pressure appears to be mounting to include more serious cases in mediation
programs (Umbreit and Greenwood, 1998). Knowing how difficult it is for all individuals to make
major changes in complex behavior patterns, it should not be surprising that juvenile offenders may
need assistance if they are to avoid reoffending. Children below the specified age do not fall under
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court when they commit delinquent acts. Most of these contacts are
undocumented and of low visibility (Goldstein, 1960); only a fraction reach the attention of juvenile
court judges or youth detention authorities. Third, referral to court by agents other than the police,
especially parents, relatives, and neighbors, was a far more common practice than it is today.
Although the methodology aims at ensuring as representative a sample as possible, the results are an
approximation and cannot be assumed to be true for the entire U.S. population. Only Georgia,
Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia have actually executed juveniles.
The judge determines whether the youth is competent to stand trial (which may lead to a separate
hearing), reviews the youth’s due process rights, and addresses the youth’s right to a jury trial if one
is available under state law. The act also provided for informality in procedures within the court. In
this hierarchical juvenile justice system, the judge may render the ultimate decision about the status
of an individual juvenile, but many decisions affecting the final outcome are made before the judge
has even reviewed the case (Hagan, 1975). Thus, the pool of 15-year-old violators for weapon
charges (not even counting other types of weapons) in 2008 was perhaps 168,000 of the nation’s 4.2
million 15-year-olds. Differences in methodology between the two censuses make direct comparisons
of the numbers of juveniles in custody over time problematic. In Texas, for example, juveniles as
young as 10 can be sentenced to as many as 40 years for certain crimes and can be transferred to the
adult corrections system any time after they turn 16 if approved by the sentencing court at a transfer
hearing, and automatically. How to handle very disruptive and violent youth, who end up in isolated
lock-up, however, remains a problem for this facility. When contempt status (i.e., when the
delinquency charge is for violation of a previously ordered condition of supervision) was introduced
as a variable and interaction effects examined, however, Bishop and Frazier (1992) found that girls'
risk of incarceration was substantially elevated in cases of contempt, whereas contempt had only a
small impact on boys' risk of incarceration. A wide variety of professionals, semiprofessionals,
citizens, and volunteers participate in the juvenile justice process. Goldson and J. Muncie and
Comparative youth justice by J. The personal contacts of individuals, friends, and families and the
network of relations that flow from these contacts are important sources of social capital used in
finding jobs and making job changes (Coleman, 1990; Granovetter, 1974). That changed in 2005
with the landmark case Roper v. The state is required to prove every element of the allegation
beyond a reasonable doubt. Both Clarke and Wilson will have a problem advocating for the first
objective but will definitely go for the second objective. Children who experience abuse and neglect
are not predestined to become youthful offenders, but the odds are greater. Even within the juvenile
court, various subsystems and even separate, specialized courts or dockets have emerged as
alternative arenas for deciding the most appropriate services and sanctions for youth (Butts, Roman,
and Lynn-Whaley, 2012).
As of the end of 1997, 42 states allowed the release of a minor's name or picture under certain
conditions, such as being found guilty of a serious or violent offense (Torbet and Szymanski, 1998).
Race appears to play a part in arrests and juvenile court processes. Generally, the states require the
court to consider the following factors in the exercise of its discretion: whether a waiver of
jurisdiction would serve the interests of the juvenile and the public; whether public safety requires it;
whether there are further services available for the juvenile through the juvenile court system; and
whether the child is amenable to rehabilitation (Griffin et al., 1998). The most common status
offenses are running away from home, refusing to attend school (truancy), violating curfew
ordinances, and refusing to obey parents, teachers, or other lawful authorities (incorrigibility).
Determining the appropriate amount and type of treatment and services is clearly an issue in need of
further research and clarification. The study found that large dormitory sleeping arrangements were
accompanied by high rates of juvenile-on-juvenile injuries. Also, judges are not required to discuss
the law and evidence pertinent to a case with a group before making a decision, and they are often
exposed to evidence that would be considered inadmissible in a jury trial (Feld, 1993, 1999).
Placement in a secure facility is reserved for those juveniles who continue to offend or who pose a
high risk to others. (For a more complete discussion of restorative justice, see Bazemore and
Umbreit, 1995; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998.) The restorative justice
model is currently being evaluated in Australia. A social worker sees delinquent behavior through a
lens that is very different from that of a judge. The facility has intensive treatment for drug abusers,
sexual offenders, and capital offenders. The offenses included in the FBI’s Violent Crime Index,
however, swelled from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s and then fell back to approximately the
level of the early 1980s, or about 80,000 arrests per year. The availability and suitability of an
intervention often influences the outcome of earlier decisions. The perceptions and values of each
official are likely to be affected by public opinion, although the views of the American public have
not always been clear (Cullen, Golden, and Cullen, 1983). Each group may be aware of the other’s
position in an individual case, but each will act to further its own goals and purposes whether or not
the other agrees. We also introduce a focus for future developments and 'creative possibilities' for
youth justice. Youth under age 10 are juveniles in the legal sense but their law violations are not
defined as delinquency. The authors concluded that regular probation suffices for most juvenile
offenders and that intensive supervision should be reserved for serious and violent offenders who
have failed under regular probation conditions. A total of 34 states and the District of Columbia have
no statutory age limit for when children may face delinquency charges in juvenile court, but it is
often assumed, based on common law principles, that the minimum age for juvenile court jurisdiction
in these states is age 7. Although designed to teach inmates better behavior, empirical evidence has
demonstrated that the strategy may backfire with some populations (Deci, 1971; Kruglanski et al.,
1971; Lepper et al., 1997). Because the punishments used in reformatories involve physical force,
lockups, isolation, and a variety of forms of deprivation, some juveniles may be learning that force is
appropriate to obtain compliance. The intensive after-care model, as designed by Altschuler and
Armstrong (1994b), represents a reintegrative alternative to confinement and release into the
community under traditional parole supervision. Conviction and imprisonment have also been shown
to have a permanent impact on legal earnings (Freeman, 1992; Hunt et al., 1993; Needels, 1996;
Sampson and Laub, 1993). Some youth are treated harshly and receive severe punishments, including
long periods of confinement, and others are handled informally and even diverted from the process
without any legal record of the encounter. In addition, alternatives to detention or confinement tend
to be less costly. These laws focus on the nature of the offense, rather than on the background or
needs of the offender. Gault also established the rights to a speedy trial, timely notice, cross-
examination of witnesses, and to remain silent at adjudicatory hearings when there is a possibility of
incarceration (Binder et al., 1997) (see Chapters 2 and 7 ). Figure 5-1 provides a simplified view of
case flow through the juvenile justice system. A meta-analysis of family-based treatments of drug
abuse found that multisystemic therapy had one of the largest effect sizes of all treatments reviewed
(Stanton and Shadish, 1997). In short, it must be remembered that juvenile delinquency (i.e., conduct
for which a juvenile is subject to a delinquency adjudication) is a legally defined concept that varies
substantially from state to state. (See the “Terminology” section in Chapter 1 for the committee’s
definitions.). Part of the reason for this complexity is that there is no single system of juvenile justice,
but a multitude of systems to consider (Singer, 1996). The juvenile justice process is organizationally
complex, value-driven, and often politicized.
Referrals to victim-offender mediation are typically for vandalism, minor assaults, theft, and
burglary (Umbreit and Greenwood, 1998). Nearly 70 percent of children in public detention centers
are in facilities operating above their designed capacity (Smith, 1998). Unfortunately, there are
distressingly few studies in this category, making any conclusions provisional. A prosecutor’s office
is loosely connected to the probation department, but prosecutors have an interest in advocating a
particular disposition that might conflict with the preferences of probation officials. In Pennsylvania,
for example, children below age 10 are not brought into juvenile court for delinquent charges. For
example, in Pennsylvania, the number of school-based arrests nearly tripled from 4,563 in 1999-2000
to 12,918 in 2006-2007; in North Carolina, there were 16,499 delinquency referrals to juvenile court
directly from schools in 2008-2009 (Advancement Project, 2010). Other common status offenses are
underage drinking of alcoholic beverages or smoking tobacco and engaging in underage, consensual
sexual activities. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in
the book. The Gault decision entitled juveniles to receive notice of charges against them, to have
legal counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to be protected against self-incrimination, to
receive a transcript of the court hearing, and to appeal the judge's decision. The act gave the court
jurisdiction over neglected, dependent, and delinquent children under age 16. Not all jurisdictions
use the term “status offense.” Some states refer to these youth simply as “nonoffenders.” Other states
use names that imply that a young person has not been charged with criminal violations but may be
still subject to court intervention—such as “children in need of supervision” or “persons in need of
supervision.”. However, detention is also used as punishment, protection, and as a place to keep
juveniles when more appropriate placements are unavailable (Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, 1997). Goldson and J. Muncie and Comparative youth justice by J. Very
little is known about the number of youngsters confined to such institutions, the length of their
institutionalization, or the conditions of their confinement. The risk is increased only slightly, to 4.4
percent, when he is found in contempt. Males were more likely than females to be placed (29 and 22
percent of adjudicated delinquency cases involving males and females, respectively) and females
were more likely to be put on probation (53 and 59 percent for males and females, respectively).
Self-reported delinquency data (obtained from youth directly) suggest that half of all 15-year-old
youth may have done something in the previous year that could have resulted in their arrest. The
second type of case involve juveniles with extensive histories of arrests and juvenile court sanctions
who are deemed unable to benefit from juvenile court. They succeeded in diverting most children
and adolescents from the criminal system, but they may. In terms of actual numbers of cases,
however, property. Adjudication in juvenile court was most common for cases involving drug
offenses and public order offenses (63 percent), but this was only slightly higher than the odds of
adjudication for cases involving property offenses (61 percent) and person offenses (60 percent).
Crowded conditions are widespread in juvenile training and reform schools. In each of these
ethnographies and in the related studies noted earlier, it is embeddedness in crime networks,
including the juvenile and the criminal justice systems, that seals the economic fate of these young
people. In the New York House of Refuge, the average length of stay in 1925 was 20 months. Even
in cases involving drug charges, cases of black youth were less frequently adjudicated than those of
white youth (59 compared with 64 percent). The writing style is easy to understand and the content
offers thought-provoking issues. In California, Oregon, and Wisconsin, the extended age is 25 and in
Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, and New Mexico, the juvenile jurisdiction extends for the full term
of commitment, regardless of age. Two comparison groups were devised—the first of victims and
offenders who had been referred to the mediation process but did not participate and the second
victims and offenders who had not been referred to mediation in the same jurisdiction as the
mediation sample, and matched on age, race, sex, and offense. The programs varied from site to site,
but all were characterized. As with the adult system, juvenile corrections officials have a poor record
of controlling juvenile parolees released from secure detention into the community.
Drug case rates, in contrast, increased faster for boys (123 percent) than for girls (100 percent) (Stahl
et al., 1999). Single sleeping rooms were related to suicidal behavior, with the rate of suicide
attempts increasing as the percentage of juveniles in single rooms increased (Parent et al., 1994).
Apparently, rooms housing two or three juveniles are preferable to either single rooms or large
dormitories. The Gault decision entitled juveniles to receive notice of charges against them, to have
legal counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to be protected against self-incrimination, to
receive a transcript of the court hearing, and to appeal the judge's decision. A study by Sealock and
Simpson (1998), based on an analysis of Philadelphia birth cohort data in which police contacts with
juveniles from 1968 through 1975 were recorded, is one of the few that deals with juveniles '
encounters with police. Juvenile delinquency has been of interest to the general public and academic
scholars for many decades—and it has been an ongoing societal problem for the same amount of
time. Juvenile courts nationwide report that they handled just 36,600 delinquency cases in 2008
involving 15-year-old juveniles charged with drug offenses (Puzzancheraet, Adams, and Sickmund,
2011). In fact, Ferris is the only education program in a juvenile secure care facility in the Mid-
Atlantic region to receive accreditation (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 1999). Studies also report
many times more personality disorders, especially borderline personality disorder, among
incarcerated youth than among the general population of young people. In the end, the youth
processed by the juvenile justice system are merely a sample of all young people involved in illegal
behavior. Levitt did not find any long-term relationship between the punitiveness of the sanctions
imposed on juveniles and their adult criminal behavior. Numerous issues may be handled:
appointment of counsel, the youth’s admission or denial of allegations, a determination of the
youth’s detention status or condition of release pending trial, and a determination of the need for
additional services. This practice is inconsistent with the assumption that children are different from
and should be treated differently than adults, in that it implies that juveniles can make the decision
“voluntarily and intelligently, ” although studies suggest that juveniles are not as competent as adults
to waive their rights in a “knowing and intelligent” manner (Feld, 1993:31). The availability and
suitability of an intervention often influences the outcome of earlier decisions. Generally these are
called “status offenses”—not acts of delinquency—because they apply only to persons whose legal
status is that of a juvenile. Snyder (now with the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department
of Justice), data from UCR-participating jurisdictions was analyzed to determine the proportion of
arrests reported for each offense that involved individuals of various ages. Misdemeanor cases do
not usually result in detention. Gault also established the rights to a speedy trial, timely notice,
cross-examination of witnesses, and to remain silent at adjudicatory hearings when there is a
possibility of incarceration (Binder et al., 1997) (see Chapters 2 and 7 ). This system was to differ
from adult or criminal court in a number of ways. Probation is the most common disposition for
youth who receive a juvenile court sanction (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). Juveniles under age 16
were eliminated from San Quentin and those ages 16 and 17 declined to less than 1 percent of the
inmate population in the 1910s and afterward. The broader availability of automation allows
organizations to share client data instantly and in greater detail, but the laws governing privacy and
confidentiality remain a complex patchwork that creates barriers to collaboration and efficiency.
Other youth are held in detention following court disposition while awaiting placement in a long-
term youth correctional facility. A similar pattern was seen in each of the four major offense
categories. The rate for violent female juvenile court cases increased 127 percent from 1987 to 1996.
Adult defendants could be punished more severely, including receiving longer prison sentences, as a
direct result of previous juvenile adjudications. For example, blacks and Hispanics made up 94.7
percent of those transferred in the Cook County, Illinois, study (Clarke, 1996). Also known as
“concurrent jurisdiction” because certain cases (those involving serious offenses committed by youth
at least age 14, age 15, etc.) start out under the jurisdiction of both courts, adult and juvenile. The
juvenile courts also had jurisdiction over abused and neglected children who had committed no
offense. The act gave the court jurisdiction over neglected, dependent, and delinquent children under
age 16. In some jurisdictions, detention can also be ordered following adjudication as a short-term
sanction.
The impact of these laws on ultimate sanctions for juveniles sentenced under them will not be known
for some years to come; this is an area that is ripe for research to begin. The juvenile justice process is
organizationally complex, value-driven, and often politicized. This was higher than the proportion of
petitioned cases in 1985 (46 percent). The CJRP, which collects individual data on each person under
age 21 held in residential facilities, replaced the Children in Custody census, which collected
aggregate data on persons under age 21 in each facility biennially from 1971 through 1995. For
example, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health 3 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, 2012) estimates that 4 percent of all 15-year-olds carried a handgun at least
once in the past year. For youth living in impoverished areas, the juvenile justice process may be
more similar to the criminal system, with fewer alternatives. Thus, all law enforcement data about
“juvenile crime” is actually a measure of arrests rather than crime. If the court finds probable cause, a
second decision involves whether the court will retain jurisdiction or transfer the case. A national
survey discovered 94 victim-offender programs dealing with juveniles in 1996, 46 of which were
dedicated exclusively to them (Umbreit and Greenwood, 1998). Relapse is known to be part of other
forms of habit change (e.g., smoking, drinking, and drug use) and relapse prevention has become a
standard part of drug and alcohol treatment programs (Institute of Medicine, 1990, 1997). The panel
did not have the resources to examine all the literature relevant to treatment of juveniles under the
control of the juvenile justice system (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998, alone found 200 experimental or
quasiexperimental studies for their meta-analysis). The third category emphasizes the child's previous
juvenile offense history over all other factors. SOURCE: Estimates calculated using data from
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011). The next largest change in placement was observed for
vandalism cases. Property offenses in general fell generally consistently through 2010. The bias in
favor of white youth returned, however, at the dispositional stage. The impact of these reforms was
an increase in the detention rate on any given day by more than 50 percent between 1977 and 1985.
The lack of transparency was often required by state confidentiality laws designed to protect
adolescents from the stigma of a delinquent label. The juvenile justice system includes all of these
entities—and much more. For example, in 1997, Idaho added language to its statute requiring open
hearings for all juveniles 14 or older charged with an offense that would be a felony if committed by
an adult. Some states collect and publish a large amount of data on various aspects of the juvenile
justice system, but for most states the data are not readily available. Evidence of significant changes
in brain structure and function during adolescence strongly suggests that these cognitive tendencies
characteristic of adolescents are associated with biological immaturity of the brain and with an
imbalance among developing brain systems. This imbalance model implies dual systems: one
involved in cognitive and behavioral control and one involved in socio-emotional processes. It
appears that police may be initiating more of the encounters than in the past. Each state and the
District of Columbia has its own laws that govern its juvenile justice system. The very language used
in juvenile court underscored these differences. Criminal embeddedness is a liability in terms of
prospects for stable adult employment. The offenses included in the FBI’s Violent Crime Index,
however, swelled from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s and then fell back to approximately the
level of the early 1980s, or about 80,000 arrests per year. Out-of-home placements peaked in the late
1990s, reaching 180,000 cases before starting to decline over the last decade. Sampson and Laub
(1993) found that unstable employment and a higher likelihood of welfare dependence characterized
the lives of the delinquent boys in a prospective sample of 500 delinquents and 500 non-delinquents.
Other psychiatric disorders found among detained and incarcerated young people included
depressive disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and psychotic disorders.
Despite their popularity, the available studies indicate that they actually result in delinquency
increases rather than decreases. Law violations by young people may be handled by probate courts,
juvenile divisions of a circuit court, or even comprehensive family courts. The detention center
lacked any serious diagnostic function and was sometimes used punitively. It should be noted that 23
states allow for reverse waiver. Worden and Myers (1999) reported that previous research (primarily
conducted in the 1960s and 1970s) found that the majority of police encounters with juveniles
resulted from a request from a victim or complainant, and only one-quarter to one-third of
encounters were initiated by the police themselves. The state laws vary widely regarding the
category of the offenses, the age of the child, the seriousness of the offense, and the extent of the
child's juvenile offense history that are to be considered in deciding where to file. States may also
set a lower boundary for the age of original juvenile court jurisdiction (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006).
If the waiver is presumptive under the statute upon proof of probable cause and previous
delinquency, the burden of proof may shift to the youth to prove that he or she is amenable to
treatment in the juvenile justice system (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,
2005). Research consistently shows that juveniles who have been in detention are more likely to be
formally processed and receive more punitive sanctions at disposition than those not placed in
detention, after controlling for demographic and legal factors, such as current offense and history of
past offenses (Frazier and Bishop, 1985; Frazier and Cochran, 1986a; McCarthy and Smith, 1986).
Other youth are held in detention following court disposition while awaiting placement in a long-
term youth correctional facility. This is also referred to as a discretionary waiver. Every state has
some form of “transfer” law that removes particular youth or particular cases from the delinquency
jurisdiction of the juvenile court, placing them under the criminal jurisdiction of another court (see
Box 3-1 ). Interest in intensive supervision probation has waxed and waned since the 1960s. These
cases are waived because the juvenile court would not have jurisdiction over the particular youth for
a long enough period of time or because the juvenile is thought to be appropriate for adult court
(Zimring, 1998). It does not necessarily involve careful and accurate assessments of needs or
treatment. These figures do not include juveniles who were under the supervision of probation
departments after serving time in a residential facility. Schneider (1984b), however, found that some
children and adolescents who, prior to the move to deinstitutionalize status offenders, would have
been charged with a status offense, were subsequently being charged with minor delinquent offenses
(e.g., theft rather than running away). Several states have seen a rise in school-based arrests as a
result. As for program content, more research is needed that untangles effects attributable to
intensive supervision from those of treatment and rehabilitation provided along with the supervision.
A variety of attempts have been made to match offenders to programs on the basis of assessed
needs. Whatever age is specified by state law as the upper limit of original juvenile jurisdiction,
young people who commit offenses after that age are automatically under the jurisdiction of the
crimi-. Over three-quarters of the cases served by the alternative programs successfully avoided
secure detention. From initial confinement to transition into the community, the goals of intensive
after-care programs are to prepare the offender for prosocial adjustment to life in the community and
in social networks (e.g., family, peers, school, and employment). Studies also indicate that presence
of counsel in juvenile courts is related to differences in pretrial detention, sentencing, and case-
processing practices (Feld, 1993). Priority must be given to interrupting these offender careers by
calibrating the level of supervision and control of the juveniles’ behavior to their level of risk.
Typically, the state bears the burden of proving that the criteria are met, but a youth can contest the
waiver motion by challenging or producing evidence. Community Reviews 3.67 3 ratings 1 review 5
stars 1 (33%) 4 stars 1 (33%) 3 stars 0 (0%) 2 stars 1 (33%) 1 star 0 (0%) Search review text Filters
Displaying 1 of 1 review Mills College Library 16.6k reviews Read October 17, 2014 364.36097
H8593 2014 Like Comment Displaying 1 of 1 review Join the discussion Add a quote Start a
discussion Ask a question Can't find what you're looking for. Recently states have relaxed these
confidentiality laws (Sanborn, 1998) for a number of reasons, including a desire to increase the
collateral consequences of a juvenile adjudication (Feld, 2012); to hold youth accountable for public
scrutiny, contrary to the founders’ intent; and to ensure public safety by putting the public on notice
about the risk of harm (e.g., schools, public housing authorities, victims) (National Research Council
and Institute of Medicine, 2001). Status offenders who did not comply with treatment ordered by the
court could become criminal delinquents by virtue of being charged with criminal contempt of court.
Estimates for 2010 calculated directly using data from Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011).