NCJ Number
68347
Date Published
1977
Length
15 pages
Annotation
A STUDY COMPARING THE RATIONALE BEHIND DECISIONS REACHED BY ATTORNEYS AND TRADITIONAL INTAKE WORKERS IN SCREENING JUVENILE MISDEMEANOR CASES IN ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD., IS DOCUMENTED.
Abstract
THE COMMUNITY ARBITRATION PROGRAM EMPLOYED ATTORNEYS TO REPLACE TRADITIONAL INTAKE STAFF, WHO HELD BACCALAUREATE DEGREES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. IN THE SECOND YEAR OF THE PROGRAM, A COMPARISON GROUP OF YOUTHS WAS SCREENED BY TRADITIONAL INTAKE WORKERS AT A SEPARATE LOCATION, AND THE REASONS CITED BY THESE WORKERS FOR THEIR SCREENING DECISIONS WERE COMPARED WITH THOSE CITED BY THE ARBITRATORS. ARBITRATORS WERE MORE LIKELY TO NOTE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS, THE CHILD'S OTHER PROBLEMS, AND PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE CHILD'S FUTURE LAWBREAKING BEHAVIOR, WHEREAS INTAKE WORKERS WERE MORE LIKELY TO CITE THE CHILD'S PRIOR RECORD AND TYPE OF OFFENSE. ALTHOUGH THE ARBITRATORS PLACED MORE EMPHASIS ON DUE PROCESS CONCERNS, THEIR DECISIONS DID NOT REPRESENT A CLEAR SHIFT FROM A TREATMENT-ORIENTED TO A DUE PROCESS MODEL. THE ARBITRATORS WERE ALSO MORE LIKELY TO EXPRESS TREATMENT-RELATED CONCERNS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE COMMUNITY ARBITRATION PROGRAM STRENGTHENED ATTENTION THAT DECISIONMAKERS PAY BOTH TO DUE PROCESS AND TO TREATMENT/INTERVENTION CONCERNS. THE ARBITRATORS' RELATIVE LACK OF ATTENTION TO PRIOR RECORD AND TYPE OF OFFENSE IS REGARDED AS A POSITIVE SIGN, AS RELIANCE ON THESE FACTORS MAY REFLECT A PATTERN OF ROUTINIZED DECISIONMAKING, AS OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUALIZED JUSTICE. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS ARE DISCUSSED. SUPPORTING DATA AND 26 REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED.