A multilevel analysis of juvenile court processes: The importance of community characteristics

Rodríguez, Nancy

doi:10.1037/e481472008-001

Cited by 6 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(87 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though both groups ultimately evidenced reduced recidivism, results might vary appear among samples with more disparate levels of pre‐program offenses. Consistent with prior research (Rodriquez, ), Whites tended to enter CITA with fewer offenses than participants from all other racial/ethnic groups. Because of this, the amount of reduction measureable in this group was limited.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Black males are heavily overrepresented in the juvenile detention population (U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ], ; Child Trends, ), a trend that has persisted since the 1980s (DOJ, 2015). Similarly, ethnic minorities have higher rates of recidivism compared to their White counterparts (Rodriquez, ). In studying ethno‐racial differences in recidivism predictors among a large sample of juvenile offenders, Barrett & Katsiyannis () found gender, poverty, and school classification of an emotional/behavioral disorder were stronger predictors of recidivism for Blacks than Whites.…”

Section: Race/ethnicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Race and Gender Recidivism Differences Among Juvenile Mental Health Court Graduates

Behnken¹,

Bort²,

Borbon³

2017

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grounded in the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence, this research explores whether recidivism differs by race, ethnicity, or gender among juvenile mental health court graduates (N = 63). Mean number of pre‐program offenses were compared to the mean number of offenses committed by program completion. Results showed statistically significant reductions in recidivism by both males (p < .001) and females (p < .003). Racial and ethnic minorities demonstrated larger reductions when compared to Whites (p < .001 for Hispanics and p < .01 for combined ethnicities). These results contribute to the literature on effective intervention models for diverse juvenile offender populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Race/ethnicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Race and Gender Recidivism Differences Among Juvenile Mental Health Court Graduates

Behnken¹,

Bort²,

Borbon³

2017

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For formally processed youth, it consists of a five‐category measure that includes dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer to adult court. Typically, prior work has focused on predicting custodial versus noncustodial sanctions, or transfer, and in so doing it has combined the other categories (see, however, Rodriguez, ). The result is that dismissal, diversion, and probation are treated collectively as noncustodial categories even though they could be used in varying degrees for different groups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few, however, have focused on the range of sanctions meted out in juvenile court (Kupchik, , ; Leiber and Mack, ; Rodriguez, , , ; Sampson, ; Sampson and Laub, ). Notably, the relative inattention to categories of sanctioning extends to assessments of disposition effectiveness (see, e.g., Boyd, Huss, and Myers, ; Greenwood and Turner, ; Lipsey, ; Mears et al., ; Petrosino, Turpin‐Petrosino, and Guckenberg, ; Rodriguez, ). In both cases, research has centered primarily on predicting formal processing versus informal processing or on the use or effects of custodial dispositions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “True” Juvenile Offender: Age Effects and Juvenile Court Sanctioning

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Age is the only factor used to demarcate the boundary between juvenile and adult justice. However, little research has examined how age guides the juvenile court in determining which youth within the juvenile justice system merit particular dispositions, especially those that reflect the court's emphasis on rehabilitation. Drawing on scholarship on the court's origins, attribution theory, and cognitive heuristics, we hypothesize that the court focuses on youth in the middle of the range of the court's age of jurisdiction-characterized in this article as "true" juveniles-who may be viewed as meriting more specialized intervention. We use data from Florida for court referrals in 2008 (N = 71,388) to examine the decision to proceed formally or informally and, in turn, to examine formally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer) and informally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, and probation). The analyses provide partial support for the hypothesis. The very young were more likely to be informally processed; however, among the informally processed youth, the youngest, not "true" juveniles, were most likely to be diverted or placed on probation. By contrast, among formally processed youth, "true" juveniles were most likely to receive traditional juvenile court responses, such as diversion or probation.The origins of the juvenile court derive from a conceptualization of juveniles as different than adults. To the court founders, for example, youth were viewed as less culpable than adults and more responsive to rehabilitation (Bernard and Kurlychek, 2010;Feld, 1999). They were considered to be more deserving of society's benign intervention. The guiding philosophy of the juvenile court, captured in the philosophy of parens patriae, emphasized the notion that the juvenile court should act much as a caring parent would, intervening where appropriate with a firm hand (Mears, 2012). Punishment featured prominently in this vision, but accountability and rehabilitation were, if anything, more central (

show abstract

“…Maupin and Bond-Maupin, 1999, offers additional insight into this trend, suggesting that it is driven by a lack of community alternatives in rural places; one judge interviewed for the Maupin and Bond-Maupin study suggested "emergency shelter care, longterm shelter care, and electronic monitoring" as possible alternatives that could help a juvenile avoid detention (p. 19). Rodriguez, 2008, considers the effects of rurality on juvenile justice for Native Americans and those in border areas. Rodriguez's analysis of court processes in Arizona found that Native Americans were "less likely to be referred for informal processing, more likely to be detained, and more likely to have a petition filed than Whites," all of which could be in part due to the lack of alternatives to detention available through tribal court systems (p. 26).…”

Section: Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Justice Innovation Center: Identifying the Needs and Challenges of Criminal Justice Agencies in Small, Rural, Tribal, and Border Areas

Saunders¹,

Cahill²,

Morral³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A multilevel analysis of juvenile court processes: The importance of community characteristics

Cited by 6 publications

References 54 publications

Race and Gender Recidivism Differences Among Juvenile Mental Health Court Graduates

Race and Gender Recidivism Differences Among Juvenile Mental Health Court Graduates

The “True” Juvenile Offender: Age Effects and Juvenile Court Sanctioning

The Justice Innovation Center: Identifying the Needs and Challenges of Criminal Justice Agencies in Small, Rural, Tribal, and Border Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About