I.                    INTRODUCTION

Young people are developmentally different from and morally less culpable than adults.[1] Despite these differences, many children are detained in juvenile detention facilities, where they sleep in cells, similar to prisons where adults are held.[2] These facilities are more harmful than beneficial,[3] so instead of detaining young offenders, the juvenile justice system should use preventative and rehabilitative treatments. In addition to helping reduce recidivism, prevention and rehabilitation are less costly and better promote public safety and better deter crime in comparison to detention.[4] Thus, these alternatives are better for both the individual and the community.


While detention is harmful to all people, it is especially harmful to young people because young people are developmentally different from adults.[5] Rather than rehabilitating youth, detention has short-term and long-term consequences on physical and mental health, development, and education.[6]

A.              Young People are Different from Adults.

The human brain does not fully develop until the early twenties, so young people think and behave differently than adults.[7] Specifically, the limbic system, which is pleasure-seeking and rewards emotions, develops more quickly than the prefrontal cortex, which regulates self-control.[8] Due to these developmental differences, adolescents do not have the ability to exercise adult judgment, decision-making, or impulse control, so they typically base their behavior off of immediate desires rather than long-term reflection.[9]  Thus, youth are more impulsive and more likely to engage in risky behavior than adults.[10] Additionally, as compared to adults, youth are more heavily influenced by their peers and, although they know the difference between right and wrong, they have difficulty making good choices while under stress, especially in a group setting.[11]

B.              Detention is More Detrimental to Youth than Adults.

Detaining youth is “more damaging than rehabilitative.”[12] Recent psychology studies suggest that detention has negative long-term effects on youths’ development, physical and mental well-being, and education.[13] Although juvenile facilities are supposed to help youth rehabilitate, rehabilitation services in detention facilities are limited.[14] Additionally, juvenile detention facilities, even those with rehabilitative services, are designed mainly for punishment and incapacitation.[15] Due to a lack of necessary rehabilitative services, detaining adolescents leads to long-term mental health issues that last through adulthood.[16]

By separating juveniles from their parents, detention impedes youths’ abilities to form coping skills.[17] The rules in detention facilities are so restrictive and repetitive that they take away young people’s abilities to cope with the outside world, which has less structure than detention facilities.[18] Because detained youth are taught to follow rules, even when they do not make sense or are unfair, detention impedes children’s abilities to adjust to society, where they need to express concerns, cope with problems, and seek social support.[19] Additionally, because detention centers are crowded and youth are heavily influenced by their peers, detention worsens young people’s behavioral issues.[20]

Moreover, juvenile detention facilities do not provide adequate mental health treatment for mental health issues, which worsen in the system.[21] Although there are high rates of substance abuse among juvenile offenders, only a small portion of detained youth receive treatment.[22] Furthermore, the conditions of confinement and poor mental health can lead to suicide and self-harm.[23] When detention facilities treat children for suicidal threats and behaviors, they often put the children in isolation, only worsening their mental health.[24]


Alternatives to detention should be utilized both before the child commits a delinquent act and after the child commits a delinquent act. Specifically, school-based programs prevent delinquent acts,[25] so when these are utilized, there is a lesser need to charge children with delinquency.[26] Additionally, even when youth commit delinquent acts, community-based alternatives should be used instead of detention. In particular, instead of charging youth with delinquency, courts should divert youth to mental health courts or drug courts,[27] and instead of detaining youth charged with delinquency, community interventions should be used.

A.              School-Based Programs Prevent Delinquency.

Risk and protective factors make it more or less likely that a child will become involved in the juvenile justice system, and school-based programs should be used as a preventative intervention to decrease the likelihood of involvement in the criminal and juvenile justice system.[28]

                           1.               Based on Childhood Experiences, Some Children Are More Likely to Become Involved in the Juvenile Justice System.

Children are developmentally different from adults, and some children are developmentally different from other children based on their childhood experiences and the resources available to them.[29] Most children in the juvenile justice system have experienced difficulties, such as abuse, mental health issues, and academic failure, before entering the system.[30] Developmental psychologists have identified several risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease the likelihood that a child will end up in the juvenile justice system.[31]

i.                    Risk Factors

There are several risk factors that make it more likely that a child will enter the juvenile justice system. [32] These risk factors include early life stress and chronic disruptive behavior.[33]

Children who experience early life stress, such as abuse, limited access to social institutions, and economic hardship, have an elevated risk of compromised brain development that can impede on their working memory and lead to impulsivity.[34] As a result of compromised brain development, children who experience early life stress are likely to have difficulty learning in school.[35] The lower-level cognitive functioning, impulsivity, and early life stress are “risk factors” for offending.[36]

Another significant risk factor is chronic disruptive behavior beginning at a young age, which affects education, employment, and quality of relationships.[37] Because chronic disruptive behavior can lead to other risk factors, early interventions that treat disruptive behavior can decrease the likelihood of delinquency.[38] Furthermore, many of these risk factors lead to mental illnesses, such as anxiety, depression, and substance abuse that can also lead to delinquent behaviors.[39] In fact, “[a]s many as 90 percent of youth in the juvenile-justice system meet the criteria for one or more mental-health disorders on entry.”[40] Because delinquency is often associated with mental illnesses, treating mental illnesses at an early age can prevent delinquent behaviors.[41] Other significant risk factors include family criminality, low school attainment,[42] and poverty.[43]

ii.                    Protective Factors

The three main protective factors are 1) a positive relationship with a parental figure who cares about the child’s development, 2) inclusion in a peer group that positively influences the child, and 3) activities that promote decision making and critical thinking.[44]

                           2.               School-Based Programs

Because early life stresses heavily influence the likelihood of becoming involved in the system, developmental psychology suggests that interventions are most effective during childhood and early adolescence.[45] Based on recent advances in developmental psychology, modern policy-makers focus on building healthy social environments to prevent youth from entering the system in addition to rehabilitative programs for if they enter the system.[46]

Because youth attend school regularly and schools are filled with people who want youth to succeed, schools provide an accessible setting for delinquency-prevention programs.[47] Moreover, teachers are in a good position to detect risk factors because they spend so much time with children, who often demonstrate behavioral risk factors in the classroom.[48] Most school-based interventions are delivered to the whole classroom, so even children who are not known to be “at-risk” benefit from these interventions.[49] Some examples of school-based interventions are the Good Behavior Game,[50] LifeSkills Training Program,[51] Positive Action,[52] and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies.[53]

i.                    The Good Behavior Game

Developed in the 1960s, the Good Behavior Game is “one of the oldest school-based prevention programs” and is played with first through ninth graders.[54] This intervention program rewards on-task behaviors by separating students into teams and giving teams a point whenever a student misbehaves, and the team with the least number of points at the end of the day wins.[55] Teachers play this game with their students for short periods throughout the school year.[56] By reinforcing good behaviors,[57] this game is effective at altering disruptive and inappropriate behaviors, like aggression, negative comments, and cursing.[58] In addition to these short-term benefits, the Good Behavior Game also leads to long-term benefits, including higher academic performance, more positive peer relationships, a lower likelihood of violent criminal behavior, and reduced dependency on drugs and alcohol.[59]

ii.                    LifeSkills Training Program

Teachers implement the LifeSkills program into their classrooms for students in elementary school through high school.[60] LifeSkills training sessions are about forty-five minutes long and teach “(1) general self-management skills, (2) social skills, and (3) information and skills specifically related to drug use” through “instruction, demonstration, feedback, reinforcement, and practice.”[61] This program prevents drug use, violence, and delinquency and is particularly effective for students with lower socioeconomic status and high-risk youth.[62]

iii.                    Positive Action

Positive Action is a prevention program that teachers deliver to their entire class for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade.[63] This program includes a series of fifteen-minute interactive lessons, including games, worksheets, and puzzles.[64] The Positive Action curriculum promotes school achievement and targets behavior by teaching students how thoughts and actions affect others and how they can use thoughts and actions in positive ways. [65] When students participate in this program, they are likely to have higher academic achievement, higher school attendance, and fewer disruptive behaviors.[66] Additionally, in low-income schools, this program is likely to prevent bullying and violence-related behaviors.[67]

iv.                    Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies is a school-based delivery program for elementary and preschool youth that consists of a series of twenty-minute lessons.[68] These lessons include a variety of instruction, modeling, storytelling, role play, discussion, and videos to “promot[e] emotional and social competencies and reduc[e] aggression and behavioral problems.”[69] Youth who participate in this program have significantly reduced levels of aggression, more prosocial behaviors and interactions, and improved self-regulation.[70]

B.              Community-Based Programs Are Better Treatments and Deterrents Than Detention.

Instead of charging youth who commit delinquent acts, youth should be diverted into problem-solving courts, such as mental health courts or drug courts that work to treat the underlying cause of delinquency rather than punish. [71] Additionally, even when youth are charged with delinquency and adjudicated delinquent,[72] community interventions that rehabilitate youth should be used instead of detention.

                           1.               Diversion Programs

Being in the juvenile justice system worsens mental health disorders and increases the likelihood of reoffending.[73] Jurisdictions that decreased the use of juvenile detention have lower crime and recidivism rates.[74] Some jurisdictions have problem-solving juvenile courts, like juvenile mental health courts or juvenile drug courts, that intervene immediately and aggressively.[75] These courts allow judges to consider each youth individually and holistically, rather than sentencing the child to a placement disposition.[76]

i.                    Juvenile Mental Health Courts

Because a large majority of “youth in the juvenile justice system meet the criteria for one or more mental health disorders,”[77] some states established juvenile mental health courts to treat disorders and provide youth the individualized services they need.[78] Instead of sentencing youth to detention, these courts establish a therapeutic plan and require youth to receive mental health services, such as outpatient treatment and family therapy.[79] To focus on the individual and family, these courts create a holistic system that rewards progress and uses sanctions to correct noncompliance.[80]

ii.                    Juvenile Drug Courts

Juvenile drug courts provide intensive rehabilitation programs with substance abuse treatment for non-violent juvenile offenders who are involved with drugs.[81] Many children who have been diverted from the juvenile court system into juvenile drug courts feel that the drug court helped them succeed.[82]

Although many children feel that the drug court system is effective, only a fraction of children who could benefit from drug treatment is diverted out of the juvenile court system into the drug court system.[83] About half of detained youth have substance abuse problems, and there are high arrest rates for juvenile drug-related crimes.[84] However, only some jurisdictions have a juvenile drug court system, and most jurisdictions with juvenile drug courts have stringent eligibility restrictions.[85]

                           2.               Community Interventions

Community and family-based interventions, such as multisystemic therapy, functional family therapy, and aggression replacement therapy, “are proven to be most effective” at treating young people.[86] In comparison to detention, community-based interventions are less expensive and lead to increased public safety and reduced recidivism.[87] Specifically, community-based interventions lead to a 25% reduction in rearrests while institutional programs only lead to about a 10% reduction.[88]

i.                    Multisystemic Therapy

Multisystemic therapy is an alternative to residential care for high-risk youth.[89] This alternative to detention typically lasts for about four to six months.[90] During this time, a therapist meets with the child and family to determine how the child’s family, peer groups, school, and community affect the child’s behavior.[91] When meeting with families, therapists use both family and cognitive-behavioral therapy to target antisocial behaviors, family and peer relations, and school functioning.[92]

By targeting each individual child’s environment, therapists customize intervention plans to treat the individual’s specific risk factors to correct behavioral problems.[93]  In addition to targeting areas for improvement, multisystemic therapy also focuses on the individual’s and the family’s strengths to improve social, educational, psychological, emotional, and material needs.[94] By working with families, multisystemic therapists promote learning responsibility by recommending that youth help around the house and improve school performance.[95] This form of treatment also focuses on the present and improving the youth’s support system and future actions, instead of punishing the youth for the past.[96]

This treatment effectively rehabilitates youth and corrects behavioral issues.[97] Specifically, multisystemic therapy leads to a long-term reduction of rearrests, improvements in family function, and a decrease in mental health problems.[98] Youth and families who receive multisystemic therapy typically function better than those with other treatments.[99] Furthermore, youth who are treated with multisystemic therapy have low recidivism rates.[100]

ii.                    Functional Family Therapy

Functional family therapy is a treatment and family intervention, where a therapist meets with the family and child for about three months to help the child become more engaged and motivated, change behavior, and maintain new habits.[101] This treatment assists both the child and their family because, in addition to preventing the child from reoffending, it also provides helpful services to the child’s siblings that prevent them from offending.[102] By “focus[ing] on family communication, parenting skills, and conflict management skills,”[103] this alternative to detention “works best to help juveniles” and also significantly reduces recidivism rates for both less serious and severe offenders.[104]

iii.                    Aggression Replacement Therapy

Aggression replacement therapy treats high-risk juvenile offenders to increase prosocial behaviors, manage emotions, and improve moral reasoning.[105]  By developing social skills, emotional control, and moral reasoning, this therapy treats chronically aggressive and violent adolescents.[106] This alternative to detention lasts about 10 weeks and consists of skill-building, positive and negative reinforcement, and group discussions.[107] This treatment reduces recidivism by about 28%.[108]


The government should not detain juvenile offenders because juvenile detention does not benefit society or the child. First, detaining young people does not help young offenders rehabilitate.[109] Second, detaining young people does not promote public safety because detention is a leading factor that contributes to high recidivism rates.[110] Third, detaining young people is not cost-effective.[111]

Because most children in the juvenile justice system experience difficulties and traumas that put them at risk,[112] the juvenile justice system should focus on treating these risk factors instead of punishing children for positions that they do not choose to be in. By evaluating risk and protective factors, the juvenile justice system would focus on delinquency prevention instead of punishing children after they commit delinquent acts. This would prevent juvenile crime from the outset, decreasing the need for rehabilitation and punishment, such as detention. By utilizing delinquency prevention, fewer children would experience the adverse effects of delinquency on physical and mental health, development, and education.[113] Furthermore, delinquency-prevention programs are economically effective because spending the money on prevention prevents spending greater amounts on delinquency adjudications and dispositions.[114] Thus, instead of spending money to punish children, the government should invest in programs to prevent juvenile delinquency from the outset.

A.              The Government Should Incentive School-Based Interventions and Delinquency Prevention.

Several school-based interventions effectively alter inappropriate behaviors and lead to a long-term decrease in delinquent behaviors,[115] so the government should create a program that incentivizes school systems to incorporate delinquency intervention programs into their curriculums. Although school-based programs may take away from “academic” time, these programs lead to better academic achievement in the long-run.[116] Thus, in addition to helping children develop emotionally and preventing delinquent behaviors, school-based prevention programs will help children learn more and perform better in school.

B.              Youth Should be Diverted Out of the Juvenile Justice System and into Mental Health and Drug Courts.

When young people commit delinquent acts, the juvenile justice system should divert youth out of the system, instead of making them a part of the system. Because most youth who enter the juvenile justice system have mental health disorders, including substance abuse disorders,[117] diversion programs such as mental health courts or drug courts more effectively treat youth than placement dispositions from the juvenile courts. Because diversion programs are more specialized and focused on the individual’s needs, diverting youth into mental health or drug courts would help more children succeed and feel accomplished.[118] Thus, this alternative leaves children much better off than delinquency, which negatively impacts youths’ senses of self and self-worth.[119]

C.              The Juvenile Justice System Should Place Children in Community Intervention Programs, Instead of Detention.

Because community and family-based interventions are “proven to be most effective” at treating young people,[120] the juvenile justice system should place more children in community intervention programs, instead of delinquency facilities. In addition to better treating young people, community-based settings are more cost-effective and lead to lower recidivism rates than detention facilities,[121] so placing young offenders in community-based settings will better serve the individual offender and the overall community. Because these alternatives benefit children more than detention and are less costly than detention, the government should utilize prevention and diversion instead of detaining young people.

[1] See RICHARD J. BONNIE ET AL., REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE 91 (2013). See generally Barry C. Feld, My Life in Crime: An Intellectual History of the Juvenile Court, 17 NEV. L.J. 299, 300 (2017).

[2] See Ian Lambie & Isabel Randell, The Impact of Incarceration on Juvenile Offenders, 33 CLINICAL PSYCH. REV. 448, 456 (2013).

[3] See id.


[5] See Lambie & Randell, supra note 3, at 456.

[6] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 2; Julia Dmitrieva et al., Arrested Development: The Effects of Incarceration on the Development of Psychosocial Maturity, 24 DEV. & PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 1072, 1073–74 (2012).

[7] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK 172 (Wesley T. Church, II et al. eds., 2d ed. 2014).

[8] See id.

[9] See id.

[10] See id. at 171.

[11] See BONNIE ET AL., supra note 1, at 91, 94.

[12] Lambie & Randell, supra note 3, at 456.

[13] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 2; Dmitrieva et al., supra note 6, at 1073–74.

[14] See Dmitrieva et al., supra note 6, at 1074–75.

[15] See id.                    

[16] See Elisabeth S. Barnert et al., How Does Incarcerating Young People Affect Their Adult Health Outcomes?, PEDIATRICS, Feb. 2017, at 1. 

[17] See Dmitrieva et al., supra note 6, at 1073.

[18] See id. at 1074.

[19] See id.

[20] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 5, 8.

[21] See id. at 8.

[22] Lambie & Randell, supra note 3, at 453.

[23] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 2; Lambie & Randell, supra note 3, at 453–54.

[24] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 9.

[25] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 292–93.

[26] When youth are “adjudicated” for delinquency, they are either found delinquent or not delinquent. Barry C. Feld, The Constitutional Tension Between Apprendi and McKeiver: Sentence Enhancements Based on Delinquency Convictions and the Quality of Justice in Juvenile Courts, 38 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 1111, 1138 (2003).

[27] See id.

[28] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 134–35.

[29] See id.

[30] See id. at 291.

[31] See BONNIE ET AL., supra note 1, at 100–01.

[32] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 135.

[33] See id. at 135, 295.

[34] See id. at 135.

[35] See id.

[36] Id.

[37] See id. at 295.

[38] See id.

[39] See id. at 414.

[40] Rachel Shapiro & Margie Wakelin, Representing Court-Involved Youth in Education Cases, ABA (Sept. 28, 2012), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-rights/articles/2012/representing-court-involved-youth-education-cases/. Fifty to seventy-five percent of detained children have a psychiatric disorder, and “fifty-five percent of youth in the juvenile justice system show symptoms of clinical depression.” Patrick Geary, Juvenile Mental Health Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Facing the Challenges Posed by Youth with Mental Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System, 5 YALE J. HEALTH POL’Y L. & ETHICS 671, 686 (2005).

[41] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 415.

[42] See Educational Attainment, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, https://www.census.gov/topics/education/educational-attainment.html (last visited Nov. 11, 2021).

[43] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 293–95.

[44] See BONNIE ET AL., supra note 1, at 101–02.

[45] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 292–93.

[46] See BONNIE ET AL., supra note 1, at 122.

[47] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 295–96.

[48] See NAT’L RSCH. COUNCIL ET AL., JUVENILE CRIME, JUVENILE JUSTICE 121 (Joan McCord, Cathy Spatz Widom, & Nancy A. Crowell eds., 2001).

[49] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 296.

[50] What is The Pax Good Behavior Game?, PAXIS INST., https://www.goodbehaviorgame.org/good-behavior-game-what-is-it (last visited Nov. 11, 2021).

[51] Life Skills Training, EPIS, http://www.episcenter.psu.edu/ebp/lifeskills (last visited Nov. 11, 2021).

[52] Introduction to Positive Action, POSITIVE ACTION, https://www.positiveaction.net/introduction# (last visited Nov. 11, 2021).

[53] The PATHS Curriculum, PATHS TRAINING, http://www.pathstraining.com/main/curriculum/ (last visited Nov. 11, 2021).

[54] JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 299–300.

[55] See Good Behavior Game, INTERVENTION CENT., https://www.interventioncentral.org/behavioral-interventions/schoolwide-classroommgmt/good-behavior-game (last visited Nov. 11, 2021).

[56] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 299.

[57] See Good Behavior Game, supra note 55.

[58] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 300.

[59] See id.

[60] See id.

[61] Life Skills Training, supra note 51.

[62] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 300–01.

[63] See id. at 301.

[64] See Introduction to Positive Action, supra note 52.

[65] See id.; JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 301. 

[66] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 301.

[67] See id. at 302.

[68] See id.

[69] The PATHS Curriculum, supra note 53; see JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 302.

[70] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 302.

[71] See Geary, supra note 40, at 686.

[72] An adjudicatory hearing is the “fact-finding phase . . . of a juvenile case.” Juvenile Court Terminology, NAT’L JUV. DEF. CTR., https://njdc.info/juvenile-court-terminology/ (last visited Nov. 11, 2021). This is analogous to a trial in an adult criminal case. See id. If a minor is adjudicated delinquent, then the fact-finder of the adjudication found that the child committed an offense that would be a crime if committed by an adult. See id.

[73] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 415.

[74] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 15.

[75] See Geary, supra note 40, at 686.

[76] Id. A disposition is the juvenile legal system’s equivalent to the criminal system’s sentence. See Juvenile Court Terminology, supra note 72. One possible disposition is placement, meaning that the child is put under the custody of the state and placed into a private or state-run facility, like a juvenile detention center or a group home. See id.

[77] Shapiro & Wakelin, supra note 40.

[78] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 224–25.

[79] See Geary, supra note 40, at 686.

[80] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 224.

[81] See Samantha Balanevsky, Note, Where Drugs Are Involved, Universities Offer Education and Rehabilitation, While the Juvenile Justice System Offers Detention and Punishment: Why Juvenile Drug Courts Are the Answer, 26 CARDOZO J. EQUAL RTS. & SOC. JUST. 329, 332–33, 340 (2020).

[82] See id.

[83] See id. at 333.

[84] See id. at 354.

[85] See id. at 332–33.

[86] HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 3.

[87] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 315; NAT’L RSCH. COUNCIL ET AL., supra note 48, at 7.

[88] See BONNIE ET AL., supra note 1, at 155.

[89] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 326.

[90] See Elizabeth Upchurch, Notes and Comments, Putting Focus Back on the Family: Using Multisystemic Therapy and Regionalized Incarceration As Alternatives to the Texas Youth Commission, 15 TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV. 161, 171 (2008).

[91] See id.

[92] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 326.

[93] See Upchurch, supra note 90, at 171.

[94] See id. at 172.

[95] See id.

[96] See id. at 173

[97] See id. at 170.

[98] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 327.

[99] See Lambie & Randell, supra note 3, at 455.

[100] See id. at 456.

[101] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 327.

[102] See id. at 328.

[103] Amanda Kopnick, Note, Protecting Our Most Valuable Assets: A Proposal to Return to A Rehabilitative Approach to Juvenile Justice, 5 U. ST. THOMAS J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 105, 117 (2011). 

[104] Jan Pudlow, Children’s Panel Turns to the Experts, FLA. BAR NEWS (Oct. 1, 2000), https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/childrens-panel-turns-to-the-experts/; see also Kopnick, supra note 103, at 117.

[105] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 328.

[106] See Kristin Henning, The Challenge of Race and Crime in A Free Society: The Racial Divide in Fifty Years of Juvenile Justice Reform, 86 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1604, 1656 (2018).

[107] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 328.

[108] See id.

[109] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 6–9.

[110] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 4.

[111] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 10–11.

[112] See JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 291.

[113] See id. at 297.

[114] See id.

[115] See, e.g., id. at 297–303.

[116] Id.

[117] See id. at 224.

[118] See Balanevsky, supra note 81, at 332; Lambie & Randell, supra note 3, at 453.

[119] See HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 2; Lambie & Randell, supra note 3, at 453.

[120] HOLMAN & ZIEDENBERG, supra note 4, at 3.

[121] ­See NAT’L RSCH. COUNCIL ET AL., supra note 48 at 7; JUVENILE JUSTICE SOURCEBOOK, supra note 7, at 315.