Missouri: An Examination of the Relationship Between the Source of Referral to Juvenile Court and Severity of Sentencing Outcomes

• Author: Michael P. Brown,Jillian Strozewski,Jill D’Angelo
• Published date: 01 July 2013
• Date: 01 July 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412437408
• Subject Matter: Articles

437408CJP24410.1177/0887403412437408D’
Angelo et al.Criminal Justice Policy Review
Article
Criminal Justice Policy Review
24(4) 395 –421
Missouri: An Examination
© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
of the Relationship
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0887403412437408
cjp.sagepub.com
Between the Source of
Referral to Juvenile Court
and Severity of Sentencing
Outcomes
Jill D’Angelo1, Michael P. Brown2,
and Jillian Strozewski1
Abstract
Aaron Cicourel conducted research in the 1960s on youths processed by the
juvenile justice system, including the referral stage. His work described complex
relationships and influences that affected juvenile justice decision making. Juvenile
court data from the state of Missouri are used to conduct a partial replication of
Cicourel’s work, focusing on the referral stage. The present study also extends the
literature by examining the influence of legal and extralegal factors on disposition
decisions for five referral sources (i.e., Social Service, School, Family, Juvenile Court,
and Law Enforcement). The results suggest that the referral source is related to
sentence outcome. The findings are supportive of contemporary theory and highlight
the importance of studying context, role responsibilities, and stereotypes that may
develop out of human experiences and affect decision making at the referral and
disposition stages.
Keywords
juvenile dispositions, decision making, referral source, theory
1Buffalo State College, Buffalo, NY, USA
2Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jill D’Angelo, Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Buffalo State College,
1300 Elwood Ave., Classroom Bld. C110, Buffalo, NY 14222, USA.
Email: dangeljm@buffalostate.edu

---

396
Criminal Justice Policy Review 24(4)
Aaron Cicourel (1968) is perhaps best known for his ethnographic research that
focused on how youths are processed by the juvenile justice system, starting with the
initial referral decision. His work revealed, and meticulously described, complex rela-
tionships, interactions among individuals—justice system professionals, school offi-
cials, and social service professionals—and institutional forces that affect decision
making. The decision to refer a child to the juvenile court is important because it initi-
ates a formal justice system response that often results in a disposition. While consid-
erable research has been conducted on sentencing disparities and factors that affect
disposition decisions, surprisingly little research have been conducted since the 1960s
specifically examining the relationship between the referral source and dispositions.
This study is a partial replication of Cicourel’s work in light of more contemporary
theoretical formulations, and it attempts to discern whether his findings are consistent
with referral decisions made in the 21st century. This study also attempts to extend the
literature by examining the influence of legal and extralegal factors on disposition
decisions for five referral sources (i.e., Social Service, School, Family, Juvenile Court,
and Law Enforcement).
Theoretical Underpinnings
of Juvenile Justice Decision Making
From the perspective of traditional Marxian theory, the juvenile justice system
imposes sanctions to maintain the status quo (Chambliss, 1973; Chambliss &
Seidman, 1971; Leiber & Fox, 2005; Quinney, 1970). In other words, while police,
prosecutors, and judges consider legal variables in their decision making, they also
permit extralegal variables (e.g., socioeconomic status and race) to influence their
decisions. On the other hand, from the Durkheimian perspective the juvenile justice
system upholds the values that are shared by the majority members of society
(Durkheim, 1933). Although these theoretical positions are in complete opposition
with one another, a similarity exists between the two: the justice system is designed
in a way that permits extralegal factors (e.g., race, sex, and SES) to influence decision
making (Hagan, Hewitt, & Alwin, 1979; Leiber & Fox, 2005). Hagan, Hewitt, and
Alwin (1979) argue that a possible explanation for the conflicting and often contradic-
tory findings regarding the factors that affect decision making is the failure to con-
sider the influence of the organizational structure of the juvenile justice system and its
related processes.
Contemporary research on juvenile court decision making has drawn primarily
from focal concerns theory (and associated perspectives, such as attributional theory)
and organizational theory. Focal concerns theory (Guevara, Herz, & Spohn, 2008;
Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998, p. 766) asserts that judges have three focal
concerns when deciding how best to dispose of a case: “the youth’s blameworthiness
and the degree of harm caused to the victim; protection of the community; and practi-
cal implications of sentencing decisions.” Therefore, according to this perspective,
sentencing decisions are based on the perceived dangerousness and the culpability of

---

D’Angelo et al.
397
children. How serious is the current offense? What is the likelihood of recidivism? To
what extent should children be held responsible for their behavior?
Since the answers to such questions are rarely available, judges are thought to
engage in what is referred to as the “perceptual shorthand” (Steffensmeier et al., 1998),
which is based on stereotypes that develop over time from personal and professional
experiences. Steffensmeier and associates (1998, p. 768) contend that stereotypes
allow judges to attribute demographic characteristics (e.g., race, sex, and age) to “. . .
social groups thought to be dangerous and crime prone.” Feld’s (1999) research echoes
Steffensmeir and associates’ findings. Feld’s (1999) study found that at various stages
in the juvenile justice process decision makers permit their stereotypes to affect their
disposition decisions.
Attributional theory, proposed by Bridges and Steen (1998), asserts a similar sce-
nario. That is, while judges certainly consider legal factors (e.g., offense seriousness
and delinquent history) in sentencing decisions, they are also influenced by extralegal
factors such as perceptions of juveniles’ attitudes and motivations based on race and
sex (Heider, 1958; Rodriguez, 2007). Leiber’s (2003) research reported findings con-
sistent with Bridges and Steen’s findings. Similarly, the patterned response approach
suggests that decisions are based on personal life experiences and outside environmen-
tal sources (Caroll & Payne, 1976; Hawkins, 1980, Heider, 1958; March & Simon,
1958; Shaver, 1975). A study conducted by Fontaine & Emily (1978) found that
judges consider stereotypes that are based on their interactions with other youth in
their decision making. Lippman’s (1922) research as well as subsequent studies
(Carroll, 1978; Stephan, 1975) obtained similar results.
Research conducted by Bridges and Steen (1998) supports the influence of stereo-
typic beliefs on sentencing. These researchers analyzed predisposition reports and
found that while probation officers were more likely to attribute delinquency to exter-
nal causes (e.g., peer group influences or problems at school or home) for White juve-
niles, they attributed African American delinquency to internal characteristics (e.g.,
aggressive tendencies or lack of remorse). With these attributions, African Americans
appear to be more dangerous and prone toward violence than White juveniles and,
therefore, receive more punitive dispositions.
Organizational theory attempts to take the complexities of juvenile justice decision
making into consideration. Some decision-making stages are relatively independent of
the other and, within those stages, decisions are made with little or no regard for deci-
sions that will be made by others later in the system. This is often the case because
each stage has different goals, concerns, and issues (Albonetti, 1991; Bishop & Frazier,
1988; Bishop, Leiber, & Johnson, 2010; Cicourel, 1968; Hagen, Hewitt, & Alwin,
1979; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). And the people working at each stage carry out their
roles with different expertise and within different contexts. In short, the stages and
actors within each stage have different responsibilities, and their decisions reflect
those responsibilities.
On the other hand, some of the stages in the juvenile justice process are so intertwined—
that is, there are numerous parties involved in the decision-making process—that it

---

398
Criminal Justice Policy Review 24(4)
becomes difficult to discern the relationships among factors included in decision making
(Bishop et al., 2010). In such cases, the decision that is made is a compromise and tends
to reflect the goals and perspectives of those participating in the decision (Bishop et al.,
2010; Feely, 1999; Hagan, Hewitt, & Alwin, 1979; Sanborn, 1995, 2001; Singer, 1996).
To date, there has been little attention paid to understanding the complexities of and
the decisions made by referral sources. Dannefer and Schutt (1982) contend that the
referral decision is a complex process characterized by loose coupling. We might gain
insight into the loose coupling concept by considering Bishop et al.’s (2010) com-
ments about loose coupling at the intake stage:
once a youth is arrested, police, court intake officers, assistant district attorneys,
detention personnel, and—at least occasionally—school officials, social service
providers, and...