The Experts below are selected from a list of 228 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Nancy Rodriguez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
minority threat and Juvenile Court outcomes
Crime & Delinquency, 2016Co-Authors: Michael J Leiber, Jennifer H Peck, Nancy RodriguezAbstract:Framed within the racial/ethnic threat thesis, the present research examined the relative effects of the size of minority populations and the ratios of White-to-minority unemployment on intake, adjudication, and judicial disposition decision making within Juvenile Court proceedings. Communities with greater Black and Hispanic presence and greater economic equality were expected to increase the social control for youth up to a point, where social control would then diminish. These relationships were anticipated to be stronger for Blacks than Hispanics. The overall pattern of results failed to yield support specifically for these hypothesized effects and in general, for the minority threat perspective. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.
-
the cumulative effect of race and ethnicity in Juvenile Court outcomes and why preadjudication detention matters
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2010Co-Authors: Nancy RodriguezAbstract:Despite federal and state legislation aimed at producing equitable treatment of youth in the Juvenile Court system, studies continue to find that race and ethnicity play a significant role in Juvenile Court outcomes. To date, few studies have examined the cumulative effects of race and ethnicity in Juvenile Court outcomes. In this study, a random sample of youth processed in Arizona during 2000 (N = 23,156) was used to examine how race and ethnicity influence diversion, petition, detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions. Analyses show that black, Latino, and American Indian youth were treated more severely in Juvenile Court outcomes than their white counterparts. Also, youth who were detained preadjudication were more likely to have a petition filed, less likely to have petitions dismissed, and more likely to be removed from the home at disposition. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
-
youth is enmeshed in a highly dysfunctional family system exploring the relationship among dysfunctional families parental incarceration and Juvenile Court decision making
Criminology, 2009Co-Authors: Nancy Rodriguez, Hilary Smith, Marjorie S ZatzAbstract:Although prior work has substantiated the role of external attributes in Juvenile Court decision making, no study to date has examined how family situational factors as well as maternal and paternal incarceration affect Juvenile Court officials' responses to troubled youth. Using quantitative and qualitative Juvenile Court data from a large urban county in the southwest, this study draws on attribution theory to examine how family structure, perceptions of family dysfunction, and parental incarceration influence out-of-home placement decisions. Findings reveal that Juvenile Court officials' perceptions of good and bad families inform their decision making. This study emphasizes the need to unravel the intricate effects of maternal and paternal incarceration and officials' attributions about families and family structure on Juvenile Court decision making.
-
Juvenile Court Context and Detention Decisions: Reconsidering the Role of Race, Ethnicity, and Community Characteristics in Juvenile Court Processes
Justice Quarterly, 2007Co-Authors: Nancy RodriguezAbstract:The relationship between race/ethnicity, community dynamics, and Juvenile Court processes has long been established. Prior research has relied on city‐ or county‐level measures of community characteristics (e.g., racial composition, poverty) to examine how racial groups are processed within Juvenile Courts. To date, no study has utilized finer scale measures of geographic areas to examine how characteristics of Juveniles’ communities impact Court decisions. By utilizing official Juvenile Court data from a city in the southwest, this study draws upon attribution theory to examine how economic and crime community‐level measures directly and indirectly influence detention outcomes. Findings reveal that the effect of race and ethnicity in detention outcomes varies across communities, and the effect of ethnicity in detention decisions is mediated by economic community‐level measures. The theoretical and policy implications of the study findings are discussed.
Joseph B. Sanborn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Parens Patriae Figure or Impartial Fact Finder: Policy Questions and Conflicts for the Juvenile Court Judge:
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 2001Co-Authors: Joseph B. SanbornAbstract:For several decades, Juvenile Courts functioned like clinics. Judges assigned there were instructed to assume a variety of roles: jurist, psychologist, counselor, sociologist, and parent. The In re Gault decision in 1967 granted Juvenile defendants several constitutional rights that transformed Juvenile Courts into criminal Court-like operations. Juvenile Court judges have not been told whether they should continue to be paternal or emulate their counterparts in adult Court; research has not addressed this subject. In this study, 100 Juvenile Court workers (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers) from three Juvenile Courts (urban, suburban, rural) were interviewed to ascertain how judges operate in Juvenile Court and what these workers perceive to be the proper role for the judge. The data show that most workers believe that the role of the Juvenile Court judge is and should be unique.
-
Guardian of the Public and/or the Child: Policy Questions and Conflicts for the Juvenile Court Prosecutor
Justice System Journal, 1995Co-Authors: Joseph B. SanbornAbstract:For several decades, prosecutors rarely worked in Juvenile Courts. The in re Gault decision in 1967, however, granted Juvenile criminal defendants several constitutional rights that have transformed Juvenile Courts into criminal-Court-like operations. Although prosecutors now regularly appear in Juvenile Court, generally, they have not been told whether (or how) they should promote the Court’s special rehabilitation mission or emulate their counterparts in adult criminal Court; research has mostly ignored this subject. In this study, 100 Juvenile Court workers (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers) from three Juvenile Courts (urban, suburban, rural) were interviewed to determine how prosecutors were operating in Juvenile Court and what these workers perceived to be the proper role for prosecutors. The data show that most workers in the urban center believed that prosecutors were ignoring the dictates of Juvenile justice philosophy and were undermining the Court’s operations; many wor...
-
The Juvenile, the Court, or the Community: Whose Best Interests Are Currently Being Promoted in Juvenile Court?
Justice System Journal, 1994Co-Authors: Joseph B. SanbornAbstract:AbstractOriginally, Juvenile Courts were designed to promote only the best interests of the child. Developments within the last three decades, however, have suggested that there are other interests represented in Juvenile Court proceedings. In this study, one hundred Juvenile Court workers (judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, probation officers) from three Juvenile Courts (urban, suburban, rural) were interviewed to determine the extent to which the child’s interests are promoted in the contemporary Juvenile Court. The data suggest that a number of other interests currently rival the youth’s for primacy in decisions reached in Juvenile Court.
-
Remnants of Parens Patriae in the Adjudicatory Hearing: Is a Fair Trial Possible in Juvenile Court?
Crime & Delinquency, 1994Co-Authors: Joseph B. SanbornAbstract:Traditionally, adjudicatory hearings in Juvenile Court operated under the direction of the parens patriae doctrine, the state's obligation and license to care for children. Adjudications were achieved in informal, clinic-like sessions. The Supreme Court purportedly transformed Juvenile Court hearings into criminal-like trials via the Gault and Winship decisions. This research examines the extent to which Juvenile Court personnel currently perceive remnants of parens patriae in the adjudicatory hearing. One hundred workers (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers) from three different Juvenile Courts (urban, suburban, and rural) were interviewed concerning sources of unfairness in the contemporary adjudicatory hearing. The results indicate that Court workers see numerous obstacles to fairness in the Juvenile Court adjudicatory hearing.
-
Philosophical, Legal, and Systemic Aspects of Juvenile Court Plea Bargaining
Crime & Delinquency, 1993Co-Authors: Joseph B. SanbornAbstract:Despite indications of its existence, plea bargaining in Juvenile Court remains largely unexplored. Despite the absence of research, numerous state legislatures and national commissions have formulated divergent positions regarding Juvenile Court plea negotiation. This article presents the results of interviews conducted with 100 workers from three Juvenile Courts. The data suggest that caution should be exercised in accepting conclusions that have been drawn concerning plea bargaining in Juvenile Court and that some policy decisions in this area are unnecessary and possibly even harmful to Juvenile Court operations.
Daniel P Mears - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Juvenile Court and contemporary diversion helpful harmful or both
Criminology and public policy, 2016Co-Authors: Daniel P Mears, Mark A Greenwald, Joshua Kuch, Andrea M Lindsey, Sonja E Siennick, George B Pesta, Thomas G. BlombergAbstract:Research Summary The Juvenile Court was established to help children through the use of punishment and rehabilitation and, in so doing, “save” them from a life of crime and disadvantage. Diversion programs and policies emerged in the 1970s as one way to achieve this goal. Despite concerns about its potential harm, diversion became increasingly popular in subsequent decades. We examine the logic of a prominent contemporary diversion effort, civil citation, to illuminate tensions inherent to traditional and contemporary diversion. We then review extant evidence on traditional diversion efforts, examine civil citation laws, and identify the salience of both traditional and contemporary, police-centered diversion efforts for youth and the Juvenile Court. The analysis highlights that diversion may help children but that it also may harm them. It highlights that the risk of net-widening for the police and the Court is considerable. And it highlights the importance of, and need for, research on the use and effects of diversion and the conditions under which it may produce benefits and avoid harms. Policy Implications This article recommends a more tempered embrace of diversion and a fuller embrace of research-guided efforts to achieve the Juvenile Court's ideals. Diversion may be effective under certain conditions, but these conditions need to be identified and then met.
-
the true Juvenile offender age effects and Juvenile Court sanctioning
Criminology, 2014Co-Authors: Daniel P Mears, Joshua C Cochran, Brian J Stults, Sarah J Greenman, Avinash S Bhati, Mark A GreenwaldAbstract:Age is the only factor used to demarcate the boundary between Juvenile and adult justice. However, little research has examined how age guides the Juvenile Court in determining which youth within the Juvenile justice system merit particular dispositions, especially those that reflect the Court's emphasis on rehabilitation. Drawing on scholarship on the Court's origins, attribution theory, and cognitive heuristics, we hypothesize that the Court focuses on youth in the middle of the range of the Court's age of jurisdiction--characterized in this article as "true" Juveniles--who may be viewed as meriting more specialized intervention. We use data from Florida for Court referrals in 2008 (N = 71,388) to examine the decision to proceed formally or informally and, in turn, to examine formally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer) and informally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, and probation). The analyses provide partial support for the hypothesis. The very young were more likely to be informally processed; however, among the informally processed youth, the youngest, not "true" Juveniles, were most likely to be diverted or placed on probation. By contrast, among formally processed youth, "true" Juveniles were most likely to receive traditional Juvenile Court responses, such as diversion or probation. Language: en
-
evidence on the effectiveness of Juvenile Court sanctions
Journal of Criminal Justice, 2011Co-Authors: Daniel P Mears, Joshua C Cochran, Sarah J Greenman, Avinash S Bhati, Mark A GreenwaldAbstract:Abstract Purpose The past decade has been witness to a proliferation of calls for evidence-based Juvenile Court sanctions—including various programs, interventions, services, and strategies or approaches—that reduce recidivism and improve mental health, drug dependency, and education outcomes. At the same time, an emerging body of work has identified “proven,” “evidence-based,” “best practice,” or, more generally, “effective” efforts to achieve these outcomes. Even so, grounds for concern exist regarding the evidence-base for these and other sanctions. Methods This paper describes the heterogeneity of sanctioning within Juvenile justice and argues that, despite substantial advances in research, the heterogeneity severely delimits the generalizability of evaluations to date. It also raises questions about how much is in fact known about the effectiveness of many Juvenile justice sanctions. Conclusion Extant research offers grounds for optimism. Even so, explicit articulation of the limitations of this research and the need for studies that examine external validity is important for developing evidence about “what works” in Juvenile justice. Implications for research and policy are discussed.
-
PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE Juvenile Court
Criminology, 2007Co-Authors: Daniel P Mears, Carter Hay, Marc Gertz, Christina ManciniAbstract:Over 100 years ago, Juvenile Courts emerged out of the belief that Juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be “saved” from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the Juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the Juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing Juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original Juvenile Court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child-saving and “get tough” orientations influence public views about Juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of Juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of Juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of Juvenile Court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research.
-
THEORIZING SANCTIONING IN A CRIMINALIZED Juvenile Court
Criminology, 2000Co-Authors: Daniel P Mears, Samuel H. FieldAbstract:Recent Juvenile justice reforms have produced increasingly complex and criminal-like approaches to sanctioning youths, yet research to date has not examined the full range of newly available sentencing options nor systematically drawn on theories of adult sentencing. The present study addresses these issues by developing competing hypotheses about the effects of legal, extralegal, and processing factors, as well as sentencing options, in a highly proceduralized and criminalized Juvenile Court in Texas. These hypotheses are then tested using quantitative and qualitative data. The results are largely consistent with derived expectations and do not support arguments that increased proceduralization and criminalization of Juvenile Courts will eliminate consideration of age, gender, or race/ethnicity in sentencing decisions.
Marjorie S Zatz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
youth is enmeshed in a highly dysfunctional family system exploring the relationship among dysfunctional families parental incarceration and Juvenile Court decision making
Criminology, 2009Co-Authors: Nancy Rodriguez, Hilary Smith, Marjorie S ZatzAbstract:Although prior work has substantiated the role of external attributes in Juvenile Court decision making, no study to date has examined how family situational factors as well as maternal and paternal incarceration affect Juvenile Court officials' responses to troubled youth. Using quantitative and qualitative Juvenile Court data from a large urban county in the southwest, this study draws on attribution theory to examine how family structure, perceptions of family dysfunction, and parental incarceration influence out-of-home placement decisions. Findings reveal that Juvenile Court officials' perceptions of good and bad families inform their decision making. This study emphasizes the need to unravel the intricate effects of maternal and paternal incarceration and officials' attributions about families and family structure on Juvenile Court decision making.
Mark A Greenwald - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Juvenile Court and contemporary diversion helpful harmful or both
Criminology and public policy, 2016Co-Authors: Daniel P Mears, Mark A Greenwald, Joshua Kuch, Andrea M Lindsey, Sonja E Siennick, George B Pesta, Thomas G. BlombergAbstract:Research Summary The Juvenile Court was established to help children through the use of punishment and rehabilitation and, in so doing, “save” them from a life of crime and disadvantage. Diversion programs and policies emerged in the 1970s as one way to achieve this goal. Despite concerns about its potential harm, diversion became increasingly popular in subsequent decades. We examine the logic of a prominent contemporary diversion effort, civil citation, to illuminate tensions inherent to traditional and contemporary diversion. We then review extant evidence on traditional diversion efforts, examine civil citation laws, and identify the salience of both traditional and contemporary, police-centered diversion efforts for youth and the Juvenile Court. The analysis highlights that diversion may help children but that it also may harm them. It highlights that the risk of net-widening for the police and the Court is considerable. And it highlights the importance of, and need for, research on the use and effects of diversion and the conditions under which it may produce benefits and avoid harms. Policy Implications This article recommends a more tempered embrace of diversion and a fuller embrace of research-guided efforts to achieve the Juvenile Court's ideals. Diversion may be effective under certain conditions, but these conditions need to be identified and then met.
-
the true Juvenile offender age effects and Juvenile Court sanctioning
Criminology, 2014Co-Authors: Daniel P Mears, Joshua C Cochran, Brian J Stults, Sarah J Greenman, Avinash S Bhati, Mark A GreenwaldAbstract:Age is the only factor used to demarcate the boundary between Juvenile and adult justice. However, little research has examined how age guides the Juvenile Court in determining which youth within the Juvenile justice system merit particular dispositions, especially those that reflect the Court's emphasis on rehabilitation. Drawing on scholarship on the Court's origins, attribution theory, and cognitive heuristics, we hypothesize that the Court focuses on youth in the middle of the range of the Court's age of jurisdiction--characterized in this article as "true" Juveniles--who may be viewed as meriting more specialized intervention. We use data from Florida for Court referrals in 2008 (N = 71,388) to examine the decision to proceed formally or informally and, in turn, to examine formally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer) and informally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, and probation). The analyses provide partial support for the hypothesis. The very young were more likely to be informally processed; however, among the informally processed youth, the youngest, not "true" Juveniles, were most likely to be diverted or placed on probation. By contrast, among formally processed youth, "true" Juveniles were most likely to receive traditional Juvenile Court responses, such as diversion or probation. Language: en
-
evidence on the effectiveness of Juvenile Court sanctions
Journal of Criminal Justice, 2011Co-Authors: Daniel P Mears, Joshua C Cochran, Sarah J Greenman, Avinash S Bhati, Mark A GreenwaldAbstract:Abstract Purpose The past decade has been witness to a proliferation of calls for evidence-based Juvenile Court sanctions—including various programs, interventions, services, and strategies or approaches—that reduce recidivism and improve mental health, drug dependency, and education outcomes. At the same time, an emerging body of work has identified “proven,” “evidence-based,” “best practice,” or, more generally, “effective” efforts to achieve these outcomes. Even so, grounds for concern exist regarding the evidence-base for these and other sanctions. Methods This paper describes the heterogeneity of sanctioning within Juvenile justice and argues that, despite substantial advances in research, the heterogeneity severely delimits the generalizability of evaluations to date. It also raises questions about how much is in fact known about the effectiveness of many Juvenile justice sanctions. Conclusion Extant research offers grounds for optimism. Even so, explicit articulation of the limitations of this research and the need for studies that examine external validity is important for developing evidence about “what works” in Juvenile justice. Implications for research and policy are discussed.
