This study examines several influences on judges' attitudes toward implementation of new detention intake policies in Florida. Based on a statewide survey of all circuit judges on the juvenile bench, the analysis focuses specifically on the relative impact of judges' agreement with the statutory purpose of detention, working relationships with other juvenile justice professionals, and a variety of demographic and occupational variables on support for these reforms. The findings, which indicate that agreement with the statutory purpose of detention exerts the dominant influence, have implications for policy-makers interested in improving the implementation process in juvenile justice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aday, D. P. (1986). Court structure, defense attorney use, and juvenile court decisions. Sociological Quarterly, 27, 107-119.
2.
Anderson, J. E. (1984). Public policy-making. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3.
Auditor General. (1991). Performance audit of the secure juvenile detention program. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
4.
Bard, M., & Berkowitz, B. (1969). A community psychology consultation program in policy and family crisis intervention. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 5, 209-215.
5.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Bazemore, G. (1993). Formal policy and informal process in the implementation of juvenile justice reform. Criminal Justice Review, 18, 26-45.
7.
Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro- and micro-implementation. Public Policy, 26, 157-184.
8.
Bortner, M. A. (1986). Inside a juvenile court. New York: New York University Press.
9.
Bynum, T. S. (1982). Prosecutorial discretion and the implementation of a legislative mandate. In M. Morash (Ed.), Implementing criminal justice policies (pp. 47-59). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
Cohen, L. E. (1975). Delinquency dispositions: An empirical analysis of processing decisions in three juvenile courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.
Criswell, J. (1991, May). Juvenile justice reform. Paper presented at the meeting of Florida Atlantic University's Professional Development Center's Training Conference on Florida Children, Youth and Families, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
12.
Dale, M. J., & Sanniti, C. (1993). Litigation as an instrument for change in juvenile detention: A case study. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 49-68.
13.
Decker, S. H. (1982). Value consensus among agencies in a juvenile justice program. In M. Morash (Ed.), Implementing criminal justice policies (pp. 101-115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Edwards, L. P. (1992). The juvenile court and the role of the juvenile court judge. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 43, 1-45.
15.
Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1991). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
16.
Emerson, R. M. (1969). Judging delinquents. Chicago: Aldine.
17.
Federle, K. H., & Chesny-Lind, M. (1992). Special issues in juvenile justice: Gender, race and ethnicity. In I. Schwartz (Ed.), Juvenile justice and public policy (pp. 165-195). New York: Lexington Books.
18.
Feld, B. C. (1984). Criminalizing juvenile justice: Rules of procedure for juvenile court. Minnesota Law Review, 69, 141-276.
19.
Feld, B. C. (1991a). Justice by geography: Urban, suburban, and rural variations in juvenile justice administration. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 82, 156-210.
20.
Feld, B. C. (1991b). Transformed but unreformed: Juvenile court and the criminal court alternative. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota School of Law.
21.
Frank, J., Cullen, F., & Cullen, J. B. (1987). Sources of judicial attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Journal of Crime and Justice, 10, 151-164.
22.
Frazier, C. E., & Bishop, D. (1985). Pretrial detention of juveniles and its impact on case dispositions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 301-321.
23.
Frazier, C. E., & Cochran, J. K. (1986). Detention of juveniles: Its effects on subsequent juvenile court processing decisions. Youth and Society, 17, 286-305.
24.
Hackler, J. (1991). The possible overuse of not guilty pleas in juvenile justice. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Center for Criminological Research.
25.
Jacobs, M. (1990). Screwing the system and making it work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
Johnson, C. A., & Canon, B. C. (1984). Judicial policies: Implementation and impact. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
27.
Klein, M. W. (1979). Deinstitutionalization and diversion of juvenile offenders: A litany of impediments. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice (pp. 165-195). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Knott, J. H., & Miller, G. J. (1987). Reforming bureaucracy: The politics of institutional choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
29.
Lab, S. P., & Whitehead, J. T. (1988). An analysis of juvenile correctional treatment. Crime and Delinquency, 34, 60-83.
30.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.
31.
Lotz, R. E., Poole, E. D., & Regoli, R. M. (1985). Juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. New York: Random House.
32.
Maloney, D., Romig, D., & Armstrong, T. (1988). Juvenile probation: The balanced approach. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
33.
Mazmanian, D., & Sabitier, P. (1981). Effective policy implementation. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health & Co.
34.
Morash, M. (1982). Introduction: Understanding criminal justice policy implementation. In M. Morash (Ed.), Implementing criminal justice policy (pp. 7-24). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
Musheno, M., Palumbo, D., & Levine, J. (1976). Evaluating alternatives in criminal justice: A policy-impact model. Crime and Delinquency, 22, 265-283.
36.
Myers, M. (1988). Social background and the sentencing behavior of judges. Criminology, 26, 649-675.
37.
Nagel, S. S. (1982). Judicial background and criminal cases. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 53, 333-339.
38.
Palumbo, D. (1987). Implementation: What we have learned and still need to know. Policy Studies Review, 7, 91-102.
39.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
40.
Rothman, D. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. New York: HarperCollins.
41.
Rubin, H. T. (1983). Juvenile justice and delinquency prevention: Viewpoints of five juvenile court judges. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
42.
Rubin, H. T. (1985). Behind the black robe: Juvenile court judges and the court. New York: Goodyear.
43.
Saleeby, G. (1985). Hidden closets: A study of detention practices in California. Sacramento: California Youth Authority.
44.
Schneider, A. L., & Shram, D. (1983). A justice philosophy for the juvenile courts. Seattle, WA: Center for Urban Policy Research.
45.
Schwartz, I. (1989). (In)Justice for juveniles: Rethinking the best interests of the child. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
46.
Schwartz, I., Barton, W., & Orlando, F. (1991). Keeping kids out of secure detention. Public Welfare, 46, 20-26.
47.
Schwartz, I., Fishman, G., & Eisikovitz, E. (1987). Juvenile detention: The hidden closets revisited. Justice Quarterly, 4, 219-235.
48.
Schwartz, I., & Van Vleet, R. (1993). Public policy and the incarceration of juveniles. In I. Schwartz (Ed.), Juvenile justice and public policy (pp. 25-32). New York: Lexington Books.
49.
Steinitz, L. Y. (1982). The Garnes Decree in reality: Determining parole eligibility for District of Columbia women. In M. Morash (Ed.), Implementing criminal justice policy (pp. 25-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
50.
Whitehead, J. T., & Lindquist, C. A. (1989). Determinants of correctional officers' professional orientation. Justice Quarterly, 6, 69-85.
