Do Race and Ethnicity Matter? An Examination of Racial/Ethnic Differences in Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Recidivism Among Problem-Solving Court Clients

• Author: Gaylene S. Armstrong,Cassandra A. Atkin-Plunk,Jennifer H. Peck
• DOI: 10.1177/2153368717691800
• Published date: 01 April 2019
• Date: 01 April 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Do Race and Ethnicity

Matter? An Examination

of Racial/Ethnic

Differences in Perceptions

of Procedural Justice and

Recidivism Among

Problem-Solving Court

Clients

Cassandra A. Atkin-Plunk

1

, Jennifer H. Peck

2

and Gaylene S. Armstrong

3

Abstract

Over the years, a distinct body of research has emerged that examines procedural

justice in problem-solving courts. However, there is virtually no research to date on

racial and ethnic differences in perceptions of procedural justice among problem-

solving court clients. The present study seeks to understand the complexities of

judicial procedural justice and race/ethnicity within problem-solving courts. Using a

convenience sample of 132 clients from two problem-solving courts in a southern

state, this study addresses a void in the literature by examining the influence of race/

ethnicity on perceptions of procedural justice as well as the impact of race/ethnicity

and procedural justice on clients’ likelihood of recidivism. Results suggest that Black

problem-solving court clients’ have significantly lower perceptions of procedural

justice, while also having a lower likelihood of recidivism. Perceptions of procedural

justice did not influence recidivism outcomes. Policy implications and recommenda-

tions for future research are discussed.

1

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

2

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

3

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA

Corresponding Author:

Cassandra A. Atkin-Plunk, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida Atlantic University,

777 Glades Road, Social Science Building 222, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA.

Email: catkinplunk@fau.edu

Race and Justice

2019, Vol. 9(2) 151-179

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/2153368717691800

journals.sagepub.com/home/raj

Keywords

race, ethnicity, procedural justice, problem-solving courts, recidivism

Prior research has consistently shown that racial/ethnic minorities (e.g., Blacks and

Hispanics) hold negative perceptions of the criminal justice system compared to

similarly situated Whites (Hagan & Albonetti, 1982; Woolard, Harvell, & Graham,

2008). In fact, studies show that Blacks consistently hold the most negative attitudes

toward the courts,Whites the most positive,and Hispanics in the middle ofthe spectrum

(see also Caldeira& Gibson, 1992; Longazel, Parker, & Sun, 2011). Tied to thisnotion

of perceptions and attitudes concerning the criminal justice system is the concept of

procedural justice. Racial and ethnic differences in perceptions of procedural justice

throughout court processing are also documented in the literature (Caldeira & Gibson,

1992; Higgins, Wolfe, Mahoney, & Walters, 2009; Tyler, 2001; Sun & Wu, 2006).

Procedural justice plays an important role in the courtroom setting, where indi-

viduals who believe they are treated fairly by judicial decision-makers (i.e., judges)

tend to possess more positive attitudes toward these courtroom actors, view the legal

system as one to be obeyed (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006), and subsequently

follow the directives of the judge and the law (Tankebe, 2013; Tyler, Sherman, Strang,

Barnes, & Woods, 2007). Ultimately, the focus of procedural justice is on the process

experienced by individuals encountering courtroom actors, not solely on the outcome

the individual receives in court (Poythress, Petrila, McGaha, & Boothroyd, 2002;

Thibaut & Walker, 1975).

While prior studies have largely focused on procedural justice in traditional

adversarial courtrooms (Rottman, 2005; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler et al., 2007), a

more recent area of research has emerged that focuses on the influence of procedural

justice within problem-solving courts (Canada & Watson, 2013; Gottfredson, Kearley,

Najaka, & Rocha, 2007; Henry, 2011; McIvor, 2009; Wales, Hiday, & Ray, 2010). In

general, problem-solving courts are designed to embody the philosophy of procedural

justice, with judges engaging in frequent and prolonged interactions with clients

assigned to their docket, treating clients in a respectful manner, and providing clients

with a voice (Huddleston & Marlowe, 2011). Problem-solving courts utilize a stage-

progression program structure that combines intensive cognitive behavioral treatment

with offender accountability (MacKenzie, 2006). These factors have been suggested

to contribute to positive behavior change for problem-solving court clients (Shaffer,

2011; Taxman & Bouffard, 2005).

Of the particular studies on procedural justice surrounding nontraditional court

settings, findings suggest that higher perceptions of procedural justice for problem-

solving court clients are related to both prosocial intermediate and long-term out-

comes. Intermediate outcomes consist of increased program compliance and court

satisfaction (Canada & Watson, 2013; Henry, 2011; McIvor, 2009). Positive long-

term outcomes include reduced drug use and criminal behavior (Gottfredson et al.,

2007; Wales et al., 2010).

152 Race and Justice 9(2)