Interpretations of focal concerns and “loose coupling” are used to explain juvenile diversion decisions by police and prosecutors from a large metropolitan county in the Midwest.
Methods:
Juveniles eligible for police diversion are compared to those actually diverted using a population of juveniles arrested in eight police urban and suburban agencies. Multinomial logistic regression is used to analyze data on juveniles referred for charging in the same county.
Results:
Non-White juveniles were significantly less likely to be diverted by police, formally entering them into the juvenile justice system earlier than their White counterparts. Prosecutors charged, rather than diverted, non-White juveniles significantly more frequently than White juveniles, particularly for theft cases.
Conclusion:
The racial disparity observed may result from differing focal concerns and loose coupling in the first stages of the justice system.
AlbonettiC. A. (1987). Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty. Law and Society Review, 21, 291–313.
2.
AllenT. T. (2005). Taking a juvenile into custody: Situational factors that influence police officers’ decisions. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32, 121–129.
3.
BishopD. M.LeiberM.JohnsonJ. (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.
4.
BridgesG. S.SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554–570.
DrehleD. V.AltmanA.RogersA.SanburnJ.MillerZ. (2014). The tragedy of Ferguson. (Cover story). Time, 184, 22–27.
7.
EngenR. L.SteenS.BridgesG. S. (2002). Racial disparities in the punishment of youth: A theoretical and empirical assessment of the literature. Social Problems, 49, 194–220.
8.
EricsonB.EckbergD.A.RuhlandE.PsickZ. (2013). Hennepin County Attorney’s Office: An examination of racial disparities in charging and diverting juveniles. Council on Crime and Justice. Retrieved fromhttp://www.crimeandjustice.org/researchReports/
9.
FeldB. C. (1999). Bad kids, race and the transformation of the juvenile court. New York, NY: Oxford university press.
10.
GoetzB.MitchellR. E. (2006). Pre-Arrest/booking drug control strategies/diversion to treatment, harm reduction and police involvement. Contemporary Drug Problems, 33, 473–520.
11.
GrahamS.LoweryB.S. (2004). Priming unconscious racial stereotypes about adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 483–504.
12.
HartleyR. D.MaddanS.SpohnC. C. (2007). Concerning conceptualization an operationalization: Sentencing data and the focal concerns perspective—a research note. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 4, 58–78.
13.
HawkinsD. F. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior, 2, 207–230.
14.
HigginsG. E.VitoG. F.GrossiE. L. (2012). The impact of race on the police decision to search during a traffic stop: A focal concerns theory perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28, 166–183.
15.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court “corrections” to Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40, 897–932.
LeiberM. J. (2013). Race, pre- and post-detention, and juvenile justice decision making. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 396–418.
18.
LeiberM. J.FoxK. C. (2005). Race and the impact of detention on juvenile justice decision-making. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 470–497.
19.
LeiberM. J.JamiesonK. M. (1995). Race and decision making within juvenile justice: The importance of context. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, 363–388.
20.
LeiberM. J.JohnsonJ. D. (2008). Being young and black: What are their effects on juvenile justice decision making?Crime & Delinquency, 54, 560–581.
21.
LeiberM. J.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.
22.
LeiberM. J.PeckJ. H. (2012). Race, gender crime severity and decision making in the juvenile justice system. Crime and Delinquency, 1–27. doi:10.1177/0011128712446898
23.
LeiberM. J.StairsJ. M. (1999). Race, context, and the use of intake diversion. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 56–86.
24.
LiederbachJ. (2007). Controlling suburban and small-town hoods: An examination of police encounters with juveniles. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 107–124.
25.
MillerW. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 5–19.
26.
NewburnT. (2011). Policing youth anti-social behavior and crime: Time for reform?Journal of Children’s Services, 6, 96–105.
RodriguezN. (2007). Juvenile court context and detention decisions: Reconsidering the role of race, ethnicity and community characteristics in juvenile court processes. Justice Quarterly, 24, 629–656.
29.
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.
30.
RodriguezN. (2013). Concentrated disadvantage and the incarceration of youth: Examining how context affects juvenile justice. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 189–215.
31.
SchulenbergJ. L.WarrenD. (2009). Police discretion with apprehended youth: Assessing the impact of juvenile specialization. Police Practice and Research, 10, 3–16.
32.
SharpC. R. (2009). Theoretical and practical application of loose coupling: A study of criminal justice agencies in the state of Florida. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 45–58.
33.
SmithH.RodriguezN.ZatzM. S. (2009). Race, ethnicity, class and noncompliance with juvenile court supervision. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623, 108–120.
34.
SpohnC.BeichnerD.Davis-FrenkelE. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault rejection: Guarding the “gateway to justice.”Social Problems, 48, 206–235.
35.
SteenS.BondC. E. W.BridgesG. S.KubinC. E. (2005). Explaining assessments of future risk: Race and attributions of juvenile offenders in pre-sentencing reports. In HawkinsD. F.Kempf-LeonardK. (Eds.), Our children, their children: Confronting racial and ethnic differences in American juvenile justice (pp. 245–269). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
SteffensmeierD. (1980). Assessing the impact of the women’s movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants. Crime and Delinquency, 26, 344–357.
SteffensmeierD.KramerJ.StreifelC. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31, 411–446.
39.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black and male. Criminology, 36, 763–798.
40.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–18.
