NCJ Number
79322
Date Published
1981
Length
236 pages
Annotation
This volume reports the second stage of research on the Minors in Need of Supervision (MINS) Project at the juvenile court of Cook County, Ill. This phase investigated the court's effectiveness in treating MINS through an analysis of case outcomes.
Abstract
The family record folders of 370 youths who were the subjects of at least one MINS petition during a period of 2 1/2 years were reviewed to explore the personal, social, and legal characteristics of MINS and their families and to determine the outcomes of the court involvement. Data from the court records were quantified and computerized for statistical analysis. The analysis was structured in terms of the intentions of the court with respect to status offenders rather than on legal or philosophical issues. The court's general goals were identified as ensuring service, providing individual treatment, strengthening families, helping cure youths' problems, protecting the community, and treating youths benevolently. Findings revealed that the court does not provide the kind of treatment for status offenders and their families that juvenile court legislation and juvenile court spokespersons say will be delivered. Less than half of the MINS actually received services, and less than a fifth showed evidence of substantial positive change. Almost three-quarters returned to court after an initial MINS petition, and during court involvement only slightly more youths received services than before. In addition, multiproblem youths did not receive services as frequently as youths with fewer identified problems, and less than 5 percent of the parents received services separate from their MINS children. Moreover, MINS complaints were found to result mainly from parental concern rather than from community concern. The noncriminal problem behavior of MINS was not found to be a precursor of future delinquency. A regular use of excessive court intervention in MINS cases was found, indicating that the court does not always make every effort to limit coercion and provide benevolent treatment in the form of the least restrictive alternative. These shortcomings of the court are said to reflect the impossible promises made on behalf of the juvenile court by legislators and judicial spokespersons. It is concluded that effective treatment of status offenders requires a substantial revision of jurisdictional arrangements and of the court's role in the process. Graphic and tabular data and footnotes are given. Appendixes provide methodological details and material on families with service needs jurisdiction, noncriminal misbehavior standards, and complaint screening disposition criteria. The bibliography lists 30 references.