The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) aims to reduce the use of predispositional detention for juveniles. One core strategy of JDAI is the use of risk assessment instruments to ensure that detention decisions are made objectively. These instruments allow for mandatory and discretionary overrides based on statutory guidelines, aggravating factors, or mitigating factors. This study investigates the use of overrides in a jurisdiction that utilizes the JDAI model. Offense seriousness, prior record, history of escape/runaway, and age were consistent predictors of overrides. African Americans were less likely to receive mitigating overrides, and females were less likely to receive mandatory overrides.
AlbonettiC. A. (1991). The symbolic punishment of white-collar offenders. In BridgesG.MyersM. (Eds.), Inequality, crime, and social control (pp. 269–282). Boulder, CO: Westview Publishers.
2.
BishopD. M. (2005). The role of race and ethnicity in juvenile justice processing. In HawkinsD. F.Kempf-LeonardK. (Eds.), Our children, their children: Confronting racial and ethnic differences in American juvenile justice (pp. 23–84). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
BishopD. M.FrazierC. E. (1992). Gender bias in juvenile justice processing: Implications of the JJDP Act. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 1162–1186.
4.
BishopD. M.FrazierC. E. (1996). Race effects in juvenile justice decision making: Findings of a statewide analysis. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology86, 392–414.
5.
BishopD. M.LeiberM.JohnsonM. (2010). Contexts of decision making in the juvenile justice system: An organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 213–233.
6.
BortnerM. A.ReedW. L. (1985). The preeminence of process: An example of refocused justice research. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 413–425.
7.
BridgesG. S.SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554–570.
8.
ChampionD. (2001). The juvenile justice system: Delinquency, processing, and the law. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.
ChapmanJ. F.DesaiR. A.FalzerP. R.BorumR. (2006). Violence risk and race in a sample of youth in juvenile detention. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 170–184.
10.
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families Task Force on Racial Disparity and Disproportionality in Youth Services. (2011). Final report. Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families (CCF). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ccfinfo.org/PDFs/disparities_final_report.pdf.
11.
Chesney-LindM. (1977). Judicial paternalism and the female status offender: Training women to know their place. Crime and Delinquency, 23, 121–130.
12.
DedelK.DaviesG. (2008). Detention risk assessment instrument: Pilot test results final report to Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice. Portland, OR: One in 37 Research.
13.
EngenR. L.GaineyR. R.CrutchfieldR. D.WeisJ. G. (2003). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41, 99–130.
14.
FrazierC. E.BishopD. M. (1985). The pretrial detention of juveniles and its impact on case dispositions. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 1132–1152.
15.
FrazierC. E.CochranJ. C. (1986). Detention of juveniles: Its effects on subsequent juvenile court processing decisions. Youth and Society, 17, 286–305.
16.
GabbidonS.GreeneH. T. (2005). Race, crime, and justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
GottfredsonS. D.MoriartyL. J. (2006). Statistical risk assessment: Old problems and new applications. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 178–200.
18.
GuevaraL.HerzD.SpohnC. (2006). Gender and juvenile justice decision making: What role does race play?Feminist Criminology, 1, 258–282.
19.
HogeR. D. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 380–396.
20.
JohnsonB.UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. (2008). The social context of guideline circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46, 711–783.
21.
JohnsonB. D. (2005). Contextual disparities in guideline departures: Courtroom social contexts, guidelines compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43, 761–796.
22.
JohnsonD. R.ScheubleL. K. (1991). Gender bias in the disposition of juvenile court referrals: The effects of time and location. Criminology, 29, 677–699.
23.
Kempf-LeonardK. (2007). Minority youths and juvenile justice: Disproportionate minority contact after nearly 20 years of reform efforts. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 71–87.
24.
KurtzD. L.LinnemanT.SpohnR. (2008). Investigating racial disparity at the detention decision: The role of respectability. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 140–157.
25.
LauritsenJ. L. (2005). Racial and ethnic differences in juvenile offending. In HawkinsD. F.Kempf-LeonardK. (Eds.), Our children, their children: Confronting racial and ethnic differences in American juvenile justice (pp. 83–104). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
26.
LeiberM. (2003). The contexts of juvenile justice decision making: When race matters. Albany: State University of New York Press.
27.
LeiberM. (2012). Race, pre- and post detention, and juvenile justice decision making. Crime and Delinquency, 1–23. doi: 10.1177/0011128709345970.
28.
LeiberM.BishopD.ChamlinM. (2011). Juvenile justice decision-making before and after the implementation of the disproportionate minority contact (DMC) mandate. Justice Quarterly, 28, 460–492.
29.
LeiberM.BrubakerS. J.FoxK. C. (2009). A closer look at the individual and joint effects of gender and race on juvenile justice decision making. Feminist Criminology, 4, 333–358.
30.
LeiberM.FoxK. C. (2005). Race and the impact of detention on juvenile justice decision making. Crime and Delinquency, 51, 470–497.
31.
LeiberM.JohnsonJ. D. (2008). Being young and black: What are their effects on juvenile justice decision making?Crime and Delinquency, 54, 560–581.
32.
LeiberM.MackK. Y. (2003). The individual and joint effects of race, gender, and family status on juvenile justice decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 34–70.
33.
LottesI. L.AdlerM. A.DeMarisA. (1996). Using and interpreting logistic regression: A guide for teachers and students. Teaching Sociology, 24, 284–298.
34.
McCordJ.WidomC. S.CromwellN. A. (Eds.). (2001). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. Washington, DC: National Research Council and Institute of Medicine.
35.
MendelR. A. (2011). No place for kids: The case for reducing juvenile incarceration. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
36.
PopeC. E. (1995). Juvenile justice in the next millennium. In KlofasJ.StojkovicS. (Eds.), Crime and justice in the year2010 (pp. 267–278). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
37.
PopeC. E.FeyerhermW. (1990). Minority status and juvenile justice case processing: An assessment of the research literature (Part I). Criminal Justice Abstracts, 22, 327–385.
38.
PopeC. E.FeyerhermW. (1992). Minorities and the juvenile justice system: Full report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
39.
ReinerS.MillerJ. B.GangalT. (2007). Public safety outcomes of Virginia’s detention assessment instrument. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 58, 31–41.
40.
RodriguezN. (2010). The cumulative effect of race and ethnicity in juvenile court outcomes and why preadjudication detention matters. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 391–413.
41.
SchwalbeC. S. (2008). A meta-analysis of juvenile justice and risk assessment instruments: Predictive validity by gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1367–1381.
42.
SimpsonT. (2010). Do objective measures reduce the disproportionate rates of minority youth placed in detention: Validation of a risk assessment instrument?(Doctoral dissertation). University of New Orleans, New Orleans, La.
43.
SteinhartD. (1994). Objective juvenile detention criteria: The California experience. In SchwartzI.BartonW. (Eds.), Reforming juvenile detention: No more hidden closets (pp. 47–68). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
44.
SteinhartD. (2006). Juvenile detention risk assessment: A practice guide to juvenile detention reform. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
45.
SnyderH. N.SickmundM. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
46.
TracyP. E. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and juvenile justice: Is there bias in post-arrest decision making? In HawkinsD. F.Kempf-LeonardK. (Eds.), Our children, their children: Confronting racial and ethnic differences in American juvenile justice (pp. 300–350). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
47.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Virginia department of criminal justice services. Juvenile justice system disproportionate minority contact database. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/juvenile/dmc/index.cfm#3
48.
Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (2004). 2003 Evaluation Report of the Detention Assessment Instrument: Implementation Phase. Richmond, VA:Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice.
