U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Measuring the Performance for Different Types of Juvenile Courts

NCJ Number
95213
Author(s)
J A Ito; I Keilitz
Date Published
1984
Length
180 pages
Annotation
In attempting to demonstrate the feasibility of developing a court performance measurement system that integrates both the goal-attainment and comparative approaches, this study uses several sets of performance indicators to compare two types of juvenile courts with differing structures and goals.
Abstract
The Type I court studied is comparable to the traditional juvenile court; the court has control over intake, social services, detention, and the adjudicative process. The Type IV court, the second type studied, administers social services through an executive agency, and a prosecutor is involved in the decision to file a petition. Data were gathered from samples of approximately 500 to 600 cases for each of four juvenile courts (two Type I and two Type IV) during the fall of 1982 and winter of 1983. Court performance was assessed in three categories: screening, dispositions, and due process procedures. The screening function is clearly performed differently in the two types of courts: the two Type IV courts had a much higher intake dismissal rate than the traditional juvenile courts. Additionally, traditional courts tended to favor judicial over nonjudicial handling. In terms of the criteria for the decision about whether to refer a case to court, offense characteristics were the significant determinants in the Type IV courts, and offender characteristics were more significant in Type I courts. In the relative use of court dispositions, Type I courts were far more likely to have cases dismissed before a judge. Finally, court differences were also found in several due process measures: legal representation, use of hearings, decisionmaking criteria, and the pace of case processing. Policy implications of the findings are considered. Thirty tables and one figure are included.