Statement of Thomas M Young and Donnell M Pappenfort on September 28, 1977 Concerning Implementation of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (From Implementation of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 - Hearings, P 216-222, 1978 - See NCJ-79016)

• NCJ Number: 79021
• Author(s): T M Young; D M Pappenfort
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 7 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Available on microfiche as NCJ-79016.

Annotation

Findings are presented from a 1976 study of the use of secure detention for juveniles and alternatives to its use.

Abstract

The components of the study consisted of a review of literature published since 1967 on the use of secure detention for juveniles and alternatives; visits to 14 juvenile court jurisdictions with alternative programs; preparation of individual reports describing each jurisdiction, including a detailed description of its alternative programs; and submission of a final report and an executive summary, based on both the literature review and the field research. The literature review indicated that secure detention is misused for large numbers of juveniles awaiting hearings before the Nation's juvenile courts. The types of misuse of secure detention revealed in the literature are listed. The site visits involved the following types of programs used as alternatives to secure detention for juveniles awaiting adjudication: (1) home detention programs, which consist of youths residing at home in the preadjudication period, with probation officer aides assigned to each youth; (2) attention homes, which are group homes housing between 5 and 12 juveniles, with a set of live-in houseparents; (3) programs for runaways, which also involve group residences; and (4) private residential foster homes. The overall generalization from the findings is that the various program formats appear to be about equal in ability to keep clients trouble-free and available to the court for adjudication. Twelve other generalizations from the findings are listed. Tabular data on the success rates and costs of the different types of programs are provided. References from the literature review are not provided.