99 that the contextual factors of resource availability and agency setting may influence assessments of amenability. Thus, the traditional wisdom that mental health professionals' assessments may be a method to counteract the biases of judges may provide far less of a safeguard than believed. The lack of theoretically valid clinical knowledge about amenability, the sparsity of expertise, and the potential contextual influences on clinical judgments have implications for policy and research regarding the dispositional process. Explicit recommendations to limit judicial discretion at disposition (e.g., Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards) appear warranted in light of these "issues surrounding the dispositional process. Unfortunately, few locales have implemented these types of guidelines; Meanwhile, more research is needed to improve the validity of amenability determinations and dispositional judgments. At present, there is a dearth of empirical evidence about the optimal matching of juvenile offenders and treatment alternatives. What little research does exist on amenability has focused more on the process of decision-making rather than its content (e.g., linking outcomes and case characteristics). Yet, the amenability determination may be the critical area for mental health involvement, especially in cases with mentally ill juveniles, since the consequences at both transfer and dispositio n may differentiate those who receive treatment from those who receive punishment.
MONITORING OF PLACEMENT
AND SERVICE PROVISION
Once the court has determined a treatment plan for a juvenile, the remaining issue concerns the court's role after this order has been entered. Historically, the court's role has been to prescribe particular services in the cases that come before it. However, since Gault and the concomitant recognition of the court's limited ability to deliver on its promise of treatment, the utility of the court in this role has been questioned. There has been considerable debate about whether the court should continue to prescribe interventions as an all- knowing parent substitute after disposition or whether the court should revert to a more administrative function, serving to ensure that other agencies are meeting prescribed standards of care (Mulvey, 1982; Feld, 1988). The ultimate issue is the judiciary's ability to impact service delivery after disposition (Harris, 1989). For example, what recourse is available when a child's lawyer argues that the facility in which a juvenile is placed does not meet the juvenile's mental health needs? Should the court have. the ability to revoke custody from that service provider and modify the treatment plan? In cases where the agency says that the service has not had an impact and requests another placement, should the court be in the position to determine whether the youth has "failed to adjust" or whether the agency has "failed" to provide adequate treatment? If the latter were determined, should the court be empowered to order the agency to provide certain types of interventions? Most state statutes are vague, and case law is generally sparse and unclear about the extent of the court's monitoring and enforcement power. Some states require continued judicial review of juvenile court placements as a method for addressing this issue. For example, Arizona requires judicial review every 60 days after a child is committed. Whether such review can be done effectively, however, given the large case loads in most courts, is an open question. The leveI of review actually done by the courts and the ultimate value of this procedure requires further consideration and inquiry.