Disproportionality in Juvenile Justice Diversion: An Examination of Teen Court Peer-Derived Consequences

Abstract

Juvenile justice diversion programs, such as Teen Court (TC), represent an alternative to traditional juvenile justice responses to youth misbehavior and delinquency. However, although TC represents a potential strategy to address disproportionate minority contact, there is a dearth of research examining the extent to which TC programs are racially equitable. To address this gap, the current study examines racial disproportionality in a TC program in Arizona. Results indicated that in a diverse sample of youths involved in a TC program in Arizona, youths who identified as Latinx or American Indian were more likely to receive a severe consequence from the peer jury compared with their non-Latinx, white counterparts. Multiracial youths were less likely to receive a severe consequence compared with white youths. A hierarchical regression model indicated that offense-related variables explained the largest proportion of variance in number of consequence hours assigned. However, disparities for Latinx and American Indian youths compared with non-Latinx, white youths persisted after controlling for other demographics, type of offense, prior offenses, and additional charges. The results of the current study are the first to document racial disparity in the TC process.

Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) refers to disproportionality in the number of minority youths who come into contact with the juvenile justice system (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2018b). The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 (JJDPA) broadened the scope of DMC from “disproportionate minority confinement” to represent an expanded focus on disproportionality at each decision point in the juvenile justice system in addition to sentencing decisions (OJJDP, 2018b). DMC is a pervasive problem in the United States juvenile justice system. Indeed, according to OJJDP (2012), disproportionate minority representation is evident at nearly every contact point (for example, referral, diversion, confinement) in most jurisdictions. In 2002, amendments to JJDPA explicitly required states to address disproportionality throughout the juvenile justice process (Dawson-Edwards, Tewksbury, & Nelson, 2017). Furthermore, researchers and policymakers have called for alternatives to traditional juvenile justice responses to youth misbehavior and delinquency (Laub, 2014; Leiber & Rodriguez, 2011), such as juvenile justice diversion programs. Despite the potential for juvenile justice diversion programs to address DMC, little research has focused on racial equity within such programs.

The current study focused on a popular juvenile justice diversion program, Teen Court (TC). TC programs provide an alternative to traditional juvenile justice system punishments. Rather than facing involvement with the juvenile justice system, nonchronic juvenile offenders who participate in TC are given consequences (for example, apology letter, workshops) by a youth jury made up of their peers (Butts, Buck, & Coggeshall, 2002). By providing an alternative process for determining consequences, TC programs represent an opportunity to address DMC. However, due to a lack of research, it is unclear whether the TC peer-derived consequences are racially equitable (that is, whether youths who participate in TC receive consequences of equal severity regardless of racial identification). Consequently, the aim of the current study was to examine whether the severity of TC peer-derived consequences varied based on racial identification in a TC program in Arizona.

DMC in the Juvenile Justice System

The relative rate index (RRI) is a measure used to compare rates of contact with the juvenile justice system among different groups of youths (OJJDP, 2018a). In 2015, national disparities were documented at each juncture in the juvenile justice system: referral to the juvenile justice system, diversion (youth given opportunity to avoid formal involvement with juvenile justice system), detention (youth placed in secure detention prior to hearing), petition (document filed with the court requesting transfer or adjudicatory hearing), adjudication (youth found to be delinquent), probation (youth found to be delinquent and placed on probation), placement (youth found to be delinquent and placed in secure confinement), and waiver (case sent to criminal court) (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2017). The largest disparities existed in the rates of referral and detention. The national RRI for referrals to the juvenile justice system was 3.1 for black youths (that is, black youths were 3.1 times as likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system compared with their white counterparts) (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2017). The national RRI for detention was 1.3 for black and American Indian/Alaskan Native youths and 1.5 for Latinx youths (Puzzanchera & Hockenberry, 2017).

Several research studies have also documented DMC. In a review of studies examining racial disparities in the juvenile justice system, Crutchfield, Fernandes, and Martinez (2010) found that, at the referral stage, five studies showed strong to moderate disparities, two studies showed minimal disparities, and one study showed no disparity. The authors concluded that overall the results provide evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. Other research studies have documented the persistence of DMC after controlling for self-reported delinquency (Crutchfield, Skinner, Haggerty, McGlynn, & Catalano, 2009) and other factors associated with the offense (Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005; Evangelist, Ryan, Victor, Moore, & Perron, 2017; Leiber & Fox, 2005; Shook & Goodkind, 2009). Another study found that disparities in the juvenile justice system were cumulative such that harsher treatment for youths of color relative to their white counterparts at the front end of the juvenile justice system (that is, lower likelihood of being diverted from formal processing and higher likelihood of being detained before adjudication hearing) was associated with harsher treatment at the back end of the juvenile justice system (that is, higher likelihood of receiving an out-of-home placement) (Rodriguez, 2010).

In addition to cumulative effects within the juvenile justice process itself, DMC has the potential to exacerbate racial inequities outside of the juvenile justice system that persist into adulthood. Involvement with the juvenile justice system during adolescence has negative consequences throughout the life course, marked by labeling, stigma, decreased opportunities, and decreased bonding with adults—a phenomenon described as cumulative disadvantage (Sampson & Laub, 1997). Together, these empirical studies document racial inequity across the juvenile justice system and highlight the long-term, negative consequences for youths of color, which underlines the need for interventions to address DMC.

DMC in the Arizona Juvenile Justice System

Although DMC is prevalent across the nation, state and local efforts are needed in addition to national efforts (Cabaniss, Frabutt, Kendrick, & Arbuckle, 2007; Kempf-Leonard, 2007). Thus, when examining DMC, it is important to consider state and local settings. For instance, one study in Missouri revealed that, compared with white youths, black youths were more likely to receive formal referral for juvenile justice processing, to experience pretrial detention, to be adjudicated, and to receive out-of-home placement in a large, urban county; however, there were no racial differences at these decision points in a smaller, rural county in the state (Ray & Alarid, 2004). Furthermore, another study that involved state-level examinations of DMC reported that overrepresentation tended to be higher in states where the proportion of minorities was lower (Leiber, 2002).

In the context of the current study, it is important to consider the extent of DMC in Arizona. A report examining disparities in the Arizona juvenile justice system from 2013 to 2014 focused on nine decision points: referral (written document indicating a youth committed a delinquent act), direct file (prosecutor files case directly to adult court), deferment (charges filed to adult court due to the child’s age), diversion (youth given opportunity to avoid formal involvement with juvenile court), detention (youth placed in secure detention facility prior to adjudication), petition (filing of a written petition that child is delinquent and not eligible for diversion), adjudicated delinquent (youth is found delinquent by the court), probation (judge decides that youth will be placed on formal probation), and confinement (judge decides to place youth in secure facility) (Haight & Jarjoura, 2016). The authors summarized the following key findings: (a) Latinx youths were not overrepresented in referrals; however, black youths and American Indian youths were more likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system than their white counterparts and (b) Latinx and African American/black youths were overrepresented in the most severe punishments (that is, filings to adult court, placement in pre-adjudicatory detention, confinement) and underrepresented in diversion.

Another study examined the comprehensive effects of race and ethnicity on diversion, petition, detention, adjudication, and out-of-home placement in Arizona in 2000 (Rodriguez, 2010). Results indicated that after controlling for other demographics, type of offense, prior referrals, type of county, and structural disadvantage, disparities existed for black, Latinx, and American Indian youths relative to white youths. However, there were nuances to these findings. Specifically, compared with their white counterparts, black youths were diverted from formal processing less often, experienced pre-adjudication detention more often, and experienced out-of-home placement more often. On the other hand, black youths were adjudicated less often than their white counterparts. Latinx and American Indian youths were less likely to be diverted from formal processing and more likely to be detained prior to adjudication compared with white youths. Together, studies on DMC for juveniles in Arizona suggest that disparities exist for Latinx, African American/black, and American Indian youths compared with their white counterparts at several decision points in the juvenile justice system.

Addressing Disproportionality: TC as an Alternative Consequence

The need for intervention to address DMC is clear; however, evaluation of existing intervention effectiveness to reduce disproportionality is minimal (Leiber & Rodriguez, 2011; Piquero, 2008). According to Leiber and Rodriguez (2011), direct services, such as diversion programs, represent one strategy to address DMC. Laub (2014) echoed the potential utility and need to evaluate diversion programs as alternative consequences to juvenile justice involvement. TC is one such diversion program that provides alternative consequences for youths who are involved with the juvenile justice system. Indeed, Cole and Heilig (2011) discussed the potential utility of TC programs in addressing the disproportionality inherent in the school-to-prison pipeline, a construct that highlights the connection between disproportionality in school discipline practices that leads to increased contact between youths of color and the juvenile justice system.

TC models differ based on the roles of adults and youths in the courtroom; for example, the TC judge can be a youth or an adult, and youth attorneys may or may not be involved in the process (Butts et al., 2002). However, most often across TC programs, peer juries hear arguments from adolescent attorneys and are responsible for suggesting or determining appropriate constructive consequences (Butts et al., 2002). These consequences often include community service, restitution, letters of apology, TC “jury duty,” and educational workshops (Butts et al., 2002). The peer jury is tasked with hearing the case and assigning constructive consequences that give the respondent the opportunity to repair the harm that was caused by his or her actions and develop skills needed to avoid future misbehavior. If the respondent successfully completes the constructive consequences, his or her juvenile court case is closed; otherwise, the youth is referred back for traditional justice system processing (Butts et al., 2002).

TC is a popular diversion program, with estimates of more than 1,800 programs in operation (Global Youth Justice, 2018). Despite its prevalence, research on the effectiveness of TC programs is minimal. Existing research tends to focus on recidivism as an outcome (for example, Cotter & Evans, 2018; Gase, Schooley, DeFosset, Stoll, & Kuo, 2016). Recent systematic reviews (Cotter & Evans, 2018; Gase et al., 2016) have examined studies on TC programs to date and concluded that differences in program components and research designs across studies make it difficult to compare results, thus additional studies are needed to draw conclusions about the impact of TC. Although study results are not directly comparable, Gase et al. (2016) reported that across 15 studies that reported recidivism results, four reported results favoring TC, one favored the traditional juvenile justice system, and 10 reported null results. Uncertainty surrounding program efficacy is not unique to TC—extant research on diversion programs in general is limited. Schwalbe, Gearing, MacKenzie, Brewer, and Ibrahim (2012) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of diversion programs for juvenile offenders and underlined the heterogeneous nature of diversion research. Results of the meta-analysis indicated that of the five types of diversion programs identified (that is, case management, individual treatment, family treatment, youth court, and restorative justice), only family treatment was associated with a statistically significant impact on recidivism (Schwalbe et al., 2012).

Another recent study reported that the impact of TC may have implications beyond recidivism: Smokowski et al. (2017) found that, compared with a comparison group of youths who received a positive behavior intervention and a no-treatment comparison group, TC participants reported greater decreases in internalizing symptoms and parent–child conflict. Furthermore, relative to the no-treatment comparison group, TC participants reported greater improvements in a number of psychosocial functioning, social, and school indicators (that is, school satisfaction, association with delinquent friends, externalizing behavior, self-esteem, and violent behavior) (Smokowski et al., 2017).

Although researchers have acknowledged the potential role of TC in addressing DMC, a review of the literature revealed a dearth of studies examining racial disproportionality in the TC program (that is, whether the peer-derived consequences are racially equitable). To my knowledge, only a single study has examined racial differences in consequence severity. Rasmussen and Diener (2005) did not find differences in sentence severity based on race in a sample of 38 TC participants. Despite encouraging findings, this study was limited in terms of statistical power due to sample size and the majority of the sample (68%) identified as white, which further limited the ability to examine racial differences. The authors also failed to control for other demographic factors (for example, age, gender) or type of offense in their models. Controlling for these variables is essential in that additional demographic variables and the severity of the offense committed likely influence the peer jury’s decision regarding appropriate consequences (Engen, Steen, & Bridges, 2002).

In sum, although TC represents a potential intervention to address DMC, it is unclear whether TC peer-derived consequences are racially equitable. In other words, it is possible that we are diverting youths from an inequitable juvenile justice system into an inequitable diversion program. Identifying and addressing racial inequity is a key goal of social work practice. According to the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (AASWSW) (2018), achieving “equal opportunity and justice” is one of 12 grand challenges for the profession. Therefore, given a general lack of previous research and considerable limitations in existing research, the current study seeks to address this research gap by examining racial disproportionality in a TC program.

Theoretical Framework

Macro-contextual theories of racial disparities in punishment suggest that characteristics of juvenile courts and communities influence whether racial disparities exist in a juvenile justice agency (Engen et al., 2002). Given that philosophy, structure, and procedure differ considerably across agencies, such characteristics are expected to predict whether racial disparities exist. In addition to these organizational characteristics, according to macro-contextual theorists, community characteristics influence formal social control, which has the potential to affect racial equity in formal juvenile punishment (Engen et al., 2002). For instance, large minority populations may lead to increased “social threat” among the white middle class that manifests in the form of intense punishment by formal institutions of social control (Sampson & Laub, 1993). In theory, TC programs differ considerably from traditional juvenile justice agencies in terms of both program philosophy or procedure and community involvement (the extent to which this is true in local practice remains questionable; see DeFosset, Schooley, Abrams, Kuo, & Gase, 2017, for a thorough case study on the theoretical underpinning of a TC). First, although TC is similar to the traditional juvenile justice system in that it relies on hierarchical decision making and procedural consistence, TC is based on a philosophy that TC participants are less likely to reoffend if they are given consequences by other youths, which is exemplified in that the TC hearing is a youth-controlled process (DeFosset et al., 2017). Second, the peer jury is often made up of both previous TC participants and youth volunteers from the surrounding community, which suggests that the youth jury is reflective of youths in the larger community. Therefore, given that the philosophy, process, and community involvement of TC differs from that of the traditional juvenile justice system, it is necessary to examine disproportionality in the TC process.

Research Questions/Hypotheses

Three research questions guide the current study: (1) What are the RRIs for peer-derived consequences assigned to Latinx, American Indian, and African American youths relative to their non-Latinx/white counterparts? (2) After controlling for offense-related variables, age, gender, and family income, are there significant differences in the number of peer-derived consequence hours assigned based on TC respondents’ race? (3) What is the relative impact of respondents’ demographics, offense-related variables, and respondents’ race on severity of consequences received? Overall, the proposed study addresses limitations of previous studies on racial equity in TC peer-derived consequences by analyzing a large, diverse sample of TC youths and controlling for type of offense and other relevant demographics, including age, gender, and family income.

Method

Setting

The setting for the current study was a TC program in a large county in Arizona that serves both urban and rural areas. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2017), approximately 37% of residents identified as Latinx; in terms of race, approximately 85% identified as white, 4% as black/African American, 4% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 3% as Asian, and 3% as two or more races. Overall, household income levels were lower than the national average (median household income was approximately $49,000 compared with the U.S. median income of $57,652) and poverty levels were higher (approximately 17% living in poverty compared with the national average of 12.3%) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).

In the TC program, youths between the ages of 12 and 17 who have been charged with a misdemeanor offense can be referred to TC by their probation officer. These youths are referred to as respondents. TC respondents have typically been charged with their first, second, or third misdemeanor offense. Involvement with TC lasts approximately 30 days. A second group of youths involved in the TC process are the program volunteers. Youths in the community between the ages of 12 and 18 are invited to participate as volunteers. Volunteers serve a variety of roles including attorneys, bailiffs, clerks, and jurors.

On a typical hearing day, respondents and parents arrive and complete an intake with a TC staff member. Then respondents meet with their peer attorney, who learns details of the incident. At the hearing, peer attorneys ask the respondent questions about the incident in front of the peer jury, which is made up of youths who have previously gone through TC and other youths from the community who volunteer to participate in the process. The respondent and parent of the respondent are also given the opportunity to speak to the peer jury. Next, the peer jury leaves the courtroom and deliberates to come to a consensus on the constructive consequences to give the respondent. Possible constructive consequences include jury duties (the respondent will serve on the jury at another hearing), letters of apology, journal writing, independent studies, homework help, peer mediation, and a variety of workshops (for example, shoplifting workshop, anger management, self-improvement, education-focused goals, substance abuse prevention).

After the hearing, the respondent is required to complete all of the constructive consequences assigned by the peer jury. On average, the respondent completes all required consequences within 30 days. If the respondent successfully completes the TC program, their juvenile court case is closed and their arrest will not appear on their record.

Data

After receiving institutional review board approval, I obtained data from the TC program staff. The data file included all TC cases heard in the TC program from 2012 until 2016 (1,258 cases). The data set contained demographic variables, type of offense (for example, disorderly conduct, drug-related offense, assault), prior offenses, additional charges, and a variable indicating the number of hours of consequences assigned by the peer jury.

The dependent variable for the current study was the number of hours of consequences assigned by the peer jury. The number of hours assigned was the best available measure of consequence severity. The peer jury is given leeway in determining consequences based on what they deem appropriate given the details of the case. It stands to reason that when the peer jury decides that a severe consequence is necessary, they assign more consequences that total a greater number of hours. The length of time required to complete each of the possible consequences (that is, workshops, letters of apology, jury duty) were summed by TC staff members to reflect the severity of consequences assigned to the respondent. For consequences in which the amount of time is not fixed (for example, letter writing), TC staff members estimated the approximate amount of time to complete the task.

Demographics included ethnicity (Latinx or non-Latinx), race (African American, American Indian, multiracial, white, Asian, Pacific Islander), age, gender (male, female), and family income. Family income was measured as percentile categories based on the city in which the program was located: <30th percentile, 31st–50th percentile, 51st–80th percentile, and >80th percentile. Race, ethnicity, age, and gender were self-reported by youths. Family income was reported by parents and guardians. The type of offense was coded as a series of dummy variables and included assault, burglary, criminal damage, domestic violence, disorderly conduct, drug-related offense, alcohol-related offense, shoplifting, trespassing, or other. Trespassing was the reference group. Number of prior offenses included a count of the respondent’s number of prior arrests. When arrested, it is possible to be charged with multiple offenses. The variable additional offense was a count indicating the number of additional offenses the respondent was charged with at the time of the primary offense. Information on offense was provided in the referral to TC by probation officers.

Data Analysis

The administrative data included 1,258 TC cases. Due to small sample sizes for individuals identifying as Asian (n = 10) and Pacific Islander (n = 8), these cases were excluded from the analysis sample. Only four cases were missing data on variables of interest. Given the small proportion of missing data (0.3%), these cases were excluded from the analysis sample. The final analytic sample was 1,236.

The first step of data analysis involved calculating RRIs. RRIs are the most common measure used to gauge racial disproportionality in juvenile justice processes (OJJDP, 2018a). RRIs are computed by calculating the rate of a given outcome for youths of color and dividing by the rate of the outcome for white youths. If the resulting RRI equals 1, then there is no evidence of disproportionality; that is, the likelihood of the outcome is equal for youths of color and their white counterparts. If, however, the RRI is greater than 1, this indicates that, compared with their white counterparts, youths of color are more likely to experience a given outcome. In the current study, the RRIs were calculated for receiving a “severe” consequence by the peer jury. A severe consequence was defined as receiving a total number of consequence hours above the median for the sample (19 or more hours).

The second step of data analysis involved using regression modeling to determine the factors associated with the number of consequence hours assigned by the peer jury while controlling for other demographics and offense-related variables. The demographic and offense-related variables were selected based on previous literature examining disparities in the juvenile justice system (Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005; Evangelist et al., 2017; Leiber & Fox, 2005; Rodriguez, 2010; Shook & Goodkind, 2009) and research on the factors that TC juries take into consideration (Engen et al., 2002). Hierarchical regression modeling was used to examine the relative impact of race, other demographics, and offense-related variables. Variables were entered into the model in three blocks.

Results

In terms of ethnicity, the majority of the sample identified as Latinx (59.8%). In terms of race, 73.3% identified as white, 15.3% as multiracial, 6.9% as African American/black, and 4.5% as American Indian (see Table 1). About 65% of the sample were male. The mean age of the sample was 15 years (SD = 1.50). The majority of the sample (49%) reported having a family income that was less than or equal to the 30th percentile for the city in which the program was located. Regarding offense-related characteristics, the majority of TC respondents were charged with a drug-related offense (39.5%), shoplifting (13.2%), or assault (11.6%). Approximately 30% of respondents were charged with one additional offense beyond the primary offense, and 14.2% had two additional charges. On average, respondents had 1.8 prior offenses at the time they were referred to the TC program. See Table 1 for additional sample descriptive statistics.

The results of research question 1 (“What are the RRIs for peer-derived consequences assigned to Latinx, American Indian, and African American youths relative to their non-Latinx/white counterparts?”) are presented in Table 2. The RRI calculation indicated that Latinx youths were 1.19 times as likely to receive a severe consequence compared with non-Latinx youths. An RRI of 1.42 indicated that compared with their white counterparts, American Indian youths were 1.42 times as likely to receive a severe consequence. According to RRI calculations, multiracial youths and African American/black youths received fewer severe consequences compared with their white counterparts.

Results from research question 2 (“After controlling for offense-related variables, age, gender, and family income, are there significant differences in the number of peer-derived consequence hours based on TC respondents’ race?”) are presented in Table 3. The final model indicated that, compared with youths charged with trespassing, those charged with eight out of the nine other offenses received a significantly greater number of hours of consequences. Consequences for respondents charged with criminal damage were not significantly different from those for respondents charged with trespassing. Domestic violence, drug-related charges, burglary, and alcohol-related charges were associated with the greatest additional number of hours. On average, respondents who were charged with domestic violence received an additional 3.9 hours of consequences, those charged with drug-related offenses received an additional 3.6 hours, and those charged with burglary or alcohol-related offenses received an additional 3.5 hours. Being charged with additional offenses and having prior offenses were significantly associated with receiving additional consequence hours.

In terms of ethnicity, all else being equal, compared with their non-Latinx counterparts, Latinx youths received an additional 1.2 hours of consequences. Compared with their white counterparts, American Indian youths received an additional 2.6 hours of consequences. On the other hand, compared with their white counterparts, multiracial youths received 1.4 fewer hours of consequences. There was no statistically significant difference in number of consequence hours between African American/black youths and white youths.

An examination of the change in R² (∆R²) values provides insight into research question 3 (“What is the relative impact of respondents’ demographics, offense-related variables, and respondents’ race on severity of consequences received?”). The ∆R² values denote the relative impact of variables included in each block. In block 1 (demographics other than race), gender, age, and income variables explained 1.2% of the variance in number of hours assigned. In block 2 (offense-related variables), type of offense, prior offenses, and additional charges explained an additional 10.0% of variance. In block 3, the TC respondents’ ethnicity and race explained an additional 2.4% of variance.

Discussion

Generally, study results suggested the presence of racial disproportionality that negatively affected American Indian and Latinx youths compared with white youths. However, youths identifying as multiracial received fewer peer-derived consequence hours compared with their white counterparts. Finally, although the strongest predictors of number of hours of consequences assigned were offense-related variables, race and ethnicity explained additional variance above and beyond other demographics and offense-related variables. These findings are discussed in the following sections.

RRI

RRIs for the current study ranged from 0.82 for multiracial youths (suggesting that, compared with white youths, multiracial youths were less likely to receive severe consequences) to 1.42 for American Indian youths (suggesting that, compared with white youths, American Indian youths were more likely to receive severe consequences). This is the first study to examine RRIs in a TC context. RRIs are commonly used to measure disproportionality in the juvenile justice system (OJJDP, 2018a). Given that TC is a juvenile justice diversion program that provides an alternative to traditional processing, RRIs can be used to inform our understanding of the nature of disproportionality in TC programs and, ultimately, to gauge progress of interventions aimed at decreasing any inequity. The current study represents an important first step in demonstrating the utility of RRIs in a TC context. American Indian youths in particular were the most overrepresented group receiving severe consequences, followed by Hispanic youths. Compared with their white counterparts, multiracial and African American/black youths were less likely to receive severe consequences.

A comparison of the patterns of RRIs for the Arizona juvenile justice system and the TC sample is useful in providing some context for the RRIs calculated in the current study. However, it is important to note that direct comparisons are not possible given that decision points differ between the juvenile justice system (for example, diversion, referral, detention) and the TC process (peer-derived consequence hours). In other words, although previous studies have presented RRIs for diversion (whether or not youths were diverted from traditional justice system processing), the current study focused on the severity of consequences for a group of youths who were diverted from traditional processing to the TC program. Haight and Jarjoura’s (2016) examination of RRIs in the Arizona juvenile justice system indicated disparities for Latinx, African American/black, and American Indian youths compared with their white counterparts. The pattern of results for the TC RRIs in the current study differ in that African American/black youths were less likely to receive severe consequences compared with their white counterparts. In addition, although the current study found that multiracial youths were less likely to receive severe peer-derived consequences, juvenile justice data do not capture multiracial youths. These results are an important first step in using RRI calculations within TC programs to examine patterns in disproportionality. However, the RRI results must be interpreted with caution given that a major limitation of RRIs is that they do not give an indication of statistical significance (Piquero, 2008). Instead, regression models (such as the hierarchical model used to address research question 2 in the current study) can be used to examine statistical significance. Overall, additional research examining RRIs in other TC samples is critical to understand the nature of disproportionality in peer-derived consequences. Researchers should seek to compare patterns of disproportionality in TC programs to disproportionality in the local juvenile justice system.

Relative Impact of Other Demographics, Offense-Related Variables, and Race

Current study findings indicated that disparities for Latinx and American Indian youths compared with white youths persisted after controlling for other demographics, type of offense, prior offenses, and additional charges. This extends findings documenting the persistence of racial disproportionality after controlling for other factors in the juvenile justice system both in Arizona (Rodriguez, 2010) and elsewhere (Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005; Evangelist et al., 2017; Leiber & Fox, 2005; Shook & Goodkind, 2009). The current study is the first to document disproportionality in the TC model.

For African American/black youths, compared with their white counterparts, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of hours of consequences received after controlling for other demographics and offense-related variables. This finding differs from previous studies of the Arizona juvenile justice system in which racial disproportionality was documented for African American/black youths relative to their white counterparts (Haight & Jarjoura, 2016; Rodriguez, 2010). According to macro-contextual theories, agency characteristics have the potential to affect racial equity in juvenile punishment (Engen et al., 2002). Therefore, it is possible that the current study results are due to nuances in the context of the TC program. The importance of context in issues of disproportionality is demonstrated by extant research on disproportionality in school discipline. Results of a study on school context and exclusionary discipline suggested that the proportion of black student enrollment in a school increases one’s risk of out-of-school suspension beyond the influence of individual demographics or behavior) (Skiba et al., 2014). Given that demographics of the larger context affect disproportionality, it is possible that the racial makeup of the peer juries played a role in the severity of consequences given to TC participants. Future studies should use multilevel modeling to simultaneously examine the impact of TC respondent demographics and the demographics of peer juries on the severity of peer-derived consequences.

Examination of the ∆R² values between the three regression blocks revealed that the offense-related variables explained the largest amount of variance in number of constructive consequence hours assigned, followed by respondent’s race and ethnicity. Offense-related variables explained approximately four times the amount of variance compared with race. This finding suggests that factors associated with the offense are mostly driving the peer jury’s selection of appropriate consequences. However, any degree of racial bias in a program designed to promote justice is troubling. Consequently, the fact that race and ethnicity explained variance above and beyond these relevant factors indicates the need for intervention. Researchers should consider developing and evaluating racial bias interventions for peer jurors in a TC context. Jury members could receive a racial bias training component as part of regular jury training. Extant research suggests that implicit racial bias is malleable (for a review, see Dasgupta, 2013). Moreover, existing research has shown that implicit bias affects jurors’ decisions in the adult courtroom (Kang et al., 2012) and in assessments of juvenile offenders (Bridges & Steen, 1998). Therefore, an intervention targeting implicit racial bias among TC jurors may serve to decrease disproportionality in peer-derived consequences.

Additional research is also needed to examine other factors that are associated with the peer jury decision-making process. Indeed, macro-contextual theories suggest that process influences racial equity (Engen et al., 2002); thus examinations of the decision-making process of the TC peer jury could yield particularly valuable insights (Huizinga, Thornberry, Knight, & Lovegrove, 2007). For instance, qualitative analysis of peer jury deliberation sessions could identify other factors that peer jurors take into consideration when determining peer-derived consequences. In one novel study, researchers observed TC hearing and jury deliberation sessions and compared the percentage of jurors presented with different types of evidence with the percentage of jurors on juries in which each piece of information was discussed during jury deliberation sessions (Greene & Weber, 2008). They found that the average percentage of jurors who were presented with relevant evidence was 55% and the mean percentage of jurors on juries in which the evidence was discussed in deliberation was 29%. When peer jurors were asked the extent to which they believed different types of evidence were important, evidence related to the offense itself (that is, physical injuries, property damage) were rated as most important and age and gender of the respondent were rated as least important. Other considerations included whether the respondent expressed remorse, family difficulties, school difficulties, and peer attorneys’ recommendations. Greene and Weber (2008) did not, however, examine racial and ethnic disparities in their study. Additional studies could extend the current work by examining both the peer jury deliberations and how these decisions translate into disparities for youths of color relative to their white counterparts.

Limitations

The results of the current study must be understood in light of study limitations. First, the use of secondary administrative data presented both strengths and limitations. The administrative data were comprehensive in that information on each TC hearing from 2012 through 2016 was included and there was very little missing data. However, the secondary administrative data did not include other potentially relevant factors that could have influenced peer jury decisions, such as those found in the study conducted by Greene and Weber (2008) (for example, teen attorney’s recommendations, family difficulties, school difficulties), as well as contextual differences (for example, neighborhood and school factors). Although peer jury deliberation observations could have provided additional information on how the deliberation process contributes to racial and ethnic disparities, observations were not feasible for the current study. In addition, data on the racial and ethnic composition of the juries were not available. Future studies should consider whether peer jury decisions differ based on the racial composition of the jury.

The external validity of the current study is limited because the sample was based on a single TC program in Arizona. Study findings may not translate to other TC programs, particularly those in regions with different racial and ethnic demographics or in programs with different program processes. Due to low sample sizes, youths who identified as Asian or Pacific Islander were excluded from the study, which limits generalizability to these youths.

Conclusion and Implications

The aim of the current study was to examine racial disproportionality in a sample of TC respondents from a TC program in Arizona. Study results indicated that youths who identified as Latinx or American Indian were more likely to receive a severe consequence from the TC peer jury compared with their non-Latinx, white counterparts. On the other hand, compared with their white counterparts, multiracial youths were less likely to receive a severe consequence. For African American/black youths, there was not a statistically significant difference in the number of peer-derived consequence hours compared with white youths after controlling for other demographics and offense-related variables.

This study is the first to document racial and ethnic disparities in peer-derived consequences in a TC program. Findings highlight that although TC programs may benefit youths by avoiding involvement in the juvenile justice system, the TC process is not free from racial bias. Additional research and information on DMC in TC programs are needed so that researchers can begin to create interventions and programs to help combat racial bias in TC programs. Indeed, researchers should seek to replicate study findings using samples from other TC programs. Future studies should also seek to expand on the current study by examining the impact of contextual variables such as peer jury demographics on assigned consequences. TC programs vary widely in their processes and consequences (Cotter & Evans, 2018), and additional studies could provide insight into processes that may contribute to disparities. Research examining disproportionality within other types of diversion programs such as family group conferencing or victim–offender mediation is also needed. Toward the grand challenge of ensuring “equal opportunity and justice” (AASWSW, 2018), social workers can play a key role by critically examining youth justice program processes to identify possible disparities.

Comparing the current study findings with existing literature is challenging given the lack of research on racial disparities in the TC process. However, comparisons to research examining disparities in the formal juvenile justice system provide some context. Current study findings suggesting disparities for Latinx and American Indian youths compared with white youths are consistent with previous research examining disproportionality in the juvenile justice system in Arizona (Haight & Jarjoura, 2016; Rodriguez, 2010). The finding that African American/black youths did not receive statistically significantly more consequence hours compared with their white counterparts differs from existing juvenile justice research in Arizona, which has documented disparities for African American/black youths (Haight & Jarjoura, 2016; Rodriguez, 2010). Additional research on racial disproportionality in peer-derived consequences across different contexts will allow for a deeper understanding of potential bias when youths are responsible for ensuring justice for their peers.

The current study also examined the relative impact of other demographics, offense-related variables, and race. Offense-related variables explained the largest amount of variance in the number of peer-derived consequence hours assigned, suggesting that youth juries do primarily consider context of the offense. Nonetheless, the fact that disparities for Latinx and American Indian youths persisted after controlling for other demographics, type of offense, prior offenses, and additional charges suggests the presence of racial bias within the TC process. Social workers are often involved in advocating for alternatives to juvenile involvement in the justice system. However, current study results caution against making assumptions that alternative programs are unbiased. Instead, social workers working within juvenile justice and diversion agencies can lead efforts to assess racial disproportionality within their programs. RRIs provide a straightforward method for examining disparities. If racial disparities exist, social workers can implement and evaluate interventions targeting racial bias. Interventions addressing implicit bias among peer juries may be effective in decreasing disparities. At the policy level, several states have legislation guiding the operation of TC programs (see Heward, 2006). Social workers can advocate for legislative requirements to examine racial disproportionality in TC consequences, which can be used to strengthen the programs and help ensure an unbiased TC trial and consequences for all respondents.

References