Race, Probation Violations, and Structured Secure Detention Decision Making in Three Jurisdictions

Abstract

The relationships between race and probation violations with preadjudication secure detention decision and detention hearings are examined in three jurisdictions in a Midwestern state that use a detention screening instrument. Interpretations of consensus theory and the racial or symbolic threat thesis with an emphasis on race stereotyping serve as the theoretical background for the study. The results reveal race to be influential in detention decisions in one jurisdiction, while involvement in probation violations is associated with the initial detention decision in all three jurisdictions. Implications for future research and for assessing whether the structuring of detention decision-making results in greater equality in detention proceedings for minority youth relative to White youth are discussed.

The Influence of Offender Race, Risk Level, and Participant Emotion on Juvenile Probation Case Judgments

“…It is important to note that participants who had information indicating the youth was of a moderate risk level were not influenced by their emotions or the offender's race. This supports other researchers and activists, who argue that the presence of risk information appears to reduce the impact of biasing emotion and offender race effects (Leiber & Boggess, ). Our results support the increased use of standardized risk assessments in juvenile case judgments by judges, attorneys, and probation officers.…”

“…Recently, advocates for juvenile justice reform have encouraged the utilization of standardized risk assessment measures (Vincent, Guy, Perrault, & Gershenson, ). Indeed, several research agencies, such as the National Research Council, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention emphasize the importance of risk and need assessment tools to ensure proper placements and dispositions for juvenile offenders (Leiber & Boggess, ; Vincent et al., ). The risk–need–responsivity (RNR) framework that guides most community correction programs emphasizes the importance of taking criminogenic needs and individual characteristics into account when designing rehabilitation plans for juvenile offenders that could influence responsivity to treatment (Andrews & Bonta, , ).…”

“…Agencies also recommend the use of standardized risk assessments to ensure consistency in juvenile detention decisions (Leiber & Boggess, ) thereby reducing the impact of racial biases of decision makers evaluating minority youth (U.S. Department of Justice, ). Indeed, research examining aggregate data has shown that the use of risk assessments not only reduces the overall number of youth detained, but also produces more equitable treatment for minority youth (Leiber & Boggess, ). For example, in Multnomah County, Oregon, prior to the use of risk assessments, Black and Hispanic youth received 25% of the referrals for detentions, whereas White youth received 13% of the referrals.…”

A hidden cost of convenience: Disparate impacts of a program to reduce burden on probation officers and participants

“…However, individuals with lighter skin tones appeared to have an increased likelihood of having their probation revoked. While there are disparities in who gets violated, Leiber and Boggess (2012) and Bechtold, Monahan, Wakefield, and Cauffman (2015) showed that minorities were no more likely to receive a more punitive outcome after a probation violation than their White counterparts.…”

Understanding the Link Between Race/Ethnicity, Drug Offending, and Juvenile Court Outcomes

“…As stated previously in the text, one of the purposes of these risk/needs assessment instruments is to produce more equitable treatment of minority youth in juvenile court proceedings. While some prior research has shown that the use of such tools may reduce racial/ethnic bias in decision making, other studies indicate that racial/ethnic effects to the disadvantage of minority youth still emerge (Leiber & Boggess, 2012; Maggard, 2015). Recall that in the present research, racial/ethnic effects were found even after controlling for the year of the referral and corresponding urban/rural distinction.…”