According to the research findings, it can, therefore, be said that considering the multiple factors which place teenagers at risk for a variety of personal and social problems stress should be given to the development of adolescent-focused treatment aimed at increasing the mode of protective elements, proportionate to the negative factors, leading to behavioral incompatibility. In an increasingly diverse, often fragmented society, it is difficult for young people to get the clear hint about the core positive values important for personal development. As young people are the valuable asset of today and the resource of future more investment is needed in youth development. When people feel supported and connected they develop a shared sense of values, and tend to work together in community with commitment paving the way to a healthy, harmonious, and skilled future generation. Government agencies could play an important role in encouraging constructive values we share as a society and transmit it to the young people. During much of the 20th century, public rhetoric about how to respond to juvenile crime incorrectly posited clear, either-or positions from which policy choices should be made: child or adult. punishment or rehabilitation. judicial discretion or rigorous guidelines. The reality has always been more ambiguous. Even though it is heuristically useful to divide this century’s juvenile court experience into opposing epochs—the benign paternalism of the first part of the century versus the get-tough policies of recent decades—the lines between these orientations are less clear. It is a mistake to think of the juvenile justice system as a single, self-contained unit operated as one entity. Through the 20th century, the juvenile justice system has sought to save children, nurture them, rehabilitate them, cure them, isolate them and punish them. A requirement of any effective juvenile justice system is treating every youth offender as an individual and providing all with the necessary services.