II IEEEEEE - o.- .LEELEEIEE EEEITEEE‘IEIEI EIEEE EEEIEEI EIIEEIELI' LrPi~,_2'TLL‘ ’1L qmyf,,,y1m~g.§,2 EEEEEfl‘W LE’LILLEELLE' » 2L2’T’2-2--.:L:;t22:~:=uIsE" '2‘E'3222.2".E.‘>‘“ LL:"I..LE2 ’L'EEEL‘LEE ELLE ELL 52 LuzLL'LLL2.;2'7'»vii-LLL-LL2a.:LLLLLLL-L.2226 ' L3“ 2 . 2;, . ;: :‘EL’LLL :2:L"I922.},‘2L2-.As::"£‘~-i’L’:2‘1‘ 22.2:L:LLL223?3.:1;2:;L~-' L. L. L LE 2 22‘2'222 ‘EEEEE' ‘ ‘jLLL‘L :2“; LL1‘s!L211:2L232LLL2‘LLLLLa:L 2; ' 2 ------ fiW'E" ”EfiwwwmfififiwLw“ 2 LEE' ,L; mg) E .LE , sz ~ -. 2‘E-:EEE'1:~LE.- IEE'IEEEEL‘ EEEEEEEE 2E‘H‘EE' EEE‘E' EEEEEIE‘ .{E‘nh E In“; ”L155. #5 EEIEEEEEI II|EE:EEE HEL :LEL'E Fl} E.‘ IEEE .EE! I? kg“ his: 33]! 3:14;! IEE EEJEE‘LE‘EE LELEL' LL" LEE'EE’EE‘E' EEE ‘LLL EIL'IL ILLELEL L L E ELLE I I EEI5' E El EEEEEEEEEEEEELEEEEELE E E LLII E'LEL 2.: EEE E'EIL EEE I EXILE LILLLEEEEEEE "Efw EEE EEL" EEEE‘I' EEEEEEEEEEEEELLIILEEE «- {I [LEEELLLEL E'EEELEE: ”LII! ,EE “{1}; Egg: I H LIE, EEEEEIEEEEEE EM. Eéi‘v S . EM? E . EEL‘EEE ,,,,,,,, EEE 'E 2' ,1": .- III LILLEE‘LIIEIEII IEE'E'EE E“ EE EEEEEEELEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEE EL‘EIH'EELEEE’EEEE ‘EEEEEEu‘gaI EELEIELEEEEEEEE‘IE’ LE “2:“ WI WEE EEEE EiEEEEE EIH‘ IE EEIEEEIEI EIIE'EE E; IEEE‘;E,{ 3E EEEIE EEE *EEEEEELEEEEELE;1EEEE} E EEE'EEEEEE LLLMUEIEIL ILLILLLLIIEEEE‘ILLLL L EL’ELI ‘IEE 'EEE IIIEEEE 'EEI E‘ “E “I EEEIEEEE 'E'EEEEIILIh- ELE- LE 22:: '1" 2'L'IE I \‘LEEE H II {E L'IIE'E' 2”! 2M ., ELE L 2 LL LL2 LL22 ”22222 . LL LLLILILLELLE IELEEJ MI ”ELLEEE L “22mm” LL22: «III. ML , IIEE E EI IE‘EEE » EFL-L; E‘ELL 3'! EL E: LEfiL‘IIEEEELE ‘EEE' ILLLI‘LL‘ '_L‘L LLE: I’HLE EiELE EEI EEIEEEEE EEEEEEE. I’ I! “h EEEEEE 'lfi EgzéiuzfllI Eh Sf ELEE' EIIIILLL [E‘Em EE EEEEEEE‘E EEEEEE 'EEILE' :LEEEEI EEEEEiz IEII [11 ( EEéE ”ELIE E‘AEEE' LEE: é: LIEIEEEIEEEAI‘EE ME“ 1‘ IiIEEEEEEEE IEIEEI EE» EE’I at: EEEEEEEEE 5E :EEEEfSEI‘EIIEEEE @211? E". 31 .' 2 EEEEEEEE'TEEE 5 EEE LLLLLLLLL L2L2LLLLLE L32 ELL ELLLLLL LEE LLLEL‘EL LLLELEEJE'IE 'EEIE LE2 2E3;LL;E-2= :- 3:2. 222 EL ELELLLLELLLEI 2L..LLLL LLL‘ELL L, M ILL . 2' 2 LL .LEEIL2 LL LL LLLL ELLLELI ‘EL ' I ‘EEE LIEE LEE E. EELIE‘IEEE’EEIEEEIIEEE EEE" EEEEILLEELLLELELEE LEE: E +2 ILE LL LIL EE 2 'LLL ”LEE NW” EELEIEEEL ‘53-" i: -' ‘1. EL ‘5.»1‘? *LEEEE‘IIE EEEEEEEEEIEEEEIEEEEEEEEEEEE . , 3 . LII} ”LI L.: 'E LB! t... E EE 5 “ EEEE " EEEELEL LL'LI; ENE EELLIEEELEEEIL‘I IEEEEELEEEEEEILLLEEEEEEEIEEEE E LE 32:2: .‘I LILE‘EEEE' .IIILLLLLLLL;LLLL‘LLLIL’LLELE EEEEELL'.LEEE'LEL’LLLLL." ‘ L.LLn E [ENE”EIWE‘EEWNEEE EEHHMIEELEEE; ';E L- 2 ELI 2. EIIEEL'ELE IIELE .atL-‘L - . - x’izé' L E ' -' -.- u ' -m—n'o—v v. v v ...- -- r E E E ILL... III ELELLLL LEIEIELEEEILELIEI L ' LLEELLILLLEILILILLELILLLL; I2 “ENE EEEEEVEE m - -fi , _ - “‘4. ‘ ‘m...__..-‘~:_. _~ 4.. . ‘- ”-5 o . .- u m“.‘* ‘-:-- o..- «r. ~ fl...— —.. ,. n M- ’w o - “W cm .._4 ”—4-. ,J'..."";. W .._._.v.——.... “"" -- .. w-.- ..—- w .——w ”fig W WE ‘ELEEEEEII E2 I ' ' IIIIIL EEEEEEEEEEE‘IEEIE IILII EE ‘.._.——— I__..,-—.—.u.-.# . — O o .. »-_... 1.1::ka ' Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled “e’”*i crlins Between Fffender and Offense Characteristics and the ity of Placements for C I 4' '7 3“ state nerds presented by Joanne Belhnap has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Criminal Justice " ~- “7 degree in Science Q/MW ( Aajor professor anuary 5, 19c3 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES m RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OFFENDER AND OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE SEVERITY OF PLACEMENTS FOR STATE WARDS BY Joanne Belknap A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1983 ABSTRACT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OFFENDER AND OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE SEVERITY OF PLACEMENTS FOR STATE WARDS BY Joanne Belknap This study was guided by the labeling theory and proposed to determine whether certain characteristics of state wards in- fluence the severity of their sentences. Information was col- lected on the 1,412 youths who became state wards in one state during an 18 month time period between 1978-1979. The indepen- dent variables included the legal characteristics: seriousness of offense and prior record, and the extralegal characterics: race, sex, age, family status, and the county of commitment. The dependent variable, the type of placement, was dichotomized into state institutions and less severe placements. The study found that significantly harsher sentencing for older and non- white youths resulted only in one of the five largest counties. The remaining counties had no significant differences in the sentencing for the various independent variables. Thus, the major finding is that county and policy differences significant- ly affect the severity of sentencing of state wards: apparently resulting in discriminatory practices. This is dedicated to Merry Morash whose frbfihdship, support, patience, and intelligence were merely essential for its completion. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM........... II. RHE LITERATURE REVIEW. III. THE METHODOLOGY....... IV. THE FINDINGS.......... V. THE DISCUSSION........ APPENDIX...................... BIBLIOGRAPHYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Page 27 58 65 78 88 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM A: THE INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to determine which characteristics of juvenile state wards and their offenses are related to the severity of their placements. The study will' describe the general characteristics of the state ward population, and in addition, will relate their personal and offense characteristics to the decision about whether to place them in a state training school or in a less severe placement, The study subjects included all juveniles who became state wards in a large Midwestern state during an eighteen month time period from 1978 to 1979. The research is guided by the labeling perspective. It proposes to discern whether state wards with certain characteristics are more likely to be ”labeled“ more harshly by the juvenile justice system. More specifically, it proposes to determine whether extralegal and legal characteristics are related to placement in training schools as opposed to less severe placements such as foster homes, community placements, or probation. 1. DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS Types of Characteristics Those characteristics that describe the state wards and that may be related to their dispositions are divided into two CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM categories. These categories are legal and extralegal (or formal and informal). The legal characteristics are those which most people would agree are pertinent in the decision-making of an offender. In this study the nature (seriousness) of the offense and the prior record of the juvenile comprise the legal category. Extralegal factors are those characteristics which most researchers agree should not be relevant in the decision-making of offenders. Thomas and Sieverdes (1975:420) state: “The basic point is that there are contingencies that are not directly associated with a specific delinquent act that will alter the probability of further proceedings. The types of contingencies are numerous.” Thomas and Sieverdes are referring- to what are defined as the "extralegal". “nonlegal”, or “informal” factors in offender decision-making. The extralegal category in this study is comprised of the following characteristics: race, age. family status, sex, and county of commitment. It should be noted that there is not complete agreement by all researchers as to which characteristics should be classified as legal and which should be classified as extralegal. However. most of these classifications are agreed upon except for the prior record and the family status characteristics. Because most studies include prior record as a legal factor. and family status as an extralegal factor, this study will classify them in this same manner. It is important to note. however. why both of these CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM are sometimes classified differently. There is no evidence that more or equally severe punishment for crimes subsequent to the first crime is necessary to achieve moral. rehabilitative, or deterrence Objectives. This is especially true if one measure of previous record is prior placements and a child was previously placed by the state in a foster home to protect her or him from abusive parents. Family status refers to whether a home is ”intact". or whether the child is living with both natural parents. Some studies have classified family status as a legal factor on the assumption that ”non-intact" families are unstable or less stable than intact homes, and thus children from non-intact homes will be better off being placed outside of the home. possibly in a more severe setting. Several researchers claim that delinquents are much more likely to be from brOken homes than nondelinquents (Glueck and Glueck.l968: Browning.1960: Gold,1963: Slocum and Stone,1965: Peterson and Becker,l965). Rosen (1970) reanalyzed the data from seven such studies and claims that although this tendency exists. it is not very strong. Sterne (1964:21) beleives that the tension leading up to the break is more devastating than the actual break-up itself. Regardless of whether it is true that delinquents are more likely to come from broken homes, it does not justify automatically sentencing children from broken homes to a more severe placement. In addition, one can expect from Sterne's (1964) findings that the CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM decreased tension in the home after the break-up is more beneficial for a child than the tension leaking up to the break-up and the break-up itself. For these reasons. family status will be categorized as an extralegal characteristic in this study. Types of Placements The different types of placements in this study are categorized as the state training schools and "other“. with other including all other types of placements, such as remaining in the home or being placed with relatives or a legal guardian, or being placed in a Department of Social Services' [D88] or a private foster .home. an independent living situation. a D88 group home, a residential care center. a private institution. a mental health facility, or a boarding school for runaways. Because the training schools tend to be institutions which are much more punitive and restraining than other types of placements, they are viewed as a much harsher placement than those included in the “other” category. The training school category is a homogeneous grouping, comprising only the two training schools in the state. HOwever. the “other” category is heterogeneous, including disposition outcomes from probation to private institutions. The researcher maintains that the state run training schools provide a substantially harsher placement than the most severe placements in the CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM “other” category. The remainder of this section substantiates reasons for dichotmizing between training schools and “other”. Reckless (1955:252) stresses the significance Of’ being sentenced to a training school: Theoretically, commitment of a juvenile Offender to an institution should occur only when the boy or girl can be helped more by this method of treatment than by any other. Actually, most juvenile courts or courts acting in that capacity in the united States commit children to the state training schools for delinquent juveniles, not because they need twenty-four hour school but because the courts think they deserve commitment or because local fa- cilities for dealing with them are not available. Coates et al. (1978:31) similarly state that the institutionalized settings are structures with "more negative subcultures than were the staging and community-based settings.“ Hasenfeld (1976:71) claims: “Most courts attempt to dispose Of cases through minimal intervention in a nonjudicial manner. 0n the average. only 7% Of the cases result in commitment to correctional facilities." One would assume,then, that only the most serious cases would be sentenced to. the training schools. Creekmore (1976:120) states: ”The most intervention may involve long term incarceration at training schools outside the community: placement in group homes or residential facilities in the community may only partly remove youth from their usual lives. The majority of the youth handled by the court are placed (on probation, but the terms usually include restriction from CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM activities. places and people." Coates et al. (1978:23) have the following to say about the Massachusetts training schools: Many staff members were well intentioned though con- vinced that they were engaged in a losing battle to help their charges. Certainly there were no success stories.. ...However, the structure in which both staff members and youths were forced to exist worked against the likelihood Of much success. The large number of youths made some regimentation a necessary condition for maintaining con- trol.....Furthermore. these institutions were so isolated from the youngsters' home communities that there was lit- tle opportunity to have an impact on the situation to which all youths would ultimately return. The training schools involved in this study are designed to hold twelve to eighteen year Olds. with one designed to house eighty females and sixty males, and one capable of holding 550 males (Evans and Carter.l978:1l). The assumption is that the state wards placed in programs other than training schools need to have their welfare guarded by the state. but do not pose a serious threat to the community necessatating their incarceration. On the other hand. the state wards placed in the training schools should be those juveniles who do pose a serious threat to the community, and/or youths who should themselves benefit most from this type of placement. The training schools are usually considered the most severe placement that juveniles may receive in the state under study. It is for this reason that they have been categorized as significantly separate from those state wards sentenced to the less confining and less punitive alternatives. CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM 2. THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS LEADING TO THE EVENTUAL PLACEMENT As an alleged juvenile offender moves through the juvenile justice system. he or she may be exonerated at any level beginning with the police decision to apprehend the youth. If the police refer the youth to the court in this state. the immediate options include: placing the youth in the parents“ custody, referring the youth to alternative services (e.g. runaway programs). or placing the youth in detention (e.g. a County Ybuth Heme). There is a mandatory preliminary hearing for all youths held in detention for 48 hours, in order to decide if there is .reasonable cause to continue to a formal adjudicatory hearing. If an adjudicatory hearing is deemed necessary in the preliminary hearing. the youth may be. ordered to remain in detention or returned home with or without intensive supervision from the state. pending a dispositional hearing. Caseworkers from the intake division for the probate court recommend to the judges the youths whom they believe the judges should classify as state wards. One interviewed caseworker from the state in this study believes that 99% of the time the judges follow caseworkers' recommendations. This high agreement between recommendations and judges' decisions is consistent with empirical research on other courts (Emerson,1969:269: Isenstadt and Sarri.l976:l4: Kraus,l975). Ybuths are committed through Public Act 150. The YOuth Rehabilitation Act, to become state CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM wards. These youths are then referred from the Probate Court to the Department of Social Services (DSS) to the Division of YOuth Services (DYS). All youths deemed state wards by the juvenile courts must be committed to D68, and all youths sentenced to the training schools must be state wards. (Some youths committed to the training schools are "dual wards“. meaning those youths that are deemed to be both neglected and delinquent.) The Director of Planning for Children and Tenth Services of the DSS. states that the caseworkers in DYS are empowered to make the final placement decision of state wards, but they are limited by policies and judges' influences. "Placement following adjudication and commitment to the state is the responsibility of the community care worker [caseworker] located in the county Department of Social Services. In general, the worker tries to match the need of the youth to the program capabilities and the space available” (Horn and Padget.l978:3). However, one social worker from the DYS in 'the state studied. claims that some Offenses ensue in mandatory commitments and some Offenses are limited in their placement alternatives (i.e. cannot be sent to the training schools). He does not believe that the decision—making is always individual and isolated. He claims that Often times decision-makers from different components come together to confer about a juvenile's classification and disposition. He also states that the process Of decision-making differs from county to county. Furhermore. CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM Horn and Padget (1978:?) claim that institutional populations have been vitally affected by two policies. ”In July,l976 the Status Offender Policy prohibited placing status Offenders in institutions. In October. 1976 a policy was issued requiring all serious Offenders to be placed in institutions. This filled the institutions with more serious Offenders and eliminated truants and incorrigibles from their care.“ One problem that cannot be ignored in a study of juvenile placements is that Of the availability of placement options and the amount of space available within the placements. writing about their study of Massachusetts, Coates et a1. (1978:103) claim: ”It should be pointed out again that this region [Boston] encountered great difficulty in setting up group home and foster care alternatives and therefore made extensive use of non-residential programs. The region also sent a lot of youths outside the region to boarding schools. The lack of middle-range alternatives may have brought about inappropriate placements at both ends of the [placement] continuum.“ Matza (1964:127) claims: “... in some cases, probably a small minority, the decision [about placement] is far from obvious. In those few cases. the choice between probation and prison is exceedingly difficult. In those cases, the judge is likely to invoke the doctrine of residential availability.” A study by the United States Department of Justice (1980:1) found a nation-wide decrease between 1977 and 1979 in public juvenile facilities. This was CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM largely due to a halt in the number of these facilities operated by the state and local governments. and due “at least in part. to an increased role by small. community-based facilities in the private sector and the use Of foster homes as a means Of diverting status Offenders from the juvenile justice system." This prior research is relevant to one of the counties considered in the present research. unlike the practice in other counties. in the one county placement of juveniles into the training schools operates on a “charge-back" system. meaning the state reimburses the county 100% for the cost Of sending juveniles to training schools. The Other counties are only reimbursed for 50% Of the training school costs. Training school placement. thus, is cheaper for the county than any other other placement, and there is a financial incentive to this county to commit juveniles to the training schools. regardless of the seriousness of their Offenses or prior records. The current research will examine the direct effects of this policy on the placement decision and the indirect effects on the relationships of both extralegal and legal factors in placement decisions. An alarming issue in the placement decision is the ‘possible assumption by some decision-makers that the spaces "must“ be filled. In California, Sumner (1971:169) found "a dismaying willingness to maintain a full house in the juvenile hall. More Often than not. support for this costly, most unnecessary habit 10 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM was accompanied by the firm belief that bigger detention homes are needed. By implication. here too the beds should be permanently and fully occupied." A report by the Michigan DSS (1974:23) on one training school claims that a serious problem is arising as the per diem rates decrease and the utilization of the facility increases. The result is that youths are more likely to be sent there because Of its low cost rather than its effectiveness. This agency claims that "the present complicated state-county charge-back method of financing residential services also creates incentives for the utilization of institutional care by under representing the true cost Of such care to those decision-makers who commit youth to state care" (1974:37). Horn and Padget (1978:3) claim of the DSS that all institutional centers are "geographically aligned to receive youth from specific areas of the state." This could easily result in different types of placements and/or differing available space in placement options for youths from the various areas of the state. Blankenship and Singh (1976:487) conclude their study of placement dispositions of juveniles between training schools or mental hospitals, by stating: ”Many questions of the interplay between legalistic and other factors, and the particular decision sets they determine, cannot be answered by the data of the present study, nor any single study, but remain for further empirical and theoretical investigation." Hussey (1976:450) believes that the increasing emphasis on community treatment for 11 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM juveniles has complicated the approach to the placement decision. “A rather gray area inherent in these new approaches is the nature of the decision process invoked when deciding which offenders are to receive the various treatment or dispositional alternatives" In conclusion, Gottfredson (1975:10) claims: "In fairness to accused children. the juvenile courts. and the community, the problem of deciding which children must be detained pending an ultimate resolution of the allegation demands much more empirical study than has ever been attempted." This statement concerning the mystery of detention decision-making can be expanded to include most decision-making about juveniles at the other levels of the juvenile justice system. including the placement decision—making concerning state wards. In short. this study is looking for relationships between the minority status. age, family status. sex. jurisdiction. seriousness of offense. and prior record of the juvenile state wards with their subsequent placements. It also will compare these relationships in several counties. one of which has financial incentives to use the state training schools rather than alternative placements. Specifically, the five counties :with the highest juvenile populations will be compared with each other to see if county policies or differences affect the types of juvenile state wards acquiring the more severe placement (the training schools). 12 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM 3. DUAL OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH One objective for this study is to describe the state ward population and its differences from the general juvenile population. That is. the study will identify the groups that are over or under represented in the juvenile justice system. In addition. the study will show the relationships of characteristics of the state wards and ther. offenses to subsequent placements within the juvenile justice system. Thus, there are dual objectives of this research. First. the research will describe who ends up becoming a state ward as a result of the first series of decisions. The caracteristics of the state wards will be compared to juveniles in the general population of the state. using 0.3. Census Bureau data. Second. the research will describe who gets placed where at the last decision. and determine which factors best predict this decision. The remaining portion of this chapter will describe how the juvenile court has evolved and important impacts resulting from its evolutionary process. The history of the priorities and in the juvenile court are responsible for present day problems of vast discretion available to judges and other decision-makers associated with the juvenile court. The last section of this chapter will explain the significant implications of labeling theory and how it relates to this study. 13 CHAPTER ONE:‘ THE PROBLEM THE HISTORY OF DISCRETIONARY DECISION-MAKING 03 IN THE JUVENILE COURT The concept of pets: Batting began in the early English chancery courts, and gave the king protective jurisdiction over all children. This concept became known as parens nannies and also became part of the handling of youths in the united States court system. Children were tried as adults in adult criminal courts until the development of the juvenile court in Illinois in 1899. "The Illinois Act was the prototype for legislation in . many other states....It embodied nearly all the distinctive features of the juvenile court today”(Rosenheim.1977:8). “On the basis of pagans pggzige. the juvenile court was authorized to intervene wherever a juvenile's behavior was problematic for the child. family or society. Thus, behavior such as truancy. curfew violation, being unruly, incorrigibility. or even 'idling one's time away' were as sufficient a basis for a juvenile court to adjucicate a youth delinquent as commission of a felony, or misdemeanor” (Isenstadt and Sarri,l976:3). In addition: ”Juveniles have long. if not always, been accorded” indifferent treatment than adults when suspected of socially deviant or norm violating behavior" (Finley,l977:6). l4 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM The theory of the juvenile court is that decisions are made in "the best interests of the child.“ This is based on the belief that the judge should assess the total needs of the child rather than just the legal characteristics as supposedly happens in the adult courts. HOwever. this can decrease the due process and justice rights of juveniles in that it vastly increases the discretionary powers of the judges, and for that matter all of the juvenile justice system agencies. Although the original intent for allowing the increased discretion may have been based on a conviction of treatment rather than a control/punishment approach. doubts and criticisms of this increased .power of the juvenile courts have grown in recent years (Rosenheim.l977:l0). The juvenile court has become almost schizophrenic in trying to merge its rehabilitation and social control ideologies. Rubin (1979:19-21) believes that the juvenile court's desire ”to help, to restore. to guide. and to forget“ has been damaged by legislators' demands from an angry. public who favor increased control of juveniles. Langley (1972:274) states that at every decision-making point a priority decision must be made between youth rehabilitation and social control. "Hence. through judicial decision the juvenile court criminalizes youth behavior by labeling such behavior as delinquent. But then the court must treat the youth as a non-criminal: for the purposes of rehabilitation and control." Terry (1967b:l74) claims: “Offenders are not sanctioned for their 15 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM deviant behavior, but are 'helped' or 'treated' by having certain kinds of dispositions accorded them....Therefore. discretion is built into the juvenile codes in such a way as to allow relatively complete freedom of action (with respect to disposition) by the primary agencies of social control.“ This problem is aggravated by the lack of accountability most juvenile justice system officials, especially judges, have to face for their decisions. In fact, "there is no clear-cut requirement for judges to state their reasons for action taken or to explain. why they prefer one course of action to another” (Sumner,l971:172). Evidence that the discretionary powers exist at all levels of the juvenile justice system is substantiated by the lack of policy guidelines at all levels, and the tendency for decision-makers lower down in the juvenile justice syetem to shape their decisions with what they believe the "higher-ups” agree. One study conducted by the united States Department of Justice found that almost "a third of officials surveyed worked in [juvenile justice] agencies where no policy manuals existed at all” (Smith et al.,l980b:xvi). The juvenile court's "best interests of the child" philosophy provides a "social selectivity" when classifying and placing juveniles. Barton (1976:471) claims that although this was designed in order "to afford benign paternalism rather than legal vengeance”, that many of the services it has provided have 16 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM backfired. Vinter (1967:88) believes that the screening and assesment of juveniles is largely based on a "case attribute" approach to decision-making which “asserts that every situation or case is unique. that understanding of the present problem is best gained by compilation of a multi-faceted picture of past and current events, and that some indication of remedial action will emerge from this picture if it is properly developed.“ Rothman (1980:50) describes the Progressive reformers who developed around the end of the 19th century: There was no single all-embracing explanation that dom- inated professional or lay thought during these years. To some analysts, environmental considerations were most important: others looked to psychological elements and still others emphasized biological principles. Whatever the specific explanations, all of them endorsed a case by case approach. Matza (1964:112) refers to this discretionary power of the courts as ”individualized justice” and is vehemently against it due to the incongruence between the concepts of ”individualism” and ”justice“ being used simultaneously, and the ”rampant inconsistency” that results. He claims that if the court were focusing on the principle of equality, then they would be focusing on the “principle of offense". He believes that the principle of individualized justice includes many more criteria in the form of quantity and variety than does the principle of equality. “The principle of individualized justice results in a frame of relevance that is so large, so all-inclusive. that any relation between the criteria of judgement and the disposition 17 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM remains obscure" (1964:115). More specifically, Arnold (1971:213) claims that ”there are a number of perfectly 'appropriate! considerations in handling offenders within which race or class discrimination could be hidden." If this is true, then family status. sex. age, and other types of discrimination could also be hidden. Langley (1972:275) believes that “individualized treatment" is an euphemism used by the juvenile court in order to gain direct control over delinquents' lives. He states that although parens patriae is supposed to function as a means to rehabilitate youth. ”in fact, it may be little more than a method for the totalitarian control of the youths who transgress the state's laws or disrupt the sOcial order of the community" (1972:282). Short and Nye (1957:210) claim that in focusing on the best interests of the child and disregarding the legal classification of the delinquent's behavior ”that the way in which a child enters into the juvenile delinquency statistics, or whether he enters at all. will vary according to his personality. family and neighborhood relations.etc., and according to the philosophy. personnel, facilities, and skills available in each court." It becomes clear that Ragga; patriae is far from the noble ideology it was created to represent. "Reinterpretation of the parens patriae theory has resulted in a general realization that the doctrine has gone beyond the original intent....It was not 18 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM originally intended to become a judicial tool for depriving juveniles of liberty because they had committed a criminal act" (Finley,l977:30-31). Finley elaborates by claiming that "parens patriae ae a justification for incarcerating juveniles. who have committed criminal acts, is a rather recent interpretation of the theory and does not. in fact. stem from the English common law" (1977:34). The juvenile justice system. similar to the adult corrections system. has been trapped within a complex of conflicting ideologies. C: THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK There are many “unofficial” delinquents. That is. many juvenile delinquents are never apprehended. and many of those apprehended are soon let off with no record or soon weeded out of the juvenile justice system. McEachern and Bauzer (1967:152) believe that the marked changes over time in their police data demonstrate that "delinquency cannot be sensibly described as isolated acts of bad individuals. but must be thought of as interactions between deviant individuals and agents of the society which defines their deviance" (1967:152). The focus of this study, then, is describing the characteristics of those youths labeled state wards. and distinguishing the differences 19 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM between those state wards who have the more severe placements (the training schools), and thus the more severe labels. Numerous researchers have tested hypotheses in the labeling perspective, examining the reality of it, and the features they propose could be influential in the labeling process of juveniles. In order to give an overview of the propositions that will be explained in this study, the most important people in the labeling perspective will be reviewed. In the following chapter. specific studies related to the labeling perspective are analyzed. The revies in the following chapter was conducted in order to determine the characteristics other researchers have found to be significantly or not significantly related to the labeling of juveniles. The following review describes the fundamental bases behind the labeling theory. Williams and Gold (1972:210) warn against perceiving official delinquency as representative of delinquent behavior. because it ignOres the selection process used in determining official delinquency. For example. Martin (l970:3) claims that "some youngsters are picked up, taken into custody. shunted off to the precinct and court hearings for acts which others commit without police and court interference." Becker (1963:159-160) claims that because the enforcer of laws cannot possibly tackle 20 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM every case "he must have a basis for deciding when to enforce the rule, which persons committing which act to label as deviant." Davis (1972x452) takes a symbolic interactionist approach. claiming that deviance is "situational” and "contingent".' She claims: ”Differential definitions and applications or rules are influenced by class. ethnicity. occupation. sex. and age statuses of various persons who operate in complex societies in opposition to police, legal. and other social control groups." Emerson (1969:107) believes that in their regular dealings with delinquents and delinquent acts. court personnel learn to characterize on what they routinely encounter. He states: ”Typical delinquencies identify typical actors in terms of such social characteristics as age. sex. class. and residence.“ On the other hand. ward (1971:282) believes that labeling is not necessarily bad. as "it would probably be impossible to function in society without some form of labeling." Perhaps the most alarming aspect of labeling of delinquents is the belief that it is "not blind" (Barton.1976:470: Matza. 1969:157). Kitsuse (1962:248) claims that deviance is ”a process by which the members of a group. community, or society (1) interpret behavior as deviant. (2) define persons who so behave‘ as a certain kind of deviant. and (3) accord them the treatment considered appropriate to such deviants." Schur (1971:24) states that behavior is deviant "to the extent that it comes to be 21 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM viewed as involving a personally discreditable departure from a group's normative expectations. and it elicits interpersonal or collective reactions that serve to 'isolate'. 'treat', 'correct'. or 'punish'. individuals engaged in such behavior.“ However, Becker (1963:16) disputes the belief that most rules are generally agreed upon by all members of a society. stating that empirical research usually proves otherwise. In fact. he claims that "the perspectives of the people who engage in the [deviant] behavior are likely to be quite different from those of the people who condemn it." Terry (1967a:l74) believes that "the indentification and definition of juveniles as delinquents is not strictly limited by legal definitions or statutory considerations. but is at the relative discretion of those who, as members of the social audience. find themselves disposed to identify and define juvenile behavior as such." Erickson (1962:308) claims: "When a community acts to control the behaviOr of one of its members, it is engaged in a very intricate process of selection” because all people behave in non-conformist actions at some time. In concurrence. Chambliss (1974:21) states: "Eyeryone commits crime...[however.]...no one commits crime all the time." Empey (1978:352) notes that over-zealous "moral entrepreneurs" and the selective enforcement of rules permanently stigmatize certain sections of’ society. In fact. Piliavin and Briar (1964:213) regard the only difference between those who simply commit delinquent acts and official delinquents 22 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM is merely a difference in.judgement made usually by the police. Some researchers have discussed the importance of power in the designing and enforcement of laws. More specifically, it is sometimes maintained that the laws are designed to keep the powerless without power. and that the laws are enforced selectively. Davis (1972:468) states: "The distribution of power. legal definitions. and controlling activities are central issues that provide analytic starting points for delineating those structural conditions that create the basis for generating a body of rule-breakers. Labeling in this sense. is a consequence and symbol of power." Chambliss (1974:11) claims: "The single most important force behind criminal law creation is doubtless the economic and. political power of those social classes which either (I) own or control the resources of society. or (2) occupy positions of authority in the state bureaucracies.“ Langley (1972:280) claims that a juvenile is labeled delinquent not so much for her or his illegal behavior as for the state to gain control over the youth's life. "In this perspective the juvenile delinquent can be seen as arising out of the state's need for the social and political conformity of youth rather than arising out of the unmet, neurotic needs of adolescents." Martin (1970:31) perceives the juvenile justice labeling process as a method of focusing on groups ”culturally alien to those in power." whom due to their powerlessness. are 23 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM ill-equipped to keep from being labeled by the various juvenile justice agencies. The judicial dispositions of juveniles have traditionally “been based upon a number of extralegal criteria. usually personal and social characteristics of the offending youth (Scarpitti and Stephenson.l97l:l43). Martin (l970:4) claims: "Often the judgements made by the police are chauvinistic. ethnocentric, and of limited validity. Using standards peculiar to their age-set. ethno-racial group. and social class, they inadvertently work toward the spiraling condemnation of adolescents. the poor. and the non-white segments of the society.” Arnold (1971:211) believes that majority group attitudes about racial minorities influence most areas Of their relationships with them, presumably including the enfOrcement of laws. Becker (1963:8-9) warns that defining deviants as those who break specified agreed-upon rules can lead to assuming a homogeneous group is responsible for committing the same deviant acts. and that this assumpton ignores the fact that deviance is created by society. That is, that society tends to apply these rules to particular people they label as "outsiders“. and that deviance becomes merely an application of rules and sanctions to certain segments of the society. 24 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM The various theorists and researchers so far reviewed have different and sometimes conflicting views on the impetus behind and the manner of conducting the labeling. Chambliss (1974) believes that there is no consensus on laws, but instead that the powerful inflict and selectively enforce "their" laws on the powerless in order to maintain their own power. Bbwever, Becker (1963:16) believes that most rules are agreed upon by all members of society. Langley (1972) believes the state labels in order to gain control over youths' lives. Finally. Terry (1967a) believes that the personal discretions of the decision-makers play an overwhelming role in the labeling of delinquents. Williams (1980:216) claims of research on discrimination via differential processing of less powerful societal groups: "As with any accumulation Of research on a given subject. there are differences in operational design, areas of examination. general methodology. and most of all. differences in findings.“ Indeed. he found that racial differentials were more likely to occur with different stages in the system, ages, offenses. regions. and eras, and that failing to control for variables could result in "erroneous conclusions“ (1980:219). Finally, Williams (1980:223) claims: "A question arises as to the amount of differential processing that must exist in order to provide evidence for conflict propositions....Evidence of some discrimination does not justify a theoretical stance based on pervasive, systemdwide, differential processing; thus conflict theory demands the 25 CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM criteria of substantiality." In an effort to confirm or disconfirm the general viewpoints reviewed above, this study will compare those youths “labeled" state wards to the general youth population by comparing the collected data to the general census descriptions of youth in the state in the study. HOwever. because control variables cannot be introduced. no explanation of the differences between the state ward and general youth population is possible. Control variables will be introduced in an effort to explain the differences between the state wards labeled the more serious (as operationalized by placement in a training school) and those labeled the less serious (those sentenced to the less severe placements). 26 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW A: THE INTRODUCTION The literature describing the relationships between the severity of juveniles' sentences with their personal and offense characteristics is varied in the scope of agencies studied and the charactersitics focused on. This study includes seven characteristics that may be related to placement decisions. Each of these seven will be dealt with separately in relation to the previous studies conducted relating to each area. Those characteristics which this study examines as possible influences on the severity of placement of the juveniles include: county of commitment. age, sex. race. famdly status. previous record. and nature of offense. Only the last two are considered as ”legal" means in determining_ the type of placements necessary for juvenile offenders. The literature review consists of sections describing previous findings for each of the independent variables. Within each of these sections on the independent variables. the findings are referred to in order of the sequence in which decisions are made in the juvenile justice system. More specifically, findings for each independent variable at the arrest. detention. intake, and court levels are apportioned in that Order. Most of the studies conducted on the decision-making of juveniles have concentrated on police decision-making. This 27 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW study intends to generalize the findings from previous studies on all levels of juvenile justice system decision-making in order to propose which factors might affect the placement decision of state wards. JURISDICTION (BY COUNTY OF COMMITMENT) tn Becker (1963:4) explores the diversity of individual approaches in determining deviance: "It is easily observable that different groups judge different things to be deviant. This should alert us to the possibility that the person making the judgement of deviance, the process by which the judgement is arrived at, and the situation in which it is made may all be intimately involved in the phenomena of deviance." Becker is suggesting that counties vary due to differences in attitudes. Attitudes have an impact on the policies within the different counties, and thus affect the manner in which juveniles are processed. One feature common to most regions, including the three New Jersey counties studied by Chused (1973:525). is that incarceration in the juvenile institutions is the exception rather than the rule. waever. that does not mean that there are no differences between counties in arrest. detention. or placement rates. "The three sample counties studied processed 28 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW their juveniles in significantly different ways. In some cases, it became clear that these differences produced interesting impacts on the outcome for accused juveniles" (1973:504). Focusing on differential arrest rates between counties. Goldman (1963:85) found distinct differences in the rates of juvenile arrests between the four communities he studied. (These four communities were not similar in populations nor in social economic status). ”In the combined data we found an annual arrest rate of 32.6% per thousand children aged ten to seventeen. with a range from 49.7 to 12.4% per thousand.” In further analysis, Goldman (1963:125) found "[tJhe gross variations in arrest rates may be accounted for principally by variations in arrests for minor offenses.” McEachern and Bauzer (1967:151) claim “the differences among police departments remain highly significant when offenses are held constant.“ Sumner's (1971:175) study of detention rates in California found distinct differences between counties ranging from 19 to 66% detained. In regards to differences in court referrals between counties. Goldman (1963:125-126) found that the rate of court referrals varied widely from one community to another. Although, as expected, juveniles arrested for serious offenses were more likely to be referred to court than those arrested for minor Offenses, the arrest rates for serious -Offenses vary from community to community, but the differential handling of minor 29 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW offenses is the majOr reason for the differing referral rates between the communities. Finally, Barrett et a1. (1966:782) claim that besides the nature of the offense and the prior record, "[a] further act influencing referral decision -- and one of the most important causes of the great differences among jurisdictions in the percentage Of cases referred to court-- is the wide variation among departments in their attitude towards court appearance.f Goldman (1963:129) claims: “When there exists an Objective, impersonal relation between the police and the public, court referral rates will be high and there will be little discrimination with respect to seriousness of offense. race. and sex of the offender....Where there exists a personal face-to-face relation between the police and the public. there will be more discrimination with respect to court referral of an arrested juvenile." Basenfeld (1976:63) claims that youths in larger communities are more likely to be processed by the juvenile court than those in smaller communities. McDonough (1976:110) beleives that this discrepancy is due to the more “important" and more ”difficult" job of the judges and administrators in the larger courts. HOwever. Hasenfeld (1976:71) also states that "large variations exist among courts within the same class size. indicating a hodgepodge of policies among juvenile courts." 30 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW Concerning the differences between the disposition decisions in various counties, Smith et al. (1980b:xvii) found that "there does appear to be a definite association between a disposition decision and the operational environment or 'the way things are done' around here' in many agencies.” Even between jurisdictions without a size differential there tends to be variations. probably due to different agencies' rules and attitudes. ”Jurisdiction of the juvenile court within the fifty states is highly varied in terms of personal charactertistics Of youth (age. sex. Offense) and in the structural role of the court in the larger criminal justice system” (Isenstadt and Sarri,1976:7). Coates et al. (1978:108) claim that the uneven implementation of the juvenile placement reform across Massachusetts "was due in turn to differences in staff orientation toward youths, variations in appropriate treatment models. fluctuating availability of resources across regions. different levels of community resistance. and variation in the ability to develop strategies not only to neutralize that resistance but also to involve communities in the delivery of services to their own youths.“ Coates et al. (1978:66) focused on eight variables, including the nature of the offense and the previous record. and found that the regional variable had the strongest correlation coefficient with the severity of placements. _ In addition. Rubin (1979:140) claims that ”[dJispOsitions also relate to whether a probation department 31 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW offers intensive supervision programs or only routine reporting." Finally, it is important to remember that the social agents who deal with the juveniles are significant in defining and determining "delinquency”. Therefore. with the various types of communities and employees it is hardly surprising that different sized and types of communities have different delinquency rates. “Changes in society, changes in its agents. or changes in the deviant individuals will all result in changes in delinquency, one way or the other” (McEachern and Bauzer.1967:152). C: AGE Focusing first on the relationship between age and arrest rates, Goldman (1963:45) found a significant positive relationship'between arrest rates in age groups. PThere appears to be an under-representation in court of arrests below the age of twelve, and an over-representation of arrests in the sixteen and seventeen year old groups.” Although there was a statistical significance in this difference. Goldman believed it was due to the seriousness of the crime. In addition. in three age categories, youths younger than ten. youths ten or older but less than fifteen, and youths fifteen or Older. Goldman (1963:128) found the rate of referrals of arrested youths to increase with 32 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW their age. This finding was "fairly consistent" in different communities. Thomas and Sieverdes (1975:423) also found that older juveniles were more likely to be referred for formal hearings. In addition. they found that those older at the time of their first offense. and those older at the times of their most recent offense were more likely to be referred. In concurrence. COhen (1975bz21) found the most frequently referred juveniles were fifteen and sixteen, while those least frequently referred were twelve and under. Of the studies on the relationship between age and the court processing of juveniles. McEachern and Bauzer (1967:151) believe age to be a significant factor for police officers in requesting petitions for juveniles. When Chused (1973:528) compared the processing of juveniles in three New Jersey counties. he found one of the three possible outcomes resulting in each county: (1) the older youths were treated more severely, (2) the younger youths were treated more severely, and (3) the older and younger youths ‘were treated about the same. ”The possibility of age cutting two ways (youth equals either vulnerability or lack of fault) appeared vividly." In a study of the processing of Denver delinquency cases. Cohen (1975a:20) found at the bivariate level of analysis a "slightly inverse but non-substantial relationship between the child's age and the severity of accorded dispositions." In the 33 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW three counties Cohen (l97Sb:21) studied, he found a very slight positive relationship between age of the offender and the disposition in two counties, with the opposite relationship in the third, and a combined relationship of slightly negative. Thomas and Sieverdes (1975:423) studied eight independent variables in attempting to determine case dispositions. The variables they found most influential. in order of strength were: (1) the nature of the offense, (2) the age at the time of the first offense. vand (3) the age at the time of the most recent offense. In a study of the determination of probation recommendations by probation officers. Cohn (1963:269) found that age was not an issue. new turning to studies about the relationship between age disposition, Terry (l967b:l77) found at the juvenile court stage a significant positive relationship between the age of the offender and the severity of the placement. He claims: ”Only the seriousness of the offense committed. the number of previous offenses committed. and the age of the offender are significantly related to the severity of sanctions accorded by the probation department. Again these relationships are not substantially affected when the remaining independent variables are controlled.” In their study of four types of placements, from probation (least severe) to a reformatory (most severe) ~for delinquent boys, Scarpitti and Stephenson (1971:146) found that the reformatory held slightly more seventeen year olds “than the 34 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW other placements, with the middle two placements holding more of the younger boys than probation or the reformatories. Further. they found: "As a group, probationers were older and reformatory boys younger at the time of their first court appearance" (1971:147-148). COhn (1963:270) claims: "Age was not considered significant in the officers' recommendation for institutionalization.” In summary, as a rule the studies tended to find a positive relationship between age and arrest. referral. and placement. This is not surprising as older youths are more likely to have accumulated more of a record and probably have more freedom. peer pressure. and “bravery” than the younger youths. waever. some studies did find an inverse relationship between age and arrest. referral, and placement. and this cannot be ignored. D: SEX Studies and theories on the impact of gender on the treatment of youths by the criminal justice system have come from opposing views. One is the "chivalrous" or "paternalistic" theory that females are treated less harshly than their male counterparts. Other theories and studies have claimed the opposite. "Girls are less likely to get caught than boys, but once caught, fare worse at the hands of the system--not too 35 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW - unexpected a finding when one considers the sex-role stereotypes that many persons cling to” (Barton,1976:478). Further. Terry (1967a:226) claims: The appearance of a girl in juvenile court may be taken more seriously since it frequently indicates that she has failed to comform after previous measures have .been taken or that the offense is serious enough to warrant adjudica- tion as a delinquent: personal and situational character- istics justify the severe action the court must take. Such factors perhaps are considered more seriously in the case of girls since they may be less compatable with the female role. Kratcoski (1974:17) claims: ”Different law enforcement standards for male and female offenders may result in females being brought to court and even institutionalized for offenses that might be overloOked if committed by males.“ At any rate. most researchers agree that females commit less frequent and less serious crimes than males, therefore it is not surprising that most of the juvenile offender population is comprised of males (Kbrn and McCorkle.l959:23: Hasenfeld.l976:65). In a study of police dispositions. Monahan (1970:140) found that male youths are arrested more frequently than female youths in regards to their proportion in the popualtion. Hewever. Morash (mimeo:13) found that females in all-female gangs are less likely to be arrested than males with delinquent peers, "thus, there is a demonstration of regular tendencies of the police to investigate and arrest males involved with delinquent peers. regardless of these youths' level of delinquency." 36 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW McEachern and Bauzer (1967:151) found no significant difference between male and female youths in proportions of petitions requested. but they did find that the males were less likely to have petitions requested for status offenses and more likely to have petitions for serious and “adult" crimes than the females. In a study on the juvenile court process in three New Jersey counties. Chused (1973:519) found that (the females were formalized (processed) less frequently than the males in spite of the fact that they were detained at ”fairly similar rates“. Sumner (1971:174) found that gender was unrelated to detention decisions. In regards to the relationship between gender and court referral, Kratcoski (1974:19) found that in general female youths were referred to the courts for less serious offenses than the male youths were. Goldman (1963:127) found that although arrested females (54.2%) tended to be referred more often to the juvenile court than the males (35.1%). it was not a significant difference. Reckless (1955:233-234) believes that most cases of male delinquency are referred to the juvenile court from the police. whereas because the police are less "willing” to refer the females, they are referred most by parents. relatives. schools. and social agencies. He found that five males for each female were referred to the juvenile court, but it is not known what proportion of the arrests this represents. Cohen (l97Sa:20) found that "...80% of the juveniles referred to the Denver 37 CHAPTER Two. THE LITERATURE REVIEW juvenile court were males....A larger percentage of males (50%) as opposed to females (40%) were counseled and then released. but among those who were placed under informal supervision. the opposite was found." Terry (l967a:224-225) did not find any appreciable differences between the severity with which male and female youths were treated by the police and probation departments. Focusing on the relationship. between gender and dispositions. Kratcoski (1974:17) claims that law enforcement standards are applied differently for males and females. including who is brought to court and who is institutionalized. He states that the practices are harsher for the females. In two of the three counties studied by Chused (l973:529.604). female youths received more serious dispositions. and many of their charges were for "sex-related conduct." Cohen (1975a:21) did not find the sex of the alleged offenders to be significantly related to their subsequent dispositions. COhn (1963:269) claims that female offenders are rarely recommended for probation. Furthermore. Cbhn (1963:264) states: ”While girls made up only one-sixth of the total, they constituted nearly half the group recommended to an institution: restated as a proportion. this means that three times as many girls as boys were recommended for institutionalization.” Terry (l967a:225) was surprised to find a negative relationship between being' male and the severity of juvenile court dispositions. In addition. he found females are 38 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW ”more often cited for offenses involving the opposite sex and adults. both of which are more likely to result in institutionalization." When he controlled for the number of previous offenses. the negative relationship between being a male and severity of disposition increased. Rogers (1972:225) found the average stay of females in the training schools to be longer than that of the males (seven months for the females. as opposed to five months for the males). In a study conducted by the Michigan Department of Social Services (1981:42) on the trends in institutionalization length of stay, it was found that for the first six months of 1979 the average length of stay for the males was 343 days, where as for the females this figure was 423 days. For the first six months of 1981 this figure changed to 268 days for the males and 410 for the females. While 58% of the males had been released from institutionalization between a stay of 0 to 11 months, only 32% of the females were released in the same period. However. in their study in Massachusetts. Coates et a1. (1978:100) found that “females are more likely to be placed in relatively more supportive social climates" than their male counterparts. From a review of the literature it seems that the following belief tends to prevail: ...as far-as girls are concerned, the police and courts "intervene more frequently and actively, for simply to re- turn them to their usual environment would be more detri- 39 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW mental to the girl than utilizing other avenues of 'treat- ment' (Ferdinand and Luchterhand,l970:510). Although much of the research on gender's impact on decision-making in the juvenile justice system is contradictory, generally, assumptions about female youths individually and as a whole, appear to guide much of the action and reaction towards them in our juvenile justice system. E: RACE Of all the variables focused on in this study, race has been the one most frequently researched. Barton (1978:479) suspects from his review of the literature that ”race is highly correlated with other variables such as social class, family organization. and school achievement so that more blacks end up in institutions even though race itself may have only a small independent effect.” Hirschi (1969:76-81) believes that the "unexplainable" discrepancy in the harsh treatment of black juveniles by the juvenile justice system that is evident in the statistical analysis , is due to such issues as that "they are less likely to be well supervised, they are less likely to have favorable attitudes toward the law and the police; and they are more likely to lie about former police records. and "differences in academic achievement go a long way toward explaining Negro~white 40 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW differences in delinquent activity.” Hewever. Hirschi (1969:81) does admit: “The present data also support the conclusion that Negro~white differences are exaggerated by differential police activity." Some researchers have utilized self-reports to determine relationships between race and delinquency rates. Gould (1969:330) studied junior high school boys in Seattle and found blacks were most likely to be labeled official delinquents and Orientals the least. HOwever. when measuring delinquent behavior through a self-report approach. he found that self-reported delinquency was not related to race nor official delinquency. Through self-reporting interviews with thirteen to sixteen year olds. Williams and Gold (1972:215) found that white and black female youths did not differ in frequency nor seriousness in their delinquency. Black and white males did not differ in frequency. but white boys did tend to commit less serious offenses. Thornberry (1973:92-95) studied the impact of race on decision-making at three levels of the juvenile justice system: the police. the court intake, and the juvenile court placement division. He found that blacks received more serious dispositions at all three levels (especially at the police level), even when the seriousness of the offense and the prior records were controlled. Black and Raise (1970:68) found the 41 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW arrest rate for black juveniles to be higher than that of their white counterparts. even when the nature of the offense and the previous record were controlled. Piliavin and Briar (1964:212) state: ”Compared to other youths. Negroes and boys whose appearance matched the delinquent stereotype were more frequently stopped and interrogated by patrolmen--often even in the absence of evidence that an offense had been committed-- and usually were given more severe dispositions for the same violations.“ Further. they found that eighteen of the twenty-seven officers that they interviewed "openly admitted a dislike for Negroes.“ However, in a study on the impact of individual and group characteristics on establishing a police record. Morash (mimeo) claims that ”we cannot say that. all other things being equal (delinquency of peer group members, social class, etc.), these youths [of a certain race and gang-like] were more likely to be arrested.“ Focusing on the relationship between race and detention rates, Chused (1973:508) found that black youths were detained more often than white youths. especially for serious and medium offenses. Hewever. later Chused (1973:528) claims that the racial differences tended to disappear when the prior record. and the nature of the offense were controlled. Langley (1972:285) states: "The practices of this court do not involve individualizing the prehearing detention decision in favor of either race." However, Sumner (1971:173) found in her study of detention rates in California that one—third of the white youths 42 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW referred were detained. while half of the blacks were. Now turning to the relationship between race and court referral rates, Ferdinand and Luchterhand (1970:511) studied six inner city neighborhoods. and found that of the first-time offenders ”indeed. black teenagers are labeled as delinquent by the police and referred to the juvenile court disproportionately more often than their white counterparts.“ This discrepancy remained even after seriouness of the crime, and age and sex of the offenders .were controlled. Overall. the black offenders tested as less anti-social and less aggressive than the white offenders (1970:514). Ferdinand and Luchterhand (1970:518) suggest that the discepancy may be due to an almost entirely white police force. Arnold (1971:217) found that nondwhite youths were more likely to be referred to the juvenile court and to be committed to the State Ybuth Authority than white youths were. Even after controlling for legal factors. Arnold (1971:220) found: ”Thus, Latin Americans and Negroes with extensive 'records' are dealt with much more 'extensively' (or harshly) on the average, than are Anglos with similar records.“ Cohen's (l97Sb:23) study of three counties supported the belief that "minorities are overrepresented in relation to their population in official delinquency and court statistics....The proportion of nondwhites referred to each court exceeds their relative proportion in the juvenile populations of their 43 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW respective counties." However, he did not control for legal factors. Williams and Gold (1972:226) found that not only were black youths referred to the juvenile court more often than white youths, but that ”blacks with more than one recorded offense were referred more often than whites with more than one recorded offense.” Goldman (1963:127) also found that black youth offenders were more likely to be referred to the court, but that this varied from county to county. He believes that the reason there is a difference in referral rates between races is because black youths are more frequently referred for minor offenses than white youths. Hasenfeld (1976:71) found even in different sized courts, non-white youths were three 'times more likely to be processed than white youths. He claims that this is not due to differences in delinquent behavior. but rather it is due to the "differential handling of white and nondwhite youths by the agencies controlling the input of cases to the court.” McEachern and Bauzer (1967:152) did not find ethnicity to be a factor in their study of the request for petitions. Of ‘the studies on the relationship between race and disposition, Weiner and Willie (1971:203) found that although police tend to have more contact with black youths than white youths in Washington,D.C., and "the disposition process appears to be even-handed: the 38% of blacks referred to juvenile court is not very much greater than the 34% of whites who are referred to the court.“ Arnold (1971:222) claims: "Statistical control 44 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW for the marital status of juveniles' parents. seriousness of offenses. the number and seriousness of prior and current offenses, the rate of delinquency in the offenders' neighborhoods will reduce below statistical significance the apparent bias in the probation officers' handling of persons of minority-group status except when these considerations seem to call for extensive state action regardless of race or ethnicity.“ Cohn (1963:269) did not find race to be an issue in the recommendation for probation. Axelrad (1952:571) found that black youths "are committed to a state institution as delinquents. [are] younger. with fewer court 'appearances. less previous institutionalization. and for fewer and less serious offenses than white children." On the other hand, Scarpitti and Stephenson (1971:148) found that “for the three years of data they collected. that black boys had to exhibit a much greater degree of delinquency commitment than whites before the most punitive ‘alternative was' selected." Ferdinand and Luchterhand (1971:521) claim that black youths ”do not consistently receive appreciably harsher dispositions from the court than white offenders. As with the police. as the seriousness of the offense increases. the discrepancy between the dispostions given white and black youths seem to decrease.“ Cohen (1975a:21-22) found "no substantial systematic ethnic bias in the types of dispositions accorded by Denver juvenile court officials." Terry (l967a:226-227) did not find a significant 45 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW relationship between the degree of minority status and the severity of disposition. Thomas and Sieverdes (1975:423) found that only the seriousness of the most recent offense played a significant role in the dispostion. race did not. Finally. WOlfgang et a1. (1972:220) claimed: “But however we split and spliced the material at hand. nondwhites regularly received more severe dispositions.“ Although many of the studies found at first glance that the juvenile justice system seemed to be biased in their decision- making between races, about half of the studies mentioned here found that when they controlled for intervening factors. the discrepancy between the races tended to become insignificant. However, the fact remains that half of the studies reviewed did find significant discrimination against the nondwhites, even after controlling for intervening variables. Regardless of descrepancies in the final dispositions. the fact remains that the nondwhite youths tend to be over represented in the juvenile justice system. As a whole then, the studies point toward discrimination by the juvenile justice system toward nondwhite youths. F: FAMILY STATUS It is possible that family status plays a significant role 46 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW in dealing with juveniles. Goldman (1963:120-121) claims that most police officers view juvenile delinquency as a reflection of a disturbed home. and found police officers give “primary consideration" to family status in determining the management of the offender. Further. he claims: "In homes broken by desertion. separation or divorce. it was felt that the child could not get the proper home supervision. Juvenile court referral was considered indicated by 26% of the police cases of offenders who came from such homes. Such children need more supervision than can be obtained in a broken home” (Goldman.l963:123). Chilton (1972:98) found that ”proportionately more children who come into contact with police agencies and with juvenile courts on delinquency charges live in disrupted families than do children in the general population." McEachern and Bauzer (1967:151) found family status to be a characteristic that police respond to in requesting petitions, but when the nature of the offense was controlled. the impact of family status decreased. In regards to the relationship between family status and detention rates, Sumner (1971:175) found detention rates lower for youths from intact homes for both groups of counties she studied. Chused (1973:512) fOund that of his small sample, the decision to release youths from detention appeared to be related to family status. but this could possibly be explained by the impact of the prior record. 47 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW HOwever, Chused (1973:528) did find family status was definitely related to the dispostions. "Those not living with both parents were treated more.severely than those living with both parents." Thomas and Sieverdes (1975:423) found in their study of juvenile court intake, that when the seriousness of the offense was controlled for. the impact of family status on decisionmnaking disappeared. Cohen (l97Sb:29) claims: "Those from homes in which both natural parents were present were considerably more apt to have their cases adjusted unofficially, and those youths living in homes where the natural parents were not living together were somewhat more likely to be placed on formal probation or incarcerated or waived to an adult court for trial.“ NOw turning to the relationship between family status and the disposition, COhn (1963:270) found that children from intact homes were more likely placed on probation than institutionalized. Bbwever. children living with only one natural parent were more likely to be institutionalized than sentenced to other placements. Scarpitti and Stephenson (1971:146) found that of the four possible placements for the male offenders in their study, youths placed in the most severe placement (the reformatories) were slightly more likely to come from disrupted homes. Cohen (1975a:24) found that juveniles from broken homes "were slightly but not substantially more apt to have received dispositions of a more severe nature than those 48 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW from intact homes.'-I In their study of placements of youths in training schools or mental hospitals. Blankenship and Singh (1976:477) found: "Black, welfare-supported families with absentee fathers were overrepresented in the corrections population. Whites from intact marriages, whose father was sole provider were overrepresented in the hospital population.“ Overall. it does appear that family status does have some impact on decision-making in the juvenile justice system. Generally, intact homes are viewed more favorably than disrupted homes. G: PREVIOUS RECORD . The degree of delinquency is often determined by the prior contact a juvenile offender may or may not have had with the juvenile justice system. Arnold (1971:220) summarizes this view: The number and seriousness of prior and current offenses are viewed as appropriate considerations in juvenile court dispositions. This record is taken to indicate whether the act under consideration is an isolated in- stance of misbehavior under unusual circumstances or an expression of a personality and/or situation which chron- ically produces delinquent behavior. Blankenship and Singh (1976:487) claim: "The meaning of the serious offense is determined by reference to the prior career.“ However. Langley (1972:290) states: "Once a youth experiences 49 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW this juvenile court's delinquency process. the youth and the system seem to behave in ways which foster additional contacts between the two." Chused (1973:567) claims that prior records are not related to the crime charged. but that juveniles with serious histories are detained by the police more often regardless of the crime. Arnold (1971:226) found police are likely to determine whether to refer juveniles to the juvenile court on the basis of their prior contact with them. In their self-report study. Williams and Gold (1972:222) found police record to be only slightly related to the seriousness of teenagers' delinquent behavior. and not to be related to its frequency. However, Piliavin and Briar (1964:209) claim that because police do not have the juvenile records with them they are forced to decide arrest dispositions on personal characteristics, especially demeanor. Focusing on the relationship between the previous record and detention rates, Coates et al. (1978:68) found the. offense history and prior experience to be unrelated to detention decisions, except in crimes against a person. and self-reported drug problems. When Sumner (1971:174-175) divided prior offense history into prior status offenses and prior non-status offenses. she found no difference in the decision to detain youths: fifty percent from each group were detained. If the apprehended youths had never been on probation before they were.detained 25% of the time, where as if previously or currently on probation they were 50 CHAPTER Two: THE LITERATURE REVIEW 'detained 67% of the time. Finally. she found that if the youths had at some other point been adjudicated a delinquent. their likelihood of being detained varied betweeen counties from 50 to 87%, but for those never adjudicated as delinquent befbre. only 20 to 32% from each county were detained. Regarding the relationship between court referrals and the prior record. COhen (1975a:25) found that most juveniles appearing before the court (45%) had had no previous court referrals, while those with two to four previous referrals constituted 23%. and those with only one 17%. and those with five or more making up 15% of the population he studied. BOwever. he found youths' prior records (measured by previous court referrals) are not a "substantial factor in the severity of dispostion accorded by the court." At the multivariate level. Cohen (1975az32) found: IA prior legal decision (case treatment decision) explains the greatest amount of the variation in the imposition of severe dispositions. followed in turn by the number of prior court referrals. and to a somewhat lesser extent. the detention decision outcome." Cohen (1975bz3l) found in a comparison of three counties. a relationship between previous referral and severity of the accorded disposition significant in all three counties. In Cohn's (1963:270) study of the Bronx Children's Court and what influences decisions made in the probatiOnary presentence investigation reports. the number of previous convictions was unimportant but those youths recommended 51 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW to probation had previously committed unprosecuted acts. Finally, regarding the relationship between the previous record and the disposition. Blankenship and Singh (1976:486) studied the decision-making in placements between _training schools (the more severe placement) and mental hospitals (the less severe placement). They found a strong relationship between a prior delinquent record and placement in a training school. Langley's (1972:290) study found: “Over half the youths placed on probation...had been before the court earlier in their lives. Eighty-five percent of the youths committed to the state training schools had appeared earlier in this juvenile court.” Scarpitti and Stephenson's (1971:178) study on decision-making in the determining of placements between four types of placements found that in probation (the least severe placement) nearly half the youths had no prior court appearance. while six or seven percent of all the remaining boys had no prior court appearances. "Only -forty percent of the probationers. but over ninety percent of the boys in the other groups, had one or more prior petitions sustained by the court. Eighty percent of the probationers. but only 19% of the reformatory [the most severe placement] boys, had never been on probation before." Coates et a1. (1978:102) found that the type of youths who tended to receive the highest quality placements had never been detained nor committed to the department of youth services. Those youths with prior court appearances, or those committed or referred to the department 52 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW before. tended to be placed in the institutions. Finally. Thomas and Sieverdes (1975:423) did not find the number of prior offenses to account ”for more than a relatively small proportion of the variation" in the dispositions. Regardless of the morality of allowing the. previous record to affect the decision-making of juveniles. it is evident from an overview of the studies. that the previous record is more often than not an influencing factor in the decision-making of youths in the juvenile justice system. H: THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE The nature (seriousness) of the offense is probably. assumed by most to be what "ought” to be the most significant factor in determining the placement of a juvenile. This study regards violent felonies as the most serious offenses. followed in order by non-violent felonies. misdemeanors. and status offenses. Regarding the relationship between police processing and the nature of the offense. Piliavin and Briar (1964:209) found that police generally regard youths who commit serious crimes (robbery. homicide. and arson) as confirmed delinquents "simply by virtue of their involvement in offenses of this magnitude." 53 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW However. for most minor and some serious delinquents. police made distinctions based more on the youths' personal characteristics than their offenses. Goldman (1963:42) found that police report 80.1% of the serious offenses of juveniles. and only 24.1% of the non—serious offenses. When he Icompared counties. he found differences in the proportion of arrests police officers claimed to make for serious offenses by juveniles (1963:126). Monahan (1976:140) found what is usually expected. that arrest rates varied with the type of offense: more serious offenders were more likely to be arrested than minor or status offenders. McEachern and Bauzer (1967:151) found that police respond to the nature of the offense when requesting petitions. Thornberry (1973:94) studied three stages of the juvenile justice system: the police. court intake. and the juvenile court. He found that in all three levels. the more serious the offense. the more severe the disposition. He found this relationship the strongest at the police level and least at the juvenile court level. then (1975az27) found the seriousness of the offense was more strongly related to the decision to file a formal petition. a fOrm of screening. than the severity of the final disposition. Of the studies on the relationship between the seriousness of the offense and detention rates. Sumner (1971:173-174) found that although 36% of the alleged offenders she studied were detained. only 19% of the truant offenders were detained. 54 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW However in general. she believed the nature’ of the alleged offense to be unrelated to the detention decision. Coates et al. (1978:65) also found that the seriousness of the offense was not strongly related to the detention decision. At the court intake level. Creekmore (1976:27) found no significant impact of the nature of the offense on this decision. except for crimes against the person. Thomas and Sieverdes (1975:423) found at the court intake level that only the most recent offense "accoUnts for more than a relatively small proportion of the variation" in sentencing. Hewever. they also found that this significant relationship varied when other variables were held constant (1975:429). Cohn (1963:273) found that the seriousness of the offense was of only secondary significance in decision-making by the probation officer. of 'primary importance were the youth's personality. family background. and general social adjustment. Terry (1967b: 177) found a significant positive relationship between the seriousness of the offense and the probation departments sanctions. At the final disposition level. Blankenship and Singh (1976:481) found that the juveniles who commit felonies are most likely to be sentenced to an institution. Cohen (1975a:27) found a positive but nonsubstantial relationship at the bivariate level. between seriousness of the offense and the disposition. When Cohen (1975b:33-34) compared three counties' relationships 55 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW between seriousness of offense and the severity of the sentence. he found the relationships to be positive in all three cases. but significant in only two. Wolfgang et al. (1972:227) found that only the most recent offense had more impact on the disposition than previous offenses. At the juvenile court level. Terry (1976b:l79) found a negative relationship between the seriousness of the offense and the severity of the disposition. but this relationship became negilgible when the number of previous offenses was controlled. I: CONCLUSION A review of the literature apprises us of the factors that may be important and what findings are to be expected. The cummulation of the previous research findings has served as a basis for the hypotheses to be tested in the current research: 1. The county itself. with its particular policies and practices. will be predictive of the severity of placements. 2. The relationship of extralegal and legal characteristics of offenders to severity of placement will vary by county. 3. There is a positive relationship between age and the severity of placement of state wards. 4. Female state wards are more likely to receive severe placements than their male counterparts. 56 CHAPTER TWO: THE LITERATURE REVIEW 5. Nondwhite state wards are more likely to receive severe placements than their white counterparts. 6. State wards from non-intact homes have a greater likelihood of receiving severe placements than those state wards from intact homes. 7. There is a positive relationship between the previous record and the severity of the placement of state wards. 8. There is a positive relationship between -the severity of the offense and the severity of the placement for state wards. This chapter has summarized the salient findings of studies on seven factors which have been hypothesized to affect the label accorded to youths by the juvenile justice system. These factors range from legal to extralegal. and are comprised of the following: county of commitment. age. sex. race. family status. previous record. and nature of offense. No single variable was consistently found by all of the studies to affect or not to affect the decision-making of youtns. Because of the conflicting results in previous studies. and changes in times. attitudes. and policies. it is important that these variables be re-examined currently in order to determine their impacts on the disposition decision-making of youths in the juvenile justice system. 57 CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY A: THE POPULATION The data for this study were collected by Dr. Susan Herbel of the Department of Political Science’ at Michigan State University. They were collected for an eighteen month time period between 1978 and 1979 from the Department of Social Services. She collected the data from face sheets on the files of all the juveniles committed as state wards in the Midwestern state during this eighteen month period. The code book Dr. Herbel used to collect the data is included in the appendix. Because all of the state wards are studied. random sampling was unnecessary. In addition. Dr. Herbel collected all of the data herself. Since she was the only data collector. all of the information was collected in a similar manner. B: THE VARIABLES The independent variables in this study are comprised of the following characteristics about the offender and the offense: the jurisdiction of commitment. age. age at first official offense. age the juvenile first became a state ward. sex. race. family status (intact or not intact). number of previous formal police and/or court involvements. and the number of previous placements. The types of placements the state wards are committed to constitute the dependent variable. As stated previously, this variable is divided into the training school placements. and all 58 CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY other (and less severe) placements. The dependent variable. type of placement, is thus a nominal variable. The variables county of commitment, race. gender. and family status are nominal level independent variables. as they cannot be rank ordered. The county of commitment is operationalized by the county in which the placement decision is made. The researcher believes that individual counties will be predictive in juvenile decisionumaking because a review of the literature found local policies to be predictive. Therefore. in relating the county of commitment with the dependent variable. type of placement. only the five largest counties were analyzable because they were the only ones with enough cases for statistical analysis. The five largest counties all had one hundred or more state wards each .during the time period in which the data were collected.' The remaining counties sentenced less than 35 state wards each during this time period. which was not sufficient for this analysis. Futhermore. the choice of these counties allowed for consideration of the effect of the payback arrangement. Table 1. General YOuth Populations in the Five Largest Counties County 1988 Ybuth Census for 0-16 year olds 1 685,689 2 289,910 3 287,459 4 144,817 5 131,473 59 CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY The largest county was of particular interest in this study in that it had the charge-back policy mentioned in Chapter One. That is, it had a financial incentive for sending youths to the training schools. The variables age and age at first commitment were categorized into groups of sixteen year olds and older. and those youths less than sixteen years old. The age sixteen represents a mid-point in adolescence. and is generally recognized as the age when_ youths move into late adolescence. The age of the state ward is operationalized by the date of birth (year only) and the age the youth first became a state ward. This characteristic of the offender does present a problem in that because the data were collected over an eighteen month time period the measurements used do ‘not precisely nor accurately represent the ages of the youths at the time of their offenses nor the time of their disposition decisions. Hewever. because it is the best measurement of age available in this data. it is used. The previous record is measured by the number of previous formal police/court involvements and the number of previous placements. The number of formal police/court involvements is made up of the categories of those youths with two or less involvements and those with three or more. The number of previous placements is categorized as those with no previous placements. and those with one or more. In both measures for 60 CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY previous record the division into the two categories mentioned made the most sense for a mid-point in perceived seriousness of previous record by the juvenile justice system. The nature of the offense is treated as an ordinal variable. as it can be rank ordered according to seriousness. More specifically, it is constituted of the following categories. which are listed from the most serious to the least serious: violent felonies, non-violent felonies. misdemeanors. and status offenses. The status offense category is used in describing the general state ward population. but is left out of the final analysis of the relationship between the nature of the offense and the dependent variable (the placement decision) due to the 1976 policy previously mentioned that made institutionalization of status offenders illegal. C: THE ANALYSIS The next chater will include tables and the analysis of the findings. First. there will be a general description of the state ward pOpulation for the entire state. This will then be compared to the general youth population of the state in order to see if the state ward population over-represents certain sub-groups in the population. Next, analysis of relationships ‘between the dependent variable and the independent variables will 61 CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY be summarized in tables for the five largest counties. Because the dependent variable is nominal. and the independent variables are either nominal or ordinal. the . Chi-squared test is used to determine the. association between each of the independent variables and the dependent Variable. Controls have been introduced in an attempt to differentiate the impacts of the different independent variables on the dependent variable. D: THE CONCLUSION Using secondary data usually involves some frustrations for the researcher conducting the secondary analysis. in that often time certain variables were not operationalized in a 'manner as useful to the subsequent researcher as if he or she had been able to collect them in her or his own method. Also. some useful variables may have been left out of the data collection altogether. This study has not been exempt from these frustrations. As stated previously, the "other“ category of the dependent variable. the type of placement. may be perceived as too heterogeneous whith its most severe placments similar to the state training school placement. prever, the researcher believes, and substantiates this belief with literature in chapter one. that the training school is significantly harsher 62 CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY than any other type of placement. The problem with measuring age has already been explained. In addition, the current researcher would have preferred to have some measure(s) of social economic status (SES), as many of the studies mentioned in the literature review found this variable to be of importance. Williamson. Karp, and Dalphin (1977:155) explain that in secondary analysis "the contemporary researcher is at the mercy of the earlier researcher in terms of what questioning devices were employed to collect the data.“ Babbi (1979:349) states that it is then up to the researcher to determine if the form in which the data was collected provides a valid measure of the variable. However. Williamson. Karp. and Dalphin (1977:156) stress the usefulness of secondary analysis when “the researcher is assured that the earlier data are still relevant and that the earlier methodology was sufficient...“ The data used is deemed as appropriate for What has been thus far proposed to be studied: the influence of offender and offense characteristics on the placement decisions of juvenile state wards. The next chapter will review the findings. First the state ward population will be (described and differences from the general population of adolescents will be noted. Second, the characteristics of the state wards and their offenses will be related to the seriousness of their placements. In order to 63 accc inch eac‘ ins sch als sev Vil pre the CHAPTER THREE: THE METHODOLOGY account for jurisdictional and policy differences impacts of the independent variables on the dependent variable will be shown for each county and each type of offense in order to see. if for instance. blacks are more likely to be placed in a training school in one county than another. The following chapter will also disclose what impact the county of commitment has on the severity of the placement for state wards: and for each county it will disclose the impact of age, race. sex. family status. previous record. and the nature of the offense on the severity of the placement for state wards. 64 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS A: THE INTRODUCTION This chapter is composed of three sections that describe the findings of the study. This first section provides a comparison Of the entire state ward population to that of the general youth population in the state studied. The statistics on the general youth population of the state are from the Census of POpulation and HDusing from the U.S. Census Bureau, 1980. The second section compares (without controls) the characteristics of the state wards in the five largest counties. Finally. the third section contains the results of the analysis of how the independent variables age. sex. race. family status. and previous record are related to the dependent variable. the severity of the placement. while controlling for the county of commitment and the nature of the offense. B: A COMPARISON OF THE ENTIRE STATE WARD POPULATION TO THE GENERAL YOUTH POPULATION OF THE STATE INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF THE ENTIRE STATE WARD POPULATION The number of youths who became state wards during this 18 month time period between 1978 and 1979 was 1,412. Of this population. 9.1% were sent to training schools. while 90.9% received less severe treatments (see Table 2). Although youths aged 5-17 from the largest county comprise only 24.87% of the state's general youth population. they comprise 45.4% of the state ward population. The rest of the four counties with the 65 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS largest youth populations are from 1 to 11% overrepresented in the state ward population (0.8. Census Bureau.1980). Although females constitute 48% of the state's youth population. only 23.4% of the state wards are females. While approximately 82% of the state's youth population are White. only 70.3% of the state ward population is white. Hewever. the most drastic overrepresentation was found in family status. Although approximately 75% of youths under 18 in this state live in intact homes. only 30.8% of the state ward population are .from intact homes (U.S. Census Bureau.1980). Approximately 42% of the entire state ward population was under 16 years old. but 59.8% of this population had first become state wards at an age of younger than 16. Approximately 85% of the state wards had been processed for their first offenses at an age less than 16. Approximately 38% of the state wards had had only zero to two previous formal police or court involvements. . while the majority (61.8%) had experienced three or more formal involvements. Sixty percent had never been sentenced to a juvenile justice system placement before the current offense. A majority of the state wards had committed non-violent felonies (60.2%). while status offenses. violent felonies. and misdemeanors represented 26.5%. 8.2%, and 5.1%. respectively, of the committing offenses. 66 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS Table 2. General State Ward Population Description Characteristic J§_ Distribution % (n)* Type of Placement 1.410 Training School 9.1% (128) Other 90.9% (1282) County Size . 855 largest 27.7% (388) 2nd largest 7.1% (100) 3rd largest 7.6% (107) 4th largest 9.4% (131) 5th largest 9.2% (129) remaining counties 38.9% (544) Age (DOB) 1332 under 16 41.9% (558) 16+ 58.1% (774) Age first became 1359 under 16 59.8% (813) state ward 16+ 40.2% (546) Sex 1411 males' 76.6% (1081) females 23.4% (330) Race 1386 white 70.3% (975) nondwhite 29.7% (411) Family Status 1222 intact 30.8% (376) not intact 69.2% (846) Prior police/ 1220 0-2 38.2% (466) court contacts 3+ 61.8% (754) Age at first 1137 under 16 85.1% (169) offense 16+ 14.9% (968) Committing offense 1326 violent felony 8.2% (109) non-violent felony 60.2% (798) misdemeanor 5.1% (67) status offense 26.5% (352) Prior placements 1314 none 67.4% (886) 1-7 32.6% (428) *The number of youths in each category will not always sum to the total number of youths in the study because there is missing data. 67 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS Although no control group is available to compare which juvenile offenders become state wards. it is useful to compare the state ward population to the general population. It is clear that regardless of how the youths become state wards. the majority of state wards are white. male. sixteen and older. from broken homes, have previous police and court involvement, and have a non—violent felony as a committing offense. Despite the prevalence of these characteristics. it should be remembered that youths from non-intact families. males. older youths. and nondwhites are disproportionately represented in the state ward population when compared to the juvenile population at large. C: A COMPARISON OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STATE WARDS IN THE FIVE LARGEST COUNTIES Keeping in mind the previous statistics describing the entire state ward population. now the characteristics of youths from the five largest counties will be compared. As stated above. of the entire state ward population. 9.1% were sent to training schools. In the largest county, however. 16.8% of the state ward population was sentenced to training schools (see Table 3)., It should be noted that this is the county with the "charge-back policy" and that this was the highest proportion sent to the training schools of any of the five counties. The four remaining counties' commitment to training schools ranged from 5.6 to 9.3%. and this difference was significant (xi-22. O,p=. as) . 68 .CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS For the entire state ward population 41.9% were under 16 when the data were collected. 59.8% had become state wards when less than 16, and 85.1% were under 16 when they committed their first processed offense (see Table 2). The largest county was the only one of the five largest whose state wards less than 16 constituted more than half (53.9%) of the population (see Table 3). The remaining four counties consisted of from 19.4 to 40.2% state wards under 16 (1558.1,p-.00). Thus. the county with the "charge-back” policy is more likely to sentence younger youths as state wards than the other the other counties. The predominant age at which the population first became state wards varied immensely, without a pattern among the five counties. County four (the fourth largest county) had the highest proportion that became state wards under the age of 16, county 1 the second highest, and county 3 the third highest. Counties 2 and 5 had the lowest proportions of youths who first became state wards before the age of 16 “$44.0, pal-.00). Howaver. the five counties were highly consistent in the age at which the offender was first processed for an offense. For four of the counties 86.2 to 88.3% of the state wards were under 16, while fOr the fourth largest county this proportion was 95.2% (Xf87.2.p-.13)- These differences were not significantly significant. In the entire state ward population for this state. females constitued 23.4% of the population. nondwhites 29.7%. and youths from intact families 30.8% (see Table 2). In the five largest 69 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS counties (see Table 3) the females represented from 9.3 to 25.2% of the state ward population Cfl§l4.8.p-.0l). The largest county was the only one of the five where nondwhites constituted the majority of the state ward population (55.0%). Hewever. nondwhites constituted 41.5 and 44.0%. respectively, of the fourth and fifth largest counties. which is much larger than their proportion in the entire state ward population. In the remaining two counties. nondwhites represented 11.3 and 12.6% of the state ward population, and these differences are statistically significant (XI-101.6,p-.00). Ybuths from intact families varied from 22.2 to 35.1% of the state ward population among the five largest counties. but this was not a significant difference Ont-9.0.p-.06). For the entire state ward population 38.2% of the population had experienced less than three previous contacts with the juvenile justice system, while 61.8% had experienced three or more. About 67% of the entire state ward population had had no previous placements. while 33% had had one or more (see Table 2). There were statistically significant and relatively large differences between the five largest counties in the proportions of number of previous juvenile justice system involvements and prior placements (see Table 3). Both counties 3 and 1 had higher proporitons of state wards with zero to two prior contact with the juvenile justice system. County 2 was in the middle. and counties 4 and 5 had the lowest. Counties 1 and 3, and to a 70 Table 3. A Comparison of State Wards in the Five Largest Counties Characteristis Qann&!_2 Ssnnsx_3 SEBEEHLJi ‘599951-3 largest) (smallest) Placement Wpe training school 16.8%(65) 6.0%(6) 5.6%(6) 6.1%(8) 9-3%(12) other 83.2%(321) 94.6:(94) 94.4:(161) 93.9:(123) 90-71(117) Age (DOB) under 16 53.9:(297) 26.8%(26) 40.2%(43) 39.7:(52) 19.4:(24) 16+ 46.1%(177) 73.2:(71) 59.8%(64) 60.3%(79) 80-6‘(109) Age 1st state ward under 16 66.4%(247) 49.5%(48) 60.4%(64) 73.3t(96) 38.7%(48) 16+ 33.6%(125) 50.5%(49) 39.6%(42) 26.7%(35) 61.3%(76) Sex male 78.4%(304) 84.8%(84) 74.8%(80) 75.6:(99) 90.7%(117) female 21.6%(84) 15.2:(15) 25.2:(27) 24.4:(32) 9-3‘(12) Race ' white 45.0%(172) 87.4%(83) 66.7:(94) 56.5:(76) 56.6:(79) non-white 55.0%(210) 12.6%(12) 11.3:(12) 41.5:(54) 44-°'(55) Family status intact 22.2:(66) 22.7:(Is) 34.4:(22) 35.1:(27) 28-11(27) not intact 77.8%(301) 77.3:(34) 65.6%(42) 64.9%(50) 71.9%(69) Prior'police/court involvement 0-2 4s.3:(121) 19.4:(19) 49.5:(47) 19.4:(13) 11'2‘(14’ 3+ 59.7%(188) 80.6%(79) 50.5%(48) 89.6%(112) 33-9“111) Age at 1st offense " . under 16 86.2%(249) 87.2%(75) 88.3%(83) 95.2%(118) . 97-2t¢102) 16+ . 13.8%(40) 12.8%(11) 11.7:(11) 4.8%(6) 12-8‘(15) Prior placements ' ' .. ' none 77.6%(266) 50.5%(50) 64.2%(68) 65.4%(83) 49-6t(63) 1+ 22.4:(77) 49.5:(49) 35.8%(38) 34.6%(44) 50.4%(64) Co-ittine Offense ' _ violent felony 13.4%(46) 8.1%(8) 9.3%(10) 3.1:(4) 13.2:(17) non-vial. :61. 54.7%(188) 76.8%(76) 69.2%(74) 11.1:(91) 39-5‘(19‘) misdemeanor 2.6%(9) 2.0%(2) 3.7%(4) 3.1%(4) 2.3%(3) status offense 29.4%(101) 13.1:(13) 17.8%(19) 22.7:(29) :59;:?{7) “The number of youths in each category will not always sum up to the total number of youths in the study because there is missing data. "p-.00 '*'p-.01 71. in Order of Juyenile Population‘ 3C1 21.99.. 58.14" 43.97.. 14.8%"' 101.57.. 83.53.. 46.44" 58.44.. 1e ha 131 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS lesser extent 2, have more youths who have not had many prior .contacts 08:83.5,p-.00). The largest county, on the other hand. had the lowest proportion of state wards who had been placed before the placement analyzed in this study (22.4%), while the second and fifth largest counties had the highest proportions of state wards who had been placed before: (49.5 and 50.4%. respectively). In the remaining two counties. about 35% of the state wards had been placed previously 06:46.6%.p-.00). The harsher treatment of the youths in the largest- county cannot be explained by the seriousness of the offense (see Table 3). Although the largest county had the highest proportion of violent felons. this was only by a 0.2% margin. In addition. the largest county had by far the smallest proportion of non-violent felons. and consequently had the smallest proportion of total felons, violent and non-violent. and these differences were significant (7L&'-58.4.p-.00). In fact, the largest county also had a significantly higher amount of status offenders than the remaining four. Thus, in conclusion. the harsher placements of youths in the largest county cannot be accounted for by the seriousness of the offense. D: A COMPARISON OF STATE WARDS SENTENCED TO TRAINING SCHOOLS AND STATE WARDS SENTENCED TO LESS SEVERE ALTERNATIVES IN THE FIVE LARGEST COUNTIES This section will include an analysis relating offender and 72 -CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS offense characteristics to the severity of the placement. controlling for the county of commitment and the seriousness of the offense. Due to the 1976 policy making the placement of status offenders in training schools illegal. the analysis exculdes youths committed for status offenses. In order to control for different policies in counties and differences in sentencing due to the severity of the crime, the analysis treats the variables individually within each of these contexts. Therefore. each table contains information about one county, and the five counties with the largest youth populations are used. The tables for this section of the chapter are included in the Appendix. Tables portraying the relationships between the offender characteristics and the placement decision for misdemeanors are included for the largest county. but none of the rest as the remaining four counties did not sentence any of their state wards who committed misdemeanors to training schools. Similarly. a table depicting the relationships between offender characteristics and the placement decision for violent felonies is not included for the fourth largest county, as none of the violent felony offenders were sentenced to training schools. The fact that this discrepancy in sentencing between the counties exists is important. It is highly suspicious that state wards Who committed misdemeanors in the county with the financial incentive of the “charge-back" policy would be the only ones who 73 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS were sentenced to training schools of the five largest counties. This proportion of misdemeanants sent to training schools in the largest county varies among subgroups of youths. but it does not vary significantly due to the small cell sizes (see Table 7). In spite of the researcher's expectations that certain offender and offense characteristics would impact on the severity of placement decision. there were few significant findings. That is. few of the hypotheses were supported (see Tables 4 through 19). All of the significant findings were from the largest county. the one with the "charge-back” policy. The remainder of this chapter describes these significant findings. 'When combining violent and non-violent felonies and misdemeanors in the largest county (see Table 4). it was found that youths who first became state wards when 16 or older were sent to training schools 33.3% of the time. while those youths who had first become state wards while under 16 were committed to training schools only 19.5% of the time (p-.02). More generally, youths who first become state wards When 16 or older are more likely to be sentenced to training schools than their counterparts who first became state wards When younger than 16. When type of offense was introduced as a control variable for youths Who had committed violent felonies (see Table 5). it was found that 72.0% of the youths Who were over 16 When first becoming state wards were sentenced to training schools. While 74 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS 36.8% of the comparable youths who had first become state wards at an earlier age were committed to training schools (p=.04). There was no similar pattern for other types of offenses. Thus. the state wards in the largest county Who committed violent felonies and Who had first become state wards When older than 16 were twice as likely to be sentenced to a training school than corresponding youths who had first become state wards When less than 16. For all the offenses combined in the largest county (see Table 4). it was found that 14.4% of the whites were sentenced to training schools. While 33.8% of the non-whites were (p-.00). In other words, nondWhites were more than twice as likely to be sent to training schools than Whites. When only the violent offenses in the largest county were focused on it was found that 65.7% of the non-whites were sent to training schools. while only 22.2% of the Whites were (p-.00). This is an example of the harsher sentencing of blacks suggested by some previous studies. Just focusing on the violent felonies in the largest county, non~Whites were three times more likely to be sent to training schools than their White counterparts (see Table 5). Focusing on violent felonies in the largest county. it was found that 35.0% of those state wards less than 16 were sent to training schools. while 75.0% of the state wards 16 and older were sent to the training schools (p-.02). This means that 75 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS within this county, that youths 16 or over who commit violent felonies are more than twice as likely to be sent to a training school than their counterparts under 16 ( see Table 5). Certain trends were suggested by the analysis of the placement decisions of misdemeanants in the largest county, but the sample was too small to draw statistical conclusions. However, the findings suggest that females and youths with prior placement records tend to be sentenced more harshly than males and youths with no previous placements (Table 7). E: CONCLUSION An analysis of the data shows that certain groups are are overrepresented in the state ward population as compared to their representation in the general youth population. More specifically, blacks, males, and youths from not intact homes constitute a higher proportion of the state ward population than they do of the general youth population. Further analysis showed that the counties vary significantly in the characteristics of state wards and in their sentencing practices (see Table 3). However, when the type of offense is controlled. only the largest county, the only one with the financial "charge-back" incentive. shows statistically significant differentials in placement decisions between offender and offense characteristics. The significant findings in the largest county were: (1) for all the 76 CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS offenses combined, youths Who first became state wards when 16 or older were more likely to be sent to training schools. (2) When just focusing on violent felonies the previous discrepancy increases to youths l6 and over being twice as likely than their younger counterparts to be sent to training schools. (3) When all the offenses were combined. nondWhites were 19.4% more likely to be sent to training school than Whites. (4) When just focusing on violent felonies, nondWhites were 43.5% more likely to be sent to training school, and (5) for violent felonies. youths 16 and over were more than twice as likely to be sent to training schools than their younger counterparts. In conclusion. Table 19 compares the differences between the five largest counties in the placment decision While controlling for the type of offense. As noted before. the largest county was the only one Which sentenced misdemeanants to training schools (although this number was not very large). In addition. Table 19 shows that the largest county is more than' twice as likely to commit non-violent felons to the training schools than the next highest county. This finding was significant (25‘227.3,p=.00). Finally, the second largest county is the most likely to commit violent felons to training schools. while the largest cOunty is second most likely, followed by the 5th and 3rd counties. The 4th largest county did not commit any of its four felons to a training school. The following and final chapter will further discuss these findings and their. importance. 77 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION A: THE MAJOR FINDINGS This study described the state ward population and compared it to the general youth population of the state studied. Additionally, it related the state wards' personal and offense characteristics to the severity of their placements. This second part of the analysis controlled for the seriousness of the offense and for the county of commitment, using only the five largest counties. Initial analysis Of the data from the 1,412 state wards showed that certain groups of youths are overrepresented in the state ward population compared to their proportions in the general youth population in the state studied. More specifically, there are higher proportions of blacks, males. and youth from broken homes in the state ward population than in the general youth population. Additional analysis examined the relationship of the charactersitics of the offenders and offenses to the severity of the placements. This analysis showed statistical significance only in the largest county, and then only for certain offenses. More specifically, in the largest county the following findings were statistically significant: (1) for all the offenses combined, but just for violent felonies when offense types were considered separately, youths who were 16 or older when first 78 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION becoming state wards were more likely to be sent to training schools than those under 16, (2) for the combined offenses, non-whites were twice as likely to be sent to training schools. and for just violent felonies. non-whites were three times more likely to be sent to training schools, and (3) Ybuths 16 and over who committed violent felonies were more than twice as likely to be sent to training schools than their younger counterparts. The findings stated above supported the hypotheses about age and race proposed in chapter two. Additionally, the hypothesis that claimed that communities (counties) themselves would be predictive due to -differences in policies and practices. is substantiated by the significant findings for the county with the ”charge-back" policy. This will be expanded upon in the following section of this chapter. Finally, the hypothesis which proposed that the relationships between the legal and extralegal characteristics and the severity of placements would vary between counties was substantiated. In conclusion. in most cases (for all but the largest county) there were no statistically significant findings for relationships of the offenders characteristics to the severity of the placement. However, the counties varied in the strengths of the relationships between the independent variables (race. sex. age, etc.) and the dependent variable (the placement decision). The most important finding was that the largest county, the one 79 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION with the financial incentive of the "charge-back" policy, was the only county with statistically significant relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variable. B: INTERPRETING THE FINDINGS It is apparent from the findings that when a county is allowed a financial incentive for sending youths to training schools, then more youths will be sent to training schools. Additionally, it is apparent that discriminatory practices surface when this incentive is available. NOt only are proportionally more youths in the county with the "charge-back" policy sent to the training schools, but more blacks, females. older youths. youths with prior records, and youths committing misdemeanors are sentenced to training schools. In fact. this was the only county of the five largest where state wards were sentenced to training schools for a misdemeanor committing offense. However, there were still only a few misdemeanants to be sentenced to the training schools in the largest. county, therefore disallowing the researcher to make statistical conclusions of misdemeanant placements. There are other reasons. in addition to the "charge-back" policy that could explain or influence why the largest county differed significantly in its sentencing practices, and why the five largest counties varied among each other. One explanation 80 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION could be that in addition to having the "charge-back" policy, the largest county is the only one where the decision-making is made be a board within the DSS, rather than a D88 worker. This is an organizational difference. This board decision-making approach is not so muCh a legalistic decision and is insulated more from judicial influences than the standard process where the DSS caseworker makes the placement decision. Possibly, this board is allowed too much power and discretion. resulting in discriminaltory sentencing of youths. Another factor that could affect the high rates of sentencing youths to the training school in the largest county could be an increased fear of crime in this area of the state. It holds the largest city in the state and has a reputation of being "crime-ridden". The reaction to this fear of crime could be an overreaction by the decision-makers. especially allowing stereotypes of race and age or other factors to influence unfairly the sentecing decisions made. A third reason that the sentencing differences occur could be the availability of placements. Initially. this referrs to the amount of "spaces" available within the different placement types. For instance. in some counties there may be few placement alternatives to the training schools. so the decision-makers may not want to place a youth in a training school. but feels "forced" to because the remaining p1acement(s) may appear too 81 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION mild. In addition. it is possible that the training schools may be the only type of placement that accepts older non-white felons, thus accounting for the high proportion of nondwhites and older youths in the largest county placed ~in the training schools. If it is the case that noneWhites are ”hard to place" outside of the training schools, then this could have a serious impact on these youths. It is highly doubtful that the atmosphere within training schools is conducive for rehabilitation. The system may in fact then. be "breeding" criminals by placing non-deserving youths in these institutions. Finally. it may be due to differences within the counties themselves, such as a tendency to use "informal" methods of controllng youths before resorting to processing them ”formally" through the juvenile justice system. McDonough (1976:110) believes that because decision-makers in the larger courts have more "important" and "difficult" jobs, that youths in these communities are more likely to be processed by the juvenile courts than youths in smaller courts. Previous studies on decision making in the juvenile justice system have focused on most of the Characteristics analyzed in this study. However. few studies have taken the community into account to study differential sentencing patterns. Duffee (1980:2) claims that criminal justice systems "across localities differ significantly." Further. he claims: "The extent to which 82 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION these [criminal justice system] organizations will focus on coercive control or upon nOnlegal. informal controls shold be expected to vary considerably" (1980:91). This study did take community differences into account by controlling for the county - of commitment When analyzing the relationships of the offenders' characteristics with their subsequent placements. Additionally, this analysis controlled for the seriousness of the offense. When controlling for both the county of commitment and the seriousness of the offense. most of the statistically significant relationships between the offenders' characteristics and the placement decisions became non-significant. The only exception to this was the largest county, the one with the "Charge-back" policy. Thus, this study could not only substantiate differences between community practices, but also. discriminatory practices and abuse of the sentencing decision by this county with the financial incentive to commit its youths to the training schools. This study shows the importance of analyzing decision making differences by communities. In conclusion. this study found significant discrimination practices toward older and non-white youths in the largest county. This could be due to a number of the reasonS‘ reviewed above. or a combination of them. At any rate there were no significant findings of discriminatory sentencing in the remaining four counties. The literature review provided mixed information on the impact of race on the decision-making of CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION juveniles. Some studies found that race is related and others did not, but few looked at jurisdictional differences.3 This discrepancy between counties is the major finding of this study. It suggests the importance of formal and informal policy differences between jurisdictions. C: LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The major limitations of this study were problems in operationalizing the age variable. and not being able to use the less populated counties in the final analysis due to the small number of subjects in them. The former problem was elaborated on in the chapter on the methodology of the study. Briefly. it was found that in using this secondary analysis that unfortunately the data was not collected in a manner which could accurately and precisely measure the age of the state ward at the time of the offense analyzed in this study. The age then. had to be estimated through the date of birth of the subject although the data was collected during an eighteen month time period. This affects findings concerning the age of the offender at the time of the offense analyzed in this study. Another limitation in the analysis of this study includes not being able to determine differences within the offense categories. For instance. within the violent felony category it could have been that all murderers were non—whites and all the 84 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION armed-robbers were white. Therefore, when the data analysis concludes that non-white violent felons are treated more harshly than their white counterparts. it makes a legalistic decision appear to be extralegal. In addition. it would have been interesting and probably useful to analyze the decision making process in rural and less populated counties. but due to the inadequate number of state wards in these counties, this was an unrealistic option. Because of this, the findings about the relationships between the offender characteristics and the severity of placement. only reflect the most populated counties. D: RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the high proportion of state wards sent to the training schools, and the apparent discrimination that has emerged in this higher sentencing in the county with the "charge-back" policy, it is necessary that some action be taken. More specifically, something must be done to alleviate the financial incentive this county has for committing its state wards to the training schools. The most practical approach would be for the State to not only pick up part of the cost for the training schools, but also to pick up part of the cost for the alternative placements, making it no longer “financially sound" for the county to commit its youths to the training schools. It 85 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION would probably save the State money to help pay for alternative placements by decreasing the financial (and more expensive to the State) incentive of sending the youths to training schools. As it is now, the State has committed itself to pay for the training school placements, and thus it must do so regardless of whether overplacement or discriminatory placement in the training schools results. Recent national trends towards more punitive placements further exacerbate the "Overplacement" reactions of those with a financial incentive to use the most severe placement. E: CONCLUSIONS This study contributes evidence that the local policies are very important influences on decision-making and they can relate to discrimination based on age and race, and possibly other characteristics. It is possible that in counties where the decision-makers have to watch their budget more closely, that discrimination is ’less likely to surface. Hewever, where there are no financial restraints to keep from committing youths to training schools, then prejudices and biases tend to emerge and impact on the sentencing decision. It is also necessary to be aware of the decision-making process within jurisdictions. for example, to be certain that the process is not overly discretionalry and overly insulated from outside input. It is also necessary that decicion-makers it not make their placement decisions based on the availability of space. but rather on what 86 CHAPTER FIVE: THE DISCUSSION best suits the needs of the offender and society. In conclusion. it is important that further studies continue to look at community differences in the decision-making of juveniles in the criminal justice system. 87 Table 4. THE APPENDIX Proportion of State Wards in the Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for All Offenses Characteristic Age (DOB) under 16 16+ Age lst state ward under 16 16+ Sex male female Race white non-white Family status intact not intact Prior police/court involvement 0-2 3+ Age at lst offense under 16 16+ Prior placement none 1+ *p<.95 training school 25.2%(29) 25.0%(31) 19.5%(26) 33.3%(34) 25.8%(57) 20.0%(4) 14.4%(15) 33.8%(46) 21.2%(11) 26.6%(50) 31.1%(23) 24.5%(36) 24.6%(42) 36.1%(13) 23.1%(43) 33.3%(17) 88 Placement other 74.8%(86) 75.0%(93) 80.5%(107) 66.7%(68) 74.2%(164) 80.0%(16) 85.6%(89) 66.2%(90) 78.8%(41) 73.4%(138) 68.9%(51) 75.7%(111) 75.4%(129) 63.9%(23) 76.9%(143) 66.7%(34) 2C 5.07* 10.70* .38 .78 1.48 Table 5. Proportion of State Wards in the Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for Violent Felonies Characteristic Placement L training school other )6 Age (DOB) under 16 35.0%(7) 65.0%(13) +16 75.0%(18) 25.0%(6) 5.58* Age 1st state ward _ under 16 36.8%(7) 63.2%(12) 16+ 72.0%(18) 28.0%(7) 4.10* Sex male 58.5%(24) 41.5%(17) female 33.3%(1) 66.7%(2) .06 Race white 22.2%(2) 77.8%(7) non-white 65.7%(23) 34.3%(12) 3.89* Family status intact 100.0%(4) 0%(0) not intact 53.5%(21) 47.5%(19) 1.69 Prior police/court involvement 3+ 56.0%(14) 44.0%(11) 0 Age at lst offense under 16 48.3%(14) 51.7%(15) 16+ 76.9%(10) 23.1%(3) 1.95 Prior placement none 52.8%(19) 47.2%(17) 1+ 75.0%(6) 25.0%(2) .57 *p<.05 89 Table 6. Proportion of State Wards in the Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for NOn-violent Felonies Characteristic Placement ‘PC1 training school other Age (DOB) - under 16 22.7%(20) 77.3%;68; 16+ 12.2%(12) 87.8% 86 2.88 Age lst state ward - under 16 15.9%(17) 84.1%(90) 16+ 20.0%(15) 80.0%(60) .27 Sex male 18.9%(33) 81.1%(90) female ------- 100.0%(13) 1.81 Race white 13.0%(12) 87.0%(80) non~White 22.1%(21) 77.9%(74) 2.05 Family status intact 11.1%(5) 88.9%(40)° not intact 19.7%(28) 80.3%(114) 1.20 Prior police/court involvement 0-2 19.6%(10) 80.4%(41) 3+ 17.8%(21) 82.2%(97) .00 Age at lst offense _ under 16 18.7%(25) 81.3%(109) 16+ 13.0%(3) 87.0%(20) .13 Prior placement none 16.1%(23) 83.9%(120) 23.8%(10) 76.2%(32) .85 1+ 99 Table 7. Proportion of State Wards in the Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for Misdemeanors Characteristic Placement training school other‘ Age (DOB) ‘— under 16 28.6%(2) 71.4%(5) 16+ 50.0%(1) 50.0%(1) Age lst state ward under 16 28.6%(2) 71.4%(5) 16+ 50.0%(2) 50.0%(5) Sex male -------- 100.0%(5) female 75.0%(3) 25.0%(1) Race white 33.3%(1) 66.7%(2) non-white 33.3%(2) 66.7%(4) Family status intact 66.7%(2) 33.3%(1) not intact 16.7%(1) 83.3%(5) Prior police/court involvement 0-2 50.0%(2) 50.0%(2) 3+ 25.0%(1) 75.0%(3) Age at lst offense under 16 37.5%(3) 62.5%(5) 16+ ---------------- Prior placement none 14.3%(1) 85.7%(6) 1+ 100.0%(1) -------- 91 Table 8. Proportion of State Wards in the Second Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for All Characteristic Age (DOB) under 16 16+ Age lst state ward under 16 16+ Sex male female Race white non-white Family status intact not intact Prior police/court involvement 0-2 3+ Age at lst offense under 16 16+ Prior placement none 1+ training school 9.5%(2) 6;3%(4) 5.6%(4) 9.1%(1) 11.1%(1) 13.8%(4) 8.2%(6) 7.6%(5) 10.0%(1) 11.4%(5) 2.4%(1) 92 Offenses Placement other 90.5%(19) 93.8%(60) 92.7%(38) 93.2%(41) 92.4%(73) 100.0%(7) 94.4%(67) 90.9%(10) 88.9%(8) 86.2%(25) 100.0%(13) 91.8%(67) 92.4%(61) 90.0%(9) 88.6%(39) 97.6%(41) .ycl Dag .23 Table 9. Proportion of State Wards in the Second Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for Violent Felonies Characteristic Placement 2 ' training school other 9(,* Age (DOB) under 16 50.0%(1) 50.0%(1) 16+ 66.7%(4) 33.3%(2) .64 Age lst state ward under 16 50.0%(2) 50.0%(2) 16+ 75.0%(3) 25.0%(1) .50 Sex male 62.5%(5) 37.5%(3) female ---------------- --- Race white 57.1%(4) 42.9%(3) non-white 100.0%(1) -------- .62 Family status intact ----------------- --- not intact 100.0%(4) -------- --- Prior police/court involvement 0-2 --------- 100.0%(3) 3+ 130.0%(5) --------- . e62 Age at lst offense under 16 66.7%(4) 33.3%(2) 16+ 50.0%(1) 50.0%(1) .64 Prior placement 1+ 50.0%(1) 50.0%(1) .64 *Fisher's Exact Test was used to calculate the Chi-squared in this table. 93 Table 10. Proportion of State Wards in the Second Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for Non-violent Felonies Characteristic Age (DOB) under 16 16+ Age lst a state ward under 16 16+ Sex male female Race white non—white Family status intact not intact Prior police/court involvements 0—2 3+ Age at lst offense under 16 16+ Prior placements none 1+ training school 5.6:(1) 1.5%(1) 1.8%(1) Placement other 94s 4% (17 100.0%(5 ) 6) 97.1%(34) 100.0%(39) 98.6%(68) 100.0%(6) 100.0%(63) 100.0%(9) 88.9%(8) 100.0%(23) 100.0%(9) 98.5%(65) 98.2%(56) 100.0%(8) 97.2%(35) 100.0%(39) 1 "X .36 .00 .24 .00 Table 11. Proportion of State Wards in the Third Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics fer All Offenses Characteristic Placement xi training aghggl other Age (DOB) _ ' under 16 3.2%(1) 96.8%(30) 16+ 8.8%(5) 91.2%(52) .30 Age lst state ward under 16 4.2%(2) 95.8%(46) 16+ 10.3%(4) 89.7%(35) .48 Sex male 6.5%(5) 93.5%(72) female 9.1%(1) 90.9%(109 0 Race white 5.2%(4) 94.8%(73) non-white 18.2%(2) 81.8%(9) .92 Family status intact 5.6%(1) 94.4%(17) not intact 11.3%(4) 86.7%(42) .13 Prior police/court involvement 3+ 6.7%(3) 93.3%(42) 0 Age at lst offense ' under 16 5.9%(4) 94.1%(64) 16+ 18.2%(2) 81.8%(9) .67 Prior placement none 89.5%(5) 91.1%(51) 1+ 3.2%(1) 96.8%(30) .32 95 Iable 12. Proportion of State Wards in the Third Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender - Characteristics for Violent Offenses Characteristic Placement 1 training shcool other GK» * Age (DOB) ‘ under 16 ------- 100.0%(3) 16+ 42.9%(3) 57.1%(4) .29 Age lst state ward under 16 ------- 100.0%(4) 16+ 50.0%(3) 50.0%(3) .17 Sex . male 25.0%(2) 75.0%(6) female 50.0%(1) 50.0%(1) .93 Race white 25.0%(2) 75.0%(6) non~White 50.0%(1) 50.0%(1) .93 Family status intact -------- 100.0%(2) not intact 50.0%(3) 50.0%(3) .36 Prior police/court involvement . 0-2 50.0%(2) 50.0%(2) 3+ 16.7%(1) 83.3%(5) .33 Age at lst offense under 16 14.3%(1) 85.7%(6) 16+ 66.7%(2) 33.3%(1) ' .18 Prior placement none 33.3%(2) 66.7%(4) 1+ 25.0%(1) 75.0%(3) .67 *Fisher's Exact Test was used to calculate the Chi-squared in this table. 96 Table 13. Proportion of State Wards in the Third Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for Non-violent Felonies Characteristic Age (DOB) under 16 16+ Age 1st state ward under 16 16+ Sex male female Race white nondwhite Family status intact not intact Prior police/court involvement 0-2 3+ Age at lst offense under 16 16+ Prior placement none 1+ training school 4.2%(1) 4.0%(2) 3.1%(2) 11.1%(1) 6.7%(1) 4.8%(1) Placement other 95.8%(23) 96.0% 95.0%(38) 97.0%(32) 95.5%(63) 100.0%(8) 96.9%(63) 88.9%(8) 93.3%(14) 95.2%(20) 100.0%(28) 94.9%(37) 94.8%(55) 100.0%(8) 93.6%(44) 100.0%(26) at} .06 .24 .49 Table 14. Proportion of State Wards in the Fourth Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for All Offenses Characteristic Placement 7C1 training school other Age (DOB) _— under 16 12.2%(5) 87.8%(36) 16+ 5.2%(3) 94.8%(55) .79 Age lst state ward under 16 8.5%(6) 91.5%(65) 16+ 7.1%(2) 92.9%(26) 0 Sex male 9.9%(8) 90.9%(73) female ------- 100.0%(18) .83 Race white 8.6%(5) 91.4%(53) non-white 7.3%(3) 92.7%(38) 0 Family status intact 10.5%(2) 89.5%(17) not intact 13.5%(5) 86.5%(32) 0. Prior police/court involvement 0-2 -------- 100.0%(6) 3+ 8.8%(8) 91.2%(83) 0 Age at lst offense under 16 8.6%(8) 91.4%(85) 16+ ------- 100.0%(4) 0 Prior placement none 4.3%(3) 95.7%(67) 1+ 17.2%(5) 82.8%(24) 3.05 98 Table 15. Proportion of State Wards in the Fourth Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for NOn-violent Offenses Characteristic Placement gcz training school other Age (DOB) -— _- under 16 13.5%(5) 86.5%(32) 16+ 5.6%(3) 94.4%(51) .88 Age lst state ward under 16 9.0%(6) 91.0%(61) 16+ 8.3%(2) 91.7%(22) Sex male 10.7%(8) 89.3%(67) female -------- 100.0%(16) .78 Race white 9.6%(5) 90.4%(47) non-White 7.7%(3) 92.3%(36) Family status . intact 11.1%(2) 88.9%(16) not intact 16.1%(5) 83.9%(26) .00 Prior police/court involvement 0-2 -------- 100.0%(5) 3+ 9.5%(8) 90.5%(76) Age at lst offense under 16 9.4%(8) 90.6%(77) 16+ ------- 100.0%(4) Prior placement none 4.8%(3) 95.2%(59) 1+ 17.2%(5) 82.8%(24) .40 99 Table 16. Proportion of State Wards in the Fifth Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for All Offenses Characteristic Placement ;Kf. training school other Age (DOB) _— under 16 9.1%(2) 90.9%(20) 16+ 9.3%(9) 90.7%(88) 0 Age lst state ward under 16 4.3%(2) 95.7%(44) 16+ 13.5%(10) 86.5%(64) 1.73‘ Sex male 10.5%(12) 89.5%(102) female --------- 160.0%(10) e27 Race white 8.8%(6) 91.2%(62) non-white 9.4%(5) 90.6%(48) 0 Family status intact 4.0%(1) 96.0%(24) not intact 16.7%(11) 83.3%(55) 1.56 Prior police/court involvement 0-2 14.3%(2) 85.7%(12) 3+ 9.3%(10) 90.7%(97) .01 Age at lst offense under 16 10.2%(10) 89.8%(88) 16+ 13.3%(2) 86.7%(13) 0 Prior placement none- 12.9%(8) 87.1%(53) 1+ 6.6%(4) 93.4%(57) .78 100 Table 17. Proportion of State Wards in the Fifth Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for Violent Felonies Characteristic Placement 1 training school other 7" * Age (DOB) ——___. . under 16 ------- 100.0%(1) 16+ 46.7%(7) 53.3%(8) .56 Age lst state ward under 16 33.3%(1) 66.7%(2) 16+ 50.0%(7) 50.0%(7) .55 Sex . male 53.3%(8) 46.7%(7) female -------- 100.0%(2) .26 Race . white 50.0%(4) 50.0%(4) nondWhite 37.5%(3) 62.5%(5) .50 Family status intact 33.3%(1) 66.7%(2) not intact 58.3%(7) 41.7%(5) .45 Prior police/court involvement 0—2 50.0%(1) 50.0%(1) 3+ 46.7%(7) 53.3%(8) .79 Age at lst offense under 16 53.8%(7) 46.2%(6) 16+ 33.3%(1) 66.7%(2) .50 Prior placement ' none 50.0%(4) 50.0%(4) 1+ 44.4%(4) 55.6%(5) .76 Fisher's Exact Test was used to calculate the Chi-squared in this table. 101 Table 18. Proportion of State Wards in the Fifth Largest County Sentenced to Two Different Types of Placement by Offender Characteristics for Non-Violent Felonies Characteristic Placement 1 training school other 5K) Age(DOB) under 16 9.5%(2) 90.5%(19) 16+ 2.5%(2) 97.5%(78) .71 Age lst state ward under 16 2.3%(1) '97.7%(42) 16+' 5 2%(3) 94.8%(55) .04 Sex male 4.1%(4) 95.9%(93) female ------- 100.0%(7) 0 Race white 3 4%(2) 96.6%(56) non-white 4.5%(2) 95.5%(42) 0 Family status intact ------- 100.0%(22) not intact 7.7%(4) 92.3%(48) .60 Prior police/court involvement 0-2 10.0%(1) 90.9%(9) 3+ 3.3%(3) 96.7%(88) .03 Age at lst offense under 16 3.6%(3) 96.4%(81) 16+ 9.1%(1) 90.9%(10) .00 Prior placement none 7.7%(4) 92.3%(48) 1+ ------- 100.0%(51) 2.28 102 . . OG.nQee .euep ocueeue ea ones» eessocn >psue era cw asusos uo seals: usu0u on» o» as [as easaus no: —~«3 huoceueo zone Cu gene» «a seals: are. .3... 5.6.6.: 3.8.2: 3.8.2: 12.6.63 3.3.66 .28 . 3.2.2:. {in}-.. :55... (23....-- 3.3.2” 396- 65583 . nonessereu: ..on... 36:36... 233.: 22.8.3 323.: 32.3.3 356 3.8..” 8.8.6 3.3.. 2.3.— 3234; 39.6- 6556.3 accueh useuou>ucoz 3.6 3.3.3 3.3.2: 2.3.2. 8.3.2 333.: .656 8.2.: .33-}-.. 3.8.8. 3.3.2 323.3 596. .3553» Scoueh use~ou> .ueeguele. .ueeuueq. m Susana e Sucsoo n >ussou n >ucsoo n >ussoo Uuuewueuoeuszu 2:...qu we use. 23 an useieoeum no eon55_useueuuuo 039 Cu peaceacem eeuucsou assess.- e>qh 2.» 5 sons: eacum no codename: e5. .en suns... 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY ARNOLD,W.R.(1971)"Race and Ethnicity Relative to Other Factors in Juvenile Court Dispositions." American Journal of Sociology 77(2):211-227. AXELRAD,S.(1952)"Negro and White Male Institutionalized Delinquents." American Journal of Sociology 57(May):569-574. BABBIE,E.R.(1979) The Practice of Social Research. Belmont.CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,Inc. BARRET,D.R. and W.J.T. BROWN. and J.M.CRAMER(1966)"Juvenile DelinquentszThe Police, State Courts. and Individualized Justice." Harvard Law Review 79 (February):775-8l0. BARTON,W.H.(1976)"Discretionary Decision-Making in Juvenile Justice.“ Crime and Delinquency 22(4):470-480. BECKER,H.S.(1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New YOrk: Free Press. BLACK,D.J. and A.J. REISS.JR.(1970)"Police Control of Juveniles." American Sociological Review 35(February):63-77. BLANKENSHIP,R.L. and B.K. SINGH(1976)"Differential Labeling of Juveniles." Criminology 13(4):471-490. BROWNING,C.J.(1960)"Differential Impact of Famil Disorganiza- tion on Male Adolescents." Social Problems 8(1 :37-44. CHAMBLISS,W.J.(1974) Functional and Conflict Theories of Crime. New Ybrk: An MSS Modular Publication (Module l7):1-23. CHESNEY-LIND,M.(1977)"Judicial Paternalism and the Female Status Offender." Crime and Delinquency 23(2):121-130. CHILTON,R.J.(1972)"Family Disruption. Delinquent Conduct and the Effect of Subclassification." American Sociological Review 37:93-99e CHUSED,R.H.(1973)”The Juvenile Court Process: A Study of Three New Jersey Counties." Rutgers Law Review 26(2):488-459. COATES,R.B. and A.D.MILLER and L.E.OHLIN(1978) Diversity in a Ybuth Correctional System. Cambridge,MA:Ballinger Publishing CO. 104 COHEN,L.E.(1975a) Juvenile Dispositions: Social and Legal Factors Related to the Processing of Denver Delinquency Cases. Albany, NY: U.S. Dept. of Justice (LEAA). ' COHEN,L.E.(1975b) Delinquency DispOstions: An Empirical Analysis. Albany,NY: U.S. Dept. of Justice (Criminal Justice Research Center). COHN,Y.(1963)"Criteria for the Probation Officers' Recommenda- tions to the Juvenile Court Judge." Crime and Delinquency 9(3):262-275. CREEKMORE,M.(1976)"Case Processing: Intake. Adjudication. and Disposition," pp.119-150 in R.Sarri and Y.Hasenfe1d (eds.) Brought to Justice? Ann Arbor,MI: University of Michigan. DAVIS,N.J.(1972)"Labeling Theory in Deviance Research." 13(Fa11):447:474. DUFFEE,D.E.(1980) Explaining Criminal Justice: Community Theory and Criminal Justice Reform. Cambridge.MA: Oegleschlager, Gunn & Hain Publishers,Inc. EMERSON,R.M.(1969) Judging Delinquents. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. EMPEY,L.T.(1978) American Delinquency: Its Meaning and Concusion. Illinois: The Dorsey Press. ERICKSON,K.T.(1962)"Notes on the Sociology of Deviance." Social Problems 9:307-314. ERICKSON,M.L. and L.T.EMPEY(1963)“Court Records, Undetected Delinquency and Decision-Making." Journal of Criminal Law, Criminologv. and Police Science 54(December):456-469. EVANS.J. and R. CARTER(1978) The Michigan Residential Facilities Project. MIchigan Dept. of Social Services. FERDINAND,T.N. and E.LUCHTERHAND(1970)"Inner-City Ybuth. the Police, the Juvenile Court, and Justice." Social Problems l7(4):510-527. FINLEY,S.H.(1977)"Alicia Morales, et al. v. James Turman, et al.: A case Study of Juvenile Justice."Ph.D. dissertation.University of Oklahoma Graduate College. GLUECK,S. and E.GLUECK (1968) Delinquents and Nondelinquents in Perspective. Cambridge,MA.: Harvard University Press. 105 .OLD,M.(1963) Status Forces on Delinquent Boys. Ann Arbor,MI: University of Michigan Press. GOLDMAN,N.(1963)"The Differential Selection of Juvenile Offen- ders for Court Appearance." National Research Center: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. GOTTFREDSON, D.M. and G. D. GOTTFREDSON( 1969) "Decision-Maker Atti- tudes and Juvenile Detention." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 6:177-185. GOTTFREDSON,D.M.,ed.(1975)"Decision-Making in the Criminal Jus— tice System: Reviews and Essays." National Institute of Mental Health: DHEW Publication (ADM) 75-238. GOULD,L.C.(1969)"Who Defines Delinquency: A Comparison of Self- Reported and Offically Reported Indices of Delinquency for Three Racial Groups." Social Problems 16:325-336. HASENFELD,Y.(1976)“YOuth in the Juvenile Court: Input and Output Patterns," pp.60-7l in R.Sarri and Y.Hasenfeld (eds.) Brought to Justice? Ann Arbor,MI: University of Michigan. HASENFELD,Y.(1976)“The Juvenile Court and Its Environment." pp.72-95 in R.Sarri and Y.Hasenfeld (eds.) Brought to Justice? Ann Arbor,MI: University of Michigan. HASENFELD,Y. and R.SARRI (1976)"The Juvenile Court Reexamined," pp.207-218 in R.Sarri and Y.Hasenfe1d (eds.) Brought to Jus- tice? Ann Arbor,MI: University of Michigan. HINDELANG.M.J.(1981)"Variations in Sex-Race-Age-Specific Inci- dence Rates of Offending." American Sociological Review 6(4):461-474. HIRSCHI,T.(1969) Causes of Delinquency. Berkley: University of California Press. HORN,A. and A.PADGET(1978)"Institutional Services Evaluation 1974-1978.” Office of Planning, Program Coordination and Evaluation: Michigan Dept. of Social Services. HUSSEY,F.A.(1976)"Perspectives on Parole Decision-Making with Juveniles." Criminology 13(4):449-469. ISENSTADT,P. and R.SARRI(1976)"The Juvenile Court: Legal Context and Policy Issues," pp.1-15 in R.Sarri and Y.Hasenfeld (eds.) Brought to Justice? Ann Arbor,MI: University of Michigan. KITSUSE,J.I.(1962 "Societal Reaction to Deviant Behavior: Problems of Theory and Method." Social Problems 9(3):247-256. 106 KORN,R.R. and L.W.McCORKLE(1959) Criminology and Penology. NY: Henry Holt and Co.,Inc. KRAUS,J.(1975)"Decision Process in Children's Court and the Socail Background Report." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 12(January):l7—29. KRATCOSKI,P.C.(1974)"Differential Treatment of Delinquent Boys and Girls in Juvenile Court." Child Welfare 53(1):l6-22. LANGLEY,M.H.(1972)"The Juvenile Court: The Making of a Delin— quent." Law and Society Review 7(Winter):273-298. LARSON,W.R. and B.G.Mayerhoff(1967)"Family Integration and Police Contact," pp.139-l47 in M.W.Klein and B.B.Myerhoff Juvenile Gangs in Context: Theory ResearCh and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,Inc. LEMERT,E.M.(1967) Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. Englewood C1iffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall,Inc. MAHONEY,A.R.(1974)"The Effect of Labeling upon YOuths in the Juvenile Justice System: A Review of the Evidence." Law and Society Review 8:583-614. MARTIN,J.H.(1970)"Toward a Political Definition of Juvenile Delinquency." Washington,D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. MATZA,D.(1964) Delinquency and Drift. NY:John Wiley and Sons,Inc. MATZA,D.(1969) Becoming Deviant. Englewood C1iffs,NJ: Prentice- Ha11,Inc. McDONOUGH,J.(1976)"Structural and Staff Characteristics of Juvenile Courts," pp.96-118 in R.Sarri and Y.Hasenfeld (eds.) Brought to Justice? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. McEACHERN,A.W. and R.BAUZER(1967)"Factors Related to Disposition in Juvenile Police Contacts," pp.148-160 in M.W.Klein and B.G. Myerhoff (eds.) Juvenile Gangs in Context. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Ha11,Inc. MEADE,A.(1973)"Seriousness of Delinquency, the Adjudicativc Deci- sion and REcidivism--A Longitudinal-Configuration Analysis." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 64(4):478-485. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES(1974) Adrian Training School: Utilization.Costs, and Cost Effectiveness. 107 MONIHAN,T.P.(1970)“Police Dispositions of Juvenile Offenders: The Problems of Measurement and a Study of Philadelphia Data." Phlen 31(2):129—l4l. ' MORASH,M.(1982)"The Establishment of a Juvenile's Police Record: The Influence of Individual and Peer Group Character- istics.” (mimeo). PANELS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY(1947) "Recommendations for Action." Washington,D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. PETERSON,D.R. and W.C.BECKER (1965)“Family Interaction and Delinquency." in H.C.Quay (ed.) Juvenile Delinquency, Princeton,NJ: Van NOstrand Co.,Inc. PILIAVIN,I. and S.BRIAR(1964)"Police Encounters with Juveniles." American Journal of Sociology 70(September):206-214. RECKLESS,W.C.(1955) The Crime Problem,2nd Ed. NY: Appleton- Century-Crofts,Inc. ROGERS,K.O.(1972)"For Her Own Protection." Law and Society Review 7(Winter):223-246. ROSEN,L.(1970)"The Broken Home and Male Delinquency," in M.E. Wolfgang,L.Savitz, and N.JOhnstone (eds.) The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency,2nd Ed. NY: JOhn Wiley & Sons. Inc. ROSENHEIM,M.K.,ed.(1977) Justice for the Child. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ROTHMAN,D.J.(1980) Conscience and Convenience. Boston,MA: Little, Brown & Co. RUBIN,H.T.(1979) Juvenile Justice. Santa Monica,CA: Goodyear Publishing Co,Inc. SCARPITTI,F.R. and R.M.STEPHENSON (1971)"Juvenile Court Disposi- tion: Factors in the Decision-Making Process." Crime and Del- inquency 17(2):142-151. SCHUR,E.M.(1971) Labeling Deviant Behavior. NY: Harper & Row, Publishers. SHORT,J.F. and F.I.NYE (1957)"Reported Behavior as a Criterion of Deviant Behavior." Social Problems 5:207—213. SLOCUM,W. and C.L.STONE (1965)"Family Interaction and Delin- quency." in H-C- Quay (ed.) Juvenile Delinquency. Princeton, NJ: D.Van NOstrand Co., Inc. 108 SMITH,C. and T.E.BLACK and F.R.CAMPBELL (1979)"A National Asses- ment of Case Dispostition and Classification in the Juvenile Justice System: Inconsistent Labeling." VOlume I: Process De- scription and Summary. Washington.D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. SMITH,C. and T.E.BLACK and A.W.WEIR (l980a)"Inconsistent Labeling VOlume II: Results of a Literature Search." Washington,D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. tice. SMITH,C.P. and T.E. BLACK and F.R.CAMPBELL 1980b) ”Inconsistent Labeling: Vblume III: Results of a Survey." Washington,D.C.: U. S. Govt. Printing Office. STERNE, R. S. (1964) Delinquent Conduct and Broken Homes. New Haven, Conn: College and University Press. SUMNER,H.(1971)"Locking Them Up.“ Crime and Delinquency 17(2): TERRY.R.M.(1967a)"Discrimination in the Handling of Juvenile Of- fenders by Social Control Agencies." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 4(2):218-230. TERRY.R.M.(1967b)"The Screening of Juvenile Offenders." The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 58:173—181. ' THOMAS,C.W. and C.M.SIEVERDES (1975)"Juvenile Court Intake: An Analysis of Discretionary Decision-Making." Criminology 12(4):413—432. THOMAS,C.W.(1976)"Are Status Offenders Really so Different?" Crime and Delinquency 22(4):438-455. THORNBERRY,T.P.(1973)"Race, Social Economice Status and Sen- tencing in the Juvenile Justice System." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 64:90-98. U.S. Census Bureau (1980) Census of Population and Housing. Summary Tape File 1A. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE(1980) "Children in Custody: Advance Report on the 1979 Census of Public Juvenile Facilities." Washington,D.C.: Govt. Printing Office. VINTER,R.D.(1967)"The Juvenile Court as an Institution." pp.84-90 in The President's Commission of Law Enforcement and Administraion of Justice Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquen— cy and YOuth Crime. Washington.D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. 109 WARD,R.H.(1971)"The Labeling Theory: A Critical Analysis." Criminology 9(2-3):268—290. WEINER,N.L. and C.W.WILLIE (1971)“Decisions by Juvenile Offi- cers." American Journal of Sociology 77:199-210. WEIS,J.G.(1980) Jurisdiction and the Elusive Status Offender: A Comparison of Involvement in Delinquent Behavior and Sta- tus Offenses. Washington.D.C.: U.S. Govt Printing Office. Office. WILLIAMS,F.P.III(1980)"Conf1ict Theory and Differential Proces- sing: An Analysis of the Research Literature," pp.213-232 in J.A.Inciardi (ed.) Radical Criminology: The Coming Crises. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. WILLIAMS,J.R. and M.GOLD (1972)"From Delinquent Behavior to Of- ficial Delinquency." Social Problems 20(Fall):209-229. WILLIAMSON,J.B. and D.A.KARP and J.R.DALPHIN (1977) The Research Craft: An Introduction to Social Science Methods. Boston: Lit- tle, Brown and Co. WOLFGANG,M.E. and R.M.FIGLIO and T.SELLIN (1972) Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 110 Tl ”9 "2 ”1 N“ A“3 mlll HI