THE 1969 ACT WAS NOT A NEW AND RADICAL CONCEPT, BUT WAS ACTUALLY BASED ON A GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER WHOSE BASIC ELEMENTS WERE A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THE CHILDRENS ACT OF 1908. UNDER THE 1969 VERSION, CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS OTHER THAN FOR HOMICIDE WOULD NO LONGER BE BROUGHT AGAINST THOSE UNDER 14-YEARS OF AGE; CRIMINAL OFFENSES COMMITTED BY YOUTHS UNDER 14 COULD PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR TAKING CARE PROCEEDINGS, BUT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THAT THE CHILD WAS IN NEED OF CARE AND CONTROL WHICH HE OR SHE WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO RECEIVE UNLESS THE COURT MADE AN ORDER; AND CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THOSE OVER 14 WOULD NO LONGER BE BROUGHT UNLESS THE PROSECUTOR CONSIDERED NONCRIMINAL RESPONSE INAPPROPRIATE, HAD SOUGHT THE VIEWS OF A STATUTORY WELFARE AGENCY, AND COULD SATISFY A COURT THAT A PROSECUTION WAS NECESSARY. THE OBJECTIVES WERE: TO GIVE GREATER CONSIDERATION TO INFORMAL NONJUDICIAL DISPOSALS; TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED CONSULTATION BETWEEN RELEVANT AGENCIES; AND TO ALLOW FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. POLICE DISCRETION TO PROSECUTE WAS NOT LIMITED, BUT EXISTING AGENCIES WERE URGED TO BETTER COORDINATE VARIOUS PROGRAMS. POLICE FORCES IN ENGLAND AND WALES HAD, BY 1969, DEVELOPED FORMS OF PROCEDURE TO PROCESS JUVENILE OFFENDERS; THE MOST NOTABLE OF THESE ARE THE JUVENILE LIAISON SCHEME AND THE JUVENILE BUREAU. JUVENILE LIAISON INVOLVES A SYSTEM OF SELECTIVE CAUTIONING OF IDENTIFIED OFFENDERS AND POSTCAUTIONING SUPERVISION AND COUNSELING. JUVENILE BUREAUS GATHER INFORMATION ON CASES FROM SOCIAL, PERSONAL, AND COURT SOURCES TO INSURE THAT AN INFORMED DECISION IS MADE BY THE BUREAU CHIEF. ALSO, THE JUVENILE COURTS HAVE SEVERAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM INCLUDING FINES, SUPERVISION ORDERS, AND ATTENDANCE CENTER ORDERS. IN ADDITION TO THESE, THE 1969 ACT ESTABLISHED AN INTERMEDIATE TREATMENT FORM WHICH ALLOWS THE SUPERVISIONS THE DISCRETION TO FORMULATE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE YOUTH ASSIGNED TO THEM, AND GRANTS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEES THE POWER TO DEVISE LOCAL SCHEMES FOR SUPERVISED YOUTHS. ALTHOUGH THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE THAT THE ACT HAS CONTAINED JUVENILE CRIME, IT IS STILL THE SUBJECT OF MUCH DEBATE. (DAG)