THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED IN TWO PHASES. IN THE FIRST PHASE, A CROSS-SECTION OF JUVENILE FILES FOR 1971 WAS EXAMINED AND IN THE SECOND, THIS PROCESS WAS REPEATED FOR SIMILARLY CHOSEN FILES FOR 1973. THESE TWO SAMPLES WERE SELECTED FOR STUDY BECAUSE THEY ALLOWED COMPARISON OF THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS BEFORE AND AFTER PASSAGE OF A STATUTE IN 1972 WHICH SPECIFICALLY SET OUT STANDARDS FOR MAKING A DECISION TO COMPEL A JUVENILE TO BE TRIED AS AN ADULT AND MAKING THE JUVENILE COURT JUDGE THE DECIDING POWER. THE VARIABLES STUDIED INCLUDED DEFENDANT'S AGE, PRIOR RECORD, PAROLE OR PROBATION STATUS, RACE, AS WELL AS TYPE OF REPRESENTATION, PRESENCE OF AN ADULT CO-DEFENDANT, AND THE GANG-RELATEDNESS OF THE INCIDENT FOR WHICH THE JUVENILE WAS CHARGED. THE ANALYSIS OF 1971 DATA REVEALED POSITIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN DECISIONS TO TRANSFER AND ALL OF THE VARIABLES EXCEPT GANG-RELATEDNESS OF THE INCIDENT; THE 1973 DATA ANALYSIS YIELDED FEWER CLEAR PATTERNS THAN THE PREVIOUS ANALYSIS. ADDITIONALLY, NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE WAS OBSERVED IN TRANSFER PRACTICE BETWEEN THE ROLES OF THE JUDGE AND THE STATE'S ATTORNEY AS THE JUDGE FOLLOWED THE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S RECOMMENDATION IN ALMOST EVERY CASE. SUGGESTIONS FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE NEW LEGISLATION ACCOMPLISHES WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO ARE SET FORTH....EB