Juvenile Delinquency: Prevention and Intervention - Research Paper Example

Running head: JUVENILE DELINQUENCY Juvenile Delinquency: Prevention and Intervention Number and Number of Professor Date of Submission Number of Words: 5,078 Introduction Among the common juvenile related crimes include theft, violent crimes, drug abuse and alcohol violations, and sexual offenses. In line with this, juvenile delinquency is simply referring to any forms of anti-social or illegal behaviors among children or young adolescents. Other non-violent offenses which increases the number of youth being arrested or held in U.S. custody includes the act of running away from home, the habit of skipping class in school, underage drinking, breaking of curfews, and other non-violent disorderly conduct (Stahl, 2008). Recently, Renter (2010) reported that young individuals are detained in juvenile detention centers have either some form of mental or behavioral disorders which includes bipolar disorders and schizophrenia aside from general mood disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Other factors that makes adolescents engage in offensive behavior includes coming from a broken family, having suffered from traumatic childhood experiences, negative peer-pressure, or lack of educational support (Humphrey, 2004). Based on the U.S. Census Bureau report (2010), the total number of juvenile delinquency reported cases back in 2005 was 1,682,000 (U.S. Census Bureau - The 2010 Statistical Abstract, 2010). Although the number of juvenile cases reported in 2005 was lower by 6,000 as compared to the total figure reported back in 2004, the overall juvenile delinquency cases in the United States is still alarming since the total annual number of juvenile delinquency cases between 1995 to 2005 has never gone down below 1,670,000. (See Appendix I – Delinquency Cases Disposed by Juvenile Courts by Reason for Referral: 1990 to 2005 on page 21) To learn more about the youth and juvenile justice system in the United States, this study will first discuss the criminal and social justice aspects of juvenile incarceration followed by analyzing the relationship between social justice system, the socio-economic diversity, and the U.S. constitutional law with the current criminal justice system. Knowing the relationship between these factors will enable the readers to have a better idea behind the formation and function of the current U.S. criminal justice system as a whole. As part of investigating how the criminal justice system in the U.S. functions as a whole, the purpose of the U.S. Homeland Security Act in juvenile delinquency will be tackled in details. Given that all detainees that were being held in the juvenile detention center are all minors, this study will also explore how crime scene investigations should be conducted by the authorities. Eventually, the advantages as well as the significant roles and responsibilities of correctional institutional prior to the release of detainees from the local juvenile detention centers will be highlighted. This information will allow the readers to comprehend the need to spend a portion of the tax collection for juvenile delinquency programs. Right after discussing the most current U.S. Law-Enforcement Issues concerning the process of juvenile criminal justice system in the United States, factors related to criminal law and the U.S. constitution that makes it difficult for the local government to implement centralized criminal justice agencies throughout the country will be identified and explained thoroughly. With the purpose of determining the best approach in terms of effectively controlling and managing juvenile delinquency cases in the United States, a primary research method which will focus on interviewing individuals who are directly handling juvenile cases will be invited to participate in a one-on-one interview with the researcher. Based on the gathered primary and secondary research data, some of the recommended strategic ways on how we can effectively solve modern, criminal justice issues will be highlighted in this study. Thesis Statement The Need to Re-organize and Integrate the Existing Criminal Justice Agencies that Handles Juvenile Delinquency Cases throughout the United States of America. Criminal and Social Justice Aspects of Juvenile Incarceration Before the early 1800s, juvenile offenders who were incarcerated were all confined together with the adult prisoners. The problem with mixing the adult and juvenile offenders in one prison cell is the possibility that the adult prisoners could negatively influence the attitude and behavior of the young offenders. Since this type of facility arrangement can be inhumane for young offenders, the social reformers rallied to create a juvenile court system back in 1899 (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 547). Social inequality and politics will always be present when it comes to the decision-making process for juvenile incarceration. In line with the social-economic inequality, Building Blocks for Youth (2010 b) revealed that there is “disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles in all secure facilities” such that youth status offenders who belongs to the minor ethnic group receives tougher sentences as compared to youth status offenders who belongs to the majority ethnic group. For the same type of behavioral offense, there is a bigger chance that the youth status offenders who belongs to the minority group to be inccarcerated as compared to those violators who belongs to the majority group. Relationship of Social Justice, Socio-Economic (cultural) Diversity, and U.S. Constitution with the Criminal Justice System The social disorganization theory can be used to explain the high incidence of juvenile delinquency. In line with this, it has been identified that one of the most prevalent risk factors for child delinquency lies behind the fact that many children are living in poverty. Due to high unemployment rate and lack of income, children who live in poverty are deprived of good house, access to health care, and education. As a result of poor living condition, some of these children engage themselves in anti-social behavior (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 117). It is also possible that the child’s family background such as cases of poor child-rearing, divorce, or family violence or peer pressure could influence the child’s behavior (Wasserman et al., 2003). According to Siegel & Welsh (2009), social issue related to racism and despair could also lead to the development of juvenile delinquency (p. 118). The problem with racism lies behind the practice of labeling. For instance: Once a young offender has been labeled as a criminal, the young offender may end up simply accepting the role of a criminal. Therefore, there is an increased chances that the child would eventually re-enter the juvenile detention center. To protect the child from juvenile delinquency, a child should have a good behavioral foundation at home. In line with this, the presence of good parenting and guidance will decrease the chance that a child will become easily affected by wrong peer groups once the child starts going to school and deal with the society. Likewise, a social support group can also be equally effective in protecting the youth from participating in risky and violent behavior (Goodkind et al., 2009). With regards to socio-economic condition of the society as a whole, we should consider where exactly the taxes used in maintaining juvenile correctional facilities come from. Since the money that is being used in maintaining the security, food, health, and shelter of the juvenile detainees are coming out from the pocket of the local citizens through taxes, keeping majority of the young offenders within the juvenile detention centers can result to serious economic problems on the part of the local and state government. Considering the current global financial crisis, setting the some of the young offenders who has committed a non-criminal offense could save the local government more money rather than using a large portion of the taxes in financially supporting their basic needs. In line with this, cutting down the government allocated funds to maintain the daily operations in each juvenile detention centers will enable the local and state authorities to have more available funds which can be used to improve the public health, education, social services, and infrastructure throughout the United States. Not all young offenders who are kept behind the juvenile detention centers had done serious criminal offense such as homicide, bank robbery, or sexual assault. For this reason, it is rational for the probation officers and other related government agencies to carefully consider the degree of offences done by each young offender before granting them the option to bail themselves out of prison. By weighing down the degree of offences made by each young offender, the local police officials could have a better chance of being able to ensure that the general public is safe from becoming a victim of criminal offenses. For instance: Granting bail to a student with a history of paranoid schizophrenic who was imprisoned because of vandalizing a car with paint is possible provided that the student will be held accountable for the damages he has committed aside from being placed under a psychiatric medical assistance. However, bailing out a young offender who has been proven guilty of first degree murder should not be legally granted in order to protect the safety of the general public. To give social justice to young offenders, the U.S. constitution implemented a law stating that the criminal justice system in the United States should allow each young or adult criminal and non-criminal defendant (including the suspects) to practice their human rights. These rights are not only limited to the right to get the service of an attorney but also the right to prohibit the act of unreasonable searches and seizures coming from the police officers. Significant Roles and Responsibilities of Correctional Institutions Prior to the Release of Detainees from the Local Juvenile Detention Centers By offering programs like the family integrated therapy (FIT) functional family therapy (FFT), mentor program, functional family parole, aggression replacement therapy (ART), referrals for treating substance abuse, and assistance in obtaining Washington State medical insurance among others, the awarding of parole services in Washington State allow the juvenile offenders the opportunity to learn from their offensive misbehavior (DSHS, 2010). In other words, the correctional institutions for juvenile offenders play a crucial role in terms of enabling the young offenders to be able to control and improve their behavioral problems and outlook in life before allowing them to reunite with their family members. By incorporating positive reinforcement into the juvenile justice system, the local government could avoid the implementation of unjustifiable punishment to young offenders. Likewise, incorporating a positive reinforcement within the juvenile justice system could enable the US government create a restorative justice not only on the part of the offender and offenders’ family but also the society as a whole (Wyoming Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care, 2010). For instance: Specifically in Washington D.C., the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA) in Washington State teaches the offenders how to be accountable for their own actions (Clayton, 2008). By providing the young offenders with access to preventive and rehabilitative program, it is possible for the local government to minimize the cases of repetitive criminal and offensive behavior among the youth offenders. Through the use of Juvenile Rehabilitation Model, the JRA is able to accurately determine and evaluate the chances wherein the offenders can cause possible harm to the community at the time they receive a parole. How the U.S. Criminal Justice System Function as a Whole In 1973, the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) which was formed in order to conduct both the national and sub-national research studies behind crime and delinquency throughout the United States (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2010). Prior to the establishment of NCJJ, a group of judges established the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) in order to improve the efficiency of the country’s juvenile courts aside from teaching the public about the importance of strengthening the family values as a way of minimizing the high rate of juvenile delinquency cases (ibid). Juvenile delinquency services include not only the juvenile correction services but also the probation supervision and the aftercare or re-entry services among others. Given that there are 51 different justice systems being used in handling juvenile delinquency related cases, the NCJJ exerted extra effort in organizing and administering each state’s delinquency services by investing on a website known as the “State Juvenile Justice Profiles” (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2010). Through the use of the said website, the search for information regarding the state juvenile justice system in each state is made a lot easier on the part of police officers, lawyers, and the accused. Basically, the website summarizes how each state in the United States organize and manage its juvenile and family court system, the available detention centers for the youth, guidelines for probationary period, and the aftercare or re-entry services (King, 2006). For instance: The use of the website enables the users to easily learn that California has officially extended the age of juvenile court jurisdiction up to 21 years old (which can be retained up to 25 years old depending on the degree of the offenses made by the child) (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2008). In Kentucky, the extended age of delinquency jurisdiction is only 18 years old (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2007). The level of law enforcement in the United States is “multi-layering” in the sense that we recognizes the presence of the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies nationwide (Gaines & Miller, 2009, p. 140). Among the three main levels of law enforcement, the municipal agencies have the biggest authority when apprehending suspects for juvenile delinquency and maintaining peace and order within the community level. Similar to the role of municipal police officers, sheriffs and county law enforcers as well as the state police and highway patrols are also made responsible in investigating violent criminal activities within their assigned areas (ibid, p. 142). The two types of arresting strategies are known as the reactive and proactive arrests. Often used by police officers, reactive arrests happens after observing a criminal act on the spot and immediately responding to the crime. On the other hand, proactive arrests happen in case the police officer took the initiative to target a particular person for a specific type of criminal behavior or delinquency act including graffiti painting, loitering after curfew hours, public drinking and public urinating among others (Gaines & Miller, 2009, pp. 183 – 184). The U.S. constitution and criminal and social justice work together such that the social and criminal justice system should always consider the U.S. constitution at all times. Even though individuals who are accused of juvenile delinquency are the minors, the municipal police officers, sheriffs and county law enforcers as well as the state police and highway patrols are expected to recite the pledge of allegiance – the Miranda warning. Basically, reciting the Miranda warning before arresting the accused is a sign of respecting the constitutional rights of the person who is being captured for certain misbehavior in public or criminal act. “You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak with an attorney and to have the attorney present during questioning. If you so desire and cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed for you without charge before questioning” (Gaines & Miller, 2009, p. 226) The juvenile delinquency services throughout the different states in the United States can be centralized within the state level, decentralized, or a combination of both. Based on the report of King (2006), a total of 18 states including the state of California and Michigan follows a decentralized organization and administration of juvenile services whereas the other 12 and 21 states follow a centralized and a combination of both respectively (p. 5). Unlike in the state of California, the state of Kentucky is a centralized state such that the state executive branch is the one that officially provide almost all the delinquency services in Kentucky (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2007). Given that the state of California is a decentralized state, delinquency services are organized and delivered both by the state and within the local level of California (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2008). Even though Michigan is also considered as a decentralized state, the delinquency services that are provided in Michigan is totally different from California such that delinquency services in Michigan can be delivered by the local county, the private providers, or the State of Michigan (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2008 b). Delinquency intake screening is referring to the process wherein the authorized probation officer determines the need to dismiss a juvenile case or to submit the case in court. Based on the information gathered from the “State Juvenile Justice Profiles”, a decentralized state such as in the case of California normally has two ways of conducting the delinquency intake screening. Depending on the final decision of the probation officer, a case can either be handled formally by a district attorney or informally by the probation officer himself (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2008). In the case of a centralized state such as Kentucky, Kentucky Court of Justice is officially made responsible for handling delinquency intake screening (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2007). Under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of 1974, the general rule for jail and lock-up removal should allow at least 6 hours exception for personal identification, processing, interrogation, and transfer to juvenile facilities, court, or detention center pending for the parents to release the child (Reynolds, 1997). Depending on the result of the delinquency intake screening, the degree of criminal or behavioral offenses made by the child determines whether or not the probation officer would detain the child for up to 24 hours or confine the child in a detention center for months/years. Children showing behavioral offenses without committing any forms of criminal offense should never be allowed to be locked up in a secure juvenile facility for more than 24 hours. Instead of detaining the child for a long-period of time, the child is expected to receive at least one form of community-based services such as mentoring, counseling, job development support, or residential home treatment whichever is more applicable to the case of the child (Building Blocks for Youth, 2010 b). As soon as detained child reaches the upper age of juvenile limit, the state transfer provisions which is readily available in the “State Juvenile Justice Profiles” official website can be used to determine and define the categories such as the child’s current age, criminal history record, and the degree of criminal offense made by the child. Because of social justice, the transfer and blended sentencing provisions are expected to focus more on determining the type of correctional system wherein sanctioned based on the seriousness of the criminal or behavioral offenses will be made (King, 2006, p. 6). Based on the result of the transfer and blended sentencing provisions, a state legislative committee would then decide whether it is time to relocate the accused to one of their juvenile correction centers (King, 2006, p. 7). In general, the court recognizes two types of offenses: (1) status offenses1; and (2) delinquency offenses2. Depending on the type of juvenile offense, young offenders should always have the benefit to receive their right for treatment and rehabilitation. Other than the child’s age, the type of offenses made by juveniles becomes one of the common basis for granting them waiver to adult court. In most cases, the age of the offender is referring to the age wherein the offender made the offense. However, it is also possible that the age of offender would refer to the age of the offender at the time of apprehension. In case judges decides that a juvenile will be tried in a juvenile court, most states like Washington would allow the juvenile to remain under the jurisdiction until the offender reaches the age of 21 (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2010). With regards to the court that handles delinquency jurisdiction, the Superior Courts in California handles the jurisdiction over delinquency matters whereas the District Courts handles the delinquency proceedings in Kentucky (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2008 & 2007). Because of the differences profiles in each state when it comes to handling juvenile delinquency cases, it takes a lot of time and extra effort on the part of the local juvenile justice practitioners such as the judges, district attorneys, chief probation officers, detention officers, officials under the state juvenile correction centers, the state court administrators, and the state juvenile justice specialists to review the profiles of each state juvenile justice system (King, 2006). Taking into consideration the offenders’ age, nature of offense, and criminal history, the juvenile judge is responsible in determining whether or not jurisdiction over a minor offender should be waived to adult court. In case the offender has committed serious crimes such as murder and rape, the offender would receive an automatic transfer or legislative waiver to an adult court (Gaines & LeRoy Miller, 2007, p. 501). The process wherein a juvenile alien is being apprehended for juvenile delinquency is totally different from the American youth. To prevent terrorist attacks within the territorial space of the United States, the federal government specified the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) within the criminal justice system particularly with regards to juvenile alien delinquency matters. In line with this, DHS is made responsible in treating juvenile alients who has been apprehended with dignity and concern by providing the juvenile alients with necessary information concerning their legal rights before sending them to a long-term housing facility (Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, 2005, pp. 1 – 2). Based on the current organizational structure and objectives in managing the juvenile aliens, the DHS assigns and analyzes juvenile-related cases to the Bureaus of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – a government agency that informs the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Detention and Removal Office (ICE DRO) each time a juvenile alien has been apprehended, transferred the juvenile alien to DRO custody, and the process of transferring the custody of unaccompanied juvenile aliens to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) (Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, 2005, p. 38). Aside from reviewing the apprehension and transferring of juvenile aliens to certain custody, DHS is also responsible for implementing at least three open recommendations from the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report (ibid). The Most Current U.S. Law-Enforcement Issues One of the most controversial issues behind the U.S. law-enforcement system is the lack of uniformity when it comes to handling juvenile delinquency related cases. The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Act of 1975 clearly stated that children who had been detained for inappropriate societal behavior should by no chance be included in jail with the adult offenders (Building Blocks for Youth, 2010). Although the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Act of 1975 is often used as a guide in managing under-aged individuals who has been caught for inappropriate behavioral offenses, it is undeniable that the U.S. justice system particularly when it comes to handling juvenile-related cases heavily varies from state to state. In fact, the United States failed to develop and implement a universal juvenile justice system which should be used through the different states of America. This is the primary reason why there are total of 51 different justice system being used in handling juvenile delinquency cases (King, 2006). Significance of Centralizing the Criminal Justice Agencies throughout the United States When deciding whether or not the prosecutor who handles the juvenile delinquency cases is eligible to be transferred to an adult court, Cole & Smith (2008) revealed that the age of the offender and the type of delinquency cases the child is facing significantly affects the decision-making of court (p. 393). However, some states like Michigan, Texas, and Wisconsin consider the upper age limit for a juvenile as 16 years old whereas other states consider the upper age limit for juvenile to be 18 years old. Nebraska, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Tennessee consider the juvenile upper age to be 17 years old. Aside from the differences in the upper age limit for juvenile as being observed in each state; there are also significant differences in the type of delinquency cases a child is facing, the differences in each state juvenile policy, and the court differences that handle delinquency cases in each state. In line with the court differences that handle delinquency cases in each state, King (2006) identified “a total of 20 states including the District of Columbia to handle juvenile probation cases either within the state or local level whereas the other 16 states are using a combination of executive branch agencies to do the same job” (p. 2). Aside from making the American law enforcement lacks a clear purpose; all these differences complicate the entire U.S. juvenile court system furthermore. Based on the one-on-one interview with a 39-year old municipal police officer in California; centralizing the criminal justice agencies that handle juvenile delinquency cases in the United States is possible but is very complicated. In line with this, he explained that although the idea of centralizing the criminal justice agencies throughout the United States sounds good in terms of establishing a unified criminal justice system that works well for the betterment of the community service for the juvenile delinquency cases. However, implementing the centralization of the criminal justice agencies can be tough and complicated because of the fact that the United States is a democratic country. Being a democratic country means that people are made responsible to respect equality before the law aside from respecting the freedom to choose what majority of the people want. Therefore, implementing the idea of centralizing the criminal justice agencies throughout the United States could one way or the other violates the democratic and human rights of the people in each state. Not unless the U.S. government would be firm with the use of authoritative control of people against their will, it is close to impossible to implement a centralized criminal justice system for juvenile delinquency cases. Based on another one-on-one interview result with a 46-year old chief probation officer for juvenile delinquency cases in California, centralizing the criminal justice agencies that handle juvenile delinquency cases in the United States is a good concept that could solve or at least minimize the silent inequality when it comes to the length of time a juvenile offender has to serve community service or stay in a juvenile detention or rehabilitation center. On top of this, he explained that there is an on-going and undetected inequality when it comes to the procedural rights of the juvenile offenders in court proceedings. The interviewee mentioned the case of In re Gault [1967] to be a good example of a juvenile case wherein not all juvenile offenders are protected to have right to counsel or right to refuse self-incrimination3. Therefore, he concluded that the idea of centralizing the criminal justice agencies that handle juvenile delinquency cases in the United States could protect the minority from injustice and social abuse. This idea could also result to the possibility of decreasing any forms of legal problems related to juvenile disciplinary measures, lack of faith in the U.S. criminal justice system for juvenile delinquency cases, and overall community complaints caused by social inequality and injustice. Recommended Strategic Ways on How to Effectively Solve the Modern Criminal Justice Issues The lack of uniformity within the U.S. criminal justice agencies is one of the main problems that make the U.S. government unable to resolve the legal disparities within the U.S. criminal justice system for juvenile delinquency cases. In order to establish and strengthen the U.S. criminal justice agencies for juvenile delinquency cases, there is a need to consider analyzing the relationship between the U.S. constitution, socio-economic (cultural) diversity, and social justice with the existing criminal justice system. By synthesizing all these aspects, it would be easier for the law makers to convince the people to consider the need to centralize the entire U.S. criminal justice agencies without the need to cause too much negative reactions concerning its legality and compliance with the U.S. existing laws. Centralizing the U.S. criminal justice agencies could not only lessen the incidence of juvenile delinquency cases by implementing a nation-wide coordinated computerized record keeping but also reduce the incidence of corruption, and implement a standardized criminal justice system for juvenile delinquency cases at a much lesser costs. Given that the United States is a democratic country, the U.S. government should also be firm in creating and implementing the boundaries or limitations of being a democratic country. This is another way of increasing the probability that the local people could end up supporting the idea of centralizing the criminal justice agencies throughout the United States. Other than the issue of lack of uniformity within the U.S. criminal justice agencies for juvenile delinquency cases, racism is another factor that is still present within the modern criminal justice system. In order to solve this problem, there is a need for the prosecutors to be tested for racism. Similar to adult offenders, racists should not be legally permitted to be a part of the probationary officers or prosecutors of juvenile delinquency cases. Therefore, any public officials who will be found guilty of racism should equally be punished by the law for promoting inequality within the U.S. criminal justice system. In fact, this is one of the best ways to control the on-going racism and injustice within the U.S. criminal justice system. Conclusion Centralizing the criminal justice agencies throughout the United States should be considered as one of the best ways to develop a single policy and criminal law particularly when it comes to handling juvenile delinquency cases. Centralizing the criminal justice agencies will not only reduce the overall costs of standardizing the juvenile delinquency cases in all states but also increase the chances of solving problems related to criminal activities and repeated criminal offenses by establishing a single and coordinated computerized record keeping. Since standardizing the policy and criminal law when handling juvenile delinquency cases could minimize confusion and hasten the process of delinquency intake screening among others, there is a need to re-organize and integrate the existing criminal justice agencies that handles juvenile delinquency cases in the United States. Although implementing the recommended solutions could somehow violate the U.S. democracy, the local government will always reserve the right to make changes within the U.S. constitutional law in such a way that the said law would not create too much conflict when designing and implementing a universally accepted juvenile delinquency policies that are applicable for all states. Therefore, the U.S. government officials should carefully consider the need to implement the necessary changes in order to improve the U.S. criminal justice system in the future. *** End *** Appendix I – Delinquency Cases Disposed by Juvenile Courts by Reason for Referral: 1990 to 2005 Year 1990 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 All Juvenile Delinquency Offenses 1,346,000 1,807,000 1,807,000 1,799,000 1,720,000 1,702,000 Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 All Juvenile Delinquency Offenses 1,688,000 1,676,000 1,674,000 1,688,000 1,682,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau - The 2010 Statistical Abstract, 2010 References Building Blocks for Youth. (2010). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention Act: http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/issues/jjdpa/ Building Blocks for Youth. (2010 b). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention Act: Fact Sheet: http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/issues/jjdpa/factsheet.html Cole, G. F., & Smith, C. E. (2008). Criminal Justice in America. 5th Edition . Wadsworth. Cornell University Law School. (2010). Retrieved October 13, 2010, from In re Gault (No. 116). 99 Ariz. 181, 407 P.2d 760, reversed and remanded.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0387_0001_ZS.html Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General. (2005, September). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from A Review of DHS Responsibility for Juvenile Aliens: http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_05-45_Sep05.pdf DSHS. (2010). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Parole Services: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/Publications/22-1128.pdf. Gaines, L., & LeRoy Miller, R. (2007). Criminal Justice in Action. Thomson Wadsworth. Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2009). Criminal Justice in Action. Thomson Wadsworth. Goodkind, S., Ruffolo, M., Bybee, D., & Sarri, R. (2009). Coping as a Mediator of the Effects of Stressors and Supports on Depression Among Girls in Juvenile Justice. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 7(2):100-118. Humphrey, A. (2004). The Criminalization of Survival Attempts: Locking Up Female. Hastings Womens Law Journal 165 . King, M. (2006, April). National Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Technical Assistance to the Juvenile Court Bulletin: Guide to the State Juvenile Justice Profiles: http://www.ncjjservehttp.org/NCJJWebsite/pdf/taspecialbulletinstateprofiles.pdf National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2007, December 18). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Delinquency Services Summary: Kentucky : http://70.89.227.250:8080/stateprofiles/profiles/KY06.asp?state=%2Fstateprofiles%2Fprofiles%2FKY06.asp&topic=Profile National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2008, February 4). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Delinquency Services Summary: California : http://70.89.227.250:8080/stateprofiles/profiles/CA06.asp?state=%2Fstateprofiles%2Fprofiles%2FCA06.asp&topic= National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2008 b, January 7). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Delinquency Services Summary: Michigan : http://70.89.227.250:8080/stateprofiles/profiles/MI06.asp?state=%2Fstateprofiles%2Fprofiles%2FMI06.asp&topic=Profile National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2010). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from About NCJJ: http://www.ncjjservehttp.org/ncjjwebsite/about.html Renter, E. (2010, October 6). Criminal Justice. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Are Juvenile Detention Centers Using Drugs to Control Kids?: http://criminaljustice.change.org/ Reynolds, M. O. (1997, July 15). National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from The Long Arm of Federal Juvenile Crime Law Shortened: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba235 Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2009). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Stahl, A. (2008). Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from OJJDP Fact Sheet 2004: Petitioned Status Offense Cases in Juvenile Court 1: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/fs200802.pdf U.S. Census Bureau - The 2010 Statistical Abstract. (2010). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Law Enforcement, Courts, & Prisons: Juvenile Delinquency, Child Abuse. 328 - Delinquency Cases Disposed by Juvenile Courts by Reason for Referral : http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0328.pdf Wasserman, G., Keenan, K., Tremblay, R., Coie, J., Herrenkohl, T., Loeber, R., et al. (2003, April). U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Child Delinquency: Bulletin Series. Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/193409.pdf. Wyoming Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care. (2010). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from Type of Effective Services: http://sites.google.com/site/wjjcoc/level-2---immediate/type-of-effective-services. Read More