Status Offenders in the Juvenile Court

Abstract

Prior research has suggested that female status offenders are often treated more harshly than male status offenders in juvenile court processing. This finding is often explained by the traditional role perspective which suggests that the juvenile court is attempting to protect the sexuality of girls. In addition, there is theoretical and empirical evidence that the effect of gender may vary by race/ethnicity. This study examines the joint effects of gender and race/ethnicity in the adjudication of status offenders. The findings suggests that Native American boys are the most likely to be adjudicated followed by Black girls and Hispanic girls. Examination of the treatment of girls separately found that White females were the least likely to be adjudicated and Hispanic girls were significantly more likely than White girls to be adjudicated. For males, Native Americans, followed by Hispanic males, were the most likely to be adjudicated. Implications of the results are further discussed.

Engendering the Evidence Base: A Critical Review of the Conceptual and Empirical Foundations of Gender-Responsive Interventions for Girls’ Delinquency

“…Other types of gender non-conforming behavior that fall under the category of status offenses also receive harsher sanctions from parents, schools and courts when committed by girls as compared to boys [39][40][41], in concert with the trend toward "up-criming" of girls' misbehavior more generally [1,35,105]. Moreover, these effects may be exacerbated by race, with black and Hispanic girls receiving even harsher consequences than their white counterparts [106]. The possibility that gender-role nonconformity is a factor is suggested by research demonstrating that gender atypicality accounts for the relationship between abuse and PTSD amongst SMS youth [107].…”

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Police Handling of Juvenile Arrests

“…The findings of this study contribute to the literature on racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system by focusing on an early stage in the decision-making process and by broadening the geographic scope of past studies (Duran & Posadas, 2013; Freiburger & Burke, 2011; Guevara, Boyd, Taylor, & Brown, 2011; Moore & Padavic, 2010). The findings highlight the way race and ethnicity influence postarrest decision making for less serious charges and point to the ongoing need to strive for equitable treatment of youth.…”

“…Black girls compared with White girls are more likely to be recommended for formal processing (Bishop et al, 2010) and receive harsher dispositions, including commitment to correctional facility and transfer to adult court (Moore & Padavic, 2010). Hispanic girls also experience more severe dispositions such that they are more likely to be found delinquent than White girls even after accounting for important individual and case characteristics (Freiburger & Burke, 2011). These findings are consistent with the notion that intersecting subordinate identities may create a cumulative disadvantage for members of racial and ethnic minority groups (Samuels & Ross-Sheriff, 2008).…”

The Impact of Victimization, Mental Health Problems, and Disabilities on Juvenile Justice Processing: Does Gender Matter?

“…Studies have found that females enjoy leniency compared to males, especially for delinquent offenses (Bishop & Frazier, 1992, 1996Evangelist et al, 2017;Johnson & Scheuble, 1991;Maggard et al, 2013) while others have found that females are treated more harshly than males, particularly for status and "bootstrapping" offenses 1 (Bishop & Frazier, 1996;Chesney-Lind, 1977). These relationships are sometimes complicated by race, with some studies finding that girls from racial and ethnic minority groups do not benefit from the leniency afforded to white girls (Freiburger & Burke, 2011).…”