DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03581.v1
title: Decision-Making in the Juvenile Justice System in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, 1999-2000
title: Version 1

description: The goals of the juvenile justice system in the United
 States have always been multiple, beginning with rehabilitation, the
 primary goal when the juvenile court was established. More recently,
 policies advocating accountability seem to have predominated over
 other goals of the court, and concern exists that structured
 decision-making (SDM) in support of individual accountability has
 begun to fundamentally change the juvenile justice system. This study
 examined the use of SDM in state correctional agencies in Illinois,
 Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio and in juvenile courts in three counties
 in each of those states. Data were collected in phases from March 1999
 to August 2000 during periodic site visits. Probation officers, judges
 and referees, prosecutors, and defense attorneys were interviewed in
 each of the 12 courts. Each survey contained a core set of questions
 eliciting respondents' views of juvenile justice, disposition
 objectives, and the use and value of SDM. Questions relevant to
 particular decision-makers were also included. All respondents
 provided demographic information and information about their job
experience in criminal justice and professional training.
description: The juvenile justice system in the United States,
 implemented at the turn of the twentieth century as a legal and social
 institution for children, has undergone significant changes over the
 last quarter century. The goals of the juvenile justice system have
 always been multiple, beginning with rehabilitation, the primary goal
 when the juvenile court was established. More recently, policies
 advocating accountability seem to have predominated over other goals
 of the court, and concern exists that structured decision-making (SDM)
 in support of individual accountability has begun to fundamentally
 change the juvenile justice system. SDM is generally defined as a
 formal and standardized procedure to guide decision-makers by defining
 the criteria they must use in their deliberations and eventual
 decisions. Major types of SDM are risk assessment, needs assessment,
 and security level classification. This study examined the use of SDM
 in state correctional agencies in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and
 Ohio and in juvenile courts in three counties in each of those
 states. The project had six specific goals: (1) To assess the effects
 of recent revisions in juvenile codes on decision-making processes in
 juvenile courts, (2) to identify correlates of processing and
 placement decisions, (3) to document and analyze the policies and
 practices of individual accountability as an organizing principle that
 defines the relationships among public agencies and citizens, (4) to
 assess the utility of various types of SDM in sample courts, (5) to
 assess the context for decision-making to find causes and correlates
 of case processing decisions and the patterns of accountability and
 structured decision-making, and (6) to assess practitioners' perspectives
 about structured decision-making, classification, and risk and needs
assessment.
description: Data were collected in phases from March 1999 to
 August 2000 during periodic site visits. The first site visits were
 made to units of state government involved with the court. Using data
 from state site visits, which usually lasted three days, the selection
 process for courts and counties was refined. Once courts were
 tentatively selected, chief judges at each of the selected courts were
 contacted to determine their willingness to participate in the
 study. The second set of site visits was to each of the selected
 courts. In several courts, surveys were not distributed on the first
 visit but were mailed and distributed by the court. However, in-person
 distribution of the questionnaires was more effective in securing high
 response rates. Probation officers, judges and referees, prosecutors,
 and defense attorneys were interviewed in each of the 12 courts. The
 surveys were based on previous surveys of juvenile court
 decision-makers and SDM, for example, Champion (1994) and Barton and
 Creekmore (1994), which were modified to fit the study. Each survey
 contained a core set of questions regarding juvenile justice
 administration, but modifications relevant to particular
 decision-makers were made. The survey was pre-tested in two counties
 and further changes were made based on those results. The survey was
 self-administered in each of the courts. The names of potential
 respondents were obtained through the assistance of court
administrators and/or department heads.
description: All respondents were asked to answer a core set of
 questions as well as questions that related to their specific role as
 judge, probation officer, prosecutor, or public defender, in the
 juvenile justice system. All respondents answered questions on their
 general views of juvenile justice, which included questions on the
 importance of rehabilitation, punishment, and due process. There were
 also core questions on disposition objectives, what factors turn
 juveniles away from further involvement in delinquency and crime, the
 use of SDM, the value of SDM, whether decisions recommended by SDM are
 too lenient, about right, or too restrictive, the meaning of
 accountability, and inter-organizational and community relations,
 including questions on community groups' influence over the court,
 similarity of the respondent's views to the views of others in the
 community, and the working relationship between the court and
 community groups. In addition, prosecutors and public defenders
 answered questions on the factors that influenced their decision to
 file a petition, recommend a disposition, and make a waiver decision
 to adult court. Judges and probation officers answered additional
 questions on the availability of resources for the juvenile court in
 their county, factors that influenced them when making a disposition,
 and the usefulness of SDM, including questions on situations in which
 the respondent had overridden SDM recommendations. Judges also
 answered questions on judicial discretion. The probation survey data
 include several derived variables. All respondents provided background
 information, including age, gender, ethnic/racial background, marital
 status, number of children in certain age groups, past job experience
 in criminal justice, percentage of cases handled that were juvenile,
 duties unrelated to juvenile justice, job satisfaction, attendance of
 professional training meetings, and which organizations provided the
 training. Probation officers were also questioned on the highest level
of education attained.
description: Response Rates: In total, 65.2 percent of probation officers,
 judges and referees, prosecutors, and defense attorneys completed the
surveys.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio were selected
 because they are contiguous states in the same geographic region, and
 it was assumed that they would share common properties, such that the
 states' general environments would not be a significant factor
 affecting interpretation of the research findings. Among factors that
 these four states have in common are the following: concentration of
 basic industry, extensive farming in rural counties, one or more major
 urban areas, and significant racial and ethnic diversity. Another
 criterion for selecting these states was their variation in terms of
 characteristics related to case processing and juvenile justice. The
 states varied greatly in the availability and types of state resources
 at local as compared to state levels. In each state, three counties
 were chosen based on selection criteria designed to include a variety
 of contexts for SDM. First, a populous urban jurisdiction was selected
 in each state. These jurisdictions had large case volumes and pressure
 to process cases quickly, as some of the most serious social problems,
 such as poverty and high arrest rates, occurred in the large urban
 jurisdictions. Second, a community was selected that provided a range
 of community resources for dispositional programs. These resources
 would provide many dispositional alternatives, suggesting more complex
 decision-making. Third, a community was selected that had several
 social problems but limited dispositional resources. These communities
 faced processing pressures without resources, making it likely that
 decision-making would be simpler and more constrained. Mitigating the
 choice of counties were such things as a court's willingness to
 participate and geography. A few counties were unable to participate
 for a variety of reasons, such as court reorganization or staff
 turnover. The study sought to avoid geographic concentration in the
 sample. In one state, most of the large and medium-sized counties were
 geographically concentrated, so in that state smaller courts were
 selected. The study attempted to survey all probation officers, judges
 and referees, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in each of the 12
counties.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Judge Survey Data
DS2: Probation Officer Survey Data
DS3: Prosecutor Survey Data
DS4: Public Defender Survey Data
description: Probation officers, judges and referees, prosecutors, and
 defense attorneys in juvenile courts in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
and Ohio.
description: The user guide, codebooks, and data collection
 instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
 files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
 and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
 Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.