FROM THE CREATION OF CALIFORNIA'S FIRST JUVENILE COURT IN 1903 UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE 1950'S, STATE LAWS REGULATING THE OPERATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT PROCESS WERE PASSED MORE FROM NECESSITY THAN DESIGN. REVISIONS TO JUVENILE LAW IN 1961 HAD A CENTRAL PHILOSOPHICAL THRUST AND A SEQUENTIAL MODE OF ORGANIZATION BUT PROVIDED LITTLE DETAIL. WHILE THE PURPOSES OF THE JUVENILE COURT WERE UNDERGOING INTENSE REVIEW, THERE WAS INCREASING CONCERN OVER INDETERMINATE SENTENCING PRACTICES IN THE ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE SENTENCING PROCESS THAT RESULTS IN PHYSICAL CONFINEMENT HAS TWO BASIC FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS, THE REMOVAL OF OFFENDERS FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR RETURN TO THE COMMUNITY. WITHIN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE MODEL TRADITIONALLY HAS PROVIDED THE METHOD OF ORDERING INSTITUTIONALIZATION. JUVENILE COURT RULES IN CALIFORNIA PROVIDE A STATEWIDE GUIDE TO SENTENCING PROCEDURES IN JUVENILE COURT AND TO ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE IN FORMULATING AN INDIVIDUALIZED COURSE OF ACTION. THE RULES STATE THAT IN THE CASE OF A FELONY OFFENSE THE MAXIMUM TERM OF PHYSICAL CONFINEMENT MUST BE DETERMINED BY PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE SENTENCING OF AN ADULT TO IMPRISONMENT. THEY HAVE INTRODUCED SOME STATEWIDE UNIFORMITY AND CERTAINTY TO THE SENTENCING PROCESS, AND THEIR APPLICATION REQUIRES THAT SENTENCING BE PRONOUNCED AT A FORMAL DISPOSITIONAL HEARING. THERE ARE AREAS OF SENTENCING IN WHICH THE TRIAL COURT CAN IMPROVE ITS FUNCTIONING: (1) IT CAN MAINTAIN A CAREFULLY DETAILED RECORD FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND (2) IT CAN EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF DISPOSITIONAL NEGOTIATION UPON ITS ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THE EXPANDED USE OF PRESENTENCE OR DISPOSITIONAL REPORTS, EVEN WHEN THE PLEA AND CHARGE ARE NEGOTIATED, WILL ALLOW THE COURT TO MAKE A MORE INFORMED JUDGMENT AS TO THE SOCIAL NEED TO BE MET IN SENTENCING AND THE DANGER POSED TO THE COMMUNITY BY AN OFFENDER. PROVISIONS OF THE JUVENILE COURT RULES AND RELATED CASE LAW ARE DETAILED. (DEP)