Where children of color are over-represented, jurisdictions should:
  • implement training workshops focusing on race and juvenile processing;
  • establish a system to monitor juvenile processing decisions; and
  • develop guidelines to aid in reaching outcomes.

Use of risk assessments as part of the guidelines will also help greatly to reduce disproportionate minority representation in the juvenile justice system."

In addition to the Janiculum project recommendations, Dr. Howell discussed the history of the juvenile court, going back to the original "houses of refuge" which ironically were developed to protect wayward youth from the harshness of the adult facilities. Likewise, the first juvenile court developed in Chicago 99 years ago was an attempt to separate juveniles from what European observers have described as America's "violent and irrational" adult justice system.  Unfortunately, the early juvenile court's focus on urban inner cities (where minority youth lived in much

  greater numbers) led to an over-representation of minorities even in the earliest days of the juvenile court.

Dr. Howell presented national statistics produced by the National Center for Juvenile Justice which clearly demonstrate the over-representation of minority youth throughout the system. These statistics also demonstrate the

  practically the sole determinant of long term incarceration. In some jurisdictions, in fact, every juvenile detained or transferred to adult court has been a child of color.

According to Dr. Howell, researchers Bohsiu Wu and Angel Fuentes, in the Spring 1998 issue of Juvenile and Family Court Journal, describe three theories for the

Photograph of James C. "Buddy" Howell presenting the morning plenary session
  "amplification" of the disproportionality at each successive decision point in the system, reaching it greatest level at the point of waiver or transfer to adult court. Howell went on to say that analysis of data in some jurisdictions has shown race to be   disproportionate confinement of minority youth. The first is based on overt systemic bias which matter-of-factly discriminates against minority youth. The second relates to contextual biases which focus disproportionately
on minorities.
Previous Page


Page 4

Next Page

Contents Back to Top
Home ©2002 Arizona Supreme Court.  All Rights Reserved. Updated: 11/09/09