*Outcome-focused

*Mission-driven

*Performance-based

*

EditorsPatrick GriffinPatricia Torbet

National Center for Juvenile Justice

June 2002

2

This revision of The Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice was produced by a group of

juvenile probation professionals from across the country, convened by the National Center for Juvenile

Justice with funding from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Authors, contributors,

and advisors to the Desktop Guide revision project included members of three national membership organi-

zations that are committed to improving the status and raising the standards of the juvenile probation

profession: the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the American Probation and Parole

Association, and the National Juvenile Court Services Association.

3

AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Craig AndersonChief Probation Officer7th Judicial District of Montana

Troy ArmstrongDirectorCenter for Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies

Kathleen BairdChief PsychologistLucas County Juvenile Detention Center, OH

Amy BallardProbation SupervisorMaricopa County Juvenile Probation, AZ

Valerie BenderRestorative Justice ConsultantPittsburgh, PA

Meghan BlackResearch AssistantNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Melanie BozynskiResearch AssistantNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Bevely BurtonProbation OfficerFulton County Juvenile Court, GA

Keith CampEducation CoordinatorAlabama Judicial College

Elliott Wayne CarmackProbation-Parole Policy SpecialistDivision for Juvenile Justice Services, NH

Robert ChampionAdministrator, Probation ServicesIndiana Judicial Center

Susan CollingJuvenile Program CoordinatorColorado Office of Probation Services

Bill CountyChief Juvenile Probation OfficerLorain County Domestic Relations Court, OH

i

Ann CroweResearch AssociateAmerican Probation and Parole AssociationDavid GambleManager of Curriculum and TrainingNational Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

Patrick GriffinResearch AssociateNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Tim HowardDeputy DirectorVirginia Department of Juvenile Justice

Shirley HuntSenior Research AnalystOrange County Probation Department, CA

Hunter Hurst IVSenior Research AssistantNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Ken MathersCommunity Justice OfficerDeschutes County Department of Community Justice, OR

Dan PompaCourt AdministratorLucas County Juvenile Court, OH

Gillian PorterResearch AssistantNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Ralph RicciConsultantYoungstown, OH

James RielandChief Juvenile Probation OfficerAllegheny County Juvenile Probation Department, PA

Scott ReinerCourt Services SpecialistVirginia Department of Juvenile Justice

David RoushDirectorCenter for Research and Professional DevelopmentNational Juvenile Detention Association

The current revision of the Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice is the work of the following Authorsand Contributors:

4ii

Barb SmithDirector of Court Services33rd Judicial District of Missouri

Keith SnyderDirector of Policy and ProgramsPennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission

Kevin SpangenbergResearch AssistantNational Center for Juvenile Justice

David SteensonJuvenile Probation OfficerHennepin County Bureau of Community Corrections,MN

Linda SydneyResearch AssociateAmerican Probation and Parole Association

Douglas ThomasResearch AssociateNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Patricia TorbetSenior Research AssociateNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Carl WicklundExecutive DirectorAmerican Probation and Parole Association

Sue YeresJuvenile Justice Trainer/ConsultantSan Francisco, CA

Suzanna ZawackiResearch AssistantNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Editors:Patrick GriffinResearch AssociateNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Patricia TorbetSenior Research AssociateNational Center for Juvenile Justice

Production Editor:Kristy ConnorsManager of CommunicationsNational Center for Juvenile Justice

The revised Desktop Guide builds upon the foundation originally laid down by the Juvenile Probation Officer InitiativeWorking Group, which produced the first Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice in 1991:

Theresa McCarthy AccocksCarolyn AndersenWilliam AndersonTroy ArmstrongSalvatore D’AmicoRolando del CarmenWalter DickeyForest EastmanCarol EngelRichard GableArgie GomezSamuel GrottAnthony GuarnaDavid HedenJean HeinzenNorman HelberJohn HerbJerry HillTheresa HomisakHunter HurstJo Ann JonesEric Joy

Andrew KleinPeter L’EtoileBernard LicarioneNancy LickDennis MaloneyEllen NimickBetty OsbourneB. Keith ParkhouseMary Ann PetersDan PompaWilliam Samford, IISue ShirelyTerry ShowalterMelissa SickmundM. Gale SmithAnnie SutherlandDouglas ThomasM. James TonerPatricia TorbetSandra WilsonJames Wolslayer

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Authors/Contributors .......................................................................................................... iIntroduction: Rethinking Juvenile Probation.................................................................. 1Chapter 1: History ...................................................................................................... 5Chapter 2: Legal Issues ............................................................................................ 11Chapter 3: Youth and Delinquency .......................................................................... 21Chapter 4: Case Processing Overview ...................................................................... 33Chapter 5: Intake Decision-Making ......................................................................... 41Chapter 6: Diversion ................................................................................................. 49Chapter 7: Detention ................................................................................................ 57Chapter 8: Disposition Recommendations .............................................................. 63Chapter 9: Supervision .............................................................................................. 73Chapter 10: Selected Practices and Techniques ........................................................ 85Chapter 11: Special Populations ............................................................................... 109Chapter 12: A Call to Action ..................................................................................... 133Appendices: Glossary .................................................................................................. 139

Forms and Instruments ........................................................................ 145

Index

iii

King County (Seattle), Washington —Juvenile Detention Intake Criteria

Orange County (Santa Ana), California —Intake Assessment, Guidelines, and Report

State of Missouri —Risk and Needs Assessment ScalesCase Classification MatrixStructured Interview Guidelines

Lucas County (Toledo), Ohio —Risk and Needs Assessments and Assessment Matrix

State of Washington —Juvenile Court Pre-Screen Risk Assessment and Risk Assessment

CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

63

8 DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter you will learn about:!!!!! predisposition investigation and assess-

ment techniques

!!!!! factors that should govern dispositionrecommendations

!!!!! how to write useful predispositionreports

!!!!! how to testify effectively in dispositionhearings

Juvenile courts rely on probation officers toinvestigate and assess juvenile offendersand recommend appropriate dispositions.Once a juvenile has been found to be delinquent, ajudge must decide what to do about it—that is, whatdisposition to order. Juvenile probation officershave a good deal of influence over this decision. Itis the probation officer who conducts the predispo-sition investigation for the court, assemblinginformation about the juvenile into a broad picturethat is both detailed and objective. Taking intoaccount and balancing the interests of the juvenile,the victim, and the community, the probation officerthen makes an appraisal of the dispositional alterna-tives available and recommends appropriate sanc-tions, interventions, and services. The writtenreport that summarizes all these matters is submit-ted to the court and generally forms the basis fordisposition decision-making. Indeed, one studyconcluded that juvenile court judges follow proba-tion officers’ recommendations more than 90% ofthe time.1

This chapter will discuss the timing, conduct, andpurpose of predisposition investigations, generalprinciples that should guide the choice of disposi-tions, and techniques for conveying dispositionrecommendations clearly, concisely, and effectively.

Probation departments should avoid con-ducting wasteful, unnecessary or redun-dant predisposition investigations. Mostcases referred to juvenile court intake will neverrequire a full-blown predisposition investigation.In 1998, for example, only about 36% of all casesreferred to intake actually resulted in an adjudica-tion of delinquency. About 43% were neverpetitioned at all, and about 20% were dismissed orotherwise resolved without a finding of delin-quency.2

Obviously, both in order to save time and expenseand to avoid unwarranted intrusions into theprivacy of juveniles referred to intake, probationdepartments should focus their assessment effortsnarrowly at the start of a case, gathering only theinformation that is necessary to make the intakedecision, and reserving more extensive predisposi-tion investigations for cases in which the juvenile

Good Predisposition Investigation andReporting Practices Require:

√ Consensus on agency/system goals

√ Focus on information relevant to the decision

√ Training in uniformly and consistently collectingthe information

√ Time and manpower to do the job

√ Communication and cooperation between court/probation and information-source agencies(schools, police, mental health, drug and alco-hol)

√ Criteria/guidelines for using the informationcollected

√ Format for displaying, summarizing and quantify-ing the information

√ Ongoing oversight that monitors the aggregateoutcomes of the decision-making process andgauges its effectiveness.

64 CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

either admits the charges or has already beenadjudicated. If a predisposition investigation doesprove necessary, it should expand and build uponthe work done in the intake assessment that wentbefore, and lay a firm foundation for the caseplanning that will come after.

Unfortunately, not all courts allow enough timebetween adjudication and disposition hearings topermit this orderly approach. Most standards-setting groups call for separate or “bifurcated”hearings on the two issues, for a variety of reasons.(See “Bifurcated Hearings.”) Nevertheless, inmany jurisdictions, the judge will turn to the issueof disposition almost immediately after finding ajuvenile delinquent—with perhaps only a briefrecess to read the disposition report. Accordingly,at least in those jurisdictions, investigations must beconducted and reports prepared before the outcomeof the adjudication hearing is known.

Predisposition investigations must focuson facts that are pertinent to the goals ofthe disposition process. Although the direc-tion and scope of an investigation will vary with thenature of the case and the resources and disposi-tional alternatives available, all predispositioninvestigations should be designed to shed light onthree basic sets of issues:

! Public protection. What level of security orsupervision for the juvenile will be necessary inorder to keep the community safe? The investiga-tion should uncover facts relevant to immediateand long-term risks to public safety, as well asways of managing those risks.

! Accountability. What sanctions or consequenceswill be necessary in order to hold the juvenileaccountable for the offense? Investigations mustfocus on the nature of the harm caused to thecommunity and the losses suffered by the victim,the current attitude of the offender with regard tohis responsibility for these matters, and the stepsthat would be called for to repair the harm done,restore the losses, and reinforce and deepen thesense of responsibility.

! Rehabilitation. What measures will enable thejuvenile to lead a more law-abiding, pro-sociallife? The investigation should assess thejuvenile’s current strengths and needs, and

explore possible ways to help him exit the systemmore capable of productive citizenship than whenhe entered.

Bifurcated Hearings

All standards-setting groups concur in recom-mending that the hearing to determine whether ornot an accused juvenile has committed thedelinquent act charged (the adjudication) shouldbe held separately from the hearing to determinewhat should be done about it (the disposition).There are two good reasons for preferring this“bifurcated” process:

! Fairness. Bifurcation minimizes the dangerthat the judge, who must make a neutral deter-mination of the truth of the allegations in thepetition at the adjudication stage, may be swayedby the sort of unfairly prejudicial informationthat is often found in predisposition reports. Tomention one obvious example: the fact that ajuvenile has a long prior record may be highlypertinent to a choice of proper dispositions, butit would be unfair to consider it at the adjudica-tion stage.

! Privacy. Bifurcation is also intended to preventbroader than necessary intrusions into theprivacy of the juvenile and his family. Where itis not clear that a disposition will be necessary,the reasoning goes, no “predisposition” investi-gation should be conducted at all.

However, in many jurisdictions—either to expe-dite delinquency case processing generally or tominimize periods of detention—little or no timeis allowed to elapse between the adjudication anddisposition stages of a juvenile case, and proba-tion departments do not have the option ofdeferring predisposition investigations until afterjuveniles have been adjudicated. In such places,fairness and privacy considerations still requirethat steps be taken to ensure that the judge doesnot see the contents (or even the size) of thereport before making the adjudication decision;that information discovered in predispositioninvestigations be strictly guarded; and that juve-niles and their families be informed of their rightto refuse consent to the disclosure of confidentialinformation before adjudication.

CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

65

Bear in mind that these are general goals of disposi-tion decision-making. Individual state laws mayspecify particular factors that must be considered inmaking disposition decisions. Some jurisdictionsuse highly structured decision-making guidelines aswell (see below). Obviously, probation officersconducting predisposition investigations must besure to gather whatever information is required tobe considered under local law or guidelines.

Obtaining basic documents, checkingrecords, conducting interviews, and makingcollateral contacts are standard predisposi-tion investigation techniques. As notedabove, a predisposition investigation must startfrom the foundation of facts gathered at the intakeassessment. The “triage” information collected atthat stage may have been assembled solely toinform the intake decision, but much of it—such asoffense information, court history, victim input,etc.—will be useful for predisposition purposes aswell.

In addition, predisposition investigations generallyinvolve the following steps:

1. Obtaining copies of the following documents onthe juvenile:

– birth certificate

– social security card

– naturalization card

– health insurance or Medicaid card

– immunization record

2. Interviewing the juvenile and his parents or legalguardians in the home for the purpose of:

– Observing the juvenile’s home conditionsand neighborhood

– Filling in gaps in information regardingevents surrounding the offense

– Assessing family/parenting attributes

– Determining where additional information canbe obtained about the juvenile and getting asigned authorization to release confidentialinformation

3. Checking the following records for prior referralsand information on prior investigations, assess-ments, and treatment reports:

– Protective services records

– Police records

– Motor vehicle records (paying particularattention to incidents involving alcohol ordrugs)

– Court records

– Probation, parole, and institutional records

4. Contacting the following (if not already con-tacted at intake):

– Current or last attended school, requestingeducational background information (atten-dance, behavior, performance)

– Victim or victim’s family, requesting docu-mentation of actual or estimated losses ordamages, insurance coverage, and claimssubmitted

– Additional contacts (arresting officer, prosecu-tor and/or petitioner, other family members,treatment providers, etc.)

Assessing safety risks posed by a juvenileoffender requires exploration of the offenseitself, its circumstances and motivations,and the offender’s previous history. Thepublic protection goal of disposition decision-making calls for a realistic assessment of risks.What specific risk does the juvenile pose to thecommunity? What is the community’s tolerance forthis kind of risk? What can the probation depart-ment do to manage or minimize the risk?

The offense itself, along with the juvenile’s trackrecord of offending, are the best shorthand indica-tors of the danger he may represent to his commu-nity. Details to be explored include not just whatthe juvenile did but why and how, and sometimeseven where and when. The duration and serious-ness of the juvenile’s offense history—especiallyany history of offending while under supervision orparticipating in community programming—are allrelevant as well.

Whether or not the juvenile can be safely main-tained in the community depends in part on therange and appropriateness of local dispositionalalternatives available. The same juvenile might be“safe” in a community with adequate monitoringresources and effective services, but not in a

66 CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

community that lacked them. In general, however,most juvenile offenders cannot and should not be“sent away.” Even from a pure public safetystandpoint, and without regard to costs, all but asmall proportion of serious juvenile offenders arebetter handled in the community—where they willhave an opportunity learn and practice pro-socialways of living—than in secure institutions.

Predisposition investigations should alsobring to light the culpability of the offenderand the consequences of the offense. Bythe time of the predisposition investigation, theoffender’s guilt should already have been estab-lished or admitted. However, particularly if thejuvenile has been found delinquent as a result of aplea agreement rather than a full-blown trial, it maybe impossible to hold him fully accountable withoutestablishing the degree to which he was actually atfault, and what harm he caused.

Victim information—regarding the nature of theoffense, the tangible and intangible harm suffered,the amount of restitution required, etc.—will bepertinent here. But the attitude of the offender—hisacceptance of responsibility, his awareness andunderstanding of the consequences of his actions,his remorse—will matter almost as much.

The rehabilitative goals of dispositiondecision-making call for investigation ofthe juvenile’s individual and familystrengths and needs. With the right supervi-sion, services, and supports, most offenders canbecome productive, responsible members ofsociety. Predisposition investigations help juvenilecourts determine what measures will be “right” forindividual offenders. They do it by identifying thecircumstances and factors that have contributed tothe juvenile’s delinquency in the past, asking whatskills (or “competencies”) the juvenile needs todevelop in order to break the old patterns, andassessing the juvenile’s (and his family’s) strengths,resources, and receptiveness to intervention.

The overall goal here is to help the juvenile toacquire “living, learning, working” skills, enddestructive behaviors, and improve cognitive/decision-making skills. In fact, most juvenileoffenders benefit from the juvenile court’s interven-tion and outgrow their negative behaviors becauseof their acquisition of such skills, their relationships

with significant people, and their attachments toconventional groups and institutions. Accordingly,the investigation should establish the juvenile’sdevelopmental age, maturity, capacity and willing-ness to change. It should ask what thinking ordecision-making patterns or social, educational orvocational deficits contribute to the risk of persis-tent or escalating offending. What strengths can bebuilt upon? What opportunities are needed topractice new skills and receive feedback? How canbonding and attachment to pro-social communityentities be encouraged?

Written guidelines give structure and con-sistency to recommendations. Just as writtenguidelines improve the consistency and fairness ofintake and detention decision-making, they can helpto provide an objective, consistent framework fordisposition recommendations as well. Guidelinesshould reflect state law and the agency’s missionand goals. They should describe the availabledispositional alternatives and articulate explicitcriteria for recommending among them. And theyshould preserve a measure of officer discretion.

Typical guidelines require the decision-maker toconsider—and generally assign weighted “scores”to—the level of offense, prior convictions oradjudications, and a variety of possible aggravatingand mitigating factors and conditions, such as theseriousness of the injuries inflicted or the presenceor absence of premeditation. Depending on theresulting score, the juvenile can be matched with alevel of disposition, or at least a range of possibledispositions.

Some states have gone to extreme lengths in thisdirection—legislatively imposing what are in effectcriminal-style statewide sentencing guidelines onthe juvenile disposition process. That is not what isbeing advocated here. But well-designed, thorough,flexible departmental guidelines for dispositionrecommendations can assure the court that disposi-tion recommendations reflect systematic attentionto each of the three primary disposition goals—public protection, offender accountability, andrehabilitation—and that factors relevant to thosegoals have been duly weighed in individual cases.They can also make it possible for probationdepartments to assemble useful data regarding theconsistency and fairness of their own case-handlingperformance.

CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

67

! Criminal history – arrest at young age; # and type of prior referrals,placements and commitments

! Multiple problems (3 or more) across more than one domain inNeeds Assessment

! Parent/child relationship – poor or dysfunctional, disinterested ordetached, inconsistent parenting or parental rejection

! Lack of control and supervision – no knowledge of youth’s friendsand activities, lack of age-appropriate limit-setting, deny responsibil-ity for juvenile’s behavior, lack of rules enforcement, difficultycontrolling behavior

! Peer relations – delinquent friends, gang involvement or member-ship

! Behavior – poor self-control, impulsive, verbally or physicallyabusive

! Performance – grades, achievement levels

! Behavior – suspensions or expulsions, reports of disruptive class-room behavior or problems with teachers

! Attendance – truancies, not currently in school

! Assessments – results of any educational assessments

! Mental illness – despressed, suicidal, mental illness diagnosis

! Alcohol or drugs – occasional or chronic use

! Substance use – linked to offense, disrupts functioning

! Changes in behavior – moodiness, sleep patterns

! Good parent/child relationship, clear expectations for and monitor-ing of child’s behavior

! Interests – in school activities (clubs, chorus, band, sports), extracur-ricular activities (scouting, church, Y, Boys/Girls Club), personalinterests or hobbies

! Relationships – prosocial friends, positive relationship with support-ive adult

! Attitude – emotionally mature, receptive to help

! Good reading ability

! Victim Impact Statement

! Restitution/community service obligation

! Victim willingness to interact with offender

! Offender remorse for crime, empathy toward victim, acknowledgesharm

Assessment Checklist

Domains Factors

Needs AssessmentFamily/Parenting Attributes

Juvenile’s Attributes

School

Substance Abuse/Mental Illness

Strength AssessmentFamily/Parenting Attributes

Juvenile’s Attributes

SchoolAccountability Assessment

Risk AssessmentHistory

68 CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

Disposition recommendations should beembodied in clear, concise, and completereports. The probation officer uses the informa-tion gathered during the predisposition investiga-tion and assessment—in addition to the informationalready compiled at intake—to prepare a report forthe court’s consideration during the dispositionhearing. Each jurisdiction is likely to have its ownpredisposition report format and requirements. It isimportant to follow the standard format and addressall required items; a favorable reception for adisposition recommendation may well depend onthe ease with which a busy judge is able to locateinformation in a report.

Certain general guidelines apply to all such reports:

– Be sure of facts. Clearly indicate what informa-tion has been established and how. Designateinformation that is known only by hearsay—thatis, any information that has been learned from anabsent third party whose credibility cannot betested by cross-examination

– Include only information that has value or rel-evance to the decision.

– Omit details that add nothing to the assessment.However, do not omit relevant informationmerely because it does not support the recommen-dation.

– Be specific; avoid generalized descriptions(“frequently tardy”) in favor of detailed orquantifiable facts (“tardy 13 times in October.”)

– Maintain objectivity. Do not state opinions asfacts. Label them as opinions and attribute themto their proper source. Confine your own opin-ions to the summary or assessment section of thereport.

– Keep report language clear, simple and grammati-cally correct. Avoid jargon. Be natural in yourstyle: refer to the juvenile by name and yourselfas “I,” rather than as “the offender” and the“officer.”

– Keep the information brief, succinct, and user-friendly, so that it is capable of being quickly andeasily comprehended.

The following are typical components of a predis-position report:3

1. Offense Information. Again, much of thisinformation would have been obtained at intake.

But the report could also include chargessubstantiated and additional facts developed atthe adjudication hearing. Among other facts,this section might reflect:

– Whether the juvenile acted alone or withothers

– Whether the juvenile acted as a leader orfollower

– Role of participants and disposition of co-defendants

– Motivation for offense (e.g., personal gain,retribution, chemical dependency)

– Events preceding the offense

– Condition of juvenile at time of offense(drunk, on drugs, emotional/angry)

– Whether the offense was premeditated orcommitted on impulse

– Time the offense was committed

– Whether the offense involved a weapon

– Recommendations for disposition from thearresting officer

2. Juvenile’s Statement Regarding Offense

– Attitude about the offense (e.g., boastful orashamed, defiant or remorseful)

– Attitude and concern toward the victim

3. Parental Statement Regarding Offense

– Their knowledge of the offense

√ What risks does the juvenile pose to the com-munity?

√ What is the juvenile’s attitude toward the victimand the offense?

√ What factors and circumstances contributed tothe juvenile’s offending?

√ What skills does the juvenile need to acquire?

√ What are the juvenile’s (and the juvenile’sfamily’s) strengths, resources, and receptivenessto intervention?

Disposition Recommendation Checklist

CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

69

– Steps they have taken of a corrective orpreventive nature in addressing behavioralissues with their child

– Recommendations for disposition

4. Victim Information

– Victim Impact Statement

– Injuries or losses sustained by the victim

– Restitution sought/concerns to be addressed

– Juvenile’s access to or relationship withvictim; victim’s willingness to participate indisposition

– Perceived risk of being re-victimized

5. Prior Record

– A chronological summary of juvenile’soffense history, previous dispositions, andrecord of compliance with prior courtorders or diversion agreements

– Placement history

– Stealing patterns

– Runaway patterns

Testifying Tips

! Prepare. Come to court prepared. This not onlyincreases your effectiveness as a witness, it helpsalleviate any anxiety you may feel as a newcomerto the process. If you are unfamiliar with thecourtroom in which you will be testifying, visit itbeforehand. Review—but don’t memorize—written documents (statements, reports, petitions,etc.) about which you will be testifying, andfamiliarize yourself with the whole file. You canbring notes with you to refer to on the stand, butbe aware that you may be asked to submit them tothe court, and make sure you bring copies for thejudge and the attorneys.

! Relax. If you’re nervous, pay attention to therate at which you’re breathing, and try to slowyourself down. If you know any tension-reducingtricks that you can practice without callingattention to yourself—such as pressing your toesdown into your shoes, or visualizing peacefulscenes—make use of them.

! Show respect. When you take the stand, yourattire, posture, mannerisms, choice of words, andeverything else about you should reflect respectfor the court and its proceedings—even if otherhearing participants’ don’t. So dress formally.Address the judge as “Your Honor.” Sit upstraight, keep your body still, look speakers in theeye, and pay attention. Keep gestures to aminimum. Avoid using poor grammar, jargon, orslang. On the other hand, don’t “complexify”things—you will be more effective if you keepyour testimony as simple and straightforward aspossible.

! Do your job. Your job as a witness is to answerthe questions that are put to you. So listen untilthe question is finished—never interrupt. Thentake a breath, answer truthfully, and stop. Don’tanticipate questions that haven’t been asked.Don’t answer on the basis of what you think thequestioner really means. Don’t hesitate to ask forclarification. And don’t be afraid to say you don’tknow.

! Follow the rules. One of the most importantrules in a courtroom is that you should onlytestify as to matters of which your have directknowledge. If you think you are being asked toguess, speculate, or pass along what others havetold you, say so, and be clear that that is what youare doing. Another important rule is that youmust stop answering immediately when there is anobjection, and wait until the judge says you maycontinue.

! Exercise caution. Sometimes you may be askeda question that contains more than one question.Don’t try to answer a compound question all atonce, and risk leaving a false impression; break itdown, and answer it part by part. Likewise, don’tanswer a question that assumes facts that are nottrue, without first correcting the false assumption.Finally, when you have finished testifying aboutsomething, a questioner will sometimes purportto “sum up” what you have said, and ask youconfirm it; never acquiesce in an inaccuratesummary of your testimony.

Source: Allegheny County (PA) Juvenile Court Policy andProcedures Manual, Appendix A: The Courtroom Presentation.

70 CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

6. Family/Parenting Attributes

– Parent-child relationships/involvement,resources, strengths/skills, ties with thecommunity

– Marital history

– Educational and employment history

– Substance abuse, mental health issues

– Criminal history, including domesticviolence disturbances

– Control and supervision, including knowledgeof child’s friends and activities

– Discipline style, limit-setting, rules enforce-ment

– Sense of responsibility for child’s behavior

– Home and neighborhood conditions

– Influences and social pressures of neighbor-hood

7. Health History

– Physical health, serious illnesses, accidents,disabilities, or medications

– Mental health, including results of anyscreening or clinical evaluations

– Controlled substance use, including resultsof any drug tests, screens, or clinicalassessments, treatment experiences andattitudes toward recovery

8. Educational History:

– Schools attended and present status

– Academic performance (grades, standardizedtest scores)

– Attendance record

– Learning problems (results of any testing orservices)

– Conduct and disciplinary actions andresponse to discipline

– Participation in school or extracurricularactivities

– Awards and accomplishments

– Educational goals

9. Employment history:

– Work patterns/habits

– Duration and reasons for termination

– Attitudes toward job, work in general

– Career goals

10. Personal characteristics

– Developmental capacity, attention span

– Ability to relate to peers, adults

– Delinquent friendships/gang activity

– Anti-social attitudes, values, beliefs

– Self-control, impulsivity

– Juvenile’s view of problem areas andstrengths

11. Structured use of time

– Hobbies, recreational activities, and specialinterests

– Memberships in clubs, organizations

– Community service and other volunteering

12. Summary and Assessment:

– Public Safety Goal: Risk of harm to selfand community in view of present offense,offense history, and response to priorinterventions

– Accountability Goal: Impact of crime onvictim and community, including losses andjuvenile’s ability to pay restitution or fines;juvenile’s level of remorse

– Rehabilitation Goal: Factors/circumstancesthat contributed to the crime that must beaddressed

13. Recommendations

Disposition recommendations shouldalways specify the best possible disposi-tions as well as the best available ones.Most primary dispositions fall into a few broadcategories. They may include commitment to asecure institution; residential placement in a publicor private facility, such as a community-basedgroup home; referral to a nonresidential programfor “day treatment” services; various forms ofprobation supervision; and orders to pay fines,

CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS

71

make restitution, or perform community service. In1998, probation was the most serious disposition inabout 58% of the more than 600,000 cases in whichjuveniles were adjudicated delinquent nationwide.About 26% of adjudicated cases resulted in place-ment outside the home. About 11% ended withorders to pay fines or restitution, perform commu-nity service, or participate in day treatment orcounseling programs. And in about 5% of adjudi-cated cases juveniles were released without sanc-tions.4

Every jurisdiction has its own unique mix ofprimary dispositional alternatives and secondarysanctions and services. Not every mix is adequate.The probation officer should always begin byrecommending whatever is the best course to betaken with a juvenile—even if it is unavailable orotherwise impractical. If the best disposition is notamong the available options, the gap in neededprograms or services should be noted and a second-ary recommendation should be made. If nothingelse, documentation of service gaps may facilitatedevelopment of needed resources in the future.

In addition to a primary disposition recommenda-tion, the probation officer usually proposes aprogram of supplemental restrictions, sanctions andservices that could form the basis of a case orsupervision plan for the juvenile. In all cases, theproposed conditions should serve the broad goals ofthe disposition process. However, this matter isdiscussed more fully in the following chapter onSupervision.

Endnotes1 Siegel, L., and Senna, J. (1985). Juvenile Delinquency Theory,

Practice, and Law (2nd ed). St. Louis, MO: West PublishingCompany.

2 Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A., Finnegan, T., Snyder, H., Poole, R.,and Tierney, N. (2002). Juvenile Court Statistics 1998(Forthcoming). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

3 These elements are taken largely from New Hampshire’s “Pre-Dispositional Investigation Reports,” ITEM 770(a), CYFManual, April 1997. Additional elements are incorporatedfrom predisposition report formats used elsewhere, includingPennsylvania and Orange County, CA.

4 Puzzanchera et al., supra, n. 2.

72 CHAPTER 8DISPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS