Predictors of Juvenile Court Actions and Recidivism

Abstract

Variables related to court decision making and recidivism over a two-year follow-up were studied in a group of 475 first-time referrals to a juvenile court. Recidivism was associated with extralegal factors more consistently than were court actions except on the age variable. Court actions were more strongly related to legally relevant factors and, like the referral offense variable, failed to predict recidivism. The court's extensive and repeated reliance on diversion (vs. formal petitioning of cases) did not generate high recidivism levels, implying a need to reconsider the recent “get tough” orientation of juvenile justice policy.

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

“…That is, juveniles referred to the court may posses more factors that are related to reoffending than juveniles not referred to the court. Minor, Hartmann, and Terry (1997) found no relationship between court action and future offending among a sample of 475 first time referrals to juvenile court. However, the authors did find that juveniles who were informally processed during their first referral to the court, were less likely to have an adult charge.…”

“…The extent to which juvenile court actions lead to reoffending has been the focus of several studies (Minor, Hartmann, & Terry, 1997;Smith & Paternoster, 1990;Wooldredge, 1988). The focus of this line of research has been on determining the extent to which specific court outcomes (e.g., diversion, detention, probation) influence recidivism among juvenile offenders.…”

Exploring the Impact of Institutional Placement on the Recidivism of Delinquent Youth

“…Previous research has found legal factors such as the nature of the referral offense and legal history to be strongly related to juvenile dispositional decisions (Arnold 1971;Kluegel 1978, 1979;Kowalski and Rickicki 1982;Minor et al 1997;Sanborn 1996;Tittle and Curran 1988). More serious offenses certainly lead to more restrictive sanctions (e.g., Fader et al 2001;Minor, Hartmann & Terry 1997;Sanborn 1996), though the degree of this influence has not been definitively established (Fader et al 2001). Higher frequency and seriousness of prior system contact is also associated with more severe sanctions (Cohen & Kluegel 1979;Kowalski & Rickicki 1982;Minor, Hartmann & Terry 1997;Phillips & Dinitz 1982;Reese, Curtis & Richard 1989;Thornberry 1973;Tittle & Curran 1988).…”

“…Previous research has found legal factors such as the nature of the referral offense and legal history to be strongly related to juvenile dispositional decisions (Arnold 1971;Kluegel 1978, 1979;Kowalski and Rickicki 1982;Minor et al 1997;Sanborn 1996;Tittle and Curran 1988). More serious offenses certainly lead to more restrictive sanctions (e.g., Fader et al 2001;Minor, Hartmann & Terry 1997;Sanborn 1996), though the degree of this influence has not been definitively established (Fader et al 2001).…”

“…More serious offenses certainly lead to more restrictive sanctions (e.g., Fader et al 2001;Minor, Hartmann & Terry 1997;Sanborn 1996), though the degree of this influence has not been definitively established (Fader et al 2001). Higher frequency and seriousness of prior system contact is also associated with more severe sanctions (Cohen & Kluegel 1979;Kowalski & Rickicki 1982;Minor, Hartmann & Terry 1997;Phillips & Dinitz 1982;Reese, Curtis & Richard 1989;Thornberry 1973;Tittle & Curran 1988). Youth who have been "given a chance" by the court and then get into more trouble, such as probation violators, are likely to be stepped up to harsher sanctions as a result of subsequent court contact (Asquith 1983;Cicourel 1968;Gross 1967;Reese, Curtis & Richard 1989;Sanborn 1996).…”