1

Disproportionate Minority Confinement:

A Review of the Research Literature From 1989

Through 2001

Carl E. Pope, Rick Lovell, and Heidi M. Hsia

Concerns about the overrepresentation of minority youth in secure confinement have long been noted, and much

research has been devoted to this issue. It is only within the past decade or so, however, that national attention

has been directed to the impact of race on juvenile justice decisionmaking. In the 1988 amendments to the

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 (Pub. L. No. 93–415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.),

Congress required that States participating in the Formula Grants Program determine if disproportionate minority

confinement (DMC) exists and, if so, demonstrate efforts to reduce it. In the words of the Act, States must

“address efforts to reduce the proportion of juveniles detained or confined in secure detention facilities, secure

correctional facilities, jails, and lockups who are members of minority groups if such proportion exceeds the

proportion such groups represent in the general population.” For the purposes of the JJDP Act, the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) defined minority populations as African Americans,

American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics (OJJDP Regulations, 28 CFR Part 31). In the 1992

amendments to the JJDP Act, DMC was elevated to a core requirement, with future funding eligibility tied to

State compliance.

As outlined by OJJDP, addressing DMC involves five phases of ongoing activities:

 Identifying the extent to which DMC exists.

 Assessing the reasons for DMC if it exists.

 Developing an intervention plan to address these identified reasons.

 Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies to address DMC.

 Monitoring DMC trends over time.

To implement DMC efforts, States have sponsored numerous studies at the State and local levels and published

many reports of their findings. There are now three national reports that summarize States’ DMC efforts at each

phase since the enactment of the amendment (Feyerherm, 1993; Hamparian and Leiber, 1997; and Hsia and
2

Hamparian, 1998). Additionally, major reports have been published that describe lessons learned from five

OJJDP-sponsored DMC pilot States (Devine, Coolbaugh, and Jenkins, 1998), present updated DMC national data

(Snyder and Sickmund, 1999; Poe-Yamagata and Jones, 2000), and examine the transfer of juvenile offenders to

adult court (Males and Macallair, 2000; Juszkiewicz, 2000).

In addition to the State and national DMC reports, a variety of social science journals have published a body of

research that examines race and juvenile justice processing. As part of the first OJJDP-funded DMC research

effort, Pope and Feyerherm (1990) undertook an analysis of DMC-related literature published between January

1969 and February 1989. The results of this analysis of 46 research articles clearly showed that there were

substantial differences in the processing of minority youth within many juvenile justice systems. These

differences could not be attributed solely to the presence of legal characteristics or other factors. Instead,

approximately two-thirds of the reviewed research indicated that a youth’s racial status made a difference at

selected stages of juvenile processing. Moreover, these findings were independent of the type of research design

employed. In other words, studies employing various types of methodologies were equally likely to find

differences: research finding evidence of racial bias was no more or less sophisticated than research finding no

such evidence. Differential outcomes could occur at any stage of juvenile processing and, in some instances, were

cumulative (i.e., racial differences became more pronounced the further the youth penetrated into the system).

Clearly, this was cause for concern.

The purpose of this Bulletin is to extend the earlier analysis by examining research found in professional

academic journals and edited books during the subsequent 12-year period. Conference papers or presentations are

excluded from the current review, as are unpublished State studies or plans, except when portions of these may

have formed the basis for a journal publication. A methodological format similar to that employed in the earlier

study is used. The question is simple: What does the existing periodical research now tell us about the processing

of minority youth through the juvenile justice system? This Bulletin details the results of this analysis, offers

guidelines for future DMC research, and outlines considerations for a national policy agenda regarding such

research.

Methodology

The present review includes DMC studies published in professional academic journals and scholarly

books from March 1989 through December 2001. Like the earlier research summary (Pope and

Feyerherm, 1990), it focuses on empirical research studies of the official processing of minority youth. It

does not directly encompass research on the full range of conditions that might place minority youth at

risk of coming into contact with law enforcement and/or the courts. The focus of this review is on

decisions made within the juvenile justice system and on studies that bear on the question of whether

race appears to be related to the outcomes of those decisions.

The first stage of the review involved a search for the target literature. Five data-based library searches

covering the targeted time period were conducted. Among the key terms used were “disproportionate

minority confinement,” “juvenile justice processing,” “juvenile justice and Hispanics” (“and African

Americans,” etc.), “juvenile justice and females,” and “juvenile justice and gender.” These searches

(including searches of the Criminal Justice Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation

Index, and Legal Resource Index) produced an initial set of more than 500 potentially relevant citations.

Further, journals that were known to have published such articles in the past (e.g., The Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Crime and Delinquency, and The

Journal of Criminal Justice) were intensively reviewed. Each issue was examined, and articles

potentially falling within the scope of the review were copied and indexed. The investigators also
3

obtained input from colleagues and other knowledgeable persons concerning pertinent collections and

individual documents that might be valuable. In effect, a snowball technique in which initial responses

led to additional sources added to the set of citations. This process produced a total of 126 potentially

relevant documents that warranted additional review to determine whether the studies sufficiently

addressed DMC.

The next stage in the review involved the selection of the substantive materials for inclusion in the

examination. The investigators employed two primary screening criteria in selecting documents for the

review.

 First, publications under consideration had to directly address areas pertinent to minority youth,

juvenile justice processing, and/or DMC. The documents meeting this criteria presented

information on one or more decision stages in the juvenile justice system and presented at least

some information describing whether the outcomes of that decision differed depending on the

race/ethnicity of the juvenile involved. This criterion excluded many of the initially identified

documents that focused on adults or only indirectly on pertinent areas (i.e., they did not describe

racial differences or similarities in the outcome of decisionmaking).

 Second, publications under consideration had to report on quantitative and/or qualitative

empirical studies. Documents best characterized as commentary, essays, or general discussion or

those presenting primarily unsupported opinions and that did not report the results of original

data or original analyses were excluded.

The process resulted in the selection of 34 publications relevant to the review. (See page 38 for a list of

these documents.)

The third stage of the examination required an intensive, critical review of the 34 documents selected.

The investigators thoroughly reviewed the selected publications, each initially taking a subset of one-half

of the targeted works. A matrix was developed to standardize the categorization and extraction of key

features from each of the studies. The matrix was adapted from the one used in the initial DMC literature

review (Pope and Feyerherm, 1990), and the categories employed are generally consistent with those

used in the previous review, namely study citation, study site(s), time period, data collection methods ,

racial groups involved, decisionmaking points investigated, analytical procedures used, research results,

and race effects.1 Four designations were used to signify the studies’ findings about race effects:

 “Yes” denotes that a particular study found direct or indirect race effects.

 “No” denotes that a particular study found no race effects.

 “Mixed” denotes that a particular study found race effects at some decision points but not at

others and/or that race effects were apparent for some types of offenders or certain offenses but

not for others.

 “Unknown” denotes that the data were not analyzed for processing points or outcomes but were

nonetheless relevant to DMC. Each of these studies examined factors important to understanding

potential sources of disproportionality, but they did not analyze data directly regarding
4

decisionmaking outcomes.

The results of the matrix are included in the table on page 26. The table is presented in two sections.

Section I presents studies with designs and results directly relevant to DMC processing stages. Section II

presents studies that do not focus on decision points and outcomes but are either program evaluations or

are otherwise related to DMC issues.

To enhance reliability, the investigators each reviewed the subset of articles initially examined by the

other, as well as verifying the information extracted and categorized by the other. The initial 25 of the 34

obtained were sent to two consultant reviewers who also examined these works and verified the

information extracted and categorized by the investigators. The final stage was analyzing and

synthesizing the matrix information.

Analysis

Characteristics of the Studies Reviewed

Across the studies, the minority groups of interest included African American (27 studies), Hispanic or

Latino (11 studies), American Indian (4 studies), and Asian American (2 studies), with the majority of

the studies focusing on more than one minority group. It is important to note that four studies used the

category “other” to aggregate data on minority groups other than African American, and five studies

employed a general categorization of “nonwhite” for analysis. The studies reviewed targeted a variety of

sites covering diverse jurisdictions from many areas of the United States, with the largest number of the

studies from the Midwest (14). Other studies focused on the East (7 studies, many in Pennsylvania),

Florida (3 studies), Washington and California (4 studies), and Arizona (1 study). Five of the studies

involved national databases or multiregional sites. Data collection involved a variety of sources and

approaches. Most (19) of the studies were primarily quantitative in nature, several (12) combined

quantitative and qualitative approaches, and a few (3) studies were primarily qualitative in nature.

The studies examined an array of processing points and outcomes, including arrest, detention, petition,

adjudication, and disposition. Disposition (20 studies) and petition (13 studies) were the most frequently

examined processing points, and more than half (18) of the studies examined multiple decision points in

juvenile justice processing. Several independent variables were in evidence across the studies, most

centering on the legal and social characteristics of the youth being processed (e.g., offense

characteristics, prior record). More than 80 percent of the studies employed multivariate analytic

approaches, most often logistic regression—an approach that facilitates an assessment of the relative

importance of individual factors or groups of factors that may explain the outcome and the degrees to

which these factors relate to the outcome of interest.

Of the 46 studies included in the earlier DMC literature review (Pope and Feyerherm, 1990), 19 were

published during the 1970s and 27 during the 1980s. The present review yielded 34 published studies

from 1989 through 2001. Four of the studies included in this review were published in an edited book.

Thirty empirical studies directly relevant to DMC were published in academic journals over the 12-year

period, with none published during the year 2000. Taken in perspective, the number of empirical studies

published during this time period is surprisingly small.
5

Salient Findings From the Review

The majority of the studies reviewed (25 out of 34) report race effects in the processing of youth. Eight

studies reported direct or indirect effects, and 17 studies revealed mixed results (i.e., race effects were

present at some decision points yet not present at others, or race effects were apparent for certain types

of offenders or certain offenses but not for others). Of the remaining nine studies in the present review,

one found no race effects and eight reported that the effects related to DMC outcomes could not be

determined. Effects in these latter studies were categorized as “unknown” because data were not

analyzed for DMC outcomes. However, these studies were included in this review because they were

empirical and because they can assist in identifying factors of potential importance in DMC research.2

The current review mirrors Pope and Feyerherm’s previous DMC literature review, in which the

majority of studies were also found to show race effects. The results of the current review differ from the

previous DMC review in that a greater proportion of the studies showed “mixed” effects (17 out of 34 in

the current review compared with 8 out of 46 in the earlier review). Nevertheless, the preponderance of

the research over three decades documents evidence of racial disparities, at least at some stages within

the juvenile justice system.

Taken together, the research findings support the existence of disparities and potential biases in juvenile

justice processing. However, the causes and mechanisms of these disparities are complex. Important

contributing factors may include inherent system bias, effects of local policies and practices, and social

conditions (such as inequality, family situation, or underemployment) that may place youth at risk.

Further, overrepresentation may result from the interaction of factors. Also, the most significant factors

may vary by jurisdiction.

The previous DMC review noted increasing sophistication in the methodologies employed by

researchers examining this issue. This pattern continued with the studies examined in the present review.

More than 80 percent of the studies employed complex designs and used multivariate analytic

techniques. These techniques increase the potential for identifying indirect effects, particularly for

showing interaction effects that could help identify variables that relate to race—often called surrogate

variables (e.g., family situation). This may also lead to more qualification of results. Increasing precision

and using combinations of approaches represent the main methods for identifying the causes and

mechanisms leading to existing disparities.

Although the current review found increasing precision in study methodologies and more “mixed

results” in study findings, this does not mean that disproportionality has decreased. Rather, it reveals that

locating the source(s) of disproportionality is complex. For example, a linear “cumulative disadvantage”

is not in evidence (i.e., disproportionality does not increase from petition to disposition). Significant

differences between minorities and whites may not occur at all decision points, and where a decision

point shows a significant difference, the legally relevant variables (e.g., prior record, current offense)

that are analyzed may not be the source. Therefore, the increasing precision in study methodology leads

to a focus on other variables of potential importance and/or other sources, as well as refinement of the

reasons why disproportionality occurs.

The results of the studies in this review add to the understanding that disparate outcomes may occur at

any stage of juvenile processing. Although seven studies found that differences between minority and
6

majority youth increased as youth were processed through decision stages, as was reported in the

previous DMC review, this review does not provide strong support about accumulation of disadvantage

because 17 studies produced mixed results regarding race effects. This points to the need to focus on

similarly situated offenders and questions concerning when, how, and to what degree they become

dissimilar or disadvantaged. As with the previous review, this review found few studies that examined

police decisionmaking. Further, there was little attention to the interaction of the effects of decisions by

corrections officials.

The current review shows that researchers are paying increasing attention to minority groups other than

African Americans. The current review yielded 11 studies that examined issues related to Hispanics, 4

that included American Indians, and 2 that included Asians, while the earlier review examined 6 studies

on Hispanics, 1 on American Indians, and 1 on Asians. However, research concerning American Indians

and Asian Americans remained very sparse during the last 12 years. Between March 1989 and December

2001, there were five studies that used the category “nonwhite” and two studies that grouped all

non-African American minorities as “other.”

This review shows that the body of knowledge concerning DMC is growing, albeit very slowly, and the

research is increasing in complexity. It highlights the diversity present across the studies in terms of

perspectives, approaches, designs, definitions, and measures. As discussed earlier, the delivery of

juvenile justice services varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—what happens in one locale is not

necessarily what happens in another. The same is true for research: Variations across methods, time

frames, and measures, among other considerations, make comparisons across the studies very difficult.

This may be inevitable in the development of a body of research-based knowledge. Nevertheless, greater

emphasis is needed on the state of knowledge, gaps in the knowledge base, issues regarding

methodology, and explication of meaningful policy implications. Many variables remain unmeasured.

For example, there is little information on the attitudes of youth and the relationship of those attitudes to

the decisions of officials. Similarly, information on the history of drug/alcohol abuse among family

members or guardians is not consistently recorded and is largely unavailable.

Overall, as found in the previous DMC review, the majority of studies continue to provide evidence of

race effects, direct or indirect, at certain stages of juvenile justice processing and in certain jurisdictions.

Accounting for these effects remains difficult. Data on disproportionality often are adequate for

identifying rather broad patterns, but inadequate for a precise understanding of which factors are most

important and how these factors operate to produce the observed results.

Guidelines for Further Research

Although there has been much progress, the research guidelines to advance DMC studies articulated in

Pope and Feyerherm’s 1990 review are still valid.

Unit of analysis: aggregation and disaggregation of data. The studies reveal attention by researchers

to the issue of masking effects and variation through the aggregation of data. As the previous DMC

review suggested, researchers should examine data as finely as possible to avoid masking effects and

variation. It may be useful to consider disaggregation of some jurisdictions. For example, a Wisconsin

DMC study (Pope et. al., 1996) showed that police practices during arrest and transport of youth to

secure detention and intake officials’ and/or prosecutors’ decisions about formal/informal handling of
7

youth vary among jurisdictions within Milwaukee County. In Milwaukee County, the City of Milwaukee

Police Department’s practices during arrest and transport to secure detention varied greatly from those of

the surrounding suburban police agencies—arrest and secure detention were far more likely to occur in

encounters with inner city youth. Further, officials’ decisions about referral to the juvenile court varied

greatly when considering youth from inside the city limits of Milwaukee as compared with youth from

suburban areas within the same county. Using the county as the unit of analysis masked the extent and

nature of the differences and the sources of the variation. Disaggregating the data made the differences

apparent. Researchers should continue to direct attention to this issue.

Combinations of research methods. While more studies employing combinations of methods have

been in evidence, it is still important to emphasize the need for incorporating qualitative components

into research designs. It is clear that increasing precision in identifying causes and mechanisms leading

to disparities requires more qualitative research. Research relying solely on official records misses

variables of interest that may not exist in official records and limits the scope of the research largely to

decision points from intake to disposition. An adequate explanation for disproportionality is not possible

without complementary qualitative approaches. Interviews, focus groups, town hall meetings, and/or

other techniques are necessary to develop an explanation as to why officials in one jurisdiction focus on

formal processing of youth while officials in another use informal alternatives to deal with similarly

situated youth.

It must be acknowledged that obtaining additional qualitative data is difficult. Lack of time and

inadequate resources are important prohibiting factors. For example, observational research is very time

consuming and labor intensive, and there may be few incidents to observe. However, as the previous

DMC review emphasized, researchers need to recognize the importance of employing a combination of

approaches.

Minority groups beyond African American. Minority groups other than African American (i.e.,

Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian American) have received insufficient attention in the research.

With the rapidly changing racial landscape in America, future research should include greater focus on

these other groups, while continuing to address African Americans. Researchers need to recognize the

importance of targeting these other groups, especially because these minority populations may be

clustered in geographical areas that rarely have been studied. In addition, future research should strive to

examine DMC for specific minority groups rather than aggregating data based on categories such as

“other” or “nonwhite.” Failure to do so may mask variations between and/or obscure specific

information relevant to particular groups.

Attitudes, background, and social characteristics of youth. The extent to which attitudes (e.g., in

police encounters), background, and family characteristics of minority youth may interact with race to

affect DMC outcomes remains an open question. For example, juvenile justice officials may be more

“intrusive” (more severe) in making decisions about youth who have no family presence and/or who lack

the ability to pay for a community-based alternative to confinement program. This may result in a more

severe outcome for those youth at a critical stage. Similarly, it is important to advance research on the

extent to which social and economic conditions may affect official decisions to formally process some

youth, thus exacerbating their disadvantage. Additional information is needed to expand the state of

knowledge in these and related areas.
8

National Policy Agenda Regarding DMC Research

Consideration of the research reviewed in this report yields important implications for national DMC

policy. The national policy agenda regarding DMC research should include the following elements.

National research strategy. Although State studies resulting from Federal initiatives exist across the

Nation, the present review reveals that empirical research published in professional journals has been

clustered in a few geographic areas. A national strategy for DMC research should emphasize a more

comprehensive representation of the United States and the populations of direct interest. This strategy

should encourage greater reach, at least by geographical area, type of jurisdiction, and racial groups

under study.

Research on minorities other than African Americans. As noted earlier, minority groups other than

African Americans have received far less attention in DMC research. While attention to research on

African American youth and DMC should not diminish, the national agenda should encourage research

on Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian American youth. This is especially important for American

Indian and Asian American youth. A national strategy for DMC research should emphasize funding for

studies to target the underrepresented groups. Expanding the base of knowledge should continue to be a

high priority.

Research on law enforcement policies and practices. The research reviewed in this report reinforces

the need to consider the relationship between police practices and DMC. Specifically, it is important to

know whether (and, if so, how) police priorities and practices systematically result in disadvantage to

minority youth. For example, systematic use of formal actions (such as issuing citations for minor

matters or taking the preponderance of youth encountered to a detention facility, as a matter of routine)

may create a cumulative effect across a population, especially where policies and/or practices in the

areas with the largest minority populations (e.g., central city areas) differ substantially from other areas.

In other words, if what happens “inside the city limits” differs substantially over time from what happens

“outside the city limits,” substantial disparities will result. Legitimate local priorities and/or practices

may exacerbate community conditions that already serve to place youth at risk. Although similarly

situated youth may be dealt with consistently at various decision stages, there should be greater attention

to factors that front-load disadvantage and/or may be seen as disparity multipliers.

Promotion of local initiatives. The national DMC agenda should include and emphasize the

development of local partnerships at jurisdiction/community levels. The DMC research reveals that a

multitude of factors may be important in overrepresentation of minority youth in juvenile justice

processing and the disproportionate confinement of minority youth. Moreover, the factors or

combinations of factors that emerge as more important are highly likely to be jurisdiction or community

specific. The literature shows the following:

 Race effects could involve a single decision stage or multiple decision stages.

 Differential effects could exist across or within groups.

 Effects may emerge for certain types of offenses and not others.
9

 Where no significant effects are attributable to decisionmaking from intake through disposition,

overrepresentation and DMC-related problems may be front loaded, stemming from factors such

as police policies and practices to factors such as social conditions that contribute to placing

minority youth at risk and/or at an initial disadvantage.

 The extent and nature of effects and specific factors of importance may vary across jurisdictions

and communities.

 Problems of overrepresentation and/or disproportionate confinement may require changes in the

local justice system, broader changes in the local community, or, more likely, both.

These findings all lead to the conclusion that the local jurisdiction must be the primary focus for

examining the existence of DMC, the factors contributing to DMC, and the subsequent planning and

implementing of specific strategies and actions to address overrepresentation and related DMC issues.

Such local initiatives are likely to generate policies and actions tailored to local needs and relevant to the

local context.

Research on the effects of efforts to reduce DMC. A few States and communities have made explicit

efforts to reduce DMC. In addition, a number of other juvenile justice reforms have been implemented in

recent years, for example, modifications of the waiver statutes, detention reform initiatives such as those

of the Casey Foundation, initiatives to reduce gun violence, and the implementation of other prevention

interventions and reentry efforts. What is not reflected in the literature (as represented by this review) is

a systematic assessment of the impact of these efforts on the level of DMC within the affected

communities or a systematic effort to identify characteristics of programs that appear to reduce DMC

levels.

Research on alternatives to secure confinement. Although there is research on alternatives to secure

confinement, none has addressed the direct impact of these alternatives on DMC. Moreover, a national

DMC research strategy should emphasize the need for research on the effects of secure confinement and

the purposes to be served by secure confinement. Research on the relationship between the decisions of

corrections officials and DMC is urgently needed. Concerning the latter, for example, there is little

information about whether, or in what instances, probation or aftercare violations may constitute routes

to institutionalization, and whether or how the decisions and actions of corrections officials may relate to

disproportionate confinement problems. Such research should be given high priority.

Long-term investment in DMC research. DMC is a complex problem that cannot be examined and

remedied by a “shotgun” approach. Contributing factors need to be studied comprehensively,

intervention strategies need to be multifaceted in nature and implemented and evaluated over an

extended period of time, and DMC trends need to be monitored on an ongoing basis. Factors that hinder

sustained efforts need to be identified and overcome. For example, the five DMC pilot States that

received intensive Federal technical assistance from 1991 to 1994 yielded many useful lessons that have

informed later efforts (Devine, Coolbaugh, and Jenkins, 1998). A followup study on the gains and efforts

originally generated by the Federal initiative and the current status of DMC efforts and trends in these

States would prove highly beneficial in promoting sustained efforts in other States and localities.

National symposium. Given the state of knowledge on DMC, national policy should encourage
10

communication and collaboration to fill the information gaps and expand the knowledge base. A

national symposium attuned to research and further shaping the national research agenda could be very

useful. Further, a series of annual or biannual symposia could allow for periodic presentation of the most

recent research. Because of the usual review process and the restraints of the publication/dissemination

process, there is a substantial lag time before reports of empirical research are published. Focused

symposia could make important findings available for policy consideration in a much more timely

manner. Research bulletins could make important current information widely available, disseminating

useful knowledge in the most expeditious way. With sufficient growth in the number of DMC journal

articles, OJJDP may then consider updating DMC literature reviews more regularly to monitor the state

of knowledge on this subject and communicate it to the field in a timely manner.

Sustained partnerships between DMC researchers and practitioners. Practitioners and researchers

must work together to ensure that researchers’ recommendations are sound, realistic, and useful to

practitioners. Continuing and sustained working relationships between DMC researchers and

practitioners within each State and locality where a DMC effort is conducted are needed to track the

effectiveness of the recommendations adopted. Federal and State research agendas should strive to

develop and nourish infrastructures that will ensure such ongoing partnerships between DMC

researchers and practitioners to maximize the utility of DMC research.

Conclusion

Considering the evidence from this and the previous DMC literature review, it is clear that the issue of

race is central to the administration of juvenile justice in this country. The majority of the empirical

studies over the past three decades report race effects—direct, indirect, or, more often, mixed. The

number of studies reporting mixed results highlights the complexity of the problem.

It is clear that the state of knowledge is far from complete. More precise research-based information is

needed, as are additional efforts to identify gaps in the knowledge base, encourage targeted research to

fill these gaps, conduct well-focused efforts to address DMC-related issues, and build sustained

partnerships between DMC researchers and practitioners at both the national and the local level.

Notes

1. In this manuscript, race effect means that minority status (in this case, being African American,

Hispanic, American Indian, or Asian and Pacific Islander) has an impact on what happens to youth as

they are processed through the juvenile justice system. For example, if at detention African American

youth are more likely to be detained than white youth given similar case histories then this would be a

race effect.

2. For example, one study employed observational techniques to develop information on police, but

these data were not tied to specific decisionmaking outcomes. However, this study is important in

understanding potential sources of disproportionality. In other words, this study informs one about police

practices and important factors that police use to make decisions, rather than analyzing data to focus on

decision outcomes.
11

References

Devine, P., Coolbaugh, K., and Jenkins, S. 1998. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons

Learned From Five States. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Feyerherm, W. 1993. The Status of the States: A Review of State Materials Regarding

Overrepresentation of Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. Report. Washington, DC, U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Hamparian, D., and Leiber, M.J. 1997. Disproportionate Confinement of Minority Youth in Secure

Facilities: 1996 National Report. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hsia, H.M., and Hamparian, D. 1998. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997 Update. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Juszkiewicz, J. 2000. Youth Crime/Adult Time: Is Justice Served. Washington, DC: Youth Law Center.

Males, M., and Macallair, D. 2000. The Color of Justice: An Analysis of Juvenile Adult Court Transfer

in California. Washington, DC: Youth Law Center.

Poe-Yamagata, E., and Jones, M., 2000. And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth

in the Justice System. Washington, DC: Youth Law Center.

Pope, C.E., and Feyerherm, W. 1990. Minority status and juvenile justice processing. Criminal Justice

Abstracts 22(2):327–336 (part I); 22(3):527–542 (part II).

Pope, C.E., Lovell, R., Stojkovic, S., and Rose, H. 1996. Minority Overrepresentation: Phase II Study

Final Report. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance, Governor’s Commission on

Juvenile Justice.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System. Bulletin. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was prepared by Carl Pope, Ph.D., Professor, and Rick Lovell, Ph.D., Associate Professor,

Helen Bader School of Social Welfare, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, and Heidi Hsia, Ph.D.,

DMC Coordinator in the State and Tribal Assistance Division of the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. The authors are grateful for the assistance of consultants Julius Debro, Ph.D.,

Michael Leiber, Ph.D., and Research Assistant Gina Penly.
12

This project is supported by cooperative agreement #97–JN–FX–K002 awarded by the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions in

this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies

of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,

which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
13

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Literature Review Matrix, March 1989 to December 2001

Section I: Studies Whose Designs and Results Are Directly Related to DMC Processing Stages

Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

Fagan, J., andDeschenes, E.P. 1990.Determinants of judicialwaiver decisions forviolent juvenileoffenders. Journal ofCriminal Law andCriminology81(2):314–347.

Juvenile courtsin Boston,Detroit,Newark, andPhoenix

1981–1984 Court records,

arrest reports,review of statutesSample N = 201

Nonwhite Waiver Frequency /

percentagecomparison;discriminantanalysis

Only extensivehistory and agecould significantlydescribe differencesbetween transferredand nontransferredyouth.Large differences intransfer criteriaacross sites.

No

Johnson, J.B., andSecret, P.E. 1990. Raceand juvenile courtdecisionmaking revisited.Criminal Justice PolicyReview 4(2):159–187.

Nebraska (twocourts: juvenileand county)

1982–1987

(6 years)

All referrals tojuvenile court;population N =4,255 to 5,510,depending onprocessing stage

AfricanAmerican

Detention, petition,adjudication,disposition

Bivariateanalysis;logisticregression

African Americanyouth receiveharsher judgment at- Detention.- Petition.- Penalty.

Mixed

Feld, B.C. 1991. Justiceby geography: Urban,suburban and ruralvariations in juvenilejustice administration.Journal of Criminal Lawand Criminology82(1):156–210.

Minnesota (87counties)

1986 Case records of all

cases formallypetitioned,Minnesota SupremeCourt judicialinformation system;county census dataN = 17,195

AfricanAmerican,Spanish /Hispanic,AmericanIndian

Intake screening,petition, detention,adjudication,disposition

Regression Urban, suburban,

and rural structuralfeatures relate tosubstantive andproceduraldifferences.Interactive effects.

Unknown
Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

14

Frazier, C.E., Bishop,D.M., and Henretta, J.C.1992. The social contextof race differentials injuvenile justicedispositions. TheSociological Quarterly33(3):447–458.

Florida (all 32statisticalmetropolitanarea counties)

1979–1981

(January 1,

1979 through

December 31,

1981)

All delinquencycases, 1980 censusdata

AfricanAmerican

Intakerecommendation,court referral, courtdisposition

Logisticregression

Mixed: Greaterpercentage ofwhites in a countydisadvantagesAfrican Americansin juvenile justicedispositions. Nodifferential effectsfrom othermeasures.

Mixed

Sampson, R.J., andLaub, J.H. 1993.Structural variations injuvenile courtprocessing: Inequality,the underclass andsocial control. Law andSociety Review27(2):285–311.

322 U.S.counties in 21States(counties withminimumpopulation of6,000)

1985 Case records

(538,000 cases) inthe NationalJuvenile CourtStatistics Projectdatabase.Bureau of Censusfile on countypopulationestimates by age,sex, and race andCounty and CityData Book.

AfricanAmerican

Petition, detention(predisposition),disposition (out-ofhome placement)

Correlations,logisticregression

Structural contextsof “underclass.”Poverty and racialinequality (macrovariables) aresignificantly relatedto increased juvenilejustice processingfor African Americanyouth involved inpersonal and drugoffenses.

Mixed

Conley, D.J. 1994.Adding color to a blackand white picture: Usingqualitative data toexplain racialdisproportionality in thejuvenile justice system.Journal of Research inCrime and Delinquency31(2):135–148.

Washington (6counties)

1993 Participant

observation (N =1,777), 170 indepthinterviews,interviews andobservation withpolice and courts.

AfricanAmerican,Hispanic

Interviews andobservation, policeencounters andarrests

Tabularanalysis,contentanalysis

Minority youthoverrepresented.Police practicesdiffer in minoritycommunities.

Unknown
Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

15

Leiber, M.J. 1994. Acomparison of juvenilecourt outcomes forNative Americans,African Americans andwhites. Justice Quarterly11(2):257–279.

Iowa (1 districtcourt)

1980–1987,

1992

(Court records:

1980–1987;

Interviews:

1992)

Systematic 6%sample of 10,331referrals (N = 507);oversampleAmerican Indian(N = 984) andAfrican American(N = 475). Caseweighting plusinterviews

AfricanAmerican,AmericanIndian

Intake, petition,initial appearance,adjudication,disposition

Logisticregression,correlations

Differentialtreatment, directionfor American Indian“more lenient” atintake. AfricanAmericans andAmerican Indiansmore likely toreceive petition.African Americansless likely toparticipate indiversion.

Mixed

Wordes, M., Bynum,T.S., and Corley, C.J.1994. Locking up youth:The impact of race ondetention decisions.Journal of Research inCrime and Delinquency31(2):149–165.

Michigan (5counties)

1990 Case files in 6

police agencies andjuvenile court,random sample(stratified, N =2,225)

AfricanAmerican,Latino

Police detention,court intake,detention,preliminary hearingdetention

Bivariateanalysis,logisticregression

Minority youth morelikely to be detained.

Mixed

Austin, J., Leonard, K.K.,Pope, C.E., andFeyerherm, W.H. 1995.Racial disparities in theconfinement of juveniles:Effects of crime andcommunity socialstructure on thepunishment. In Minoritiesin Juvenile Justice,edited by K.K. Leonard,C.E. Pope, and W.Feyerherm. ThousandOaks, CA: SagePublications.

California 1989 Aggregate count

data andcase-based juvenilecourt referral anddisposition data,“town meetings”with officials

Latino, AfricanAmerican,Asian

Arrest, referral,disposition

Summarydescriptiveminorityproportionindex,multivariateanalysis ofincarcerationrates

Race plays at leastan indirect role indecisionmaking.

Yes
Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

16

Bridges, G.S., Conley,D.J., Engen, R.L., andPrice-Spratlen, T. 1995.The role of race injuvenile justice inPennsylvania. InMinorities in JuvenileJustice, edited by K.K.Leonard, C.E. Pope, andW. Feyerherm.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Washington 1990–1991 Data on

white/minorityconfinement rates(all counties);measures of countysocial structure;county crime rates;referral rates; courtworkload;observation ofpolice plusinterviews ofofficials in 6counties.

Nonwhite Confinement rates Descriptive

information, logtransformations, regression

Differentialtreatment withalternativeexplanations.

Yes

Feld, B.C. 1995. Policingjuveniles: Is there biasagainst youth of color? InMinorities in JuvenileJustice, edited by K.K.Leonard, C.E. Pope, andW. Feyerherm.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Minnesota(HennepinCounty)

1986

(plus data on

priors in 1984,

1985, 1986)

Minnesota Statejudicial informationsystem data on1986 cases pluscreation of data onpriors 1984–1986;1980 census data

AfricanAmerican,other (minority)

Multistage throughdisposition,includingrepresentation bycounsel

Descriptiveinformation,regression

Some evidence ofdisparities defined interms of presentoffense and priorrecord. Markedlydissimilardispositions.

Mixed

Frazier, C.E., andBishop, D.M. 1995. TheDMC Initiative: Theconvergence of policyand research themes. InMinorities in JuvenileJustice, edited by K.K.Leonard, C.E. Pope, andW. Feyerherm.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Florida 1985–1987 All cases processed

by Florida’s juvenilejustice agenciesplus interviews of 31officials

Nonwhite Multiple stages:

intake and detentiondecisions throughdispositionaloutcomes

Bivariateanalysis andlogisticregression;contentanalysis ofinterviews

“Race is a factor injuvenile justiceprocessing.”

Yes
Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

17

Leiber, M.J. 1995.Toward clarification ofthe concept of "minority"status anddecision-making injuvenile courtproceedings. Journal ofCrime and Justice18(1):79–108.

Iowa (4counties)

1980–1991 6,571 cases: 3,437

white (randomsample), 2,784African American(disproportiontesample), 350 Latino(all cases)

AfricanAmerican,Latino

Intake, petition,consent decree,adjudication,disposition

Logisticregression

Importance of legalfactors.

Yes

Leiber, M.J., andJamieson, K.M. 1995.Race anddecisionmaking withinjuvenile justice: Theimportance of context.Journal of QuantitativeCriminology11(4):363–388.

Iowa (4 districtcourts)

1980–1991 Stratified sample:

white = 4,235,African American =2,691

AfricanAmerican

Macrolevelmeasures of incomeinequality, attitudesof decisionmakers.Processing stages:- Intake- Petition- Initial appearance- Adjudication- Disposition

Logisticregression

African Americansreceived moreserious residentialplacements.

Mixed

Leonard, K.K., andSontheimer, H. 1995.The social context ofjuvenile justiceadministration: Racialdisparities in an urbanjuvenile court. InMinorities in JuvenileJustice, edited by K.K.Leonard, C.E. Pope, andW. Feyerherm.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania(14 counties)

1989 Stratified random

sample (N = 1,797)

Latino, AfricanAmerican

Multistage intakethrough disposition

Descriptiveinformation,logisticregression

Race effectsindicated withqualifications.

Mixed
Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

18

Poupart, L. 1995. Theoverrepresentation ofminority youths in theCalifornia juvenile justicesystem: Perceptions andrealities. In Minorities inJuvenile Justice, editedby K.K. Leonard, C.E.Pope, and W.Feyerherm. ThousandOaks, CA: SagePublications.

Wisconsin 1985–1991 Case file data American

Indian

Intake, detention,petition, disposition

Branchingprobabilities

Disparities at morethan one decisionpoint: greatest atintake.

Yes

Wordes, M. and Bynum,T.S. 1995. Reflections onrace effects in juvenilejustice. In Minorities inJuvenile Justice, editedby K.K. Leonard, C.E.Pope, and W.Feyerherm. ThousandOaks, CA: SagePublications.

Michigan (9jurisdictions)

1990 Disproportional

random sample ofpolice case files foryouth age 17 andunder plusinterviews with lawenforcement officersplus observation oflaw enforcementactivities

AfricanAmerican,Latino, Arab,AmericanIndian, other(minority)

Law enforcementdecision

Descriptiveinformation,logisticregression,contentanalysis ofinterviews

Findings suggestdifferential treatmentin processing.

Yes

(complex)

Bishop, D.M., andFrazier, C.E. 1996. Raceeffects in juvenile justicedecision-making:Findings in a statewideanalysis. Criminal Lawand Criminology86(2):392–414.

Florida 1985–1987

(January 1,

1985, through

December 31,

1987)

Quantitative: caserecords of all youthreferred for intake.Qualitative:interviews of judges,State’s attorneys,public defenders,social servicepersonnel

AfricanAmerican,other (minority)

Intake detention,prosecutorialreferral, judicialdisposition

Logisticregression

Interactive effects.Consistent patternof unequaltreatment. Varyingperspectives frominterview data.

Yes
Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

19

Sanborn, J.B. 1996.Factors perceived toaffect delinquentdispositions in juvenilecourt: Putting sentencingdecision into context.Crime and Delinquency42(1):99–113.

Three juvenilecourts (urban,suburban, andrural)

1992 Interviewed lawyers

and probationofficers (N = 100pesonnel)

AfricanAmerican

Disposition Percentage

differences andranking

Examinedperspectives indecisionmaking.Race was an effectcombined with otherfactors such asfamily, school,record, etc.

Mixed

Wu, B., Cernovich, S.,and Dunn, C.S. 1997.Assessing the effects ofrace and class onjuvenile justiceprocessing in Ohio.Journal of CriminalJustice 25:265–277.

Ohio (17counties: 13suburban and 4rural)

1989 Analysis of case

records (Systematicsample, N = 2,334)

Nonwhite Detention,

adjudication,disposition

Logisticregression

African Americanyouth more likely tobe detained butwhite youth morelikely to beadjudicated. Noeffects atdisposition.

Mixed

Berger, R., and Hoffman,H. 1998. The role ofgender in detentiondispositions of juvenileprobation violations.Journal of Crime andJustice 21(1):173–188.

Illinois (juvenilecourt in onecounty)

1990–1993 Stratified sample:

148 males, 89females

AfricanAmerican,other (minority)

Detention Analysis of

variance

Gender disparity inthe application ofdetention.

Mixed

Bond-Maupin, L.J., andMaupin, J.R. 1998.Juvenile justicedecision-making in arural Hispaniccommunity. Journal ofCriminal Justice26(5):373–384.

New Mexico(two ruralcounties)

1994 Interviews with

probation and paroleofficer; analyses ofcase records of alljuveniles referred (N= 591)

Hispanic/MexicanAmerican

Initial detention,petition filed,deferred hearing,posthearingdetention,adjudication,disposition

Percentagedistribution;logisticregression

Race effect atadjudication.

Mixed
Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

20

Bridges, G.S., andSteen, S. 1998. Racialdisparities in officialassessments of juvenileoffenders: Attributionalstereotypes as mediatingmechanisms. AmericanSociological Review63(4)554–570.

A northwesternState (3counties)

1990–1991 233 narrative

reports written byprobation officers(subsample), casefiles

AfricanAmerican

Disposition,sentencing,recommendation

Coding /scoring reports,regression

Differentialattributions (byprobation officers)about causes ofcrime as amediating factorbetween race andsentencingrecommendations.

Yes

DeJong, C., andJackson, K.C. 1998.Putting race into context:Race, juvenile justiceprocessing, andurbanization. JusticeQuarterly 15(3)487–504.

Pennsylvania 1990 Random sample of

cases referredstatewide (N =4,683)

AfricanAmerican,Hispanic, other(minority)

Intake, referral,disposition, secureplacement

Bivariateanalysis, probit

Effects embedded inmultiple variablerelationships.Indirect effectsbetween race, age,type of offense, andliving arrangements.

Mixed

Sealock, M.D., andSimpson, S.S. 1998.Unraveling bias in arrestdecisions: The role ofjuvenile offendertype-scripts. JusticeQuarterly 15(3):487–504.

Philadelphia,PA

1968–1975 Sample from 1958

birth cohort (N =15,662)

AfricanAmerican

Arrest/ nonarrest Logistic

regression

Male suspects,African Americansuspects, lowsocioeconomicstatus suspectshave higher chanceof arrest.

Mixed

Leiber, M.J., and Stairs,J.M. 1999. Race,contexts and the use ofintake diversion. Journalof Research in Crimeand Delinquency36(1):56–86.

Iowa (3 districtcourts)

1980–1991 5,326 case records;

randon sample ofwhite cases,disproportionatesample of AfricanAmerican cases

AfricanAmerican

Intake, release,informal adjustment,court processing

Bivariateanalysis,logisticregression

Varied byjurisdiction. AfricanAmericansdisparatelyrecommended forfurther processing.

Mixed

Feiler, S.M., and Sheley,J.F. 1999. Legal andracial elements of publicwillingness to transferjuvenile offenders toadult court. Journal ofCriminal Justice27(1):55–64.

New Orleans,LA

Spring 1995 Survey data via

telephone, randomsample (N = 212)

AfricanAmerican

Transfer to adultcourt

Case vignettes(varied byrace), logisticregression

Race effects intransfer decision(African Americanyouth).

Mixed
Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

21

Hirschel, J.D., Dean,C.W., and Dumond, D.2001. Juvenile curfewsand race: A cautionarynote. Criminal JusticePolicy Review12(3):197–214.

Charlotte, NC 1995–1998 Curfew violator

records, juvenilearrest records

AfricanAmerican,white, Hispanic,Asian

Arrest/curfewviolation

Descriptiveanalysis,frequencies

Curfew may haveescalation effect onAsian and Hispanic.

Mixed

Section II: Studies That Are Related to DMC Issues But Do Not Focus on Decision Points and Outcomes

Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

Leiber, M.J., Woodrick,A.C., and Roudebush,E.M. 1995. Religion,discriminatory attitudesand the orientations ofjuvenile justicepersonnel: A researchnote. Criminology33(3):431–447.

Iowa (5 districtcourts andpersonnel from2 State trainingschools)

1992–1994 Self-report survey of

justice officials(N = 264)

Minorities Attitudes toward

punitiveness,diversion

Least squaresregression

Differentialperspectives onvariables of interest.

Unknown

Welsh, W.N., Harris,P.W., and Jenkins, P.H.1996. Reducingoverrepresentation ofminorities in juvenilejustice: Development ofcommunity-basedprograms inPennsylvania. Crime andDelinquency42(1):76–98.

Harrisburg, PA 1991–1992 Archival data,

interviews,observations

AfricanAmerican

Program effects onspecific outcomes

Process andformativeevaluation

Producedinformation specificto programs.

Unknown

Decomo, R.E. 1998.Estimating theprevalence of juvenilecustody by race andgender. Crime andDelinquency44(4):489–506.

36 States 1995 Reported official

statistics

AfricanAmerican

Arrest andconfinement

Trend analysis Higher prevalence

of arrest for AfricanAmerican youth andconfinement.

Unknown
Study Citation Study Sites Time Period

Data Collection

Methods

Racial Groups

Involved

Decisionmaking

Points

Investigated

Analytical

Procedures

Used Research Results

Race

Effects*

22

Leiber, M.J., Nalla, M.K.,and Farnworth, M. 1998.Explaining juveniles'attitudes toward thepolice. Justice Quarterly15(1):151–173.

Iowa (4counties)

1991 Random stratified

sample of 337 maleyouth; self-report

AfricanAmerican

Respect for police,perceptions ofpolice fairness,perceptions ofpolice discrimination

Least squaresregression

Race strongestpredictor of policefairness /discrimination.Minority youth reportless favorableattitude toward thepolice.

Unknown

Wordes, M., and Jones,S.M. 1998. Trends injuvenile detention andsteps toward reform.Crime and Delinquency44(4):544–560.

National data 1985–1995 Data from National

Center on JuvenileJustice (existingstatistics)

AfricanAmerican

Detention Trend analysis Large increase in

detention populationmostly for AfricanAmerican youth.

Unknown

Welsh, W.N., Jenkins,P.H., and Harris, P.W.1999. Reducing minorityoverrepresentation injuvenile justice: Resultsof community-baseddelinquency preventionin Harrisburg. Journal ofResearch in Crime andDelinquency36(1):87–110.

Harrisburg, PA 1992–1995 Evaluation of five

DMC Programs (N =191); threecomparison groupsbased on frequencyof participation;case records

AfricanAmericanHispanic

DMC programeffects, recidivism,academicperformance, schooldropout, truancy

Logisticregression,MANOVA

Recidivism ratereduced.

Unknown

* “Yes” denotes that a particular study found direct or indirect race effects. “No” denotes that a particular study found no race effects. "Mixed" denotes that a particular study found race effectsat some decision points but not at others and/or that race effects were apparent for some types of offenders or certain offenses but not for others. "Unknown" denotes that the data were notanalyzed for processing points or outcomes but were nonetheless relevant to DMC; each of these studies examined factors important to understanding potential sources of disproportionality,but they did not analyze data directly regarding decisionmaking outcomes.
23

Bibliography of Publications Included in

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Literature Review Matrix, March 1989 to December 2001

Austin, J., Leonard, K.K., Pope, C.E., and Feyerherm, W.H. 1995. Racial disparities in the confinement of juveniles:

Effects of crime and community social structure on the punishment. In Minorities in Juvenile Justice, edited by K.K.

Leonard, C.E. Pope, and W. Feyerherm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Berger, R., and Hoffman, H. 1998. The role of gender in detention dispositions of juvenile probation violations.

Journal of Crime and Justice 21(1):173–188.

Bishop, D.M., and Frazier, C.E. 1996. Race effects in juvenile justice decision-making: Findings in a statewide

analysis. Criminal Law and Criminology 86(2):392–414.

Bond-Maupin, L.J., and Maupin, J.R. 1998. Juvenile justice decision-making in a rural Hispanic community. Journal

of Criminal Justice 26(5)373–384.

Bridges, G.S., Conley, D.J., Engen, R.L., and Price-Spratlen, T. 1995. The role of race in juvenile justice in

Pennsylvania. In Minorities in Juvenile Justice, edited by K.K. Leonard, C.E. Pope, and W. Feyerherm. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bridges, G.S., and Steen, S. 1998. Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional

stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review 63(4):554–570.

Conley, D.J. 1994. Adding color to a black and white picture: Using qualitative data to explain racial disproportionality

in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31(2)135–148.

Decomo, R.E. 1998. Estimating the prevalence of juvenile custody by race and gender. Crime and Delinquency

44(4):489–506.

DeJong, C., and Jackson, K.C. 1998. Putting race into context: Race, juvenile justice processing, and urbanization.

Justice Quarterly 15(3):487–504.

Fagan, J., and Deschenes, E.P. 1990. Determinants of judicial waiver decisions for violent juvenile offenders.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 81(2):314–347.

Feiler, S.M., and Sheley, J.F. 1999. Legal and racial elements of public willingness to transfer juvenile offenders to

adult court. Journal of Criminal Justice 27(1)55–64.

Feld, B.C. 1991. Justice by geography: Urban, suburban and rural variations in juvenile justice administration.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82(1):156–210.

Feld, B.C. 1995. Policing juveniles: Is there bias against youth of color? In Minorities in Juvenile Justice, edited by

K.K. Leonard, C.E. Pope, and W. Feyerherm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Frazier, C.E., and Bishop, D.M. 1995. The DMC Initiative: The convergence of policy and research themes. In

Minorities in Juvenile Justice, edited by K.K. Leonard, C.E. Pope, and W. Feyerherm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Frazier, C.E., Bishop, D.M., and Henretta, J.C. 1992. The social context of race differentials in juvenile justice

dispositions. The Sociological Quarterly 33(3)447–458.

Hirschel, J.D., Dean, C.W., and Dumond, D. 2001. Juvenile curfews and race: A cautionary note. Criminal Justice

Policy Review 12(3)197–214.

Johnson, J.B., and Secret, P.E. 1990. Race and juvenile court decisionmaking revisited. Criminal Justice Policy

Review 4(2):159–187.

Leiber, M.J. 1994. A comparison of juvenile court outcomes for Native Americans, African Americans and whites.

Justice Quarterly 11(2)257–279.

Leiber, M.J. 1995. Toward clarification of the concept of “minority” status and decision-making in juvenile court

proceedings. Journal of Crime and Justice 18(1):79–108.
24

Leiber, M.J., and Jamieson, K.M. 1995. Race and decisionmaking within juvenile justice: The importance of context.

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 11(4)363–388.

Leiber, M.J., Nalla, M.K., and Farnworth, M. 1998. Explaining juveniles’ attitudes toward the police. Justice Quarterly

15(1):151–173.

Leiber, M.J., and Stairs, J.M. 1999. Race, contexts and the use of intake diversion. Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency 36(1):56–86.

Leiber, M.J., Woodrick, A.C., and Roudebush, E.M. 1995. Religion, discriminatory attitudes and the orientations of

juvenile justice personnel: A research note. Criminology 33(3):431–447.

Leonard, K.K., and Sontheimer, H. 1995. The social context of juvenile justice administration: Racial disparities in an

urban juvenile court. In Minorities in Juvenile Justice, edited by K.K. Leonard, C.E. Pope, and W. Feyerherm.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Poupart, L. 1995. The overrepresentation of minority youths in the California juvenile justice system: Perceptions and

realities. In Minorities in Juvenile Justice, edited by K.K. Leonard, C.E. Pope, and W. Feyerherm. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Sampson, R.J., and Laub, J.H. 1993. Structural variations in juvenile court processing: Inequality, the underclass

and social control. Law and Society Review 27(2):285–311.

Sanborn, J.B. 1996. Factors perceived to affect delinquent dispositions in juvenile court: Putting sentencing decision

into context. Crime and Delinquency 42(1):99–113.

Sealock, M.D., and Simpson, S.S. 1998. Unraveling bias in arrest decisions: The role of juvenile offender

type-scripts. Justice Quarterly 15(3):487–504.

Welsh, W.N., Harris, P.W., and Jenkins, P.H. 1996. Reducing overrepresentation of minorities in juvenile justice:

Development of community-based programs in Pennsylvania. Crime and Delinquency 42(1):76–98.

Welsh, W.N., Jenkins, P.H., and Harris, P.W. 1999. Reducing minority overrepresentation in juvenile justice: Results

of community-based delinquency prevention in Harrisburg. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

36(1):87–110.

Wordes, M. and Bynum, T.S. 1995. Reflections on race effects in juvenile justice. In Minorities in Juvenile Justice,

edited by K.K. Leonard, C.E. Pope, and W. Feyerherm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wordes, M., Bynum, T.S., and Corley, C.J. 1994. Locking up youth: The impact of race on detention decisions.

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31(2):149–165.

Wordes, M., and Jones, S.M. 1998. Trends in juvenile detention and steps toward reform. Crime and Delinquency

44(4):544–560.

Wu, B., Cernovich, S., and Dunn, C.S. 1997. Assessing the effects of race and class on juvenile justice processing

in Ohio. Journal of Criminal Justice 25:265–277.