A Case Study of Mental Health Professionals' Input into Juvenile Court Decision Making

Abstract

This article focuses on the common practice of employing masters level mental health professionals (social workers and psychologists) rather than bachelors level probation officers to prepare presentence reports in juvenile court settings. Using a before-and-after research design, the study identified and compared the process of decision making, the severity of decisions, and recidivism as reflected in the presentence reports of mental health professionals and probation officers. The major findings indicate that the employment of mental health professionals moved the court away from a legalistic decision model, where punishments were tailored to the seriousness of past andpresent delinquent behavior, and resulted in more severe case dispositions for offenders. Furthermore, the professionals' input did not produce a reduction in recidivism. The article concludes by stressing the need to avoid increased intervention unless there is a clear demonstration of benefit. Additionally, several topics are suggestedforfuture research relating to professionals' input into the juvenile court decision-making process.