The impact of race, sex, and structured activities on the intake and adjudication processes of status offenders

ABSTRACT

The present study uses intersectionality as a guiding framework to make sense of disparities in terms of race, sex, and various social locations on a sample of status offenders in Virginia. Findings indicated that girls, especially girls with school conduct problems and no documentation of structured activities were treated more punitively at both intake and adjudication. Results did not show that intake and adjudication varied across races. Implications for the results of the study, directions for future research, and recommendations for theory and public policy are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Juvenile justice
• status offenders
• intersectionality

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their incredibly insightful and thoughtful comments on this manuscript. You were, without question, the most helpful reviewers I have ever had, and your contributions significantly improved the strength of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. To be clear, sex refers to the label assigned at birth as female, male, or intersex, whereas gender exists outside of this trichotomous outcome. Gender refers to characteristics that are socially constructed as masculine or feminine. Furthermore, gender expression refers to how you present your appearances, attitudes, and characteristics, among others, as either traditionally masculine or feminine. The intersection of these numerous traditionally masculine and feminine traits defines your gender expression.

2. Furthermore, the 1992 reauthorization of the JJDPA required states to assess needs of delinquent girls, develop plans specifically for girls, and provide equity treatment across race and/or ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, mental health, among other social factors relevant to achieving parity in juvenile justice outcomes.

3. However, Freiburger and Burke (2011) found this applied only to Black and Hispanic girls.

4. The selective chivalry hypothesis contends that in the legal system, only women or girls whose crimes are consistent with stereotypical sex and/or gender roles benefit from paternalistic leniency (Crew 1991; Farnworth and Teske 1995). While it is more likely that women and girls who commit more serious forms of crime (e.g., armed robbery) will be viewed as masculine and therefore selectively not worthy of paternalistic leinency, this may also apply to status offending juveniles as well. For example, girls who are using tobacco and/or alcohol, running away from home, or are having issues with school conduct or attendance are not fulfilling the mold of a ‘good girl.’ As such, it seems reasonable to conclude that judges may move forward from intake to adjudication and adjudicate more punitively for these girls. As it relates to youth of color, the intersectional perspective on the chivalry hypothesis would suggest that the effects would be even stronger for girls of color. In other words, various characteristics (e.g., familial wealth, gender expression, sexuality, etc.) may interact differently in the outcomes girls face across race and/or ethnicity (Meaux, Cox, and Kopkin 2018).

5. For the purpose of this study and based on what various Court Service Units in Virginia collect, non-White Hispanic is defined as coming from a Hispanophone or Latinx origin from either the child’s mother, father, or both parents. Furthermore, Black Hispanic youth, a very sparse population in this state, are categorized as non-White Hispanic as well. This may produce some minor limitations in the analysis which will be discussed in the limitations section of the conclusion.

6. The specific size of the excluded racial groups are as follows: Asian American/Pacific Islander (n = 7), Native American (n = 2), and ‘Other’ (n = 17).

7. For more information about the reporting and data collection policies in the state of Virginia, please see the publically available Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice Data Resource Guide.

8. The robust standard errors are not presented in the regression tables but are available upon request.

9. Specific to the loose coupling perspective, it is expected that a juvenile’s race and/or ethnicity is one of the major extralegal factors that may be considered by a decision-maker at any given stage in the juvenile justice process.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Patrick G. Lowery

Patrick G. Lowery is an assistant professor in the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University. He earned his Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the University of South Carolina in 2016. His research interests include race, poverty, inequalities, ethics, stratification, intersectionality and juvenile justice. His most recent publications have appeared in several scholarly outlets, including Crime and Delinquency, Race and Justice, and Feminist Criminology.