Reducing Racial Disparity of Youths Referred to The Juvenile Center

Reducing Racial Disparity of Youths Referred to

The Juvenile Center

Section 1: Introduction to the Problem

In 2013, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

opened an investigation of The St. Louis County Family Court (Family Court) for

potential civil rights violations of youths in the Family Court’s system (Wing, 2019). As a

result, the DOJ determined that race had a significant and substantial impact on the

determinations of the youths during referrals to the juvenile office, pretrial detentions, at

plea times, during detention hearings, and at subsequent court appearances (United

States, 2015). These due process violations were found 48 years after the United States

Supreme Court’s In re Gault decision, which extended the principles of due process to

juvenile proceedings (Calhoun, 2014).

Attached to the Family Court is The Juvenile Center, which provides a safe,

secure, and controlled residential setting for youths who allegedly commit offenses and

are waiting to appear in front of a judge in the Family Court. The Family Court’s and

Juvenile Center’s administrators addressed the associated due process and equal rights

issues through a strategic plan that focused primarily on the treatment of Black youths

after juvenile officers referred their cases to Family Court.

On December 14, 2016, The Family Court and DOJ signed a memorandum of

agreement (MOA; United States Department of Justice, 2016). The MOA addressed The

Juvenile Center administration’s constitutional protections of the youths facing

delinquency charges before and during their appearances in The Family Court (United

States Department of Justice, 2016). Between January 1, 2017 and June 3, 2017, The

Juvenile Center had delinquency referral rates of 86.4% Black youths and 11.8% White

youths to the front-end intake step of the juvenile justice process (Wing, 2019). In

November 2018, 17 months after the MOU was signed, The Juvenile Center had

delinquency referral rates of 74.8% Black youths and 22.9% White youths at the frontend

intake step process (Wing, 2019). As of November 30, 2019, the data continued to show

that the number and percentage of Black youths referred to The Juvenile Center was still

higher than the number and percentage of White youths (Wing, 2020). N. Rodriguez

(2018) found that race had a considerable impact on pretrial detentions in juvenile

facilities. The Juvenile Center’s degree of racial disparity rose among youths when police

officers referred many Black youths to the front-end intake office during the intake

assessment stage and during the referral to the Family Court.

The Family Court handles law violations by youths, matters involving families,

and operates with the principle of assigning one judge to each family. According to the

Family Court of St. Louis County (2010), these are the following phases that a juvenile

can touch at The Juvenile Center after being arrested by a police officer:

•Referral to the juvenile office (referral by police, schools, probation officers, or

parents)

•Intake assessment (by the Deputy Juvenile Officers [DJOs])

•File a petition with the court (referral to the family court)

•Petition classification (formal and informal)

•Detention hearing (arraignment, initial, pretrial, probable cause, or plea hearings)

•Referral disposition (waived, placement, probation, dismissed/rejected, and fines).

The Juvenile Center’s plan for reducing the racial disparity at the front-end intake

step of the juvenile office was to actively engage with select community members and

organizations (Wing, 2018). The Juvenile Center’s plan also included working with law

enforcement and school resource officers to identify the origination of the referrals

(Wing, 2018). The Juvenile Center’s and Family Court’s plan to reduce the

overrepresentation of Black youths referred from the pretrial detention phase to the

Family Court consisted of using DJOs for counseling and case management and training

the staff on racial equity and diversity (Wing, 2018). The Juvenile Center’s open-door

referral policy allowed police officers and school resource officers to continuously refer

youths to the juvenile intake office. The Juvenile Center’s DJOs, who performed intake

assessments must have the minimum qualifications of a bachelor’s degree in social or

behavioral sciences (St. Louis County, n.d.). With the existence of disproportionate racial

representation in The Juvenile Center, the goal of the recommendations from this study

was to reduce the percentage of racial disparity of the youths that are referred to The

Juvenile Center.

The figure below demonstrated the number of youths referred to The Juvenile

Center, the process at the front-end intake step, and appearing before a judge.

Figure 1

Youths Referred to the Juvenile Center

Note. Adapted from Wing (2018)

Problem Statement

The DOJ found that Black youths were overrepresented in number and percentage

compared to white youths at every stage of the St. Louis County Juvenile Justice System,

based on population (United States Department of Justice, 2016). A second finding was

The Juvenile Center and Family Court administration and staff’s conduct violated the

youths’ constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws as required under the U.S.

Constitution’s 14th amendment (United States Department of Justice of Civil Rights,

2015). After youths entered The Juvenile Center or other juvenile facilities, the parent(s)

lost their control and authority over their child (Walker et al., 2015). Another issue found

at The Juvenile Center in the Family Court process was that 62.2% of Black youths’

referrals were rejected and informally adjusted, compared to 30.1% of White youths

(Wing, 2018). The Juvenile Center’s overrepresentation of Black youths at the front-end

intake step impacted the treatment of youths at critical stages throughout the St. Louis

County Justice System. The overrepresentation of Black youths also reflected that

majority of the youths were not charged and were released back to their parents or

guardians (Wing, 2018). The youths that were released due to lack of evidence or

1,870

black

youths

referred by

multiple

Juvenile officers

assessed 1,870

black youths

1,851

black youths

referred to family

court based on

their charges

1,685

black youths

counseled or

warned, or

their referrals

were rejected

jurisdiction was affected negatively (substance use disorders and posttraumatic stress) for

an undetermined amount of time after they spent time in a juvenile justice system

(McCord et al., 2001).

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine ways to help The Juvenile Center’s

administration reduce the racial disparity of referred youths by improving the center’s

front-end intake step. The Juvenile Center received delinquency referrals from various

sources, with 91.1% of the referrals originated from law enforcement officers and 4.5%

from school resource officers (Wing, 2018). In 2018, The Juvenile Center received 1,870

Black youths’ and 572 White youths’ delinquency referrals in their front-end intake step

(Wing, 2018). Although disproportionate minority contact (DMC) efforts had been

federally funded to address overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority youths, it was

still a problem in several juvenile justice systems (Claus et al., 2018). In November 2018,

The Juvenile Center had delinquency referral rates of 74.8% Black youths and 22.9%

White youths at the front-end intake step process (Wing, 2019). A decrease of 51.9% of

Black youths that were referred on the front-end can reduce the racial disparity in other

areas of The Juvenile Center and the Family Court.

The Juvenile Center acknowledged that they needed to decrease the racial

disparity in the number of youths referred to the front-end intake step. Claus et al. (2018)

noted that postarrest handling by law enforcement officers determined whether the youths

were charged, released, detained, or sentenced. Black youths were referred to The

Juvenile Center six times more frequently than White youths (St. Louis County Circuit

Court, 2019). The continued racial disparities demonstrated that the administrators had

not made enough changes to the police department or school resource officers’ current

protocol on youths brought to The Juvenile Center. Due to the authority that police

officers had over the youths at the arresting stage, it was critical for The Juvenile Center

to examine how race and ethnicity influenced decisions made at this critical

decisionmaking stage (St. Louis County Circuit Court, 2019).

Research Question

RQ1: How can The Juvenile Center decrease the racial disparity to 35% in the

number of youths referred during its front-end intake step?

Nature of the Administrative Study

In this study, I examined the front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center. I used a

qualitative approach to examine the intake step during the 2015-2018 period in St. Louis

County, Missouri. I gathered qualitative data from narrative interview questions created

to elicit the participants’ responses of their detailed experiences. The participants’

statements were based on their experiences and addressed the determining factors of

whether the youths should be referred to The Juvenile Center or returned home with their

parents or guardians. The main method of collecting data was ethnographic interviews

which allowed me to gather information on the community relation actions from the

police officers and school resource officers in the neighborhoods in which those officers

served. Also, I gathered qualitative data on what referral factors were considered by the

police officers and school resource officers with regards to youths who were arrested.

The additional method of collecting data was interviewing The Juvenile Center’s staff to

gather data on the front-end intake referral processes. The Juvenile Center’s

administration and staff have access to the DMC case study that analyzed data on the

number of delinquency referrals, referral sources, charge levels, and referral dispositions

from The Juvenile Center.

Significance of Study

After the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation in 2013, The Juvenile

Center’s Black youth population increased through front-end referrals. The population

threshold number increased, which caused an overrepresentation of Black youths

throughout The Juvenile Center (Wing, 2018). Some researchers performed studies on

programs designed to reduce the over-representation of black youths referred to juvenile

facilities. In August of 2018, the Family Court provided an annual racial and ethnic

disparity (RED) multifaceted five-step training to 150 staff members (Hutchinson, 2019).

On September 20, 2019, the Family Court’s staff received a second training that

enhanced the initial training on race and achieving racial equity (St. Louis County Circuit

Court, 2020). On November 17, 2019, the Family Court filed an audit report with the

DOJ documenting 23 provision improvements (e.g., data collections and reporting,

training for the Family Court staff, attention to equal protection duties and

responsibilities) to remain compliant with their MOA (Greenwald, 2019). However, in

mid-2021, The Juvenile Center racial disproportionality continued to remain high at the

front-end intake step and decreased at the Family Court’s sentencing phase (Missouri

Division of Youth Services, n.d.b) . The public and policymakers celebrated a drop in the

overall juvenile incarcerations and falling arrest rates. Quinn (2016) agreed that changes

such as these were not impacting Black communities to the same extent and at the same

pace that they were impacting White communities.

My study results may help create an effective process for police officers, school

resource officers, and juvenile officers to communicate and collaborate with one another.

Also, the contributions may bring a positive change in the number of Black youths that

are referred to The Juvenile Center. The Juvenile Center’s administrators could use this

study’s findings to improve the intake step of the Juvenile Center and at the police

stations and schools. As researchers continue to conduct studies of other juvenile justice

centers, their contributions can lead to adjustments of existing policies and procedures in

school disciplining and police youth arrests. In addition, studies contributed to policing

reform to address youth behavioral issues, forming juvenile justice commissions centered

around racial equality, and partnering of social community organizations. These actions

were considered a holistic approach and a shared responsibility to address the differential

racial disparity rate in The Juvenile Center.

Summary

In Section 1, I introduced and noted that The Juvenile Center has a high racial

disparity in the number of Black youths compared to White youths referred to their

frontend intake step. I also, noted how the data will be collected and the significance and

potential contribution of the study. In Section 2, I presented scholarly literature that

clarified terms and added substance to the issue of reducing The Juvenile Center’s racial

disparity.

Section 2: Conceptual Approach and Background

The U.S. DOJ (2016) found that Black youths were overrepresented at different

stages of the Juvenile Justice System. The Black youths were overrepresented at the

front-end referral step to the juvenile office, pretrial detentions, plea agreements sessions,

and at their detention hearings. Also, the DOJ found that Black youths had a higher

possibility of receiving harsher consequences, rather than informal diversion, than White

youths in the Family Court (United States Department of Justice, 2016). The Juvenile

Center’s degree of racial disparity rose as police officers and school resource officers

referred black youths to the front office. The degree of racial disparity also rose when

juvenile officers completed Black youths’ intake assessments and at the contact point

when the youths were referred to the Family Court. The Black youths represented 75% of

the law enforcement referrals and 80% of the juvenile administrative referrals at the

front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center (Wing, 2019).

The Family Court’s and Juvenile Center’s administrators addressed the associated

due process and equal rights issues by creating a strategic plan that focused primarily on

the treatment of Black youths after juvenile officers referred their cases to the Family

Court (Wing, 2019). Many juvenile justice systems’ strategic plans that addressed

inequalities substantiated the studies that showed a lack of attention in the role police

officers played during the initial contact and arrest of black youths (Dillard, 2013). To

explore how The Juvenile Justice Center decreased their percentage of racial disparity at

the front-end intake step, five staff members and nine police officers were interviewed to

find recommendations related to this question:

RQ1: How can The Juvenile Center decrease the racial disparity to 35% in the

number of youths referred during its front-end intake step?

The purpose of this study was to examine ways to help The Juvenile Center’s

administration reduce the racial disparity of referred youths by improving its front-end

intake step. In this section I discussed a community-based approach to stimulate the

community to mitigate the Black youths’ racial disparity in the juvenile justice system. I

also discussed how this study's conceptual framework addressed reducing the racial

disparity of Black youths compared to White youths for the organization and any terms

used that need to be defined.

Concept’s Models and Theories

The academic literature related to racial disparity in the juvenile justice system

concentrated on Black youths' experiences dealing with differential treatment during

arrests, processing of the youths after detention, and transferring youths to outside

facilities at the diversion stage. There were also studies that clarified the reasons racial

disparity existed, such as selective enforcement, race difference in offending, bias risk

assessment instruments, and different administrative practices (Dawson-Edwards et al.,

2020). However, researchers did not give detailed answers as to why racial disparity

exists, which prompted me to study and gather data that redefined responses and

recommendations.

The conceptual framework that I used in this study was a community-based

approach in which parents, residents, community leaders, and community organizations

worked together to help reduce the racial disparity of Black youths referred to The

Juvenile Center. Reduction in racial disparity of Black youths referred to The Juvenile

Center required committees created with school superintendents, police chiefs, juvenile

court counselors, directors of social services, prosecuting attorneys, and public defenders

(Frabutt et al., 2008). The Juvenile Center created several subcommittees of nonprofit

executive directors, business owners, clergy members, coaches, social workers, and the

parents of the affected Black youths to address the present racial disparity issue (Wing,

2019).

Smith (2013) noted a six-step framework that demonstrated a holistic,

community-based approach with training that addressed the racial diversity for Black

youths referred to the juvenile justice system. These approaches were developmental and

enhanced how the youths’ human rights were currently being protected. Dillard (2013)

acknowledged that it was vital for juvenile justice administrators to use a human rights

perspective when planning to improve their front-end racial disparity margin (p. 215).

When the juvenile justice administrators address the human rights approach, they should

prioritize how law enforcement’s policies and procedures helped to minimize the

variance in the use of social control mechanisms (e.g., detention and incarceration). The

human rights approach focused on interventions aimed at strengthening individuals,

families, and communities (Dillard, 2013). Dillard’s human rights approach was

embedded in Smith’s community-based approach which created the opportunity for key

partners and stakeholders to contribute to the developmental strategies and

decisionmaking processes.

Approach 1 focused on empowering the communities and youths dealing with

mass amounts of incarceration, poverty, violence, underperforming schools, a lack of

mental and medical healthcare services, and insufficient growth and development

opportunities (Smith, 2013). Approach 2 addressed the need for cultural training for those

who provide legal services and capacity building. It also addressed the need for cultural

training for those who advised the cultural traditions, methodologies, and language

elements of the populations receiving services. While the advisors provided cultural

training, they acknowledged the root causes of racial disparities and injustices. Approach

3 was concerned with supporting social bonding forms that addressed perceived and false

margins about behaviors that caused Black youths to become delinquent. Approach 4

addressed the need for public and private support. Approach 5 concentrated on police

departments being accountable to the Black youths taken into custody by reforming their

legal structures and requirements about referring youths, community engagement, and

various cultural practices. Approach 6 addressed the juvenile system's need for an

accountability system firmly grounded in human rights law (Smith, 2013).

Empowered Black youths from urban areas with low community and family

socioeconomic status reduced their chances of experiencing chronic academic failure,

learning challenges, and behavior problems (Smith, 2013). These obstacles led to Black

youths dropping out of school and encountering the police. With the decision-making

points across the juvenile justice system starting at investigations, arrests, formal

supervision, and ending at detention and incarceration, the answers to why racial disparity

existed at these points were different for each community (Smith, 2013). In urban areas,

Black youths were more likely to attend schools with zero-tolerance policies and law

enforcement presence on campus, which increased a student's chance of being arrested,

expelled, or suspended at a young age (Dupéré et al., 2019). In the neighborhoods of the

urban areas, Black youths were more likely to come from households with lower incomes

than Whites; therefore, Black youths were more likely to live in low-income households

(Robles-Ramamurthy & Watson, 2018). In these same neighborhoods, families dealt with

what is known as the carceral experience. The youths that lived in high crime areas were

often confronted by police or have seen adults harassed, arrested, or shot by the police

(Brown, 2014).

Addressing the racial disparity of Black youths referred to the juvenile justice

system was a multilayered problem (Leiber & Rodriguez, 2011). This issue required

federal, state, and local-driven efforts to identify the problems and then finding

collaborative ways to address the causes (Mallet, 2018). Morsy and Rothstein (2016)

mentioned that many of the harmed youths had incarcerated parent(s) which contributed

to the youths having a higher propensity to participate in criminal activities. They

indicated that the harmed youths were more likely to drop out of school if their parent(s)

were involved in the criminal justice system . In addition, youths suffered from

disaffection, even alienation, from a community with whom they do not identify. (Baskin

& Sommers, 2014). Smith (2013) suggested that the members of the community who

were directly impacted by the juvenile justice system must feel empowered to transform

their situation to decrease the system inequities (p. 24).

Smith (2013) stated, "the modern juvenile system also lacked cultural competence

and held minority communities at a cultural disadvantage” (p. 14). The public sector

identified that the increased attention paid to creating quality juvenile justice systems and

pushing for juvenile accountability caused critical gaps between the typical and best

practices for the juvenile justice system (Lyon et al., 2015). Youths that had attorneys to

represent them before and during their process with the juvenile justice system had

attorneys that lacked familiarity with the child's culture and social systems. Schutte

(2014) mentioned that many attorneys represented children in the justice system were

unfamiliar with the child's world. The confined space of the professional relationship

created a constrained opportunity for the attorney to learn about the youths’ life and

experiences.

C.C. Rodriguez (2014) and Smith (2013) agreed that a culturally competent

individual understood that one must approach situations differently and respect diverse

backgrounds to provide adequate services. Smith noted that many employees of the

juvenile justice system did not reflect or did not relate to the demographics of the youths

they served; stereotyping, bias, and discrimination were likely to occur during their

interactions. Cultural competence was a developmental process, and individuals with a

lower level of cultural competence improved their knowledge of competency over time

with the proper resources, education, and training (C.C. Rodriguez, 2014).

It is essential for police and school resource officers to observe youths to

determine whether they were demonstrating externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression,

delinquency, hyperactivity) before arresting them and referring them to juvenile facilities

(Kulkarni et al., 2020). Documentation showed that youths who displayed externalizing

behaviors were at significant risk for later involvement in the justice system, adult crime,

substance use, and violence. These externalizing behaviors were considered one of the

strongest predictors of recidivism among youths involved in the juvenile justice system

(Kalu et al., 2020).

Youths in middle school often formed the four constructs of social bonding (e.g.,

attachment, involvement, commitment, and morals; Kalu et al., 2020). Smith (2013)

mentioned that the juvenile justice system had a system-driven approach that relied on

law enforcement officers, courts, locked facilities, and programs to manage youth crimes.

This approach shattered social bonding and did not hold governmental agencies

accountable for wrongdoings or ineffectiveness. These system-driven strategies only

delivered temporary assistance for the juvenile justice system curbing the youths’ crimes.

After some of the youths were released to the public, they were left without parents or

guardians and were considered homeless (Smith, 2013).

Kalu, et al. (2020) explained that social bonding theory suggested that positive

reactions occurred when youths had an attachment to their parents. This positive

attachment with parents had a large role in the development of youths’ self-esteem,

positive social functioning, and increased security. Social bonding theory focused on

adherence to law-abiding behavior through socialization practices to foster attachment,

commitment, involvement, and belief. Social bonding helped enhance parental and school

attachments and improved youths’ compliance with established values, which reduced

delinquent behaviors.

A community-based support system that used social bonding theory helped The

Juvenile Center meet its objective of reducing racial disparity at the front-end intake step.

In California, one of their prevention early intervention diversion programs (PEIDP) is a

program for low-level offenders designed to keep youths out of the juvenile court system

(Superior Court of California, n.d.). The community-based organizations under the

PEIDP used assessments, prevention techniques, early intervention, and diversion

programs to help youths in police custody learn from their mistakes (Superior Court of

California, n.d.).

From the federal government view, the creation of the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was essential in supporting state and local efforts to

reduce racial disparity and assist communities to effectively avert and react to juvenile

delinquency and juvenile victimization (OJJDP, 2019). The OJJDP aimed to improve the

juvenile justice systems and policies so that the public is better protected, youths and their

families are better served, and justice involved youths are held accountable for their

actions. In 2002, OJJDP added a component to their program to assist states in

maintaining compliance with the DMC core requirements. The OJJPD developed a

general set of eight focused contact points for juvenile justice systems to incorporate in

their policies and procedures to help reduce or eliminate DMC (OJJDP, 2019).

In 2018, Missouri participated in the OJJDP’s program to implement policies,

practices, and system improvement strategies that identified and reduced racial and ethnic

disparities among youths who encountered the juvenile justice system (OJJDP, 2019).

The newest approach from OJJDP was the Title II Formula Grants Program (Title II

Program). The Title II Program granted states the opportunity to become eligible to

receive federal funding for implementing plans to reduce DMC, as outlined in the

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (OJJDP, 2019).

The OJJDP oversaw the Title II Program and provided states and localities

guidance in developing and implementing their plans to address juvenile justice needs,

including reducing DMC (OJJDP, 2019). Furthermore, local advocacy groups focused on

issues of minority youths’ confinement and the results from those studies suggested

selection bias was a problem. Community-based organizations (CBOs) in the juvenile

justice field prioritized personal, grassroots experience with the system, and individual

self-determination over professional expertise (Smith, 2013). Also, at the local levels,

citizens and parents encouraged a suspension reduction program within the school district

as a method to reduce DMC at the front-end intake step of the juvenile justice system

(Fix, 2018).

Smith (2013) mentioned that the juvenile justice system needed youths,

community members, and advocates to meet and collaborate to create culturally sensitive,

civic-appealing, and effective programming. Having a holistic collaboration allows police

departments to use these assets in the community as resources to mentor the Black

youths. According to Wing, (2019) the local agencies in St. Louis County were lacking

funding from private and public sources to provide the needed programs. Local agencies

cannot provide youth-supported programs if the funding is not available. In addition,

researchers were not able to identify a significant number of studies that focused on how

police helped with reducing racial diversity during the front-end intake step of the

juvenile justice system (Claus, 2019).

The Institute of Judicial Administration and American Bar Association revived

the juvenile justice standards that involved the need for incentives and accountability,

with directions for needed improvements and further research of police officers (Sobie &

Elliott, 2014). Police who handled juvenile issues prioritized showing accountability to

their administrators. In addition, the police showed accountability when handling

juveniles in public (; see Flicker, 1982; Sobie & Elliot, 2014). Smith (2013) noted that

police misbehavior isolated and dehumanized youths. Besides, police were unaccountable

for the uselessness of and indecency of existing arrest and patrol strategies, but mostly for

their mishandling and incompetence (Claus et al. 2018). Police officers that exhibited

indecent actions demonstrated their disregard to follow the law enforcement standards

provided by their police department. In police programs, community involvement

warranted administrative sanctions, procedures, and remedies (Claus et al. 2018).

The Family Court’s staff gave attention to Black youths and ensured their human

rights were protected (Wing, 2019). This part of the juvenile justice court provided

secrecy, closed proceedings, and nonadversarial informal proceedings to advance the best

interest of the youths (Fix, 2018). These actions consisted of (a) protecting privacy and

(b) creating an unthreatened, relaxed atmosphere in which the court officers developed a

relationship of trust and confidence with the youths. The court officers used his or her

background to choose a disposition suited to the youths’ needs (Flicker, 1982; Sobie &

Elliott, 2014). Dawson-Edwards et al. (2020) noted the juvenile justice court’s closed

hearings and unregulated procedures have resulted in arbitrary decision-making and

unjustifiable disparity in outcomes . If the juvenile court administrators’ standards

addressed closed hearings and unregulated procedures the issues of racial disparity could

be reduced. Instead, the juvenile officers’ standards addressed how the juvenile officer

found a way to teach youths to be accountable for their actions that initiated the arrest by

a police officer (Dillard, 2013).

As The Juvenile Center went through their policy changes, they continued

requesting community engagement, and their employees continued with the RED training

(Wing, 2019). From a juvenile justice organizational theory perspective, when juvenile

justice administrators addressed any issues in the juvenile justice system, including racial

disparities, they looked at them through the lens of public safety and offender

accountability. Claus et al. (2018) declared that social and contextual factors alone cannot

account for racial disparities in the juvenile justice system. Racial disparity in juvenile

justice facilities is guided by conflict and social control theory, and no research has

examined the intersection of race and ethnicity at postarrest decision making by the police

(Claus et al., 2018)

Hager (2018) noted that the new OJJPD officials under the Trump administration

did not address the provisions on racial justice and cut the budget that funded the racial

disparity issues within the juvenile justice systems. In 2016, the state of Missouri

received $610,864 (the lowest funding amount between 2015-2020) in funding from the

Juvenile Justice Formula Grant (JJFG) (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, 2019). In 2020, the state of Missouri was awarded $965,947 in funding from

JJFG for their Juvenile Justice Systems to address DMC. (Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, 2019).

Hager (2018) also mentioned that the analyzed federal data from the Sentencing

Project showed that Black youths fought, stole property, carried weapons, and used and

sold drugs at about the same rate as White youths. These illegal actions mentioned above

were not disproportionately policed when committed by Black youths. The theory

supporting the community-based approach developed by Smith (2013) held that a

juvenile justice center approaching racial disparity with his six steps showed a reduction

in the juvenile justice’s racial disparity percentage rate.

Clarification of Terms

Community based: Physically located in the community served, geographically

and philosophically (Smith, 2013).

Community-based approach: Invites communities to actively design, develop, and

deliver their own prevention and intervention strategies (Smith, 2013).

Community capacity building: The efforts that strengthen the ability of local

community organizations to support, serve and supervise young people with juvenile

justice system involvement as a strategy for reducing reliance on youth incarceration

(Brown, 2014).

Decision points: The individual stages in the juvenile justice process that required

a decision to be made about a youth’s case (United States Department of Justice, 2016).

Disproportionate minority contact: The overrepresentation of minority youths at

critical decision points and other stages in the juvenile justice system (Dawson-Edwards

et al., 2020).

Diversion: The alternative to the traditional juvenile justice responses to youths’

misbehavior and delinquencies (Stalker, 2019).

Race differences: The race of youths committing crimes that are categorized as

severe and violent crimes are found to be Black rather than White youths (Dawson-

Edwards et al., 2020).

Selective enforcement: The arbitrary punishment of specific individuals or groups

for legal violations or crimes rather than the equal punishment of all known offenders

Dawson-Edwards et al., 2020). “

Socioeconomic: The economic and social position in society in relation to other

individual groups and can be estimated using features, such as income, education, or

occupation type that espouses justice as its principle, based on equality, freedom, and

range of choice (Baskin & Sommers, 2015).

Urban neighborhoods: Areas identified by their demographics and dimensions,

emphasizing the distinct population mix that people associate with a neighborhood,

mainly manifested in visible attributes, such as race and income level (Rekker et al.,

2015).

Relevance to Public Organizations

Extensive literature and policy resources were available on how local juvenile

justice systems have reduced their racial disparity or DMC. The majority of the related

literature focused on racial disparity in local juvenile justice systems centers referred

youths’ contact points during the juvenile court's process. Even though the governmental

agency OJJDP encouraged the reduction of racial disparity for decades, the Black youths

were currently showing an overrepresentation at The Juvenile Center (Wing, 2019).

Robles-Ramamurthy and Watson (2019) contended that leaders had displayed concerns

about the youths housed in juvenile centers receiving differential treatment based on their

race. Ericson and Eckberg (2016) asserted that consideration was at the focal point of

black youths not having the opportunity to be diverted while in police custody.

Furthermore, Ericson and Eckberg (2016) found a study that mentioned police officers'

interactions with black youths that were disrespectful, suspicious demeanor, and being on

the street late at night were considered chargeable reasons to take the youths into custody.

Existing Scholarship and Broad Context

Over the past 30 years, research has documented racial disparity in the treatment

of Black youths that are housed in the juvenile justice systems (Robles-Ramamurthy &

Watson, 2019). Racial and ethnic disparities associated with school discipline practices

and juvenile justice contacts added to the number of juveniles referred to the juvenile

justice system (Marchbanks et al., 2018). The multiple stages in the juvenile justice

process involved various decision makers who have the power to determine a child's

future. The level of discretion every decision maker had at each step of the process

played a role in deciding how youths were processed. Therefore, the decisions made on

behalf of the youths affected their future regarding whether they revisited the juvenile

justice system repeatedly or stayed out indeterminately (Gann, 2019).

In 2001, states were required by the JJDP Act to gather race and ethnicity

information at nine different juvenile justice contact points, and report how they

addressed DCM of identifying racial disparities (Robles-Ramamurthy & Watson, 2019).

Despite those mandatory requirements there was a significant lack of attention to the

system's front end (Robles-Ramamurthy & Watson, 2019). A meta-analysis by Dillard

(2013) found only six out of 36 studies of DMC in the juvenile justice system reviewed

police decision-making. The most common data source used was court records, not arrest

data. This information suggested that initial police contact data was missing from many

studies and was beneficial to efforts aimed at reducing racial disparities (Anderson,

2015).

The racial disparity research and closely related literature was relatively abundant

and helpful for acknowledging racial disparities and the need for systems and policy

changes. However, other authors called for expanding reduction in racial disparity

explicit literature to include more qualitative approaches (Dawson-Edwards, et al., 2020).

Most available qualitative research methods were: focus groups; interviews that included

school personnel; the juvenile assessment center; state attorney's office; police; school

resources officers; faith-based organizations; mental health service providers; the

Department of Corrections; parents; church ministers; and business representatives

(Robles-Ramamurthy & Watson, 2019). To alter the overrepresentation of Black youths

in the juvenile justice system required understanding the causes and an action plan to

address the underlying disparities that brought minority youths in contact with the

system.

Current State of Practice

Youths’ race continued to matter in the juvenile justice system. Fifty years after

the Supreme Court’s In Re Gault decision, Black youths continued to be

disproportionately suspended and expelled, arrested, processed in courts rather than

diverted, detained in juvenile justice facilities, and transferred to adult facilities

(DawsonEdwards et al., 2020). According to the 2020 Family Court, many juvenile

delinquents were referred for stealing, property damage, and peace disturbance, which did

not result in formal charges. These low-level offenses were one of the factors why Black

youths were chronically overrepresented in the juvenile justice system (Bertelson, 2021).

Law Enforcement Officers

Police officers serve as the principal investigators of any criminal conduct or

delinquent behavior by a juvenile (Missouri Law Enforcement Manuel, 2019). The police

officers serve as the initial contact and primary investigators of any reported incidents

involving juvenile status offenders. Police officers are also responsible for gathering and

maintaining supportive evidence during the investigation of delinquent conduct (Claus et

al., 2018). During this time, the police officers will make a discretionary judgment call

about whether they should take a juvenile into custody under an order of the Juvenile

Court or according to the laws of arrest applicable to adults regarding delinquent offenses

(Claud et al., 2018). A statutory presumption exists that the juvenile could be released to

the juvenile's parent, guardian or custodian, or another suitable person, unless the

Juvenile Officer or Court authorized detention (Missouri Law Enforcement Manual,

2019).

School Resource Officers

Many urban and suburban school systems have police officers who spend at least

part of the day at a school (Delaney, 2020). Supporters see them as an added protection

against violence and school shootings, and a pathway to build community relations with

the parents, guardians, students, and police officers. When school resource officers

handled minor disciplinary problems, the result would be that those students are forcibly

detained (Delaney, 2020).

When school resource officers handle minor incidents, those actions add to the

research data that suggested stricter school discipline practices and DMC for minority

youths which was relatively more prevalent in urban areas (Marchbanks et al., 2018).

What remain unknown is the relationships between and among race and ethnicity, school

discipline practices, and juvenile justice referrals across urban, rural, and suburban

schools (Marchbanks et al., 2018).

Referral to The Juvenile Center

The police officers, school resource officers, juvenile officers, and probation officers

refer black youths disproportionately in high numbers to The Juvenile Center (Wing,

2019). The Juvenile Center handle many of the juvenile offenses after the youths are

referred to the facility. According to Wing, (2019) the main concern is the racial disparity

found at the front-end of the process before the youths enter The Juvenile Center. Due to

the administrators focusing heavily on the other stages of The Juvenile Justice Center and

The Family Court, the racial disparity decreased as the black youths move through the

process (Wing, 2019). According to Bertelson (2021), Judge Micheal D. Burton stated,

"the decrease was due to The Family Court doing everything it can to collaborate with

community leaders and advocates to help keep kids out of the system, out of harm's way,

and on a healthy track to responsible adulthood” (p. 1).

Referral to The Family Court

The police officers, school resource officers, and family members are far more

likely to refer Black youths than to refer white youths to juvenile authorities for

delinquency (Wing, 2019). However, racial disparities will diminish at subsequent

decision points in the court system, which include issuing of formal charges, commitment

to the Division of Youth Services (DYS), and certification to stand trial as adults

(Bertelson, 2021). The Family Court heightened its focus on diverting young people from

the juvenile justice system into programs that allow them to remain with their families, in

the communities, stay in school, while providing supervision to ensure that youths

comply with the law.

The November 2019 Disproportion Minority Contact Report noted a division in

research studies on whether the racial disparity at the front-end intake step resulted from

Black youths committing more offenses, differential treatment due to racial stereotyping,

prejudice and discrimination, the social organization of The Juvenile Center, or

characteristics of the community served by The Family Courts. (Bertelson, 2021).

The Family Court administrators presented the current implementation plan to the

DOJ that included changes at the different point of contacts that could reduce the degree

of racial disparity (Wing, 2019). For example, the administrators would analyze trends

with DMC data in the biannual report. The administrators would conduct analyses of

determinants of high relative rates indices at the secure detention decision point. Other

aspects that the administrators felt needed to be addressed was the age of youths at the

time of the front-end referral. As well as continuing youths, family, and community

engagement, and identifying the origination of law enforcement referrals (Wing, 2019).

Sentencing of Black Youths

According to the November 2019 DMC report, most juvenile delinquency

referrals to The Family Court for low-level offenses did not result in formal charges (St.

Louis County Family Court, 2020). Juvenile court judges have more legal options than

the juvenile officers to meet the treatment needs of the youths (St. Louis County Family

Court, 2020). The Family Court provides educational and therapeutic programming in the

youths' communities or near the youths out-of-the-home residential placement programs

(Episcopal, n.d.). If the Family Court sentences the youths to The Juvenile Center, the

normal period that youths are confined is three to five weeks. However, some youths may

remain in detention from a few days to months (Episcopal n.d.). Generally, youths that

are held in The Juvenile Center after their arrest are waiting for a pending detention

hearing, formal court hearing on their charges, or their disposition. After the disposition,

some youths are sent to diversion programs to help them with their reentry to society and

with making better choices outside the juvenile justice system. Youths that are sentenced

to longer-term rehabilitation may be assigned to other treatment facilities or to the DYS

(Episcopal n.d.).

The Juvenile Center and The Family Court receive funding for their operating

diversionary programs (Missouri, n.d.). Many of these programs and services would not

otherwise be available to youths near their homes without Juvenile Court diversion

funding. The Juvenile Court Diversion program encourages the development of services

to youths and families at the local level while diverting youths from commitment to the

DYS. The diversion programs provide early interventions to prevent further involvement

in the juvenile justice system. Judicial circuits across the state apply for grants from DYS

to create specific services or solutions for problems unique to their communities

(Missouri, n.d.).

January 1, 2021, the "Raise the Age" bill went into effect in Missouri (Briggs,

2020). The bill allowed 17-year-old juveniles to remain in The Juvenile Center instead of

being transferred to the adult criminal justice system. The issue that municipalities are

having with the “Raise the Age” bill is that there is not enough funding to accept 17-

yearolds into their juvenile justice systems (Briggs, 2020). Two Missouri prosecuting

attorneys with the state's largest dockets, St. Louis County and Jackson County, refuse to

charge 17-year-olds as adults, regardless of the cost. St. Louis County Prosecuting

Attorney, Wesley Bell, stated that "his office worked with the juvenile court system to

ensure it could take on additional 17-year-olds" (Byers, 2021).

Recommendations for Improvement

Reform efforts to address issues in the juvenile justice system were intended to

reduce racial disparities at all levels, from interactions with the police, to the court

systems and transfer mechanisms, and in the facilities themselves. Extensive data,

disaggregated by race and gender, was critical to understanding the scope and causes of

racial disparities and creating change trajectories. The Justice Center had the capability to

partner with smaller organizations that were working with at-risk youths to find

alternative solutions for their front-end process (Bertelson, 2021)

Strategies and Standard Practices

In Santa Clara, California, the mission of the Juvenile Justice Center was to

protect and rehabilitate their youths, build strong and healthy families, redress victims,

and increase the safety of their community (The Superior Court of California, n.d.). One

of the strategies for reducing racial disparity at the front-end intake step of The Juvenile

Center was a program called the Prevention and Early Intervention Diversion Program

(PEIDP), a program of rehabilitation for the youths and community to reduce the number

of youths going through their juvenile justice system (The Superior Court of California,

n.d.). PEIDP administrators may have informally resolved all non-traffic infractions and

misdemeanor cases that do not involve alcohol, domestic violence, or restitution over

$1,000. The PEIDP was a diversion program for low level offenders designed to keep

youths out of the Juvenile Court systems. This program enabled youths to have the

opportunity to learn from their mistakes and receive services from community-based

organizations (The Superior Court of California, n.d.).

In Jennings, Missouri, located in St. Louis County, a predominantly African

American municipality required its school resource officers to be black, go through

cultural competency training, and participate in mentoring programming. The City of St.

Louis, Missouri juvenile justice system method for reducing its racial disparity was

engaging stakeholders in discussions on what it would take to raise their equity score

from 21 to 100. During the discussions the stakeholders gave their thoughts on

opportunities in the communities and alternatives for the youths arrested for minor crimes

(City of St. Louis Family Court, 2020). The 22nd Circuit’s Family Court also provided

their staff training on understanding the causes, impacts, and ways that they can help with

reducing the racial disparity throughout the facility (Jones, n.d.).

In St. Louis County, the Maplewood Richmond Heights School District

(MRHSD), School Resource Officers instructed school children, taught nonviolence and

conflict resolution, and protected lives and property, and maintained the peace

(Maplewood Missouri, n.d.). The school resource officers developed and supported

educational programs for high school and junior high students in anger management,

conflict resolution, and proactivity in eliminating violence. These programs targeted

youths and their families who displayed risk factors that may have led to violent,

disruptive, or abusive behavior in the high school and junior high school. The designed

programs included prevention, early identification, and intervention. The school resource

officer also functioned as the juvenile officer investigating all crimes and offenses

involving juveniles and acted as the liaison between the Police Department and the

Juvenile Court (Maplewood Missouri, n.d.).

With the collaboration efforts of the St. Louis Public School District and

MERS/Goodwill, former Juvenile Court Judge Jimmie Edwards opened a school that

addressed the needs of at-risk students (National Juvenile Defender Center, 2018). This

alternative school is a first-of-its-kind joint venture between The Family Court, St. Louis

Public Schools, and MERS/Goodwill. Other partners included the Division of Youth

Services and several community agencies that provided a myriad of services for St. Louis

at-risk youths between the ages of 10 and 19. Whereas the state of Missouri’s juvenile

courts had jurisdiction over any age youths prior to their eighteenth birthday (National

Juvenile Defender Center, 2018). The professional staff of the partnering organizations

offered many benefits, including case management, outreach, and monitoring of day and

afterschool programming (City of St. Louis Family Court Report to the Community,

2020).

Organization Background and Context

As The Juvenile Justice Center progressed with their REDI and DMC, it was

essential to reduce their racial disparity margin on their front-end referrals between the

Black youths and White youths (Bertelson, 2021). It was also crucial that the

administrators ensured that they have concrete policies that directed the police and school

resource officers on The Juvenile Center’s process. It was important to put the necessary

policies and procedures in place since Black youths were still far more likely than White

youths to be referred by police, schools, and family members to juvenile authorities for

delinquency (Bertelson, 2021).

Institutional Context

In partnership with MERS Goodwill, Inc., The Juvenile Center and The Family

Court received a $500,000 three-year federal grant to provide career training, professional

development, and employment opportunities for court-involved youths (Bertelson, 2021).

Even though the youths had first-hand knowledge of the juvenile justice system, their

voices were often missing from the roundtable discussion. The youths’ voices were an

essential accompaniment to the existing data that The Juvenile Center needed to make a

meaningful system change (Bertelson, 2021). The youths’ voices also provided The

Juvenile Center’s administrators the understanding of the reasons for disproportionate

Black youths’ involvement. According to Bertelson (2021), the youths reported to

Tymesha Buckner-Dobynes, Director of Court Programs for the

Family Court, that obtaining jobs was a necessity to help support the youth’s families and

to prevent engagement in delinquent acts.

Definitions of Organizational Terms

The Family Court exclusively hears cases involving children and families and

operates under the principle of one family-one Judge (Wing, 2019). One family-one

Judge means that all matters involving a particular family are assigned to the same Judge

or Commissioner whenever possible, bringing increased continuity and consistency to the

judicial process. This one-family-one Judge policy came after the DOJ found civil rights

violations against the youths that were in The Juvenile Center (Wing, 2019).

Schrantz and McElroy (2000) defined racial disparity as existing in the juvenile

justice system when the quantity of a racial/ethnic group within the system's control is

greater than the proportion of such groups in the general population. The unjustified

racial disparity resulted from distinctive treatment by the staff at the juvenile justice

system of alike placed youths. The unjustified racial disparity involved open racial bias or

reflect the encouragement of factors that were not directly associated with race. In the

juvenile justice system, some causes of racial disparity were higher crime rates,

inequitable access to resources, legislation that disproportionately affects minorities, and

bias.

A conversation of indicators of racial disparity at critical decision points in the juvenile

justice system targeted the following stages of processing: police action; arraignment,

release, and pre-adjudicatory decisions; adjudication and sentencing; probation and

community supervision; jail and prison custody; and parole decisions (Schrantz &

McElroy, 2000).

A referral is a written report or statement that alleges that a juvenile has come

under the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction (Family Court of St. Louis County, 2010). The

Family Court defines a juvenile as a child under 17 years of age that commits status

offenses or delinquency acts. The Family Court defines a juvenile as a child under the age

of 18 years when the child has experienced abuse and/or neglect. Referrals are made in

writing and contain the juvenile's name, date of birth, address, and parent's name, along

with sufficient information explaining the allegations. The reporter must also be

identified in the report when it is submitted. When the juvenile staff receives spoken

referrals, and the DJO uses the spoken referral to start the juvenile justice proceedings,

the juvenile officer must convert the spoken referral into writing as soon as possible.

Referral sources include law enforcement agencies, schools, parents, other

juvenile courts, and the Children's Division. The referrals on youths are received and

reviewed by the intake officer at The Juvenile Center for possible disposition. If the

intake officer has any uncertainty of the jurisdiction or legal standards of the charge

against the juvenile, the intake officer shall present the intake referral to the legal team for

assessment. If the legal team rejects the referral, the intake officer will take no further

action. The staff at The Juvenile Center will send a letter to the juvenile and to the parent

or guardian advising them of the youth’s status. If the legal team does not reject the

referral, the intake officer will proceed with the disposition (Family Court of St. Louis

County, 2010).

Context to the Problem

Nearly 30 years after federally supported efforts to address DMC, the

overrepresentation of Black youths in various stages of juvenile justice processing

remains a long-standing issue. The relationships between race, ethnicity, and contact

within the juvenile justice systems are complex. Studies show that the effects of race in

the juvenile justice systems contacts may vary by extralegal, incident-related, and

contextual factors, including age and gender of youths, and social and neighborhood

contexts (Claus et al., 2018).

Johnson (2019) confirmed that the number of Black youths referred to detention

centers had increased considerably from 1994 to 2019. Black youths are referred twice as

often than white youths, due to being exposed to disadvantages and stressors

disproportionately related to their experiences within the home, community, and school

environments. In the school setting the youths were treated differently which drove them

to receiving more discipline referrals. Those factors tightly interconnected with Black

youths’ future socioeconomic gains, educational achievements, and the probability of

becoming involved in the criminal justice systems. These realities constricted and shaped

Black youth's life options in the United States and limited the number of opportunities

that they may have encountered (Johnson, 2019).

Role of the DPA Student/Researcher

This study focused on reducing the percentage of racial disparity in referrals at the

front-end of The Juvenile Justice Center. As a community member and the

student/researcher conducting this study, I have no relationship with The Juvenile Center

addressed in this study. However, I have met with administrative staff from The Juvenile

Center looking to find answers on how they can reduce the racial disparity percentage

from a community standpoint. Also, I mentored youths that reside in three of the zip

codes with the highest number of youths referred to The Juvenile Center. I am

knowledgeable about The Juvenile Center's priority issues and the specific population

that is affected.

Furthermore, I am motivated to see The Juvenile Center succeed in its mission,

based on their "ask" for help from the community. While attending the meetings with

other community members, I realized that their solutions pointed fingers at the youths and

their parents. This behavior encouraged me to examine current and past literature on

front-end racial disparity or DMC among Black youths or juveniles at juvenile centers.

My search of nine states that received funding from OJJPD turned up little research that

directly addressed how police officers, school resource officers, and juvenile officers

diverted Black youths before they are arrested or referred to The Juvenile Center. Schools

were one of the leading sources of referrals to The Juvenile Center. School administrators

formed a partnership with police officers to develop and implement a school-based

program is another aspect of a holistic approach to reducing racial disparity at the

frontend intake step of The Juvenile Center.

Some of the study’s participants may have been familiar with my face or my

name and responded to the research goals. I performed the interviews individually and

informed the participants to respond to the questions based on their personal and

professional experiences.

Summary

In Section 2, I documented the literature on the conceptual framework of reducing

the racial disparity with Black youths’ referrals from police, school resource officers, and

parents to The Juvenile Center. I furthered explained recommendations for reducing the

racial disparity and how non-profit organizations have partnered to help with supplying

the youths with the resources and tools to help them evade being referred to The Juvenile

Center. Although I have not identified much literature on the racial disparity on front-end

referrals, it is becoming a more salient topic in the juvenile justice system. In Section 3, I

presented the case study methods and techniques to collect and analyze the data in the

study.

Section 3: Data Collection Process and Analysis

The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division of the DOJ opened an

investigation of the Family Court for potential violation of the rights of youths in The

Juvenile Center and the Family Court systems (Wings, 2019). The DOJ found that police

officers, school resource officers, and family members referred more Black youths to The

Juvenile Center for delinquent acts than White youths. The DOJ also found that Black

youths remained in custody at The Juvenile Center while waiting to be referred to the

Family Court. In contrast, White youths were released to their parents or diverted to

outside partnering organizations (Wings, 2019). The purpose of this study was to examine

and identify the racial disparity of referred Black youths at the front-end intake step of

The Juvenile Center and make recommendations on reducing these disparities. . As The

Juvenile Center progresses, the administrators need to reduce the racial disparity margin

at the front-end intake step (Bertelson, 2021). It is crucial for The

Juvenile Center’s administrators to ensure that concrete policies are in place to guide

police officers and school resource officers on referring Black youths to the facility. It is

also vital that The Juvenile Center’s administrators form partnerships with agencies to

reduce their racial disparity margin (Bertelson, 2021).

In this section I discussed The Juvenile Center’s need for recommendations to

reduce the racial disparity at their front-end intake step. I also discussed the of using

NVivo 12 Software to analyze the data from the questionnaire interviews with police

officers and The Juvenile Center’s administration and staff.

Practice-Focused Questions

The Juvenile Center’s administration did not address the overrepresented Black

youths. The Black youths’ racial disparity margin was higher than the White youths at the

front-end intake step (Wing, 2019). The DOJ found that The Juvenile Center violated the

Black youths’ equal rights in the 14th amendment (Wing, 2019). There were gaps in

scholarly literature committed to addressing police officers, school resource officers, and

juvenile justice officers referring more Black youths than White youths to juvenile justice

facilities. I did not find any literature on juvenile justice administration changing their

policies and procedures to address the racial disparity that Black youths experience

compared to White youths at the front-end intake step of the juvenile justice facilities.

Therefore, I gathered data for this study through interview questions to find

recommendations to the following research question: How can The Juvenile Center

decrease the racial disparity to 35% in the number of youths referred during its front-end

intake step?

Interview Questions

Police Officers Questions

1. Describe how a police officer builds trust and relationships with Black youths in

the communities that the police department serves.

2. Describe improvements that you would like to see added to the police

department’s “community policing” training regarding how police officers

interact with Black youths.

3. If additional “community policing” training was offered in a youth-oriented

facility, what would you want to see included in the training content?

4. Describe the police department’s policy when a police officer encounter Black

youths suspected of committing a delinquent act.

5. Describe a diversion program for Black youths that commit low-level delinquent

acts instead of referring them to The Juvenile Center.

6. Describe a program that school administrators can implement that involves police

officers and troubled Black youths which end goal would pivot them into doing

the right thing.

7. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about ways to decrease racial

disparity for Black youths at the front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center?

Juvenile Justice Staff Questions

1. Describe your current role with the 21st Judicial Family Court and your

familiarity with the terms racial disparity and disproportionate minority contact?

2. Describe your familiarity with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative

model?

3. What efforts have the 21st Judicial Family Court made to address racial disparity

since 2019?

4. Describe suggestions on what can be done by the 21st Judicial Family Court to

address racial disparity at the front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center.

5. Describe how family members can play a crucial role in helping the 21st Judicial

Family Court implement a front-end diversion program.

6. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about ways to reduce the racial

disparity at the front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center?

Alignment to the Research Question

The purpose of this qualitative study was to help find recommendations to reduce the

percentage of racial disparity between Black youths and White youths at the front-end

intake step of The Juvenile Center. I created interview questions that allow the police

officers and juvenile justice staff to give their perspectives on addressing racial disparity

at the front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center. The themes that the interview

questions addressed were as follows:

1. Community empowerment

2. Private and public support

3. Social bonding support

4. Police accountability

5. Juvenile system accountability

6. Cultural awareness training for the police officers and The Juvenile Center

staff The interview questions differentiated which policies and procedures addressed

front-end referrals of Black youths to The Juvenile Center.

Operational Definitions

At-risk behaviors: Behaviors that are categorized into school and mental

perspectives to help identify which settings these behaviors are displayed. From a school

perspective, the following behaviors are red flags for at-risk (tardiness, absenteeism, poor

grades, truancy, dropping out of school, and rebellious attitudes towards school

authorities). The community often presents at-risk behaviors as drug and alcohol use,

gang membership, sexual acting out, and family problems (Capuzzi & Gross, 2019).

At-risk youths: Youths that perform behavior that places them in danger of a

negative future (Capuzzi & Gross, 2019).

Cultural awareness: The awareness of personal biases, the ability to accept

cultural differences, and openness to various worldviews or perspectives (Baltes et al.

2015).

Cultural competency training: The practice of educating individuals about ways to

be more receptive to different cultures, beliefs, practices, and languages. A version of

cultural competency training involves cultural awareness and cultural knowledge

(Whitfield, 2019).

Cultural knowledge: Knowing the norms of diverse cultures and groups regarding

their history, differing worldviews, or opposing viewpoints (Mayfield et al. 2021).

Delinquent acts: Crimes against persons, crimes against property, drug offenses,

and crimes against public order. Punishable delinquency acts are murder, robbery, and

larceny. Alcohol and tobacco use, truancy, and running away from home are the only

delinquent acts that mandate legal intervention and are known as status offenses

(Levesque, 2011).

Juvenile justice system: The set of laws, policies, and procedures designed to

regulate the processing and treatment of youth offenders that violate the law. In addition

to providing legal solutions that protect their interests in situations of conflict or neglect

(Dowd, 2015).

Juvenile justice system accountability: The administrators within the juvenile

justice systems monitor and measure their facilities’ stated goals. The juvenile justice

administrators monitor whether the youths’ quality of life is improving, whether there is a

reduction in the offending of the youths and whether they are creating safer

neighborhoods (Mears and Butts, 2008).

Secure detention spaces: The temporary holding unit for the youths while

awaiting adjudication, disposition, or placement in on-site or off-site youth facilities.

Sources of Evidence

Sources of Data

The first source of data I used was published research and outcomes from The

Family Court 2019 Disproportionate Minority Contract Report (St. Louis Circuit Court,

2020) that provided data trends on the front-end decision point of referred youths to The

Juvenile Center. The second source of data this study collected is qualitative data from

the police officers and The Juvenile Center’s administration and staff regarding Black

youths referred to The Juvenile Center.

The second source of data that I used was the police officers and juvenile staff’s

responses to the interview questions that I created to gather evidence generated for the

PAS. The issues investigated included the police department’s policies and practices for

arresting and referring youths. Other issues under investigation included the needed for

cohesiveness between The Juvenile Center, family members, nonprofit organizations, and

police officers. In addition, the juvenile staff interview questions also gathered data on

their level of commitment to The Juvenile Center’s internal mission to reduce the racial

disparity at the front-end intake step.

Relationship of This Evidence to the Purpose

The relationship of the evidence retrieved from The Family Court 2019

Disproportionate Minority Contract Report (St. Louis Circuit Court, 2020) provided the

data that established whether these areas (sex, race, their charge level, age, and

seriousness of the crimes) contributed to the Black youths’ experience with racial

disparity at the front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center. The interview responses

from the police officers and The Juvenile Center staff provided the data on whether their

actions, policies, procedures, and decision-making skills contributed to a reduction of

racial disparity Black youths experience at the front-end intake step of The Juvenile

Center.

Police officers and juvenile officers were the top referral sources for Black youths

that were referred to The Juvenile Center. The police officers’ response to the interviews

identified whether training, policies, procedures, or outside sources helped reduce the

racial disparity that the Black youths were experiencing at the front-end intake step of

The Juvenile Center. The juvenile administration and staff’s responses determined

whether more training, policies, procedures, or outside resources are needed to identify

front-end reductions for Black youths referred to The Juvenile Center

Published Outcomes and Research

The search portal used to find literature and results related to racial diversity, police

arrests, and referrals to the Juvenile Justice facilities included Criminal Justice Database,

ProQuest Central, ProQuest Ebook, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Public

Administration Abstracts, Sage Journals, Thoreau Multi-Database, Google, Bing, and the

internet. The key search terms included in the scope of the literature review were

•Racial disparity

•Juvenile justice systems

•Disproportionate minority contact

•Police officers

•School resource officers

•St. Louis County Juvenile Center

•21st St. Louis County Family Court

•Community-based approaches

•Juvenile delinquency

The literature review search spanned from the years 2005 to 2021, including

internet sites, blogs, reports, online books, minutes, websites, brochures, peer-reviewed

articles, and journals. I did not subject the terms to filters or controlled terminology and I

used multiple databases to search for key terms.

Evidence Generated for the Administrative Study

Participants

The top referrals sources to The Juvenile Center originate from law enforcement

agency, the school resource officers, other juvenile courts, and juvenile personnel. The

Family Court 2019 Disproportionate Minority Contract Report recorded Ferguson,

Missouri as one of the top ten zip codes in which black youths were administratively

referred to The Juvenile Center. I interviewed nine police officers from the police

department and five juvenile officers from The Juvenile Center for this study. I selected

participants using the following criteria:

1. The police officers’ participation was voluntary.

2. The police officers had first-hand experience with the research topic (referring

Black youths to the juvenile center) and were to talk about it.

3. The police officers worked as a police officer in the St. Louis County, Missouri

area for three years.

4. At least two police officers worked with school resource officers for one year.

5. The Juvenile Center’s staff participation was voluntary.

6. The Juvenile Center’s staff worked directly with the youths in the juvenile facility

or family courts.

7. The Juvenile Center’s staff worked as a juvenile officer for one year.

8. The Juvenile Center’s staff were able to talk about the referral process at the

front-end intake step.

Procedures

Before starting this study, I emailed the Family Court Administrator a written

letter invited The Juvenile Center to partner with my research. The Family Court

Administrator requested that I send a Memorandum of Understanding. I sent the required

Memorandum of Understanding to the 22nd Circuit Court Family Court Administrator to

solidify the partnership agreement for my DPA Study. I also invited police officers to be

a second partner with my DPA Study.

I created an interview guide with a list of topics that I wanted to cover during the

interview. I developed interview questions that were focused and aligned with the data

collection and data analysis of reducing racial disparity of Black youths referred to The

Juvenile Center. The primary method I used was interview questions to collect data from

nine police officers and five juvenile staff members. All questions were written in a

manner so that the participants did not have the option to give one-word responses. I

adjusted the wording on the questions that had ambiguity so that the respondents were

motivated to answer as honestly and completely as possible. I performed a pilot interview

with various family members and friends to determine if the responses were aligned with

the research question. The reader should consider that the responses were subjective, and

the research design was the standard measurement of the data’s credibility. I collected my

primary data by June 15, 2022.

Protections

I did not disclose the identities of the participants in this study. The hard copy data

was locked in a desk drawer, with the recorded data stored on a password protected

external hard drive, locked in a file cabinet, accessible only to myself. The names of the

participants were not identified during the data collection process and were not used

during the data analysis or writing process. Any information that may identify

participants, such as the employers, organizations, or study locations, were not divulged.

I did not use participants’ personal information for any reason outside of this research

study. Instead, all information was generalized to guarantee anonymity for the protection

of all parties involved.

The data will be kept for at least 5 years, as the DPA study protocol requires. The

Juvenile Center had the right to agree to participate in the study project, and I reported to

the partners that Walden Institutional Review Board approved their participation. Also, I

discussed strategies for recruiting and develop working relationship with participants, and

participants had the right to stop the interview process for any reason.

Analysis and Synthesis

I answered the research question by collecting qualitative data from The Juvenile

Center’s staff, and police officers. I interviewed each police officer and juvenile officers

and staff through Zoom video conferencing, got their permission to record the interview

through the Zoom recording technology, and then began the interview. After each police

officer’s interview, I named the recording by the initials of the participants and

downloaded all recording transcripts to an USB flash drive. I repeated the same steps for

The Juvenile Center’s staff and administration but used a second USB flash drive to

download all recording transcripts.

The first step in the analysis was reviewing the transcripts of all participants and

taking notes of the foremost trends. I re-read and manually coded individual transcripts to

determine relevant information and patterns based on the study research question. The

following step was uploading transcribed interviews, and my notes into NVivo 12

Software to determine if the interview questions results were consistent and providing

sufficient information. If information was missing, I went back and viewed the recorded

interviews, if the information was found in the recording, I added the data, and re-

analyzed the data. If the missing data was not in the recorded interviews, I got permission

from the organization to speak with a participant, asked the participant questions to get

the data, added the data, and re-analyzed the data. If there was an outlier that is totally

different, I revisited the participant and got clarification on their response. However, if

the outlier was close to one of the themes, I added the information to that categorical

theme.

I used a thematic data analysis to determine how the relevant data is connected.

Using a thematic analysis helped with analyzing and interpreting patterns along with

coding the data from the transcript. From the secured data, a summary of the results,

without subjective bias, explained the patterns and their relations to one another. The

expectations in qualitative research was that the information was topic specific, and I

used inductive reasoning to analyze the study results. Analysis of the results concluded

with intervention recommendations and summary remarks.

Summary

The study results were presented in a three-page summary report to The Juvenile

Center’s administrators, documenting the study outcomes and recommendations for

action. The study recommendations may lead to the creation and implementation of new

policies and procedures on arresting and referring Black youths or a front-end diversion

program. In Section 3, I presented the case study research methods used to conduct this

study on reducing the racial disparity margin of The Juvenile Center’s front-end intake

step. In Section 4, I reported a summary of the current policies and procedures in place,

lack of community relationships, knowledge on referral criteria, and exclusions of outside

resources that allows the options for Black youths that commit delinquent acts to be

arrested and referred to The Juvenile Center.

Section 4: Evaluation and Recommendations

The Juvenile Center provides safe and secure custody for youths alleged to have

committed an offense in which police bring them within the jurisdiction of the Family

Court (Wing,2019). The police will detain the youths if they believe that the youths

present a danger to themselves or the community. The youths are released to their

parents, referred to the Family Court for a hearing, or given alternative sentencing in a

community setting.

Between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017, The Juvenile Center had delinquency

referral rates of 86.4% Black youths and 11.8% White youths at the frontend intake step

of the juvenile detention office (Wing, 2019). In this study, I examined ways to help The

Juvenile Center’s administration reduce the racial disparity of referred youths by

improving the juvenile office’s front-end intake step. With this qualitative study I aimed

to learn front-end diversion programs for The Juvenile Center. The data collected was

used to answer the practice-focused study question: How can The Juvenile Center

decrease the racial disparity to 35% in the number of youths referred during its front-end

intake step?

Demographics

The participants from the police department were eight males and one female

police officer who work as patrolmen and sergeants. The police officers have worked on

a police force for at least 3 years and with youths for at least 1 year. The second group of

participants from The Juvenile Center were one male and four females staff members

who work as deputy juvenile officers and a group therapist. The Juvenile Center staff

worked with youths in the facility for at least 1 year. The Juvenile Center’s staff were

able to discuss the referral process at the front-end intake step. Only the DJOs were

familiar with the terms racial disparity and DMC.

Sources of Evidence

The study included nine police officers and five deputy juvenile officers who I

interviewed through the Zoom platform. The data was recorded using the Zoom recording

capability and downloaded into the iCloud. After the interview, I transcribed the

interviews onto a Word document and Excel spreadsheet and used NVivo 12 to display

the themes of the data. One specific thing that happened during the interview was that a

DJO mentioned that the police department has a high rate of referrals to The Juvenile

Center. It was unknown to the DJO that police officers were also participants in the study.

Findings and Implications

The research instrument that I used in this study was an online interview. Before I

interviewed the police officers, I went to the police station, introduced myself to the

police officers and sergeant, and gave them some background information on the

interview process. Afterwards, the officers that volunteered gave me a date and time that

they could meet for the interview.

Before I interviewed The Juvenile Center staff, I conducted a Zoom meeting with

the deputy director juvenile officer, and the court administrator to give them an overview

of the interview process. Afterward, the deputy juvenile officers and therapist sent me an

email with the word “consent” and the date and time they would be available for their

interview by Zoom.

Analysis of Data

I completed the recorded interviews; I transcribed each word on a Microsoft Word

document. I reviewed each interview again to ensure there were no errors in the

conversion of the transcripts. I created an Excel spreadsheet with the interview questions,

and recorded keywords or phrases each police officer and juvenile center staff used per

question. I also put the transcribed document into the NVivo-12 database to find the

themes for each question. I asked each police officer and each juvenile center’s staff

questions in the same order. See Table 1 for the themes from the police officers’

responses to the interview questions about reducing racial disparity at the front-end intake

step of The Juvenile Center. The Juvenile Center’s staff responded from their

professional experience and background working with youths in multiple juvenile

settings. See Table 2 for the themes from the juvenile staff responses to the interview

questions on reducing racial disparity the front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center.

Table 1

Reducing Racial Disparity from Law Enforcement

Themes # of participants that

mentioned the themes

Building Trust

Communication 9

Respect 7

Show Emotions 3

Get out of the car 4

Community Policing Improvement

Add More Officers 4

Create Programs 4

Police Training 3

No Changes Needed 2

Youth Facility Training

Youths Come to the Training 7

Train Police About Youths 2

Extra Activities with Youths in Training 2

Staff Speak Positive About of Police 1

Department Policy

Youths Taken to the Station 6

Parents are called 7

F11 Form Completed 6

Discretion of Officers 2

Diversion Programs

Youth Programs 4

Community Service 3

Follow Up with Youths 3

Parents and Police in Training 1

School Programs

More School Resource Officers 6

Police and Youth Programs 3

DARE and Explorer Program 3

Law Enforcement Elective Classes 1

________________________________________________________________________

Table 2

Reducing Racial Disparity from the Juvenile Center

Themes # Participants that

mentioned the theme

Role and Knowledge

of Issue

DJO 4

Not a DJO 1

Familiar with

RD/DMC

Not Familiar with

RD/DMC

Familiar with JDAI

Very familiar 3

Somewhat familiar 1

Less familiar 1

Not familiar 0

Efforts to Address

Racial Disparity

Screening instruments 3

Family Engagement 2

Form Committees 3

Partner with

Organizations

Family Role with

Front-End Referrals

Engage Family for

Help

Partner with

Organization

Educate Parents on

Helping

Mechanisms

Training Staff to

Work with Parents

Police Officer Responses

Question 1 asked the police officers to describe how they build trust and

relationships with Black youths in the communities that they serve. The main themes that

came about from most police officers is to get out of their patrol cars and communicate

with the youths. In addition, when the police officers approach the youths, they should

show that they are sincere in their efforts by treating the youths with respect, being

honest, showing empathy, and having a positive attitude. Participant 1 stated, “that

knowing how to talk to people, don't mislead the person when you are talking to them, try

to have empathy for the person, and to be understanding and respecting youth will help

them to begin to trust us”. Participant 2 said,

The police officers need to interact with the youth to build trust. It is good to

communicate with the youth and bridge the gap between the police officers and

the youths. When an officer approaches a youth and there is some tension

building, they ask questions such as: do you know me, and do I know you? Have

you ever met me before? This a way to start a conversation from the start. Come

to the youth in a positive attitude”

Participants 3,4, and 7 said, “get out the police car and talk to the youths.” Participant 5

stated he needs to know who he is talking to in his sector and get the youths familiar with

and build a rapport. Participant 7 mentioned that it is important to make contact with the

youths, engage in conversations with the youths on good days and rather than when there

is something bad going on. Participant 8 stated that the police officers really do not get

the opportunity to start a conversation with the community. They do not have the

opportunity to establish a rapport with the youth because they are short staff, and RSO

would help if they were in the schools. Participant 9 mentioned,

That police officers need to be able to relate to the community. If you can't relate

to the experience or the calls that they are going to that needs to happen first. The

police officers should remove their badge and show their heart and empathy.

Question 2 asked the police officers to describe improvements they would like to

see added to the police department’s “community policing” training regarding how police

officers interact with Black youths. The main theme is the police officers should plan,

implement, and participate in youth programs and events. Participant 1 said, “that the

police department needs to add more manpower, because being short staffed they don't

have the time to interact with the citizens.” Participant 2 mentioned implementing more

youth programs and getting police involved with the youth clubs, the boys and girls club,

and the YMCA. The police officers can have more events to interact with youths and to

build the bridge between youth and police. Participant 3 said, “the police officers being

able to deal with youths by building relationship for the next generation. Getting involved

with parents and youths and collaborate with the community as a whole. Police should

not help form the youth.” Participants 4 said, “training should include working in other

sectors within their municipality. Participant 8 said, “police officers should go into other

jurisdictions, dressed in plain clothes, and learn the thought process of the youths in those

communities.” Participants 6,7, and 8 said, “the community policing training does not

need any changes, but the police department needs additional funding to add more police

officers.” Participant 6 mentioned that police officers can start events and meet with

community members to find out what they need not what they want.

Question 3 asked the police officers if additional “community policing” training

was offered in a youth-oriented facility to describe what they would like to see included

in the training content. The main theme developed was that youths should be included in

the training with specific requirements. Participant 1 stated that the youths must be

openminded about police officers, be able to have an open dialogue conversation with

endless questions. Participant 2 mentioned that training police officers how to

communicate and interact with youth. The administrators and police chief should

collaborate and implement police training with youth at the youth clubs. Participant 3

stated that the training should teach youths about relationship building and include

extracurricular activities involving youths and police officers. Participant 4 said,

Staff at the youth facility need to speak highly of the police. The youth clubs

should have brochures with all the duties that the police officers perform and keep

the communication about police officers positive so that the community know

what their job really entails.

Participant 5 stated that after community policing training the officers must write a memo

or essay as to why the trainer should release them off training. Participant 5 and 8

specified the DARE program, four-man scramble basketball team, youth participating in

ride-a-longs with police which can give the youth the impression that police officers are

humans too. Participant 7 and 8 talked about having an all-inclusive training with youths,

parents, and police officers over an 8-week period at the youths’ club. The police should

be out of uniform during the training and have topics about root causes for crime,

Question 4 asked the police to describe the police department’s policy when

police officers encounter Black youths suspected of committing low-level delinquent

acts. Participants 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 mentioned that their procedure is to talk to the youths

through questions and conversion, transfer the youths to the station, contact the parent,

complete a referral known as F11form, then release the child to the parent. Participant 7

and 9 stated they use their discretion to determine the root cause of why the youths are

committing delinquent acts and then begin the referral process. Participant 6 said, Talk to

the youths and let them know what they did was a crime but get in touch with the parents

and try to get them to be held accountable for their act. Work with the community to

make sure the child must pay some type of restitution whether it's some type of work or

the mother has to pay restitution.

Question 5 asked the police officers to describe a diversion program for Black

youths that commit low-level delinquent acts instead of referring them to The County

Juvenile Center. The theme response is to refer the youths to the Boys and Girls Club to

participate in a structured program created to address delinquent acts. Participants 1, 2,

and 4, stated that the youths should perform community service for the victim, business,

or the police department or have a follow-up system to contradict former behavior.

Participant 1 said, “bring back the scared straight program where the youth that have

gotten in trouble multiple times can go into a jail or facility such as workhouse or and get

scared into not wanting to come into a correctional facility.” Participant 3 mentioned that

they could use the Boys and Girls club and have a structured program where they could

add to society instead of rebelling against it. Participant 6 said, “get the parents involved

to find out what is the root cause of why the youths are acting in the manner that are

causes delinquent acts”. Participant 8 replied that there needs to be a similar program like

Adopt A Block just for youth. A group of ministers rented an apartment in the

community where they held events every 3 or 4 weeks. They have an open-door policy

where community members can visit whenever they feel like it, they can participate in

events and get food to eat or just talk to the chaplains. Participant 9 mentioned Boy and

Girls Club should allow the police department to partner with them as a first stage stop

like three times a week to so youths can clear their minds.

Question 6 asked the police officers to describe a program that school

administrators can implement that involves police officers and troubled Black youths

whose end goal would pivot them into doing the right thing. The main theme was to have

more school resource officers in the schools and allow on-duty police officers to work

within the schools to demonstrate that they are there for interaction and support.

Participants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 felt that school resource officers need to be in the

schools. Participant 2 also stated that the schools need to implement a mentoring service

with police officers coming into the schools and talk to the youths that are having issues

at the school. This type of program will help for police officers to build a rapport with the

youths. Participant 3 stated that the police can come into the schools and have programs

such as balling with the cops, chess with the cops, or mentoring youths to teach them how

to work as a team. Participant 4 said, “incorporate a class into the school’s curriculum

that teaches the job and details about first responders and allow the students to receive

credit for the class”. Participant 5 mentioned that the DARE Program needed to be

revamped and reactivated and have more than one school resource officer in the school,

because “it takes a village to raise a child”. Participant 6 replied that the police

department can start another Explorer Program and school resource officers need to be

more active and approachable with the youths in the school instead of just being in the

building. Participant 8 revealed that when they were in school the school resource officers

kept the names of youths that were acting out in a notebook. Then the school resource

officer would change hats to become a social worker to help with the root cause of why

the youths were acting out in school. Participant 8 stated that police officers could go to

the school, read books, and have real genuine conversations with the youths.

Question 7 asked if there is anything else the police officers would like to tell me

about ways to decrease racial disparity for Black youths at the front-end intake step of

The Juvenile Center. The response themes are split between how police officers and

parents could play a part in reducing the racial disparity issue. Participant 1 said, There

should be in the home teaching on how the youths should respect themselves, respect

others, and deescalate situation with words. Parent must take responsibility for their

children’s actions, a community class for residents to learn how to interact with police.

Police need to learn how to communicate and treat youths.

Participant 2 said, “that we as a community need to decrease our bias ways of thinking

and increase communication and involvement in the community and schools.” Participant

3 said, “quit talking about racial disparity, teach that there is no racial disparity and that

every child should be inclusive. Parents would not have to discuss racial disparity with

their children if it does not exist.” Participant 4 said, “reprogram the parents’ thought

process about police. People need to tell others that they need to own up to their

interactions with the police if the conflict was on the person’s part and stop badmouthing

and blaming the police.” Participant 5 mentioned that parents should stop the delinquent

act when the child first commits the act instead of waiting until it gets out of hand.

Participant 6 said,

Parents need to understand that police officers are in the community to help as

well. Police needs to get it across to the community that they are here to help. The

community need to bring back that it takes a village to raise a child theory.

Participant 7 stated,

Once the youths are at a juvenile center or a lock up facility an officer should

come to the youth and talk to them about what caused them to be held in the facility. This

type of behavior could help with recidivism. Having a church ministry is a good ideal just

with police officer being the boots on the ground.” Participant 7 included how the media

portrays the worst of the police and that they should show the positive: “Music and news

really make it challenging to make thing better for police officers just based on the image

that is being put out in society. The police should treat the youth as though they are

family.”

Juvenile Center Staff Responses

Question 1 asked The Juvenile Center’s staff to describe their current role with the

21st Judicial Family Court and their familiarity with the terms racial disparity and

disproportionate minority contact. Three juvenile staff were deputy juvenile officers, one

deputy juvenile officer manager, and one was a group therapist. The deputy juvenile

officers were able to define racial disparity and disproportionate minority contact and

their involvement in implementing the JDAI process. The group therapist could not

define racial disparity or disproportionate minority contact but participated in a group

meeting discussing implementing the JDAI processes. Each juvenile center’s staff

member worked with the youths as they came through the front-end intake step.

Participant 1 is a deputy juvenile officer that connects the family to resources following

court expectation and probation, and with racial disparity and DMC. Participant 2 is a

deputy juvenile officer that supervise children that needs ongoing informal and formal

court supervision making recommendation at court and family resources, and familiar

with racial disparity and DMC. Participant 3 is the manager of the deputy juvenile

officers and assistant manager and is familiar with racial disparity and disproportionate

minority contact. Participant 4 is a deputy juvenile officer and initial review officer who

receives the lower-class felonies and misdemeanors and is familiar with racial disparity

and DMC. Participant 5 is a group therapist and is not familiar with racial disparity and

DMC.

Question 2 asked The Juvenile Center’s staff member to describe their familiarity

with the JDAI model. The main theme is that the juvenile staff worked on committees

established to implement and measure whether The Juvenile Center was incompliance

with the JDAI standards. Participant 1 was on the committee that looked at all the ways

diversion can be implemented instead of a restricted environment. The DJO was also on

Results Count Committee which looks at all of the data for the juvenile facility.

Participant 2 has been creating policy on JDAI and helped with implementing the risk

level instrument. Participant 3 is very familiar with JDAI and their team has to make sure

that the recommendations that the right youth are held in the center and the returning

youth could be held in the community. Also, working to make sure the juvenile facility

core strategies keep advancing the work of JDAI while chairing the alternative committee

that works to link families to seek diversion programs on their own. Participant 4 said,

“the facility has JDAI material posted throughout the building, it is discussed at every

meeting and talked about regularly on certain committees.” Participant 5 helped the

juveniles with equitable setting for the youths and their diversion programs. Also,

participates on the Results Count Committee, and working with youths staying in school

or graduating from high school.

Question 3 asked The Juvenile Center’s staff what efforts the 21st Judicial Family

Court has made to address racial disparity since 2019. The two main themes are that The

Juvenile Center collaborates with community partners to prevent the police officers from

arresting the youths. The Juvenile Center’s staff uses a Juvenile Detention Assessment

Tool (JDAT) to determine the risk level score of the youths referred to The Juvenile

Center. The JDAT helps the deputy juvenile officers to determine whether the child

should be held in the court system or returned to their parents. Participant 1 said,

the juvenile facility uses the JDAT screening instrument when the youths are

referred to the detention center to determine their score will be. The facility also

added family engagement events and began working with community partners

and agencies for their diversion program.

Participant 2 also said, the facility implemented a risk level score instrument to

determine whether the child should be held in the court system. The juvenile

officers are participating on core strategies committees, monthly meeting on how

to meet the JDAI goals, and looking to work with community partners to work

with the general presentation on data on different stages of the youth in the

juvenile facility.”

Participant 3 mentioned, the juvenile officers are on the different JDA Collaborative

committees. The juvenile facility created a response grid regarding technical

violations and incentive grids for the youths to try and prevent technical

violations. The juvenile officers are addressing violations in an equitable manner,

and they revamped how the truancy calls are handled. The Juvenile Center are

diverting the truancy calls to external programs instead of bringing them in and

meeting with their parents and giving them an informal.

Participant 4 stated, “The Family Court instilled it into the workers. At one time they

were forced to adopt JDAI because of the lawsuit. The standard is implanted but the

participant doesn't believe that it is gospel.” Participant 5 mentioned the collaboration

work where the juvenile facility is collaborating with 2 school principals to be on the

Results Count Committee. From this partnership The Juvenile Center is working to

increase student graduation to deter youths from committing delinquent acts. The Family

Court has implemented a diversion program where the DJO are in the schools to help

prevent youths from committing delinquent acts.

Question 4 asked The Juvenile Center’s staff to describe suggestions on what can

be done by The Family Court to address racial disparity at the front-end intake step of

The Juvenile Center. The major theme is educating the police officers on The Juvenile

Center’s and The Family Court’s on their JDAI efforts and their measures for reducing

racial disparity. Participant 1 said, “educating the police and community agencies…… to

teach them what The Juvenile Center’s efforts on addressing the racial disparity.”

Participant 2 stated,

The Alternatives to Detention committee created other options for the youths

instead of police officers sending in referrals. Implement programs with reporting

center where youths can go after school for detention instead of being housed in

The Juvenile Center. The Family Court can educate law enforcement and the

schools on what The Juvenile Center is doing with JDAI. This will allow law

enforcement and schools to be able to address how to reduce with the racial

disparity on their ends.”

Participant 3 said, educate law enforcement on what The Juvenile Center is doing as

far as their JDAI efforts. Inform law enforcement of the data that is collected

and that there needs to be an alternative to referring the youths to The Juvenile

Center. Also,

inform law enforcement that the youth needs should be addressed in the

community and not inside of The Juvenile Center. Sharing data with law

enforcement to have control of their front door because they do not have any way

to control who comes into their facility. Connect the community partner with the

police officers and they can transfer the child there instead of The Juvenile

Center.

Participant 4 said, diversity training for the police officers every year, follow up training

every year, and have situational training. When it comes dealing with the youth

in a county neighborhood the police officers are not familiar with the area that

they work in and don't know anything about the youths that live in that area.

Also, the juvenile staff come from other areas should have diversity training.

Participant 6 said, “the police officers should make sure that it the charge is sufficient, it

is the trainer in The Family Court to educate the police on what is sufficient for The

Juvenile Center to detain the youths.

Question 5 asked the juvenile staff to describe how family members can play a

crucial role in helping The Family Court implement a front-end diversion program. The

key theme is family members should be allowed at the discussion table to give their input

on the determining factors of what would be the best succession plan for their youths.

Participants 1, 2, 4, and 5 said, “parents should have a voice at the table to discuss how

The Juvenile Center should handle the youths that are brought into the front-end office by

police officers. Participant 1 also stated, “The parents know their child better than

anyone, so engaging the family to feel like they are part of the process instead of The

Juvenile Center dictating what should be done with the youths.” Participants 3 said,

“increase parent engagement with the staff meetings.” Participant 5 said, The Juvenile

Center is training staff to be able to use the right language and feeling comfortable

discussing delicate conversations. The training consists of listening sessions which

informs the staff on how to bring families to the table. Participant 4 stated, “parents need

to reach out to the police officers, schools, and The Juvenile Center when they first see

the sign of trouble. Parents need to stop stating that their child is bad and be more active

and honest with what is going on with the youth.” Participants 3, 4 and 5 mentioned,

“parents are not educated about the resources that The Juvenile Center and schools have

for the families.” Question 6 asked the juvenile staff if there is anything else they would

like to tell me about ways to reduce the racial disparity at the front-end intake step of The

Juvenile Center’s. The main theme is partnering with community organizations that will

create summer camps, crafts classes, community centers, sports, and other extra

curriculum activities. Also, introduce them to successful professionals who can educate

them on being a product of a low-income community. Participant 1 stated, “The Juvenile

Center needs more community programs for the youths.” Participant 2 said, “Community

Partners would be great, but they keep running into roadblocks.” Participant 3 said,

“racial disparity is their biggest challenge for The Juvenile Center. The juvenile officers

are on board with what The Juvenile Center is trying to do to reduce racial disparity.

There is always work to do in the RED work with what they do as an organization. If the

police officers can prescreen the youths, then they can make the determination if the

youths will stay.” Participate 4 stated, “social programs such as summer camps, crafts

classes, community center, sports, and extra curriculum activities. Introduce professionals

that have come from their neighborhoods and communities. Those successful

professionals should come back to the community and talk to the children.

Interpretation of Findings

This study is beneficial in bringing out data that answered the research question.

The research shows that police officers have the most crucial duty in helping to reduce

the racial disparity of Black youths referred to The Juvenile Center. Also, family

members play a key role in helping The Juvenile Center's staff determine what is best for

the youths referred to the front-end office. Based on all the responses from the police

officers and juvenile officers, using a holistic approach while also educating all parties

involved will help meet the goal of reducing the racial disparity percentage at the

frontend intake step by 35 percent.

Participants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, deemed that communication is the essential aspect

of building relationships and partnerships. Whereas a healthy communication style makes

it easy to build trust between police officers, juvenile staff, parents, and the youths.

Participant 9 felt that it is imperative for police from rural areas and different

demographics to know how to communicate with the youths and their parents.

Participants 4 and 9 recommended that parents, school staff, and community members

speak positively about police officers to the youths in the community.

All the police officers and juvenile officers expressed the need for police officers

to receive training on when it is appropriate to refer youths to the juvenile facility, how to

deal with youths in the community, and diversity training regarding Black youths.

Participants 2, 5, and 8 believe that police officers lack the training to listen to the youths

and decipher the necessary details in the conversation, which leads to a misunderstanding

of facts. Participant 6 felt it is essential to train police officers to be in tune with what the

youths are communicating because their minds work differently than adults. The police

officers discussed the importance of community organizations being a part of improving

the community policing process. Participant 1 felt that there needed to be a martial arts

program that teaches the youths’ self-discipline, self-respect, and self-worth. School

administrations has more of the power to work with school resource officers to build

relationships with children and parents.

The police officers discussed front-end diversions for youths arrested for

delinquent acts or misdemeanors. Community service with the victims, or the youths can

teach youths more about work ethics than being held in The Juvenile Center. If the police

officers have more education on what delinquent acts will cause youths to be held, it is

possible to have youths’ complete community service hours at the police station instead

of being referred to The Juvenile Center. When discussing if there was any additional

information the police officers wanted to contribute to the interview, their responses

mentioned recommendations for the youths' parents.

The Juvenile Center’s staff, when asked about their familiarity with the JDAI, all

the staff responded that they were familiar with JDAI. The Juvenile Center has worked

extremely hard on creating committees and training their staff to reduce the racial

disparity in the facility. Participant 3 makes sure that the recommendations are suitable

for the youths in the facility and when the youths return to the community. Also,

Participant 3 monitors The Juvenile Center’s core strategies to make sure they are

advancing the work of JDAI and chairs the alternative committee that links families to

their diversion program. Participant 5 has an equitable setting in The Juvenile Center and

in their diversion programs.

The Juvenile Center's staff responded to their efforts to address racial disparity by

having family engagement and collaborating with community partners and agencies. The

juvenile officers also have core strategy meetings and monthly meetings on how to meet

JDAI goals. The Juvenile Center's staff also works with the Responsive Grid that

measures technical and incentive violations. The objective of the Responsive Grid is to

prevent technical violations. The Juvenile Center’s diversion programs allows the DJOs

to get in front of the issues when the youths get into trouble. The Juvenile Center brought

on a group therapist that works with the youths, families and schools. Although the group

therapist is in the community planning family engagement events called Family Game

Night there was no mention of collaboration with police officers. The Juvenile Center’s

staff recommended that there should be more structured reporting centers for the youths

in the community.

Unanticipated Limitations or Outcomes

The Police Department is short-staffed due to not having a sufficient number of

officers to effectively dedicate time to participate in community policing. Also, due to

funding cuts, programs such as DARE Program and Explorer program are not functional

even though they have the decorated cars and materials to accommodate the programs.

Funding cuts have stopped the department from hiring more police officers, which stops

school resource officers from being in every school. Primarily the programs and the

manpower it would take to help reduce racial disparity are limited.

Implications Resulting From Findings

For the Client Organization

The Juvenile Center should have working meetings with the parents and families

of the youths detained or arrested by police officers. The Juvenile Center’s staff should

gather all the facts of the incident and invite the youths and their families to participate in

the meeting to help build relationships. Also, The Juvenile Center's staff must be ready to

meet those parents where they are at the time of the meeting. These meetings must be

flexible for the parents and families to benefit from these collaborations. The sessions

should have a representative from the appropriate organizations for the resources the

parents and families need. The police and juvenile officers will be the point person to

follow up to ensure the resources were used by the parents and families while gathering

other resources from outside organizations. Lastly, the police departments need to bring

on a social worker or contract with individual social workers to work with them on their

juvenile cases.

Positive Social Change

This study has implications for change because 88 municipalities and 10

unincorporated municipalities fall under St. Louis County demographics. The result of

this study shows that the prominent people involved in decreasing the racial disparity at

the front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center are not in sync with one another. The

Juvenile Center may not handle all the juvenile cases for the 98 municipalities, however,

the police officers for those municipalities that are within The Juvenile Center’s footprint

should be required to collaborate. These changes will provide the communities with the

staffing needed to provide the necessary community resources and community

engagement required to make progress on reducing the racial disparity. The police and

juvenile officers will have the opportunity to learn the culture of the communities, build

trust with the residents, train officers on the JDAT. The results of this study will allow a

streamlined process for getting the families and youths the services and resources that

they need to reduce the racial disparity degree of the Black youths referred to The

Juvenile Center.

Recommendations

Based on the data I collected, this study was able to generate some exciting

outcomes. I would recommend that The Juvenile Center create a list of protocols which

includes the JDAT screening instrument, so that when the police officers arrest the

youths, they can determine whether the youths will be held or released from the juvenile

facility. I did notice a gap in the responses of The Juvenile Center's staff; there were no

recommendations for collaboration with organizations for diversion at the front-end

intake step. I would also recommend that this study be used with a police department with

a larger jurisdiction within Missouri. One of the patterns that emerged from both

organizations that I interviewed is training for the police officers to teach them to build

better relationships with the youths and know when to refer youths to The Juvenile

Center or an outside agency. I would recommend the police department bring on reserve

police officers or partner with neighboring police departments that patrol in St. Louis

County. One of the primary things found in this study is that parents are not involved in

either process until after the youths are arrested or referred to The Juvenile Center. I

recommend that a police substation be housed in the local youth organizations and clubs

with a social worker on staff to provide the parents with the resource needed immediately

Training and education are essential to reducing racial disparity at the front-end

intake step. The youths are committing misdemeanor and felony crimes, but each person

or entity involved is not educated on the innerworkings of the juvenile justice system. I

would recommend that the state of Missouri hold annual mandatory training workshops

for police officers, juvenile officers, and security officers centered around JDAI,

community policing, being school resource officers, and diversion programs. Lastly, I

would recommend the State of Missouri evaluate quarterly the racial disparity data to

determine whether the collaboration of the police officers and juvenile officers is

benefiting the youths. If the numbers are not reduced based on The Family Court

Disproportionate Minority Contact Report, the State of Missouri should be the change

agent to request the funding that local organizations need to join the collaboration.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

This study had a few strengths that was put in place. The objective was to

interview five to eight police officers and deputy juvenile officers from each

organization. However, the police department had seven officers and two sergeants who

agreed to participate in the interview. The Juvenile Center had three deputy juvenile

officers, the manager of deputy juvenile officers and a group therapist that agreed to

participate in the interview. The strengths of having middle management employees and

the group therapist interview allowed the study to get responses from a supervisor point

of view and evidence-based point of view. I recommend doing qualitative research with

parents and social workers to see if there is a correlation.

Summary

After conducting interviews with nine police officers and five juvenile facility

employees, I gathered enough data to provide sufficient evidence to answer the research

question. From the data collected, I concluded that the four important components needed

to reduce the racial disparity at the front-end intake step of The Juvenile Center are the

youths, parents, police officers, and juvenile officers. The specific theme is that the

parents and police officers need training and education about understanding and

communicating with the youths. The Juvenile Center has a process to reduce racial

disparity at the front-end intake step, but it is not shared with the main outside referral

source. In Section 5, I described my plans to disseminate the work to The Juvenile

Center. I clarified the audiences and venues I will use to disseminate the PAS to a broader

audience. Also, my summary will have a concluding statement about the PAS.

Section 5: Dissemination Plan

Before the study The Juvenile Center agreed to receive the results as they apply to

helping the organization reduce the racial disparity regarding Black youths referred to the

juvenile facility. My deliverable to The Juvenile Center as my client is a plan with

recommendations.

PAS Deliverable Described

I will be providing to The Juvenile Center the plan that I have prepared with the

problem, findings, results, and recommendations attached (Appendix B). I will visit The

Juvenile Center to meet the juvenile officers and answer any questions they may have. I

will also deliver the same plan to the police department and remain there for any

questions the police officers may have.

Clarify the Audience(s) Appropriate for Dissemination

The audiences appropriate for dissemination are the family court administrator,

chief juvenile officer, police officers, sergeants, deputy juvenile officers, juvenile

officer’s manager, and group therapist. The participants are employees with the police

department or The Juvenile Center.

Summary and Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, I recommend that The Juvenile Center offer

education and training on JDAI and JDAT to the police officers that refer youths to their

facility. I also recommend a diversion plan that allows the police officers to access the

youth, have an alternative meeting location where parents and the arrested youths and

determine whether their act accumulate enough points on the JDAT. The results showed

that community-driven programs and events police officers spearhead that involve the

youths constitute a significant need within the community. The only way to implement

intercity policing collaboration is for more federal and state funding for community

policing programs.

Students also viewed