Introduction

Juvenile delinquency is an ongoing issue in the United States. Even though the juvenile arrest rates have decreased for some crimes, juvenile justice administrators are still burdened by juveniles committing crimes. In addition, the juvenile justice system does not always know what causes juveniles to commit crimes. While numerous studies have indicated reasons as to why juveniles commit crimes, recent studies suggest that a number of juveniles have been found to suffer from mental illnesses, which contributes to the juveniles committing crimes. If these studies are correct, it is imperative that juvenile justice administrators work together to effectively treat and rehabilitate these juveniles.

Laws protecting juvenile files make it difficult to know a variety of things about juvenile crime cases. Additionally, medical laws that exist make it difficult to be able to assess how many juveniles, in or out of the juvenile justice system, suffer from a mental illness. Mental illnesses can range from "simple" depression onto diagnoses like Schizophrenia. Even some developmental disabilities, like Autism Spectrum Disorders, are classified as mental illnesses. When a juvenile unknowingly suffers from a mental illness, the disease can cause issues for everyone involved in the juvenile's life including schools, family, friends and, most importantly, society as a whole. As noted by Burrell, Kendrick and Blalock, public safety is an obvious concern when it comes to any criminal (2008, p. 242). However, some juvenile systems are releasing minor criminals from the system due to not being able to treat them only to have them come back for another crime later (Burrell, et al., 2008, p. 242). Even though it may not seem like a big issue to some, society as a whole must become involved in the "treatment" of delinquent mentally ill juveniles. With that said, not every member must become direct participants. Instead, some individuals in society should act as representatives of the others. As the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission wrote of citizen advisory groups, "The citizen advisory group is a means of two-way communication: it helps the court understand the community's problems and priorities, while enabling the community to understand, appreciate, and support the work of the court" (2008, p. 148).  Most jurisdictions continue to arrest juveniles without looking for any underlying causes although some jurisdictions have incorporated juvenile mental health courts to appropriately diagnose and treat juvenile criminals. By effectively identifying and treating juvenile criminals with mental illnesses, the juvenile justice system assists both juveniles and society as a whole in having productive members of society. However, an overhaul on juvenile courts cannot be done without the administrators working with subordinates and society.

As discussed in the literature review, the few studies into juvenile mental illnesses and juvenile arrests rates indicate a change is needed in the juvenile justice system. The purpose of this paper is to encourage the continued growth of juvenile mental health courts throughout the United States to assist the juvenile justice system as a whole. Through the Situational Leadership Theory, this paper specifically addresses how juvenile justice administrators should work together to persuade subordinates and society to support juvenile mental health courts. 

Theory Explanation

Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory is flexible to apply to most situations. This theory takes into considerations the changing of various tasks, which can make two identical situations change within a moment. Based upon the Situational Leadership Theory, leaders adapt to followers (Peak, 2008, p. 41). While this may not seem ideal, it certainly allows flexibility within any organization that maintains individuals with various abilities and motivational thoughts. As Peak wrote, "Situational leadership takes into account worker readiness; readiness is defined as the capacity to set high but attainable goals, the willingness to take responsibility, and the education and/or experience of the individual or the group" (2008, p. 41).

As described above, situational leadership takes into consideration one of the follower types to determine which leadership style a leader should incorporate into the situation. While 12Manage.com classifies followers by developmental levels - D1, D2, D3 and D4, the developmental levels are the same as the follower styles demonstrated at ChangingMinds.org (2009; n.d.). As compiled from ChangingMinds.org and 12Manage.com, the following table represents how the different leadership styles should be used in accordance with the various follower styles.

Table 1: Situational Leadership Follower and Leadership Styles

According to Table 1, there are different levels with each style. With the R1 Follower not possessing the necessary skills or security to fulfill the job task, the S1 Leader must focus on the task at hand, not the relationship with the follower by directing the follower through "one-way communication" (ChangingMinds.org, n.d.; 12Manage.com, 2009). That is, R1 Followers are not asked to make any decisions as the S1 Leaders "define the roles and tasks of the 'follower' and supervise [the followers] closely" (12Manage.com, 2009). According to 12Manage.com, R2 Followers have some skills to fulfill the job but lack security to get the task done (2009). The S2 Leaders work with the F2 Followers to build skill and assurance on the task by utilizing a "two-way" street of communication and "selling and coaching" (ChangingMinds.org, n.d.; 12Manage.com, 2009). As described in ChangingMinds.org and 12Manage.com, R3 Followers possess the skills needed to complete the job but may "lack confidence to go [at] it alone, or the motivation to do it well/quickly" (n.d.; 2009). S3 Leaders do not focus on teaching the R3 Follower, but instead, focus on "listening, praising and otherwise making the follower feel good when they show necessary commitments" (ChangingMinds.org, n.d.). Finally, R4 Followers could be considered top notch. R4 Followers maintain the skill and willingness and motivation to complete the tasks (ChangingMinds.org, n.d.; 12Manage.com, 2009). S4 Leaders are able to keep a "distant eye" on R4 Followers to ensure proper decisions are being made by the followers all the while offering praise to keep the motivation and willingness high (ChangingMinds.org, n.d.; 12Manage.com, 2009). Each of these styles allows flexibility for the leaders to ensure the jobs are done right. As pointed out by 12manage.com, "By adopting the right style to suit the follower's development level, work gets done, relationships are built up and most importantly, the follower's development level will rise to D4, to everyone's benefit" (2009).

Literature Review

This section provides a series of works by various authors pertaining to juvenile delinquency. First, juvenile arrest rates will be discussed as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigations for 2007. Next, the prevalence of juvenile mental illness will be looked at along with current administrator issues with juvenile delinquency. Then, a few of the current juvenile mental health courts will be examined. Finally, a single paragraph will conclude the literature review section.

Arrest Reports

Juvenile arrest rates are a primary indicator of juvenile criminal problems. According to Federal Bureau of Investigations, or FBI, a total of 1,649,977 juveniles under the age of 18 were arrested in 2007, which was 15.4% of all arrests made (2008b). Of the juveniles arrested, 4.3% were between the ages of 10 and 14, 3.1% were 15, 3.8% were 16 and 4.3% were 17 (FBI, 2008b). These statistics show it is obvious that juveniles who have barely reached puberty, those 10-14, are committing crimes at the same rate of those who are about ready to graduate from high school. It is also important to keep in mind that these numbers are only those reported to the FBI by various law enforcement agencies. While these arrest statistics may not sound like a lot, they certainly provide reason enough to have concern about juvenile arrests.

When looking at juvenile arrest rates, it is important to look at the trend. In comparing the total juvenile arrest rate from 2006 to those from 2007, one can see that it decreased by 1.6% (FBI, 2008a). That is, there were approximately 24,000 less arrests in 2007 (FBI, 2008a). The decrease in juvenile arrest trends showed to be consistent in many crimes including: burglary, forcible rape, fraud, motor vehicle theft, driving under the influence and gambling (FBI, 2008a). However, the decreasing juvenile arrest rates were not apparent in all areas of crimes. The following crimes experienced an increase in juvenile arrest rates: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter +2.8%, larceny-theft +7.7%, arson property crime +3.9%, embezzlement +25.4%, drug abuse violations +0.3%, offenses against the family and children +10.8% and liquor laws +0.8% (FBI, 2008a). Even though most of these increased arrests were due to crimes that involved some sort of stealing, an increase in murder and nonnegligent manslaughter and offenses against family and children are enough reasons to be concerned about juveniles being arrested. Most importantly, what is happening to these violent juvenile offenders?

Juvenile arrests are one issue, but the "punishment" of these juvenile offenders is another area to examine. While the FBI's Table 68 Police Disposition of Juvenile Offenders Taken into Custody does not include all juvenile arrests, it does include 663,991 arrested juveniles in 5,242 agencies, which is about 46.7% of all juvenile arrests (2008c). Interestingly, almost 20%, or 129,404, of the agencies reporting "handled [the juveniles] within the department and released them" (FBI, 2008c). According to the FBI, 461,909 juveniles were "referred to juvenile court jurisdiction" with 8,141 juveniles being "referred to another police agency" (2008c). Juveniles sent to a welfare agency numbered 2,430 and adult jurisdiction took over 62,107 juveniles (FBI, 2008c). The FBI (2008c) demonstrated juvenile arrests according to population groups as outlined below:

• Group I with populations of 250,000+ had 138,594 juvenile arrests.
• Group II with populations between 100,000 and 249,999 had 82,959 juvenile arrests.
• Group III with populations between 50,000 and 99,999 had 105,992 juvenile arrests.
• Group IV with populations between 25,000 and 49,999 had 75,606 juvenile arrests.
• Group V with populations between 10,000 and 24,999 had 85,504 juvenile arrests.
• Group VI with populations of 9,999 and below had 71,378 juvenile arrests.
• Metropolitan counties had 81,552 juvenile arrests.
• Nonmetropolitan counties had 22,046 juvenile arrests.

As the above shows, juvenile arrests fluctuated greatly within the varied population distinctions. In society, some attribute population to the number of impoverished families, which are typically stereotyped in society as having a higher rate of delinquency. However, previous studies have not been consistent in demonstrating that poverty relates to the majority of juvenile delinquency.

Administrators, Mental Illness and Juvenile Delinquency

Even though this is an older look into the problems of the juvenile justice system concerning mentally ill juveniles, it demonstrates the continuing need for treatment of such juveniles. The Minority Staff Special Investigations Division's study included 500 juvenile detention administrators in 49 states, or 3/4s of the detention centers nationally (2004, p. 4). According to the Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, 15,000 incarcerated juveniles waited six months for mental health services (2004, p. 4). Unfortunately, two-thirds of juvenile facilities experienced juvenile suicide attempts or attacks on others, with one-fourth of the facilities having poor or no mental health services (Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, 2004, p. 4).

Juvenile justice administrators have issues trying to effectively and appropriately care for these individuals. Administrators' access to "community residential treatment, inpatient psychiatric care, outpatient mental health care and foster care" was all noted to be problems for administrators (Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, 2004, p. 4). Unfortunately, according to the Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, 2004, these administrators are faced with not only juveniles who have committed crimes, but also juveniles who have been thrown to them from families who no longer know what to do with their mentally ill children (p. 6). Even when these mentally ill juveniles are "thrown" at the system without a criminal charge, these juvenile begin to demonstrate assaultive behaviors within the centers (Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, 2004, p. 6). The Minority Staff Special Investigations Division noted that a Pennsylvania administrator blamed the placement of juveniles with mental illness as more stress on the center "than any other problem I know" (2004, p. 12). Safety for residents, staff and juveniles were prime concerns for a Georgia juvenile detention administrator (Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, 2004, p. 13). From a Missouri detention center, the Minority Staff Special Investigations Division (2004) quoted the administrator:

            Youth who are banging their head or fist or feet into the walls or who are otherwise harming  themselves must be restrained creating a crisis situation ... [C]onsequently detention staff have to divert all resources to that one youth for an extended period of time. p. 4

Interestingly, "Of the 347 facilities that held youth waiting for services, 95 (27%) report poor, very poor, or no mental health treatment for youths in detention" (Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, 2004, p. 13). Furthermore, according to the Minority Staff Special Investigations Division (2004), a Louisiana detention center administrator stated:

            The availability of mental health services in this area is slim to none. We have had to detain and monitor closely juveniles who are acutely depressed/suicidal due to lack of bed/space at the state mental health facilities. We appear to be warehousing youths with mental illnesses due to lack of mental health services." (p. 9)

To add more stress on the employees in addition to the administrators, a North Carolina administrator reported that his staff was not trained to deal with these juveniles (Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, 2004, p. 14). Additionally, a Tennessee administrator reported that his employees only received a seminar on mental illness, no specific training (Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, 2004, p. 14). As noted in the Minority Staff Special Investigations Division's report, the $100 million spent to house these juveniles "does not include any of the additional expense in service provision and staff time associated with holding youth in urgent need of mental health services (2004, p. 4).

The National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (NCMHJJ) and Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) worked together on this study, which was funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). By conducting this study on juveniles within the juvenile justice system, these organizations and authors were able to verify past studies that diagnosed juvenile justice system juveniles with mental health disorders (Shufelt and Cocozza, 2006, p.2). However, this study used three different geographic regions - Washington, Texas and Louisiana (Shufelt and Cocozza, 2006, p.2). Shufelt and Cocozza found that 70.4% of juveniles within the juvenile justice system had at least one mental illness, 79% of these juveniles met criteria for two mental illnesses, 60% of these juveniles met criteria for three or more mental illnesses and 60.8% of these juveniles had a substance abuse disorder (2006, pp. 1-2). According to Shufelt and Cocozza, the mental health disorder findings included: disruptive disorders, conduct disorders, substance use disorders, anxiety disorders and mood disorders (2006, p. 2). As noted by Shufelt and Cocozza, this study did include extra females, Hispanics and Native Americans to study past understudied populations (2006, p. 2). To be sure conduct disorders and substance abuse disorders were not the culprits in this study, Shufelt and Cocozza narrowed the numbers down further. After removing the diagnosed conduct disorders, 66.3% of the juveniles still qualified as having a mental health disorder (Shufelt and Cocozza, 2006, p. 3). Likewise, 61.8% of the youth met criteria for a mental health disorder after substance abuse disorders were removed. (Shufelt and Cocozza, 2006, p. 3)

According to Gordon, Wollard, Opton and Gardner, Alameda County, California studied its juvenile population after the Congressional Committee on Government Reform found issues within the juvenile justice system concerning mental illness (2008, p. 1). Even though only 111 juveniles were studied, the results were astounding considering this was only 45% of the total Juvenile Hall population (Gordon, et al., 2008, p. 1). As noted by Gordon, et al., 60% of these juveniles had previously been diagnosed with a mental illness (2008, p. 1). Additionally, 42% of these juveniles met the criteria for two or more mental illnesses (Gordon, et al., 2008, p. 1).

Juvenile Mental Health Courts

Santa Clara County, California was the first county to develop the juvenile mental health court. After realizing that the majority of juveniles within their system - 212 out of 303 - suffered a mental illness and repeatedly broke laws, the County developed the court (Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara, 2009). According to the Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara, the court involves a multidisciplinary team consisting of the following: judge, juvenile probation department, county mental health department, district attorney's office and public defender's office (2009). Through this team, juveniles with mental illnesses ranging from Schizophrenia and Autism Disorders on to Major Depression or severe anxiety can be appropriately treated all the while learning their role in society (Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara, 2009). Even though there are a few drawbacks to this specific court - the juvenile chooses whether to participate in treatment or go through the regular process, there are certainly positive sides to this technique (Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara, 2009). To participate in the Mental Health Court, juveniles must not only admit to the crime they committed, but also they must adhere to the court's individualized treatment and rehabilitation services (Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara, 2009). Finally, by participating in such services, juveniles are more likely to be able to stay within the community, family and educational system instead of being detained (Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara, 2009).         

From the Alameda County, California study, the county developed the Alameda County Juvenile Collaborative Court in 2007 (Gordon, et al., 2008, p. 1). The court's goal "is to 'divert mentally ill youth from detention by providing them with better access to the mental health services and community support' they need in order to safely return to their homes and communities" (Gordon, et al, 2008, p. 1). As Gordon et al. (2008) pointed out from the county:

            The ACJC's intent is to avoid criminalizing youth who have become involved in the juvenile justice system primarily because of their mental illnesses. It is believed that both  the troubled youth and the community will benefit when youth remain in their homes and communities, avoid continued contact with the delinquency system, and transition successfully into adulthood. As a collaborative court, the ACJC seeks to improve coordination between the juvenile justice and mental health systems so that juveniles with serious mental health needs get the treatment they need to keep them out of trouble with the law (p. 2).

While this court does include juveniles with many mental illnesses, it fails to cover all of them such as conduct disorders (Gordon, et. al, 2008, p. 3). Finally, even though the court recognizes that mental illnesses are a lifetime problem, the court also recognizes the importance of stability and community involvement with the juvenile once released from the court's program (Gordon, et. al, 2008, p. 3).

While the Council of State Governments Justice Center explores adult mental health court, it also analyzes what is known of juvenile mental health courts. With minimal jurisdictions, 18,  actually incorporating juvenile mental health courts, the Council of State Governments Justice Center admits that exact effectiveness is not known (2008, p. 11). The most important benefit is that the juveniles are treated and hopefully diverted from future crime (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2008, p. 11). Likewise, the various models do not treat just one classification of mental illness; they treat varied mental illnesses, some including co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2008, p. 11). The Council of State Governments Justice Center notes issues that need to be addressed when policymakers and administrators are contemplating juvenile mental health courts: 1) impractical in some jurisdictions due to size or community resistance, 2) limited research showing the exact positives of juvenile mental health courts and 3) ensure an effective community mental health team that can handle those in the juvenile justice system and those outside of it (2008, pp. 14-15).

Literature Review Conclusion

Juvenile arrest rates for 2007 demonstrate a need to look deeper into the cause of juvenile delinquency. While some of the juvenile arrest rates went down from 2006 to 2007, the overall violent crime and property crime indexes rose. Various government agencies and researchers have examined the issues that administrators face when dealing with mentally ill juvenile delinquents. The studies described above demonstrate the unfortunate high rates of juveniles with one or more mental illnesses within the juvenile justice system. Finally, a brief look into a few of the current juvenile mental health courts gives readers the opportunity to distinguish the need for such courts.

Discussion

The obvious answer for treating the approximate 70% mentally ill juvenile delinquents, as shown consistent in more than one study, is juvenile mental health courts (Shufelt and Cocozza, 2006, p.2). Through juvenile mental health courts, juveniles are able to receive appropriate treatment for their mental illness all the accepting their wrongs and learning to do the right things in society (Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara, 2009). As with physical illnesses, such as Diabetes, mental illnesses often times require treatments ranging from therapy on to medication in order for a person to lead a healthy, productive life. As pointed out above from the Minority Staff Special Investigations Division (2004), a Louisiana administrator outlined the need for assistance with its mentally ill juvenile delinquents as many were prone to suicidal tendencies (p. 9). Without proper treatment, mentally ill juveniles are likely to become continued participants in the juvenile and criminal justice system (Gordon, et al, 2008, p. 2).

While juvenile mental health courts are relatively new, they are by no means unjustified. What research has been done thus far demonstrates that regular juvenile courts and detention facilities are not fully capable of handling juveniles with mental illnesses. Juvenile mental health courts do not mean that juveniles are able to get a way with the crime they committed. Instead, a deeper problem is treated to assist the juvenile in being able to function in society as a "normal" juvenile would function. Every jurisdiction is going to be different on its needs for a juvenile mental health court, but every juvenile delinquent with a mental illness will not be different in the needs he seeks. While various communities may not want to accept a juvenile mental health court, there are those few already established that demonstrate a societal acceptance to take an initiative to help juveniles. Even though some subordinates and communities may want to get away from not being able to handle these juveniles, some may fear the how behind the change. Therefore, it is up to the administrators to not only seek a change, but also administrators must encourage the entire juvenile justice system and society to accept the change. With the newness of the juvenile mental health courts and unanswered questions, administrators are going to have to play different situational leadership style roles, with initial fluctuating between an S1 and S2 leader.

As discussed in the Theory Explanation section, S1 Leaders are must direct subordinates on the task at hand. However, S2 Leaders are able to not only teach, but also offer motivation as the R2 Followers are willing to perform tasks that they know how to perform. Once the administrators are able to effectively direct and motivate their lower functioning followers, the followers should be able to work themselves up to the R4 Follower style, which will help everyone within their respective departments. First, the administrators need to take advantage of various learning tools to accommodate their subordinates' needs.

In affiliation with the United States Department of Justice, the Council of State Government Justice Center (2008) has outlined what needs to be considered when planning mental health courts:

• Federal and state grants to get the juvenile mental health court started,
• Community assistance for planning and organizing,
• Bureau of Justice Assistance for juvenile mental health court learning sites and policy guides and
• Various government and mental health web resources to learn about specific needs. (pp. 18-22).

By learning the information themselves, administrators will be able to increase the developmental levels of their subordinates by providing them the same educational materials the administrators maintained. Additionally, administrators may already have employees who have skills in the area of grant writing, seeking community assistance, policy writing or researching. Administrators can use these employees with specific skills to delegate specific tasks. That is, if the administrator has a top notch researcher, he will want to take advantage of this employee who would most likely fall at a R4 follower level. By finding employees who may already have some of the skills needed to plan a juvenile mental health court, administrators can focus on being an S1 or S2 leader where appropriate by directing and motivating these followers with these new skills.

For the purpose of this paper, this author will outline a Situational Leadership specific strategy in assumed steps for an administrator who wants to incorporate a juvenile mental health court in his jurisdiction and has already researched the basic information. The steps that will be outlined pertain to the assumed leadership needed to get all of the subordinates acquainted with the juvenile mental health court:

• The administrator needs to decide which employees may have specific skills needed to assist with this project.

• For any employees who have appropriate research skills, or R4 Followers, the administrator needs to take on an S4 Leader role and give these employees specific concepts to research - grants, other juvenile mental health courts, policy guides and government and mental health web resources. From that point on, the administrator only needs to work at a distance from these R4 Followers and offer praise to them as often as possible to ensure their motivation remains high.

• If the administrator knows of any R4 Followers who have grant proposal skills, the administrator needs to take on an S4 Leader role and assign grant writing to at least two of these followers to cover both federal and state grants. The administrator can advise that the grant researchers and writers work together so that every area is covered. From that point on, the administrator only needs to work at a distance from these R4 Followers and offer praise to them as often as possible to ensure their motivation remains high.

• Now the administrator needs to determine how many subordinates have training on mental health illnesses. For the purpose of this paper, this author assumes that all subordinates would fall into the R1 or R2 Follower types concerning knowledge on mental illnesses. The administrator must seek and obtain basic mental health training from a licensed psychiatrist or such to be able to effectively teach as a S1 or S2 Leader. While this training does not have to be in-depth at this time, it is essential that the administrator gives the subordinates basic information on mental illnesses. The administrator would need to set up specific training schedules to teach these subordinates either while they are on the clock or through after work sessions if needed. Even though subordinates may not like the idea of after work sessions, the administrator needs to make it clear to them that this is imperative all the while offering motivating, positive words to each subordinate about the contributions that he or she can bring to this project. During the training, the administrator needs to offer handouts to the subordinates while providing a presentation during the session. If able, the administrator could bring in a few older juvenile delinquents who are known to have a mental illness. The administrator could allow these juveniles to describe to the subordinates their experience with their mental illnesses. If juveniles are not available, the administrator could arrange to have a few more reliable young adult offenders who have been treated for a mental illness present at the training. These adults could give information on how treatment has helped their illnesses all the while focusing on juveniles who may have not learned about their illnesses yet. By providing this information in a sense of the subordinates having the "power" to assist these unknowing juveniles, the subordinates' motivation and knowledge should both increase as a result.

• Once the subordinate researchers have found the necessary information on other mental health courts and such, the administrator needs to again train the R1 and R2 Followers on the information. With this concept being new, this author finds that training is the key in this situation. While it may not be essential that every subordinate knows how to write grants, it would be essential to have subordinates knowledgeable on the basics of other juvenile mental health courts. Again, this training would need to be set up during work hours if available or after work hours. For motivation, the administrator needs to remind the subordinates of the prevalence of mental illness among juveniles in addition to the R4 Follower role that the administrator wants to see these subordinate reach. Furthermore, if the subordinates are able to reach the R4 Follower role, the administrator needs to verbally encourage the two-way street of communication so that the subordinates can assist with the planning of the jurisdiction's juvenile mental health court later. Through this training, administrators can provide handouts of the pertinent information about the various juvenile mental health courts' make ups along with a presentation to give subordinates ample opportunity to ask questions and clarify information with the administrator. If possible, the administrator could perhaps bring in another subordinate and administrator from a neighboring jurisdiction to assist with questions, which may help this administrator's subordinates feel more secure about the idea.

Once all the above "learning" is done, the administrator needs to work on the overall plan for his juvenile mental health court. From all the research provided by his subordinates and training that have been completed learning about mental illnesses and the court, the administrator can call on his R4 followers in assisting him further to develop the actual juvenile mental health court.

Conclusion

This paper has identified the need of juvenile mental health courts across the United States. Juvenile delinquency continues to be a problem in the United States. When juveniles are delinquent, the delinquency not only affects the juveniles' immediate families, but also it affects society as whole. People are increasingly getting hurt both physically and financially at the hands of juveniles. Juvenile are young and unintelligent when it comes to dealing and living with mental illnesses. This author learned first hand what a mental illness can do to a juvenile. This author's son, Billy, suffers from Asperger's Syndrome and Schizoaffective Disorder. When Billy was younger, Billy was what his parents perceived as violent - threatening to kill people, talking to those who were not there and eventually beating his younger brother up bad enough to go to a juvenile mental health hospital. For a long time, family and friends told this author that this was "normal" stuff for kids. What if this author and her husband had listened to others around them and not consistently sought help? Billy is fortunate. While Billy fights his diseases everyday, he has improved from what he used to be and now understands a little better about how to cope with them. Without the assistance of knowledgeable adults, mentally ill juveniles like Billy may be destined to become life long criminals.

Juvenile justice administrators face the task of not only dealing with juveniles who are not ill, but also administrators must deal with juveniles who are mentally ill. As discussed above, many juvenile detention facilities do not have the means to deal with mentally ill juveniles. Administrators of these facilities worry about the danger that is placed upon their staff and detained juveniles. Likewise, administrators in some jurisdictions have found a way to better handle mentally ill juvenile delinquents. The answer is juvenile mental health courts.

Juvenile mental health courts work to treat the juvenile all the while making the juvenile and society safer from the mental illness. Since juvenile mental health courts are a relatively new concept, administrators must work with subordinates to effectively plan and work in a juvenile mental health court. Through the Situational Leadership Theory, administrators are able to transform their leadership styles to effectively work with the various follower styles. With the Situational Leadership Theory, administrators are able to focus on both the task and the subordinates in order to make sure the juvenile mental health court is set up and running appropriately. Without providing efficient leadership, the administrators will have a difficult time getting their unmotivated subordinates to complete new tasks.

With juvenile mental health courts being a new concept, further research must be done in this area. Not only must research be completed on the courts, but also research must be completed on the effectiveness of the Situational Leadership Theory in conjunction with these court administrators. Likewise, research should be done on other juvenile mental health courts that have used other leadership styles to get their courts up and running. Without consistent research, juvenile mental health courts will not become as efficient as they could become with proper research. It is up to society and the juvenile justice system to ensure our mentally ill juveniles are treated appropriately. If juveniles are not showed this caring system, they may not become productive citizens as we expect. As Karl Menniger said, "What is done to children, they will do to society."

References

12Manage.com. (2009). Situational Leadership: Blanchard Hersey. Retrieved March 26, 2009, from Web site: http://www.12manage.com/methods_blanchard_situational_leadership.html

Burrell, S., Kendrick, C. and Blalock, B. (2008). "Incompetent youth in California juvenile justice." Stanford Law & Policy Review. pp. 198- 250. Retrieved March 12, 2009 from Lexis-Nexis database.

ChangingMinds.org. (n.d.) Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Web site: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/situational_leadership_hersey_blanchard.htm#see

Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2008). Mental Health Courts: A Primer for Policymakers and Practitioners. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from U. S. Department of Justice Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/MHC_Primer.pdf

Gordon, D., Wollard, C., Opton, E. and Gardner, P. (2008). "Hope for mentally ill youth in Alameda county juvenile justice system." Journal of the National Center for Youth Law,  29.1. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from National Center for Youth Law Web site: http://www.youthlaw.org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/yln/2008/issue_1/YLN_JAN-MAR_2008_Article_1.pdf

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2008a). Crime in the United States, 2007: Table 36 Current Year Over Previous Year Arrest Trends. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from Department of Justice, Web site: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_36.html

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2008b). Crime in the United States, 2007: Table 38 Arrests by Age. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from Department of Justice, Web site: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_38.html

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2008c). Crime in the United States, 2007: Table 68 Police Distribution of Juveniles Taken into Custody. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from Department of Justice, Web site: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_68.html

Minority Staff Special Investigations Division. (2004). Incarceration of Youth who are Waiting for Community Mental Health Services in the United States. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from United States House of Representatives Government Reform Web site: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040817121901-25170.pdf

Peak, K. J. (2007). Justice administration: Police, courts, and corrections management (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 41-43.

Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission. (2008). Pennsylvania Juvenile Delinquency Benchbook. Ch. 11. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from Juvenile Court Judges' Commission Website: http://www.jcjc.state.pa.us/jcjc/lib/jcjc/benchbook/chapter11.pdf

Shufelt, J. L. and Cocozza, J. J. (2006). Youth with Mental Health Disorders in the Juvenile Justice System: Results from a Multi-State Prevalence Study. Retrieved, March 11, 2009, from NCMHJJ, Web site: http://www.ncmhjj.com/pdfs/publications/PrevalenceRPB.pdf

Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara. (2009). "Special courts for minors." Juvenile Delinquency. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from Web site: http://www.scselfservice.org/juvdel/specialized.htm

© Beardsley, 2009