Introduction

In 1855 the Chicago Reform School was established to serve not punish children who were crimeprone. The school was viewed as an alternative to placing children in adult institutions. Likewise, the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899 in Illinois was the result of a movement to provide an alternative to the adult system: to stop the incarceration of children 1 in adult prisons.

As the end of the 20th century approaches, a similar movement is in progress to improve the juvenile justice system--to at the very least remove young people from adult confinement facilities. This concern with the incarceration of children provided the stimulus for this report, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention pursuant to the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (hereinafter, JJDP Act). A comparative analysis

of juvenile court legislation is essential to an understanding of how the juvenile justice system works throughout the country and a knowledge of the system is essential in striving for appropriate changes. For the "...legislature is the primary designer of the JJS (juvenile justice system) in that it establishes the acts of delinquency, defines the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts, determines when juveniles may be apprehended and detained, and establishes 112 basic guidelines for juvenile institutions.

Using a comparative analysis of juvenile court legislation as a guide, it should be possible with an understanding of the overall system to identify legislative problem areas in a given state. The more progressive legislation of another state can then be used as a model for change.

During the past decade, juvenile court legislation has been in a state of flux and it continues to change each year, largely in response to the JJDP Act, with its focus on the deinstitutionalization of status offenders and nonoffenders and the separation of juveniles from adults if they are held in adult confinement facilities. Within the past two years, significant changes have been made in the juvenile codes of at least 33 states; many states have repealed the old juvenile laws and enacted totally new juvenile codes, for example, New Hampshire, Iowa, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Washington.

Although a comparative analysis of the state juvenile codes is a volatile area and obviously critical given the great interest on the local, state, and federal level in improving the juvenile justice system, not since 1974 in Juvenile

Delinquency: A Comparative Analysis of Legal Codes in the United States, by Levin and Sarri of the National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections, has a comprehensive analysis of juvenile codes been conducted. This document seeks to update the significant changes which have developed at both the state and federal level since the enactment of the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

Because this research project was funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention pursuant to the Act, a major objective was to review the juvenile codes of the 56 states and territories to provide a legal update in the areas of specific concern to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. These areas as mentioned above are the deinstitutionalization of status offenders and nonoffenders, and the separation of juveniles from adults in adult facilities (See Part 9). However, the difference in the Act's definitions as interpreted by its administering agency, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, of juveniles within the juvenile justice system and the definitions contained in state juvenile codes required separate treatment of on the one hand, presenting an accurate view of state law and on the other, assessing whether state law adheres to the requirements of the Act. Thus, the larger part of this publication reflects state law and uses the less preferable state law terms: delinquent (which usually includes some status offenses because a delinquent act is defined as a violation of law and thus can include truancy and curfew violations which are actually status offenses), children in need of supervision, and dependent, abused, or neglected juveniles. terms should be compared with the more preferable terms of the Act: criminal-type offender (the

These

act committed is a crime if committed by an adult), status offender (the act committed is not a crime if committed by an adult), and nonoffender (typically the same as the state terms).

A separate discussion on the Act was necessary for in measuring whether a state's legislation adheres to the requirements of the Act's deinstitutionalization provisions, the inconsistency between a state's definitions and the Act's may result in a slightly inaccurate view. This means that although a state may require the deinstitutionalization of its children in need of supervision, this may not include all status offenders as required by the act if curfew and truancy violations are included within the state's delinquent category.

An analysis of the above areas of the Act required placing them in the context of the overall system. Thus what results is a fairly complete overview of the juvenile justice system in each state and territory. Areas covered are: (1) juvenile court structure; (2) waiver to the adult criminal court; (3) maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction; (4) types of juveniles within the court's jurisdiction; (5) the custody process; (6) place of detention; (7) time and petition requirements; (8) disposition; (9) statutory references to the Interstate Compact on Juveniles; and (10) information on inspection provisions for juvenile facilities (also a concern of the JJDP Act).

The approach of the study was to review the laws pertaining to juveniles in the 56 states and territories analyzing them through the method of a questionnaire taken from the earlier Levin and Sarri study with extensive modifications.

ests of public safety and when it can be clearly shown that a change in custody and control will plainly better the minor...."3 It would seem to be contrary to such an express statutory purpose if for example, a juvenile could be held miles from his or her community in detention because also pursuant to statute, the action can be brought where the alleged act occurred.

1 Juvenile Court Structure

Initial considerations in viewing the juvenile court systems throughout the United States include: (1) Which court handles juvenile matters? (2) Is there a juvenile court in each county of the state? (3) Where may charges be brought against a juvenile or where may a petition be filed?

The latter two inquiries are central to the concept of community-based treatment for a juvenile as expressed in the purpose sections of many state juvenile codes. For example, in the recently enacted New Hampshire juvenile code, one of its stated purposes is to provide treatment for a delinquent child "whenever possible, by keeping a minor in contact with his home community and in a family environment by preserving the unity of the family and separating the minor from his parents only when it is clearly necessary for his welfare or the inter