The State as the “Ultimate Parent”: The Implications of Family for Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System

• Author: Margaret Goldman,Nancy Rodriguez
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/2153368720924769
• Published date: 01 October 2022
• Date: 01 October 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The State as the “Ultimate

Parent”: The Implications of

Family for Racial and Ethnic

Disparities in the Juvenile

Justice System

Margaret Goldman

1

and Nancy Rodriguez

1

Abstract

Racial and ethnic disparities permeate juvenile justice processing. Research attempting

to explain these disparities has superficially considered the role of family measures in

the differential treatment of youth of color. In particular, research has given little

attention to the role of family supervision, despite its relevance to the mission of

the juvenile court. Using attribution theory as a framework and data from three

Arizona jurisdictions, we examine the effect of race/ethnicity on probation offi-

cers’ attributions of family supervision; the effect of family characteristics, such as

financial strain, parental incarceration, and family risk as measured by a risk

assessment instrument, in shaping attributions of family supervision; and the effect

of race/ethnicity, family characteristics, and attributions of family supervision on

recommendations to formally or informally process youth. We find that attri-

butions of family supervision are informed by race/ethnicity and family charac-

teristics and that attributions of family supervision overwhelmingly drive

probation officers’ processing recommendations. Suggestions for improving policy

and practice are discussed.

Keywords

juvenile justice processing, racial disparity, family, attributions, juvenile justice decision

making

1

Criminology, Law and Society, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Margaret Goldman, Criminology, Law and Society, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.

Email: mgoldma2@uci.edu

Race and Justice

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/2153368720924769

journals.sagepub.com/home/raj

2022, Vol. 12(4) 714–735

Historically and contemporarily, the juvenile justice system has unevenly distributed

justice across racial and ethnic lines. Although racial/ethnic disparities exist system-

wide, they are particularly concentrated at the front end (Engen et al., 2002; Leiber &

Stairs, 1999; Leiber et al., 2007; Leiber & Johnson, 2008; Morrow et al., 2015; Peck &

Jennings, 2016). Studies have found that non-White youth are more likely than their

White counterparts to be detained pending adjudication (Armstrong & Rodriguez,

2005; Rodriguez, 2010) and less likely to be diverted or released at intake (Leiber &

Johnson, 2008; Leiber & Mack; 2003; Leiber & Stairs, 1999; Leiber et al., 2007;

Rodriguez, 2010). Disparities in these early stages of juvenile justice processing have

considerable consequences, given that inequalities compound as youth move

throughout the system (Bishop & Frazier, 1988; Leiber & Fox, 2005; Rodriguez,

2010) and because formal court intervention exacerbates delinquency (Petrosino et al.,

2010) and diminishes conventional opportunities (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003). Because

of these consequences, front-end disparities have garnered considerable attention,

both from practitioners seeking solutions and researchers seeking theoretical expla-

nations. While risk assessment instruments (RAIs) have emerged as one potential

solution to biased decision making (Cabaniss et al., 2007; Farn, 2018; Hoge, 2002;

Hoytt et al., 2002; National Research Council, 2013; Vincent et al., 2012), attribution

theory remains a dominant framework for explaining persistent inequalities.

Attribution theory posits that in the absence of complete information, justice

officials rely on internal characteristics and external circumstances of individuals in

order to explain their behaviors and predict their risks for reoffending (Albonetti,

1991; Heider, 1958). To the extent that these attributions are linked to race and racial/

ethnic stereotypes, they exacerbate the harsher treatment of non-White populations.

Work in this area has revealed that both internal and external attributions explain

racial disparities in juvenile court outcomes (Bridges & Steen, 1998; Gaardner et al.,

2004; Rodriguez, 2007, 2010, 2013; Rodriguez et al., 2009). Missing from this work,

however, is an examination of how attributions of family are formed, and in turn fuel

the differential treatment of youth of color, in a juvenile justice system whose self-

proclaimed role is the “ultimate parent.”

Although research has established the impact of certain family factors on juvenile

court outcomes (Bishop et al., 2010; DeJong & Jackson, 1998; Fenwick, 1982; Leiber

& Fox, 2005; Leiber & Johnson, 2008; Leiber & Mack, 2003; Love & Morris, 2018;

Morrow et al., 2015; Rodriguez et al., 2009), their scope is limited. In particular, a

substantial portion of this literature has measured family one-dimensionally through

“family structure” (Bishop et al., 2010; DeJong & Jackson, 1998; Fenwick, 1982;

Leiber & Fox, 2005; Leiber & Mack, 2003; Love & Morris, 2018). While a smaller

collection of studies have highlighted the importance of socioeconomic status

(Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005; Bishop & Frazier, 1996; Clair & Winter, 2016; Paik,

2017) and parental incarceration (Fader et al., 2001; Rodriguez et al., 2009) in juvenile

court outcomes, family supervision, a key dimension for justice-involved youth

remains understudied. Court officials view families as having the same supervisory

functions as the court (Bortner, 1982; Bridges & Steen, 1998; Matza, 1964), such that

poor parental supervision indicates a need for formal court intervention (Bishop &

715

Goldman and Rodriguez