Juvenile Intake Decisionmaking Standards and Precourt Diversion Rates in New York

• NCJ Number: 79051
• Journal: Federal Probation Volume: 45 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1981) Pages: 53-58
• Author(s): C Lindner
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 6 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article discusses the possible benefits and abuses of the juvenile intake process and examines the juvenile intake decisionmaking standards and precourt diversion rates in New York City.

Abstract

The juvenile intake process provides a number of important benefits. The removal of trivial or inappropriate cases, as well as those that can be better served nonjudicially, not only reduces court congestion but allows the court to marshall its limited resources for more serious cases. The victim is relieved of the time involvement and trauma often inherent in a court proceeding and the juvenile is spared the possible sanctions of the court and attendant negative labeling. Despite the general acceptance of the intake process, the literature is filled with criticism of the discretionary powers of the intake officer. The lack of objective formal guidelines is thought to provide opportunity for subjective decisions that may be characterized by random arbitrariness and discrimination. In addressing possible abuse of the intake procedure, the New York City Department of Probation developed formal intake standards. Some of the principal standards are that (1) the intake process is voluntary, and the probation service, by statutory proscription, may not compel any person to appear at an intake conference; (2) no 'designated felony act' may be adjusted at intake unless prior written approval is given by a judge of the family court; (3) juveniles falling under the jurisdiction of the family court as a result of a removal proceeding in the State Supreme Court are statutorily barred from the intake process; (4) the family court is statutorily empowered to authorize and determine the circumstances under which the probation service may fulfill the intake process; and (5) extensive guidelines must be applied to determine whether the case is suitable for adjustment. One table and 30 footnotes are listed.