Role of Federal Programs in Efforts To Deinstitutionalize Status Offenders (From Neither Angels nor Thieves - Studies in Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, P 176-199, 1982, Joel F Handler and Julie Zatz, ed. - See NCJ-84933)

• NCJ Number: 84939
• Author(s): S A Kornegay; S S Magnetti
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 24 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; National Academies Press
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Available on microfiche as NCJ-84933

Annotation

This study examined nine Federal programs to determine the extent to which such programs directly or indirectly assist or impede the process of implementing deinstitutionalization strategies for status offenders.

Abstract

The Federal programs considered are the Juvenile Justice Act grant programs, the runaway youth program, LEAA's grant programs, Title XX social service grants, Title IV-B child welfare services, foster care grants under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, Medicaid, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Education for All Handicapped Children Program. The purpose, structure, and potential effects of the Federal programs were examined through data collected at both the Federal and State levels. The State and local data were collected between early 1979 and the spring of 1980. Once deinstitutionalization was adopted as a policy by the States, Juvenile Justice Act and LEAA monies were used to effect deinstitutionalization of status offenders, and the Federal social service and education grant programs were used to reinforce the movement to deinstitutionalize by supporting alternative services. Generally, the types of services available for status offenders are similar to those provided to the general social service clientele. With the exceptions of shelters funded under the Runaway Youth Act program and isolated cases of specific packaging of services for status offenders, changes in service delivery to accommodate the needs of status offenders have not been dramatic. This is in part a response to tightening Federal, State, and local budgets and in part a response to the fact that status offenders continue to comprise only a limited portion of the youth served by these social service systems.