U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders in Arizona - State and Local Initiators of Policy Change (From Neither Angels nor Thieves - Studies in Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, P 255-295, 1982, Joel F Handler and Julie Zatz, ed. - See NCJ-84933)

NCJ Number
84940
Author(s)
T C Mack; J A Stookey
Date Published
1982
Length
41 pages
Annotation
This study aims at determining if the 75 percent reduction in the number of detained status offenders in Arizona over 3 years can be associated with passage of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1979 (JJDPA).
Abstract
The first section of the report is an historical case study describing the growth of concern over status offenders in Arizona, particularly from 1975 to 1978. Four statewide systems -- juvenile justice, social services, mental health, and corrections -- are examined to determine the role they played in effecting deinstitutionalization in the State. The discussion of the juvenile justice system centers on changes in State legislation and the actors responsible for those changes, while the social services discussion examines the growth of mechanisms for out-of-home placement in nonsecure settings. This placement focus is continued in the discussion of mental health and corrections systems and the possibility of their use for status offenders. Attention is given to whether deinstitutionalization can be ascribed to legislative action, administrative action, local court initiative, provider lobbies, public interest groups, or some combination thereof. The second section of the report focuses on two Arizona localities and their treatment of status offenders. Overall, it appears that although anecdotal evidence indicates that JJDPA created new programs and policies within the local areas studied, long-term numerical trends appear not to support this hypothesis. Any deinstitutionalization that has occurred seems largely a result of influences within the State, e.g., local decisionmakers such as judges or police departments. Various tabular data on status offenders are provided, along with five references and a listing of the persons interviewed. (Author summary modified)