MOST STATES' JUVENILE COURT STATUTES PROVIDE FOR THE INTAKE SCREENING OF JUVENILE CASES. THE COURT SYSTEMS, HOWEVER, WILL REQUIRE REFORM, TO REPLACE EXISTING GENERAL GUIDELINES WITH CLEAR AND MORE DEFINITE STANDARDS. THE RECOGNITION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RIGHT OF JUVENILES TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW INDICATES THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPER SCREENING OF CASES BEFORE A CHILD IS PUNISHED, OR 'HELPED'. WHETHER A CASE SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SERIOUSNESS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALLEGED CRIME, THE JUVENILE'S AGE, AND THE NUMBER AND NATURE OF PAST COURT CONTACTS. BECAUSE EXCESSIVE DISCRETION IN THE COURT SYSTEM CAN FRUSTRATE THE RIGHTS OF MINORS, REFORMS SHOULD EMPHASIZE INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR JUDGES, AND ELIMINATE SUBJECTIVE VALUE JUDGMENTS FROM THE SCREENING PROCESS. PROPER INTAKE SCREENING CAN CONSERVE JUDICIAL RESOURCES. IN THE NEW YORK CITY FAMILY COURT IN 1975, TWO-THIRDS OF THE CASES OF ALLEGED DELINQUENCY WERE CLOSED BY INTAKE PERSONNEL WITHOUT BEING REFERRED TO THE COURT. THE FAMILY COURT, HOWEVER, STILL DISMISSED 34 PERCENT OF THE CASES BROUGHT BEFORE IT, ON GROUNDS OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. A JUVENILE CASE ASSESSMENT UNIT WOULD BE USEFUL IN SCREENING OUT CASES WHICH DO NOT WARRANT THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT. THIS UNIT WOULD FOLLOW LEGISLATIVE CRITERIA FOR DECIDING WHETHER A CASE SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS. SUCH SAFEGUARDS WOULD INCREASE THE FAIRNESS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. (TWK)