Under the amendment, unless the defense can show cause why the juvenile should not be referred to the adult court, and if those juveniles whose age and offense behavior meet the guidelines are a threat to public safety or are not suitable for treatment within the juvenile system, they should be referred to the adult court. Based on a review of certifications from 55 percent of the counties during the years prior to and following adoption of the amendment, no increase in the number of juveniles being certified was found. A review of juvenile case histories from both time periods found a slight trend toward increased uniformity in the type of juvenile case referred to adult court. A survey completed by 76 of the 92 judges hearing juvenile matters revealed that 77.3 percent of the judges observed no change in the number of contested adjudicatory hearings. Only 14.7 percent felt that the amendment caused an increase in contested petitions. Only 13.2 percent felt the amendment was associated with an increase in the number of juveniles requesting legal representation and only 5.3 percent stated that the amendment caused an increase in the number of prehearing motion filed. The majority of the respondents also felt that the amendment had no impact on the number of delinquency petitions dismissed as a result of prehearing motions, in the use of the 90-day continuance without a finding of delinquency, or in the number of juveniles detained for more than 24 hours. Extensive tabular data and the survey instrument are provided.