| dc.description.abstract | The use of problem-solving collaborations, much like in other areas of public management, is widespread in the United States juvenile court system. These problem-solving collaborations include, but are not limited to, problem-solving, or accountability, courts; citizen review panels; and multi-disciplinary or inter-agency review teams. As expected in public administration discourse, the notion of collaboration is deemed an imperative, and many juvenile court judges engage their courts in collaborative partnerships in order to provide innovative solutions to meet the needs of vulnerable youth and their families. Nevertheless, the use of problem-solving collaborations is often at odds with some of the central features commonly associated with the judicial system, particularly as it relates to notions of accountability, due process, and representation. Some scholars, in fact, argue that the presence of collaborations shifts the role of judges from objective arbiters to more centralized, team-player roles. This dissertation explores the factors that lead juvenile court judges to engage problem-solving collaborations. Relying on neo-institutional theory, street-level bureaucracy theory, and collaborative governance theory, and using semi-structured interviews and document analysis, I find that judges use their discretion in their dual roles as street-level bureaucrats and as managers to determine whether and how to collaborate. Specifically, I argue that juvenile court judges are most likely to engage problem-solving collaborations when such collaborations promote the goals of the court and when the use of collaboration aligns with a judge’s own conception of his/her professional identity. | |
