279status offenders in the juvenile justice system. According to this Act, states were not
allowed to incarcerate status offenders in secure juvenile detention facilities. Yet the
Illinois courts strongly supported the incarceration of status offenders as evidenced
by the decision in People v. Presley (1974). In this decision the court concluded that
due to part'iis patriae, the state has the authority to incarcerate children who run
away from home. It was not until 1992, with the amendments to theJJDP Act, that
status offenders were removed from juvenile court jurisdiction altogether. It should
be noted that now, almost 25 years after the JJDP Act was passed, approximately
27% of status offenders continue to be held in secure detention facilities (Knsberg
& DeConio, 1993).
In addition to the psychological and criminological debate regarding the treat-
ment of status offenders, is the economic controversy. Mclntyre (1996) studied
the number of status-offender petitions that were filed over the past 20 years. She
reported that there was a 54% decline in status petitions from 1979 to 1995, and
that such a reduction saved the American taxpayers approximately 6 million dol-
lars. However, although the decrease in status-offender petitions is cost effective,
it remains questionable whether the needs of these juveniles are being addressed.
Among those who fought for a distinction between status offenders and delinquents,
it was hoped that specific treatment programs would be developed in order to better
meet the psychological needs of status offenders (Zatz, 1982). Linney (1982) ex-
amined the alternatives to incarceration that have been offered for status offenders.
In terms of counseling services availed to these offenders, Linney found that all of
the programs reported that counseling was available to the juveniles. Upon closer
examination, however, the definition and frequency of counseling varied across
programs. For instance, in certain programs, any time a social worker spoke with
a juvenile "counseling" took place. Furthermore, when individual counseling was
provided, Linney determined that it centered around helping the juvenile adjust to
the residential placement, and once this was accomplished, the counseling ceased.
It is clear from Linney s study that although community-based programs do exist
for status offenders as alternatives to incarceration, they are extremely lacking in
terms of the treatment they provide.
Eighty-four percent of the facilities examined in Linney's (1982) study reported
the juveniles' families as being the primary causal factor in the commission of status
offenses. Similarly, as noted by Melton ct al. (1997), the behaviors of status offenders
are oftentimes attributable to psychological dysfunction within one's family. With
this in mind, it is necessary to treat juveniles as troubled youths in need of psycho-
logical services. As seen in the case illustration of Johnny, his running away was
clearly a function of the abuse that he suffered at home as opposed to the devel-
opment of a criminal lifestyle. However, if individuals such as Johnny continue to
be placed among violent juvenile offenders in detention facilities, it is likely that
they will be influenced by the delinquent behavior of their peers. Adolescence
is a time when individuals are highly impressionable, and the influences of those
with whom juveniles come into contact play a critical role in the shaping of their