ABSTRACT
The task of defining the principles that underlay the Progressive program for juvenile justice, the reality of implementation, the day-to-day working of the system, was almost bewildering in its variety. The differences among them were by no means minor and more often than not exerted a critical influence on the courts' operations. Many states, for example, formally designated the juvenile courts as chancery courts, enabling them to adopt informal rules of procedure. Such extensive variations did reflect the vagaries of legislatures in implementing a new program. The most important variations among juvenile courts, however, went still deeper and had a more fundamental cause, one which brings us back to the reform ideal. Contemporary investigators of the juvenile courts devoted extraordinary attention to the presiding judges. The Progressives, it is true, had not intended to build up a cult of judicial personalities.
