Examining Racial Disparity of Male Property Offenders in the Missouri Juvenile Justice System

• Author: Leanne Fiftal Alarid,Katherine E. Brown Ray
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204003262228
• Published date: 01 April 2004
• Date: 01 April 2004
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

10.1177/1541204003262228ARTICLEYouth Violence and Juvenile JusticeRay, Alarid / RACIAL DISPARITY

EXAMINING RACIAL DISPARITY OF

MALE PROPERTY OFFENDERS IN THE

MISSOURI JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Katherine E. Brown Ray

Leanne Fiftal Alarid

University of Missouri–Kansas City

Using juvenile court data of 4,284 cases, this study examined to what extent racial dis-

parity and discrimination existed for male property offenders within six counties in Mis-

souri. Logistic regression analyses tested probabilities of juveniles being processed in

the system at four decision-making points: referral, detention, adjudication, and dispo-

sition when available legal factors and county type were controlled. The authors found

evidence of contextual racial discrimination in some jurisdictions during selected deci-

sion points in the juvenile justice system. In all counties combined, Black youths were

more likely to be formally referred and detained before adjudication, whereas White

youths were more likely to be adjudicated.

Keywords: racial disparity; discrimination; juvenile justice

Research shows that juveniles who are Black are disproportionately overrepresented

in the juvenile justice system in comparison to their proportions in the general popula-

tion. Black youths make up only 13% of the general population but nearly twice the num-

ber (25%) of youth detained by the courts prior to sentencing (Butts, Snyder, Finnegan,

Aughenbaugh, & Poole, 1996) and 40% of all youth confined in private and public youth

facilities after sentencing (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). Although statistics indicate that

Black youths are arrested at roughly the same rate as White youths, juveniles who are Black

are more often referred to court intake whereas White youths tend to receive warnings

before release to a responsible adult (Fagan, Slaughter, & Hartstone, 1987; Federle &

Chesney-Lind, 1992; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP],

1999).

One researcher observed that states that are shifting toward a balanced approach (or

accountability-based sentencing) will only increase the racial disproportionality that cur-

rently exists because this new model is only a label for tougher punishment (Pabon, 2003).

The accountability approach holds juveniles responsible for their actions rather than divert-

ing them away from the system altogether. “The supporters of the accountability-based

sanctioning approach ignore the reality that discretionary decisions at various stages of the

justice process amplify racial disparities as lower class and minority youths proceed

through the system” (Pabon, 2003, p. 6).

107

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 2 No. 2, April 2004 107-128

DOI: 10.1177/1541204003262228

© 2004 Sage Publications

Theoretical Framework

Walker, Spohn, and DeLone (2000) designed a “discrimination-disparity continuum”

that ranged from “systematic discrimination” (discrimination occurs at all stages and with

all practitioners in all jurisdictions) to “pure justice” (no racial discrimination occurs what-

soever) (p. 16). Between these two extremes were “contextual discrimination” (discrimina-

tion occurs in certain stages, jurisdictions, or with particular crimes) and individual acts of

discrimination (some individuals are discriminatory, however, the agency as a whole does

not discriminate). Discrimination occurred if juvenile justice personnel processed youths

differently based wholly, or in part, on extralegal characteristics such as race, in a manner

that disadvantaged minority populations (Hawkins, Laub, Lauritsen, & Cothern, 2000;

Walker et al., 2000).

Blumstein (2001) explained reasons for racial disparity in the juvenile justice system

as affected by a combination of three factors: specific acts perpetrated by individual work-

ers in the system, social policies with disparate racial effects, and racial differences in the

rate of participation in the type of crime enforced by police. Walker and his colleagues

(2000) reported that individual acts of discrimination exist in the system, however, that

there was little evidence of systematic discrimination.

Statutes, laws, or policies that are racially discriminatory in the juvenile justice sys-

tem exist, such as the decision to transfer youths to adult court, and the use of accountability

or balanced approaches, both of which may further divide youths by race (Pabon, 2003).

Statute or policy discrimination describes what researchers termed institutionalized dis-

crimination within the discrimination-disparity continuum (Walker et al., 2000).

Finally, disparity may occur because of differences in offense severity or rate of

offending. In other words, some youths may have more prior offenses or be involved in

more serious types of offenses and therefore be more likely to be found delinquent. For

example, official arrest records indicate that murder rates are 4 to 5 times greater for Black

juveniles, aged 14 to 17 years, than for White boys of the same age (Blumstein, 1995).

Although this may hold true for homicide, robbery, and assault, race differences are less

pronounced with property offenses and other petty status offenses, where White youths are

as likely or more likely than Black youths to become involved (OJJDP, 1999).

Literature Review

Previous studies of racial disproportionality generally focused on the courts because

police data are difficult to obtain. Some juvenile justice studies reviewed focused on the dif-

ferences between the processing of Black and White offenders (Bishop & Frazier, 1988;

Kurtz, Giddings, & Sutphen, 1993; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Secret & Johnson, 1997;

Thornberry, 1973), while other research included other minority groups such as Hispanic

and Native Americans (Dannefer & Schutt, 1982; DeJong & Jackson, 1998; Fagan et al.,

1987; Leiber, 1994; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972; Wu, 1997).

Appendix A shows detailed information about the measures and statistics used in a

sampling of previous studies from 1972 to 1998. Despite their differences in methods, ear-

lier studies concluded that at certain points of juvenile justice processing, racial disparity

exists, particularly at the pretrial detention stage (Bishop & Frazier, 1988; DeJong &

Jackson, 1998; Fagan et al., 1987; Joseph, 1995; Secret & Johnson, 1997). Racial discrimi-

nation was found to be a direct explanation (Bishop & Frazier, 1988; Dannefer & Schutt,

108 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice