Analysis of Juvenile Justice Systems in Three Minnesota Counties - Part Two - A Judgmental Survey - A Research Report

• NCJ Number: 74093
• Author(s): G Ogren
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 51 pages
• Corporate Author: Minnesota Crime Control Planning Board
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This report presents the results of a judgmental survey given to selected juvenile justice practitioners from various agencies in three Minnesota counties.

Abstract

The major purposes of the survey were (1) to examine the degree of integration within the juvenile justice system in terms of their network properties (the perceived effectiveness of the system), program priorities and operating phlosophies (the approach to delinquency development, prevention, and control), and interagency relationships (how agencies feel about each other); and (2) to elaborate on issues discussed in Part 1 of this report. Data were collected from 102 participants of the juvenile justice system from three counties: 80 from Washington County, 12 from Cass County, and 10 from Pennington County. The survey findings showed that a major portion of respondents from Washington County and Pennington County perceived their systems as well coordinated, providing good care, and working toward a common goal. In addition, a majority from Pennington County saw their system as providing all the necessary services. A majority of the Cass County respondents perceived that the juvenile agencies were not coordinated, did not provide all the necessary services, did not give problem youth good care, and did not have good feedback or followup. Generally, all the counties supported programs addressing individual and family needs and programs not emphasizing formal treatment. A majority from the three counties agreed that most causes of problem behavior were environmental, that juveniles were responsible for their behavior, and that most efforts should emphasize individual work. The Pennington County respondents generally agreed that interagency relationships existed more often in their system than did the Washington and Cass respondents. The report discusses these results in relation to the amount of integration that may or may not exist within the county juvenile justice systems. Also discussed are program priorities and operating philosophies. Tables, footnotes, and the survey instrument are provided. For Part 1 of this report, see NCJ 74092. (Author abstract modified)