Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
Article CommentaryCommentary

Examining Racial Disparities in Juvenile Justice

Barbara Robles-Ramamurthy and Clarence Watson
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online February 2019, JAAPL.003828-19; DOI: https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.003828-19
Barbara Robles-Ramamurthy
Dr. Robles-Ramamurthy is Assistant Professor, Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Watson is Director of the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship and a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Clarence Watson
Dr. Robles-Ramamurthy is Assistant Professor, Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Watson is Director of the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship and a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Decades of research have focused on understanding and addressing racial disparities that occur at every stage of processing in the juvenile justice system. Leaders in the field have raised concerns about the differential treatment and selection of youth based on race. Taking into consideration Sussman and colleagues' results regarding the use of manifest injustice in Washington State, we review briefly the legislative changes that have occurred nationally to address the problem of disproportionate minority contact. We also consider data and hypotheses that have increased our understanding of why and how these racial disparities occur.

The idealistic principle that justice should be administered blindly in criminal matters arguably has no better place than within the juvenile justice system, where a focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment might positively alter the life course of a minor. However, research has documented the existence of racial disparity in the treatment of youth involved in the juvenile justice system for several decades. Studies from the 1980s and 1990s demonstrated that black juveniles were detained and confined at higher rates compared with white youth,1 and that black youth were more likely to be sent to correctional facilities compared with white youth, who were more likely to be sent to psychiatric hospitals.2 Additionally, recent studies have documented the continued trend of overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system.3,–,5 Such studies have prompted national leaders to enact changes in the requirements imposed on local and state agencies in charge of youth involved in the justice system.

National Attempts to Address Disparity

Beginning in 1974, Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act, which led to the supportive role of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to help local and state agencies prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. In 1988, the JJDP Act was amended to demand that state and local agencies monitor and assess disproportionate minority confinement. Subsequently, in 1992, disproportionate minority confinement was elevated as a core requirement, resulting in 20 percent of federal formula funds being withheld from states that did not comply. Most recently, the Act was amended in 2001 to broaden the matter of racial disparities from disproportionate minority “confinement” to disproportionate minority “contact” as more evidence demonstrated that racial disparities were present at every level of processing within the juvenile justice system.6

Through the JJDP Act, the OJJDP requires that states gather race and ethnicity information at nine different juvenile justice contact points, which include arrest, referral, diversion, detention, petitions or charges filed, delinquency findings, probation, confinement in secure correctional facilities, and transfer to adult court. It also requires that states submit a report delineating how they are addressing disproportionate minority contact through identification of racial disparities, assessment of factors contributing to racial disproportionality, implementation and evaluation of the efficacy of interventions to reduce racial disparities, and monitoring of changes in racial disparity trends over time.7 However, there are no specific requirements about what types of interventions must be put in place to decrease racial disparities in the juvenile justice system. Additionally, there have been limited studies looking at the progress made since the enactment of this Act and its amendments.8 A 2014 report prepared under the OJJDP showed that nine jurisdictions were successful in achieving a reduction of disproportionate minority contact at different juvenile justice stages for African-American youth, Hispanic youth, and Native American youth. They interviewed stakeholders to learn about strategies used to attain these outcomes and noted that common efforts included focusing on data, increasing collaboration with other agencies and community organizations, changing institutional culture, affiliating with national juvenile justice reform initiatives, creating alternatives to formal system involvement, concentrating on disproportionate minority contact reduction, making use of leadership at the local and state level, and making disproportionate minority contact reduction a long-term priority.9

Addressing Injustice

Washington State's manifest injustice provision permits judges to weigh whether a juvenile's disposition within the standard sentencing range would be considered a manifest injustice and authorizes judges to impose a disposition outside the standard range. The legal standard by which judges make that determination is clear and convincing evidence.10 Sussman and colleagues sought to evaluate how manifest injustice has been used by judges across racial groups in youth within the Washington State Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA). The authors hypothesized that manifest injustice would be used more frequently to decrease the sentences of white youth and increase those of minority youth.

Aggregated data were gathered from the Washington State JRA residential population for all youth in custody on January 11, 2016. Race (i.e., Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and multiracial) were examined in relation to manifest injustice status (i.e., MI Up, MI Down, MI In). A fifth race category was created to include all minority groups to increase the power of statistical analysis. Manifest injustice can be used in three ways: MI Down reduces the sentence below standard sentencing range, MI In results in institutionalization, and MI Up increases the length of sentence above standard sentencing ranges. For this study's purpose, MI Up and In were combined into one category (i.e., MI Up/In) because they are both viewed as unfavorable dispositions.

The JRA population was compared with the general Washington State youth population. The study found disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system for all minority groups, which is consistent with previous research. They found that African-American youth were seven times more likely to be in JRA custody than Caucasians; multiracial youth were three times more likely, and Hispanic youth were almost one and a half times more likely. For youth detained within the JRA, there was no statistically significant difference between groups in the use of MI Down, but results trended toward a decreased use of MI Down for African-American and multiracial youth. When looking at youth from the entire state, African-American youth were five times more likely to have their sentence reduced through MI Down. However, it is important to note that youth who received adjudication with MI Down and were not committed to a residential placement were not included in the study. Additionally, MI Down occurred infrequently, in about 25 percent of manifest injustice sentences, which underpowered the statistical analysis for racial group comparison.

Out of all youth in Washington State, each minority group had an increased risk of being adjudicated with manifest injustice to intensify their sentence. Among all Washington State youth, African-American youth were four times as likely as Caucasian youth to be sentenced with MI Up/In. But within the JRA population, African-American, multiracial and “All Minority” groups had a significantly lower likelihood of having their sentences intensified using MI Up/In, with African-American youth being half as likely to have MI Up/In compared with Caucasian youth. Hispanic youth were not statistically different compared with Caucasian youth receiving MI Up/In.

The authors provide possible explanations for the unexpected finding that JRA Caucasian youth were actually more likely to have their sentences increased through the use of manifest injustice compared with African-American and multiracial youth. They note that African-American and multiracial youth are more likely to live in liberal urban areas where judges may hold progressive views regarding juvenile rehabilitation. On the contrary, Caucasian youth are more likely to live in rural areas where judges may be more conservative and use more traditional sentencing parameters and, therefore, deliver harsher sentences. Additionally, rural areas are less likely to have community programs that can be used by judges to avoid institutional placement. Finally, the authors argue that some judges may perceive the use of MI Up/In as having greater benefits for youth who live in areas where community programming is not widely available to take advantage of the more intensive treatment programs available in residential settings. Such an approach is consistent with the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence, which has been well documented in the criminal justice literature.11 The limited community programs in rural areas likely explains why Hispanic youth are as likely as Caucasian youth to have their sentence intensified, as they are also more likely to live in rural areas.

The phenomenon of minority youth receiving leniency at adjudication is not new to the disproportionate minority contact literature.12 Some have argued that there is a correction or reversal effect, with conscientious judges trying to reverse the race effect placed on youth at earlier stages of processing.12,–,14 Because the data used by Sussman et al. only included youth who were in residential facilities, it is not surprising to see no race effect of these youth on manifest injustice status. It would be interesting to look at the rates of preadjudicatory detention for these youth, as this has been associated with more severe dispositions.14

Differential Offending versus Selection

Several theories have been proposed to understand better the occurrence of racial disparities within the criminal justice system. Two main theories look at the problem from the perspective of differential offending as opposed to differential selection by the justice system. Some studies have found greater offending rates in serious crimes against persons by minority youth.15 However, other studies have shown that, although minority youth have higher rates of serious offenses, this difference would not explain the full picture of minority overrepresentation throughout the justice system.16,17 Studies looking at self-reported offenses demonstrate that these self-reports do not match the rates of minority representation on official records. Findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth demonstrated that African-American youth were more likely to have been arrested and to have been arrested multiple times compared with white youth. This racial disparity could not be explained by self-reported rates of drug-related and other illegal behaviors, suggesting that differential treatment of minority youth plays an important role.18 Other research has controlled for legal (such as crime severity) and extralegal (such as gender and age) factors and have found that racial disparities within the juvenile justice system persist.5

In a review of 72 studies that examined the processing of youth at nine different decision points, there was a positive race effect toward the differential treatment of minority youth in 82 percent of the studies.12 Most importantly, evidence of a race effect was greater at the earlier stages of the process, including arrest, referral to court, and placement in secure detention. Relevant to the results of Sussman et al., lower race effects were found in formal court processing, adjudication, and postadjudication.12 Further analysis of the data from Sussman et al. could add to the literature providing evidence of either of these two theories, specifically when looking at later stages of processing. For example, examining crime data, pretrial detention, and other extralegal factors known to affect disposition could help determine whether differential treatment or selection was at play.

Furthering the theory of differential selection, the Group Threat Hypothesis looks at the relationship between the characteristics of the youth and the decision-maker's perceptions. This theory argues that, as a minority group population increases or poses a social threat to the majority population in a certain area, the latter may use a more punitive approach when the minority interacts with the legal system.19 Evidence for this theory has been mixed. For example, data analyzed from the Department of Juvenile Justice in South Carolina demonstrated support for the Minority or Group Threat Hypothesis, showing that more punitive sanctions were used for black defendants, and there was a positive correlation between larger black populations and increased use of punitive sanctions.20 However, other data analyses have not found support for this hypothesis.21 Implicit bias has been at the core of discussions regarding differential treatment of youth, and it has also been associated with higher referral of black youth to the juvenile justice system through the school-to-prison pipeline.22

Study of Race Effects

Sussman and colleagues add to the literature attempting to untangle the complexity of disproportionate minority contact. Their results are consistent with some previous studies in that, although there are trends showing a positive effect of race on judicial decisions, the differences have not been statistically significant. Zane et al.23 studied the impact of race on the juvenile waiver decision, finding a positive effect that was not statistically significant. The intricacies of racial disparities in the juvenile justice system are difficult to study because of the close relationship between crime and many of the social factors affecting communities in which minority youth are likely to be raised.

Black and Hispanic populations have higher rates of poverty than whites.24,25 Black students are more likely to attend schools with zero-tolerance policies and law enforcement presence on campus, and this increases a student's chance of being arrested at a young age, expelled, or suspended. Minorities are more likely to have lower income than whites; therefore, minority children are more likely to live in low-income households.26 Given the racial disparities within the justice system, minority children are often faced with parental incarceration and family separation.

Effects of Justice Involvement

Although the juvenile justice system is deemed to focus on the rehabilitation of youth and their successful reintegration into their communities, data have shown that justice-involved youth face grave consequences in the long term. Justice-involved individuals have lower high school graduation rates and higher unemployment rates than the general population. They also experience higher rates of homelessness and eviction.26 Most importantly, a link between detention and increased rates of recidivism has been documented.27 All of these factors, among others, perpetuate the racial disparities seen in the justice system, as individuals find themselves in a cycle of poverty, unemployment, low educational attainment, and justice involvement.

Conclusion

Sussman and colleagues offer data that may shine a light on the possibility of small but powerful improvements in reducing disproportionate minority contact. There is hope that the research data on disproportionate minority contact and the long-term negative effects associated with detention in correctional facilities are reaching judges and others in charge of the rehabilitation and reintegration of youth into their communities. As collaboration between systems increases, and more grassroots organizations continue to support evidence-based community treatment programs, judges will expand their repertoire of dispositions and eventually resort to detention only for appropriate cases. Ultimately, addressing the social factors that are at the root of disproportionate minority contact will result in significant benefit in reducing racial disparities within the juvenile justice system.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.

  • © 2019 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Snyder HN,
    2. Sickmund M,
    3. Poe-Yamagata E
    : Juvenile offenders and victims: 1997 update on violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Program, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lewis DO,
    2. Shanok SS,
    3. Cohen RJ,
    4. et al
    : Race bias in the diagnosis and disposition of violent adolescents. Am J Psychiatry 137:1211–16, 1980
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Engen R,
    2. Steen S,
    3. Bridges G
    : Racial disparities in the punishment of youth: a theoretical and empirical assessment of the literature. Social Problems 49:194–220, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hawkins D,
    2. Kempf-Leonard D
    1. Bishop DM
    : The role of race and ethnicity in juvenile justice processing, in Our Children, Their Children: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Differences in American Juvenile Justice. Edited by Hawkins D, Kempf-Leonard D. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005, pp 23–82
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bishop D,
    2. Feld B
    1. Bishop D,
    2. Leiber M
    : Race, ethnicity, and juvenile justice: racial and ethnic differences in delinquency and justice system responses, in Juvenile Justice. Edited by Bishop D, Feld B. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp 445–84
  6. 6.↵
    Legislation/JJDP Act. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available: at https://www.ojjdp.gov/about/legislation.html. Accessed November 15, 2018
  7. 7.↵
    Disproportionate Minority Contact: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at: https://www.ojjdp.gov/dmc. Accessed December 17, 2018
  8. 8.↵
    Disproportionate Minority Contact: Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at: https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Disproportionate_Minority_Contact.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2018
  9. 9.↵
    1. Spinney E,
    2. Cohen M,
    3. Feyerherm W,
    4. et al
    : Case studies of nine jurisdictions that reduced disproportionate minority contact in their juvenile justice systems. Prepared Under Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2014. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250301.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2018
  10. 10.↵
    Wash. Rev. Code § 13.40.160.2 (2011).
  11. 11.↵
    1. Wexler DB
    : Therapeutic jurisprudence and the criminal courts. Wm & Mary L Rev 35:279–99, 1993
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bishop DM,
    2. Leiber M,
    3. Johnson J
    : Contexts of decision making in the juvenile justice system: an organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation. Youth Violence & Juv Just 8:213–33, 2010
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Rodriguez N
    : Juvenile court context and detention decisions: reconsidering the role of race, ethnicity, and community characteristics in juvenile court processes. Just Q 24:629–56, 2007
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Rodriguez N
    : The cumulative effect of race and ethnicity in juvenile court outcomes and why preadjudication detention matters. J Res Crime & Delinq 47:391–413, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. Haynie DL,
    2. Weiss HE,
    3. Piquero A
    : Race, the economic maturity gap, and criminal offending in young adulthood. Just Q 25:595–622, 2008
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Crutchfield RD,
    2. Bridges G,
    3. Pitchford S
    : Analytical and aggregation biases in analyses of imprisonment: reconciling discrepancies in studies of racial disparity. J Res Crime & Delinq 31:166–82, 1994
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sorensen J,
    2. Hope R,
    3. Stemen R
    : Racial disproportionality in state prison admissions: can regional variation be explained by differential arrest rates? J Crim Just 31:73–84, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Kakade M,
    2. Duarte CS,
    3. Liu X,
    4. et al
    : Adolescent substance use and other illegal behaviors and racial disparities in criminal justice system involvement: findings from a US national survey. Am J Public Health 201:1307–10, 2012
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Tittle CR,
    2. Curran DA
    : Contingencies for dispositional disparities in juvenile justice. Social Forces 67:23–58, 1988
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Lowery PG,
    2. Burrow JD,
    3. Kaminski RJ
    : A multilevel test of the racial threat hypothesis in one state's juvenile court. Crime & Delinq 64:53–87, 2018
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Zane S
    : Exploring the minority threat hypothesis for juveniles in criminal court: static versus dynamic threat and diffuse versus targeted effects. Youth Violence & Juv Just 16:418–41, 2017
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. McNeal LR
    : Managing our blind spot: the role of bias in the school-to-prison pipeline. Ariz St L J 48:285–311, 2016
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Zane SN,
    2. Welsh BC,
    3. Drakulich KM
    : Assessing the impact of race on the juvenile waiver decision: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crim Just 46:106–17, 2016
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health: Profile: Hispanic/Latino Americans. Last Modified 6/1/2018. Available at: https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=3&lvlid=64. Accessed November 25, 2018
  25. 25.↵
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health: Profile: Black/African Americans. Last Modified 6/1/2018. Available at: https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=3&lvlid=61. Accessed November 25, 2018
  26. 26.↵
    1. Vermeire DT,
    2. Merluzzi N
    : Balancing the scales of justice: an exploration into how lack of education, employment, and housing opportunities contribute to disparities in the criminal justice system. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and W. Haywood Burns Institute. Available at: https://www.burnsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Balancing-Scales-Justice1.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2018
  27. 27.↵
    1. Benda BB,
    2. Tollet CL
    : A study of recidivism of serious and persistent offenders among adolescents. J Crim Just 27:111–26, 1999
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Next
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 51 (1)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 51, Issue 1
1 Mar 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Examining Racial Disparities in Juvenile Justice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Examining Racial Disparities in Juvenile Justice
Barbara Robles-Ramamurthy, Clarence Watson
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Feb 2019, JAAPL.003828-19; DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.003828-19

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Examining Racial Disparities in Juvenile Justice
Barbara Robles-Ramamurthy, Clarence Watson
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Feb 2019, JAAPL.003828-19; DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.003828-19
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • National Attempts to Address Disparity
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Psychological Testing in Forensic Contexts Conducted Remotely
  • Legal Dilemmas when Victims of Sexual Assault are Voluntarily Intoxicated
  • Underfunding of Psychiatric Services for the Civilly and Criminally Committed
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2023 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law