A NUMBER OF STUDIES RESEARCHING COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT RULINGS REGARDING DUE PROCESS FOR JUVENILES ARE SURVEYED. THESE STUDIES FIND THAT COMPLIANCE RANGES FROM EXCELLENT TO INADEQUATE IN VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT ATTITUDES OF COURT PERSONNEL ARE A MAJOR FACTOR IN THIS VARIATION. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 2-PART QUESTIONNAIRE TO MEASURE THE ATTITUDES OF JUVENILE COURT COUNSELORS (BASICALLY PROBATION OFFICERS) IN A PACIFIC NORTHWEST CITY (POPULATION ABOUT 500,000) IS DESCRIBED. THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS GIVEN TO ALL 70 COUNSELORS EMPLOYED BY THE COURT; 44 RETURNED IT. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THOSE WHO RESPONDED DIFFERED IN ATTITUDES FROM THOSE WHO DID NOT RESPOND. MOST FELT THAT JUVENILE COURT'S GOAL WAS REHABILITATION AND TREATMENT. ONLY 7 PERCENT SAID ITS PRIMARY ROLE WAS PUNISHMENT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS GREAT UNCERTAINTY OVER THE SCOPE OF THE COURT. CONFLICTING ANSWERS WERE GIVEN FOR THE COURT'S ROLE IN HANDLING JUVENILES IN NEED FOR SUPERVISION AND 'DELINQUENT CONDITIONS' CASES. IN SOME INSTANCES THE SAME PERSON GAVE CONFLICTING ANSWERS. MOST AGREED A CASE AGAINST A YOUNGSTER SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, AGREEING WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S WINSHIP STANDARD. THEY ALSO AGREED WITH THE SUPREME COURT THAT JURY TRIALS WERE NOT IN ORDER FOR JUVENILES. ON THE WHOLE, THEY WERE FAVORABLE TOWARD ATTORNEYS IN COURT AND 75 PERCENT FELT LAWYERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO QUESTION TREATMENT PROCEDURES RECOMMENDED BY JUVENILE COUNSELORS. THEY ALSO FAVORED FULL ACCESS TO CASE RECORDS AND REPORTS PREPARED BY THE COUNSELORS. IT HAD BEEN HYPOTHESIZED THAT SOCIAL WORKERS WOULD VIEW DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS AS ERODING THEIR AUTHORITY AND THAT THOSE WITH TRAINING IN SOCIAL WORK WOULD BE MORE NEGATIVE THAN THOSE WITH OTHER BACKGROUNDS. THIS STUDY SHOWED JUST THE OPPOSITE. ATTITUDES WERE QUITE POSITIVE TOWARD DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS AND TRAINING AND BACKGROUND MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN ATTITUDES EXPRESSED. CITED CASES AND STUDIES ARE FOOTNOTED. (GLR)