Examining the impact of racial/ethnic threat on juvenile court outcomes: a multi-level approach

ABSTRACT

The current study examines whether racial/ethnic threat theory can explain juvenile court outcomes. Specifically, we look at Black population threat and Latino population threat. We also introduce White population as a threat that can be incorporated into the theory. Using data from over 55,000 juvenile court cases in over 400 neighborhoods, we found mixed support racial/ethnic threat. Latino population threat had the greatest impact on juvenile court outcomes, while Black population threat and White population threat had less support and also findings that are inconsistent with the theory. Empirical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed along with directions for future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Racial/ethnic threat
• minority threat
• Juveniles
• court outcomes

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. We do not provide the exact number of census tracts because it can result in the identification of the state. Since we focused on a southern state, we provided the number of census tracts for the southern state with the lowest number of census tracts. This allows us to keep the state anonymous and demonstrate we have an appropriate minimum number of neighborhoods for multilevel analyses. Additionally, the number of level-1 cases in each census tract ranged from 1 to 129. In multilevel models, the sample size most important is at the level which is the focus of the study (Maas and Hox 2005). Since neighborhood is the focus of the study, geo-tract sample size has priority over level-1 sample size. Sample size calculators and power analyses are not as clear in multilevel models, so simulations are often done. Simulations using level-2 cases with larger number of level-1 cases did not alter the results, likely due to level-2 having a large sample size.

2. This outcome generally includes youth who do not have an adjudication hearing. An adjudication hearing is the equivalent of a trial in criminal court.

3. Probation generally includes youth who had an adjudication hearing. Following the hearing, if judges legally find that juveniles have committed the act and sentence them to probation, there are two options. Non-supervised probation is mostly for youth who commit minor delinquent acts and do not require supervision by a probation officer. Judges can require those youth not to break the law, attend school, etc., all without needing formal supervision of probation. Supervised probation is generally for youth who commit more serious delinquent acts or have circumstances that would benefit from regular check-ins and contact with juvenile probation officers.

4. Commitment includes those youth who were adjudicated delinquent (i.e., convicted) after their hearing.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kareem L. Jordan

Kareem L. Jordan is an associate professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology at American University.

Rimonda Maroun

Rimonda Maroun is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Security Studies at Endicott College.