Juvenile Justice - A Rural-Urban Comparison (From Juvenile Justice in Rural America, P 37-49, 1980, Joanne Jankovic et al, ed. - See NCJ-74156)

• NCJ Number: 74158
• Author(s): E J Pawlak
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 13 pages
• Sale Source: Superintendent of Documents, GPO
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

To discern different patterns of offender processing, urban and rural juvenile courts are compared in terms of the size of the judiciary and probation staff, the volume of referrals, the handling of juvenile offenders, and the types of offenders.

Abstract

The data on over 97,000 cases were obtained from standard reporting forms which completed by probation officers for every referral for which a disposition was reached from 1966 to 1968 in 66 county juvenile courts in one State. In order to place the courts on a rural-urban continuum, the juvenile courts were grouped into eight classes according to the State's classification of counties. Census data were examined for the mean percentage and the range of the urban population in each class of courts to provide another indicator of the urban or rural character of the jurisdiction. The findings showed that many urban courts had as many referrals in one month as several rural courts combined had in 3 years. Approximately one half of the State's juvenile courts are staffed by two people, a judge and a probation officer, many of whom divide their time between more than one court. Overall, rural courts handled more first offenders and juveniles who committed property crimes than urban courts; urban courts handled a larger percentage of juveniles who committed victimless and person crimes. Rural courts were more likely to hold formal hearings than urban courts, but urban courts provided more diagnostic services than rural courts. There were no clear rural-urban distinctions in the percentage of institutionalized juveniles except that rural courts showed greater variation in the percentage of institutionalized juveniles except that rural courts showed greater variation in percentage of institutionalization. The findings indicated the need for intergovernmental planning and cooperation to provide access to programs and services for rural youthful offenders and to limit their placement with adult offenders in county jails. Development of regional detention and diagnostic centers, in which several counties could participate, would make a qualified pool of professional staff available in rural juvenile courts. Tabular data and references (included in footnotes) are provided.