The purpose clause is at the beginning of a code section; it explains the goals of that section of the code, as it outlines what the legislature hopes to accomplish through the code. This analysis of juvenile code purpose clauses focused on which States still adhere to the traditional model of juvenile justice, which States have adopted the currently popular punitive approach, which States have endorsed the balanced approach, and which States have failed to adopt a coherent set of goals for the juvenile justice system. The results show that a number of States lack a clear set of goals for their juvenile justice system. Legislators have begun to act on their "get tough" rhetoric, but often this rhetoric is not translated into clear policy goals. Legislators are apparently reluctant to abolish all of the original goals of the juvenile justice system, but the result is often a confusing agglomeration of conflicting goals. Most States continue to advocate the traditional approach more than any other; one State, Idaho, has expressly adopted the balanced approach. Overall, the net result of the incremental, "scattershot" changes in juvenile justice have yielded systems whose goals are in a state of flux. Although the goals of the juvenile justice system are being changed by legislatures, career bureaucrats within the system are capable of limiting the impact of any policy change. The goals within a purpose clause will thus be effective and followed only to the extent that actors within the system choose to adhere to them. 2 tables and a 39-item bibliography