NCJ Number
86427
Journal
State Court Journal Volume: 6 Issue: 4 Dated: (Fall 1982) Pages: 16-20,34-36
Date Published
1982
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This study found that the structural, organizational, and procedural characteristics of metropolitan juvenile courts affect case outcome.
Abstract
A survey of 150 metropolitan juvenile courts obtained information on court jurisdiction, its location within the State court system, judicial officers, due process procedures, intake, detention, and social services. Four types of courts were identified: (1) integrative/interventionist -- a centralized and undifferentiated court that controls probation and intake and where the prosecutor does not participate in the decision about whether to file a petition; (2) transitional -- a centralized court with administrative control of probation but where the prosecutor is involved in the decision to file a petition; (3) divergent -- a rare type of court that has a low degree of centralization of authority and a low degree of role differentiation and task specification; and (4) autonomous/noninterventionist -- courts characterized by decentralization and high differentiation and task specification. In the latter type of court, social services are administered by an executive agency, and a prosecutor is involved in the decision to file a petition. To test the effects of court structure on case outcomes, data were gathered on youth 'at risk' (point of entry into the juvenile justice system after police processing) from three jurisdictions included in the court survey. The courts represented types 1 and 2, the extremes of the types. Results indicated that in the integrative/interventionist court, offender characteristics are significant predictors of disposition; whereas, in the autonomous/noninterventionist type of court, only offense characteristics were significant predictors of outcome. Nine notes are provided.