Racial and ethnic disparities permeate juvenile justice processing. Research attempting to explain these disparities has superficially considered the role of family measures in the differential treatment of youth of color. In particular, research has given little attention to the role of family supervision, despite its relevance to the mission of the juvenile court. Using attribution theory as a framework and data from three Arizona jurisdictions, we examine the effect of race/ethnicity on probation officers’ attributions of family supervision; the effect of family characteristics, such as financial strain, parental incarceration, and family risk as measured by a risk assessment instrument, in shaping attributions of family supervision; and the effect of race/ethnicity, family characteristics, and attributions of family supervision on recommendations to formally or informally process youth. We find that attributions of family supervision are informed by race/ethnicity and family characteristics and that attributions of family supervision overwhelmingly drive probation officers’ processing recommendations. Suggestions for improving policy and practice are discussed.
AlbonettiC. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problem, 38, 247–266.
2.
ArmstrongG. S.RodriguezN. (2005). The effects of individual and contextual characteristics on preadjudication detention of juvenile delinquents. Justice Quarterly, 22, 521–539.
3.
BaglivioM. T.JackowskiK. (2013). Examining the validity of a juvenile offending risk assessment instrument across gender and race/ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204012440107
4.
BernburgJ. G.KrohnM. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287–1318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01020.x
5.
BishopD. M.FrazierC. E. (1988). The influence of race in juvenile justice processing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(3), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427888025003003
6.
BishopD. M.FrazierC. E. (1996). Race effects in juvenile justice decision-making: Findings of a statewide analysis. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(2), 392–414.
7.
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(3), 213–233.
8.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Public Safety Canada.
9.
BortnerM. A. (1982). Inside a juvenile court. New York University Press.
10.
BridgesG. S.SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 554. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657267
11.
BrysonS. L.PeckJ. H. (2020). Understanding the subgroup complexities of transfer: The impact of juvenile race and gender on waiver decisions. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 18(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204019869398
12.
CabanissE. R.FrabuttJ. M.KendrickM. H.ArbuckleM. B. (2007). Reducing disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system: Promising practices. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(4), 393–401.
13.
CampbellC.PappJ.BarnesA.OnifadeE.AndersonV. (2018). Risk assessment and juvenile justice: An interaction between risk, race, and gender. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(3), 525–545.
14.
ClairM.WinterA. S. (2016). How judges think about racial disparities: Situational decision-making in the criminal justice system. Criminology, 54(2), 332–359.
15.
CorleyC. J.BynumT. S.WordesM. (1995). Conceptions of family and juvenile court processes: A qualitative assessment. The Justice System Journal, 18(2), 157–172.
16.
CoxA. (2015). Fresh air funds and functional families: The enduring politics of race, family and place in juvenile justice reform. Theoretical Criminology, 19(4), 554–570.
DeJongC.JacksonK. C. (1998). Putting race into context: Race, juvenile justice processing, and urbanization. Justice Quarterly, 15(3), 487–504. doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093851
19.
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.
20.
FaderJ. J.HarrisP. W.JonesP. R.PoulinM. E. (2001). Factors involved in decisions on commitment to delinquency programs for first-time juvenile offenders. Justice Quarterly, 18(2), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820100094921
21.
FaderJ. J.KurlychekM. C.MorganK. A. (2014). The color of juvenile justice: Racial disparities in dispositional decisions. Social Science Research, 44, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.11.006
22.
FarnA. (2018). Improving outcomes for justice-involved youth through evidence-based decision-making and diversion. Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy.
23.
FeldB. C. (1991). The transformation of the juvenile court. Minnesota Law Review, 75, 691–725.
24.
FenwickC. R. (1982). Juvenile court intake decision making: The importance of family affiliation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 443–453.
25.
FineA.DonleyS.CavanaghC.MiltimoreS.SteinbergL.FrickP. J.CauffmanE. (2017). And justice for all: Determinants and effects of probation officers’ processing decisions regarding first-time juvenile offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000113
26.
GaardnerE.RodriguezN.ZatzM. S. (2004). Criers, liars, and manipulators: Probation officers’ views of girls. Justice Quarterly, 21, 547–578.
27.
GoddardT.MyersR. R. (2017). Against evidence-based oppression: Marginalized youth and the politics of risk-based assessment and intervention. Theoretical Criminology, 21(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480616645172
28.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons.
29.
HogeR. D. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 380–396.
30.
HogeR. D.GuerraN.BoxerP. (Eds.). (2008). Treating the juvenile offender. Guilford Press.
31.
HoyttE. H.SchiraldiV.SmithB. V.ZiedenbergJ. (2002). Pathways to juvenile detention reform: Reducing racial disparities in juvenile detention. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
LeiberM. J. (2003). The contexts of juvenile justice decision making: When race matters. State University of New York Press.
34.
LeiberM. J.FoxK. (2005). Race and the impact of detention on juvenile justice decision making. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 470–497.
35.
LeiberM. J.JohnsonJ. D. (2008). Being young and Black: What are their effects on juvenile justice decision making?Crime & Delinquency, 54(4), 560–581.
36.
LeiberM. J.JohnsonJ.FoxK.LacksR. (2007). Differentiating among racial/ethnic groups and its implications for understanding juvenile justice decision making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(5), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.07.001
37.
LeiberM. J.MackK. Y. (2002). Race, age and juvenile justice decision making. Journal of Crime and Justice, 25(2), 23–47.
38.
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.
39.
LeiberM. J.PeckJ. H.Beaudry-CyrM. (2016). When does race and gender matter? The interrelationships between the gender of probation officers and juvenile court detention and intake outcomes. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 614–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.958185
40.
LeiberM. J.StairsJ. M. (1999). Race, contexts, and the use of intake diversion. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 56–86.
41.
LoveT. P.MorrisE. W. (2018). Opportunities diverted: Intake diversion and institutionalized racial disadvantage in the juvenile justice system. Race and Social Problems, 11(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-018-9248-y
42.
MatzaD. (1964). Delinquency and drift. Transaction Publishers.
43.
MooreL. D.PadavicI. (2011). Risk assessment tools and racial/ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system: Risk assessment tools and racial/ethnic disparities. Sociology Compass, 5(10), 850–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00416.x
44.
MorrowW. J.DarioL. M.RodriguezN. (2015). Examining the prevalence of a “youth discount” in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(4), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2014.912144
45.
MoynihanP. D. (1965). The Negro family: The case for national action. United States Department of Labor.
46.
The National Resource Council. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. The National Academy of Sciences.
47.
PaikL. (2017). Good parents, bad parents: Rethinking family involvement in juvenile justice. Theoretical Criminology, 21(3), 307–323.
48.
PeckJ. H.Beaudry-CyrM. (2016). Does who appears before the juvenile court matter on adjudication and disposition outcomes? The interaction between client race and lawyer type. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2015.1133447
49.
PeckJ. H.JenningsW. G. (2016). A critical examination of “being Black” in the juvenile justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 219–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000180
50.
PetrosinoA.Turpin-PetrosinoC.GuckenburgS. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. The Campbell Collaboration.
51.
RayJ. V.ChildsK. (2015). Juvenile diversion. In KrohnM. D.LaneJ. (Eds.), The handbook of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice (pp. 422–438). Wiley Blackwell.
52.
RodriguezN. (2007). Juvenile court context and detention decisions: Reconsidering the role of race, ethnicity, and community characteristics in juvenile court processes. Justice Quarterly, 24(4), 629–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820701717144
53.
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(3), 391–413.
54.
RodriguezN. (2013). Concentrated disadvantage and the incarceration of youth: Examining how context affects juvenile justice. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 189–215.
55.
RodriguezN.SmithH.ZatzM. S. (2009). “Youth is enmeshed in a highly dysfunctional family system”: Exploring the relationship among dysfunctional families, parental incarceration, and juvenile court decision making. Criminology, 47(1), 177–208.
56.
RodriguezN.ZatzM. S.BeckmanL. (2014). Arizona’s juvenile justice system: Disproportionate minority contact assessment final report. Submitted to the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families.
57.
SchwalbeC. S.FraserM. W.DayS. H. (2007). Predictive validity of the joint risk matrix with juvenile offenders: A focus on gender and race/ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 348–361.
WassersteinR. L.LazarN. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
61.
WeberJ.UmpierreM.BilchikS. (2018). Transforming juvenile justice systems to improve public safety and youth outcomes. Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice Reform.
