Legal, individual, and environmental predictors of court disposition in a sample of serious adolescent offenders.

Abstract

Historically, the juvenile court has been expected to consider each youth's distinct rehabilitative needs in the dispositional decision-making process, rather than focusing on legal factors alone. This study examines the extent to which demographic, psychological, contextual, and legal factors, independently predict dispositional outcomes (i.e., probation vs. confinement) within two juvenile court jurisdictions (Philadelphia, Phoenix). The sample consists of 1,355 14-to 18-year-old male and female juvenile offenders adjudicated of a serious criminal offense. Results suggest that legal factors have the strongest influence on disposition in both jurisdictions. For example, a higher number of prior court referrals is associated with an increased likelihood of secure confinement in both jurisdictions. Juveniles adjudicated of violent offenses are more likely to receive secure confinement in Phoenix, but are more likely to be placed on probation in Philadelphia. Race is unrelated to dispositional outcome, but, males are consistently more likely than females to be placed in secure confinement. Importantly, individual factors (e.g., developmental maturity) generally were not powerful independent predictors of disposition. Finally, an examination of the predictors of juvenile versus adult court transfer in Phoenix indicated that males, older juveniles, and those with a violent adjudicated charge were more likely to be transferred to adult court, while juveniles scoring high on responsibility as well as those juveniles with an alcohol dependence diagnosis were more likely to be retained in juvenile court. KeywordsAdolescence; Juvenile justice; Waiver to adult court; Sentencing; Maturity NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThe contemporary juvenile justice system must balance the two competing challenges of optimally providing for youths' positive development and ensuring public safety (Grisso, 2003), with the former goal differentiating it from adult criminal courts. Although landmark juvenile cases, including Kent v. U.S. (1966) and In re Gault (1967) have reduced differences between adult and juvenile courts by providing juveniles with more procedural guarantees of due process, they have also highlighted the enduring role of personal and environmental characteristics specific to each youth (e.g., maturity, behavioral and emotional factors) in dispositional decision-making (In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 1967; Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 1966). In theory, the primary goal of the juvenile justice system is to administer "custommade" dispositions to youths based on a case-by-case consideration of each youth's distinct rehabilitative needs (Connell, 1980;Horwitz & Wasserman, 1980). This customization should result in different juvenile court dispositions for adolescent offenders whose personality characteristics and social backgrounds differ but who may commit similar offenses. In practice, however, as is the case in adult criminal courts, dispositional decisions in conte...

Juvenile Court Dispositions in the Deep South: Examining the Concept of Justice by Geography

“…Findings revealed inconsistent sanctions between the two courts. Violent juvenile offenders in Phoenix were more likely to be placed in secure facilities than in Philadelphia (Cauffman et al, 2007). Cohen and Kluegel (2001) found similar discrepancies in comparing two juvenile courts from Memphis, TN and Denver, CO.…”

“…Previous research has found disparities in youth dispositions and suggested that individual, legal and environmental factors influence case processing and final dispositions (Cauffman et al, 2007;Feld, 1991). Also, dispositions have been found to vary across geographical contexts (Cauffman, et al, 2007;Cohen and Kluegel, 2001;Feld, 1991).…”

“…Due to feasibility reasons, most studies have compared only two juvenile courts from different locations. Although external validity was limited, these studies have identified strong discrepancies in adjudicating and sentencing juveniles (Cauffman et al, 2007;Cohen and Kluegel, 2001;Guevara et al, 2008). A 2007 study, for instance, compared two juvenile courts from large metropolitan areas in Phoenix and Philadelphia (Cauffman et al, 2007).…”

“…Arrest histories and offense characteristics have been highly correlated with harsh dispositions resulting in secure placements (Applegate et al, 2002;Cauffman et al, 2007). Studies have also shown that the presence of legal counsel has been correlated with harsher sanctions (Feld, 1991;Guevara et al, 2008).…”

“…Some studies have identified poverty's negative impact on family processes, which contribute to adolescent emotional and behavioral problems (Conger et al, 1994;Jarjoura et al, 2002;Sampson and Laub, 1994). On the other hand, some studies suggest that judges' dispositions are only marginally influenced by individual characteristics (Applegate et al, 2002;Cauffman et al, 2007;Guevara et al, 2008). In an Ohio sample, Applegate et al (2002) found that judges made decisions based on legal factors and rarely considered the individual characteristics (race, age, gender, etc.)…”