AT COUNTY JUVENILE COURT, UNILATERAL DECISIONS TAKE PLACE AT INTAKE WITH NO INTERACTION BETWEEN INTAKE STAFF AND OTHER COURT EMPLOYEES. REFERRAL OCCURS ON THE INTAKE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, WITH THE MORE SERIOUS CASES GOING TO THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR FURTHER ACTION. COMPLETE DISCRETION TO DISPOSE OF CASES IS GIVEN THE JUVENILE PROSECUTOR, AND AS MANY AS 80 PERCENT OF THE CASES CAN BE DISMISSED IN A SINGLE YEAR. THE INVOLVEMENT OF A PRIVATE ATTORNEY, HOWEVER, MAY LIMIT PROSECUTION. ALTERNATIVE MODELS TO THE 'FIRM' WHEN NONORGANIZATIONAL ATTORNEYS ARE INVOLVED INCLUDE THE POLITICAL DECISIONMAKING MODEL IN WHICH OPPONENTS ATTEMPT TO SEEK CLEARCUT COURTROOM VICTORIES AND THE 'GARBAGE CAN' MODEL IN WHICH SOLUTIONS TO DIVERSE PROBLEMS ARE SOUGHT AT THE TIME A PARTICULAR DECISION IS TO BE MADE. NEITHER OF THE MDOELS ARE PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE FOR JUVENILE COURTS, ALTHOUGH THE GARBAGE CAN MODEL DOES REFLECT THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE OVERLOADED PROSECUTOR AND AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY. THE PROSECUTOR WILL OFTEN DROP THE CASE PRESUMING THAT IT WILL BE DECIDED IN ANOTHER ARENA. FIRM ACTORS INCLUDE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, WHO PLAYS A PASSIVE, SECONDARY ROLE IN COURT AND THE COUNTY JUVENILE COURT JUDGE, WHO DEPENDS ON OTHERS TO MANAGE THE CASE THROUGH COURT ORGANIZATION. OVERALL, THE COURT DISPLAYS DECISIONMAKING BEHAVIOR COMMON TO SMALL, STABLE ORGANIZATIONS THAT EMPHASIZE COOPERATION, HARMONY, SHARED GOALS, AND PREDICTABLE OUTCOMES. FUTURE RESEARCH SHOULD INVESTIGATE TRIAL COURT DECISIONMAKING, PARTICULARLY IN LOWER STATE COURTS WHERE THE LARGEST NUMBER OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE RENDERED, AND SHOULD EXPLORE PRETRIAL NEGOTIATIONS OF LOCAL CIVIL JUSTICE COURTS. THIS STUDY RELIED ON TWO DATA SOURCES: OPEN-ENDED INTERVIEWS WITH JUVENILE COURT STAFF AND A 25 PERCENT ORDERED SAMPLE OF ALL CASES DECIDED BY THE STUDY COURT JUDGES IN 1973, 1975, AND 1977. A TABLE ON THE SUCCESS OF INTAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IN COURT OUTCOMES IS PROVIDED. (AOP)