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: 89565 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Empirical Typology of American Metropolitan Juvenile Courts
Journal: American Journal of Sociology  Volume:88  Issue:3  Dated:(1982)  Pages:549-564
Author(s): V Stapleton; D P Aday; J A Ito
Date Published: 1982
Page Count: 16
Sponsoring Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 78JN-AX-0036
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The paper reports on research which developed a typology of American metropolitan juvenile courts through factor analysis of 96 court characteristics and cluster analysis of courts based on indicators of 5 derived factors representative of structural dimensions.
Abstract: The data were collected through a mail and telephone survey of court personnel in a saturated sample of 150 metropolitan juvenile courts. The typology includes 12 clusters. Cluster 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all characterized by the inclusion of status offenders in their jurisdiction, centralization of authority, and lack of formalization. Clusters 5 and 6 do not have status offense cases within their jurisdiction. They do have intake involved in prescreening of cases, but in cluster 5 the prosecutor is also involved in the decision to file a formal petition. Clusters 7, 8, and 9 are all decentralized systems, the court does not administer probation, and the prosecutor is involved in the decision to file a petition. Cluster 7 and 8 have a double prescreening process, the noncourt probation or intake has the discretion to handle a case informally, and the prosecutor must make the final decision to file. Cluster 9, the closest to a felony justice model, does not have jurisdiction over status offenders. Cluster 10 is similar to cluster 9 except that the court maintains control of probation, even though the prosecutor is involved in prescreening. Clusters 11 and 12 have separated probation from the executive control of the court, but they do not share the screening function with the prosecutor. Implications for future comparative studies are noted. Tables and about 45 references are provided. An appendix identifies courts by cluster number.
Index Term(s): Court case flow models; Juvenile courts
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.