why do you think race, ethnic, and class disparities exist in the juvenile justice system. Response essay 4.Objective:  The purpose...

1 of 2 DOCUMENTS

Copyright (c) 2009 The American Academy of Political and Social Science

The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science

May, 2009

623 Annals 108

LENGTH: 5695 words

IN THIS ISSUE: RACE, CRIME, AND JUSTICE: CONTEXTS AND COMPLEXITIES; SPECIAL EDITORS: LAUREN J. KRIVO, RUTH D. PETERSON: SECTION TWO: Processes: Race, Ethnici Class, and Noncompliance with Juvenile Court Supervision

NAME: By HILARY SMITH, NANCY RODRIGUEZ, and MARJORIE S. ZATZ

BIO: Hilary Smith is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Her research interests include juvenile court processes, youth homelessness, and juvenile delinquency, with a special emphasis on race and gender differences. Her work has recently appeared in Criminology and American Behavioral Scientist.

Nancy Rodriguez is an associate professor in the School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Arizona State University. Her research interests include juvenile court processes, sentencing policies, and drug abuse. She also conducts research in the area of restorative justice. Her recent work has appeared in Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, Criminology, and Public Policy.

Marjorie S. Zatz is a professor and director of the School of Justice & Social Inquiry, Arizona State University. She has published three books and more than sixty articles on race, gender, and court processing; Chicano gangs; and the Cuban and Nicaraguan legal systems. She is the recipient of the Herbert Block Award and the Division on Women and Crime's Senior Scholar Award from the American Society of Criminology and the DuBois Award for Research on Race and the Tappan Award for Outstanding Contributions to Criminology from the Western Society of Criminology.

SUMMARY: ... In making placement decisions, the juvenile court considers both the best interests of the community and the best interests of the juvenile (e.g., whether resources available to youth on probation, such as individual and family counseling and drug treatment, will benefit the youth). ... Accordingly, this study draws on juvenile court data from a large county in Arizona to examine which youth on probation are most likely to be documented as noncompliant, what factors are associated with such documentation, what happens to noncompliant youth, and whether documentation of noncompliance is influenced subtly or overtly by race and class. ... Data and Methods We use three data sources to assess the effects of race, ethnicity, and economic disadvantage on documentation of noncompliance with court sanctions (see Rodriguez, Smith, and Zatz forthcoming for details). ... Approximately 14 percent of youths' case files include a documented comment noting noncompliance with community supervision terms/conditions assigned by the court. ... This may result from residential patterns in which black youth in this county live in poorer neighborhoods than white and Latino youth and from probation officers' differing perceptions of black versus Latino family structures and strength. ... Probation officers may also hold particularly negative views of black families.

Page 1

HIGHLIGHT: Determination of whether a youth is compliant with the conditions of probation and, if not, how to ensure future compliance is an important intermediate stage in juvenile court decision making. Yet, little is known about the conditions under which noncompliance is or is not documented in the youth's file, what happens to noncompliant youth, and whether documentation of noncompliance is influenced by race and class. Probation officers necessarily make recommendations based on incomplete knowledge, the very circumstances under which research has demonstrated that racial biases are most likely to surface. The authors analyze juvenile court data to examine whether and how documentation of noncompliance is affected by race, ethnicity, and class. Logistic regression demonstrates that black youth and youth from poorer neighborhoods are especially likely to have noncompliance documented. Content analysis of court social files clarifies further how race, class, family structure, and family circumstances affect officials' assessments of youth.

Keywords: race; class; juveniles; probation

TEXT: [*108] Research on juvenile and criminal courts has time and again that racial disparities are most likely to surface in hidden decisions made by court actors and that these disparities accumulate as individuals move through the system (e.g., Zatz 2000; Pope, Lovell, and Hsia 2002). Yet, with few exceptions, most research on the courts continues to focus on final outcomes rather than on intermediate decisions such as plea and charge bargaining and discretionary transfers of youths to adult court (Fagan and Zimring 2000). To our knowledge, no prior research has examined racial disparities at another very important intermediate decision point in juvenile court: the determination of whether a youth is noncompliant with rules set forth for community supervision.

In making placement decisions, the juvenile court considers both the best interests of the community and the best interests of the juvenile (e.g., whether resources available to youth on probation, such as individual and family [*109] counseling and drug treatment, will benefit the youth). If a juvenile who is placed on community supervision violates the terms of probation, the probation officer faces a series of decisions: Was the violation due to factors beyond the youth's control? Was this a one time failure and the youth is still a good candidate for community supervision? Does the noncompliance need to be documented? Should the terms of probation or the decision to place the youth on probation rather than in a secure facility be reconsidered? Answers to these questions depend on a variety of factors including the nature and circumstances of new offenses, assessments of the threat of future delinquent behavior, and assessments of the youth's and his or her family's willingness and ability to work with the probation department. These factors are not always straightforward, and decisions are necessarily made on the basis of incomplete knowledge. It is in such contexts of uncertainty that subtle racial biases are most likely to surface, resulting in harsher outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities (Albonetti 1986; Zatz 2000). Accordingly, this study draws on juvenile court data from a large county in Arizona to examine which youth on probation are most likely to be documented as noncompliant, what factors are associated with such documentation, what happens to noncompliant youth, and whether documentation of noncompliance is influenced subtly or overtly by race and class.

Race and Class in Juvenile Justice Decision Making

The overrepresentation of racial/ethnic minorities within the juvenile justice system is well documented (e.g., Pope, Lovell, and Hsia 2002). Some studies have found direct effects of race, suggesting overt racial discrimination on the part of court actors (Bishop and Frazier 1996; Bortner, Sunderland, and Winn 1985); others have found indirect and interaction effects of ostensibly neutral factors that are highly correlated with race, such as socioeconomic status and allegations of gang membership (Bortner, Zatz, and Hawkins 2000).

[*110] In the process of reaching disposition and placement decisions, juvenile court officials make assessments based on both legally relevant and legally irrelevant factors such as race, class, family characteristics, and gender. These assessments shape case outcomes, often resulting in more punitive treatment for black youth relative to whites (Bortner 1982; Bridges and Steen 1998; Rodriguez, Smith, and Zatz forthcoming). Family background also plays an important role in juvenile court decision making, including family structure, the level of support and cooperation provided by the

Page 2 623 Annals 108, *

family, quality of care, and economic resources available for treatment purposes (see, for example, Bishop and Frazier 1996; Bortner 1982; Drass and Spencer 1987; Leiber and Mack 2003). These studies largely reveal harsher treatment for minority youth due to the perceived lack of cooperativeness of minority parents and limited familial support.

The capacity of the family to assist the juvenile justice system in the supervision and monitoring of a juvenile offender is particularly relevant to the study of racial biases. The soaring rates of incarceration over the past twenty-five years due to the war on drugs have been devastating for racial/ethnic minorities, in particular for poor young black men and women (Lusane 1991; Miller 1996; Tonry 1995). One of the many consequences of the imprisonment of parents is the absence of an external support system for children and teens. These unintended victims of the war on drugs, the children of incarcerated parents, experience heightened levels of family instability and too often become displaced from their homes and/or become wards of the state (American Correctional Association 1990; Sharp et al. 1999). The collateral consequences for children are sharpened further if they become involved with the juvenile court.

In addition, there is general recognition among scholars that some of the race effects found in juvenile court studies are likely entangled with class, whether due to neighborhood composition, low levels of neighborhood efficacy, or lack of resources (e.g., drug and psychological counseling) that wealthier families can provide for their children (Bishop and Frazier 1996; Bortner 1982; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997). Most recently, Rodriguez (2007) examined the impact of community disadvantage and crime on juvenile court outcomes and [*111] found that Latinos from economically advantaged and disadvantaged communities are treated more severely than their white counterparts.

Compliance with Juvenile Probation: A Critical yet Neglected Stage of Court Processing

Juvenile probation officers are charged with recommending the least invasive disposition that they think will rehabilitate the youth and protect the community. Whenever possible, the preference is to keep the youth with his or her family under some level of community supervision (Clear, Harris, and Baird 1992). Probation officers closely monitor and document progress with the terms set forth by the judge, and technical violation charges may be brought against the juvenile to formally address behavioral problems and noncompliance with court-ordered sanctions and rules. This is a common occurrence, with fully one-third of juvenile court petitions resulting from probation violations (Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department 2008). Yet, in some instances, probation officers remain confident that a youth can succeed on probation even when there has been evidence of noncompliance with the terms of probation, and they may decide not to file for probation revocation or changes in the terms of probation. In this context of uncertainty, what factors explain such decisions? Unfortunately, prior research can tell us very little about this important intermediate step in juvenile case processing.

Research on probation success and failure among adults includes studies of the probation revocation process and, especially, the types of infractions committed by probationers (Clear, Harris, and Baird 1992; Petersilia and Turner 1990). While Clear, Harris, and Baird (1992) found that more than a third of violations by probationers were major rule violations, the majority of probation violations were for minor infractions that present minimal risk to the community. Not surprisingly, prior drug use and requirements such as drug testing and mandatory drug or alcohol treatment have been found to play an important role in probation failure (Albonetti and Hepburn 1997; Ulmer 2001).

Among adults, documentation of noncompliance with the terms of probation has been found to depend not only on offender and offense characteristics but also on probation officers' workloads, experience, and personal interpretations of what constitutes noncompliance (Burke 1997; Ulmer 2001). Probation agencies often lack specific or formal criteria outlining how to define and process violations (Burke 1997), by leaving probation officers in their "quasi-judicial" role a tremendous amount of discretion in deciding how to deal with noncompliance (Czajkoski 1973). This means progress (or lack thereof) while on community supervision can be interpreted and handled in different ways, depending upon which probation officer is assigned the case and how that officer perceives the youth and his or her family. The stakes are high for [*112] "noncompliers," who may face enhanced levels of supervision or incarceration as a consequence of not only their actions but the responses of individual probation officers to their behavior.

Page 3 623 Annals 108, *110

Hypotheses

Assessments of which juvenile offenders can be rehabilitated and the threat they pose to themselves and others are central to juvenile court decision making, both at the initial adjudication and in the event of noncompliance with the terms of probation. Given the amount of discretion that guides the documentation of noncompliance and the uncertainty associated with predicting non-compliance, it is highly likely that these behind-the-scenes decisions are influenced by race and class to a greater degree than the more visible final court outcomes. Moreover, given the importance of family support to success on probation, we anticipate that the effects of race and class on documentation of noncompliance are likely to operate through the family, and particularly through the probation officer's assessment of the family's ability and willingness to cooperate with the court.

Accordingly, our first hypothesis is that documentation of noncompliance with community supervision will be linked to race and ethnicity and will disadvantage black and Latino/a youth. This effect is anticipated by various empirical studies (e.g., Bortner, Zatz, and Hawkins 2000; Bridges and Steen 1998; Rodriguez 2007) that have found racial/ethnic disparities at other decision points. Second, we hypothesize that documentation of noncompliance with community supervision will be linked to economic status and will disadvantage youth from poor neighborhoods. Prior research suggests that social class influences risk for delinquency, but to date, no study has examined how juvenile court officials' documentation of noncompliance with community supervision is affected by community-level economic disadvantage.

Data and Methods

We use three data sources to assess the effects of race, ethnicity, and economic disadvantage on documentation of noncompliance with court sanctions (see Rodriguez, Smith, and Zatz [forthcoming] for details). The first data set comes from the Maricopa County Juvenile On-Line Tracking System database and includes case processing data from initial filing of a petition through case disposition. Court records for a random sample of 174 girls and a matched sample of boys referred to juvenile probation in Maricopa County, Arizona, in 1999 were extracted from the data management system. Matching was based on age and zip code, with zip code serving as a proxy for neighborhood characteristics such as income and local school system. The total sample size was 316 for this study, following deletion of missing data.

[*113] TABLE 1

CODING SCHEME AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Variable Percentage N

Dependent variable

Noncompliance with 0 = no 86.4 273

community supervision

1 = yes 13.6 43

Independent variables

Sex 0 = girls 44.3 140

1 = boys 55.7 176

Race/ethnicity (separate dummy White 55.4 175

variables for race/ethnicity;

whites are reference category)

Latino/a 32.9 104

Black 11.7 37

Page 4 623 Annals 108, *112

Person offense 0 = no 81.3 252

1= yes 18.7 58

Lives with parent 0 = no 29.2 87

1 = yes 70.8 211

Age (in years) Mean = 16.2, SD = 1.33

Prior referrals Mean = 3.68, SD = 3.53

Median neighborhood income Median = $ 40,915

N 316

The second data source includes the corresponding case social files for juveniles in the sample. The case files include court documents (e.g., background information on the youth and his or her family), disposition reports and decisions, progress reports, and psychological evaluations normally maintained by the juvenile court, both from the 1999 case and from any earlier referrals to juvenile court. n1 In analyzing the case file narratives, we paid special attention to statements that describe youths' families, community characteristics, non-compliance with court sanctions, and court recommendations and dispositions.

Finally, to capture information on the structural dimensions of youth in our sample (e.g., median family income, poverty, unemployment), we linked their residential zip codes with 2000 census data. While this third data set is aggregated to the neighborhood level, it provides insights into the demographic characteristics of the geographic area where the youth lives.

Dependent variable

Table 1 presents the variables under examination and their corresponding coding. The dependent variable for this study, noncompliance with community supervision, indicates whether juvenile court officials documented in the [*114] youth's case file their noncompliance with the terms and conditions of community supervision (i.e., probation, drug treatment) assigned by the court (yes = 1; no = 0). n2

Independent variables

The independent variables include demographic and legal variables. Demographic variables include age at the time of the 1999 court referral, sex (boys = 1; girls = 0), race/ethnicity (dummy-coded variables for Latinos/as and blacks with whites as the reference category), and whether the youth was living with his/her parent(s) (yes = 1; no = 0). To control for legal criteria, the most serious offense at the time of the 1999 court referral (person = 1; nonperson = 0) n3

and number of prior referrals to juvenile court are included in the analyses. We also incorporate aggregate census data for neighborhood median income based on the youth's zip code.

Analytical strategies

Data analysis proceeded in two stages. We first conducted a content analysis of the case files, coding for indicators of family and neighborhood economic status, youth and family characteristics (e.g., family cooperation with probation, family conflict and dysfunction, guardianship status), noncompliance with court sanctions, and court recommendations and outcomes. We include excerpts from the case files to illustrate how race, ethnicity, class, and documentation of community supervision noncompliance are interrelated. Second, logistic regression is conducted to examine the effects of race, ethnicity, and economic status on documentation of noncompliance.

Findings

Descriptive statistics in Table 1 show that the majority of youth are boys (56 percent), white (55 percent), and

Page 5 623 Annals 108, *113

charged with nonperson offenses (81 percent). The median annual family income for census respondents within the youths' zip codes in 2000 is $ 40,915. Approximately 14 percent of youths' case files include a documented comment noting noncompliance with community supervision terms/conditions assigned by the court. Given the sample demographics, it is striking that the cases of noncompliance disproportionately involve males (65 percent) n4 and black youth (21 percent), with whites notably underrepresented (47 percent). Noncompliance is defined in terms of the youth's failure to abide by the conditions assigned by the court. The specific conditions of probation differ from one youth to the next, depending upon youths' individual and family circumstances, prior record, and the offense. Typical terms of probation include abstaining from substance use, not associating with negative peers (including known or suspected

[*115] gang members), completing community service work and/or other assigned rehabilitative sanctions, attending school, abiding by household rules, reporting to and cooperating with the probation department, and desisting from delinquent behaviors. Failure to abide by any of these conditions may result in documentation of noncompliance.

TABLE 2

LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS: EFFECT OF RACE AND CLASS ON NONCOMPLIANCE

Variable b SE Odds Ratio

Sex 0.350 0.437 1.420

Race/ethnicity

Latino/a --0.052 0.470 0.950

Black 1.416* 0.583 4.121

Age --0.233 0.152 0.792

Person offense --1.005 0.717 0.366

Prior referrals 0.323** 0.058 1.381

Median income --0.042* 0.021 0.959

Lives with parent --0.507 0.423 0.602

Constant 1.915 2.667

--2 log likelihood = 162.47

[chi] <2>; df = 59.23; 8

NOTE: Reference category includes white juveniles. *p < .05. **p < .001.

Substance abuse is a common thread among noncompliant youth, noted in 67 percent of the cases in which noncompliance is documented compared to 48 percent among cases in which noncompliance was not mentioned. Similarly, noncompliant youth are more likely to have family members who are using drugs and alcohol (40 vs. 25 percent); to have histories of residential instability (19 vs. 4 percent) and family conflict (28 vs. 14 percent); and to have notes in the file regarding family economic deprivation (33 vs. 19 percent), dysfunctional families (33 vs. 16 percent), and parents/guardians who are perceived as uncooperative with the probation process (21 vs. 10 percent). Bivariate tests reveal that all of these relationships are significant at p < .05. We examined whether these relationships differ for white, black, and Latino youth with documentation of noncompliance in their files, but perhaps due to the small number of cases in each subgroup, the only significant difference is in the effect of guardianship status, discussed below. We next examined bivariate relationships between race/ethnicity and noncompliance and between median neighborhood income and noncompliance. Both were significant at p < .05. Accordingly, we continue with a logistic regression to test the effects of relevant factors on the documentation of noncompliance.

Page 6 623 Annals 108, *114

[*116] Race, ethnicity, class, and documentation of noncompliance with community supervision

The results of the logistic regression analysis, which are shown in Table 2, reveal that both race and class influence court officials' documentations of non-compliance. Our most important finding, and the starkest to emerge in the analysis of noncompliance, is that black youths' files are 4.121 times (exp [1.416]) more likely to include documentation of noncompliance compared with white youth. While prior record increases the likelihood of documentation for noncompliance, it does not explain the significant race effect. In fact, it is important to highlight that prior record does not significantly vary by race/ethnicity among noncompliant youth. Black youth have a slightly smaller average number of prior referrals (6) than white (7.2) and Latino/a youth (7.5); however, the median for all three groups is identical at 7 prior referrals.

The analysis of social files reveals important differences in the documentation of noncompliance by race. First, black youth are much less likely to be living with a family member and more likely to be wards of the state than white and Latino/a youth. More than half (56 percent) of the black youth in the noncompliant sample are wards of the state, and only 22 percent are living with a parent. In contrast, 56 percent of white youth and 69 percent of Latino/a youth are living with a parent, while only 6 percent of white youth and 23 percent of Latino/a youth are wards of the state. A chi-square of guardianship status (living with parent, ward of state, extended family, or family friend) by race/ethnicity for the noncompliant cases is significant at p < .05. Given that probation officers often view the family as having the same control functions as the justice system, if a probation officer determines that a youth's family is not able or willing to monitor his or her activities, the juvenile is particularly likely to have documentation of noncompliance in the social file. What we do not know, of course, is whether the incidence of noncompliance is actually greater for these youth, or whether probation officers are more sensitive to their family situations and thus are more apt to record concerns about noncompliance.

Second, files of black youth are more likely to include notations of family histories of substance abuse, residential instability, and dysfunctional families than are files of white youth. In contrast, white youths' files are more likely to include comments about family conflict, uncooperative parents, and parents' inability to provide structure and monitoring. The differential attributions about white and black families are illustrated in the following excerpts drawn from the narratives of noncompliant cases:

The juvenile has been in the foster care system and found to be a dependant of the court since 1988. His mother allegedly left her children with an acquaintance in order to purchase diapers and never returned. Records note that [youth] was sent to live with his father in the past; however, this did not work out. (Black male)

[Youth] is either beyond the control of the adults in the family, and/or the adults do not wish to exert control upon this young lady. . . . The adults within the family have not [*117] been supportive in controlling [youth's] compliance with house arrest, nor with any of the other components of JIPS [Juvenile Intensive Probation Services]. (White female)

Black youths' families are often perceived as being absent or unstable, while families of white youth who are documented as noncompliant are seen as unable or unwilling to control their child's delinquent behavior, at times turning to the court system for assistance. In both cases, probation officers may feel the court has to intervene and serve as parens patriae, yet decision makers may be biased against family situations that diverge from middle-class expectations (e.g., traditional notions about the importance of a nuclear family), resulting in greater disadvantage for black youth, relative to whites, if black youth are disproportionately likely to be raised by members of the extended family or to be wards of the state.

Given that black youth are disproportionately documented as noncompliant with court supervision, they are subsequently more likely to be treated more harshly (see also Rodriguez, Smith, and Zatz forthcoming). In fact, we

Page 7 623 Annals 108, *115

found that 77 percent of the youth who are documented as noncompliant receive either an out-of-home placement (56 percent) or are assigned to Juvenile Intensive Probation Services (21 percent). The excerpts below illustrate the recommendations and justifications for the commitment of black youth:

It is not likely that the juvenile will change his behavior any time soon. He has no regard for the Court or the consequences of his behavior. . . . This officer had considered recommending the juvenile for JIPS; however, he is a poor risk for JIPS for the following reasons: His major problems stem from substance abuse, and he has demonstrated an inability to follow the terms of standard probation. . . . This officer is recommending the juvenile be committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. (Black male)

This officer believes that the juvenile should be committed to ADJC. . . . The options the juvenile court has to offer have all been exhausted. (Black female)

In addition to racial disparities, we also found significant effects of youths' economic situations on the determination of noncompliance, reflecting the vulnerability of youth who reside in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods. As these quotes from the case files indicate, probation officers find economic deprivation, both at the family and community level, to be an important factor worthy of high-lighting to the court:

The mother is presently released and has moved from her prior place of residence. The juvenile's mother is staying with a friend of hers in an equally drug-infested neighbor-hood off [intersection] streets, called [apartment name]. (Black female)

There are a multitude of issues that are ongoing for this case. First of all, the mother has severe financial difficulties to the point that housing at times has not been possible. (Latina)

While we cannot test for interactions between race and class given our small sample size, the black youth in our sample live in the most economically deprived [*118] neighborhoods. According to the 2000 census, the median annual family income for black youths' zip codes is $ 33,803, in comparison to $ 36,481 for Latino/a youth and $ 42,577 for white youth. This disparity in economic resources at the neighborhood level may partly explain the racial differences we have uncovered, particularly if families living in poorer black neighborhoods have fewer resources to help their children comply with the terms of probation.

Discussion and Conclusion

Using juvenile court data from a large urban county in Arizona, we examined whether documentation of noncompliance is affected by race, ethnicity, and class. We anticipated that racial and ethnic minorities and youth from lower socioeconomic areas would be more likely to be documented as noncompliant than white youth and youth from higher socioeconomic areas. Our findings largely support these predictions. Specifically, three important themes emerge from the analyses: (1) black youth are significantly more likely to have documentation of noncompliance in their case file, due at least in part to guardianship status and other family factors; (2) documentation of noncompliance with community supervision is strongly affected by neighborhood socioeconomic status; and (3) youth with documented noncompliance receive more severe court outcomes.

It is interesting, however, that race effects in this study are evident only for black and not for Latino/a youth. This may result from residential patterns in which black youth in this county live in poorer neighborhoods than white and Latino youth and from probation officers' differing perceptions of black versus Latino family structures and strength. As previously noted, crime control policies like the war on drugs have devastated black families and communities by incarcerating a disproportionate number of black parents, leaving their children to be raised by grandparents and other members of the extended family or, when this is not possible, as wards of the state. Probation officers may also hold particularly negative views of black families. As suggested by Frazier and Bishop (1995, 35), juvenile court officials'

Page 8 623 Annals 108, *117

perceptions of families "indicate racial bias, attitudes that feed on and support racial bias, and they ultimately operate to justify the system's bent toward treating youths from minority families more formally and more harshly." Our findings of the effects of race and class on documentation of noncompliance are consistent with such perceptions.

The results reported here have practical and theoretical relevance. We find that the determination of whether a youth has been compliant with the rules set forth for community supervision and, if not, whether probation should be revoked or additional steps taken to ensure future compliance constitute an important intermediate stage in juvenile court decision making. Prior research has not addressed this decision point, however, due at least in part to the challenges associated with gaining access to probation records. As our results demonstrate, race, ethnicity, and class impact this decision, such that black youth and [*119] youth from poorer neighborhoods are especially likely to have noncompliance documented in their files, resulting ultimately in an increased likelihood of harsher sanctions. In conclusion, we suggest that future research must focus on intermediate stages of court processing such as noncompliance with probation, where racial and class biases are most likely to arise. Such research can help us to better understand how race, ethnicity, family, and community economic resources affect officials' assessments of youth and the ramifications of such assessments for youth, their families, and their communities.

References

Albonetti, Celesta A. 1986. Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: Toward a theory of discretionary decision making in felony case processing. Criminology 24:623-44.

Albonetti, Celesta A., and John R. Hepburn. 1997. Probation revocation: A proportional hazards model of the conditioning effects of social disadvantage. Social Problems 44:124-38.

American Correctional Association. 1990. The female offender: What does the future hold? Washington, DC: St. Mary's Press.

Bishop, Donna M., and Charles E. Frazier. 1996. Race effects in juvenile justice decision-making: Findings of a statewide analysis. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:392-413.

Bortner, M. A. 1982. Inside a juvenile court: The tarnished ideal of individualized justice. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bortner, M. A., Mary L. Sunderland, and Russ Winn. 1985. Race and the impact of juvenile deinstitutionalization. Crime & Delinquency 31:35-46.

Bortner, M. A., Marjorie S. Zatz, and Darnell F. Hawkins. 2000. Race and transfer: Empirical research and social context. In The changing borders of juvenile justice, ed. J. Fagan and F. Zimring, 277-320. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bridges, George S., and Sara Steen. 1998. Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review 63:554-70.

Burke, Peggy B. 1997. Policy-driven responses to probation and parole violations. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Clear, Todd R., Patricia M. Harris, and S. Christopher Baird. 1992. Probationer violations and officer response. Journal of Criminal Justice 20:1-12.

Czajkoski, Eugene H. 1973. Exposing the quasi-judicial role of the probation officer. Federal Probation 37:9-13.

Page 9 623 Annals 108, *118

[*120] Drass, Kriss, and J. William Spencer. 1987. Accounting for pre-sentencing recommendations: Typologies and probation officers' theory of office. Social Problems 34:277-93.

Fagan, Jeffrey, and Franklin Zimring, eds. 2000. The changing borders of juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frazier, Charles E., and Donna M. Bishop. 1995. Reflections on race effects in juvenile justice. In Minorities in juvenile justice, ed. K. Kempf-Leonard, C. Pope, and W. Feyerherm, 16-46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leiber, Michael J., and Kristin Y. Mack. 2003. The individual and joint effects of race, gender and family status on juvenile justice decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:34-70.

Lusane, Charles. 1991. Pipe dream blues: Racism and the war on drugs. Boston: South End Press. Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department. 2008. Maricopa County juvenile probation data book FY2007. Phoenix, AZ: Superior Court in Maricopa County.

Miller, Jerome G. 1996. Search and destroy: African-American males in the criminal justice system. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Petersilia, Joan, and Susan Turner. 1990. Intensive supervision for high risk probationers: Findings from three California experiments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Pope, Carl E., Rick Lovell, and Heidi M. Hsia. 2002. Disproportionate minority confinement: A review of the research literature from 1989 through 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Rodriguez, Nancy. 2007. Juvenile court context and detention decisions: Reconsidering the role of race, ethnicity, and community characteristics in juvenile court processes. Justice Quarterly 24:629-56.

Rodriguez, Nancy, Hilary Smith, and Marjorie S. Zatz. Forthcoming. "Youth is enmeshed in a highly dysfunctional family system": Exploring the relationship between dysfunctional families, parental incarceration and juvenile court decision making. Criminology.

Sampson, Robert J., Stephen Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918-24.

Sharp, Susan F, Susan T. Marcus-Mendoza, Robert Bentley, Debra Simpson, and Sharon Love. 1999. Gender differences in the impact of incarceration on the children and families of drug offenders. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium 4:1-15.

Tonry, Michael. 1995. Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ulmer, Jeffrey T. 2001. Intermediate sanctions: A comparative analysis of the probability and severity of recidivism. Sociological Inquiry 71:164-93.

Zatz, Marjorie S. 2000. The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decisionmaking: Looking toward the 21st century. In Criminal justice 2000, vol. 3, Policies, processes and decisions of the criminal justice system, ed. J. Homey, 503-52. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Page 10 623 Annals 108, *119

Legal Topics:

For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics: Criminal Law & ProcedureSentencingAlternativesProbationConditionsCriminal Law & ProcedureSentencingAlternativesProbationRevocationStandardsGovernmentsCourtsCourt Records

FOOTNOTES:

n1 In Maricopa County, the county attorney files a petition against a juvenile who has allegedly committed a delinquent and/or incorrigible act. The adjudication process begins with a hearing to determine whether a juvenile is delinquent and whether a juvenile is a status offender. A disposition occurs when a juvenile offender is assigned treatment and/or placement.

n2 We refer to our dependent variable as documentation of noncompliance rather than simply noncompliance because we have no way of knowing whether or when a youth violates terms of probation but either is not caught or the probation officer decides to give the youth another chance and does not formally document the noncompliance.

n3 While we recognize that distinguishing between person versus nonperson offenses does not provide an ideal measure of offense severity, it is used as an indicator of severity in this court. Serious violent offenses (e.g., murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, armed robbery, forcible sexual assault) are automatically transferred to criminal court if the youth is fifteen years of age or older.

n4 However, we found no significant relationship between gender and documentation of noncompliance.

Page 11 623 Annals 108, *120