98 does play a role in the function of the juvenile system. Since Winburu, cases in California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Louisiana have resulted in rulings favorable to the applicability of the insanity defense tojuvenile proceedings. This endorsement of the insanity defense has not been universal, however, with at least one court, in In re C.W.M. _2,holding that the rehabilitative mission of the court left no place for the insanity defense in juvenile proceedings. The exact role of mental illness in mitigating culpability through invocation of the insanity defense in the juvenile system is a murky area.
DISPOSITION At disposition, the judge must make a decision regarding a treatment plan, once again balancing the protection of society versus rehabilitation of the youth. Ensuring that the most appropriate treatment is provided is assumed to occur from the judge's matching of the particulars of the case with dispositional options. In making this determination, judges are free to use almost any information available to reach their decisions. When confronted with cases having unusual features or a history of mental health involvement, judges often turn to mental health professionals (i.e., psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers) and other agency personnel. These professionals contribute their opinions as to the juvenile's needs, character, and fit with particular treatment programs (Grisso, Tomklns and Casey, 1988). Most often, clinicians are called upon to make determinations regarding a juvenile's general amenability to treatment or likelihood of rehabi,litation. Whether terms like "treatment" or "rehabilitation" mean the same thing to all mental health professionals, however, is questionable, and legal restrictions on the use of clinical expertise at disposition is minimal. Instead, statutes assume experts use the same terms uniformly in informing the court. That this may not be the case and the fact that there is limited validity of diagnostic formulations and predictions is seldom emphasized. Of course, if there is inconsistency in the use of terms or wide variability in clinical judgment, this is particularly disturbing since the type of treatment which is deemed appropriate usually forms the framework against which the range of a youth's problems and furore successes will be evaluated. Although psychiatric evaluations are common in many jurisdictions - especially for more serious offenses and where incarceration is likely - the expertise needed to make amenability decisions is all too often lacking in most locales. Moreover, even if the expertise exists, little systematic information is available regarding what factors are or should be used in assessing a juvenile's amenability to treatment. There is also some evidence that these determinations of amenability to treatment may be influenced more by the existing service delivery system in a loeale than would be desirable. In a field based study of mental health, court, and social service professionals across different levels of service availability in one state, Mulvey and Reppucci (1988) found that personnel in low resource locales saw more potential benefit from punishment than did personnel in higher resource locales. Also, mental health professionals in medium resource locales judged youths' likelihood of benefiting from treatment as higher than their counterparts in either high or low resource locales. These results clearly suggest
= 407 A.2d 617 (1979).