VARIOUS STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT AS MANY AS 50 PERCENT OF ALL YOUNG PEOPLE REFERRED TO JUVENILE COURT ARE DETAINED IN A FACILITY OF SOME KIND, EVEN THOUGH ONLY 10 PERCENT HAVE ACTUALLY COMMITTED SERIOUS CRIMES. THIS HAS LED TO A SERIES OF COURT TESTS TO ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A JUVENILE'S RIGHT TO BAIL. DUE PROCESS FOR JUVENILES WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN KENT V. UNITED STATES, GAULT V. UNITED STATES, AND WINSHIP V. UNITED STATES. HOWEVER, IN MCKEIVER V. UNITED STATES THE SUPREME COURT MANDATED THAT THE BENEFICIAL ASPECTS OF THE JUVENILE PROCESS WOULD BE COMPLICATED BY THE RIGHT TO BAIL AND THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS. STUDIES OF BAIL SYSTEM ABUSE HAVE LED REFORMERS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ABUSE OF THE DETENTION PROCESS WOULD NOT BE SOLVED BY SECURING THE RIGHT TO BAIL. INSTEAD, THE PROBLEMS OF EXCESSIVE BAIL, DENIED BAIL, AND THE INABILITY OF THE POOR TO SECURE BAIL WOULD INCREASE THE PROBLEMS OF JUVENILE COURT. IN ADDITION, THE JUVENILE HAS NO RIGHT TO SIGN A CONTRACT AND THE ABILITY TO GET FUNDING FROM A BAIL BONDSMAN WOULD DEPEND UPON THE WILLINGNESS OF THE PARENT TO SIGN. THE BENEFITS OF THE INFORMAL JUVENILE PROCEEDING ARE SEEN AS OUTWEIGHING THE QUESTIONABLE ADVANTAGES OF THE RIGHT TO BAIL. COURT TESTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (FULWOOD V. STONE), KENTUCKY (BAKER V. SMITH), WISCONSIN (BALDWIN V. LEWIS), AND ALASKA (DOE V. STATE) HAVE ALL FOUND THAT BAIL IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY NECESSARY FOR JUVENILES. INSTEAD VARIOUS OTHER PROCEDURES TO PROTECT AGAINST UNWARRANTED DETENTION HAVE BEEN SET UP IN THESE VARIOUS STATES. SUCH PROCEDURES INCLUDE THE CHILD'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT THE DETENTION INQUIRY, THAT ONLY SWORN TESTIMONY BE ADMITTED AT SUCH A HEARING, AND THE SETTING OF STANDARDS FOR DETENTION DECISIONS. (GLR)