skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 76914 Find in a Library
Title: Scope of Court Services - Whether the Court Should Be Responsible for Probation and Detention (From Juvenile Justice Standards Symposium, P 56-119, 1979 - See NCJ-76912)
Author(s): B D Hege
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 64
Type: Conference Material
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: A symposium presentation and subsequent discussion examine the issue of whether the juvenile court should be responsible for probation and detention, with emphasis on three proposed sets of standards on the subject.
Abstract: The proposed standards include those of the Joint Commission of the Institute for Judicial Administration and the American Bar Association (IJA/ABA), the National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NAC), and the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Task Force). The issue of the scope of court services is related to the broader controversy between advocates of the parens patriae doctrine and advocates of the due process approach to the administration of the juvenile justice system. Arguments against judicial administration of intake, predisposition investigation, and probation services have been based on the belief that the present system denies the child to a fair and impartial judge, because the judge's employee does the intake and investigation and because the information obtained is communicated freely and informally between judges and probation officers. The IJA/ABA and Task Force standards clearly favor executive administration of these functions, while the NAC standards are somewhat more equivocal. On the issue of whether these services should be administered locally or as part of a statewide system, all three sets of standards favor statewide, highly decentralized systems. Both the IJA/ABA and NAC standards favor specialization of all three functions, while the Task Force standards recommend that intake and predisposition investigation should be performed by the same individuals, since similar skills are required. All the standards appear to favor executive branch control for the administration of detention programs and centralized State control of juvenile correctional facilities. Philosophical implications and implementation issues presented by the standards are explored. The subsequent discussion revealed sharp disagreement on several points.
Index Term(s): Court management; Juvenile courts; Juvenile detention; Juvenile justice standards; Juvenile probation
Note: This document is available on microfiche under NCJ 76912.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.