Chapter ObjeCtivesAfter studying this chapter, you should be.docx

Chapter ObjeCtives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to
• Describe how the middle and upper classes in the late
1800s viewed the poor and the
working class
• Describe how the elite’s view of the poor and the working
class influenced the types of
social control mechanisms that were developed
• Describe who the “child savers” were and why they were
interested in poor, wayward
youths
• explain how the inability or unwillingness of criminal
courts to deal with young
offenders encouraged the development of the juvenile courts
• Describe the ways in which the social context of the late
1800s and early 1900s
contributed to the development of the juvenile courts
• Describe the legal doctrine of parens patriae, and indicate
how it was used as a
justification for state intervention into family life
• explain why concern about the lack of due process in
juvenile courts grew during the
middle of the 1900s
• Describe the significance of Kent v. United States, In re

Gault, In re Winship, and
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania and how these cases influenced
juvenile justice practice
Chapter Outline
introduction
the social Context of the juvenile Court
the legal Context of the juvenile Court
the Operation of the early juvenile Courts
the legal reform Years
legal issues
Chapter summary
The Development of the
Juvenile Court
chapter
5
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,

C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
■ introduction
This chapter examines the development of the juvenile court in
the United States. It describes
the social context influencing the creation of the first juvenile
court, established in Chicago
in 1899, and the rapid spread of juvenile courts to other
jurisdictions. It explores the legal
developments that formed the underlying basis of juvenile court
practice. It also looks at early
juvenile court operation and important landmark cases that have
affected the operation and
practices of contemporary juvenile courts and other juvenile
justice agencies. The chapter
closes with an examination of the extent to which important
legal cases actually influence
the practice of juvenile justice.
■ the social Context of the juvenile Court

The period from 1880 to 1920, referred to as the progressive era
by historians, was a time of
major change in the United States. The pace of industrialization,
urbanization, and immigration
quickened during this period, and the population became more
diverse. The stream of Irish
and German immigrants that had begun during the early 1800s
trailed off at the end of the
century, but they were replaced by Italians, Russians, Jews,
Greeks, and other immigrants from
eastern and southern Europe—people who came from cul-
tural backgrounds that were alien to native-born Americans.1
The dream of a better life drew many people to American
cities during the Progressive Era. This dream, however, fre-
quently remained unrealized. Wealth was becoming increas-
ingly concentrated in the hands of business elites who sought
to dominate economic life, workers were forced to work long
hours in unsafe work settings for low wages and no ben-
efits, and housing was often inadequate. Periodic economic
depressions ruined many people financially and made life
particularly difficult for the poor. Not surprisingly, urban
areas faced many social problems, including poverty, labor
unrest, alcoholism, disease, racial and ethnic prejudice and
discrimination, and crime.
progressive era
A period in
American history,
lasting roughly from
1890 to 1924, during
which a variety of

economic, social, and
political reforms and
reform movements
occurred, including
women’s suffrage;
trust busting; Pro-
hibition; reduction
in working hours;
elimination of child
labor; adoption of
social welfare ben-
efits; and the popular
voting measures
of initiative, recall,
and referendum.
The reforms were
primarily concerned
with responding to
popular unrest and
problems uncovered
in the operation of
economic, social, and
political institutions.
Key Concepts
review Questions

additional readings
Cases Cited
notes
Photo: Courtesy of Underwood & Underwood., Library of
Congress Prints and Photographs Division.
112 ChaPter 5 the Development of the Juvenile Court
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

F Y i urban GrOwth was OnlY One impOrtant ChanGe DurinG
the
prOGressive era
the city of Chicago provides a good example of the changes
experienced during the Progressive era. Between
1890 and 1910, the population of Chicago doubled, growing in
those two decades from 1 million to 2 million
people. Between 1880 and 1890, the number of factories nearly
tripled. Furthermore, by 1889, nearly 70% of
the inhabitants of the city were immigrants.2
F Y i ameriCan histOrY is Full OF COnFliCtinG interests
the United States has seen several conflicts between opposing
interests, often the wealthy and the poor. One
of the earliest of these was Shays’s rebellion, which began in
western Massachusetts during the summer of
1786. the uprising represented an attempt by debt-ridden
farmers to seize courthouses in order to forestall
foreclosure proceedings against them. In 1839, an anti-rent
movement spread throughout New York’s hudson
Valley; thousands of renters attempted to make their voices
heard and to resist the efforts of wealthy landlords
to collect rents and taxes from poor farmers. all through the
later 1800s, workers engaged in strikes and other
efforts in order to win better wages and improve working
conditions. the conflict between workers and employ-
ers sometimes turned violent. For example, the great railroad
strikes of 1877, which involved approximately
100,000 strikers, resulted in 1,000 arrests and 100 deaths.3
In response to the growing problems in many communities,

members of the middle
and upper classes attempted to implement reforms to alleviate
the worst conditions faced
by the poorest citizens. Of course, poverty, labor unrest,
alcoholism, and racial and ethnic
prejudice were hardly new. However, as the size and diversity
of the population increased,
these problems had grown. By the end of the 1800s, workers’
movements had become more
national in scope and were clearly seen as more threatening to
political and economic elites.
As a result, these elites sought to devise better mechanisms of
control in order to protect
their interests.4
F Y i the prOGressive era was a time OF ChanGe
the Progressive era was characterized by a political revolt
against the social and economic evils of the Indus-
trial revolution and a belief that government intervention, even
on a national scale, was necessary to remedy
these evils. Politically, it began with a series of urban and state
reform movements directed against corrupt
and boss-ridden local governments.
the Progressive era was also characterized by the belief that
american ingenuity and spirit could solve
social problems and make life better for people. tremendous
technological advances were taking place, includ-
ing the development of the automobile, the airplane, moving
pictures, the phonograph, and the electric light
bulb, to name just a few. equally important, many americans
believed that advances also could be made in
social, political, and economic life.
The American Constitution: Its Origin and Development by a. h.

Kelly and W. a. harbison describes the
Progressives as follows: “Like the Jeffersonians of a century
before, the Progressives had an abiding faith in
the intelligence and good will of the american people.
Fundamentally, their remedy for the failures of democracy
was more democracy. Let the will of the people really reach
into the Congress, the courts, the state legislatures,
and america could then solve its problems.”5
the Social Context of the Juvenile Court 113
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

Two problems that caused concern in the develop-
ing urban areas were youth waywardness and crime.
Thousands of indigent children roamed the streets in
the larger cities,6 and many of these children engaged
in immoral or illegal behavior that threatened the tran-
quility of city life. Of course, criminal laws could be
used to prosecute youths who committed crimes, but
if the offenses were minor, the courts were often reluc-
tant to do more than give the culprits a stern lecture.
Furthermore, the laws were ineffective against those
who had not committed crimes. As a result, reform-
ers sought to develop better ways of controlling youths—both
those who committed crimes
while they were young and those who were believed to be
destined for adult criminal careers.
Those who led the reform effort, known as child savers, were
primarily well-educated
Protestant, middle-class women of Anglo-Saxon descent, but
some were the daughters or wives
of the most influential men in their community.7 They also
tended to be conservative in their
thinking. For example, they believed in traditional roles for
women, and like other affluent
people, they took for granted their natural superiority over the
poor. From the child savers’
perspective, homemaking and child care were women’s primary
responsibilities. However,
because these traditional duties were performed in their own
homes by servants, they had few
outlets for their energies. Child saving provided a mechanism
for these women to perform an
important public service—the control and care of less fortunate

children.8
F Y i sOCial Darwinism inFluenCeD manY peOple’s thinKinG
at this time
Social Darwinism was based on the belief that people’s position
in life was a product of natural selection.
thus, those who were wealthy believed that their wealth was a
product of their natural superiority over those
who were poor.
The child savers were informed by the latest thinking on
adolescence, which saw adoles-
cents as more like children than adults. Adolescence was seen
as a problem period in the child’s
development,9 a time when youths were subject to a variety of
negative influences. Indeed,
youths who engaged in crime were felt to suffer from poor
parenting and weak morals and to
be unusually susceptible to the temptations of the streets.10
Initially, the child savers sought to improve jail and reformatory
conditions.11 However,
their attention soon turned toward the development of more
effective means of controlling
the growing population of problem youths. Indeed, the primary
focus of the child-saving
movement was on extending government control over children
through stricter supervision
and improved legal mechanisms designed to regulate their
behavior.12 In short, the child sav-
ers felt that intrusion into the lives of children was necessary in
order to prevent them from
leading immoral and criminal lives—and, equally important, to
protect the state and the
interests of the wealthy.

Unlike earlier reformers, the child savers thought that the
interventions needed to control
and uplift children should be performed by government
agencies, such as the police and courts,
with the assistance of local charitable organizations. According
to Julia Lathrop, an influential
child saver in Chicago who later became head of the Federal
Children’s Bureau:
There are at the present moment in the State of Illinois,
especially in the city of Chicago, thou-
sands of children in need of active intervention for their
preservation from physical, mental and
moral destruction. Such intervention is demanded, not only by
sympathetic consideration for their
child savers
A group of
reformers, mostly
well- educated,
middle-class
Protestant women
of Anglo-Saxon
descent, who
had the time and
resources to fight for
improved conditions
for youths in jails
and reformatories

and who eventually
played an important
role in the creation
of the juvenile
courts. On the posi-
tive side, their work
led to wider accep-
tance of adolescence
as an important
developmental stage
of life, and they cor-
rectly believed that
the adult criminal
justice system was
harmful to children
or at best ineffec-
tive. On the negative
side, their conser-
vative ideas on the
family and their
“noblesse oblige”
attitude toward the
poor resulted in
reforms that focused
more on the social
control of children

and the protection
of the interests of
the wealthy than
on attacking the
underlying causes
of problem youth
behaviors.
Photo: Courtesy of hine, Lewis Wickes, 1874-1940, Library of
Congress Prints
and Photographs Division.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1

6
9
2
T
S
well-being, but also in the name of the commonwealth, for the
preservation of the State. If the child
is the material out of which men and women are made, the
neglected child is the material out of
which paupers and criminals are made.13
■ the legal Context of the juvenile Court
Although the social conditions that existed in urban areas led
reformers to advocate for
changes in how communities responded to youth crime and
waywardness, the reformers
also recognized that existing legal mechanisms for controlling
and protecting children were
inadequate. One immediate concern of the child savers was the
placement of children in
jail. For example, a study of the county jail system in Illinois in
1869 discovered 98 children
younger than 16 years in 40 different jails. In Michigan, 377
boys and 100 girls younger than
18 years were placed in county jails in 1873; 182 boys and 29
girls were placed in jails in Ohio
in 1871; and more than 2,000 youths, 231 of whom were
younger than 15 years, were placed in
jails in Massachusetts in 1870. The jailing of children was a
common practice.14 However, as
the Board of State Charities in Illinois noted, the county jails in
the state contained cells that

were “filthy and full of vermin,” and were “moral plague spots”
where children were turned
into “great criminals.”15
The child savers, who were concerned about the conditions
children were exposed to in
adult jails and lockups, condemned the fact that adult courts
failed to mete out appropriate
punishments for many of the transgressions of the young.
Unless their offenses were severe,
criminal court judges often treated youths leniently. From the
child savers’ perspective, children
either were treated too severely, by being placed in adult
facilities where they were corrupted
by older and more hardened offenders, or were let go without
receiving any assistance.16 Thus,
according to the child savers, children were neither controlled
nor helped.
By the late 1800s, legal mechanisms for treating children
separately from adults had been
in existence for some time. For example, laws establishing the
minimum age at which a child
could be considered legally responsible for criminal behavior as
well as age limits for place-
ment in adult penitentiaries were enacted during the first half of
the century.17 Moreover, the
first special institution dealing with youths, the House of
Refuge, was established in New York
City in 1825, and these institutions spread to other jurisdictions.
The legal justification for state intervention in the lives of
children was based on the doc-
trine of parens patriae (the state as parent), which was given
legal standing in an important
case, Ex parte Crouse, in 1838. Mary Ann Crouse was

committed to the Philadelphia House
of Refuge by her mother, but against her father’s wishes. The
father questioned Mary Ann’s
placement, arguing that she was being punished without having
committed a criminal offense.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Mary Ann’s
placement was legal because the pur-
pose of the house of refuge was to reform youths, not punish
them; that formal due process
protections afforded to adults in criminal trials were not
necessary because Mary Ann was
not being punished; and that when parents were unwilling or
unable to protect their children,
the state had a legal obligation to do so.18
The right of the state to intervene in the lives of children did
not go unchallenged, however.
In another important case, People v. Turner (1870), the Illinois
Supreme Court ruled that Daniel
O’Connell, who was committed to the Chicago House of Refuge
against his parents’ wishes,
was being punished, not helped, by his placement. In some
respects, this case was similar to
Crouse. Daniel was institutionalized even though he had
committed no criminal offense, and
he was perceived to be in danger of becoming a pauper or
criminal. In other respects, however,
the two cases were decidedly different. Unlike the Crouse case,
both parents had objected to
Daniel’s placement, and, even more important, the court ruled
that his placement was harm-
ful, not helpful. Furthermore, the court decided that because
placement in the house of refuge
was actually a punishment, due process protections were
necessary.19

parens patriae
The obligation of
the government to
take responsibil-
ity for the welfare
of children. The
doctrine of parens
patriae recognizes
the moral obligation
of the government to
take care of children
when there is no
family available or
if the family is not
suitable.
due process
A course established
for legal proceedings
intended to ensure
the protection of
the private rights
of the litigants. The
essential elements of
due process are
1. proper notice
as to the nature
of the legal
proceedings,
2. a meaning-
ful hearing in
which the indi-
vidual has an
opportunity to

be heard and/or
defend him- or
herself, and
3. the objectivity
of the tribunal
before which
the proceedings
take place.
the Legal Context of the Juvenile Court 115
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

People v. Turner was an important case because it was seen by
reformers as an obstacle to
their efforts to help and control youths. The Illinois Supreme
Court’s ruling in People v. Turner
that required due process protections prior to youths’
placement, along with the increasing con-
cern over the unwillingness of the criminal courts to sentence
youths, led reformers in Chicago
to consider other mechanisms by which their aims might be
achieved. What they finally did
was create the first juvenile court, which was established in
Cook County (Chicago) in 1899.20
The juvenile court allowed reformers to achieve their goals of
assisting and controlling
children’s behavior without undue interference from the adult
courts and without undue
concern for the due process protections afforded adults. This
was accomplished by setting
up the court as a civil or chancery court intended to serve the
“best interests” of children (as
opposed to a criminal court, which focuses on the punishment of
offenders). Because the new
court was not a criminal court and its goal was not to punish but
to help children, the need
for formal due process protections was obviated.21
■ the Operation of the early juvenile Courts
The Juvenile Court Act of 1899 gave the new juvenile court in
Illinois broad jurisdictional pow-
ers over people younger than 16 years who were delinquent,
dependent children, or neglected

children.22 In addition, it required that the court be overseen by
a special judge, that hearings
be held in a separate courtroom, and that separate records be
kept of juvenile hearings.23 It
also made probation a major component of the juvenile court’s
response to offenders and
emphasized the use of informal procedures at each stage of the
juvenile court process.24
F Y i inFOrmalitY has been a hallmarK OF the juvenile COurt
Informality, a lack of concern with strict due process, has
characterized the operation of many juvenile courts
since their inception.
In practice, the informality of the juvenile court
meant that complaints against children could be made
by almost anyone in the community. It meant that juvenile
court hearings, which were initially open hearings like
those in adult court, would become closed hearings, often
held in offices as opposed to traditional courtrooms. In
these closed hearings, the only people present were the
judge, the parents, the child, and the probation officer.
The informality also meant that few, if any, records were
kept of hearings, that proof of guilt was not necessary for
the court to intervene in children’s lives, and that little or
no concern for due process protections existed. Finally,
it meant that judges exercised wide discretion regarding the
actions they took, which could
include anything from a stern warning to placement of a child in
an institution.25
F Y i
the first legislatively created juvenile court case was heard on

July 3, 1899, before a packed courtroom on the
third floor of the County Building in downtown Chicago before
the honorable richard tuthill. the case involved
henry Campbell, an 11-year-old who was arrested at the request
of his mother for larceny. reporters covering
the case noted that Mrs. Campbell told the court that her son
was not a bad boy but had been negatively
chancery court
English court
that was primar-
ily concerned with
property rights.
Chancery courts,
first established dur-
ing the Middle Ages,
were partially based
on the idea that
children, particu-
larly children who
owned or were in a
position to inherit
property, should fall
under the protective
control of the king.
It was in these courts
that the concept of
parens patriae was

developed. Over
time, the chancery
courts became
more involved in
the general welfare
of families and
children. Because of
its role in protect-
ing the interests of
children, it served
as a model for the
juvenile court.
dependent children
Children who are
dependent on others
for financial support
or who do not have
the support of a par-
ent or guardian.
neglected children
Children who are
not given appro-
priate care by the
parent(s) or a
guardian.

Photo: Courtesy of hine, Lewis Wickes, 1874-1940, Library of
Congress
Prints and Photographs Division.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
influenced by others. She went on to say that she and her
husband did not want him to be placed in an insti-
tution and indicated to the judge that henry’s grandmother, who

lived in rome, New York, was willing to take
him. after carefully questioning the parents, Judge tuthill agreed
that placing henry with the grandmother
would be the best solution. thus, the first case in the juvenile
court reflected the goal of the new court, to act
in the child’s best interest.26
F Y i pOlitiCs have alwaYs plaYeD a rOle in the juvenile
COurt
the first hearing held by the Cook County Juvenile Court was a
public event because the institutional lobby
in Illinois that represented child-care institutions in that state
had successfully opposed initial provisions
of the legislation that called for closed hearings. In addition, the
institutional lobby was also successful in
ensuring that the initial legislation that was passed in Illinois
gave jurisdiction over cases to the institutions
after a juvenile was placed. as a result of the efforts of the
institutional lobby, the placement of children in
institutional settings in Illinois increased after the juvenile
court was established.27 this is a good example
of the role of politics in juvenile justice.
The idea of using juvenile courts to deal with youth crime
spread rapidly after the pas-
sage of the Illinois legislation. Within 10 years, 10 states had
established special courts for
children, and by 1925, all but two states had juvenile courts.28
These courts closely followed
the model developed in Chicago: they were procedurally
informal and intended to serve the
best interests of children.
The juvenile courts were successfully implemented, in large
measure, because they served

a variety of interests. They served the interests of reformers,
who sought to help children on
humanitarian grounds, and the interests of those who were
concerned primarily with the con-
trol of lower-class, immigrant children, whose behaviors
threatened urban tranquility.29 They
served the interests of the criminal courts because they removed
children from criminal court
jurisdiction, freeing up time for the trying of adult offenders.
Finally, they served the interests
of the economically and politically powerful, because they did
not require the alteration of
existing political and economic arrangements.30 Although some
undoubtedly saw the new
juvenile courts as instruments of change, many others saw them
as instruments of containment.
Despite the growing popularity of the juvenile courts, they did
not go unchallenged. In
another important court case, Commonwealth v. Fisher (1905),
the juvenile court’s mission, its
right to intervene in family life, and the lack of due process
protections afforded children were
examined by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In this case,
Frank Fisher, a 14-year-old male,
was indicted for larceny and committed to a house of refuge
(the same house of refuge that
Mary Ann Crouse had been committed to more than 60 years
earlier) until his 21st birthday.
Frank’s father objected to his placement and filed a suit that
argued that Frank’s seven-year
sentence for a minor offense was more severe than he would
have received in a criminal court.31
In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the idea of
a juvenile court and in

many respects repeated the arguments made by the court in the
Crouse decision. The court
found that the state may intervene in families when the parents
are unable or unwilling to pre-
vent their children from engaging in crime, and that Frank was
being helped by his placement
in the house of refuge. Furthermore, it ruled that due process
protections were unnecessary
when the state acts under its parens patriae powers.32
Fisher set the legal tone for juvenile courts from the time they
began until the mid-1960s,
when new legal challenges to the courts began to be mounted.
These legal challenges primarily
concerned expansion of juveniles’ due process protections.
Critics of the juvenile courts recog-
nized that despite their expressed goal of serving the best
interests of children, the established
institutions of juvenile justice often did the opposite. Although
the courts were intended to help
the Operation of the early Juvenile Courts 117
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E

D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
children, they did not always act as wise and benevolent
parents. Indeed, their use of coercive
powers to deal with a wide range of behaviors, many of which
were not criminal in nature, in
an informal setting without due process protections, created the
potential for abuse. Moreover,
although reformers had looked to the juvenile courts as a
mechanism for both helping and
controlling delinquent and wayward children, little attention
was devoted to improving other
juvenile justice institutions. Various mechanisms intended to
assist the court in its mission,
such as probation, relied heavily on untrained volunteers.33
Furthermore, the institutions used
by the juvenile courts for the placement of children were the
same institutions used before the
establishment of the courts, and children continued to be
subjected to inhumane treatment.34
C O m pa r at i v e F O C u s
legislation establishing a separate juvenile justice process was

enacted in Other western
Countries During the early 1900s
For example, in 1908, the federal Juvenile Delinquents act
(JDa), which stressed a treatment-oriented philosophy,
was passed in Canada,35 and the Children act was passed in
Britain, which established juvenile courts in
england, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.36 In Germany, the
Juvenile Welfare act (JWa) of 1922 (with amendments
in 1923) was passed to establish legal procedures for dealing
with the rehabilitation and institutionalization
of youths.37
■ the legal reform Years
The 1960s and 1970s were a time when American institutions,
including juvenile justice institu-
tions, came under intense scrutiny. During this period, the U.S.
Supreme Court heard a number
of cases that altered the operation of the juvenile courts. The
most important of these was
In re Gault (1967), which expanded the number of due process
protections afforded juveniles.
This section discusses this case and several others, including
the first of these important cases,
Kent v. United States (1966).
Morris Kent was accused of committing break-ins and robberies
in the District of Colum-
bia. One robbery victim was raped, but the principal evidence
against Kent was a latent fin-
gerprint left at the scene of the robbery and rape. Kent was on
probation at the time of these
crimes, and after his arrest, he was interrogated over a seven-
hour period and confessed to
several house break-ins. Without a hearing or any formal notice,

Kent’s case was transferred
to the criminal court. His attorney tried to get the case
dismissed from the adult court and
moved for a psychiatric evaluation and for receipt of all social
reports in the juvenile court’s
possession. The motions by Kent’s attorney were denied,
however. At his trial in criminal
court, Kent was convicted by a jury for robbery and
housebreaking, and he was sentenced to
30 to 90 years in prison.
The matter was appealed on the jurisdictional issue of the
waiver from juvenile court to
adult court. It was contended that the waiver was defective on
the following grounds:
• No waiver hearing was held.
• No indication was given as to why the waiver was
ordered.
• Counsel was denied access to the social file and social
reports that were reportedly used
by the judge to determine the waiver.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that for Kent’s waiver to
be valid, certain due process
requirements were necessary. Specifically, the Court held that
Kent was entitled to representa-
tion by an attorney; to a meaningful hearing, even if informal;
to access to any social reports,
DISTRIBUTION. 1592

F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
records, reports of probation, and so on, that would be
considered by the Court in deciding
the waiver; and to be apprised of the reasons for the waiver
decision.38
Kent was an important case for several reasons. It resulted in
the first major ruling by the
U.S. Supreme Court that scrutinized the operation of the
juvenile courts. After more than
60 years of informal parens patriae procedures, the
appropriateness of these procedures was
being questioned, even if only narrowly, in the limited area of

waivers to adult court. Kent also
made explicit the need for due process protections for juveniles
who were being transferred to
adult courts for trial. The Court noted that even though a
hearing to consider transfer to adult
court is far less formal than a trial, juveniles are still entitled to
some due process protections.
In its decision, the Court made numerous references to the need
for due process protec-
tions, stating that in a juvenile court a child may receive “the
worst of both worlds: that he
gets neither the protections afforded to adults nor the solicitous
care and regenerative treat-
ment postulated for children.”39 After the Court began to look
at juvenile court processes and
procedures, subsequent cases like Gault, McKeiver, and
Winship became inevitable.
Having given notice that it would review the operation of the
juvenile courts, within a
year of the Kent decision the Supreme Court heard another
landmark case. This case, In re
Gault (1967), went far beyond Kent in its examination of
juvenile court practice and extended
a variety of due process protections to juveniles. The facts of
the case clearly demonstrate the
potential for abuse found in the informal procedures of the
traditional juvenile court, and
consequently this case is discussed in detail.
Gerald Gault was 15 years old when he and a friend were taken
into custody by the
Gila County (Arizona) Sheriff ’s Department for allegedly
making an obscene phone call to
a neighbor, Ms. Cook. At the time of his arrest, Gerald was on

six months’ probation—the
result of being with another friend, who had stolen a wallet
from a purse. Gerald was taken
into custody on the verbal complaint of Ms. Cook and was taken
to the local detention unit.
His mother was not notified of this by the police, but she
learned about it later that day when
she returned home and, not finding Gerald present, sent a
sibling to search for him.
Upon learning that Gerald was in custody, Ms. Gault went to the
detention facility and
was told by the superintendent that a juvenile court hearing
would be held the next day. On
the following day, Gerald’s mother, the police officer who had
taken Gerald into custody and
filed a petition alleging that Gerald was delinquent, and Gerald
appeared before the juvenile
court judge in chambers. Ms. Cook, the complainant, was not
present. Gerald was questioned
about the telephone call and was sent back to detention. No
record was made of the hearing
and no one was sworn to tell the truth, nor was any specific
charge made, other than an alle-
gation that Gerald was delinquent. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the judge said he would
“think about it.” Gerald was released a few days later, although
no reasons were given for his
detention or release.
On the day of Gerald’s release, Ms. Gault received a letter
indicating that another hearing
would be held regarding Gerald’s delinquency a few days later.
A hearing was held, and again
the complainant was not present, and no transcript or recording
was made of the proceedings.

(Later, what was said was disputed by the parties.) Neither
Gerald nor his mother was advised
of any right to remain silent, of Gerald’s right to be represented
by counsel, or of any other
constitutional rights. At the conclusion of the hearing, Gerald
was found to be a delinquent
and was committed to the state industrial school until age 21
years, unless released earlier
by the Court. This meant that Gerald received a six-year
sentence for an offense that, if com-
mitted by an adult, could be punished by no more than two
months in jail and a $50 fine.40
In Gault, the Court ruled that the special circumstances that
gave rise to the informal
process of juvenile courts and the broad discretion of juvenile
court judges did not justify the
denial of fundamental due process rights for juveniles. The
majority opinion stated, “As we shall
discuss, the observance of due process standards, intelligently
and ruthlessly administered,
the Legal reform Years 119
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C

E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
will not compel the states to abandon or displace any of the
substantive benefits of the juvenile
process.” The justices went on to argue:
The constitutional and theoretical basis for this particular
system is—to say the least—debatable.
And in practice, as we remarked in the Kent case, supra, the
results have not been entirely satisfac-
tory. Juvenile Court history has again demonstrated that
unbridled discretion, however benevolently
motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and
procedures. . . . The absence of substantive
standards had not necessarily meant that children receive
careful, compassionate, individualized
treatment. The absence of procedural rules based upon
constitutional principle has not always
produced fair, efficient, and effective procedures. Departures
from established principles of due
process have frequently resulted not in enlightened procedure,
but in arbitrariness. . . . Failure to
observe the fundamental requirements of due process has

resulted in instances. . . . of unfairness to
individuals and inadequate or inaccurate findings of fact and
unfortunate prescriptions of remedy.
Due process of law is the primary and indispensable foundation
of individual freedom. . . . Under
our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a
kangaroo court.41
The Court made it clear that juveniles are to be afforded
fundamental due process rights
that measure up to the essentials of fair treatment. The
following rights are included:
• the right to reasonable notice of the charges
• the right to counsel (either retained or appointed)
• the right to confrontation and cross-examination of
witnesses
• the right against self-incrimination
However, the Court limited the application of these rights to
proceedings involving a deter-
mination of delinquency that may result in commitment to an
institution.
Fundamental changes were required in juvenile courts after
Gault. Many of them carried
high costs. For example, the right to appointed counsel has
become a major budget concern
for juvenile courts, especially because this right has been
expanded several times in subsequent
Court decisions. The right to confrontation requires the
processing of subpoenas and the costs
of service. Finally, due process requirements have resulted in
more adversarial hearings, which
take longer to complete and thus push up costs.

Although Gault was a landmark juvenile law case, it was not the
last Supreme Court deci-
sion that influenced juvenile court procedures. The Court
further expanded protections for
juveniles three years after Gault. In In re Winship (1970), it
addressed the level of proof needed
for a conviction of delinquency. The case involved a 12-year-
old male who was found guilty of
stealing $112 from a woman’s purse. As a result, he was placed
in a New York training school
for a minimum period of 18 months, although the juvenile court
indicated that the term of
the sentence could be extended to the youth’s 18th birthday.
The judge who heard the case
admitted that proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” was not
established at trial, but held that
this level of proof was not required.
A majority of the Supreme Court justices held that proof of
guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt was an essential element of due process in delinquency
cases. The Court indicated that to
allow a lesser standard would seriously harm the confidence of
the community in the fairness
of the adjudicative process. The Court went on to talk about the
“moral force” of the criminal
law and how this force would be diluted if the standard of proof
was lowered. According to
the Court, a lower standard would lead the community to
wonder whether innocent juveniles
were being convicted and incarcerated.
The Winship decision added due process protections to those
established by Kent and
Gault. The result was that the concept of “proof beyond a
reasonable doubt,” which had long

been accepted in adult criminal cases, was now applied to
adjudications in which juveniles
were at risk of institutional placement.
The Supreme Court’s willingness to extend due process
protections to juveniles came into
question the following year, however. It heard two cases jointly,
one from Pennsylvania and
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

one from North Carolina, that concerned whether juveniles
should be entitled to jury trials at
the trial or adjudicative stage of the juvenile court process. In
the Pennsylvania case, McKeiver
v. Pennsylvania (1971), the Court used procedures that were
similar to those used in adult
criminal courts (plea bargaining, motions to suppress evidence,
and so on). Moreover, one
possible outcome was incarceration in a prison-like facility
until the juvenile’s age of major-
ity. The North Carolina case was heard in a court using much
less formalized procedures
than those in Pennsylvania, but the argument was made that the
supposed benefits of the
juvenile court system—discretionary intake, diversion, flexible
sentencing, and a focus on
rehabilitation—would not be hindered by the use of juries.
Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, reviewed the
historical reasons for a separate
and distinct juvenile court and concluded by stating:
The arguments necessarily equate the juvenile proceeding—or
at least the adjudicative phase of
it—with the criminal trial, whether they should be so equated is
our issue. . . . If the formalities of
the criminal adjudicative process are to be superimposed upon
the juvenile court system, there is
little need for its separate existence. Perhaps that ultimate
disillusionment will come one day; but
for the moment, we are disinclined to give impetus to it.42
Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to extend the
constitutional right to jury trial to

the juvenile system.
McKeiver is important because it made clear that the Supreme
Court was unwilling to
give juveniles all of the due process protections available to
adults. Nevertheless, many states
have extended the right to a jury trial to youths at the
adjudicative phase of the juvenile justice
process. The McKeiver decision was not unanimous, however.
Justice Brennan, in his dissent in
McKeiver, focused on the individual state procedure and
whether it afforded sufficient protec-
tions to the juvenile from any government overreaching and
from the “biased or eccentric”
judge. He thought that one crucial factor that needed to be taken
into account in deciding
whether to mandate a jury trial was the public “openness” of
trial proceedings and the ability
of the jury to act as both a finder of fact and the community’s
conscience, preventing the state
from accusing juveniles for political purposes.43
Although one of the objections to jury trials in juvenile
proceedings was that they would
cause a backlog of cases and hamper the functioning of the
juvenile court, experience has not
shown that such trials seriously impeded the juvenile justice
process. The other issue related
to efficiency is whether juries can consist of less than 12
citizens. In many states, a jury of six
is allowed for delinquency adjudications.
A collateral benefit of allowing jury trials is that they may aid
rehabilitation. A juvenile
who believes that “the system” has treated him or her unfairly
may be less cooperative and

open to assistance than one who is tried by an objective jury. A
perception of fair treatment
may go a long way toward fostering acceptance of responsibility
on the part of the juvenile, to
say nothing of its promotion of feelings of self-esteem.
Juveniles who believe that the system
treats them fairly and accepts them as significant persons whose
rights must be protected may
overcome feelings that they were treated unjustly.
Another point that is sometimes made about the use of juries in
the juvenile court is that,
unlike in adult courts, the jurors are not peers of those on trial.
In some instances, the juvenile
may benefit from this fact, because the adults on the jury may
remember their own youthful
mistakes and indiscretions and feel sympathy. If they are
parents, jurors also may realize that,
under other circumstances, one of their children could be at the
defense table.
In reality, there is little evidence that, in those jurisdictions
where they are possible, jury
trials in delinquency proceedings have proved to be docket
cumbersome, inefficient, or exceed-
ingly expensive. Moreover, they have the advantage of making a
statement to the community
and the juvenile regarding the juvenile court’s concern for
fundamental fairness.
Despite the due process protections extended to juveniles
through the Kent, Gault, and
Winship decisions, much of the informality of the juvenile court
remains intact in practice.

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
Indeed, one complaint is that changes in the legal procedures
that supposedly govern the juve-
nile courts have not always resulted in fundamental changes in
the daily operation of juvenile
justice.44 Many critics contend that juveniles often are denied
basic protections in the juvenile
justice process and that the continued informality of the
juvenile courts fails to serve either

the juveniles’ best interests or the best interests of the
community. In writing about the trial
or adjudication stage of the juvenile justice process, Joseph
Sanborn and Anthony Salerno
note that juvenile court adjudications typically have features
that work to the advantage of
prosecutors. These include the following:
• No jury that might look critically at the fact-finding
process
• No public to examine the court (including the judge)
• Defense attorneys and parens patriae judges who are
inclined to focus not on legal
protections but on the child’s needs
• Judges who are knowledgeable about a youth’s current
offense and prior record
• Less-demanding laws, rules, and procedures
• Youths who are stigmatized when they come to the
adjudication because they have
been detained
• Fewer legal maneuvers available to defense attorneys
• Parents who assist in their child’s adjudication
• The ability of courts to amend petitions and continue
hearings
• The ability of judges to revise adverse verdicts reached by
other hearing officers
• The reality that few appeals are filed by defense
attorneys45
Although juvenile courts often operate on the premise that their
goal is to serve the child’s
best interests, which can be advantageous to youths, when the
sum of advantages and disad-
vantages are totaled, many youths are likely to be severely

disadvantaged at the adjudication.
F Y i Gault raiseD impOrtant QuestiOns abOut juveniles’
riGhts
Gault raised several questions at the time of its release. Would
procedural rules, such as the exclusionary
rule, be applicable to juveniles? Do juveniles have the right to
Miranda warnings before being interrogated
by the police? Do juveniles have the right to jury trials? Do
juveniles have the right to bail? at a hearing to
determine a finding of delinquency, does a juvenile have to be
found “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”?
Since Gault, many, but not all, of these questions have been
answered in the affirmative, further prolonging
juvenile proceedings and increasing court costs, but giving
youths important protections.
exclusionary rule
A procedural rule
that prohibits
evidence that is
obtained by illegal
means or in bad faith
from being used in a
criminal trial.
Miranda warnings
Specific warnings
given to a suspect
prior to questioning
that inform them that

statements they make
to law enforcement
agents can be used
against them in court.
bail
The money or bond
used to secure the
release of a person
charged with
a crime.
m Y t h v s r e a l i t Y juveniles DO nOt have all OF the
leGal prOteCtiOns
available tO aDults
Myth—today, juveniles have all of the due process protections
afforded adults in criminal courts.
reality—In some states, juveniles still lack some of the due
process rights, such as right to a jury trial and
a right to bail, given to adults.
F Y i juvenile vs. Criminal COurts
Looked at broadly, Kent, Gault, McKeiver, and Winship
concern the degree to which adult criminal practice
should be extended to the juvenile courts. Kent, Gault, and
Winship made clear that certain due process
protections that have long been part of adult court practice also
should be given to youths being tried in

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
juvenile courts. McKeiver, however, indicated that there were
limits to how far the Supreme Court was willing
to go in this area. It also showed that the Court was unwilling to
completely dismantle the juvenile justice
apparatus and that it wished to maintain some of the traditional
informality of juvenile courts.46 these cases
left unresolved, however, whether many other adult court
practices should apply to the juvenile courts, such

as a defendant’s right to bail, pretrial discovery, and bill of
particulars. pretrial discovery
Efforts of a party to
a lawsuit to obtain
information prior
to trial. The theory
behind discovery
is that all parties
should go to trial
with as much infor-
mation as possible.
bill of particulars
In a lawsuit, a
written itemiza-
tion of claims or
charges provided by
the plaintiff at the
defendant’s request;
the document can
serve as the factual
basis of the allega-
tions against the
defendant.
F Y i sOme states allOw jurY trials FOr juveniles
Many states have required more due process protections for
juveniles than mandated by the Supreme Court. For
example, many state laws specify that juveniles have a right to a
jury trial (adjudication). In fact, at least one
state, texas, requires that all adjudications be heard by a jury.
Nevertheless, jury trials are rare in states that
have this right, including texas. this is because the right is not
often exercised (or, as in the case of texas, it

can be and often is waived). In practice, jury trials are
frequently discouraged because they are felt to be time
consuming and costly, or because they impinge on the power of
the juvenile court judge.
It is one thing to be afforded various rights through Supreme
Court or state court rulings
and state statutes. It is another thing to ensure that those
involved in the juvenile justice process
know all of their rights and that they feel comfortable
exercising those rights. However, several
studies raise serious doubts about youths’ access to counsel in
delinquency proceedings and the
quality of representation that occurs. A study by the American
Bar Association Juvenile Justice
Center, the Youth Law Center, and the Juvenile Law Center
raised serious concerns about the
quality of legal representation given youths in many juvenile
courts.47 This research found
that, in many instances, juveniles are not represented by
attorneys when they appear in juve-
nile court; attorneys who represent youths often have high
caseloads and, in some instances,
lack the proper training and experience in juvenile court to
provide effective representation;
and youths and their parents or guardians often fail to have a
clear understanding of the legal
process. As a result, youths are frequently in a vulnerable
position, particularly in the early
stages of the juvenile justice process, and this can lead to more
severe dispositions than are
warranted. These findings mirror those of other studies that
have examined attorney repre-
sentation in juvenile court proceedings.48 For example, a study
that examined statewide data
in six states (California, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North

Dakota, and Pennsylvania)
found that in three of those states (Minnesota, Nebraska, and
North Dakota), the defendant
was represented by counsel in approximately half of the cases in
which a petition was filed. In
addition, this study found that youths who received assistance
from counsel were more likely
to receive a more severe disposition, even when the seriousness
of the charges and the youths’
delinquent history were taken into account.49 Such findings
indicate that not only is represen-
tation absent in many instances, but the quality of the
representation provided to juveniles
is often inadequate. Particularly troublesome is research that
indicates that in some jurisdic-
tions, non-white youth who are represented by private attorneys
are more likely than similar
white youths to be placed in secure confinement.50 Why this
occurs is not clear. What is clear,
however, is that attorney representation for youths in juvenile
courts is frequently inadequate.
The continued informality of the juvenile court may also
explain why very few youths
contest the charges against them.51 Moreover, many others who
are not petitioned and a siz-
able number who go to adjudications but are not found guilty
are still placed on some form
of probation. For example, in 2009, almost 26% of youths who
were handled informally by
juvenile courts were placed on some form of probation and
almost 25% of youths who were
not adjudicated were placed on probation.52
Today, juveniles have been granted many, but not all, of the due
process protections given

to adults in criminal trials. However, the extent to which court-
mandated changes in juvenile
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
justice procedures have actually influenced the traditional
informality of the juvenile courts
is open to question. Juvenile court procedures in many
jurisdictions are still characterized by

an informality that would be considered unacceptable for adults
brought before a criminal
court.53 Moreover, this informality works to youths’
disadvantage in many instances. Is the
informality necessary for the courts to carry out their mandate
to serve the best interests of
children and protect the community, as supporters of the
traditional court procedures argue?
Or does the courts’ failure to adhere to stricter due process
standards lead to abuses and harm
many children, as critics assert? These issues continue to be the
focus of an important policy
debate within the field of juvenile justice.
CriTiCal Thinking QuesTion
What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of an
informal juvenile court?
■ legal issues
Kent, Gault, and Winship extended due process protections to
juveniles when juveniles are
at risk of commitment. These cases also raised the issue of the
rights of juveniles who are
involuntarily committed by their parents to mental health
facilities, drug treatment centers,
and other types of treatment programs. Should children have
due process rights in these
circumstances? Also, what about instances when the state or the
federal government seeks
treatment or commitment?

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
Chapter summarY
The juvenile courts were developed by Progressive Era
reformers (the child savers) in the late
1800s as a new means of controlling wayward and problem
youths. They were characterized
by a focus on rehabilitation, procedural informality, an
individualized approach to cases, and
the separation of juveniles from adult offenders.54 The
presumption of the child savers was that

children who violated the law could be, and should be,
controlled and induced to abandon
their youthful waywardness. Although the child savers were
concerned about the increasing
number of problem children who posed a threat to community
life, they also viewed “delin-
quents” as children who had lost their way and who needed
control, guidance, and nurturing.
They believed that children were different from adults and
should feel “protected” by the state,
and they believed that procedural formalities, such as those
found in adult criminal courts,
would only serve to intimidate children. They had in mind an
image of a judge with his arm
around a child, not a judge behind a bench with a gavel in his
hand looking down on a child
from on high. Their hope was that the juvenile court would form
an understanding of each
child’s social and family history and use it to develop an
appropriate “treatment.”
Yet there was also another side to child saving. Although many
child savers were con-
cerned about the well-being of children and sought to create
institutions capable of serving
their best interests, others were threatened by the many poor
and immigrant children who
lived in the rapidly growing urban areas and represented a
threat to traditional institutions.
From the point of view of the latter reformers, the main goal
was simply to prevent delinquent
and other problem behaviors, and the possibility that prevention
could be achieved through
juvenile courts and correctional institutions was reason enough
to support them.

By the early 1900s, juvenile courts had spread throughout the
country. Clearly, some
children were helped by their existence, but the juvenile courts
did not always act in the kind
and benevolent manner their supporters had envisioned.
Nevertheless, juvenile court practice
was not closely scrutinized until the 1960s.
During the 1960s, however, some of the shortcomings of
existing juvenile court practice
began to receive attention by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a
series of important cases, the
Supreme Court extended due process protections to juveniles.
The essential thrust of the rulings
was that juveniles had a right to some protection from the
coercive powers of the juvenile court.
However, whether all jurisdictions adhere firmly to the
principle that juveniles are entitled to
due process protections is in doubt. Indeed, there is
considerable evidence that many juve-
nile courts still operate in an informal manner, which in effect
circumvents the due process
protections supposedly available to juveniles and often works to
the disadvantage of youths.
key ConCepTs
bail: The money or bond used to secure the release of a person
charged with a crime.
bill of particulars: In a lawsuit, a written itemization of claims
or charges provided by the
plaintiff at the defendant’s request; the document can serve as
the factual basis of the allega-
tions against the defendant.
chancery court: English court that was primarily concerned with
property rights. Chan-

cery courts, first established during the Middle Ages, were
partially based on the idea that
children, particularly children who owned or were in a position
to inherit property, should
fall under the protective control of the king. It was in these
courts that the concept of parens
patriae was developed. Over time, the chancery courts became
more involved in the general
welfare of families and children. Because of its role in
protecting the interests of children, it
served as a model for the juvenile court.
Key Concepts 125
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2

T
S
child savers: A group of reformers, mostly well-educated,
middle-class Protestant women
of Anglo-Saxon descent, who had the time and resources to
fight for improved conditions
for youths in jails and reformatories and who eventually played
an important role in the
creation of the juvenile courts. On the positive side, their work
led to wider acceptance of
adolescence as an important developmental stage of life, and
they correctly believed that the
adult criminal justice system was harmful to children or at best
ineffective. On the negative
side, their conservative ideas on the family and their “noblesse
oblige” attitude toward the
poor resulted in reforms that focused more on the social control
of children and the pro-
tection of the interests of the wealthy than on attacking the
underlying causes of problem
youth behaviors.
dependent children: Children who are dependent on others for
financial support or who
do not have the support of a parent or guardian.
due process: A course established for legal proceedings
intended to ensure the protection
of the private rights of the litigants. The essential elements of
due process are (1) proper
notice as to the nature of the legal proceedings, (2) a
meaningful hearing in which the indi-
vidual has an opportunity to be heard and/or defend him- or
herself, and (3) the objectivity
of the tribunal before which the proceedings take place.55

exclusionary rule: A procedural rule that prohibits evidence that
is obtained by illegal
means or in bad faith from being used in a criminal trial.
Miranda warnings: Specific warnings given to a suspect prior to
questioning that inform
them that statements they make to law enforcement agents can
be used against them in
court.
neglected children: Children who are not given appropriate care
by the parent(s) or a
guardian.
parens patriae: The obligation of the government to take
responsibility for the welfare of
children. The doctrine of parens patriae recognizes the moral
obligation of the government
to take care of children when there is no family available or if
the family is not suitable.
pretrial discovery: Efforts of a party to a lawsuit to obtain
information prior to trial. The
theory behind discovery is that all parties should go to trial with
as much information as
possible.
Progressive Era: A period in American history, lasting roughly
from 1890 to 1924, during
which a variety of economic, social, and political reforms and
reform movements occurred,
including women’s suffrage; trust busting; Prohibition;
reduction in working hours; elimi-
nation of child labor; adoption of social welfare benefits; and
the popular voting measures
of initiative, recall, and referendum. The reforms were primarily
concerned with respond-
ing to popular unrest and problems uncovered in the operation
of economic, social, and
political institutions.

review QuesTions
1. How did the social context of the 1800s influence the
development of the “child-saving”
movement?
2. Who were the child savers, and what was their approach to
saving children?
3. According to the child savers, what caused youth crime and
waywardness?
4. What legal mechanisms existed during the early and mid-
1800s to respond to children
who engaged in crime or other problem behaviors?
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C

1
6
9
2
T
S
5. What were the facts of the Crouse case, what were the
findings of the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, and why is this case significant?
6. What were the facts of the People v. Turner case, what were
the findings of the Illinois
Supreme Court, and how did this case influence the
development of the juvenile court
in Chicago?
7. What social and legal factors contributed to the development
of the first statutorily rec-
ognized juvenile court?
8. What were the essential characteristics of the first juvenile
court?
9. What were the facts of the Fisher case, what were the
findings of the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, and why is this case significant?
10. What were the essential features of early juvenile court
practice?
11. What issues were addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in
the Kent, Gault, Winship, and
McKeiver cases? What were the important Supreme Court
rulings in these cases?

12. How did the Kent, Gault, Winship, and McKeiver cases
influence the operation of the
juvenile courts?
13. Explain how the continuing informality of many juvenile
courts circumvents the due
process protections extended to juveniles by the Supreme Court.
aDDiTional reaDings
Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of
juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Feld, B. C. (1999). Readings in juvenile justice administration.
New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Hemmens, C., Steiner, B., & Mueller, D. (2004). Significant
cases in juvenile justice.
Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Krisberg, B., & Austin, J. F. (1993). Reinventing juvenile
justice. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Platt, A. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of
delinquency (2nd ed.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Tanenhaus, D. S. (2004). Juvenile justice in the making. New
York: Oxford University
Press.
Cases CiTeD

Commonwealth v. Fisher, 213 Pa. 48 (1905).
Ex parte Crouse, 4 Whart. 9 (Pa. 1838).
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966).
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971).
People v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280 (1870).
Cases Cited 127
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1

6
9
2
T
S
noTes
1. Zinn, H. (1995). A people’s history of the United States,
1492–present. New York: Harper
Perennial.
2. Finestone, H. (1976). Victims of change. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
3. Zinn, 1995.
4. Zinn, 1995.
5. Kelly, A. H., & Harbison, W. A. (1955). The American
Constitution: Its origin and develop-
ment. New York: W. W. Norton, p. 612.
6. Clement, P. F. (1985). Families and foster care: Philadelphia
in the late nineteenth century.
In R. Hiner & J. M. Hawes (Eds.), Growing up in America:
Children in historical perspective.
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
7. Platt, A. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of
8. Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of
juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press; Platt, 1977.

9. Sommerville, C. J. (1990). The rise and fall of childhood.
New York: Vintage Books;
Tanenhaus, D. S. (2004). Juvenile justice in the making. New
10. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010.
11. Platt, 1977.
12. Platt, 1977.
13. Mennel, R. M. (1973). Thorns and thistles: Juvenile
delinquents in the United States, 1825–
1940. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, p. 129.
14. Platt, 1977.
15. Platt, 1977, p. 119.
17. Platt, 1977.
20. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Platt, 1977.
21. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Platt, 1977.
22. Waegel, W. B. (1989). Delinquency and juvenile control: A
sociological perspective. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23. Empey, L. T., Stafford, M. C., & Hay, C. H. (1999).
American delinquency: Its meaning and
construction (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
24. Empey, Stafford, & Hay, 1999; Roberts, A. R. (1998). The
emergence of the juvenile court
and probation services. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile justice:
Policies, programs, and
services (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

25. Bordelaise, C., & Miller, S. J. (1998). Juvenile justice in
America (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Empey, Stafford, & Hay,
1999; Tanenhaus, 2004.
26. Tanenhaus, 2004.
27. Tanenhaus, 2004.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

28. Krisberg, B., & Austin, J. F. (1993). Reinventing juvenile
justice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29. Platt, 1977.
33. Lindner, C., & Savages, M. R. (1984). The evolution of
probation. Federal Probation, 48,
3–10; Roberts, 1998.
34. Platt, 1977.
35. Hacker, J. C. (1984). Canada. In M. W. Klein (Ed.), Western
systems of juvenile justice.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36. Farrington, D. P. (1984). England and Wales. In M. W.
Klein (Ed.), Western systems of
juvenile justice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37. Keener, H., & Weitekamp, E. (1984). The Federal Republic
of Germany. In M. W. Klein
(Ed.), Western systems of juvenile justice. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
38. For a discussion of the Kent case, see Bernard & Kurlychek,
2010; Sanborn, J. B., & Salerno,
A. W. (2005). The juvenile justice system, law and process. Los
Angeles, CA: Roxbury Pub-
lishing Company.
39. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010, p. 100.
40. Senna, J. J., & Siegel, L. J. (1992). Juvenile law: Cases and
comments (2nd ed.).

St. Paul, MN: West.
41. Bortner, M. A. (1988). Delinquency and justice: An age of
crisis. New York: McGraw-Hill,
p. 62. Copyright © 1988 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Reprinted by permission
of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
42. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971).
43. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971).
44. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Bortner, 1988.
45. Sanborn & Salerno, 2005.
47. Puritz, P., Burrell, S., Schwartz, R., Soler, M., & Warboys,
L. (1995). A call for justice: An
assessment of access to counsel and quality of representation in
delinquency proceedings.
Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
48. Feld, B. C. (1991). Justice by geography: Urban, suburban,
and rural variations in juvenile
justice administration. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 82, 156–210; Feld, B. C.
(1989). The right to counsel in juvenile court: An empirical
study of when lawyers appear
and the difference they make. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 79, 1185–1346;
Feld, B. C. (1988). In re Gault revisited: A cross-state
comparison of the right to counsel
in juvenile court. Crime and Delinquency, 34, 393–424.
49. Feld, 1988. For similar results, see Burruss, G. W., &
Kempf-Leonard, K. (2002). The
questionable advantage of defense counsel in juvenile court.
Justice Quarterly, 19, 37–68;

Guevara, L, Spohn, C., & Herz, D. (2004). Race, legal
representation, and juvenile justice:
Issues and concerns. Crime and Delinquency, 50, 344–371.
50. Guevara, Spohn, & Herz, 2004.
Notes 129
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

52. Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., & Kang, W. (2012). Easy access
to juvenile court statistics:
1985–2009. Retrieved from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/.
53. Jacobs, M. D. (1990). Screwing the system and making it
work: Juvenile justice in the no-
fault society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54. Mnookin, R. H., & Weisberg, D. K. (1989). Child, family,
and state: Problems and materials
on children and the law (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
55. Black, H. C. (1968). Black’s law dictionary (4th ed.). St.
Paul, MN: West; Herman v. Chrysler
Corp., 106 Mich App 709 (1981).
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I

C
1
6
9
2
T
S
Chapter ObjeCtives
• Describe the role that individual citizens play in both the
informal and formal juvenile
justice process
• Describe the evolution of police responses to youths from
colonial america to the
present
• explain the three fundamental duties of the police and how
these duties influence police
responses to delinquent behavior
• explain why conflict is an inherent feature of policing and
how this conflict influences
how the police interact with juveniles and their families
• Describe the factors that influence police decisions to
refer youths to the juvenile courts
• Define the concept of police diversion of juveniles,
describe its history, and indicate
how it is currently used in juvenile justice

• explain the effect of court decisions, such as Miranda v.
Arizona and Schall v. Martin,
on police interaction with juveniles, their families, and the
courts
• Describe recent trends in police responses to juvenile
offending
• Describe the focus and effectiveness of policing programs
and strategies such as
the D.a.r.e. program, community policing, and youth-oriented
community policing in
dealing with youths’ problem behavior
Chapter Outline
introduction
Youths and the public: the informal juvenile justice process
police responses to juvenile Offenders
legal issues
Chapter summary
Key Concepts
Public and Police
Responses to Juvenile
Offenders
chapter
6

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
■ introduction
This chapter examines citizen and police responses to youths
who violate the law. First, it
explores the role that the public plays in dealing with juvenile
crime by describing the opera-
tion of an informal juvenile justice process—one that consists
of efforts by citizens to handle
instances of juvenile crime that do not involve the police or

other formal agents of juvenile jus-
tice. Next, it examines police responses to juvenile offenders
and presents a general overview of
the history of youth-oriented policing. It then looks at
contemporary issues regarding the polic-
ing of juveniles and concludes with a discussion of recent
trends in youth-oriented policing.
■ Youths and the public: the informal juvenile justice process
Examinations of the juvenile justice process usually begin with
the police. The police do play a
critical role in juvenile justice; in fact, they are the primary
gatekeepers of the formal juvenile
justice process. The public is also involved, however, because
police contact with juveniles is
usually the result of a citizen complaint or request for
assistance. Thus, an examination of the
juvenile justice system should arguably begin with the public.
Most juveniles engage in illegal behaviors at some time during
their childhood. Although
some juvenile delinquency consists of serious offenses
committed against people, the great
majority of delinquent acts are nonviolent. Moreover, people
respond to this delinquency in
a variety of ways. Some of these responses are informal, which
means that they consist of the
actions taken by members of the public without reliance on
official juvenile justice agencies.
Formal responses, in contrast, involve official agencies such as
the police and the juvenile courts.
When citizens, whether adults or other juveniles, encounter or
observe youths who they
believe are engaging in illegal behavior, they may exercise any

of a variety of options. One
option is to ignore the offender. Another is to confront the
offender. For example, a store clerk
who observes a youth taking merchandise from a store shelf and
attempting to leave the store
may stop the youth and demand that the goods be returned, may
lecture the youth and ban
him or her from the store, may contact the youth’s parents and
request that the parents take
some action, may call the police, or may decide to take some
other action. Importantly, citizens
use discretion. Discretion is the power to act on one’s own
authority.
Citizens regularly encounter juveniles involved in alleged
violations of the law. Yet, in
many instances, they do not contact the police. As just noted, an
individual may choose to
ignore the youth’s actions or deal with the youth in some way
that does not involve the police
or other formal agents of the juvenile justice process. The
actions taken by parents, neighbors,
business owners, teachers, and others constitute an informal
juvenile justice process. Citizens
regularly encounter youths engaged in illegal behaviors and
decide to handle those situations
themselves or seek the assistance of others outside the formal
juvenile justice process. This
discretion
The power to act on
one’s own authority.
informal juvenile
justice process

Actions to combat
delinquency taken
by parents, neigh-
bors, business own-
ers, teachers, and
others who are not
part of the formal
juvenile justice
process.
review Questions
additional readings
Cases Cited
notes
132 chapter 6 public and police responses to Juvenile Offenders
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E

D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
informal juvenile justice process is a potentially powerful
mechanism that operates to control
youths’ behavior. Moreover, the more that citizens rely on
informal control mechanisms, and
the more effective these control mechanisms are, the less
necessary the formal processing of
juveniles becomes.
Although many delinquent actions are handled informally, in
other instances members
of the public seek the assistance of formal juvenile justice
agencies, such as the police or the
juvenile courts, and most youths become involved in the formal
juvenile justice process when
citizens select this option. In short, in many instances, it is a
combination of the public and
the police that determines who the clientele of the formal
juvenile justice process will be.
■ police responses to juvenile Offenders
The police are clearly an important component of the juvenile

justice process. Indeed, the
police usually determine who become formal juvenile justice
clients. When citizens believe
that juveniles are engaging in illegal or problem behaviors and
seek the assistance of a formal
juvenile justice agency, they usually turn to the police. This is
because (1) the police are the
most visible symbol of the juvenile justice process in the
community and (2) they have the
primary responsibility for identifying and processing youths
who break the law. Consequently,
how the police respond to juvenile offenders influences how
many people view the juvenile
justice process, and it influences who become the clients of the
juvenile court.
Like the responses of other institutions to juvenile offenders,
police responses are best
understood by examining the historical development of policing,
particularly as it relates to
young people. Consequently, this section begins with a brief
historical overview of youth-
oriented policing, then examines more contemporary approaches
to policing youths.
the history of policing Youths
The British colonists who settled the New World brought with
them a variety of criminal justice
institutions and practices, including English common law, a
court system, punishments for
crimes, and policing practices. However, colonial law
enforcement suffered from a number
of shortcomings, including inefficiency, corruption, and
political interference.1 Those who
had formal policing responsibility, such as constables, sheriffs,

and members of the night
watch, engaged in a variety of activities besides law
enforcement. For example, sheriffs and
other early law enforcement officers collected fees for various
non–law enforcement tasks
they performed, such as collecting taxes, conducting elections,
and maintaining bridges and
roads.2 This system encouraged early law enforcement officials
to devote more time to civil
functions that were safer and offered more regular income than
law enforcement activities. As
a result, law enforcement typically ranked among their less
important areas of responsibility.3
Policing during the colonial period was primarily reactive and
often ineffective. Those
who had formal law enforcement duties responded to complaints
brought to their attention,
but they had limited resources to investigate offenses and
engaged in few efforts to prevent
crime. Indeed, most criminal cases in colonial America were
initiated by citizens who brought
complaints before a judge; rare was the case in which a citizen
contacted the police in order to
initiate an investigation.4 Rather than relying on formal
mechanisms to control youth and adult
behaviors, residents in colonial settlements relied more heavily
on the family and the church.
M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y During the earlY Years Of the uniteD
states, infOrMal
COntrOls Were the priMarY Means Of sOCial COntrOl
Myth—early colonial settlements established full-time police
forces to maintain order.
reality—Full-time police forces did not exist in colonial times.

Indeed, the first full-time police forces in the
United States were not developed until the early 1800s.5
police responses to Juvenile Offenders 133
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y a laCK Of respeCt bY ManY Citizens
Was a prObleM
fOr earlY pOliCe OffiCers

Myth—During the late 1800s and early 1900s, most city
residents had a great deal of respect for the friendly
neighborhood patrol officer.
reality—Many people lacked respect for the police, whom they
saw as political hacks willing to use brutality
to protect their bosses’ interests.6
By the early 1800s, industrialization, urbanization, population
growth, and associated
social problems, such as alcoholism, homelessness, riots, ethnic
clashes, and lawlessness, led
to the development of more formal methods of policing. Full-
time police forces were created
in larger cities during the 1830s and 1840s. By the 1870s, all
the major cities had full-time
forces, and many smaller ones employed part-time police
officers.
In these early days, policing in the United States was
community based. Police officers came
from the communities in which they worked and were paid more
than many other workers.
They walked the beat in the neighborhoods they patrolled,
usually spending from two to six
hours of a 12-hour shift on foot patrol. However, police forces
were small, beat officers had
little contact with supervisors while on patrol, and turnover was
high.7
A major problem that faced early policing organizations was
corruption. Because the police
were paid fees for the jobs they performed, they often saw
themselves as private entrepreneurs
rather than public servants. Also, policing was closely tied to
local politics. Police jobs were
a primary form of political patronage and were controlled by

local political bosses. Police
officers owed their allegiance to these political bosses and the
police officials who awarded
them their positions rather than to the public.8 As a
consequence, they were careful to act in
ways that protected the politically powerful, sometimes by
ignoring illegal activities, such as
gambling, prostitution, and after-hours liquor sales, and
sometimes by participating in such
activities themselves.9
Although some officers were undoubtedly respected by people
in their communities, many
citizens saw the police as servants of corrupt political
machines.10 Many people were aware
that the police helped rig elections, used force to control ethnic
and racial minorities, served
as strike breakers, and protected the interests of wealthy
business owners.11 Not surprisingly,
police officers often faced considerable hostility from both
young and old, and juvenile gangs
often made a sport of throwing rocks at the police and taunting
them.12
The feeling was mutual. Many early police officers exhibited
contempt for problem youths
and were happy to dish out street justice. Yet it is also true that
other police officers showed
concern about youths who engaged in illegal behavior or who
were felt to be potential offend-
ers. For example, in his 1849 semiannual report to the mayor of
New York, Chief of Police
George W. Matsell noted the following:
I deem it to be my duty to call the attention of your Honor to a
deplorable and growing evil which

exists amid this community.… I allude to the constantly
increasing numbers of vagrant, idle, vicious
children of both sexes, who infest our public thoroughfares,
hotels, docks.… Children who are
growing up in ignorance and profligacy, only destined to a life
of misery, shame and crime, and
ultimately to a felon’s doom.… Left, in many instances to roam
day and night … a large portion
of these juvenile vagrants are in the daily practice of pilfering
wherever opportunity offers, and
begging where they cannot steal. In addition to which, the
female portion of the youngest class,
those who have only seen some eight or twelve summers, are
addicted to immoralities of the most
loathsome description. Each year makes fearful additions to the
ranks of these prospective recruits
of infamy and sin, and from this corrupt and festering fountain
flows on a ceaseless stream to our
lowest brothels—to the Penitentiary and the State Prison!13
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D

R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
In dealing with youth crime and waywardness, the police
employed a variety of tactics.
Some of these tactics involved formal responses to youth crime,
such as arrest. Indeed, police
officers during this era had almost unlimited authority. They
could place a youth in a house
of refuge, seek the detention of a youth in a jail, or refer a
youth to a criminal court (which
could place the youth in a jail or prison). However, police
officers also employed a variety of
informal, not always legal, tactics in dealing with the young.
Some officers developed close
working relationships with both youths and adults in their
community; this undoubtedly
helped officers steer youths away from crime. In some
instances, officers warned and coun-
seled children. On still other occasions, police dispensed street
justice by harassing, verbally
abusing, or beating up problem youths.14
American policing underwent important and fundamental
changes during the 1900s.
Essentially, these changes resulted from two factors: the

development of professional policing
standards and the improvement of communications technology,
which led to changes in the
nature of police work and police administration.15
The push toward police professionalism grew during the
Progressive Era (roughly 1880
to 1920). This period saw a variety of social movements that
focused attention on problems
such as economic abuses, social welfare problems, and political
and police corruption. Two
of the primary architects of reform were Richard Sylvester,
superintendent of the District of
Columbia police force from 1898 to 1915 and president of the
International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) from 1901 to 1915, and August
Vollmer, chief of police in Berkeley,
California, from 1905 to 1932. Sylvester was instrumental in
turning the IACP into an effec-
tive national police association that advocated for progressive
police reform. Vollmer was an
important innovator who developed modern police
administrative methods and championed
increased education for police officers. However,Vollmer did
more than just advocate for these
reforms. He hired graduates of the University of California to
work on the Berkeley force and
organized the first police science courses at the university in
1916.16
The reform agenda for police pushed by Vollmer, Sylvester, and
others had a number of
goals: “eliminating political influence, appointing qualified
chief executives, establishing a
mission of nonpartisan public service, raising personnel
standards, introducing principles

of scientific management, emphasizing military-style discipline,
and developing specialized
units.”17 The development of specialized units in police
departments was an important event
in youth-oriented policing in the United States. In the early
1900s, one type of specialized
police unit that began to appear was the juvenile unit
(sometimes called a youth aid bureau,
juvenile bureau, juvenile control bureau, juvenile division, or
crime prevention bureau). The
development of specialized juvenile units spread during the
early 1900s as professionally ori-
ented departments began to think more about delinquency and
crime prevention.18
One significant aspect of early delinquency prevention efforts
was that they became the
mechanism by which women initially entered policing. The first
woman to be hired as a police
officer was Mary Owens, who was given a job by the Chicago
Police Department in 1893 after
her husband, a Chicago police officer, was killed in the line of
duty. Owens made visits to
the juvenile court and helped detectives on cases involving
women and girls.19 In 1905, Lola
Baldwin was hired by the Portland, Oregon, Police Department.
Baldwin had a background
in social work, and her primary responsibility was to protect
young girls and women and
to prevent their involvement in crime. Indeed, women were felt
to be particularly suited to
dealing with the needs of children, which led several
departments around the United States
to follow Portland’s lead by hiring women to act as police
social workers.20

The concept of delinquency prevention spread to a number of
large police departments
during the early 1900s, and by 1924, approximately 90% of the
nation’s largest cities had
specialized juvenile programs that placed welfare officers in
high-crime neighborhoods and
assigned police officers to juvenile courts. Other innovative
police programs, such as specialized
arrest
Legally authorized
deprivation of a
person’s liberty. As a
general rule, a per-
son is under arrest
when he or she is
not free to walk
away.
reform agenda for
police
Agenda consisting
of items such as the
following: eliminat-
ing political influ-
ence and corruption,
appointing qualified
leaders, establishing
the ideal of nonpar-
tisan public service,
raising personnel
standards, imple-
menting scientific
management prin-
ciples, instituting
military-style disci-

pline, and creating
“specialized” units.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
juvenile crime units, relief programs that gave toys to children
at Christmas, speakers’ bureaus
that gave presentations to youth organizations (e.g., the Boy
Scouts and Camp Fire Girls), and

police athletic leagues, were also developed.21
f Y i
today, more than 350 law enforcement agencies around the
country operate paLs (police athletic/activity
Leagues) that serve more than 1.5 million youths between 5 and
18 years old. according to the Lexington,
Kentucky, paL, their mission is:
• to fight crime and drug abuse
• to improve the health of our children
• to provide children with self-esteem and confidence
• to provide social skills
• to encourage a lifelong motivation and appreciation for
participation in sports and physical activity
• to help build a strong family unit and community through
sports, activities, and education22
In the 1950s, two additional events highlighted the growing
importance of juvenile offi-
cers in police departments around the country. In 1955, the
Central States Juvenile Officers
Association was formed, followed by the International Juvenile
Officers Association in 1957.
Both of these organizations worked toward the development of
professional standards and
procedures for handling juveniles.23
During the 1960s and 1970s, the importance of the police role
in the handling of juvenile
offenders was given additional support through the Law
Enforcement Assistance Adminis-
tration (LEAA). LEAA provided federal funding for the
development of hundreds of new
police programs, a number of which targeted youths.24 One of

these programs, police diver-
sion, became popular in a number of jurisdictions. Police
diversion programs were intended
to steer youths away from the formal juvenile justice process by
providing various services
to youths and their families. Although the services varied from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
they often included individual counseling, recreational
programs, social skills training, and
the development of parenting skills.25 Other programs
developed during this period included
leadership and moral training programs, job assistance
programs, and programs intended to
reduce school truancy.26
In the late 1970s and 1980s, many police departments,
particularly small ones, faced budget
cuts and rethought the operation of specialized youth divisions.
These departments did away
with or reduced the size of specialized juvenile units.27
Nevertheless, others developed still
more specialized units that focused on family violence and
gangs (issues that were becoming
more problematic for police, especially in large jurisdictions).
Many departments began to
focus increased attention on juvenile crime during the late
1980s and the early 1990s due to
concerns about increases in juvenile violence during that period.
Today, a diverse range of
police programs and responses to juvenile crime can be found
around the country.
the role of the police in Modern society: implications for
policing juveniles
In order to understand the role of police in modern society, it is

necessary to consider the
“rights and duties” as well as “the normatively approved
patterns of behavior” for those in
law enforcement.28 Roles have both sociological and
psychological dimensions. Sociologi-
cally, the role of police consists of the position that policing has
within the social structure
and the activities of those who perform policing functions.
Obviously, police have consid-
erable power and responsibility, and they perform a variety of
duties as part of their job.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2

T
S
Psychologically, the police role is composed of the attitudes and
beliefs that people (including
the police themselves) have about those in policing.
Importantly, the public and the police
have certain expectations for those who work in policing, and
these expectations are related
to police performance.29
One thing is quite clear: The role of police in contemporary
society is complex and often
characterized by conflict.30 Some scholars who have studied
the police argue that the police
role has three basic functions: law enforcement, service, and
order maintenance.31 The law
enforcement role of the police is directed toward the detection,
apprehension, and prevention
of illegal behavior, and the collection of evidence that can be
used in the prosecution of cases
in court. Police efforts to enforce legal statutes, including
traffic, juvenile, and criminal codes
as well as investigating crimes, chasing and arresting suspects,
transporting suspects to jail,
enforcing traffic laws, engaging in routine patrol, and appearing
in court, are all examples of
the law enforcement role performed by the police.
The service role of the police encompasses efforts by the police
to assist citizens in a variety
of ways. Indeed, police play a central role in providing a range
of services to members of the
community who, because of personal, financial, economic,

social, or other circumstances,
need assistance.32 Service activities include assisting motorists
with stalled vehicles, giving
directions to motorists and others, providing various types of
information to citizens, giving
first aid to injured or ill people, escorting ambulances or fire
trucks, responding to the needs
of people with mental health problems, and providing a variety
of other services to members
of the public.
The order maintenance role of the police encompasses their
efforts to intervene in situ-
ations that threaten to disturb the peace or that involve face-to-
face conflicts between two
or more individuals. Examples of order maintenance include
resolving a dispute between a
tenant and a landlord or between a store clerk and a customer,
dealing with a noisy drunk,
and responding to a group of rowdy college students at a
fraternity party. Drunkenness and
rowdiness are behaviors disapproved of by some members of the
public, and those who disap-
prove of these behaviors often ask the police to control or stop
them.33
The order maintenance role of the police is important for
several reasons. First, order
maintenance activities account for as much as 80% of police
activity.34 Second, actions that
disrupt the public order have the potential to erupt into
violence. Third, police have consid-
erable discretion in handling public order situations.35 Fourth,
these situations often involve
juveniles and their families. Police regularly encounter
individual youths, as well as youths in

large and small groups, who may be perceived by individual
police officers and some members
of the community as potentially threatening to the public order.
The most appropriate police response to situations where there
is a perceived threat to
public order is not always clear, however. Police feel obligated
to assist people who have com-
plaints about the behavior of juveniles, yet behaviors that
members of the public find threaten-
ing or annoying are not necessarily illegal. Police officers may
feel that a group of youths on
a street corner represents a potentially problematic situation
that demands intervention, but
the youths have a constitutional right to congregate and express
themselves, a right that the
police are obligated to protect. As a result, the police may find
themselves in a no-win situa-
tion. If they fail to disperse a rowdy group of teenagers, citizens
may complain that the police
are ineffectual or do not care. If they break up the group, they
open themselves to a charge
of police harassment. The attitudes and behaviors exhibited by
both police and juveniles in
these encounters can play a large role in shaping the attitudes
that police and juveniles have
of one another.
As this example indicates, police often experience police role
conflict caused by their differ-
ent responsibilities. They are expected to prevent crimes and
respond to the illegal behaviors of
police role conflict
Clash between the
duty of police to

investigate crimes
and prevent indi-
viduals from com-
mitting crimes and
the duty of police
to protect the rights
of offenders, crime
victims, and other
citizens.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

individuals, including juveniles, but they also are expected to
protect the rights of all citizens.
In addition, the police recognize that the public does not want
them to enforce all laws and that
full enforcement of the law is actually counterproductive. For
example, many police recognize
that the arrest of a juvenile for a minor illegal activity, such as
pushing another child down
on a community playground (an assault), might result in more
harm than good and could be
better dealt with in a more informal manner.
Because police encounters with juveniles are frequent, they
often occur under stressful
conditions, and they play an important role in shaping the
attitudes that police and juveniles
have toward one another. Therefore, it is imperative that police
be carefully trained in deal-
ing with youths. Police departments have used two basic
training approaches. One approach
involves training individual officers in how to approach
juveniles. This approach is more appro-
priate for small departments that have little specialization;
officers in small departments may
receive little training that focuses specifically on dealing with
juveniles. The second approach
involves developing specialized units to deal with more serious
juvenile cases and is more
likely to be found in large departments with specialized units.
However, the quality of train-
ing given to individual officers in handling juvenile matters,
and in some cases the training of
specialized juvenile officers, varies considerably across

departments.36 Some rural and small
police departments do not have officers who are specially
trained to deal with juveniles.37 In
contrast, other departments have given extensive training to
officers to help them respond to
juvenile crime more effectively.38
M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y pOliCing is CharaCterizeD bY rOle
COnfliCt
Myth—the public expects the police to enforce all laws.
reality—the public expects the police to engage in selective law
enforcement. For example, few citizens want
the police to strictly enforce all traffic laws. Indeed, the police
recognize that strict enforcement of all traffic
laws would result in considerable conflict between themselves
and citizens.
the police: the gatekeepers of the formal juvenile
justice process
Clearly, police work is characterized by complexity
and conflict. Nevertheless, police play a crucial role in
juvenile justice because they act as primary gatekeep-
ers to the formal juvenile justice process. For exam-
ple, in 2008, 83% of the delinquency cases referred
to the juvenile courts came from the police. In addi-
tion, police agencies were the primary referral source
for 53% of court referrals involving running away from home,
91% of the referrals involving
liquor law violations, and 18% of truancy referrals.39 Like
citizens, however, the police also
exercise discretion in the handling of juvenile cases. Among
other options, police officers may
choose one of the following:

• Warn and release the juvenile.
• Take the youth into custody and release the juvenile to his
or her parents.
• Take the youth into custody and refer the juvenile to a
diversionary program operated
by the police or a community agency.
• Take the youth into custody and refer the juvenile to the
local juvenile court or court
intake unit.
• Take the youth into custody and request the youth be
detained
©
fspot123/iStockphoto
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I

C
1
6
9
2
T
S
factors that influence police Decisions to arrest juveniles
Describing the typical police response to juveniles is difficult
because there is considerable
variability in the options available in different jurisdictions and
in how individual police officers
approach juvenile suspects. The factors that influence police
decision making include (1) the
seriousness of the offense; (2) the police organization,
particularly its policies and culture; (3)
the community, including the resources available in the
community for responding to youths’
problems; (4) the wishes of complainants; (5) the demeanor and
presentation of the youth;
(6) the gender of the youth; and (7) the race and social class of
the youth.
Offense Seriousness
The most important factor influencing police–juvenile
encounters is the seriousness of the
offense. Regardless of the other factors, as the seriousness of
the offense increases, so does the
likelihood of arrest. Indeed, most police–juvenile encounters
involving felony offenses result
in an arrest.40 Most police–juvenile encounters, however,

involve minor offenses. Only 5% to
10% involve felonies.41 Consequently, in the majority of
police–juvenile interactions, other
factors play an important role in determining how police react.
Police Organization and Culture
Police departments, like other types of organizations, develop
their own particular styles
of operation. They also develop a variety of formal and informal
policies and procedures
for handling juveniles involved in various types of illegal
behaviors.42 As a result, police
departments vary in how they respond to juveniles. For
example, one study that catego-
rized police departments according to the extent to which they
employed a legalistic style
of policing (characterized by a high degree of professionalism
and bureaucratic structure)
found that the more legalistic departments were more likely to
arrest juvenile suspects
than less legalistic departments.43 A study of four Pennsylvania
communities found that
the percentages of juveniles referred to court varied
considerably from one community to
another. In one community, only 9% of the juveniles who had
police contacts were referred
to court, whereas in another community, 71% were referred.44
Similarly, a study of 48 depart-
ments in southern California found that virtually all juveniles
arrested by one department
were referred to court, but that in another department, the great
majority of juveniles were
counseled and released.45
Clearly, there is considerable variability in how police
departments respond to juvenile

offenders, and this variability is partially a product of
differences in department organizational
characteristics, department policies and procedures, and culture.
However, police departments
do not operate in a political and social vacuum. They are
influenced by the communities in
which they operate. Consequently, community characteristics
and attitudes toward the police
also can influence police responses to juvenile offenders.
The Community Influence on Policing
One factor that can influence how police handle juvenile
suspects is whether community
programs for handling juvenile offenders exist. In some
communities, officers may have a
variety of options, including programs that provide individual,
group, or family counseling;
assist with conflict resolution; or provide restitution to victims.
In other communities, options
are more limited.
Communities also influence policing in a variety of other ways.
Through their interac-
tion with the local community, police develop assumptions
about the community, the people
who reside and work there, and the ability and willingness of
community members to assist
in responding to crime and delinquency. When a police officer
encounters a member of
the community—whether a suspect, a complainant, or a witness
to an alleged offense—the
officer’s interaction with that person is colored by his or her
attitude toward the community
and the subgroups that compose it. Consequently, in order to
understand how communities

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
influence policing, it is necessary to consider the attitudes
police and community members
have toward one another.
Research suggests that police departments operate differently in
lower-class communi-
ties than in wealthier communities. The behavior of police in a

specific community seems
to be a reflection of what police expect as well as the realities
of policing that community.
Police expect lower-class communities to have higher crime
rates, they are aware that more
arrests occur in those communities than in wealthier
communities, and they are aware that
lower-class communities have few resources for informally
responding to the wide array of
problems experienced in those communities. Consequently,
when police come into contact
with juveniles in lower-class areas, formal responses are likely
because informal responses are
felt to be unrealistic. Indeed, research on the effect of
neighborhood socioeconomic status
has found that as the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood
increases, the likelihood of
a police–juvenile encounter ending in arrest declines.46
Community attitudes toward the police also exert some
influence on police actions.
Although the police often feel that the public is hostile toward
them, the reality is that most
citizens have a positive attitude toward the police. For example,
citizens have more confidence
in the police than they have in a number of other American
institutions, including the presi-
dency, public schools, television news, the U.S. Supreme Court,
big business, banks, organized
labor, Congress, church and organized religion, and the medical
system.47
It is true, however, that certain subgroups have less favorable
views of the police than people
in general. In a 2011 Gallup poll, 43% of blacks, compared with
61% of whites, reported a great

deal of confidence in the police; and 26% of blacks, compared
with 8% of whites, indicated
they had little or no confidence in the police.48 When only
adolescents are considered, there
is some evidence that adolescents’ views of the police become
more negative as they become
older.49 An early study that examined the attitudes of almost
1,000 junior high students in
Cincinnati found that hostility toward the police increased as
the students moved through
their junior high years. This same study found that lower-class
youths were less likely to have
positive attitudes toward the police than upper-class youths.50
Indeed, there is some evidence
that lower-class male youths have little confidence in the police
and subscribe to a “street code”
that stresses “taking care” of oneself rather than relying on the
police.51 Moreover, several
other studies have found that many minority youths do not have
favorable attitudes toward
the police, and in some communities, substantial percentages of
minority youths report hav-
ing had negative experiences with the police, such as being
harassed, mistreated, searched,
and subjected to disrespectful language.52
Similar findings have been seen in several more recent studies
as well as in public opin-
ion polls that examine public confidence in American
institutions, including the police. This
research indicates that youths in high-crime and minority
neighborhoods often hold negative
views of the police.53 Such attitudes are important in a police–
juvenile encounter because they
can affect how the encounter unfolds and the extent to which
the parties are satisfied with

the outcome.
The Wishes of Complainants
As noted earlier, many police–juvenile interactions result from
citizen complaints. Further-
more, what police do in a complaint situation typically depends
on whether the complainant
is present and what the complainant would like the police to do.
For example, one study of
police–juvenile encounters found that when the complainant
requested informal action on the
part of the police, police officers always did what the
complainant wanted. If the complainant
asked that an arrest be made, officers complied with this request
about 60% of the time.54 In a
replication of this study done eight years later, other researchers
reached similar conclusions.
The results of this study indicated that when citizens and
suspects were both present and when
citizens indicated clear preferences regarding how they wanted
the police to respond, police
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C

E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
usually complied with these requests. The researchers
concluded, based on these findings as
well as the findings of the earlier research, that citizens “largely
determine official delinquency
rates” because their wishes are accorded considerable weight by
the police.55
The Demeanor and Presentation of the Offender
As one might expect, how youths present themselves during a
police encounter can affect
whether police officers decide to make an arrest. Interestingly,
youths who are unusually antago-
nistic or unusually polite are more likely to be arrested. In
contrast, youths who are moderately
respectful are less likely to be arrested—as long as the offense
is not serious.56 Apparently,
police officers have basic expectations regarding the behavior
of those they have interaction
with. They expect suspects to be neither overly hostile nor
unusually polite. When suspects’
behaviors fall outside the boundaries of those expectations, the

likelihood of arrest increases.57
The Gender of the Offender
Gender also appears to influence arrest decisions, particularly
when status offenses are involved.
However, the research in this area has produced mixed results.
Some studies that examined
the relationship between gender and the decision to arrest found
that girls are less likely to be
arrested for criminal offenses than boys, even when prior
criminal record and offense serious-
ness are taken into account.58 However, other studies indicate
that any gender bias that existed
in the past has diminished or disappeared over time,59 although
other research indicates that
gender continues to influence arrest decisions in some
locations.60 Still other research indicates
that the relationship between gender and arrest decisions is
more complex than it first appears.
For example, one study that examined police–suspect
encounters in 24 police departments
found that arrest rates for males and females (both juveniles and
adults) were similar. However,
the researchers also discovered that police officers used
different arrest criteria for males and
females, which resulted in younger females receiving harsher
treatment than older females. No
differences between younger and older males were found. This
suggests that, at least in those
departments, police took a more paternalistic stance toward
younger females, increasing the
likelihood of formal processing.61 Overall, this research
suggests that although gender may
not play a significant role in police decision making in some
jurisdictions, in combination
with other factors, such as the type and seriousness of

delinquent offense and girls’ demeanor,
it continues to influence practices in other locations.
Unlike the research on the relationship between gender and
arrests for criminal offenses,
the research on the relationship between gender and the
processing of status offense cases is
generally consistent. A number of studies have found that
female status offenders are more
likely to be formally processed than male status offenders.62
Even studies that found that
differentials in the processing of criminal offenses have
declined over time report gender dif-
ferentials in the processing of status offenses.63
The Race and Social Class of the Offender
Strong evidence exists that the race and the social class of
juveniles also influence police deci-
sion making in many jurisdictions. Minority and poor youth are
disproportionately represented
in arrest statistics. However, the relationship between race or
social class and police decision
making is complex, which makes straightforward descriptions of
this relationship difficult.
After reading the following true story, list the factors that you
believe contributed to the
behavior of the police. Do you feel the police handled this
situation appropriately? How do
incidents such as this influence police–community relations?
These events took place in 1975. A friend and I had just
completed playing a high school bas-
ketball game. We had just left our high school, Pontiac
Northern, on our way to meet with other
members of the team. I was driving, and my friend was in the

passenger seat. As we passed a
major intersection, we saw police lights flashing, although they
were still some distance away.
As we approached the next major intersection, we saw four
police cars, one at each corner of the
status offense
An act considered
to be an offense
partly because of the
status of the person
who performed the
act. For example,
juveniles (i.e., indi-
viduals who have a
juvenile status) must
obey the reasonable
rules of their par-
ents, attend school,
and live at home. If
they fail to do any
of these things, they
could be arrested
and brought into
the court system.
Adults do not have
to do any of those
things and cannot be
arrested for refusing
to do them.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592

F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
intersection. As I entered the intersection, each of the police
cars pulled into the intersection and
cut off the car I was driving. The officers exited their cars with
their guns drawn and demanded
that we get out of the car. We asked what we had done. Did we
do anything wrong? They told us to
shut up and get out of the car. As we got out of the car, they
grabbed us and threw us to the ground
with their guns pushed against the backs of our necks. While we
were on the ground, they asked
us questions about a robbery that had taken place. We said we
didn’t know anything about it. We

told them that we had just finished playing a high school
basketball game and were on our way to
a party. They told us we were lying. They said a gas station in
the neighborhood had been held up,
and we fit the description. After we were on the ground for a
short time, they said we could go. We
asked, “What’s going on?” Their response was that they had a
line on who the perpetrators were.
We argued with them about how we had been treated and asked
why they had stopped us. They
said we fit the description. What description was that, we asked.
Their response was, “Two African
American males, about 5' 11'', short hair.” I remember laughing
about it at the time because it fit
the description of just about every other black male I knew.
They didn’t like us questioning their
treatment of us. They then searched our car and told us that if
we weren’t quiet they would take us
to the station. The way I saw it was that just being black makes
you a suspect in the eyes of many
police. Prior to this, I had no personal experiences with the
police, although I had witnessed a
number of negative encounters between the police and other
people in my neighborhood. After this
incident, my trust and faith in the police were greatly
diminished. (Felix Brooks, Former Juvenile
Probation Officer, MA, political science)
Research on the relationship among race, social class, and
delinquency has found that
lower-class minority youths are especially likely to be arrested,
even when taking into account
both prior criminal records and offense seriousness.64 Such
findings indicate that police deci-
sions to arrest are biased against minority and poor youths in
some communities. They may be

even more biased against minority and poor youths who act in
an unusual manner or appear
to be unconventional in some other way.
As criminologist James Q. Wilson notes:
The patrolman believes with considerable justification that
teenagers, Negroes, and lower-income
people commit a disproportionate share of all reported crimes;
being in those population categories
at all makes one, statistically, more suspect than other people;
but to be in those categories and
to behave unconventionally is to make oneself a prime suspect.
Patrolmen believe they would be
derelict in their duty if they did not treat such people with
suspicion, routinely question them on
the street, and detain them for longer questioning if a crime has
occurred in the area.65
In contrast, a number of other studies have failed to find strong
evidence of police bias,66
while admitting that a number of factors make interpreting the
relationship among race, class,
and arrest difficult. For example, the effect of race on the
decision to arrest could be compli-
cated by other factors, such as police decisions to focus their
attention on poor and minority
areas, the wishes of the complainants, and the demeanor of the
offender.
Based on the available evidence, it appears that there are
differences in how police depart-
ments treat poor and minority youths in some communities.67 It
also appears that in urban
areas, where minority populations tend to be large, police are
more likely to engage in dis-
criminatory practices,68 although more research on police–

youth encounters in small towns
and rural areas is needed in order to make definitive
conclusions about police–youth contacts
in urban and nonurban areas.69
The discriminatory treatment of minority and poor youths
should not be interpreted to
mean that police in large urban areas are blatantly racist or hold
biased attitudes toward the
poor. Although some police officers, like people in other
occupations, are racist or strongly
biased against the poor, the disproportionately high arrest rate
for lower-class and minority
youths may be better understood as an outgrowth of institutional
racism and bias—that is, the
ways in which basic social institutions operate to keep
minorities and poor people in subor-
dinate positions.
institutional racism
and bias
The ways that basic
social institutions
operate to keep
minorities or poor
people in subordi-
nate positions. If
police believe that
minorities or poor
people have fewer
resources to respond
to youth problems,

believe that minority
communities foster
more crime, and
believe that minority
group members are
more hostile to the
police, it increases
the likelihood that
police will focus
more crime-fighting
resources in minor-
ity communities,
resulting in increases
in arrests for crime,
police–citizen hostil-
ity, and neighbor-
hood problems.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R

,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
Police decisions to concentrate their surveillance activities in
lower-class or minority
communities, for example, increase the likelihood that they
will uncover delinquent behaviors
in those communities. High rates of delinquency in such
communities may be partial prod-
ucts of long-term patterns of discrimination. Furthermore, when
police encounter youths in
a lower-class or minority community, some youths will present
a hostile demeanor caused
by past unpleasant encounters with the police, which, in turn,
increases the probability that
the police will respond in a more forceful way. Such
interactions reinforce police perceptions
that more forceful responses are justified, but at the same time,
they encourage more negative
community perceptions and responses toward the police. The
result is a cycle of action and

reaction that results in negative police–juvenile encounters and
increased numbers of arrests.
C O M pa r at i v e f O C u s
Countries vary Widely in police responses to Youths
In thailand, youths are not considered to be criminally
responsible for their behaviors. consequently, they are
treated differently from adults, and no youth younger than the
age of 14 years can be punished. Moreover, arrests
of youths are possible only when a youth has committed a
flagrant offense, an injured person has insisted on
an arrest, or a warrant is issued under the code of criminal
procedure.70 In contrast, in Saudi arabia, there is no
defined age of responsibility, and young males may be detained
for offenses such as eating in restaurants with
girls or making lewd comments to women in shopping malls.
Moreover, the punishment for youths is the same
as the punishment for adults. For minor offenses, such as those
previously mentioned, flogging may be used.71
As the above discussion makes clear, a number of factors have
been found to influence
police decisions to arrest youths. The factors discussed above
have been those that have received
the most attention from researchers. However, there is evidence
that a range of other factors
can also influence police decision to arrest, at least under some
circumstances. For example,
police in some jurisdictions may be more likely to arrest youths
who are out late at night or
intoxicated, and younger officers may be more likely to arrest
juveniles.72
police processing of juvenile Offenders

Two types of police units have the most contact with juveniles:
patrol units and specialized
juvenile units (although not all departments have specialized
juvenile units). Of these two,
patrol units have the most contact with juveniles.73 Specialized
juvenile units and youth divi-
sions typically serve as referral units that accept juvenile cases
from other departmental divi-
sions.74 Juvenile units are usually small,75 but they often
conduct juvenile investigations on
their own, particularly investigations of serious juvenile crimes.
There is no agreement among
police officials regarding the best response to juveniles who
engage in minor types of delin-
quent behavior. Some maintain that police should adopt a strict
law enforcement approach
that focuses on enforcing laws and making juvenile arrests when
law violations occur. In
contrast, others argue that a crime prevention approach that
favors diversion, except in the
case of serious offenses, is preferable.76 Many patrol officers
and their supervisors support the
crime prevention approach for nonserious juvenile offenses.
This approach also is supported
by labeling theorists, who call for radical nonintervention.
Radical nonintervention involves
avoiding formal action whenever possible in order to avoid the
harmful labeling and stigma-
tization of youths that may lead to additional delinquent
behavior. However, as you will see
later in this chapter, overall, police have become more formal in
their processing of juvenile
cases by referring a greater percentage of juvenile cases to the
courts.

When a police officer encounters a juvenile who has committed
an illegal act, the officer
must make a decision regarding the best way to handle the case.
As noted earlier, the decision
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
the officer makes can be influenced by a variety of factors. One
option, of course, is to make an

arrest (in some jurisdictions this is referred to as “taking into
custody”). For practical purposes,
an arrest is considered to have taken place if the youth is not
free to walk away.
As a general rule, the basis for arresting a juvenile is the same
as the basis for arresting
an adult. The officer needs to have probable cause, which means
that the officer has reason to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the youth to
be arrested committed the
offense. The U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Gault and Kent as
well as subsequent court cases
raise the question of whether special standards should apply to
the arrest of a juvenile and
whether the police can deal with juveniles in the same way they
deal with adults.
One of the key issues surrounding the arrest of juveniles is the
interrogation of juvenile
suspects. However, before determining whether special
standards apply to the interrogation
of juveniles, we need to look at the standards that apply to the
interrogation of adults. The
most important case regarding this issue is Miranda v.
Arizona.77 Ernesto A. Miranda had
been arrested for kidnapping and rape and was in the custody of
the Phoenix police. He was
identified by the complaining witness and was interrogated for
two hours without being noti-
fied of his right to have an attorney present. Finally, the police
produced a signed confession,
on which was a typed statement indicating that the confession
was voluntary and “with full
knowledge of my legal rights.”78

In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated the following:
We hold that when an individual is taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom by
the authorities in any significant way and is subject to
questioning, the privilege against self-
incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be
employed to protect the privilege. …
He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right
to remain silent, that anything he
says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the
right to the presence of an attorney,
and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed
for him prior to any questioning if
he so desires … unless and until such warnings and waiver are
demonstrated by the prosecution
at trial. No evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be
used against him.79
In its decision, the court clearly stated that adults cannot be
held in custody for long periods
of time and cannot be questioned without being specifically
advised of rights regarding an
attorney in order to protect the Fifth Amendment right to be free
from self-incrimination. If
these circumstances that Ernesto Miranda found himself in were
so coercive as to make his
confession inadmissible, what types of circumstances would
make the confession of a juvenile
inadmissible?
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in 1979, in the
case of Fare v. Michael C.80
Michael C. was 16 years old at the time of his arrest on
suspicion of murder. He was taken to
the police station and, before questioning, was fully advised of
his rights per Miranda. He was

on probation to the juvenile court, and he asked to see his
probation officer. The police denied
this request. He proceeded to talk to the police without an
attorney, making statements and
drawing sketches that implicated him in the murder.
In this case, the court indicated the following: “Thus the
determination whether statements
obtained during custodial interrogation are admissible against
the accused is to be made upon
an inquiry into the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
interrogation, to ascertain
whether the accused, in fact, knowingly and voluntarily decided
to forgo his rights to remain
silent and to have assistance of counsel.”81 The court cited age,
past contacts and experience
with the police, whether the juvenile was involved with the
juvenile court, and the youth’s
intelligence as factors that were to be weighed as part of the
“totality of circumstances.” The
court also mentioned whether the juvenile was “worn down” by
improper interrogation tactics
employed by the police or tricked by them as additional factors
to review. In Fare v. Michael C.,
the confession was determined to be admissible by the court.
The “totality of the circumstances” test was not a new one; it
had been articulated by
the Supreme Court of California in People v. Lara.82 In this
case, the court held that the
probable cause
Grounds sufficient
to convince a rea-
sonably competent

person that a crime
was committed and
that the suspect
committed it.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
factors to be reviewed in order to determine that a confession by

a juvenile is voluntary
included the juvenile’s age, intelligence, education, experience,
and ability to comprehend
the meaning and effect of the statements made. This holding is
interesting, because in Fare v.
Michael C., a California case, the Supreme Court of California
ruled the juvenile’s confession
inadmissible, but the U.S. Supreme Court, adopting a similar
test, ruled it admissible. As
this example makes evident, courts looking at the same set of
facts can interpret or construe
them differently.
Fare v. Michael C. is important because it required courts to
examine a variety of factors
in determining whether information obtained from juveniles by
the police could be used
in court. It is also important because it indicated that parents,
guardians, custodians, other
significant adults, or attorneys do not have to be present when
juveniles are interrogated by
the police. Although the “totality of circumstances” test may
sound reasonable, courts look
at police conduct with hindsight that sometimes falls below
20/20 acuity. In many areas of
society, children are recognized as being fundamentally
different from adults. For example,
minors cannot own property, sign business contracts, or engage
in other adult behaviors
because they are considered minors. They can, however, by
themselves, confess to a murder.
A strong argument can be made that this is illogical.
The issue of self-incrimination by juveniles also was given
some attention by the Supreme
Court of New Hampshire in the case of State v. Benoit. Here the

court stated, “Courts employing
the totality of the circumstances test do so under the belief that
juvenile courts are equipped
with the expertise and experience to make competent
evaluations of the special circumstances
surrounding the waiver of rights by juveniles.”83 The court
went on to list 15 circumstances
that juvenile courts should consider. Juvenile courts, however,
may not routinely perform the
appropriate evaluations. The expertise and experience of the
court that is charged with the
responsibility of protecting a juvenile’s rights is a key factor in
determining whether those
rights are, in fact, protected. Unfortunately, the experience and
expertise of many juvenile
courts in this area are questionable.
The Benoit decision also articulated the main alternative to the
“totality of the circum-
stances” rule—namely, the “interested adult” rule. According to
this rule, adopted by a few
jurisdictions, no juvenile can waive the privilege against self-
incrimination without having
had the opportunity to consult with and have present an adult
who is “friendly” to the juvenile
and who understands the juvenile’s rights.
The effect of the Benoit holding was to increase the totality
factors by adding three more
factors:
1. The juvenile must be informed of his or her rights in
language understandable to him or
her.
2. The juvenile must be made aware of the possibility of adult

criminal prosecution or waiver,
if applicable.
3. When the juvenile is arrested, the officer in charge must
immediately secure from the
juvenile the name of a “friendly adult” the juvenile could
consult.84
Thus, the New Hampshire Supreme Court attempted to blend the
“interested adult” test into
the “totality of the circumstances” test by making the securing
of a friendly adult one of the
voluntary factors to be considered.
Although the preceding legal cases are concerned with tests to
determine when evidence
obtained by the police is admissible in court, little is known
about actual interrogation prac-
tices employed by the police when they encounter juvenile
suspects. What is known, however,
indicates that police likely use the same interrogation tactics
with juveniles as they do with
adults—tactics such as psychological coercion, trickery, and
deceit. Moreover, although police
may understand that youths lack the comprehension abilities of
adults, they may not employ
their understanding in the interrogation of juveniles. This is
particularly troubling because
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O

S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
these types of interrogation techniques appear to increase the
likelihood of false confessions
among youths.85
f Y i
Very little is known about police interrogation of juveniles.
however, one study of 66 police interrogations of
juveniles conducted by Barry Feld of the University of
Minnesota Law School found that police in ramsey county,
Minnesota, used the same interrogation techniques with
juveniles as they used with adults.86 Similar find-
ings have been reported in a study of more than 300 police
investigators in Baltimore.87 this is an important

finding because, as Feld notes, there is clear evidence from
developmental psychology that juveniles lack the
competence of mature adults in legal proceedings, and this is
particularly true for those under 16 years of
age.88 this raises important questions regarding additional
protections that might be afforded juveniles who
face a police interrogation.
One important difference in the handling of juveniles and adults
at the arrest stage is
that juveniles are more likely to be detained pending trial than
adults who have committed
similar offenses. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Schall v. Martin,
ruled that preventive deten-
tion of juveniles is permissible.89 This case concerned Gregory
Martin, age 14 years, who
was arrested on December 13, 1977, and charged with first-
degree robbery, second-degree
assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. At 11:30 p.m., he
and two other juveniles had
hit a youth on the head with a loaded gun and stolen his jacket
and sneakers. When arrested,
Martin had the gun in his possession and lied to the police about
where and with whom he
lived. He appeared in New York Family Court on December 14
with his grandmother and
was ordered detained because he had been in possession of a
loaded gun, because he had lied
to the police about his home address, and due to the late hour of
the incident. A probable
cause hearing was held on December 19, and probable cause
was found on all charges. At a
fact-finding hearing held December 27 through December 29, he
was found guilty. He had
been detained a total of 15 days.

In this case, the court ruled that “Children, by definition, are
not assumed to have the
capacity to take care of themselves. They are assumed to be
subject to the control of their
parents; and, if parental control falters, the state must play its
part as parens patriae. … In this
respect, the juvenile’s liberty interest may, in appropriate
circumstances, be subordinated to
the state’s parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting
the welfare of the child.”90 The
court went on to point out that every state and the District of
Columbia permit the preventive
detention of juveniles:
The fact that a practice is followed by a large number of states
is not conclusive … as to whether
that practice accords with due process, but it is plainly worth
considering in determining whether
the practice “offends some principle of justice so rooted in the
traditions and conscience of our
people as to be ranked fundamental.” … We conclude that the
practice serves a legitimate regula-
tory purpose compatible with the “fundamental fairness”
demanded by the Due Process Clause
in juvenile proceedings.91
There are several ramifications of the Schall decision. Parens
patriae, an idea associated
with the juvenile court, played an important role in this
decision. In fact, the idea that a juvenile
should and must be under someone’s control is a long-standing
principle in U.S. law. As long
as juvenile courts have time guidelines for the setting of
meaningful hearings so that juveniles
do not languish in detention, the constitutional right to be free
from “excessive bail,” found in

the Eighth Amendment, takes a back seat to society’s interest in
the supervision and control
of juveniles. Nevertheless, the punitive nature of some
detention facilities, the possibility of a
child’s victimization in detention, and the widespread use of
detention in some jurisdictions
raise serious questions about the practice of detaining juveniles
prior to adjudication.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y ManY YOuths are arresteD anD
DetaineD fOr MinOr
Offenses
Myth—Most youths detained by police have committed serious
offenses and pose a threat to community safety.
reality—Most youths detained in many jurisdictions have not
committed serious offenses against people.
Moreover, in many jurisdictions, the great majority of youths
who are detained pending a court hearing are
released at the hearing because they are felt to pose no threat to
community safety.
The exact procedures that police must follow when taking a
juvenile into custody vary
from state to state and are spelled out in state juvenile codes
and in police department poli-
cies. However, these codes and policies typically require
officers to notify the juvenile’s par-
ents that the juvenile is in custody when an arrest is made.
Often, police request that parents
come to the police station or the officer transports the youth
home prior to any questioning.
If the officer feels that detention of the juvenile is appropriate,
the juvenile is transported to
a juvenile detention facility or, in some jurisdictions, to an
adult jail if a juvenile detention
facility is unavailable. If the juvenile is released to his or her
parents, the juvenile and parents
are informed that they will be contacted by the court at a later
date about their case. After
the release of the juvenile, the officer completes the complaint
by collecting any additional
information needed to establish the offense. The completed

complaint is then forwarded to
the next stage of the juvenile justice process for further action.
If the juvenile is detained in a
juvenile detention facility or adult jail, the processing of the
complaint is expedited because
juvenile codes require that a detention hearing be held to
determine the appropriateness of
detention, and the complaint will be needed at the hearing.
The interrogation and detention of juvenile suspects are sources
of considerable contro-
versy. At the heart of the interrogation controversy is a debate
over the age at which juveniles
are mature enough to fully understand the importance of their
rights and the potential conse-
quences associated with their waiver. Research indicates that
many youths do not understand
their rights when arrested. In one study, about one-third of a
sample of institutionalized youths
incorrectly believed that they had to talk with the police. The
study also found that about one-
third of the parents of these youths would advise them to
confess to the police.92 In another
study, more than half of the youths examined lacked a full
understanding of the Miranda
warnings.93 Moreover, as noted above, the evidence from
developmental psychology indicates
that youths are psychologically less mature than adults.94 Such
findings raise concerns about
the vulnerability of many youths when they are questioned by
the police and the reality that
youths receive fewer protections than those given to adults.
Concern over the detention of
juveniles revolves around the fact that preventive detention
amounts to punishment of some-
one before he or she has been found guilty of an offense.

Moreover, the conditions youths are
sometimes exposed to in detention units and adult jails raise
additional worries.
f Y i
research on proven false confessions indicates that about one-
third come from persons under age 18 years.95
trends in police processing of juveniles
In 1973, approximately 50% of all juveniles taken into police
custody were referred to juvenile
court, approximately 45% were handled within the police
department and released, and slightly
more than 1% were referred to adult or criminal courts.
However, the percentage of youths
taken into custody and referred to juvenile courts has been
increasing over time. By 2010,
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D

R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
approximately 68% of youths taken into custody by the police
were referred to juvenile court,
23% were handled within the police department and released,
and 8% were referred to adult or
criminal courts (see Table 6-1).96 These data indicate the
existence of three important trends in
police processing of juveniles: (1) the referral of more youths to
juvenile court, (2) the handling
of fewer cases within police departments, and (3) the referral of
more youths to adult courts.
the police and Delinquency prevention
Although police are becoming more formal in their processing
of juvenile cases, many police
departments also devote resources to delinquency prevention.
Indeed, such efforts have a num-
ber of advantages. For example, by preventing youths from
engaging in delinquent activities,
police spare youths the stigma associated with formal juvenile
justice processing. Delinquency
prevention also spares juvenile courts the time and costs
associated with processing cases and

allows the police and the courts to focus more time on serious
juvenile offenses and adult crime.
b O x 6 - 1 InteRvIew: LaRRy BROOk, ChIef Of POLICe,
RIChmOnd, ky
Q: You’ve been in law enforcement for over 37 years, counting
your time in the Military police (Mp) service.
could you provide a brief overview of your law enforcement
experience prior to becoming police chief?
a: I first became involved in law enforcement in 1974 when I
entered the U.S. army. I enlisted and was assigned
to the Military police corps as a correctional specialist. after
working two years in an area confinement
Facility (a fancy way of saying stockade), I was transferred to
regular duty with the Military police. after
leaving the military, I began my civilian law enforcement career
in 1979 as a patrol officer with the police
department in richmond, Kentucky. I worked as a patrol officer
and detective during my five years with
the department. I followed that by accepting a position as a
special agent with the U.S. Bureau of alcohol,
tobacco, Firearms, and explosives (atF). I worked 23 and a half
years for atF, serving as an agent in the
cleveland, Ohio, and London, Kentucky, Field Offices, and as a
supervisor in the cleveland Field Office
before retiring in 2007. Shortly thereafter, I accepted the
position as richmond police chief.
Q: What attracted you to the field of law enforcement?
a: Law enforcement was not my first career choice. I aspired to
be a journalist. even after my stint in the
Military police corps, I still had the desire to be a journalist.
however, after a couple of years in civilian

law enforcement, I felt compelled to remain in the field. I liked
the idea of serving the community, helping
others, and bringing order to otherwise chaotic situations. In
law enforcement, you have many opportunities
to have a positive impact on the lives of others.
Q: In your opinion, what are some of the advantages and
disadvantages of working in law enforcement?
a: It is definitely a double-edged sword. Some of the advantages
include the satisfaction gained from helping
others in difficult times or situations, protecting those that
cannot protect themselves, and effecting change
in the community. particularly satisfying is being able to help
young folks turn their lives around after they
have stumbled. another thing I appreciate is the job security.
Disadvantages would include sub-par pay in
most cases, the tendency to become cynical, the fact that it
often seems to be a thankless job, job burnout,
that there is often too much political interference, and
frustration from the lack of resources available to
provide help to those struggling in life and who are the most in
need.
Q: With respect to youths in the community, what are most
pressing problems your department deals with?
a: the most significant problem is the lack of parental control
and involvement with their children. Many
parents seem to want to abrogate their roles to the police or the
schools rather than fulfilling their respon-
sibilities. When a parent calls us to get their 6-year-old child to
go to school, there is something wrong.
too many young people are not taught respect for others—not
the police, teachers, adults, nor each other.
consequently, we see too many domestic disputes, school

altercations, and fights. a lack of after-school
activities often leaves young people with free time that
frequently leads to involvement in vandalism, theft,
and drugs. We have seen some attempts at the establishment of
gangs, but we have been able to contain
that in our community through enforcement and educational
programs.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

taBLe 6-1 percent Distribution of juveniles taken into police
Custody by Method of
Disposition, 1972–2010
referred to
juvenile court
jurisdiction
handled within
department and
released
referred to
criminal or
adult court
referred to
other police
agency
referred
to welfare
agency
1972 50.8% 45.0% 1.3% 1.6% 1.3%
1973 49.5 45.2 1.5 2.3 1.4
1974 47.0 44.4 3.7 2.4 2.5
1975 52.7 41.6 2.3 1.9 1.4

1976 53.4 39.0 4.4 1.7 1.6
1977 53.2 38.1 3.9 1.8 3.0
1978 55.9 36.6 3.8 1.8 1.9
1979 57.3 34.6 4.8 1.7 1.6
1980 58.1 33.8 4.8 1.7 1.6
1981 58.0 33.8 5.1 1.6 1.5
1982 58.9 32.5 5.4 1.5 1.6
1983 57.5 32.6 4.8 1.7 3.1
1984 60.0 31.5 5.2 1.3 2.0
1985 61.8 30.7 4.4 1.2 1.9
1986 61.7 29.9 5.5 1.1 1.8
1987 62.0 30.3 5.2 1.0 1.4
1988 63.1 29.1 4.7 1.1 1.9
1989 63.9 28.7 4.5 1.2 1.7
1990 64.5 28.3 4.5 1.1 1.6
1991 64.2 28.1 5.0 1.0 1.7
1992 62.5 30.1 4.7 1.1 1.7
1993 67.3 25.6 4.8 0.9 1.5

1994 63.2 29.5 4.7 1.0 1.7
(continues)
Q: You and members of your department have been very
involved in efforts to prevent delinquency in the
community. You were involved in reopening the richmond teen
center, you are on the center’s board, you
work closely with community groups in attempting to better
meet youths’ needs in the community, and
your department has taken the initiative in operating a summer
camp for youths for several years. could
you say something about why you have a taken a leadership role
in these areas?
a: there are a couple of reasons. First, I remember from
experience that when kids don’t have positive activi-
ties to be involved in during their free time, they will find other
things to do that are often unproductive,
if not delinquent. When I was a youngster, the times I got into
trouble were when I had no organized and
productive activities to be involved in, so I substituted
mischievous activities. the second reason was that
a parent in the community told me that a lot of our youths were
afraid of the police. I felt that in most cases
it wasn’t because of interactions the kids had with the police,
but rather the result of stories being told
to them by others, mostly adults. We needed to do something to
overcome this and let our young people
have the opportunity to see police officers in another light,
establishing more positive relationships. For
example, in our summer camp, we try to incorporate life skills
training, provide kids with exposure to other
aspects of life that they might not otherwise get the opportunity
to experience, and communicate that we
are their friends, not their enemies.

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
One of the most widely used prevention programs is the
D.A.R.E. program. (D.A.R.E.
is an acronym for drug abuse resistance education.) This
program, originally developed in
Los Angeles, targets youths from kindergarten through 12th
grade. The program is unique

because it uses uniformed police officers who present a
structured curriculum designed to
help youth avoid peer pressure and avoid drugs and violence.
According to the D.A.R.E. web-
site, the program is currently offered in 75% of the nation’s
school districts and in more than
43 countries around the world.97 Although D.A.R.E. has
numerous corporate, foundation, and
governmental sponsors, and its website claims that it is highly
successful, multiple evaluations
of various versions of D.A.R.E. have produced few positive
results. Some research indicates that
exposure to the D.A.R.E. program can increase students’
knowledge about drugs and enhance
their social skills. In addition, it appears to influence students’
attitudes about drugs, their
perceptions of the police, and their self-esteem. However, the
positive effects associated with
D.A.R.E. dissipate rapidly after the program ends. Moreover,
with the exception of tobacco,
D.A.R.E.’s ability to influence drug use has not been
demonstrated.98
Another popular school-based prevention program
initially developed by the Phoenix Police Department
and sponsored by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms is G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education and
Training). Like D.A.R.E., G.R.E.A.T. consists of a cur-
riculum that is taught by police officers in elementary
and middle schools and is found in almost every state.
G.R.E.A.T. has also undergone a curriculum revision
that was designed to make the program more interactive
and to help youths better understand the relationship between
gangs and violence, learn what

taBLe 6-1 (continued )
referred to
juvenile court
jurisdiction
handled within
department and
released
referred to
criminal or
adult court
referred to
other police
agency
referred
to welfare
agency
1995 65.7 28.4 3.3 0.9 1.7
1996 68.6 23.3 6.2 0.9 0.9
1997 66.9 24.6 6.6 0.8 1.1
1998 69.2 22.2 6.8 0.9 1.0
1999 69.2 22.5 6.4 1.0 0.8
2000 70.8 20.3 7.0 1.1 0.8

2001 72.4 19.0 6.5 1.4 0.7
2002 72.8 18.1 7.0 1.4 0.7
2003 71.0 20.1 7.1 1.2 0.6
2004 69.5 20.8 7.9 1.3 0.5
2005 70.7 20.2 7.4 1.3 0.4
2006 69.3 20.8 8.2 1.2 0.5
2007 69.6 19.5 9.4 1.2 0.4
2008 66.3 21.9 10.2 1.1 0.5
2009 67.4 22.3 8.8 1.1 0.5
2010 67.7 22.6 7.9 1.4 0.5
Source: Maguire, K., ed. (2012). Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics (table 4.26.2010). retrieved from
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook
/pdf/+4262010.pdf.
courtesy of the FBI
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T

E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/+4262010.pdf
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/+4262010.pdf
can be done about gangs, set goals, and develop a variety of
social competencies, including
communication and conflict resolution skills.99 Evaluations of
the G.R.E.A.T. program have
produced some positive results, although a major goal of the
program, to prevent youths from
participating in gangs, may not be achieved. Nevertheless,
G.R.E.A.T. has been associated with
the development of more prosocial attitudes (including more
favorable attitudes toward the
police), less risk-taking behavior, less victimization, and less
favorable attitudes toward gangs.
Moreover, the evidence suggests that police officers can have a
positive impact on youths.100

Youth-Oriented Community policing
Another significant trend in policing in recent years has been
the development of problem-
oriented and community policing strategies. In problem-oriented
policing, police attempt to
identify problems that encourage criminal behavior and take
steps to remedy these prob-
lems.101 In community policing, police rely on the community
to identify problems that can
be cooperatively addressed by the police and the
community.102 Both of these approaches are
based on the realization that, in order to reduce crime, police
need to take a more proactive
approach in dealing with crime-generating community problems
instead of simply reacting
to citizen complaints after crimes occur.
Community policing employs a number of strategies, including
the following:
• moving officers from their patrol cars to positions of
direct contact with community
residents (intended to give officers information about problems
that exist in the com-
munity and ideas for solutions)
• changing the officers’ main mode of behavior from
reactive (responding to crimes
committed) to proactive (preventing crimes)
• making police operations more visible to the public and
increasing police accountability
• decentralizing police operations, thereby allowing
individual officers to develop greater

familiarity with the needs of the communities they police and to
better respond to
those needs
• encouraging officers to view citizens as partners in
dealing with community problems
related to crime, thereby improving relations between police
and citizens
• placing more decision-making power in the hands of
community policing officers, who
know the community, its problems, and its expectations
• developing relationships between police and citizens that
foster public initiatives aimed
at preventing and solving crimes.103
A more recent variant of community policing is known as
youth-oriented community
policing. Youth-oriented community policing programs have
multiple goals: providing multi-
agency responses to children and their families in order to
prevent future delinquent behavior
and adult criminality; working with youths who are already
involved with the juvenile courts
in order to reduce the likelihood of recidivism; involving
neighborhood residents in efforts
to improve their communities; and developing closer relations
between community residents
and public officials, including police officers. The strategies
employed to achieve these goals,
although varied, often include the provision of specialized
training to police officers and the
development of cooperative multi-agency teams to address
community problems. The spe-

cialized training given to police officers might focus on topics
such as child development, the
psychological effect of family violence on children, assisting
victims of crime, fostering effec-
tive collaboration between citizens and police, and handling
mental health issues. The multi-
agency teams are typically staffed by representatives of mental
health agencies, schools, social
service agencies, health departments, universities, and
neighborhood associations, among
others. These teams focus on prevention by identifying family
and community problems that
negatively affect youths and lead to delinquent behavior.104
community policing
A policing strategy
in which police
attempt to identify
and understand
the social context
of delinquent and
criminal behavior
and then work with
the local community
to rectify the prob-
lems causing crime
rather than simply
reacting to crime by
arresting and incar-
cerating offenders.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592

F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
One thing that makes community policing stand out from other
policing strategies is its
focus on the social context in which delinquency takes place.
Rather than simply reacting
to juvenile crime, youth-oriented community policing requires
law enforcement agencies
to identify societal factors related to delinquency and to take
positive steps to address those
factors in order to prevent delinquency. As a result, youth-
oriented community policing is
more theory and research oriented than traditional policing
strategies. By having a clear

understanding of factors that encourage delinquency in the
community, those using a youth-
oriented community policing approach are in a better position to
prevent as well as respond
to delinquent behavior.
C O M pa r at i v e f O C u s
japanese police play an important role in Delinquency
prevention
In Japan, the police have developed crime prevention
associations and conduct company–police conferences
and school–police conferences designed to prevent youth crime.
In addition, they have established police boxes
(Koban) in urban areas where youths congregate and police
houses (Chuzaisho) in rural areas that are intended
to help police respond to and prevent problems in the
community. Moreover, Japanese police stations contain
departments of community safety that are intended to coordinate
local delinquency prevention efforts, and
they contain police counselors who are responsible for
counseling youths and their parents, referring clients
to local services, and supporting juvenile crime victims.
Finally, the police encourage the development of a
variety of voluntary associations and support the efforts of
various individuals involved in providing preven-
tion services to youths.105
Another development in policing that is conceptually related to
youth-oriented community
policing has been the placement of police officers, often called
school resource officers (SrOs),
in schools. Although SRO programs have been in schools since
the 1960s, they have become
more common over time.106 By 2009, 68% of students reported

the presence of either security
guards or police officers in their schools.107
SROs perform a variety of roles in schools, and these roles vary
from school to school. SROs
may provide training to school staff and parents on delinquency
and criminal justice issues,
provide instruction as part of D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T.
programs, provide basic counseling to
students who are having problems, help prevent and solve
school problems, chaperone school
events, and develop positive relations with students. In
addition, SROs are law enforcement
officers who engage in routine patrol of school property, direct
traffic, and take steps to identify
and respond to illegal behavior by students and staff.108
The presence of police in schools is felt by many to have a
number of benefits, particularly
in light of well-publicized incidents of school violence,
including school shootings, concerns
about school disruption in many schools, and perceptions
(although not always accurate)
that juvenile crime is becoming more serious. Moreover, there
is some evidence that police,
when they work in concert with educators, parents, and
community groups, can play an
important role in meeting the social justice needs of youths in
the community and form strong
police–school partnerships.109 There are, however, other
instances when police involvement in
the schools can pose a number of serious problems. Police in
schools can result in the criminal-
ization of behaviors that were previously handled effectively by
schools as part of the informal
juvenile justice process. Consider the 2007 case of Desre’e

Watson, a 6-year-old in Avon Park,
Florida, who was arrested, handcuffed by the police, taken to
the police station, fingerprinted,
and charged with battery on a school official (a felony),
disruption of a school function, and
resisting a law enforcement officer (both misdemeanors) for
throwing a temper tantrum in
school.110 Bob Herbert of the New York Times reported on his
interview with the police chief
regarding this case: “But she was six,” Herbert said. The chief
responded immediately, “Do
school resource
officers (SrOs)
Law enforcement
officers who may
perform a variety
of roles in schools,
such as problem
solving and school,
student, and staff
support, in addition
to more traditional
police roles.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F

O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
you think this is the first six-year-old we’ve arrested?” As
Herbert insightfully notes, once
you begin to see ordinary childhood misbehavior as criminal,
“it’s easy to start seeing young
children as somehow monstrous.” He further quotes Chief
Mercurio: “Believe me when I tell
you . . . a six-year-old can inflict injury to you just as much as
any other person.”111 The tendency
to criminalize children’s school behavior is more common than
many believe. For example,
in Dallas and other places in Texas, police officers issue class
“C” misdemeanor citations in
schools for behaviors such as truancy, violations of school dress

codes, and classroom disrup-
tion. Fines that are associated with these citations can add up to
thousands of dollars if not
paid, build up a youth’s criminal history, and expose youths to
more serious sanctions in the
future, such as arrest and detention. As a result, more than one
in seven Texas students have
now been involved with the juvenile justice system, and
students who are detained are three
times more likely to end up in adult prison. Critics of these
practices argue that they create a
school-to-prison pipeline that is particularly disadvantageous to
poor, special education, and
minority youths who are more likely to struggle in school and
cannot afford to pay the fines
or defend themselves in court.112
CRItICaL thInkIng QuestIOn
What steps should the police take to protect the rights of
juveniles who are in their
custody?
■ legal issues
Although the relationship between police and citizens is a long-
standing concern in U.S. law,
the relationship between children and police has also received
attention. Many contend that
children, because of their lack of maturity, should have special
protections when faced with
arrest or interrogation by police. Exactly how far the police
should go in protecting juveniles
and which specific protections should be given to juveniles are,
however, matters of debate.
What is your perspective on this issue?

Legal Issues 153
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
Chapter suMMarY
This chapter examined police and public responses to juvenile
crime. As noted at the begin-
ning of the chapter, citizens make up an informal juvenile
justice process that responds in a

variety of ways to youthful misbehavior. The ability of this
informal juvenile justice process
to handle juvenile misbehavior determines the extent to which
formal components of the
juvenile justice process become involved in the lives of youths.
Although many youth offenses are handled by citizens without
official assistance, citizens
frequently choose to involve the police, and in some cases the
police initiate contact with
youths on their own. When police become involved, they play a
critical role in juvenile jus-
tice because they serve as the primary gatekeepers of the formal
juvenile justice process. Of
particular significance is the fact that the police exercise
discretion in how they handle alleged
instances of juvenile delinquency. How the police decide to
handle a juvenile case can have
important ramifications for community safety as well as for the
child and his or her family.
In addition, how the police handle juveniles raises several legal
issues regarding the relations
between juveniles and the police and how far the police should
go in protecting juveniles’ rights.
These issues have received some attention by the courts in cases
such as Fare v. Michael C.,
People v. Lara, State v. Benoit, and Schall v. Martin. However,
many people are still concerned
that youths may be denied important legal protections when
confronted by the police, and
this lack of protection can result in youths being harmed
because of their involvement with
juvenile justice agencies.
Data on the police processing of juveniles indicate that the
police are becoming more for-

mal in their responses to youths. Nevertheless, some police
departments have also developed
a variety of new strategies to deal with juveniles, such as youth-
oriented community policing.
To some extent, these strategies reflect the recognition by the
police that their effectiveness
as crime fighters requires good relationships with all members
of the community, including
youths. In addition, they appear to be tied to the increased
emphasis on crime prevention and
the growing popularity of community policing found in some
police departments. However,
the extent to which police departments will embrace these
strategies and their effectiveness
remains to be seen. Some police efforts to develop closer
relationships with schools appear to
have some potential to prevent juvenile crime and reduce school
problems. There is evidence,
however, that more punitive approaches to youths in school
settings by police and school
officials increase youths’ exposure to the justice system and
serve as part of a school-to-prison
pipeline. Thus, increasing the police presence in schools should
be approached with consider-
able caution.
key COnCePts
arrest: Legally authorized deprivation of a person’s liberty. As a
general rule, a person is
under arrest when he or she is not free to walk away.
community policing: A policing strategy in which police
attempt to identify and under-
stand the social context of delinquent and criminal behavior and
then work with the local
community to rectify the problems causing crime rather than

simply reacting to crime by
arresting and incarcerating offenders.
discretion: The power to act on one’s own authority.
informal juvenile justice process: Actions to combat
delinquency taken by parents, neigh-
bors, business owners, teachers, and others who are not part of
the formal juvenile justice
process.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

institutional racism and bias: The ways that basic social
institutions operate to keep
minorities or poor people in subordinate positions. If police
believe that minorities or poor
people have fewer resources to respond to youth problems,
believe that minority communi-
ties foster more crime, and believe that minority group members
are more hostile to the
police, it increases the likelihood that police will focus more
crime-fighting resources in
minority communities, resulting in increases in arrests for
crime, police–citizen hostility,
and neighborhood problems.
police role conflict: Clash between the duty of police to
investigate crimes and prevent
individuals from committing crimes and the duty of police to
protect the rights of offend-
ers, crime victims, and other citizens.
probable cause: Grounds sufficient to convince a reasonably
competent person that a crime
was committed and that the suspect committed it.
reform agenda for police: Agenda consisting of items such as
the following: eliminating
political influence and corruption, appointing qualified leaders,
establishing the ideal of
nonpartisan public service, raising personnel standards,
implementing scientific manage-
ment principles, instituting military-style discipline, and
creating “specialized” units.
school resource officers (SROs): Law enforcement officers who
may perform a variety of
roles in schools, such as problem solving and school, student,
and staff support, in addition
to more traditional police roles.

status offense: An act considered to be an offense partly
because of the status of the person
who performed the act. For example, juveniles (i.e., individuals
who have a juvenile status)
must obey the reasonable rules of their parents, attend school,
and live at home. If they fail
to do any of these things, they could be arrested and brought
into the court system. Adults
do not have to do any of those things and cannot be arrested for
refusing to do them.
RevIew QuestIOns
1. What is the informal juvenile justice process, and how is it
related to formal juvenile
justice agencies?
2. What are the typical responses available to the public when
they come into contact with
juvenile offenders?
3. What were the basic characteristics of policing during the
colonial period?
4. What problems in policing did the progressive reforms of the
late 1800s and early 1900s
attempt to address?
5. What innovations in youth-oriented policing occurred
between the early 1900s and the
1970s?
6. What are the basic roles of the police, and how do these roles
influence police–juvenile
interactions?
7. What options do police officers have when dealing with

youths who have allegedly broken
the law?
8. What factors influence police discretion?
9. What procedures do the police follow when taking a youth
into custody?
10. What tactics do police use in the interrogation of juveniles,
and what are potential prob-
lems with the use of these tactics?
11. What are the important court cases concerning the
interrogation of juveniles by the police,
and what do these cases require the police to do?
review Questions 155
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1

6
9
2
T
S
12. In what ways have trends in the police processing of
juveniles changed over the past 20
years?
13. What recent strategies or programs have been developed by
the police to help them pre-
vent or more effectively respond to delinquency? What do these
strategies or programs
attempt to do?
14. What are the potential benefits and costs associated with the
presence of law enforcement
officers in schools?
addItIOnaL ReadIngs
Bazemore, G., & Senjo, S. (1997). Police encounters with
juveniles revisited: An explor-
atory study of themes and styles in community policing.
Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategy and Management, 20, 60–82.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004). Girls, delinquency
and juvenile justice
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.
Krisberg, B. (2005). Juvenile justice: Redeeming our children.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lundman, R. J., Sykes, R. E., & Clark, J. P. (1978). Police
control of juveniles: A replica-
tion. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 15(1), 74–
91.
Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices and
perceptions regarding juve-
nile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law,
25, 757–780.
Price, P. (2009). When is a police officer an officer of the law?
The status of police offi-
cers in schools. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99,
541–570.
Senna, J. J., & Siegel, L. J. (1992). Juvenile law: Cases and
comments (2nd ed.). St. Paul,
MN: West Publishing Co.
Walker, S., & Katz, C. M. (2008). The police in America: An
introduction (6th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Cases CIted
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365 (1967).
Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984).
State v. Benoit, 490 A.2d 295 (NH 1985).

nOtes
1. Walker, S. (1992). The police in America: An introduction.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Walker, 1992.
3. Walker, 1992; Berg, B. L. (1992). Law enforcement: An
introduction to police in society.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4. Walker, 1992.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2

T
S
5. Klockars, C. B. (1985). The idea of police: Vol. 3. Law and
criminal justice series. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
6. Walker, 1992.
7. Uchida, C. (1989). The development of the American police:
An historical overview. In
R. G. Dunham & G. P. Alpert (Eds.), Critical issues in policing:
Contemporary readings.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press; Walker, 1992.
8. Uchida, 1989.
9. Walker, 1992.
10. Walker, 1992.
11. Trojanowicz, R., & Bucqueroux, B. (1990). Community
policing: A contemporary perspec-
tive. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson; Walker, 1992.
12. Walker, 1992.
13. Bremner, R. H. (Ed.). (1970). Children and youth in
America: A documentary history (Vols.
1–3). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 755. This
resource cites Matsell, G. W.
(1849). Semi-annual report, May 31–October 31, 1849, New
York City Police Department.
14. Bartollas, C., & Miller, S. J. (2008). Juvenile justice in
America (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
15. Walker, 1992.
16. Walker, 1992.
17. Walker, 1992, p. 13.
18. Fogelson, R. M. (1977). Big-city police. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
19. Owings, C. (1969). Women police: A study of the
development and status of the women
police movement. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith; Schultz, D.
M. (1995). From social
worker to crime fighter: Women in United States municipal
policing. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
20. Walker, S. A. (1977). A critical history of police reform.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
21. Fogelson, 1977.
22. Lexington Police Activities League. (n.d.). PAL history.
Retrieved from http://www
.lexingtonpal.com/.
23. Bartollas & Miller, 2008.
24. Siegel, L. J., Welsh, B. C., & Senna, J. J. (2003). Juvenile
delinquency: Theory, practice, and
law (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
25. Roberts, A. R. (1998). The emergence and proliferation of
juvenile diversion programs.
In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile justice: Policies, programs, and
services (2nd ed.). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.

28. Walker, 1992, p. 63. This resource cites Yinger, M. (1965).
Toward a field theory of behav-
ior: Personality and social structure. New York: McGraw-Hill,
pp. 99–100.
29. Walker, 1992.
30. Walker, 1992.
31. Wilson, J. Q. (1973). Varieties of police behavior: The
management of law and order in
eight communities. New York: Atheneum.
32. Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1971). The police and the public. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Notes 157
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1

6
9
2
T
S
http://www.lexingtonpal.com
http://www.lexingtonpal.com
33. Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The
management of law and order in
eight communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Lab, S. P. (1984). Police productivity: The other eighty
percent. Journal of Police Science
and Administration, 12, 297–302; Wilson, 1973.
35. Whitehead, J. T., & Lab, S. P. (1990). Juvenile justice: An
introduction. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson.
36. Muraskin, R. (1998). Police work and juveniles. In A. R.
Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile justice:
Policies, programs, and service (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-
Hall.
37. Cox, S. M., Conrad, J., & Allen, J. (2002). Juvenile justice:
A guide to practice and theory
(5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
38. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention &
Training Resource Center,
Eastern Kentucky University. (1995). Participants resource
packet for the youth-oriented
community policing national satellite teleconference.

Richmond, KY: Author.
39. Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Sickmund, M. (2011).
Juvenile Court Statistics 2008.
Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
40. Black, D., & Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1970). Police control of
juveniles. American Sociological
Review, 35, 63–77; Brown, R. A., Novak, K. J., & Frank, J.
(2009). Identifying variation
in police office behavior between juveniles and adults. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 37,
200–208; Lundman, R. J., Sykes, R. E., & Clark, J. P. (1990).
Police control of juveniles:
A replication. In R. Weisheit and R. G. Culbertson (Eds.),
Juvenile delinquency: A justice
perspective (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press;
Piliavan, I., & Briar, S. (1964).
Police encounters with juveniles. American Journal of
Sociology, 70, 206–214.
41. Black & Reiss, 1970; Lundman, Sykes, & Clark, 1990;
Piliavan & Briar, 1964.
42. Lundman, Sykes, & Clark, 1990; Piliavan & Briar, 1964.
43. Smith, D. A. (1984). The organizational context of legal
control. Criminology, 22, 19–38.
44. Goldman, N. (1969). The differential selection of juvenile
offenders for court appearance.
In W. J. Chambliss (Ed.), Crime and the legal process. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
45. Klein, M. W. (1970). Police processing of juvenile
offenders: Toward the development of
juvenile system rates (Part 3). Los Angeles: Los Angeles
County Subregional Board, Cali-

fornia Council on Juvenile Justice.
46. Brown, Novak, & Frank, 2009; Cicourel, A. (1968). The
social organization of juvenile
justice. New York: Wiley; Piliavan & Briar, 1964; Sampson, R.
J. (1986). Effects of socio-
economic context on official reaction to juvenile delinquency.
American Sociological
Review, 51, 876–885.
47. Saad, L. (2010). Congress ranks last in confidence in
institutions. Gallup Politics. Retrieved
from http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/Congress-Ranks-Last-
Confidence-Institutions
.aspx.
48. Gallup, Inc. (2011). Reported confidence in the police.
Table 2.12.2011. Cited in A. L.
Pastore, and K. Maguire (Eds.), Sourcebook of criminal justice
statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2122011.pdf.
49. Decker, S. H. (1981). Citizen attitudes toward the police: A
review of past findings and
suggestions for future policy. Journal of Police Science and
Administration, 9, 80–87.
50. Portune, R. (1971). Changing adolescent attitudes toward
the police. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson.
51. Anderson, E. (1994). The code of the streets. Atlantic
Monthly, 273(5), 81–94.

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/Congress-Ranks-Last-
Confidence-Institutions.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/Congress-Ranks-Last-
Confidence-Institutions.aspx
52. Brunson, R. K., & Miller, J. (2006). Gender, race, and urban
policing: The experience of
African American youths. Gender and Society, 20, 531–552.
53. Anderson, 1994; Bouma, D. H. (1969). Kids and cops.

Grand Rapids, MI: William E.
Eerdman; Carr, P. J., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We
never call the cops and
here is why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in
three Philadelphia neighbor-
hoods. Criminology, 45, 445–480; Decker, 1981; Murty, K. S.,
Roebuck, J. B., & Smith,
J. D. (1990). The image of police in black Atlanta communities.
Journal of Police Science
and Administration, 17, 250–257.
54. Black & Reiss, 1970.
55. Lundman, Sykes, & Clark, 1990, p. 114.
56. Allen, T. T. (2005). Taking a juvenile into custody:
Situational factors that influence police
officers’ decisions. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,
32, 121–129; Black & Reiss,
1970; Lundman, Sykes, & Clark, 1990.
57. Lundman, Sykes, & Clark, 1990.
58. Brown, Novak, & Frank, 2009; Elliott, D. S., & Voss, H. L.
(1974). Delinquency and drop-
out. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; Krohn, M. D., Curry, J.
P., & Nelson-Kilger, S.
(1983). Is chivalry dead? An analysis of changes in police
dispositions of males and
females. Criminology, 21, 417–437; Morash, M. (1984).
Establishment of a juvenile police
record: The influence of individual and peer group
characteristics. Criminology, 22,
97–111.
59. Brown, Novak, & Frank, 2009; Dannefer, D., & Schutt, R.
K. (1982). Race and juve-

nile justice processing in court and police agencies. American
Journal of Sociology, 87,
1113–1132; Sampson, R. J. (1985). Sex differences in self-
reported delinquency and
official records: A multiple-group structural modeling approach.
Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 1, 345–367.
60. Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004). Girls,
delinquency and juvenile justice
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth. This resource
contains a review.
61. Visher, C. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and
notions of chivalry. Criminology,
21, 5–28.
62. Krohn, Curry, & Nelson-Kilger, 1983; Teilmann, K., &
Landry, P. H. (1981). Gender bias
in juvenile justice. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 18, 47–80; Chesney-
Lind, M. (1977). Judicial paternalism and the female status
offender: Training women
to know their place. Crime and Delinquency, 23, 121–130;
Staples, W. G. (1987). Law
and social control in juvenile justice dispositions. Journal of
Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 24, 7–22.
63. Krohn, Curry, & Nelson-Kilger, 1983.
64. Dannefer & Schutt, 1982; Fagan, J., Slaughter, E., &
Hartstone, E. (1987). Blind justice?
The impact of race on the juvenile justice process. Crime and
Delinquency, 33, 224–258;
Piliavan & Briar, 1964; Sampson, 1986; Staples, 1987; National

Council on Crime and
Delinquency. (1992). The over-representation of minority youth
in the California juvenile
justice system. San Francisco, CA: Arthur; Thornberry, T. P.
(1973). Race, socioeconomic
status and sentencing in the juvenile justice system. Journal of
Criminal Law and Crimi-
nology, 64, 90–98; Thornberry, T. P. (1979). Sentencing
disparities in the juvenile justice
system. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70, 164–171.
65. Wilson, 1968, pp. 40–41.
Notes 159
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9

2
T
S
66. Black & Reiss, 1970; Brown, Novak & Frank, 2009;
Lundman, Sykes, & Clark, 1990;
Morash, 1984; Terry, R. M. (1967). Discrimination in the
handling of juvenile offenders
by social-control agencies. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 4, 218–230;
Terry, R. M. (1967). The screening of juvenile offenders.
Journal of Criminal Law, Crimi-
nology and Police Science, 58, 173–181; Weitzer, R. (1996).
Racial discrimination in the
criminal justice system: Findings and problems in the literature.
Journal of Criminal
Justice, 24, 309–322.
67. Gibbons, D. C., & Krohn, M. D. (1991). Delinquent
behavior (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
68. Dannefer & Schutt, 1982.
69. Liederbach, J. (2007). Controlling suburban and small-town
hoods: An examination of
police encounters with juveniles. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 5, 107–124.
70. Narkvichetr, K. (2006). Juvenile justice in Thailand. In P.
Friday & X. Ren (Eds.), Delin-
quency and juvenile justice systems in the non-Western World.
Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press.

71. Gilani, S. N. (2006). Juvenile justice in Saudi Arabia. In P.
Friday & X. Ren (Eds.), Delin-
quency and juvenile justice systems in the non-Western World.
Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press.
72. Allen, T. T., 2005; Brown, Novak, & Frank, 2009.
73. Walker, 1992.
74. Muraskin, 1998.
75. Walker, 1992.
76. National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. (n.d.). Police–juvenile
operations: A comparative analysis of standards and practices:
Vol. 2. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
77. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
78. Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
79. Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
80. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).
81. Fare v. Michael C. (1979). Italics added.
82. People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365 (1967).
83. State v. Benoit, 490 A.2d 295 (NH 1985).
84. State v. Benoit (1985).
85. Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices
and perceptions regarding juve-
nile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 25,
757–780.
86. Feld, B. C. (2006). Police interrogation of juveniles: An
empirical study of policy and
practice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97, 219–

316.
87. Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices
and perceptions regarding juve-
nile interrogation and interrogation suggestibility. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 25,
757–780.
88. Feld, 2006.
89. Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984).
90. Schall v. Martin (1984).
91. Schall v. Martin (1984).
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9

2
T
S
92. Robin, G. D. (1982). Juvenile interrogation and confessions.
Journal of Police Science and
Administration, 10, 224–228.
93. Holtz, L. E. (1987). Miranda in a juvenile setting: A child’s
right to silence. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 534–556.
94. Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (1997). The evolution of
adolescence: A developmental perspec-
tive on juvenile justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 88, 137–189.
95. Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false
confessions in the post-DNA
world. N.C. Law Review, 891, 906–907.
96. Maguire, K. (Ed.). (2012). Table 4.26.2010. Sourcebook of
criminal justice statistics. Bureau
of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4262010.pdf.
97. D.A.R.E. (2012). The official D.A.R.E. website. Retrieved
from http://www.dare.org
/home/default.asp.
98. Clayton, R. R., Cattarello, A., & Walden, K. P. (1991).
Sensation seeking as a potential
mediating variable for school-based prevention interventions: A
two-year follow-up of

DARE. Journal of Health Communications, 3, 229–239;
Ringwalt, C. L., Greene, J. M.,
Ennett, S. T., Iachan, R., Clayton, R. R., & Leukefeld, C. G.
(1994). Past and future direc-
tions of the D.A.R.E. program: An evaluation review. Research
Triangle Park, NC: Research
Triangle Institute. This resource cites personal communication
with C. Dunn, June 22,
1993; Rosenbaum, D. P. (2007). Just say no to D.A.R.E.
Criminology and Public Policy, 6,
815–824; Rosenbaum, D. P., Flewelling, R. L., Bailey, S. L.,
Ringwalt, C. L., & Wilkinson,
D. L. (1994). Cops in the classroom: A longitudinal evaluation
of Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (DARE). Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 31, 3–31.
99. For information on the G.R.E.A.T. curriculum, see
http://www.great-online.org/.
100. Esbensen, F. (2002). National evaluation of the Gang
Resistance Education and Train-
ing (G.R.E.A.T.) program, final report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice;
Esbensen, F., Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., Freng, A., & Osgood,
D. W. (2004). Gang preven-
tion: A case study of a primary prevention program. In F.
Esbensen, S. G. Tibbetts, &
L. Gaines (Eds.), American youth gangs at the millennium.
Long Grove, IL: Waveland,
pp. 351–374; Esbensen, F., Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., Freng,
A., Osgood, G. W., Car-
son, D.C., et al. (2011). Evaluation and evolution of the Gang
Resistance Education and
Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program. Journal of School Violence, 10,
53–70.

101. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
102. Trojanowicz, R., Kappeler, V. E., Gaines, L. K., &
Bucqueroux, B. (1998). Community
policing: A contemporary perspective (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson.
103. National Institute of Justice. (1992). Community policing
in the 1990s. National Institute
of Justice Journal, 225, 2–8.
104. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
(1996). Participants resource packet
for the Youth-Oriented Community Policing National Satellite
Teleconference. Washington,
DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
105. Elrod, P., & Yokoyama, M. (2006). Juvenile justice in
Japan. In P. C. Friday & X. Ren
(Eds.), Delinquency and juvenile justice systems in the non-
Western world. Monsey, NY:
Criminal Justice Press.
106. National School Safety and Security Services. (2012).
School resource officers. Retrieved
from http://www.schoolsecurity.org/resources/school-resource-
officers.html.
107. Robers, S., Zhang, J., Truman, J., & Snyder, T. D. (2012).
Indicators of school crime and
safety: 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department
Notes 161

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
http://www.dare.org/home/default.asp
http://www.dare.org/home/default.asp
of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice.
108. See Travis, L. F., & Coon, J. K. (2005). The role of law
enforcement in public school safety:

A national survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice.
109. Brady, K. P., Balmer, S., & Phenix, D. (2007). School–
police partnership effectiveness in
urban schools: An analysis of New York City’s impact schools
initiative. Education and
Urban Society, 39, 455–478.
110. Price, P. (2009). When is a police officer an officer of the
law? The status of police officers
in schools. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 541–
570.
111. Herbert, B. (2007, April 9). 6-year-olds under arrest. New
York Times, Op-Ed, p. A17.
Retrieved from
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09herbert.html.
Quoted
in Price, 2009, p. 549.
112. Robinson, N. (2012, April 14). The school to prison
pipeline. BBC World Service. [Radio
Broadcast]. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00qh8pf.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E

R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
Chapter ObjeCtives
• Define the concept of diversion and describe how it is
used in dealing with youths who
violate the law
• Describe the social context of the 1960s and 1970s and
indicate how it encouraged the
development of diversion programs
• explain why juvenile justice might be seen as a type of
diversion from the criminal
justice process
• Describe the theoretical underpinnings of the concept of
diversion

• Describe specific diversion programs and whether or not
they are effective
• Describe common problems with diversion programs and
how these problems affect
youths and families
Chapter Outline
introduction
early efforts at Diversion
the theoretical Foundation of Diversion
the social Context of the 1960s and the popularization of
Diversion
the policy implications of societal reaction theory
Other rationales for Diversion programs
the spread of Diversion programs since the 1960s
Contemporary Diversion strategies and programs
the effectiveness of Diversion
legal issues
Chapter summary
Juvenile Diversion chapter
7

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
■ introduction
Although there is a lack of agreement on how to define
diversion, the intent of diversion is to
respond to youths who violate the law in ways that keep them
out of (divert them from) the
formal juvenile justice process.1 Diversion is based on the fact
that formal responses to youths
who violate the law, such as arrest and adjudication, do not

always protect the best interests
of children, nor do such responses necessarily protect the
community. Indeed, some formal
responses may be harmful to many youths and increase the
likelihood of future delinquent
behavior. This is because formal processing may cause a youth
to develop a negative or delin-
quent self-image,2 may stigmatize a youth in the eyes of
significant others,3 or may subject a
youth to inhumane treatment. In addition, formal processing
may restrict a youth’s oppor-
tunities to associate with law-abiding peers or to engage in
conventional activities, thereby
increasing the chances of future delinquent activity.
Consequently, efforts to divert youths
from the juvenile justice process (e.g., by warning and
releasing) as well as efforts to divert
youth to specific diversionary programs (e.g., counseling and
community service programs)
have long been a part of juvenile justice practice. In addition, in
recent years, diversion has
been touted as a way to reduce the problem of minority
overrepresentation in juvenile justice.4
This chapter provides an overview of the history of diversion
programming. In addition,
it examines the theoretical rationale for diversion and explores
various types of diversion
programs and their effectiveness. The chapter concludes by
discussing a number of potential
problems that confront diversion programs as well as issues that
should be considered prior
to the development and implementation of these interventions.
■ early efforts at Diversion

Efforts to divert children from normal criminal justice
processing have a long history. Prior to
the development of specialized correctional institutions for
youths in the 1800s, children were
subject to the same laws and the same criminal justice process
as adults. Nevertheless, there is
considerable evidence that they were often spared the harshest
penalties because of their age.
Historically, police officers, sheriffs, constables, and others
responsible for law enforcement
have at times decided to ignore the illegal actions of youths. At
other times, law enforcement
officers have handled matters on their own, by warning youths,
returning them to their parents
for punishment, or meting out punishment themselves. To some
extent, efforts to spare youths
from the most severe punishments or to let them escape
punishment altogether were based
on the recognition that the young were, in important ways,
different from older persons and
that formal or severe punishments would rarely benefit the
youth or the community.
diversion
The processing of
youths who are
alleged to have vio-
lated the law in ways
that avoid the formal
juvenile justice
process.
Key Concepts

review Questions
additional readings
notes
164 chapter 7 Juvenile Diversion
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S

The development of the houses of refuge in the early 1800s and
the juvenile court move-
ment in the late 1800s and early 1900s are often cited as early
examples of efforts to divert
youths from the adult criminal justice process.5 Indeed, the
houses of refuge were established,
in part, to divert children from the harsh conditions of adult
correctional institutions, which
were seen by the child savers as harmful to youths and likely to
produce more dangerous
offenders.6 As a result, the child savers of the late 1800s and
their supporters helped establish
juvenile courts in an effort to divert children from adult jails
and prisons and from adult courts,
which were often reluctant to sanction and control wayward
children.7
Although diversion has a long history, the development of
routine diversionary strategies
and specialized diversion programs has substantially increased
since the late 1960s. The decade
of the 1960s was a time of widespread social unrest, increases
in juvenile arrests, and critical
scrutiny of basic institutions, including juvenile justice.
Concern about the effectiveness of
formal responses to juvenile offenses was clearly reflected in
recommendations made by the
1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice. These
recommendations, formulated for the purpose of improving
juvenile justice practice, served
as a catalyst for the development of diversion programs during
the late 1960s and 1970s.
According to the commission:
The formal sanctioning system and pronouncement of

delinquency should be used only as a last
resort. In place of the formal system, dispositional alternatives
to adjudication must be developed
for dealing with juveniles, including agencies to provide and
coordinate services and procedures
to achieve necessary control without unnecessary stigma . . . .
The range of conduct for which
court intervention is authorized should be narrowed, with
greater emphasis upon consensual and
informal means of meeting the problems of difficult children.8
F Y i juvenile institutiOns anD juvenile COurts Were CreateD
tO Divert
ChilDren FrOm the aDult Criminal justiCe sYstem
the creation of specialized juvenile correctional institutions and
juvenile courts was based on the recognized
need to respond to children and adults differently. It is the
height of irony that today, in legislatures across the
country, the age for the transfer of juvenile cases to adult courts
is being lowered and the automatic waiver
to adult courts for certain offenses is becoming law. Nowadays,
more and more children are being “diverted”
to the adult system—a system that is not particularly effective
in dealing with many adults and is hardly
capable of meeting the needs of youths.
In order to facilitate the number of diversionary responses
available to communities,
the commission called for the establishment of youth services
bureaus. These bureaus were
intended to supplement existing community agencies that dealt
with children and to coordinate
programs and services for both delinquent and nondelinquent
youths. They also were intended
to serve as an alternative to juvenile court processing, allowing,

it was hoped, substantial
numbers of youths to be diverted from the formal juvenile
justice process each year.9 Through
federal grants, primarily from the Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration (LEAA) and
the Office of Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention,
and smaller matching grants
provided by local and state governments, youth services bureaus
were established in communi-
ties around the country.10 Typically, youth services bureaus
had five basic goals:
1. Divert juveniles from the formal juvenile justice system.
2. Fill gaps in service by advocating for youths and developing
services for youths and their
families.
3. Provide case coordination and program coordination.
youth services
bureau
An agency that
provides counseling,
tutoring, mentoring,
advocacy, and job
referrals for youths
in order to keep
them out of the for-
mal juvenile justice
process.
early efforts at Diversion 165
DISTRIBUTION. 1592

F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
4. Modify youth services systems so that they better meet
youths’ needs.
5. Involve youths in the decision-making process.11
Evaluation studies found that the typical youth services bureau
was staffed by five or
six full-time staff members and from 1 to 50 volunteers. Types
of services offered included
tutoring; recreational programming; individual, group, and
family counseling; and job refer-
ral. The typical bureau operated in a low socioeconomic status
urban neighborhood where

there were high rates of crime and unemployment and limited
resources for youths. Each year,
the typical bureau served approximately 350 youths who were
self-referred or referred by the
police, schools, and parents, among other sources.12
Although youth services bureaus were popular in a number of
jurisdictions, they experi-
enced some problems. One difficult issue they faced was the
question of voluntary participa-
tion. The ideal was to provide services to youths and possibly
their families on a voluntary
basis. However, if a youth or a family member failed to follow
through on treatment plans
developed by a bureau, a referral to the appropriate juvenile
court was often made, even if the
youth avoided further delinquent behavior. In addition, if a
bureau determined that a youth was
not likely to benefit from its services, the youth could be
referred back to the original referral
source.13 Such practices, of course, could result in formal
processing—hardly what diversion
programs are designed to accomplish. In addition to funding
youth services bureaus, LEAA
helped fund a variety of other diversion programs in
communities around the country. These
programs included “alternative schools, job development and
training programs, police social
work programs, and family counseling programs for youths
referred by the police, schools,
and court intake personnel.”14
In the late 1970s, however, LEAA began to alter its priorities
and shift funds away from
prevention and diversion programs and into law enforcement
and rehabilitation programs.

The initial LEAA funding for the youth services bureaus was
intended to be seed money to
help establish the programs, but after a certain period, usually
two years, communities were
expected to continue funding these programs on their own. In
some cases, communities
did assume full support of local youth services bureaus, but by
1982, a number of bureaus
developed, at least in part, with LEAA seed money were
discontinued due to a lack of funds.15
Nevertheless, a perceived need for diversion programs
continued to motivate the development
of such programs in communities around the country.
■ the theoretical Foundation of Diversion
Like other programs for youths, diversion programs are
supported by beliefs and theoretical
concepts. As noted earlier, for a long time many law
enforcement officials, juvenile justice
reformers, and students of crime and punishment have doubted
the reformative potential
of adult courts, jails, and prisons and have sought to spare
youths from criminal processing.
Questions regarding the value of criminal processing for
juveniles were heightened during
the political and social unrest that characterized much of the
1960s and 1970s. In addition,
a well-developed theoretical rationale for diversion became
popular during this time. These
two factors, questions about the value of formal processing for
many youths and a theoretical
rationale for diverting youths, helped spur the development of
diversion programs beginning
in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

■ the social Context of the 1960s and the popularization of
Diversion
The 1960s and early 1970s proved to be a fruitful period for the
development and prolifera-
tion of diversionary responses to juvenile offenders. For one
thing, this period was marked
by considerable social unrest, and a substantial portion of the
protests that occurred were
initiated and led by youths. Furthermore, many Americans, both
young and old, seriously
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2

T
S
questioned the operation of basic institutions, including
criminal and juvenile justice agencies.
In addition, there was a marked increase in the juvenile arrest
rates during this time. Not only
were increasing numbers of young persons being arrested and
processed by juvenile courts for
violent and property offenses, but more youths were being
arrested and processed for status
offenses as well. Indeed, according to the President’s
Commission on Law Enforcement and
the Administration of Justice, more than 25% of the youths in
juvenile courts and institutions
were status offenders.16
It was also during the 1960s and 1970s that the societal reaction
perspective, or what is
sometimes referred to as labeling theory, began to play a more
important role in criminological
thinking.17 This perspective focused on three interrelated
topics: “(1) the historical develop-
ment of deviant labels, (2) the process by which labels are
applied, and (3) the consequences
of being labeled.”18
The first topic encompasses two subtopics: how deviant
categories, such as delinquent,
are produced, and how social control mechanisms, such as the
juvenile court, are established.
A good example of a work focused on this topic is Anthony
Platt’s classic book The Child Sav-
ers, which examines the “invention of delinquency” and the

development of the first juvenile
court in Chicago in 1899, a court that was primarily designed to
control problem youths.19
The second topic includes the way in which control agents apply
deviant labels to others
and the factors that influence an individual’s efforts to resist or
accept these labels.20 Societal
reaction researchers in the field of juvenile justice might
examine how police, judges, prosecu-
tors, probation officers, and other control agents attempt to
apply labels such as “delinquent,”
“status offender,” and “chronic offender” to youths. In addition,
they might explore a range
of factors—such as youths’ perceptions of themselves, family
influences, peer reactions, and
interactions between youths and others—that tend to reinforce a
deviant label or help youths
resist such a label.
The topic that has received the most attention in juvenile justice
circles is the third—the
consequences of being labeled. According to societal reaction or
labeling theorists, labels such
as “delinquent,” “chronic offender,” “thief,” “doper,” and the
like can have a variety of negative
consequences for those who are given such labels. For example,
a label that is attached to a
person can lead others to assume things about the person that
may not be true. A youth who
has gotten into trouble in the past and has been labeled as a
delinquent may be incorrectly
treated as untrustworthy or may be treated more punitively as a
result of being labeled. Indeed,
the perceptions that social control agents have of others appear
to play an important role in

how youths are treated. If, through being labeled, youths are
believed to possess undesirable
characteristics associated in the public mind with criminality or
potential criminality, they
are more likely to be formally processed by police and other
control agents and to be avoided
by law-abiding individuals.
Another problem noted by societal reaction theorists is that
youths saddled with a negative
label often have fewer opportunities for involvement in normal
law-abiding activities. Without
such opportunities, they are more likely to associate with those
in similar circumstances, thus
increasing the likelihood of further deviance.21 Furthermore,
responding to youths as if they
were a lesser form of human being may lead youths to see
themselves in a more negative light.22
In an interesting study, Charles Frazier described the case of a
young man named Ken,
who was tried and “branded” a criminal in a small town. Frazier
noted that labeling Ken as a
criminal led his former friends and associates to see him
differently. Rejected by his former
friends, Ken had fewer opportunities for engaging in
conventional activities and began to see
himself as a criminal.23 According to societal reaction
theorists, being treated as different and
being denied opportunities to associate with law-abiding
persons may cause an individual to
adopt a delinquent or criminal identity that becomes a master
status—one that becomes the
person’s primary public identity and that overrides other
statuses the individual may enjoy.24

societal reaction
perspective
The point of view
according to which
social responses,
particularly formal
social responses,
can contribute to
subsequent delin-
quent behavior. This
perspective favors
the diversion and
deinstitutionaliza-
tion of juvenile
offenders when
possible and ques-
tions the wisdom of
responding through
formal means to
each act of youth
misbehavior (e.g., by
arresting and trying
the offender).
labeling
The process by
which a derogatory
or otherwise nega-
tive term comes to
be associated with
a person. Being
labeled with a term
like delinquent or
chronic offender may
cause a person to
develop negative

self-perceptions
and cause others
to respond to the
person based on the
label. Furthermore,
labeling can limit the
opportunities avail-
able to the person
and can lead him
or her to develop
a deviant identity,
increasing the likeli-
hood of subsequent
offending.
the Social context of the 1960s and the popularization of
Diversion 167
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C

1
6
9
2
T
S
A critical issue raised by societal reaction theorists is whether
responses to deviant behav-
ior, such as delinquency, can increase the likelihood of
additional deviance. This possibility
was spelled out by sociologist Edwin Lemert in 1951, when he
distinguished between primary
and secondary deviance. According to Lemert:
Primary deviance is assumed to arise in a wide variety of social,
cultural, and psychological contexts,
and at best has only marginal implications for the psychic
structure of the individual. As a result,
primary deviance does not lead the individual to see themselves
in a fundamentally different way.
However, repeated reactions to the individual’s behavior can
result in a process where changes in the
individual’s identity and social roles can occur and this can
produce what Lemert called secondary
deviance. Secondary deviation is deviant behavior, or social
roles based upon it, which becomes
a means of defense, attack, or adaptation to overt and covert
problems created by the societal
reaction to primary deviation. In effect, the original “causes” of
the deviation recede and give way
to the central importance of the disapproving, degradational,
and isolating reactions of society.25

■ the policy implications of societal reaction theory
Societal reaction theory has had a profound effect on social
policy.26 Yet its policy implica-
tions are rather different from those of other theoretical
approaches. In contrast to those who
argue that punishment of some sort needs to be imposed in order
to deter youths from further
delinquent activity, societal reaction theorists call for minimal
or no intervention whenever
possible in order to avoid the negative consequences of
labeling. For example, Edwin Lemert
made a case for the use of “judicious non-intervention,”27
arguing that much delinquent behav-
ior is normal. Similarly, sociologist Edwin Schur argued for a
policy of radical nonintervention
(i.e., leaving children alone whenever possible) in order to
avoid the negative consequences
associated with involvement in the juvenile justice process.28
Societal reaction theory had an important influence on those
who looked critically at
the juvenile justice process in the 1960s and 1970s. In addition
to serving as the theoretical
rationale for diversion, it played a significant role in the
development of three other juvenile
justice reforms implemented during this period:
decriminalization, increased emphasis on
due process, and deinstitutionalization. Each of these reforms
stressed keeping juveniles out
of the formal juvenile justice process whenever possible.29
Decriminalization
Advocates of the societal reaction perspective pointed out that
the criminalization of some

behaviors often produces more harm than good. For example,
behaviors like running away
from home and not going to school are undesirable in many
instances, but treating them as
crimes does not necessarily benefit the youths who engage in
them. On the contrary, treating
truants and runaways as offenders may actually have a number
of undesirable consequences.
In addition, formal responses to status offenses, according to
critics, were expensive and inef-
fective. As a result, societal reaction theorists favored the
decriminalization (i.e., redefining
status offenses as social problems to be dealt with by welfare
agencies as opposed to criminal
actions to be handled by juvenile courts) of status offenses, and
this policy was adopted in a
number of jurisdictions around the country.
today, in countries like Sweden and Finland all behaviors of
youths under 15 years of age, including behaviors
that would be criminal if committed by an adult, are treated as
social welfare issues, not as crimes.
radical
nonintervention
The strategy of not
intervening with
youths who violate
the law (i.e., not
placing them in the
juvenile justice pro-

cess) if possible.
decriminalization
The act of redefin-
ing status offenses
as social problems
to be dealt with by
welfare agencies as
opposed to crimi-
nal actions to be
handled by juvenile
courts.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C

1
6
9
2
T
S
increased emphasis on Due process
Societal reaction theorists also were wary of the discretionary
powers available to juvenile
justice officials, including police and judges. Many of these
theorists claimed that juvenile
justice officials often abused their authority and acted in ways
that were harmful to those under
their care. As a solution, Edwin Schur argued for “a return to
the rule of law.”30 According to
this approach, constitutional safeguards should be extended to
youths to protect them from
the power of the state. Moreover, punishments should be spelled
out in law and should be
determinate, preventing capricious actions on the part of
officials inclined to extend punish-
ments indefinitely.
Societal reaction theory has been cited as an important
contributor to the movement to
extend due process protections to juveniles. Today juveniles
enjoy more due process protec-
tions than they did before the mid-1960s, but the extent to
which the juvenile justice process
has become more humane in its treatment of youths is not
clear.31 Simply extending legal
protections to youths does not mean that those protections will

be implemented in practice,
and there is considerable evidence that the extension of due
process protections to juveniles
has had less of an effect on juvenile court proceedings than
some have claimed.32
Deinstitutionalization
Another reform supported by those influenced by the societal
reaction perspective was
deinstitutionalization—the removal of juveniles from
correctional facilities. Like diversion,
deinstitutionalization was intended to protect youths from the
harmful effects of incarceration.
Indeed, criminologists from diverse theoretical positions argued
that the reform of delinquents
required efforts to “improve attachments to family and school,
increase academic skills, open
up legitimate opportunities, and reduce association with
delinquent peers.”33 The incarceration
of youths accomplishes none of these objectives. As the
President’s Commission stated in its
1967 report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society,
“Institutions tend to isolate offenders
from society, both physically and psychologically, cutting them
off from schools, jobs, families,
and other supportive influences and increasing the probability
that the label of criminal will
be indelibly impressed upon them.”34
A number of states, including Massachusetts, Maryland,
Missouri, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Oregon, and Utah, have made efforts to implement
community-based correctional
strategies,35 and others have articulated the importance of
community-based programs. The

most ambitious of these efforts was led by Jerome Miller,
Commissioner of the Department
of Youth Services in Massachusetts during the 1970s. Under
Miller’s direction, Massachusetts
dramatically reduced its institutional population by closing
training schools and placing youths
in community-based programs.36 In addition, a number of states
have made considerable
progress in removing status offenders from correctional
facilities.37
■ Other rationales for Diversion programs
One argument offered in support of diversion is that it can
reduce the stigma and other nega-
tive consequences of being arrested for delinquent behavior and
thus reduce the probability of
recidivism. Other supporting reasons and arguments also have
been advanced. For example,
diversion programs are believed to allow some youths to receive
assistance who would not oth-
erwise be helped, because juvenile corrections programs often
fail to provide needed services
to youths. Advocates also point out that diversion programs
allow juvenile justice decision
makers to use discretion and be more flexible than many courts
in responding to youths.38
Another reason people favor diversion is that it reduces the
burden placed on juvenile court
Other rationales for Diversion programs 169
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F

O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
resources by decreasing the number of youths referred to the
courts. Furthermore, diversion
programs promise the added benefit of freeing up scarce
resources, which could then be
devoted to dealing with more serious offenders.39
A final argument offered in support of diversion is based on the
fact that many youths
who engage in delinquent behavior are not identified and
punished, and they cease offend-
ing without formal intervention. This fact suggests that formal
intervention is, in many cases,
unnecessary. Given the potential negative consequences of

formal processing (according to
societal reaction theorists), subjecting youths to formal
processing can cause them great harm
(and the community great harm, to the extent that these youths
are encouraged to engage in
further delinquency).
m Y t h v s r e a l i t Y punishment is nOt alWaYs neeDeD tO
COrreCt YOuths
Myth—If youths are not punished for their delinquent behavior,
they not only will continue to engage in illegal
behavior, but also will engage in more serious types of
delinquency.
reality—although self-report studies indicate that most youths
engage in at least minor types of delinquent
behavior,40 most youths are not apprehended and processed by
formal juvenile justice agencies.41 Despite
this, most of these youths will not commit serious offenses or
live lives of crime when they become adults.42
F Y i
apart from the theoretical arguments presented by societal
reaction theorists suggesting the potential harm
that can be done to youth as a result of involvement in the
juvenile justice process, a number of studies and
court cases exist that document these harms.
■ the spread of Diversion programs since the 1960s
As already noted, a number of diversion programs have been
developed since the late 1960s.
Among the most popular have been Scared Straight programs;
family crisis intervention pro-
grams for status offenders; limited individual, family, and group

counseling programs for status
and criminal offenders; runaway shelters; individual and family
counseling programs coupled
with educational, employment, and recreational services; basic
casework and counseling pro-
grams; dispute resolution programs involving restitution and
community service; and more
recently, teen court, truancy court, and restorative justice
programs. Unfortunately, many of
these programs have not been carefully evaluated, and their
effectiveness is thus unknown.
The following sections examine some of the programs that have
been evaluated.
scared straight or Deterrence-based programs
Scared Straight programs, developed in the 1970s, were
popularized by several films about
the Juvenile awareness project, which began in September 1976
at Rahway State Prison in New
Jersey, a maximum-security institution, and a more recent
television series on the A&E net-
work, Beyond Scared Straight. The first film, Scared Straight!,
received considerable publicity
and presented testimonial evidence that suggested the program
was a tremendous success.
Indeed, the film won both an Emmy and an Academy Award; it
was shown to countless youth
groups and school classes, and it aired on national television in
1979. The second and third
films, essentially 10-year and 20-year follow-ups of the initial
documentary, made similar
claims regarding the effectiveness of the Juvenile Awareness
Project.
Juvenile awareness

project
A program in which
long-term prison
inmates meet with
juveniles in counsel-
ing, educational,
or confrontational
sessions for the pur-
pose of exposing the
youths to the harsh
realities of prison
life. Scared Straight
is an example of this
type of program.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C

E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
In California, “scaring kids straight” became so popular that
legislation was introduced
that required the busing of 15,000 juveniles to state prisons for
confrontation sessions similar
to those at Rahway. In many other communities, tours of prisons
and jails and confrontations
with inmates were arranged in order to scare youths straight.43
The Juvenile Awareness Project was developed by a group of
inmates called “lifers” who
were serving long prison terms at Rahway. The goal of the lifers
was to expose youths to the
harsh realities of prison life. In order to accomplish their goal,
the lifers did more than just
describe conditions in Rahway. The basic intervention employed
consisted of a confronta-
tion in which verbal and, at times, physical abuse and verbal
and physical intimidation were
used to convey the brutality and human indignities
characteristic of life in a prison such as
Rahway. The inmates, who developed the program, believed that

making youths understand
where the consequences of their delinquent behavior might lead
would act as a deterrent to
subsequent delinquency.
Although the Scared Straight! films and the A&E series claim
that these programs are suc-
cessful, an evaluation of the Juvenile Awareness Project at
Rahway by James Finckenauer was
far less encouraging.44 Finckenauer found that the youths who
typically attended the Juvenile
Awareness Project at Rahway were less delinquent than the
films suggested. More disturbing,
his research indicated that youths who went through the Rahway
Project were more likely to
engage in subsequent delinquency than youths who had not
attended the program.45 There
were, however, some problems with Finckenauer’s evaluation.
The evaluation design had called
for the random assignment of youths to the experimental
condition (the Rahway program) or
to a control condition (no treatment). However, some of the
agencies that selected youths did
not select them on a completely random basis. Consequently, it
is possible that the two groups
may not be comparable. Even so, evaluations of programs
similar to the Rahway program have
produced results much like those reported by Finckenauer.
In a review of the evaluations of two other programs designed
to scare youths straight,
Richard Lundman found no evidence that those programs were
effective.46 In one program
that was similar to the program at Rahway because it used a
confrontational style of interac-
tion between youths and inmates, Lundman found no differences

between experimental and
control subjects over a six-month follow-up period. In the other
program, which consisted
of a tour of the facility and meetings between inmates and
youths, he found that youths who
went through the program were more likely to engage in
subsequent delinquency than youths
in a control group (who did not participate in the program). This
finding mirrors that of the
most extensive examination of these types of programs to date.
This research, conducted by
Anthony Petrosino, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and John
Buehler, consisted of an extensive
review of the existing literature on programs like Scared
Straight as well as a meta-analysis
(a data analysis technique that makes possible the examination
of treatment effects across
different studies) of the existing literature. This research, as
well as a meta-analysis conducted
by James Finckenauer and Patricia Gavin, concluded that these
programs are ineffective.47
In discussing the results of their research on juvenile awareness
programs, Petrosino and his
colleagues noted the following results:
These randomized trials, conducted over a 25-year period in
eight different jurisdictions, provide
evidence that “Scared Straight” and other “juvenile awareness”
programs are not effective as a
stand-alone crime prevention strategy. More importantly, they
provide empirical evidence—under
experimental conditions—that these programs likely increase
the odds that children exposed to
them will commit offenses in the future. Despite the variability
in the type of intervention used,
ranging from harsh, confrontational interactions to tours of the

facility converge on the same result:
an increase in criminality in the experimental group when
compared to a no-treatment control.
Doing nothing would have been better than exposing juveniles
to the program.48
deterrent
Refers to actions
taken to influence a
person’s behavior by
imposing or threat-
ening to impose a
legal sanction such
as probation, incar-
ceration, a fine, etc.
the Spread of Diversion programs Since the 1960s 171
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C

1
6
9
2
T
S
m Y t h v s r e a l i t Y evaluatiOns OF sCareD straight
prOgrams Fail tO
prODuCe pOsitive results
Myth—after youths understand what prison is like, they will
think twice about committing delinquent acts.
reality—evaluations of Scared Straight programs fail to
demonstrate that these programs are effective.49
scared straight in norway
a program based on the Juvenile awareness program at rahway
was started at Ullersmo prison in the early
1990s as part of an effort by child welfare agencies and the
police. however, the program was abandoned in
the late 1990s because it was attacked on ethical grounds that it
exposed youths to inhumane treatment and
because there was no scientific evidence that it was effective.50
Family Crisis intervention programs
Another type of diversion program involves providing crisis
intervention services to children
and families in hopes of preventing subsequent problems and
formal court involvement.

A good example of this type of diversion program was
developed in Sacramento, California,
in 1969. This program, known as the Sacramento 601 Diversion
Project, was intended to
divert status offenders from detention and formal court
processing by having specially trained
probation officers provide short-term crisis intervention and
treatment services to the youths
and their families.51
This program focused on status offenders who were referred to
the juvenile court by
police, parents, and school officials. The youths referred to this
program were typically white,
poor, female, and younger than 15 years of age. Also, three-
quarters of the referred youths
had no previous contact with the court. The usual reason for
referral was the existence of fam-
ily problems.52 When a youth was referred to the court, a
specially trained probation officer
would contact the youth’s parents and request that the parents
and youth come to Juvenile
Hall for an immediate counseling session. When they arrived at
Juvenile Hall, the probation
officer would read the Miranda warning and explain that
participation was voluntary. The
officer indicated, however, that if they did not wish to
participate in an immediate counseling
session, their case would be referred to the court. The youth and
parents were also told that
if they agreed to participate in a counseling session, they could
return for a limited number
of sessions (the limit was five) if they chose to do so. Most
parents and their children agreed
to participate.53 After a juvenile waived his or her rights, a
counseling session began in which

the probation officer used family intervention techniques.
Essentially, these techniques were
intended to get the family to look at the problem as a family
problem that should be addressed
by the entire family rather than by incarcerating the youth.54
An evaluation of the Sacramento 601 Diversion program, which
employed an experimental
design, indicated that it produced some promising results. Only
about 14% of those youths
handled by the specially trained project probation officers were
detained, and only about
4% were petitioned to the court. In comparison, of the youths
handled by regular probation
officers, 55% were detained and about 20% were petitioned to
court.55
In addition, the program evaluation found that the project
reduced recidivism. A follow-up
study of youths 12 months after their involvement in the
program found that 46% of those who
received the specialized diversion services had another court
referral, and 22% were referred
experimental design
Research design in
which subjects are
randomly assigned
to experimental and
control groups.

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
to the court for a criminal offense. In comparison, 54% of those
handled by regular probation
officers were subsequently referred, and about 30% were
referred for a criminal offense.56
Diversion programs that employ individual, Family, and group
Counseling services
Given the apparent success of the Sacramento County 601
Diversion Project, 11 other juris-

dictions in California developed similar programs and began to
conduct evaluations of those
projects in the mid-1970s. These projects were developed in
Compton, El Centro, Fremont,
Irvine, La Colonia, Mendocino, Simi Valley, Stockton,
Vacaville, and Vallejo. They were similar
to the Sacramento 601 Diversion Program in a number of ways.
For example, they substituted
short-term family and individual counseling for detention and
referral to juvenile court.57
There were, however, important differences
between these projects and the Sacramento project.
For example, more of the youths involved in these
projects were male, Hispanic, and African American,
and a number were diverted after committing criminal
offenses. In these projects, juveniles were referred
by either the police or by probation officers. Youths
received individual, family, and group counseling
for four to six weeks on average, and the counseling
included nearly six hours of contact services.58
The evaluators of these projects employed a quasi-experimental
design. That is, they did not
use random assignment of youth to experimental and control
conditions, but rather attempted
to approximate equivalence of the groups by comparing youths
serviced by the diversion pro-
grams with youths who had similar race, age, sex, ethnicity,
prior arrest, and referral source
characteristics but were not serviced by the programs. Arrests
of the individuals in the two
groups were then compared six months after the arrest that
brought them to the attention of
the authorities.59

A comparison of the two groups revealed that youths serviced
by the diversion programs
were arrested slightly less often during the six-month follow-up
period than youths in the other
group (about 25% compared with about 31%).60 These results
suggest that diversion programs
may produce modest reductions in recidivism. The researchers
also found that diversion
seems to have some benefits for males and females and for both
criminal and status offenders.
Diversion programs that employ individual and Family
Counseling in Conjunction
with employment, educational, and recreational services
As the number of diversion programs increased in the United
States, researchers raised ques-
tions about their effectiveness. Among other things, they looked
at the types of evaluations
that had been done. In most instances, the diversion research in
California was based on quasi-
experimental designs. Consequently, it was difficult to tell if it
was the programs themselves
that had reduced recidivism or some unknown factor.
Furthermore, it was unclear if diversion
could be used effectively with criminal offenders, although
there was some indication that it
could. Finally, none of the evaluations of diversion programs
had employed a “no treatment”
group. Consequently, it was difficult to determine what the
benefits of diversion programs
were compared with doing nothing—a radical nonintervention
approach.61 In response to
these concerns and others, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
made $10 million available for the National Evaluation of

Diversion Programs in the 1970s.
As a result, four jurisdictions—Kansas City, Missouri;
Memphis, Tennessee; Orange County,
Florida; and New York City—developed experimental diversion
projects. Each project excluded
status offenders and included radical nonintervention as one of
the experimental conditions.
Experimental conditions consisted of (1) assigning youths to the
diversion project, (2) doing
quasi-experimental
design
Research designs
that can be used
to explore possible
cause-and-effect
relationships when
true experimental
designs are not pos-
sible. What distin-
guishes these designs
from experimental
designs is that they
do not involve ran-
dom assignment of
subjects to experi-
mental and control
groups.
©
M
iodrag Gajic/iStockphoto
the Spread of Diversion programs Since the 1960s 173

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
nothing, and (3) referring the youths back to the original
referral source for normal handling.
This meant that some, but not all, of these youths penetrated the
juvenile justice system.62
Diverted juveniles in each of the four projects
received individual and family counseling, and edu-
cational services were available to youths. However,
each of the projects tended to emphasize different

services. For example, in Orange County, recreational
services were emphasized, whereas in Kansas City,
some diverted juveniles were assigned adult coun-
selors who acted as advocates in dealings with public
agencies and organizations, such as schools.63
An evaluation of these projects indicated that
there was no difference in re-arrests among the three groups 6
and 12 months following the
intervention. At the 6-month point, 22% of the youths who had
been enrolled in a diversion
program, 22% of those released (radical nonintervention), and
22% of those handled in the
usual way had experienced at least one re-arrest. After 12
months, 31% of those diverted, 30%
of those released, and 32% of those handled in the usual way
had experienced at least one
re-arrest.64 The finding of “no difference” in the outcomes of
the different types of diversion is
important for at least two reasons: It suggests that youth law
violators may benefit from diver-
sion, and it suggests that doing less may be just as effective as
doing more—that placement in
the juvenile justice process may not be the best way of dealing
with some juvenile offenders.
programs that use basic Counseling and Casework services
Other diversion programs provide basic counseling and
casework services to youths. One
example is the Adolescent Diversion Project in Michigan,
evaluated between 1976 and 1981.
The subjects involved in this project consisted of both status
and criminal offenders, but youths
charged with Crime Index offenses against persons and youths
already on probation were

not included. The two most common offenses committed by the
subjects were larceny-theft
(34%) and breaking and entering (24%). The average age of the
subjects was 14 years, 84%
of the subjects were male, and slightly less than 30% were
African American or Hispanic.65
The longer of the two studies of the Adolescent Diversion
Project began in 1976 and lasted
until 1981. It examined the effectiveness of six different
interventions provided by university
students working for a course grade. Each student received
specialized training in the type
of intervention to which he or she had been assigned, and each
worked with clients for 6 to 8
hours a week for 18 weeks. The students were monitored and
evaluated by graduate students,
by their clients, and by the professors responsible for the study.
The interventions included
family-focused behavioral contracting and client advocacy for
youths provided by trained
students; behavioral contracting and client advocacy for youths
provided by trained students
and a juvenile court employee; individually tailored client
interventions designed by students
given minimal training; relationship building led by specially
trained university students; and
standard court processing.66
A second study, which began in 1979 and lasted until 1981,
investigated diversion interven-
tions consisting of behavioral interventions and child advocacy.
As in the other study, some
youths were returned to the referral source for normal
processing. However, the types of people
who provided the services expanded to include graduate
students and community volunteers.

Again, each service provider was trained to provide diversion
services to one client, each
spent 6 to 8 hours a week with the client, and each was
carefully monitored and evaluated.67
The two studies of the Adolescent Diversion Project indicate
that a number of the inter-
ventions appear to have been effective in reducing subsequent
delinquent activity, at least
when compared with normal court processing. The interventions
that were the most effec-
tive were those that provided behavioral contracting and child
advocacy services and those
that focused on relationship building. Particularly effective
were those interventions led by
©
photodisc/thinkstock
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R

I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
community volunteers. The least effective involved the
provision of behavioral contracting
and child advocacy services by students and a juvenile court
employee and standard court
processing. These findings support the view of societal reaction
theorists, who claim that
formal intervention can have a negative effect on youths.68
Another type of program that has received attention in recent
years is mentoring pro-
grams. Clearly, the most well known of these programs is the
Big Brothers Big Sisters pro-
gram. Importantly, this program, which involves carefully
chosen matches between a mentor
(Big Brother or Big Sister) and a youth, has been found to be
an effective intervention for
many youths. A study of Big Brothers Big Sisters in the early
1990s found that children who
were matched with a Big Brother or Big Sister were less likely
to begin using illegal drugs or
alcohol, skip school or class, or hit someone. Also, the
mentored children were more confident
of their performance in schoolwork and showed improved
family interaction compared with

children who were not matched.69 Moreover, a meta-analysis of
various treatment programs
for juvenile offenders conducted by Mark Lipsey found that
mentoring programs, in general,
reduced recidivism by 21%.70
Although there is evidence that mentoring programs can be
effective, other studies have
produced negative results. One well-documented early study,
the Cambridge-Somerville
Youth Study, used adult counselors who met with randomly
selected at-risk youths and their
families approximately once a month and with other social
agencies over a two-year period to
guide the youths in ways that lessened the likelihood they
would engage in delinquency. The
adult counselors provided a range of services to the youths and
their families that included
arranging physical exams, working on family relations, locating
employment for youths and
family members, tutoring youths, having youths assessed for
reading disabilities and arranging
for corrective action, obtaining legal advice for the family,
arranging psychiatric services for
youths and family members, advocating with teachers, and
teaching youth hobbies, among
other services. However, an evaluation showed that youths who
received services were just
as likely to engage in delinquency as youths who did not receive
program services. In fact,
program youths committed more offenses than youths who did
not receive services.71 Simi-
larly, in a review of evaluations of various mentoring programs
for youths, Devon Brewer,
J. David Hawkins, Richard Catalano, and Holly Neckerman
failed to find positive effects for

many of the programs.72 Although not all of the programs
evaluated could be considered
diversion programs, these studies demonstrate the diversity of
mentoring programs that exist
and make evident the need for continuing research to better
understand the characteristics
of effective programs.
■ Contemporary Diversion strategies and programs
Today, as in the past, diversion is frequently used in juvenile
justice. Also as in the past, diver-
sion strategies are of two basic types: radical nonintervention
and involvement in a diversion
program. A police policy that entails the warning and release of
some juvenile offenders
is an example of radical nonintervention. A policy that
encourages police officers to refer
youths (and possibly their parents) to a diversion program is an
example of the second type
of strategy.
Contemporary diversion programs are operated by various types
of juvenile justice and
community agencies. Many communities have diversion
programs operated by the local
juvenile court or probation agency, others have diversion
programs run by the police depart-
ment, and still others have diversion programs operated by
separate public or private agen-
cies. Whether operated by juvenile justice or community
agencies, diversion programs may
employ a variety of interventions intended to reduce the
continued involvement of youths in
delinquency. The interventions include providing basic
casework services to youths; truancy

courts; crisis intervention to assist youths and their families;
individual, family, and group
counseling; conflict resolution; mentoring; participation in
restitution and community service
contemporary Diversion Strategies and programs 175
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
programs; and teen courts, among others. Following are three
examples of more contemporary

diversion programs that have received some attention in the
evaluation literature.
Youth enhancement services (Yes)
Youth Enhancement Services (YES) was intended to provide a
variety of services to primarily
minority youths in Daupin County, Pennsylvania (Harrisburg),
who were felt to be at risk of
delinquency, as well as those who had contact with the police.
Its major goals were to improve
school performance and behavior, and reduce rates of arrest and
recidivism among minority
youths. Program referrals came from a variety of community
sources, including the police,
and services were provided to clients by a range of community
agencies, including Girls Inc.,
the Boys Club, and the YMCA. These services consisted of
some combination of client needs
assessments, mentoring and adult support, peer group
discussions, family support services,
neighborhood and community projects, educational assistance,
and job readiness training.73
An evaluation of YES compared outcomes for youths who were
referred to the program but
chose not to participate (44% of the youths referred to the
program), those who participated
and received less than 30 hours of service over the course of a
year (24% of referrals), and those
who received at least 30 hours of service (32% of the referrals).
As might be expected, youths
who received more than 30 hours of service had characteristics
that were likely to increase the
odds of program success. They were less likely than other
youths to have a prior arrest, to be

a self-referral, or to be referred by their family, and on average
they did better in school. The
evaluation revealed no significant differences among the three
groups on school performance
or behavior. The program did, however, appear to reduce
minority youths’ likelihood of con-
tact with the police. Over a two-year follow-up period, 50.6% of
those who were referred to
the program but did not participate had at least one new arrest,
compared with 41.3% in the
low-attendance group and 25.8% in the high-attendance
group.74
teen Courts
Another type of diversion program that has grown in popularity
in recent years is teen court.
A distinguishing feature of these courts is that juveniles, under
the guidance of adults, play
important roles in case processing and determining the types of
dispositions used. Typically,
these courts handle relatively young offenders with no prior
arrests, and in most instances
they deal primarily with cases involving theft, minor assaults,
disorderly conduct, possession and use of alcohol, and
vandalism.75
Advocates of teen court programs maintain that these
programs make use of youths’ desire to be accepted by their
peers to encourage them to take responsibility for their
behavior and engage in more socially acceptable behavior
in the future. Moreover, supporters argue that not only does
teen court help youths who are the defendants in cases, but
also those youths who staff the court and the community as a
whole. By involving a number of youths and adults in the teen

court process, advocates believe that teen courts engender
greater community involvement in the legal system, encour-
age community cohesion, promote law-abiding behavior, and
do all of this in a cost-effective manner.76
At present, four basic teen court models are found
around the country:
• Adult judge. An adult judge presides over the court and
oversees court operations.
Youths act as attorneys, jurors, clerks, bailiffs, and other court
officers and staff. This is
the most popular model around the country.
©
Stephen coburn/ShutterStock, Inc.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C

1
6
9
2
T
S
• Youth judge. The format is similar to the previous model,
but a youth serves as the judge.
• Tribunal. Youth attorneys present their cases to a panel of
three youth judges who deter-
mine the appropriate disposition. A jury composed of youths is
not used in this model.
• Peer jury. This model does not use youth attorneys.
Instead, the case is presented to the
peer jury by a youth or an adult. In this model, the peer jury
questions the defendant
directly.77
Because the growth in teen courts is relatively recent, there is
not yet an extensive body of
research documenting their effectiveness. Some program
evaluations have reported recidivism
rates of 3% to 8% between 6 and 12 months after program
completion. In addition, there is
good evidence that at least some of these programs produce
improved perceptions of authority,
justice, and the legal system. Other studies, however, have
reported recidivism rates of 24%
to 32%.78 A more recent evaluation of teen courts in Alaska,
Arizona, Maryland, and Missouri

found that youths in two of the four sites displayed significantly
lower rates of recidivism
compared with youths who did not go through the program.79
To date, the research indicates
that some, but not all, of these programs appear to have a
positive effect on youths’ behavior.
Moreover, there is some indication that some programs may
lead to negative labeling of some
youths, particularly minority youths, and net-widening (i.e.,
intervening with youths who
would otherwise be left alone if not for the program).80 Until
more comprehensive studies of
these programs are completed, however, more definitive
statements about the viability of teen
court programs are premature.
restorative justice/Conflict resolution/mediation programs
Restorative justice programs consist of a variety of
interventions designed to mediate or resolve
conflicts between juvenile offenders and their victims.
Proponents of restorative justice argue
that simply focusing on punishment of the offender hinders
efforts to achieve justice. In contrast
to present efforts that focus solely on the offender, restorative
justice is concerned with achiev-
ing justice for both the offender and the victim. As a result,
these programs are intended to
provide rehabilitative services to offenders and to deliver some
therapeutic benefit for victims.
Moreover, they are believed to be cost effective, and the focus
on offender accountability and
victim restitution and/or community service is appealing to the
public.
One type of restorative justice program that is designed to

divert youths from the formal
juvenile justice process is restorative justice conferencing. In a
restorative justice conference, the
youth who committed the offense, the victim, and supporters of
the offender and victim meet
with a trained facilitator to discuss the offense and examine the
harm it caused. Supporters have
an opportunity to discuss how they have been affected by the
offense, and at the conclusion
of the conference, a written agreement is completed specifying
how the offender can make
amends to those who have been harmed by the incident.
Typically, the agreement involves an
apology and restitution to the victim, but it also can include
other elements such as community
service or requirements that youths improve their school
performance or behavior at home.81
Although there is limited research on restorative justice
conferencing with young offenders,
research on programs using some form of restorative justice
have produced generally favor-
able results.82 One evaluation that employed an experimental
design and looked at restorative
justice conferencing for first-time young offenders (median age
13 years) who had committed
nonserious offenses noted several positive outcomes. An
analysis of interviews with victims
revealed that those who participated in conferencing expressed
much higher levels of satisfac-
tion with the way their cases were handled compared with those
in other diversion programs.
Levels of satisfaction were similar for youths and parents
involved in conferences and other
types of diversion programs. Youths randomly assigned to
participate in conferences compared

with those assigned to other diversion programs, however, had
significantly higher program
completion rates than those in other diversion programs and
significantly lower levels of
rearrest 6 and 12 months after their initial arrest. These findings
indicate that restorative
restorative justice
A process designed
to repair the harm
done to the victim
and the community
that entails bring-
ing the interested
parties, such as the
victim, offender,
and a community
representative, to a
nonconfrontational
setting where an
agreeable resolution
to the youth’s illegal
behavior can be
reached.
contemporary Diversion Strategies and programs 177
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R

,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
justice conferencing is a promising approach for diverting
young offenders from the formal
justice process and can produce high levels of satisfaction
among conference participants.83
A more recent evaluation of a restorative justice program in
Maricopa County, Arizona,
by Nancy Rodriguez also uncovered positive program effects.
Rodriguez found that youths
who participated in the restorative justice program were less
likely to have a new petition filed
with the juvenile court than comparison youths who participated
in a probation department–
designed diversion program during a two-year follow-up period.
She also found that girls and
youths with minor or no criminal histories appeared to benefit
the most from the restorative
justice intervention.84

restorative justice has a long history and has played a major role
in responding to Crime
in many Cultures
according to criminologist John Braithwaite, “restorative justice
has been the dominant model of criminal
justice throughout most of human history for all the world’s
peoples.”85 Indeed, for much of human history
victims and people in communities were responsible for
responding to violations of community norms and laws.
Moreover, many of these traditions have continued and can be
found in indigenous cultures, such as the Maori
in New Zealand, aboriginal tribes in australia, the Inuits in
alaska, and the First Nations tribes in canada.86
Another relatively new type of diversionary intervention is
juvenile drug courts. Although
these programs were originally developed as diversion
programs,87 most of these programs
are found at the post-adjudicatory stage of the juvenile justice
process. Nevertheless, some
programs are used as diversion programs. Typically, drug courts
provide services to youths for
nine months to a year by a court team consisting of the judge,
prosecutor, defense attorney,
treatment providers, and casework staff such as an intake or
diversion worker. Also, programs
generally require youths and their parents to sign an agreement
accepting the goals of the
program, which usually include the following:
• Provide immediate interventions, structure, and treatment
supported by judicial

monitoring
• Address problems; help youths improve behaviors and
resist drugs
• Enhance education skills, self-concept, and positive
relationships
• Assist families in providing structure and guidance for
youths
• Promote accountability by youths and service providers88
Although the number of juvenile drug courts has been growing
over time, research on
their effectiveness has been mixed. A recent meta-analysis of
adult and juvenile drug courts
indicated that juvenile courts had a smaller impact on
recidivism than adult courts, although
they were, in general, modestly effective. Moreover, there is
some evidence that drug court
participants who complete programs tend to be more
successful.89
b O x 7 - 1 IntervIew: Deb bennett, east Central regIon
supervIsor, Court DesIgnateD worker program
(Intake), aDmInIstratIve offICe of the Courts,
Commonwealth of kentuCky
Q: What is your educational and employment background?
a: after working several years in pediatric nursing, working in
hospital and private office settings, a change
in career paths led me to work with delinquent juveniles in the
Kentucky court system and to further my
education by taking classes in the field of criminal justice.

DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
■ the effectiveness of Diversion
Supporters of diversion strategies and programs maintain that
such programs decrease the
number of youths involved in the formal juvenile justice
process, reduce offending among
youths who receive diversionary treatment, minimize the stigma
associated with formal
intervention, are more cost effective than formal processing,

reduce the level of coercion
employed by juvenile justice agencies, and reduce minority
overrepresentation in the formal
juvenile justice process.90 As noted earlier, a number of
evaluation studies of diversionary
programs have found them to be superior to formal court
processing in a number of respects,91
but some evaluation studies have found that some programs fall
short of their goals. In fact,
although some evaluation studies indicate that diversion
programs can reduce recidivism
or the programs are at least as effective as formal processing at
reducing recidivism,92 other
studies have found that some diversion programs are associated
with higher levels of sub-
sequent offending.93
In addition to possible increased recidivism, other problems
have been found to plague
some diversion programs. Although these programs are often
touted as a way to reduce the
number of youths involved in the juvenile justice process, some
diversion strategies may actu-
ally lead to net-widening.94 Indeed, research on diversion
programs has found that some pro-
grams increase the number of youths involved in the juvenile
justice process by 33% to 49%.95
Besides reducing the number of youths involved in the formal
juvenile justice process,
another rationale for the development of diversion programs is
the belief that such programs
are less stigmatizing than formal court processing. However,
there is some evidence that
net-widening

Increasing the avail-
ability of programs
to handle youth
offenders outside of
the formal juvenile
justice process,
thereby causing
youths who would
otherwise have
been left alone to
be placed under the
control of juvenile
justice programs.
Q: What is your current position, and what are your
responsibilities?
a: I am the Field Supervisor for Family and Juvenile Services,
court Designated Worker (cDW) program.
I supervise nine judicial districts (18 counties) in the east
central region of Kentucky. the responsibilities
of a cDW supervisor include staff time/travel approval; staff
and program schedule development; staff
performance evaluation; responding to staff problems;
interviewing, hiring, and training new workers;
preparation of statistical reports; program development; and
establishing and maintaining community
partnerships throughout the region. I addition, I am responsible
for after-hours on-call coverage when youths
get in trouble with the police, the completion of diversion
assessments, the management of diversion cases,
case reviews, responding to youths and families who are in
crisis, and taking the appropriate actions when
youths fail to complete diversion agreements.
Q: What agency do you work for, and who do you report to?

a: I work for the administrative Office of the courts, Family and
Juvenile Services, court Designated Worker
program. I report to three tiers of supervision: statewide
operations supervisor, manager, and executive
officer.
Q: What part of your job do you find the most rewarding?
a: the cDW program, through diversion, gives many young
people a second chance. When juveniles are charged
with a criminal offense, they are often given a negative label
and become convinced that they are “bad”
or “unworthy.” the most rewarding part of my job is seeing a
young person avoid a formal court record
and realize he or she has worth and value. It is so true that
youths who have gotten into trouble are often
simply looking for someone who is willing to invest time in
them, listen, and exercise “tough love” when
necessary.
Q: What are the most difficult problems you face in your efforts
to address children’s needs?
a: Budget cuts and the loss of program funding, at both state
and federal levels, continuously become road-
blocks to obtaining the social service intervention families so
desperately need.
Q: What skills and abilities should college students develop if
they want to work as an intake officer?
a: Knowledge and education are vital. But one must also have
passion and perseverance, to keep going even
when you don’t see immediate progress or change taking place
in the life of a young person.

the effectiveness of Diversion 179
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
involvement in some diversionary programs can be as
stigmatizing as involvement in formal
court programs. In an evaluation of a teen court program,
Rasmussen found evidence of
negative labeling related to program involvement.96 Also, in
another study that compared the

self-concepts of incarcerated youths with those of youths in
diversion programs found no
significant differences between the two groups.97
The coercive nature of many diversion programs is another
concern. In recommending
diversion, the 1967 President’s Commission on Law
Enforcement and the Administration of
Justice called for voluntary diversion programs. However, in
some jurisdictions, potential cli-
ents are given no real choice.98 For example, juvenile offenders
and their parents are often told
that unless they agree to participate in a diversion program, the
case will be referred for court
action. Under such circumstances, most potential clients will
feel compelled to participate.
(Recall the choices given to youths and parents in the
Sacramento 601 Diversion Program.)
Still another concern is the cost. As the cost of institutional
placement and other formal
responses has risen, diversion has been seen by many as a cost-
effective alternative to formal
processing. Moreover, there is clear evidence that post-
adjudication interventions such as
foster care, group home placement, and incarceration are
expensive.99 However, research
that has examined the costs associated with diversion indicates
that, whereas some diversion
programs are less expensive than many formal programs, others
are actually more costly.100
Like other programs, diversion programs often require staff and
support, which means that
resources that might be devoted to other needs have to be
allocated to diversion. Furthermore,
if net-widening occurs, even though the per-client cost of

diversion may be lower than the
per-client cost of a formal program, the increased volume of
cases can make the diversion
program more expensive.
F Y i
It is expensive to incarcerate youth. the cost of detaining a
youth in a juvenile facility ranges from $24 to
more than $700 per day per youth. the average cost is
approximately $241 per day for each youth detained.101
Another concern is the possibility that diversion programs may
deny youths due process.102
Diversion may be coercive and may consist of intrusive
interventions, such as a requirement
that a youth, and possibly the youth’s family, participate in
counseling or some other type of
treatment. Coercion is problematic at any level of the juvenile
justice process, but it is par-
ticularly problematic at the preadjudicatory stage of the juvenile
justice process, where youths
have not been proven guilty of an offense.
A final argument for diversion programs is their potential to
reduce the overrepresenta-
tion of minority youths in the formal juvenile justice process.
Although this would be true
in instances of radical nonintervention, diversion programs may
actually contribute to the
problem of disproportionate minority contact (DMc). For
example, an evaluation of a teen court
program found that black youths were more likely to be judged
harshly by their peers than
white youths, and this may have accounted for their higher rate
of recidivism.103

In sum, the research on diversion has produced mixed results. A
number of problems
have been associated with diversion programs, but despite the
problems associated with some
programs, diversion appears to have some merit. As diversion
programs are developed and
implemented, however, problems that plague many diversion
programs should be carefully
considered and addressed, and diversion programs should be
carefully evaluated after they
are implemented to ensure that they are accomplishing their
objectives.
due process
Refers to the actions
that are necessary at
each step of the juve-
nile justice process
to ensure that youths
are treated fairly and
that their rights are
protected.
disproportionate
minority contact
(DMc)
Refers to the dif-
ference in the rate
of contact between

minority youths
and white youths
with each stage of
the juvenile justice
process. If the rate of
contact of minor-
ity youths is greater
than that of white
youths, DMC exists.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6

9
2
T
S
■ legal issues
Due process, which is intended to ensure that an individual
receives certain protections against
government intervention, in some ways conflicts with the idea
of diversion. First, in many
jurisdictions, eligibility for diversion may be decided by police
officers who are unfamiliar with
the proper criteria for diversion or how to apply them. Thus,
they are ill equipped to make
diversion referrals. As a result, some youths who commit the
same offenses will be diverted
and others will be arrested. Second, the availability of diversion
programs may increase the
likelihood that a youth will become formally involved with
juvenile justice agencies as a result
of net-widening. Third, if coercion is used to get youths to
participate in diversion programs,
they are being denied their rightful due process protections.
Fourth, involvement by diver-
sion staff in the lives of family members on a “voluntary” basis
may be just as intrusive as if
it were done by court order. Fifth, many diversion programs
make referrals to the juvenile
court when “clients” are felt to be uncooperative, which is
another way these programs can
be coercive and widen the net of court control.
CrItICal thInkIng QuestIon

What arguments could be made to support the use of radical
nonintervention and
diversion programs as an alternative to formal juvenile justice
processing?
Legal Issues 181
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
Chapter summarY

This chapter examined diversion, which encompasses responses
to juvenile offenders that are
intended to avoid formal court processing. The use of diversion
is typically motivated by the
belief that formal responses to youths who have violated the law
are expensive, do not always
serve the best interests of youths or the community, and such
responses often increase rather
than decrease the likelihood of recidivism. Moreover, many
people recognize that juvenile
courts typically lack the resources to deal with every case of
delinquency and that court
intervention may ultimately harm a youth who becomes
enmeshed in juvenile correctional
programs, particularly juvenile institutions. Consequently, the
immediate purpose of diversion
is to minimize or avoid contact between youths and formal
juvenile justice agencies, such as
the police or the juvenile courts, particularly when youths have
engaged in minor forms of
delinquency.
Although diversion has a long history, it became more popular
in the late 1960s and early
1970s. During this period, the rising level of juvenile crime, the
willingness of many Americans
to question the operation of basic American institutions, the
popularization of societal reac-
tion theory/labeling theory (which raised serious questions
about the potential detrimental
effects of formal processing), and recommendations of the 1967
President’s Commission on
Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice served as
the impetus for the development
of a range of diversionary responses to juvenile offenders.

Diversion currently encompasses a wide range of responses,
from radical nonintervention
to the referral of youths and possibly their parents to
diversionary programs intended to reduce
the chance of future delinquent behavior. Despite the
widespread use of diversion, evaluations
of diversion programs have produced mixed results. Although
studies of a number of diversion
programs have produced considerable support for the concept of
diversion, particularly when
it is compared with formal juvenile justice processing, research
has also produced evidence that
some diversion programs have little effect on recidivism.
Indeed, some studies indicate that
diversion programs may increase the likelihood of subsequent
delinquent activity. In addition,
some of the supposed benefits of diversion, such as cost
efficiency, the lack of stigma associ-
ated with these programs, and their ability to reduce
disproportionate minority contact with
the formal juvenile justice process, may be illusory.
Nevertheless, some diversion programs
have proven to be an effective and cost-efficient response to
many juvenile offenders. As a
result, diversion will continue to receive considerable attention
as a juvenile justice strategy.
key ConCepts
decriminalization: The act of redefining status offenses as
social problems to be dealt with
by welfare agencies as opposed to criminal actions to be
handled by juvenile courts.
deterrent: Refers to actions taken to influence a person’s
behavior by imposing or threaten-

ing to impose a legal sanction such as probation, incarceration,
a fine, etc.
disproportionate minority contact (DMC): Refers to the
difference in the rate of contact
between minority youths and white youths at each stage of the
juvenile justice process. If
the rate of contact of minority youths is greater than that of
white youths, DMC exists.
diversion: The processing of youths who are alleged to have
violated the law in ways that
avoid the formal juvenile justice process.
due process: Refers to the actions that are necessary at each step
of the juvenile justice pro-
cess to ensure that youths are treated fairly and that their rights
are protected.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C

1
6
9
2
T
S
experimental design: Research design in which subjects are
randomly assigned to experi-
mental and control groups.
Juvenile Awareness Project: A program in which long-term
prison inmates meet with juve-
niles in counseling, educational, or confrontational sessions for
the purpose of exposing the
youths to the harsh realities of prison life. Scared Straight is an
example of this type of program.
labeling: The process by which a derogatory or otherwise
negative term comes to be associ-
ated with a person. Being labeled with a term like delinquent or
chronic offender may cause
a person to develop negative self-perceptions and cause others
to respond to the person
based on the label. Furthermore, labeling can limit the
opportunities available to the person
and can lead him or her to develop a deviant identity, increasing
the likelihood of subse-
quent offending.
net-widening: Increasing the availability of programs to handle
youth offenders outside of
the formal juvenile justice process, thereby causing youths who
would otherwise have been
left alone to be placed under the control of juvenile justice
programs.
quasi-experimental design: Research designs that can be used to

explore possible cause-
and-effect relationships when true experimental designs are not
possible. What distin-
guishes these designs from experimental designs is that they do
not involve random
assignment of subjects to experimental and control groups.
radical nonintervention: The strategy of not intervening with
youths who violate the law
(i.e., not placing them in the juvenile justice process) if
possible.
restorative justice: A process designed to repair the harm done
to the victim and the com-
munity that entails bringing the interested parties, such as the
victim, offender, and a com-
munity representative, to a nonconfrontational setting where an
agreeable resolution to the
youth’s illegal behavior can be reached.
societal reaction perspective: The point of view according to
which social responses,
particularly formal social responses, can contribute to
subsequent delinquent behavior. This
perspective favors the diversion and deinstitutionalization of
juvenile offenders when pos-
sible and questions the wisdom of responding through formal
means to each act of youth
misbehavior (e.g., by arresting and trying the offender).
youth services bureau: An agency that provides counseling,
tutoring, mentoring, advocacy,
and job referrals for youths in order to keep them out of the
formal juvenile justice process.
revIew QuestIons
1. What is the definition of diversion, and what are the goals of
diversion?
2. Explain the principle of radical nonintervention as it relates

to youth delinquency and
diversion.
3. What are youth services bureaus, and what role do they play
in the diversion of youths
from the formal juvenile justice process?
4. How did the social climate in the 1960s and 1970s contribute
to the movement toward
diversion programs?
5. Why do sociologists such as Edwin Lemert support some
types of diversion programs?
6. What criminological theory supports the use of diversion?
7. What is a “scared straight” program, and are such programs
effective diversion programs?
review Questions 183
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C

1
6
9
2
T
S
8. What is the Sacramento 601 Diversion Project, and did it
work?
9. How effective is diversion as a mechanism for reducing or
preventing recidivism? Sup-
port your position.
10. What are five drawbacks to using diversion for youth
offenders?
aDDItIonal reaDIngs
Braithwaite, J. (2007). Encourage restorative justice.
Criminology and Public Policy, 6(4),
689–696.
Bullington, B., Sprowls, J., Katkin, D., & Phillips, M. (1978). A
critique of diversionary
juvenile justice. Crime and Delinquency, 24(1), 59–71.
Cressey, D. R., & McDermott, R. A. (1974). Diversion from the
juvenile justice system.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Lundman, R. J. (2001). Prevention and control of juvenile
delinquency (3rd ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press. See chapters on diversion.

Schur, E. M. (1973). Radical nonintervention: Rethinking the
delinquency problem.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
notes
1. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice. (1967).
Task force report: Juvenile delinquency and youth crime.
Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
2. Carter, R. M., & Klein, M. (Eds.). (1967). Back on the street:
The diversion of juvenile
offenders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Schur, E. M. (1973). Radical nonintervention: Rethinking the
delinquency problem. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Lundman, R. J. (2001). Prevention and control of juvenile
delinquency (3rd ed.). New
5. Whitehead, J. T., & Lab, S. P. (1996). Juvenile justice: An
introduction (2nd ed.). Cincin-
nati, OH: Anderson.
6. Krisberg, B., & Austin, J. F. (1993). Reinventing juvenile
justice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7. Platt, A. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of

Administration of Justice, 1967, p. 2.
9. Rubin, H. T. (1985). Juvenile justice: Policy, practice, and
law (2nd ed.). New York: Ran-
dom House.
10. Roberts, A. R. (1998a). The emergence and proliferation of
In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile justice: Policies, programs, and
services (2nd ed.). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
11. Roberts, A. R. (1998b). Community strategies with juvenile
offenders. In A. R. Roberts
(Ed.), Juvenile justice: Policies, programs, and services (2nd
ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall,
p. 117.
12. Roberts, 1998b.
13. Rubin, 1985.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E

D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
14. Roberts, 1998a, p. 81.
15. Roberts, 1998b.
Administration of Justice, 1967.
17. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2007).
Criminological theory: Context and conse-
quences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Pfohl, S. J. (1994). Images of deviance and social control: A
sociological history (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 370.
19. Platt, 1977.
20. Pfohl, 1994.
21. Lilly et al., 2007.
22. Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation
ceremonies. American Journal
of Sociology, 61, 420–424; Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and
the community. New York:
Columbia University Press.

23. Frazier, C. (1976). Theoretical approaches to deviance: An
evaluation. Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
24. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of
deviance. New York: The Free
Press.
25. Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach
to the theory of sociopathic
behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 48.
26. Empey, L.T., Stafford, M. C., & Hay, C. H. (1999).
American delinquency: Its meaning
and construction (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
27. Lemert, E. M. (1967). The juvenile court: Quest and
realities. In President’s Commission
on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task force
report: Juvenile delinquency
and youth crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
28. Schur, 1973.
29. Empey, Stafford, & Hay, 1999.
30. Schur, 1973, p. 169.
31. Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. (1982). Reaffirming
rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
32. Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of
juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New
33. Empey, Stafford, & Hay, 1999.
Administration of Justice, 1967, p. 165.
35. Bartollas, C., & Miller, S. J. (2008). Juvenile justice in

America (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall; Krisberg & Austin, 1993.
36. Miller, J. G. (1998). Last one over the wall: The
Massachusetts experiment in closing reform
schools (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
37. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders
and victims: 2006 national
report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
38. Vito, G. F., & Wilson, D. G. (1985). The American juvenile
justice system. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
39. Vito & Wilson, 1985.
40. Agnew, R. (2001). Juvenile delinquency: Causes and
control. Los Angeles: Roxbury;
Gold, M. (1966). Undetected delinquent behavior. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delin-
quency, 3, 27–46; Short, J., & Nye, F. I. (1958). Extent of
unrecorded delinquency: Tenta-
tive conclusions. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and
Police Science, 49, 296–302.
Notes 185
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T

E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
41. Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1987). Juvenile offenders:
Prevalence, offender incidence,
and arrest rates by race. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 206–223.
42. Whitehead & Lab, 1996. This resource cites Lab, S. P.
(1982). The identification of juveniles
for non-intervention. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State
University.
43. Finckenauer, J. O., & Gavin, P. W. (1999). Scared straight:
The panacea phenomenon
revisited. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press; Lundman,
2001.
44. Finckenauer & Gavin, 1999.

46. Lundman, 2001.
47. Finckenauer & Gavin, 1999; Petrosino, A., Turpin-
Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2004).
“Scared Straight” and other juvenile awareness programs for
preventing juvenile delin-
quency. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Philadelphia, PA:
Campbell Collaboration.
48. Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, & Buehler, 2004, pp. 25–26.
49. Finckenauer & Gavin, 1999; Lundman, 2001.
51. Baron, R. & Feeney, F. (1976). An exemplary project:
Juvenile diversion through family
counseling. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
52. Lundman, 2001.
53. Baron & Feeney, 1976.
54. Lundman, 2001.
55. Lundman, 2001.
56. Lundman, 2001.
57. Lundman, 2001.
58. Palmer, T., Bohnstedt, M., & Lewis, R. (1978). The
evaluation of juvenile diversion projects:
Final report. Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority.
59. Palmer, Bohnstedt, & Lewis, 1978.
60. Lundman, 2001.
61. Lundman, 2001.
62. Lundman, 2001.
63. Dunford, F. W., Osgood, D. W., & Weichselbaum, H. F.
(1981). National evaluation of
diversion projects: Final report. Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delin-
quency Prevention.

64. Lundman, 2001.
65. Lundman, R. J. (1993). Prevention and control of juvenile
delinquency (2nd ed.). New
66. Davidson, W. S., Redner, R., Amdur, R. L., & Mitchell, C.
M. (1990). Alternative treatments
for troubled youth: The case of diversion from the juvenile
justice system. New York: Plenum.
67. Davidson, Redner, Amdur, & Mitchell, 1990.
68. Davidson, Redner, Amdur, & Mitchell, 1990; Lundman,
2001.
69. Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995).
Making a difference: An impact study
of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private
Ventures.
70. Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize
effective interventions with
juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and
Offenders, 4, 124–147.
71. Lundman, 2001.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E

R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
72. Brewer, D. D., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., &
Neckerman, H. J. (1995). A review of
evaluations of selected strategies in childhood, adolescence, and
the community. In
J. C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J. D. Hawkins, & J. Wilson (Eds.),
Serious, violent, and chronic
juvenile offenders: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73. Welsh, W. N., Jenkins, P. H., & Harris, P. W. (1999).
Reducing minority overrepresentation
in juvenile justice: Results of community-based delinquency
prevention in Harrisburg.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 87–110;
Welsh, W. N., Harris, P. W.,
& Jenkins, P. H. (1996). Reducing overrepresentation of
minorities in juvenile justice:
Development of community-based programs in Pennsylvania.

Crime and Delinquency,
42, 76–98.
74. Welsh, Jenkins, & Harris, 1999.
75. Butts, J. A., & Buck, J. (2000). Teen courts: A focus on
research. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
76. Butts & Buck, 2000.
77. Nessel, P. A. (2000). Youth court: A national movement.
Technical Assistance Bulletin,
17. Chicago: American Bar Association.
78. Butts & Buck, 2000.
79. Butts, J. A., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2002). The
impact of teen court on young offend-
ers. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
80. Rasmussen, A. (2004). Teen court referral, sentencing, and
subsequent recidivism: Two
proportional hazards models and a little speculation. Crime and
Delinquency, 50, 615–
635.
81. McGarrell, E. F. (2001). Restorative justice conferences as
an early response to young
offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delin-
quency Prevention.
82. Galaway, B. (1988). Crime victim and offender mediation as
a social work strategy. Social
Service Review, 62, 668–683; Marshall, T. & Merry, S. (1990).
Crime and accountability:

Victim–offender mediation in practice. London: HMSO;
Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restor-
ative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative
justice resolutions on juvenile
recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 53, 355–379; Schneider, A.
L. (1986). Restitution and
recidivism rates of juvenile offenders: Results from four
experimental studies. Criminol-
ogy, 24, 533–552; Umbreit, M., & Coates, R. (1993). Cross-site
analysis of victim–offender
mediation in four states. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 565–585.
83. McGarrell, 2001.
84. Rodriguez, 2007.
85. Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing
optimistic and pessimistic accounts.
In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of the research
(Vol. 25). Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
86. Crawford, A., & Newburn, T. (2003). Youth offending and
restorative justice: Implementing
reform in youth justice. Portland, OR: Willan; Weitekamp, E. G.
M. (1999). The history
of restorative justice. In G. Bazemore & L. Walgrave (Eds.),
Restorative justice: Repairing
the harm of youth crime. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
87. Finn, P., & Newlyn, A. K. (1993). Miami drug court gives
drug defendants a second
chance. National Institute of Justice Journal, 227, 13–26.
88. Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). (2003). Juvenile drug
courts: Strategies in practice.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Notes 187
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
89. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L.
(2012). Assessing the effec-
tiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of
traditional and non-
traditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 60–71.

90. Lundman, 2001; Whitehead & Lab, 1996.
91. Butts & Buck, 2000; Butts, Buck, & Coggeshall, 2002;
Lundman, 2001; McGarrell, 2001;
Quay, H. C., & Love, C. T. (1977). The effect of a juvenile
diversion program on rearrests.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 377–396; Regoli, R.,
Wilderman, E., & Pogrebin, M.
(1985). Using an alternative evaluation measure for assessing
Children and Youth Services Review, 7, 21–38; Rodriguez,
2007.
92. Baron, R., & Feeney, F. (1973). Preventing delinquency
through diversion: The Sacra-
mento County 601 Diversion Project. Federal Probation, 37, 13–
18; Baron & Feeney,
1976; Butts, Buck, & Coggeshall, 2002; Davidson, Redner,
Amdur, & Mitchell, 1990;
Dunford, Osgood, & Weichselbaum, 1981; Palmer, Bohnstedt,
& Lewis, 1978; Lund-
man, 2001; McGarrell, 2001; Quay & Love, 1977; Regoli,
Wilderman, & Pogrebin, 1985;
Rodriguez, 2007.
93. Davidson, Redner, Amdur, & Mitchell, 1990; Elliott, D. S.,
Knowles, B. A., & Dunford,
F. W. (1978). Diversion: A study of alternative processing
practices. Boulder, CO: Behavioral
Research Institute; Finckenauer, J. (1982). Scared Straight! and
the panacea phenomenon.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Finckenauer & Gavin,
1999; Lincoln, S. B. (1976).
Juvenile referral and recidivism. In R. M. Carter & M. W. Klein
(Eds.), Back on the street:
Diversion of juvenile offenders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall; Lundman, 2001.
94. Rasmussen, 2004; Saul, J. A., & Davidson, W. S., II.
(1983). Implementation of juvenile
diversion programs: Cast your net on the other side of the boat.
In J. R. Kluegel (Ed.),
Evaluating juvenile justice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; Whitehead
& Lab, 1996, p. 320.
95. Blomberg, T. G. (1979). Diversion from juvenile court: A
review of the evidence. In F. L.
Faust & P. J. Brantingham (Eds.), Juvenile justice philosophy:
Readings, cases and comments
(2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West; Palmer, T., & Lewis, R. V.
(1980). Evaluation of juvenile
diversion. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain.
96. Rasmussen, 2004.
97. Paternoster, R., Waldo, G., Chiricos, T., & Anderson, L.
(1979). The stigma of diversion:
Labeling in the juvenile justice system. In P. L. Brantingham
and T. G. Blomberg (Eds.),
Courts and diversion: Policy and operations studies. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
98. Blomberg, 1979.
99. Justice Policy Institute. (2009). The costs of confinement:
Why good juvenile justice policies
make good fiscal sense. Washington, DC: Author.
100. Dunford, Osgood, & Weichselbaum, 1981; Hodges, K.,
Martin, L. A., Smith, C. & Cooper,
S. (2011). Recidivism, costs, and psychological outcomes for a
post-arrest juvenile diver-

sion program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 447–465;
Palmer & Lewis, 1980.
101. Justice Policy Institute, 2009.
102. Whitehead & Lab, 1996.
103. Rasmussen, 2004.
DISTRIBUTION. 1592
F
O
S
T
E
R
,
C
E
D
R
I
C
1
6
9
2
T
S
9781449667603_CH55 The Development of the Juvenile
CourtIntroductionThe Social Context of the Juvenile CourtThe
Legal Context of the Juvenile CourtThe Operation of the Early

Juvenile CourtsThe Legal Reform YearsLegal IssuesChapter
SummaryKey ConceptsReview QuestionsAdditional
ReadingsCases CitedNotes9781449667603_CH66 Public and
Police Responses to Juvenile OffendersIntroductionYouths and
the Public: The Informal Juvenile Justice ProcessPolice
Responses to Juvenile OffendersLegal Issues Chapter
SummaryKey ConceptsReview QuestionsAdditional
ReadingsCases CitedNotes9781449667603_CH77 Juvenile
DiversionIntroductionEarly Efforts at DiversionThe Theoretical
Foundation of DiversionThe Social Context of the 1960s and the
Popularization of DiversionThe Policy Implications of Societal
Reaction TheoryOther Rationales for Diversion ProgramsThe
Spread of Diversion Programs Since the 1960sContemporary
Diversion Strategies and ProgramsThe Effectiveness of
DiversionLegal IssuesChapter SummaryKey ConceptsReview
QuestionsAdditional ReadingsNotes

Chapter ObjeCtivesAfter studying this chapter, you should be.docx

More Related Content

More from tiffanyd4 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter ObjeCtivesAfter studying this chapter, you should be.docx