A PROJECT REPORT ON: - “JUVINILE DELINQUENCY IN

US”

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. Parvesh Kumar Rajput

(FACULTY OF HONOURS 1: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM)

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:

KHUSHBOO JAIN

SEMESTER IX

SEC-C

ROLL NO.85

SUBMITTED ON: 23.10.2019

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH
1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I feel highly elated to work on the topic ”Juvenile Delinquency in US” The practical realization
of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I express my deepest regard and
gratitude to my teachers for their unstinted support. Their consistent supervision, constant
inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense help in understanding and carrying
out the nuances of the project report.

I would like to thank my family and friends without whose support and encouragement, this
project would not have been a reality. I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the
Vice Chancellor for providing extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet.

My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in the
form of our library and IT Lab that was a source of great help for the completion of this project

Some printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to
receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

Khushboo Jain

Roll No. 85

Semester 9

2
 DECLARATION

I, Khushboo Jain, have undergone research of the project work titled “Juvenile Delinquency in
US”, as a student of Criminal Justice System hereby declare that- this Research Project is the
outcome of the investigation done by me and also prepared by myself under the supervision of
Dr. Parvesh Kumar Rajput , Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur. The views
expressed in the report are personal to the student and do not reflect the views of any authority
or any other person, and do not bind the statute in any manner.

I also declare that this report is the intellectual property of the on the part of student research
work, and the same or any part thereof may not be used in any manner whatsoever in writing.

Khushboo Jain
Roll No. 85
ID No. 1520151387
Semester – IX (C)

3
 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................02

DECLARATION………………………………………………………………………………03

CHAPTER 1:- INTRODUCTION… .................................................................................. ….05

 IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH TOPIC………………………………………….07

 RESEARCH QUESTIONS……………………………………………………………..07

 OBJECTIVES…………………………………………………………………………...07

 SCOPE……………………………………………………………………………….….07

 METHODOLODY……………………………………………………………………...07

CHAPTER 2:- CONCEPTULIZATION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN US...... ….08

CHAPTER 3:- FACTORS AND CAUSES OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY……………18

CHAPTER 4:- JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND THE LAW……………………………21

CHAPTER 5:- PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY…………………………26

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………29

BIBLIOGRAPHY…....................................................................................................................30

4
 CHAPTER - I INTRODUCTION

Juvenile Delinquency refers to criminal acts committed by children or teenagers, specifically

anyone below the age of eighteen (or 17 in some States). Common sentiment on this issue is that
the crimes they commit hurt society and hurt the children themselves. Much research and debate
revolves around the problem of juvenile delinquency in the US. The research is mainly focused
on the causes of juvenile delinquency and which strategies have successfully diminished crime
rates among the youth population. Though the causes are debated and controversial as well,
much of the debate revolves around the punishment and rehabilitation of juveniles in a youth
detention center or elsewhere. Scholars trace the history of juvenile offending back to the
seventh century; however, till the early 18th century; young people were treated as if they were
small versions of adults. The notion that children should be treated differently than adults is only
a couple of hundred years old. In the older days the word child brought to mind picture of a
miniature human being and that was the only recognised difference between a child and an adult.
Criminal law made no distinctions between a child and an adult offender. With experience and
knowledge, it has been accepted that children are different from adults not only in size but in
other respects too. A child’s mind is not mature enough to understand the nature of all its acts.
Juvenis in Latin means young. Juvenile delinquency refers to the failure of children to meet
certain obligations expected of them by the society in which they live. Broadly viewed, the term
juvenile delinquency covers a multitude of different violations of legal and social norms from
minor offences to serious crimes committed by ‘juveniles’. Included under the umbrella of
juvenile delinquency are status offences, which refer to the conditions of the person’s age at the
time the offence was committed. A particular action or behaviour is considered a violation of the
law only if it is committed by a juvenile. Examples of such offences include running away from
home, truancy from school and disobeying the lawful commands of parents or legal guardians.
Usually the maximum age for juveniles’ justice jurisdiction is eighteen. This upper age limit is
usually referred to as the age of ‘majority’, the age at which a person is considered an adult.
Accordingly, anyone under the age of majority (whatever that age may be in a given place) is
legally considered a minor or child and technically can be charged with a status offence. In the
past few years the trend has been towards a decrease in the age for transfer of cases to the adult
criminal justice jurisdiction, which is reflective of a “get tough” attitude on juvenile offenders. In
addition to the age of the offender, the type of offence is also a consideration in the decision to
5
waive a case from juvenile to adult court. In general, the offence must be a serious felony, such
as murder or forcible rape (World Youth Report, 2003). en all of these conditions and parameters
are considered, the definitions of delinquency involves (i) any offence that is considered a crime
in the legal codes of a community or state and that is committed by a juvenile under the age of
majority (usually under 18 years); and (ii) any offence that is in the juvenile codes and is
committed by one under the age of majority. Besides these two important criteria for defining
delinquency, juvenile justice also frequently handle cases of juveniles that fall outside illegal
behaviour cases such as child abuse or child abandonment and these cases were included in the
original juvenile court law passed in Illinois in 1899.
In these situations, children may be given to foster-home care, or they may be ordered into
treatment. Thus, while youths in these kinds of situations may not be technically delinquent, their
cases are found within the areas of juvenile courts. The child victim is now a part of the juvenile
justice system and may be under court’s supervision even though he or she has not committed
any offence. Scholars are of the view that the concept of juvenile delinquency is a product of a
great many social, political, economic and religious changes. These changes began in the
Renaissance period but were most pronounced during the Enlightment and the Industrial
Revolution. The transformation of thought and practice regarding offending by children
eventually led to a series of legal changes at the end of the nineteenth century that created the
legal status of juvenile delinquents and a separate legal system that included juvenile courts and
reformatories. The use of a separate legal status and legal system for juveniles spread rapidly
throughout the United States in the early twentieth century. Taken together, these historical
developments led to the social construction of juvenile delinquency; the ‘discovery’ of childhood
and adolescence, the doctrine of Parens Patriae and the rise of positivist criminology. As a result
of these developments, the concept of juvenile delinquency came to signify a separate and
distinct status for young people, both socially and legally.

6
 IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH TOPIC

The project is titled “Juvenile Deliquency in US”

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What is the concept of juvenile delinquency in US ?

• What are the causes and what are the preventive measures of juvenile deliquency in US?

• What are the laws related to juvenile delinquency in US ?

OBJECTIVES-

 To study the concept of juvenile delinquency in US.

 To study the laws related to juvenile delinquency in US.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of this project is confined to the study of Juvenile Delinquency in US.

METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

Nature of Study: This Research Project is doctrinal (non-empirical) in nature. This project has
been done after a thorough research based upon intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the project. The
structure of the project, as instructed by the Faculty of Criminal Justice System has been adhered to
and same has been helpful in giving the project a fine finish off.

Sources of Data: Secondary sources of data have been used in the project like, Articles, Books,
Journals,Articles,Websites

7
 CHAPTER - II CONCEPTUALIZATION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN US

Recently, juvenile delinquency has become an important aspect of criminology. Juveniles have
got serious forms of delinquent behavior which may hamper the stability and social command of
our society. The deviant behavior of the juveniles has created social disorder and destruction of
moral values which is creating an alarming position in organized society.

The word “delinquency” has its origin from the Latin word “delinquere” which meaning de i.e.
“away and linquere” i.e. “to leave thus, mean by to leave or to abandon”. Initially, the word was
having primarily meaning and applied to those parents who have abandoned and neglected their
children. Now days, it is applicable on all those children who are involved in illegal and harmful
activities.

Juvenile is considered as a child who has not completed a specific age as mentioned in the law of
any country and doesn‟t bear resemblance as an adult person and who can be made legally
answerable for his criminal activities. The juvenile is a child who has alleged violated certain
laws which declares his act or omission as an offence. A juvenile and a minor are used in
different perspective in legal terms. The term juvenile is generally used in reference to a young
criminal offender and minor is related to legal capacity of a person.1

In United States of America, every state has the authority or jurisdiction to determine the age of
juveniles who is living within its own territory or jurisdiction; because in the USA different states
have different age criteria with regard to offence committed by the juveniles. But most of the
states concur with maximum age set in the standards 1976.2 Under federal govt., “a person under
the age of 21 years can be considered as juvenile delinquent for committing any offence but in
some other States age limit is under 12 years or under 18 years. In majority of the States there is
no lower age limit set for litigating child as a delinquent, in the Mississippi it is 10 and in the New
York it is set as 7 years”.2

Definition of delinquency includes “act and conduct which violates the law only when it

1
See the Black Dictionary of Law
2
Standards and Goals.1976, Standard 9.2.
8
committed by children”.3 The legal definition of Juvenile Delinquency is “any act prohibited by
law for children up to prescribed age limit is Juvenile Delinquency” and it follows, that if a child
found to have committed an act of Juvenile Delinquency then he must be produced before the
court which is specially set up for Juvenile Delinquent. The Illinois law defines “a
child/delinquent as a person who is incorrigible or who is growing up in idleness, one wonders
about the streets in night time without being on any lawful business, or one who is quietly of
indecent or lascivious conduct”4

A New Mexico Law defines a delinquent as “a child as one who, by habitually refusing to obey
the reasonable and lawful commands of his parents or other persons of lawful authority is
deemed to be habitually uncontrolled, habitually disobedient or habitually way word, or who
habitually is a truant from home or school or who habitually so deports himself as to injure or
endanger the morals, health or wealth or welfare of himself or others”. Here this definition is also
ambiguous as there are no such words as incorrigible, reasonable, as defined in the Illinois laws.

In United State of America, the law on Juvenile Delinquency declared variety of acts which are
described as below.

• Immoral or offensive conduct • Knowingly associating with immoral persons • Visiting houses
of bad reputation • Visiting liquor shops • Roaming in street in night • Engaging in illegal and
unlawful business • Violation of any law of state • Immoral conduct in school • Habitually
wandering on roads • Driving without license. • Habitually bunking from schools. • Incorrigible •
Habitually using immoral language in Public Place. • Running away from home without
permission • Smoking at public places • Begging or receiving alms

This definition was criticized in United States and two more things were added in the standard
Act. The two items are “Child who deserts his home or who is habitually disobedient or is out of
control of his parents or other custodian and who being required by law to attend school,
willfully violates rules there of or absents himself there from.”.5

“The delinquent, then would be a person where misbehaviour is resulting in serious legal
offence, which is inappropriate to his level of development, is not committed as a result of

3
11 Ruth Shonle Cavan Theodore N. Ferdinand, Juvenile Delinquency (III Edition): 27Ibid
4
15 Don C, Gibbons, Delinquent Behavioural(3rd Edition)
5
Ibid
9
 extremely law intellect, in tracannial organic Pathology or server mentally function, and is alien
to the culture in which he has been regarded whether or not the individual is apprehended or
legally adjudicated is not crucial.” This definition is not as clear about the meaning which it will
attach to misbehaviour, relatively used in it.6

The ‘discovery’ of childhood

During the Middle Ages there was a lack of awareness of the special needs of childhood.
Attitudes toward children were largely indifferent and treatment of children was often harsh and
punitive. Renaissance and Enlightment philosophers such as John Locke and Rousseau marked
the departure from the traditional thinking. Rousseau pointed to the distinctive human plight
confronted by adolescents during the transition from childhood to adulthood. He provided the
first systematic consideration of these stages of development, emphasising how these stages
differ and how these differences influence learning and necessitate appropriate educational
methods. The awareness of developmental stages and differentiation based on age had important
implications for the structure of family life, for child-rearing and for education. Ideas about the
innocence, vulnerability and dependence of childhood as well as the moral and sexual tensions of
adolescence, resulted in an increasing emphasis on the family and school as institutions of
socialisation. Gradually, the views developed that young people require protection, nurture,
supervision, discipline, training and education in order to grow and mature into healthy and
productive adults. This point of view culminated in the late 1800s, when it was widely held that
youngsters needed to be kept away from the normal participation in the larger society during
their period of growth and development. This was a significant departure from the harsh lives of
children in Medieval Europe and Colonial America and their often forced involvement in the
labour force during most of the early Industrial Revolution.

The Parens Patriae Doctrine

Parens patriae is Latin for 'parent of his or her country.' In the juvenile justice legal system,
parens patriae is a doctrine that allows the state to step in and serve as a guardian for children,
the mentally ill, the incompetent, the elderly, or disabled persons who are unable to care for

6
4 Robert D. Writ and Peter F. Briggs quoted in Ruth Shonle Cavan, Juvenile Delinquency
(3rd Edition)
10
 themselves.7 The separate system of justice for juveniles has developed just over the past 100
years. This English legal doctrine emerged in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries in
response to a series of cases heard before the English Chancery Courts. In practice, this duty was
concerned primarily with thesocial welfare of certain dependent groups. Chancery Court cases
centred on three dependent groups: children, those who were mentally incompetent, and those in
need of charity. Under parens patriae, the king was established as protector and guardian of these
dependent classes. Gradually, the Chancery Courts extended the doctrine of parens patriae to
include the general welfare of children; the proper care, custody, and control of children was to
the ‘crown’s interests’. This included the ability of the courts to assume and exercise parental
duties-to act in loco parentis- when parents failed to provide for the child’s welfare. Implicit in
this doctrine are the developmental concepts of childhood and adolescence in which it is the
parents’ responsibility to protect, nurture, supervise, discipline, train, and educate children.

Insuring the general welfare of children was a means to maintain the power of the monarchy and
the feudal structure of English society. It is important to note that the chancery courts did not
have jurisdiction over children charged with criminal offences. Juvenile offenders were handled
within the framework of the regular court system. The Latin phrase parens patriae literally means
“parent of the country”. As a result, the parens patriae doctrine of equity law “embraced the
dependent and the delinquent child”. Following the tradition of English law, who broke the law
in the 18th century America were, treated much the same as adult criminals. Parents were
responsible for controlling their children, and parental discipline was very strict and punishments
were harsh. The law made no distinction based on the age of the offender, and the legal term
delinquent did not exist. It provided the fundamental legal authority for the idea of juvenile
delinquency and the early juvenile court. A number of developments during the 19th century
paved the way for a separate system of justice for juveniles. Institutions were required that would
instruct delinquent youth in proper discipline and moral behaviour. The doctrine of parens
patriae provided the basis for official intervention in the lives of wayward youth. Parents were
expected to supervise and control their children, but when it became apparent that parents were
not properly controlling and disciplining their children, the State was given the authority to take
over this responsibility. The Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents in New York
advocated for the supervision of juvenile offenders. The doctrine of parens patriae was first

7
https://study.com/academy/lesson/parens-patriae-in-juvenile-justice-definition-doctrine.html
11
 tested in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of Ex-parte Crouse in 1838.

Pauperism

Civic responsibility was a strong obligation in colonial America. 8It generated individual and
social obligation to the poor, first informally, and then through formal provisions of law. Sharing
similar philosophy and purpose with the parens patriae doctrine, colonial communities (and later
cities and states) developed a system for protecting poor children and, if necessary, separating
them from their ‘undeserving parents’. This system grew to include laws, passed by local
legislative bodies, regulating the poor; the creation of charitable organizations and relief
societies; and, especially in urban places, government-sponsored institutions. Poor laws provided
legal authority for governmental entities and authorized private philanthropic agencies to
separate poor children from their parents and to apprentice these children to local residents.
However, the overall quality of the care and training was questionable, and in many cases,
apprenticeship was merely a “business proposition” in which the child provided slave labour for
a term. Gradually, the view developed that poverty, if left unchecked, will lead children to “a
future of crime and degradation,” a process known throughout much of the nineteenth century as
pauperism. This point of view contrasted sharply from the doctrine of original sin, widely
accepted in earlier times. Instead of focusing on the sinful nature of individuals, pauperism
emphasized a breakdown in social order.

Houses of Refuge and Moral Reform

In the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the state’s parental authority derived from poor
laws, and institutional efforts to respond to pauperism became increasingly focused on the plight
of urban poor children. Because of the fear of pauperism, reformers were most concerned about
the placement of poor children into pauper institutions, such as the municipal almshouses,
“where they are liable to acquire bad habits and principles, and lay the foundations for the career
of worthlessness and improvidence.” In fact, these reformers were more concerned about the
placement of children into pauper institutions than about the mixing of delinquent children with
adult criminals in jails and prisons. It was believed that children placed in adult penal facilities
were already beyond the potential for reform. As an expression of this perspective, the New
York House of Refuge was established in 1824 by the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile

8
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330468549_On_Pauperism_in_Present_and_Past
12
 Delinquents, the successor to the Society for the prevention of Pauperism. The House of Refuge
grant, but in practice almost all of its children were vagrants from pauper families. State
legislation gave the Society authority to manage the institution and the children under its
custody. House of Refuge followed soon in Boston (1825) and Philadelphia (1828), and “for a
quarter of a century the activities of these three institutions defined institutional treatment of
juvenile delinquents.” The house of refuge reformers desired to prevent pauperism and to protect
and reform children, thereby sustaining order and stability in society.

Through legislation they widened the scope of permissible state intercession and their emphasis
on prevention, reform and protection proved to be the seeds of juvenile court. Not every vagrant
or delinquent child was committed to a house of refuge, however; only those that could still be
“rescued” and were not too far down the road of crime were admitted. The focus of houses of
refuge was to protect the “predelinquent.” Little distinction was made between “pauper, vagrant,
or criminal children” all required protection and reform. Reformers were convinced that these
children were victims rather than offenders and that they needed to be removed from evil
influences of urban poverty: “pauperism then was the enemy; juvenile delinquency,
intemperance, ignorance, and gambling, was the symptom.” Reformers intended the house of
refuge to be a sanctuary or haven, where children could be isolated from the wickedness of the
world and where moral reform could take place. The enthusiasm of house of refuge reformers
was contagious, and numerous institutions of similar design opened across the United States
during the 1840s and 1850s.

Placing-out

Even though houses of refuge continued to open during the 1850s, critics began to argue that
“not only the discipline, but every detail of the routine made the houses of refuge
indistinguishable from prisons.”9 Rather than becoming models of care, houses of refuge had
become juvenile prisons, unable to nurture and reform children through an institutional approach.
Beginning in the 1850s, reformers returned to the traditional belief that finally homes, not
institutions were the best places for reform. It was argued that urban poverty created a danger
class which was prone to crime and violence. As such the New York Children’s Aid Society
sought to clean the city by removing delinquent and poor children. This practice was termed as

9
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-4458491/a-history-of-placing-out-the-orphan-trains
13
 placing-out. This involved taking vagrant children out of a city and placing them with farming
families. This program was apparently well received either because of the prospect of free farm
labour for a sense of civic obligation.

Placing out programs was soon implemented by other organisations but they were not without
critics. Critics argued that this is next to impossible to take a poor vagrant child from the urban
area and expect him or her to adjust to rural family life. The solution according to them was to
loosen the institutional setting for discipline and reform.

Reform Schools

The development of reform schools in the mid 19thcentury represents another way in which
institutions were used to respond to the problem of dependency and juvenile crime.10 These
schools used a family system in which children were divided into small ‘families’ of 40 or less.
Each family had its own cottage, matron and/or patron and schedule. Cottages were used to make
the facility more like a family and less like a prison. Cottage reform schools spread widely across
the United States in the latter half of 1800, but the degree of emphasis on the family ideal and the
roles of schooling and work varied greatly. Contract labour of children to manufacturers was a
part of most reform schools but after the Civil War, child labour became more exploitative in
some schools. In response to this, some reform schools began to emphasize vocational education
and deemphasize the family environment.

Child Saving Movement

By the late nineteenth century, little enthusiasm and hope remained for the Reform Schools
which were once heralded as places of protection and reform for vagrant and delinquent
children.11 During this period the problems of urban poverty and delinquency persisted and in
fact, grew worse. The period between 1880 and 1920 is known as the Progressive Era in U.S.
history. The government’s role in reform was reassessed, especially in terms of program and
policy delivery, administration and government structure. In the late 1800s, these progressive
principles were applied to the problem of juvenile delinquency by the child saving movement.
The child saving movement was a loose collection of women across the United States from

10
(http://www.jblearning.com/samples/0763736287/Chapter_02.pdf).
adie, T. & Morley, R. (2003) ‘Crime, Justice and Punishment’ in Baldock, J. et al. (eds) Social Policy (3rd edn.)
11

Oxford: Oxford University Press

14
 middle and upper-class backgrounds who exercised considerable influence in mobilising change
in how government dealt with dependent, neglected and delinquent children.

Creation of the juvenile court (1899)

The child savers realized that child welfare reform could only be accomplished with the support
of political and professional organisations. At the 1898 annual meeting of the Chicago Bar
Association,12 a resolution was introduced calling for the appointment of a committee to
investigate existing conditions relative to delinquent and dependent children and to develop
legislation for reform. One month later, the Illinois Conference of Charities devoted most of its
program to child saving issues. A collaborative effort between the Chicago Women’s Club, the
Chicago Bar Association and Illinois Conference of Charities resulted in the draft of a juvenile
court bill which was passed in February 1899.The creation of the juvenile court culminated a
century-long evolution of thought and practice by which juveniles were differentiated from
adults both in terms of development and control. The Illinois Juvenile Court Act was the first
legislation to specifically provide for a separate system of juvenile justice. In advocating for the
juvenile court, the child savers sought not only a separate legal system for juveniles but also a
legal philosophy and process that distinguished juvenile courts from adult criminal courts. This
distinctive legal philosophy of the original juvenile court has been called the rehabilitative ideal
because of its emphasis on assessment and reform rather than the determination of guilt and
punishment as in criminal courts.

Rehabilitation became the focus of new juvenile court, and procedures were developed to reflect
and facilitate this ideal. Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899 was a prototype for legislation in
other states and juvenile courts were quickly established in several other states of the US.13

The Second Revolution

Although the new juvenile court system proved wildly popular and spread rapidly, it was not
without critics. Shortly after World War II, juvenile court began to be criticised for its failure to
provide due process of law. Under the guise of the rehabilitative ideal, the procedures of the
original juvenile court were informal and family- like, making the rules of criminal procedure
inapplicable. In the years following these challenges, the juvenile justice system was uttered

12
National Center for Juvenile Justice. "Frequently Asked Questions about Juveniles as Offenders". ojjdp.gov.
13
Lawrence and Hesse, 2009; Shoemaker, 2009).
15
 dramatically. Prevailing views of juvenile delinquency and the proper approach of the juvenile
justice system changed significantly. A number of criminologists have argued that these changes
were so consequential as to constitute a revolution comparable to the one that first created the
juvenile court. Three areas of change have been pronounced. (i) the due process revolution (ii)
enactment of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 and (iii)
contemporary initiatives for punishment and accountability.

The Due Process Revolution

Since its inception, the juvenile court has been described as civil, rather than criminal. The
rehabilitative ideal of the juvenile court made the due process protections afforded criminal
defendants unnecessary. In the ten year period from 1966 to 1975, however, the United States
Supreme Court took an activist stand in establishing due process requirements for the juvenile
justice system. The rehabilitative ideal of the traditional juvenile court, together, with its Parens
Patriae authority was diminished.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDP Act,1974)

The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 embodied a series of reforms to
redefine juvenile delinquency and redirect the legal philosophy, authority and procedures of the
juvenile justice system.14 Three groups namely the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement
and Administration of Justice, The National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and the
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals directly influenced
these reforms. The findings and recommendations of these three groups formed the basis for the
JJDP Act, of 1974. This Act is the first major federal initiative to address juvenile delinquency.

Primary responsibility for juvenile justice had historically existed at the state and local levels.
The JJDP Act established a leadership room for the federal government through the creation of
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The JJDP Act established
juvenile justice courts and policies and committed ongoing financial assistance to aid their
implementation at the state and local levels. In addition the JJDP Act called for a preventive
approach to the problem of delinquency. OJJDP established a formula program for states and

14
"Legislation/JJDP Act". www.ojjdp.gov. Retrieved 2017-05-29.
16
communities to develop policies, practices and programs directed at crime prevention in local
areas.

In addition communities were encouraged to develop alternatives to the juvenile justice system.
Community-based programs, diversion and deinstitutionalization became the banners of juvenile
justice policies in the 1970s.

17
 CHAPTER III- FACTORS AND CAUSES OF JUVENILE DELIQUENCY

There are many factors that cause juvenile delinquency. Children whose parents have been
incarcerated are far more likely to show delinquent behavior than their peers.15Sometimes
children want to test their parents' limits, or society's limits.Some people believe that imposing
strict laws such as curfews will cause a drop in juvenile delinquency rates, but sometimes
imposing strict rules merely give the children more of an incentive to break them. However,
sometimes juvenile crimes do in fact occur due to the exact opposite reason, that is, a lack of
rules and supervision.16One example of this is that children many times commit crimes after
school and while their parents are at work or preoccupied.Statistics that are mentioned below
explain the peak hours of juvenile crime rates and conceptualize this very cause. Additionally,
mental illness and substance abuse are large contributing factors.15-20% of juveniles convicted
of crimes have serious mental illnesses, and the percentages increase to 30-90% of convicted
juveniles when the scope of mental illnesses considered widens. Also, many people believe that a
child's environment and family are greatly related to their juvenile delinquency record. The youth
that live in lower income areas face high risk factors. Farmer et al.’s study demonstrates the
different types of risks these individuals face. The youth can be put into three categories, which
are single risk, multiple risks and no risks. The risks depend on the specific traits these youth
portray. Farmer et al. state, that multiple risks are a combination of aggression, academic
problems and social problems while a single risk is only one of those factors .For example, the
dynamics of a family can affect a child’s well being and delinquency rate. Crime rates vary due
to the living situations of children; examples of this could be a child whose parents are together,
divorced, or a child with only one parent, particularly a teen mom. This is largely because living
arrangements are directly related to increases and decreases of poverty levels.Poverty level is
another factor that is related to the chances a child has of becoming a juvenile delinquent.
According to Bolland et al., the level of poverty adolescents face determine their outcome. These
teens feel as if they don’t have some type of future ahead of them, so they commit crimes,
dropout of school or increase the teen pregnancy rates. Statistics on living arrangements, poverty
level and other influential factors can be found in a later section. Others believe that the

15
Shaw, Terry; Bright, Charlotte; Sharpe, Tanya (2015). "Child welfare outcomes for youth in care as a result of
parental death or parental incarceration". Ebscohost
16
"About Juvenile Delinquents - What is Juvenile Delinquency". aboutjuveniledelinquents.com.
18
 environment and external factors are not at play when it comes to crime; they suggest that
criminals are faced with rational choice decisions in which they chose to follow the irrational
path.17Finally, another cause could be the relationships a child develops in school or outside of
school. A positive or negative friendship can have a great influence on the chances of children
becoming delinquents. Peer pressure is also at play. Relationships and friendships can lead to
gangs, which are major contributors of violent crimes among teens. These are just some of the
causes of juvenile delinquency.

Cradle to Prison Pipeline

This term refers to the population of boys and girls who live in conditions that cause them to be
channeled into prison from birth.18 The pipeline suggests that there are factors such as a lack of
parental supervision, poverty, and a lack of education that makes these people helpless and
unable to change their situations.Though this idea might not be appealing to those that believe
crime is solely the failure of a rational choice decision, this phenomenon has caught the attention
of many Americans. This pipeline, so to speak, disproportionately affects minority children
living in under-served community, such as Blacks and Latinos. According to the Children's
Defense Fund, 1 out of every 3 Black boys and 1 out of every 3 Hispanic boys are at risk of
becoming delinquents in their lifetime, and therefore at risk of being sucked into this pipeline in
which prison is the only option at the end of the tunnel.Of course some people that are affected
by the pipeline commit crimes and are imprisoned when they are older, say 20. However, if the
delinquency cause by the pipeline were to occur before the age of eighteen, the boy/girls would
then become juvenile delinquents. Keeping in mind the existence of the male phenomenon, one
can safely say that the pipeline affects more boys than girls.The Children's Defense Fund has
created a campaign to try to halt the spread of this phenomenon that is ruining the lives of so
many poverty-stricken families and minorities.The campaign is called the 'Cradle to Prison
Pipeline Campaign' and was launched in 2008 in Washington DC, at Howard University.
Howard University is a historically black university. The campaign argues that the US
government spends more money on incarcerated people than on each child in the public school

17
Eadie, T. & Morley, R. (2003) ‘Crime, Justice and Punishment’ in Baldock, J. et al. (eds) Social Policy (3rd edn.)
Oxford: Oxford University Press
18
ational Center for Juvenile Justice. "Frequently Asked Questions about Juveniles as Offenders". ojjdp.gov.
19
system.Their vision is that if this budgeting were reversed, the number of juvenile delinquents
would greatly decrease.The ultimate goal of this campaign is to increase support for preventive
measures and resources that children need to stay on the right path.Some of the programs this
campaign includes increasing early childhood education and guidance, as well as increasing
health and mental health coverage and counseling.To date, many states have responded to this
campaign by forming coalitions and holding conventions in which they formulate ideas and
tactics.

20
 CHAPTER IV: JUVENILE DELIQUENCY AND THE LAW

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELIQUENCY PREVENTION ACT,1974

The United States federal government enacted legislation to unify the handling of juvenile
delinquents, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of 1974. The act created the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) within the Justice Department to
administer grants for juvenile crime-combating programs (currently only about 900,000 dollars a
year), gather national statistics on juvenile crime, fund research on youth crime and administer
four anticonfinement mandates regarding juvenile custody. Specifically, the act orders:

Deinstitutionalization: Youths charged with "status" offenses that would not be crimes if
committed by adults, such as truancy, running away and being caught with alcohol or tobacco,
must be "deinstitutionalized," which in this case really means that, with certain exceptions (e.g.,
minor in possession of a handgun), status offenders may not be detained by police or confined.
Alleged problems with this mandate are that it overrides state and local law,[23] limits the
discretion of law enforcement officers and prevents the authorities' ability to reunify an offender
with his family.19
Segregation: Arrested youths must be strictly segregated from adults in custody. Under this "out
of sight and sound" mandate, juveniles cannot be served food by anyone who serves jailed adults
nor can a juvenile walk down a corridor past a room where an adult is being interrogated. This
requirement forces local authorities to either free juveniles or maintain expensive duplicate
facilities and personnel. Small cities, towns and rural areas are especially hard hit, drastically
raising those taxpayers' criminal justice costs. Supporters of the system point to lower sexual
assault rates when adults and children are separated.
Jail and Lockup Removal: As a general rule, youths subject to the original jurisdiction of
juvenile courts cannot be held in jails and lockups in which adults may be detained. The act
provides for a six-hour exception for identification, processing, interrogation and transfer to
juvenile facilities, court or detention pending release to parents. The act also provides an
exception of 24 hours for rural areas only.

19
"The Long Arm of Federal Juvenile Crime Law Shortened". Archived from the original on 2006-11-30. Retrieved
2006-12-12.
21
 Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) -- The DMC provision requires states to
address the issue of over-representation of youth of color in the justice system.
Over representation of minority youths: States must systematically try to reduce confinement
of minority youths to the proportion of those groups in the population.
One of the most notable causes of juvenile delinquency is fiat, i.e. the declaration that a juvenile
is delinquent by the juvenile court system without any trial, and upon finding only probable
cause. Many states have laws that presuppose the less harsh treatment of juvenile delinquents
than adult counterparts’ treatment. In return, the juvenile surrenders certain constitutional rights,
such as a right to trial by jury, the right to cross-examine, and even the right to a speedy trial.
20
Notable writings by reformers such as Jerome G. Miller show that very few juvenile
delinquents actually broke any law. Most were simply rounded up by the police after some event
that possibly involved criminal action. They were brought before juvenile court judges who
made findings of delinquency, simply because the police action established probable cause.
In 1967, the United States Supreme Court decided the case In re Gault, that established the
protection of many, but not all, procedural rights of juveniles in court proceedings, such as the
right to counsel and right to refuse self-incrimination.

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 2018

Background:
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was first authorized in 1974. It
was established to ensure states and territories meet certain common standards for how youth
across the country are treated in the justice system. It did this by establishing two core
protections: a prohibition on the incarceration of youth charged with status offenses (conduct that
is not criminal if engaged in by an adult, such as skipping school or breaking curfew), and a
requirement that youth have sight and sound separation from adult inmates. Two additional
protections were added in a subsequent reauthorization: a prohibition against housing young
people in adult facilities while awaiting trial as juveniles, and requiring that states address
disproportionate minority contact. States receive federal formula grant funding for complying
with these protections.
20
Miller, Jerome G. (1991). Last One Over the Wall. Ohio State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8142-0758-1.
22
The Act was last reauthorized in 2002, and expired in 2007. On December 13, 2018, Congress
passed H.R. 6964 with broad bipartisan support. Major changes to the Act include:

Core Requirements:

- Racial and Ethnic Disparities: Changes the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
requirement to focus on Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED). Requires that states collect and
analyze data on racial and ethnic disparities. Requires states to determine which points create
RED, and establish a plan to address RED.
- Sight and Sound/Jail Removal: Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment, states are
required to ensure sight and sound separation and jail removal for youth awaiting trial as
adults. This protection previously applied only to youth being held on juvenile court charges.
An exception continues to exist for cases where a court finds, after a hearing and in writing,
that it is in the interest of justice.
- Deincarceration of Status Offenses: Youth who are found in violation of a valid court order
may be held in detention, for no longer than seven days, if the court finds that such detention
is necessary and enters an order containing the following: 1) identifies the valid court order
that has been violated; 2) specifies the factual basis for determining that there is reasonable
cause to believe that the status offender has violated such order; 3) includes findings of fact
to support a determination that there is no appropriate less restrictive alternative available to
placing the status offender in such a facility, with due consideration to the best interest of the
juvenile; 4) specifies the length of time, not to exceed seven days, that the status offender
may remain in a secure detention facility or correctional facility, and includes a plan for the
status offender's release from such facility. Such an order may not be renewed.

Title II:
- Is renamed the Charles Grassley Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Program.
- Creates a new focus on data-driven evidence-based or promising prevention programs.
This document was prepared by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the National Criminal
Justice Association.

Title V:
23
- Is amended to permit Youth PROMISE grants to be used by local policy boards to fund
delinquency prevention programs, including but not limited to: alcohol and substance abuse
prevention or treatment services; tutoring and remedial education, especially in reading and
mathematics; child and adolescent health and mental health services; and, leadership and
youth development activities.

State Plans:
- Requires that the state plan be supported by or take account of scientific knowledge regarding
adolescent development and behavior and regarding the effects of delinquency prevention
programs and juvenile justice interventions on adolescents.
- A state shall make the plan or amended plan publicly available by posting the plan or
amended plan on the state’s publicly available website.

State Advisory Group Appointees:

- Clarifies who may be appointed to the required State Advisory Group (SAG):
- Persons, licensed or certified by the applicable state, with expertise and competence
in preventing and addressing mental health and substance abuse needs in delinquent
youth and youth at risk of delinquency;
- Representatives of victim or witness advocacy groups, including at least one
individual with expertise in addressing the challenges of sexual abuse and
exploitation and trauma, particularly the needs of youth who experience
disproportionate levels of sexual abuse, exploitation, and trauma before entering the
juvenile justice system;
- For a state in which one or more Indian Tribes are located, an Indian tribal
representative (if such representative is available) or other individual with significant
expertise in tribal law enforcement and juvenile justice in Indian tribal communities;
and,
- Youth members must now be not older than 28 at the time of initial appointment.
Required State Staff:
- Requires the state to designate at least one individual who shall coordinate efforts to achieve
and sustain compliance with the core requirements and certify whether the state is in
compliance with such requirements.
24
Annual Report:
- A summary of data from 1 month of the applicable fiscal year of the use of restraints and
isolation upon juveniles held in the custody of secure detention and correctional facilities
operated by a State or unit of local government;
This document was prepared by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the National Criminal
Justice Association.
- The number of status offense cases petitioned to court, number of status offenders held in
secure detention, the findings used to justify the use of secure detention, and the average
period of time a status offender was held in secure detention;
- The number of juveniles released from custody and the type of living arrangement to which
they are released;
- The number of juveniles whose offense originated on school grounds, during school
sponsored off-campus activities, or due to a referral by a school official, as collected and
reported by the Department of Education or similar State educational agency; and
- The number of juveniles in the custody of secure detention and correctional facilities
operated by a State or unit of local or tribal government who report being pregnant.
National Recidivism Measure:
- The Administrator, in accordance with applicable confidentiality requirements and in
consultation with experts in the field of juvenile justice research, recidivism, and data
collection, shall—
- Establish a uniform method of data collection and technology that States may use to
evaluate data on juvenile recidivism on an annual basis;
- Establish a common national juvenile recidivism measurement system; and
- Make cumulative juvenile recidivism data that is collected from States available to
the public.

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

- Includes a two-year reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.

25
 CHAPTER V- PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELIQUENCY

An effective way of preventing juvenile delinquency and keeping at-risk children away from crime
is to tackle the problem before it happens.21This entails looking at the causes of crime among teens
and making an effort to reduce or eliminate said causes. Some causes, though hard to eliminate,
seem plausible. An example of this is improving the environment at home, through employment
opportunities for the parents, educational opportunities for the children, and counseling and
rehabilitation services if need be. These changes would not only promote a more positive
environment at home, but would also work towards pulling at-risk families out of poverty. Another
possible change could be the interaction of the community these adolescents live in. The
involvement of neighbors could decrease the chances of violence among these communities.22 In
Craig Pinkney’s TedTalk speech, “The Real Roots of Youth Violence”, he states that people do
things to be heard and seen in their communities. A cause that is more difficult to eliminate is
mental illness, because sometimes these illnesses are present at birth. Still, counseling and
rehabilitation might aid in reducing the negative effects of these illness, such as irrational and
violent behavior. One cause that seems almost impossible to eliminate is the rational and irrational
choice idea. As mentioned above, some people believe that all crime comes down to a single
situation in which an individual must make a rational or irrational decision, to commit the crime, or
to not.23Those that believe that this rational choice option is tied to the very immutable nature of
the person would have a hard time believing that there is any way to control the choices children
make and eliminate the causes of juvenile deliquency.
There are many foundations and organizations around the United States that have dedicated
themselves to the reduction and elimination of juvenile delinquency. Many of these organizations
spend their time and money controlling for the causes of juvenile delinquency mentioned above.
Below are a few agencies that work on preventing juvenile delinquency, though this list is not all
encompassing by any means.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Forming part of the US Department of
Justice, this prevention agency is a governmental organization focuses on all types of research,

21
"Statistics and References on Juvenile Delinquency". aboutjuveniledelinquents.com.
22
"The Real Roots of Youth Violence | Craig Pinkney | TEDxBrum". Youtube. 17 October 2018.
23
Eadie, T. & Morley, R. (2003) ‘Crime, Justice and Punishment’ in Baldock, J. et al. (eds) Social Policy (3rd edn.)
Oxford: Oxford University Press
26
prevention programs, and rehabilitation programs for juveniles as offenders and victims.[26]
Through collaboration, this organizations aims to improve juvenile justice policies and practices
and create safer communities and neighborhoods. The OJJDP helps victims of kidnapping, as well
as victims of sexual exploitation.Currently, the OJJDP is working to prevent gang
involvement/crime, girl's delinquency, and the under-aged consumption of alcohol.This foundation
is important because it guides real-life policy changes that pertain to juvenile justice and juvenile
delinquency.

The Innocence Project: The main goal of this organization is not to reduce juvenile delinquency,
but rather, to liberate juveniles that were falsely convicted of crimes. Though this foundation is not
primarily focused on reducing juvenile delinquency, it has done a good job of freeing falsely
convicted teens in the past.

Annie E Casie Foundation: The goal of this foundation is to provide a brighter and safer future
for children from under-served communities around the US. Its major initiatives include: child
welfare strategy group, civic sites, family economic success, juvenile detention alternatives
initiative (JDAI), KIDS COUNT, leadership development, and making connections. The KIDS
COUNT initiative collects annual data on the well-being of children all-round the US and publishes
state-specific reports as well as state comparisons. The JDAI focuses on providing a bright and
healthy future as adults for children involved in the juvenile justice system.24
National Gang Center: This a website that provides anyone on the web with information about the
gang problem in the US. It includes research done by the NGC and FAQs. There is also a list of
resources on how to identify if your city has a gang problem and how to combat this
problem.25This foundation helps the people within the struggling communities be the ones to solve
their own gang problems.

Best Friends Organization: This organization focuses on the overall well-being of children in the
US. It focuses on physical and emotional well-being and helps children develop healthy
relationships and useful skills.26This organization is an example of an organization that works

24
"Our Work". The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
25
"Publications and National Youth Gang Surveys". nationalgangcenter.gov.
26
Elliott Glover; Best Friends Foundation. "Best Friends Foundation: Youth Risk Avoidance and Character
Education". bestfriendsfoundation.org.
27
towards preventing problems before they occur. Instead of focusing on the elimination of current
juvenile delinquency, this organization works on creating healthy and happy children that will not
resort to crime.

Reach for Youth : This organization is available in Indianapolis, Indiana. This organization was
invented to encourage teens to graduate and develop ways to say no to peer pressure. These teens
were on the brim of being incarcerated, kicked out of school, or delinquency, and The Reach for
Youth organization turned these adolescents around.

28
 CONCLUSION

In United States of America, every state has the authority or jurisdiction to determine the age of
juveniles who is living within its own territory or jurisdiction; because in the USA different
states have different age criteria with regard to offence committed by the juveniles. But most of
the states concur with maximum age set in the standards 1976.2 Under federal govt., “a person
under the age of 21 years can be considered as juvenile delinquent for committing any offence
but in some other States age limit is under 12 years or under 18 years. In majority of the States
there is no lower age limit set for litigating child as a delinquent, in the Mississippi it is 10 and in
the New York it is set as 7 years”. Parens patriae is Latin for 'parent of his or her country.' In the
juvenile justice legal system, parens patriae is a doctrine that allows the state to step in and serve
as a guardian for children, the mentally ill, the incompetent, the elderly, or disabled persons who
are unable to care for themselves. There are many factors that cause juvenile delinquency.
Children whose parents have been incarcerated are far more likely to show delinquent behavior
than their peers. Sometimes children want to test their parents' limits, or society's limits.Some
people believe that imposing strict laws such as curfews will cause a drop in juvenile
delinquency rates, but sometimes imposing strict rules merely give the children more of an
incentive to break them. However, sometimes juvenile crimes do in fact occur due to the exact
opposite reason, that is, a lack of rules and supervision
The United States federal government enacted legislation to unify the handling of juvenile
delinquents, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of 1974. The act created the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) within the Justice Department to administer
grants for juvenile crime-combating programs, gather national statistics on juvenile crime, fund
research on youth crime and administer four anticonfinement mandates regarding juvenile custody.
In 2018 Juvenile Justice Reforms Act,2018 was passed and there were many amendments made to
the Act of 1974. An effective way of preventing juvenile delinquency and keeping at-risk children
away from crime is to tackle the problem before it happens. There are many foundations and
organizations around the United States that have dedicated themselves to the reduction and
elimination of juvenile delinquency. Many of these organizations spend their time and money
controlling for the causes of juvenile delinquency mentioned above.

29
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resourcfiles/Summary%20of%20the%20Juv
ile%20Justice%20Reform%20Act%20of%202018.pdfhttps://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/
ogue-terreur.pdf

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_Justice_and_Delinquency_Prevention_Act

 https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/145628/6/06_chapter2.pdf

 https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/140952/6/06_chapter%201.pdf

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_delinquency_in_the_United_States

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330468549_On_Pauperism_in_Present_and_Pas

 https://study.com/academy/lesson/parens-patriae-in-juvenile-justice-definition-
doctrine.html

30