Looking Up at the Ivory Tower: Juvenile Court Judges’ and Attorneys’ Perceptions of Research Use

• Author: Rebecca M. Jones,Shelby Hickman,Kelly Murphy
• DOI: 10.1177/0022427821990878
• Date: 01 August 2021
• Published date: 01 August 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Looking Up at the

Ivory Tower:

Juvenile Court Judges’

and Attorneys’

Perceptions of

Research Use

Kelly Murphy

1

, Shelby Hickman

2

,

and Rebecca M. Jones

1

Abstract

Objectives: Explore how judges and attorneys define, acquire, interpret (i.e.,

determine the accuracy and relevancy), and use research in their decision-

making in delinquency cases. Methods: We conducted semi-structured

interviews with 30 judges, 15 prosecutors, and 13 defense attorneys. We

used stratified purposeful sampling, stratifying participants by region of the

U.S. and urbanicity. Results: Judges and attorneys have a sound understand-

ing of how research can enhance their work. Typically, judges and attorneys

acquire research from intermediaries. Beyond being a conduit for research,

intermediaries play an important role in vetting the quality of research and

identifying viable recommendations for practice. While practitioners

1

Child Trends, Bethesda, MD, USA

2

University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kelly Murphy, Deputy Director, Child Trends, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Ste 1200W, Bethesda,

MD 20814, USA.

Email: kmurphy@childtrends.org

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2021, Vol. 58(5) 591-630

ªThe Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022427821990878

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

are willing to use research, they feel that their ability to do so is limited by

factors such as state policy, funding, and inaccessibility of research.

Conclusions: While we caution generalization of the findings, this study con-

tributes to the evidence-base on the use of research by documenting that

judges and attorneys most often use research conceptually (i.e., research

changes their perspective which then changes their beh avior). Although

respondents also rep orted using research -based tools to make spec ific

decisions (instrumental use), many reported overriding research when they

felt it conflicted with their judgment, suggesting that political use of research

may be prevalent.

Keywords

juvenile delinquency, law, qualitative research, research methods

The juvenile justice system has undoubtedly been shaped by research.

For example, research is cited in the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that

abolished the juvenile death penalty and banned the use of life without

the possibility of parole for youth (Anon 2005). Moreover, increasingly,

juvenile justice practitioners are engaging in data-driven decision-making

and using research-based tools, such as risk and needs assessments, to

develop youths’ case plans. In fact, as of 2017, 42 states have either state

statutes or probation agency policies that support the use of risk assess-

ments (“Juvenile Justice Geography Policy and Practice (JJGPS)” 2017).

Additionally, state policymakers have shown an increasing commitment

to evidence-based practices, policies, and programs. For instance, as of

2014, 28 states have agencies with administrative regulations that require

evidence-based practices and another 18 states have statutes that support

a commitment to evidence-based programs and practices (JJGPS 2017).

Beyond this, juvenile incarceration rates have declined by more than

50 percent in the last decade (Sickmund et al. 2017)—a phenomenon

that experts have attributed, at least in part, to research demonstrating the

ineffectiveness of incarceration (Love et al. 2016). This trend of

research-based reforms is likely to continue, as the 2018 reauthorization

of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) empha-

sizes the use of evidence-based programs and practices and requires

states to develop state plans that are “supported by or take account of

scientific knowledge regarding adolescent development and behavior”

(Lewis 2018:9).

592 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 58(5)

This picture of research-informed justice systems stands in stark contrast

to that painted by the reporter Sarah Koenig, which follows a year in a

Cuyahoga County courthouse:

This is possibly the most profound and least examined question in the build-

ing. What works? The court doesn’t gather statistics on sentencing, and that’s

true for most of the country, by the way. No data that says defendants in

Cuyahoga County do better after six months of probation than after three

years of probation, or, in terms of re-offending, four years in prison yields

better results than seven years in prison. We just don’t know. (Koenig, 2018)

Research lends support to Ms. Koenig’s insights; for example, a 2014

study by the Council of State Governments Justice Center found that as of

2013, only about a quarter of states examined youth recidivism by lengths

of stay in facilities (13 states) or by participation in different services

(11 states). In fact, there were 11 states that did not track youth recidivism

at all (Council of State Governments Justice Center 2014). Gaps between

research and practice are further evidenced by the dispositions youth com-

monly receive, as research indicates that just five percent of eligible youth

receive evidence-based services (Greenwood 2008).

Conditions that Shape the Use of Research in Practice and Policy

Scholars studying the use of research evidence have identified several

typologies for how research is used by practitioners and policymakers

(Nutley, Walter, and Davies 2007; Pelz 1978; Tseng 2013; Weiss 1977,

1979). These typologies, which are not mutually exclusive, include instru-

mental use, which refers to situations where research is sought out and is

then directly applied to answering a question; conceptual use, which refers

to situations where research influences or enlightens how individuals think

about issues, problems, and solutions; tactical use, sometimes referred to as

political use, which occurs when individuals use research to justify an

existing stance or point of view; imposed use, which occurs when practi-

tioners are forced to use research, such as when research use is tied to

funding; and finally, process use which refers to knowledge that is gener-

ated from the process of collaborating with researchers. Altho ugh these

typologies of research use have been integrated into stud ies focused on

youth-serving systems, such as education, health, and child welfare

(e.g., DuMont 2015; Tseng 2012, 2013), to date, we are unaware of any

studies applying this framework to juvenile justice settings.

Murphy et al. 593