Race, Ethnicity, Class, and Noncompliance with Juvenile Court Supervision

Abstract

Determination of whether a youth is compliant with the conditions of probation and, if not, how to ensure future compliance is an important intermediate stage in juvenile court decision making. Yet, little is known about the conditions under which noncompliance is or is not documented in the youth's file, what happens to noncompliant youth, and whether documentation of noncompliance is influenced by race and class. Probation officers necessarily make recommendations based on incomplete knowledge, the very circumstances under which research has demonstrated that racial biases are most likely to surface. The authors analyze juvenile court data to examine whether and how documentation of noncompliance is affected by race, ethnicity, and class. Logistic regression demonstrates that black youth and youth from poorer neighborhoods are especially likely to have noncompliance documented. Content analysis of court social files clarifies further how race, class, family structure, and family circumstances affect officials' assessments of youth.

Adverse Juvenile Probation Supervision Outcomes: Noncompliance, Revocation, and Failure to Appear at Review Hearings

“…Findings about supervision noncompliance were partially replicated but with some notable differences. A noncompliance rate of nearly 92% appears much higher than the 14% to 52% range reported in prior research (Adams et al, 2002; NeMoyer et al, 2014; Smith et al, 2009), which likely reflects the fact that this study extracted data from probation officer and supervisor notes about youth progress, written over the course of supervision. Given the greater frequency with which probation officers meet with youth between hearings, their notes appear to be more comprehensive than documents examined in prior studies (e.g., defense attorney notes, VOP petitions, probation discharge summaries).…”

“…Among adults, gender, age, marital status, education level, race, employment, community type (e.g., rural versus urban), and prior criminal history have been linked to probation success or failure (Grattet et al, 2011;Morgan, 1994;Olson et al, 2001;Reed et al, 1997;Schulenberg, 2007). Similar characteristics have been identified as predictors among youth: documented noncompliance has been linked to low socioeconomic status, racial or ethnic minority status, prior justice involvement, prior probation noncompliance, family conflict, and residential instability (NeMoyer et al, 2014;Smith et al, 2009). Furthermore, the imposition of specific probation conditions related to substance use-such as drug testing and drug or alcohol counseling-were also associated with probation noncompliance (NeMoyer et al, 2014).…”

“…Previously documented rates of noncompliance with community-based supervision requirements vary considerably by jurisdiction, by data source, and by definition of noncompliance. For example, in a study of official court records in Arizona, approximately 14% of youth demonstrated noncompliant behavior that resulted in a formal violation of probation (VOP) petition (Smith et al, 2009). In contrast, an Illinois examination of supervision discharge summaries—compiled by probation officers when youth completed probation—indicated that, in 40% of these documents, probation officers referenced at least one technical probation violation that occurred during the youth’s time under supervision (Adams et al, 2002).…”

“…After learning of a youth's compliance, or lack thereof, a judge might impose new requirements, modify or remove existing requirements, discharge the youth from court supervision after successful completion, or revoke supervision and order the child committed to a residential placement facility. Nationwide, nearly 25% of youth in such residential facilities were committed after a technical violation of supervision-an action that contradicts a judge's order but does not otherwise meet the definition of a delinquent act-such as misbehaving at school, breaking curfew, failing to maintain contact with a probation officer, or failing to appear at a review hearing as directed (Sickmund et al, 2015).…”

Racial Disparity in Juvenile Diversion

“…Furthermore, time constraints and lack of information on juvenile needs and risk to reoffend may lead police and prosecutors to rely on the “perceptual shorthand” discussed in the focal concerns literature (see Hawkins, 1981), resulting in racial stereotypes or attributions of disadvantage. For example, prior research has shown that White juveniles are viewed as being more immature, impressionable, and amenable to treatment than similarly situated African Americans (Bridges & Steen, 1998; Graham & Lowery, 2004; Steen, Bond, Bridges, & Kubrin, 2005; Smith, Rodriguez, & Zatz, 2009). Racial stereotyping underlies much of the work of Leiber who argues that decision makers will view African American juveniles as more dangerous, delinquent, prone to drug offenses, living in dysfunctional families and/or in need of supervision (Leiber, 2013; Leiber & Fox, 2005; Leiber & Johnson, 2008; Leiber & Mack, 2003; Leiber & Stairs, 1999).…”