Neighborhood Disproportion in Juvenile Justice Contact

• Published date: 01 December 2018
• Date: 01 December 2018
• Author: Jeffrey Sharlein,Malitta Engstrom
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12119

Neighborhood Disproportion in Juvenile

Justice Contact

By Jeffrey Sharlein and Malitta Engstrom

ABSTRACT

Youth from disadvantaged neighborhoods have been found to have greater rates

of justice system involvement than other youth, as well as differential treatment at

multiple points in the justice system process. This neighborhood disproportion

stems from different rates of lawbreaking and system bias and has important implica-

tions for long-term negative outcomes associated with juvenile justice contact. Clar-

ity in the state of knowledge on this topic is essential to guide researchers and

policymakers in addressing this critical issue. Toward these ends, we review the liter-

ature on neighborhood disproportion in juvenile justice contact, suggest directions

for continued inquiry, and discuss policy implications.

Key words: Neighborhoods, juvenile justice, disparities, disproportionate contact, dispropor-

tionate minority contact, poverty.

Large areas within American cities are marked by numerous forms of social, racial,

and economic marginalization (Wacquant, 1997, 2001; Wilson, 2012). Youth from

marginalized urban communities experience both greater rates of justice system involve-

ment and differential treatment in the justice system process as compared with other

youth (Leventhal, Dupere, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Ng, 2010; Peeples & Loeber, 1994;

Rodriguez, 2010, 2013; Shaw & McKay, 1942). Put otherwise, youth from disadvan-

taged communities experience higher rates of and more intense justice system contact

Jeffrey Sharlein is a recent Ph.D. graduate of the School of Social Policy & Practice at the University

of Pennsylvania. In his research, Dr. Sharlein works to uncover connections between human well-being, poli-

cies, and place. He is primarily concerned with justice system involvement and lawbreaking among youth.

His research has been supported by multiple competitive grants, including from the Fahs-Beck Fund for

Research and Experimentation.

Malitta Engstrom, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the School of Social Policy & Practice at the

University of Pennsylvania, where she is also a Senior Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Eco-

nomics and a Faculty Fellow at the Ortner Center on Violence & Abuse in Relationships. With an emphasis

on women and families, her research aims to advance understanding of and services to address intersecting

concerns related to substance use, criminal justice involvement, HIV, victimization and mental health. Mul-

tiple organizations have funded her research, including the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the John A.

Hartford Foundation, and the Penn University Research Foundation.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 69, No. 4

©2018 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

25

than do their peers from more advantaged communities. As such, this group of youth

experiences disproportionate exposure to the negative individual effects of juvenile

justice contact, and their communities become further marginalized (Clear, 2007;

Dmitrieva, Monahan, Cauffman, & Steinberg, 2012; Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009;

Petitclerc et al., 2013). In this paper, we use the term “neighborhood disproportion” to

refer to the phenomenon whereby youth in marginalized communities have disproportion-

ate rates and intensities of juvenile justice contact. As we further discuss below, this neigh-

borhood disproportion emerges from both differential treatment of this group of youth by

the justice system, which we call system bias, and from differential rates of lawbreaking

activity. As a result of this disproportionate contact, youth form marginalized neighbor-

hoods experience more of the negative effects of such contact than other youth.

While this problem has been recognized for decades, disproportionate rates of seri-

ous lawbreaking and justice system contact by youth remain features of the country’s

most marginalized neighborhoods. One step in ameliorating the situation involves orga-

nizing and analyzing what is known about the issue at multiple stages of the justice sys-

tem process (i.e., arrest, petition, detention, transfer, and disposition). Organizing

existing knowledge can highlight areas where more research is needed, as well as lend

perspective on policy and intervention responses.

Significant scholarly attention has been given to the important issue of dispropor-

tionate minority contact (DMC) with the justice system among youth (Bridges & Steen,

1998; Donnelly, 2018; Engen, Steen, & Bridges, 2002; Huizinga et al., 2007; Kakar,

2006; Leiber & Rodriguez, 2011; Moak, Thomas, Walker, & Gann, 2012; National

Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2001; Nellis & Richardson, 2010; Piquero,

2008). Bringing a geographic lens to youth disparities in lawbreaking and justice system

involvement builds on and expands that area of work (Massey & Denton, 1993; Peterson

& Krivo, 2010). That is, a geographic lens draws attention to the intersections of race and

residence in the United States and includes other social factors, such as poverty, explicitly

in the conversation. Moreover, a geographic lens recognizes the importance of social poli-

cies that both shape the residential landscape, such as housing policies, and contribute to

geographic disparities in justice system involvement, such as policies related to policing

and the War on Drugs (Alexander, 2012; Massey & Denton, 1993; Wilson, 2012).

We start this paper with a discussion of the problems posed by neighborhood dis-

proportion in lawbreaking and justice system involvement among youth, including ways

in which individual youth and entire communities are negatively impacted. We then

review the literature relating to what is known about neighborhood disproportion at

multiple stages of the juvenile justice process, with a focus on the distinct but related

phenomena of disproportionate lawbreaking and system bias. We end by addressing

some areas where future research would be beneficial and by presenting suggestions for

policy and practice in order to bring about improvements for youth and communities.

Our primary interest here is in urban neighborhoods. As such, the studies which we

review regarding geographic disparities all analyze units of geography smaller than munici-

palities. We do not address literature on geographic disparities in juvenile justice contact

at other levels, such as between counties (e.g., Freiburger & Jordan, 2011; Leiber, Peck, &

Rodriguez, 2016; Lowery, Burrow, & Kaminski, 2018; Thomas, Moak, & Walker, 2013).

26 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL