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

Getting To Know You - Decision-Making in an Institution for Juveniles

NCJ Number
99386
Journal
Juvenile and Family Court Journal Volume: 36 Issue: 1 Dated: (Spring 1985) Pages: 5-15
Author(s)
P L Reichel
Date Published
1985
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This study identifies and analyzes the situational and social-psychological aspects of classification decisionmaking in a juvenile correctional institution.
Abstract
The research was conducted from November 1978 through August 1979 in a State male juvenile correctional institution, using participant observation and interviews with staff and newly admitted residents. The study focused on staff decisionmaking in initial resident assignments (e.g., cottage, treatment program, and educational level). Two types of information were identified as important in such decisionmaking: the manner in which staff developed impressions of the boys and the nature of the assignment decisionmaking process. The symbolic interactionist perspective suggests that staff develop impressions of juveniles on the basis of the 'meaning' the juveniles have for the staff. Such meanings are influenced by the previous experiences or 'background expectancies' of staff members. Observations supported this view, as the staff used background expectancies to decide what information was important in developing an impression of a boy. This involved jugements about the juveniles based on whether they were from an urban or rural area, their demeanor, and comparisons with other boys in the institution. In the assignment meeting, staff members tended to justify their initial impressions of each boy even in the face of contradictory information. The decisionmaking was also influenced by an established routine that standardized decisionmaking for all cases. Overall, decisionmaking lacked insight into the unique characteristics of each resident and individualized treatment requirements. Tabular data and 37 notes are provided.