Three major changes in legal and social policy have influenced contemporary juvenile courts: the application of due process principles to juvenile proceedings, public opinion favoring harsher treatment for serious and repetitive juvenile offenders, and a less intrusive and less punitive stance toward status offenders. Legislative initiatives generally have emphasized removing status offenses from the delinquency category into their own classification, such as Child in Need of Supervision. Numerous suits have challenged the constitutionality of such provisions, but the courts usually have rejected these claims. While police typically have broad authority to apprehend status offenders, interest in taking them into custody appears to have waned and is likely to continue declining because of legislative actions and reduced staffing. Using alternatives such as shelter care or foster homes, most States have complied with Federal directives and substantially reduced the number of status offenders held in secure detention. Some States, such as North Carolina and New York, expressly provide the right to counsel in status offense cases. The proof standard with status offenses is not uniform, and judges in these cases tend to become lawmakers instead of law enforcers. While enactments prohibiting institutionalization have become common, there is evidence of some slippage in retaining an absolute ban on committing status offenders with delinquents in State institutions. States are also divided as to whether institutionalization is permissible following a court finding of a status reoffense. However, the numbers of status offenders committed to delinquent institutions continues to decline. Over 100 references are included.