Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · 2010 · 257 citations · 36 references
LawCriminologyEthnic StudiesEthnicity StudiesJuvenile JusticeJuvenile LawDelinquency ProceedingsJuvenile Court ProcedureJuvenile Criminal ProcedureJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice PolicyCumulative Effects AssessmentJuvenile Court PolicyJuvenile Court ProcessingJuvenile Court SystemsJuvenile Justice InvolvementJuvenile Justice SystemRandom SamplingYouth Diversion
Federal and state legislation aims for equitable juvenile court treatment, yet studies show race and ethnicity significantly influence outcomes, and few have examined their cumulative effects. The study aimed to assess how race and ethnicity affect diversion, petition, detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions among Arizona youth processed in 2000. Researchers analyzed a random sample of 23,156 youth processed in Arizona during 2000. Results revealed that Black, Latino, and American Indian youth faced more severe outcomes than white peers, and preadjudication detention increased the likelihood of petitions filed, decreased dismissal rates, and heightened home removal at disposition, underscoring policy implications.
Despite federal and state legislation aimed at producing equitable treatment of youth in the juvenile court system, studies continue to find that race and ethnicity play a significant role in juvenile court outcomes. To date, few studies have examined the cumulative effects of race and ethnicity in juvenile court outcomes. In this study, a random sample of youth processed in Arizona during 2000 (N = 23,156) was used to examine how race and ethnicity influence diversion, petition, detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions. Analyses show that black, Latino, and American Indian youth were treated more severely in juvenile court outcomes than their white counterparts. Also, youth who were detained preadjudication were more likely to have a petition filed, less likely to have petitions dismissed, and more likely to be removed from the home at disposition. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
36