The effect of the pre-sentence investigation report on the disposition of juvenile cases in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

This paper is a qualitative study of a decision-making process in the juvenile justice system of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The findings are based on data obtained through interviews with juvenile judges, juvenile probation officers, and other relevant officials. Specifically, the question is: What is the effect of the juvenile probation officer's pre-sentence investigation report recommendation on the ultimate disposition of a case?;The decision-making process of the juvenile court judge is broken down into specific factors, and each factor is examined individually. These factors include: severity and nature of offense; prior contacts with the system; family situation; a psychiatric/psychological report; a youth detention center report; and a pre-sentence investigation report, conducted by a juvenile probation officer.;The pre-sentence investigation report is examined in detail, as are the steps each court probation officer must take to complete the report. The format of the pre-sentence investigation report is discussed and the section involving recommendations is closely scrutinized.;Additionally, the two different types of probation officers who write pre-sentence investigation reports are identified. The first is a court probation officer, whose sole responsibilities are to interview people and write pre-sentence investigation reports. The second is a supervision probation officer who has a caseload of juveniles to supervise, and when one of them violates probation, the supervising probation officer must write the pre-sentence investigation report.;The paper begins by outlining the juvenile justice system in Montgomery County, and tracing the different steps which juveniles take. It explains the roles of various individuals, including judges, probation officers and attorneys. Further, it analyzes the three major hearings in a case, the detention hearing, the adjudication hearing, and the disposition hearing. Additionally, the differences between the adult system and the juvenile system are pointed out. After this general information, the focus narrows.;The relationship between the pre-sentence investigation report recommendations and disposition is studied, and the opinions of different professionals in Montgomery County are put forth. After this, conclusions are drawn.;The findings have two major themes. First, the pre-sentence investigation report is the most important factor in the ultimate disposition of a case. This is true, mostly because the report is a synthesis of important sources in the case. Also, because the probation officer has had the opportunity to interview people and observe the juvenile in more than one setting, his recommendation is inherently credible.;The second theme that arises in the paper is that there are few hard, fast rules when studying the decision-making process of judges. Different judges have different philosophies, and hence dispose of cases differently. More importantly, judges have different expectations of probation officers, and their pre-sentence investigation reports.;Sources for this thesis include over 50 texts and articles dealing with the juvenile justice system, as well as interviews with four Montgomery County judges, three probation officers, two probation supervisors, and other professionals.