HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadxvt0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DOCUMENT RESUME
03526 - [A2723949]
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders. September 27, 1977.
18 pp.
Testimony before the Senate committee on the Judiciary: Juvenile
Delinquency Subcommittee; by William J. Anderson, Deputy
Director, General Government Div.
Issue Area: Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention: Effectiveness
of Correctional Programs (514).
Contact: General Government Div.
Budget Function: law Enforcement and Justice: Federal
correctional and Rehabilitative Activities (753).
Organization Concerned: Law Enforcement Ass±itance
Administration.
Congressional Relevance: Senate Committee on the Judiciary:
Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee.
Authorityt Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974. Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended. Juvenile Justice Amendments of 1977.
Few States have established comprehensive systems to
monitor jails, detention facilities, and correctional facilities
to insure that deinstitutionalization of status offenders is
achieved. This information is extremely important since funding
is continqent upon a State's ability to demonstrate compliance
with the deinstitutionalizatio: mandate of Federal legislation.
Three of the five States reviewed have legislation that allows
status offenders to be placed in detention facilities, and two
of the three also have legislaticn that allows such placements
in correctional facilities. State Planning Agency officials in
all five States did not feel they have implementing authority to
bring about deinstitutionalization. Efforts to date have
concentrated on removal of status offenders with limited
provision of serice or treatment. The Law Enforcement
Assistanc.e Administration (LEAA) has indicated that services for
Irocessing and treating status offenders are generally
inadequate, inappropriate, and often destructive. Little
informatien has been developed at the national level on the
types of service alternatives that appear most effective for
status offenders. LEAA feels that its role is to provide
financial and techaical assistance to the States rather than to
mandate service r Euirements. (SW)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadxvt0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)