Major Issues in Juvenile Justice Information and Training - Services to Children in Juvenile Courts - The Judicial-Executive Controversy

• NCJ Number: 76345
• Author(s): J M Pettibone; R G Swisher; K H Weiland; C E Wolf; J L White
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 209 pages
• Grant Number(s): 78-JN-AX-0038
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Corporate Author: Academy for Contemporary Problems
• Sale Source: Superintendent of Documents, GPO; Academy for Contemporary Problems; National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Major Issues in Juvenile Justice Information and Training Project

Annotation

Reported here is a study of public policy questions associated with the organization and delivery of juvenile court services. Judicially operated services for children in juvenile courts are examined from a constitutional and legal perspective, summarized in a national overview, and illustrated by indepth case studies of six States.

Abstract

The methodological approach combined legal research, a literature review, public policy analysis, and case studies in the field. Major issues of concern relate to the separation of powers and due process and to the legal basis for delivering social services to children in juvenile courts. Research findings indicate that the Federal separation of powers doctrine does not apply to the States, although many State constitutions have comparable provisions, and that reported State cases support the lawful exercise of intake probation and detention functions within the judicial branch of government. Moreover, case law fails to reveal any unconstitutionality resulting from the existence of intake or probation as integral parts of the juvenile court. Conversely, there is no doctrine that requires courts to offer or operate such services. Futhermore, it was not found that delivery of probation and social services to the juvenile by employees of the court was in violation of due process, in spite of the fact that a confidentiality agreement exists between these service providers and their clients. Actual abridgement of due process would have to be demonstrated. On the whole, the body of existing law on separation of powers and due process was found to be sparse, and few dramatic changes are expected in the current state of the law. When the legal base for the delivery of social services by juvenile courts was investigated, only Alabama was found to have constitutionally created social services. When authority to provide social services is created by statute, the form, substance, and method of delivery appear to be proper matters for legislative judgment. No specific Federal legal principle was found to command any particular organization of services delivery, either in terms of appropriate services or of the appropriate branch of government to deliver them. The case studies involved interviews with key informants in 20 cities in 6 States -- 4 with delinquency-related services under judicial management (local juvenile courts or administrative offices attached to the State supreme courts) and 2 with executive management of services at the local or State level. Examination of the structural models of service delivery yielded no preferable management design to resolve the judical-executive controversy. The competence and dedication of leadership and staff appeared significant, and the quantity of services was directly related to funding. State-operated systems, though slower to react, seemed able to provide higher budgets, more stable funding, and more equitable distribution of services. Three appendixes contain the case study reports, sample questionnaires, and selected tables.