INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS ON THE INTAKE FUNCTION ARE FOLLOWED BY DISCUSSIONS OF THE FOLLOWING POLICY ISSUES: THE DEGREE OF DISCRETION THAT SHOULD BE ACCORDED INTAKE STAFF, CRITERIA FOR DECIDING WHETHER TO HANDLE A CASE IN OR OUT OF COURT, CRITERIA FOR DETENTION DECISIONS, PROVISION OF SERVICES TO STATUS OFFENDERS, ACCOUNTABILITY OF JUVENILES FOR THEIR ACTIONS, AND THE ADVANTAGES OF A FAMILY-CENTERED (AS OPPOSED TO A CHILD-CENTERED) APPROACH TO THE INTAKE TASK. SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS ADDRESS PROCEDURAL MATTERS (RECORDS, STATISTICAL REPORTING, POLICE RELATIONS, VICTIM RELATIONS, TIME LIMITS, SUPERVISORY CASE CONTROL, ADVISING CLIENTS OF THEIR RIGHTS, USE OF VOLUNTEER SUPERVISION AND OTHER VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVES) AND STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS (ORGANIZATION, JOB REQUIREMENTS, PAY LEVELS, STAFFING LEVELS, SUPERVISOR-STAFF RATIOS, EXECUTIVE VERSUS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION OF INTAKE). THE CLOSING SUMMARY NOTES THE IMPORTANCE OF A SMOOTHLY FUNCTIONING INTAKE SERVICE AND EMPHASIZES THE NEED FOR CLEARLY STATED INTAKE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE CHILD, AND THE CHILD'S FAMILY. APPENDED MATERIALS INCLUDE A FLOWCHART OF THE INTAKE PROCESS; SAMPLE INTAKE FORMS (NONJUDICIAL SUPERVISION AGREEMENT, CLIENT HISTORY AND CASE CONTROL, NOTIFICATION OF RIGHTS); AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY.