Latino Youth in Washington State's Juvenile Justice System

AND GRINGO JUSTICE FOR ALL?
LATINO YOUTH IN WASHINGTON STATE’S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Viviana Gordon
Politics 458
Whitman College
November 19, 2006
Introduction
My research focuses on Latino youth in the juvenile justice system. It addresses

questions of why Latino youth are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice
system compared to their Anglo counterparts as well as to their overall proportion in the
population. Specifically, this report will examine how race and ethnicity have an effect
on juvenile court processing and detention decision-making.
The American legal and justice systems have a long and insufferable history of
tolerating, enforcing and often encoding into law, discriminatory ideology, particularly
with regard to racial minority groups. The differential treatment of Latino youth in the
juvenile system manifests yet another battle in a succession of hard fought struggles for
racial equality under the law. My research involves a critique of the legitimacy, equality,
and equity of the hallowed institutions of law and justice. It examines current systems
and practices, ranging from law enforcement to pre-trial detention, to determine if they
are inherently biased or enable the differential treatment of Latinos. Underlying these
questions is a reflection on whether Latino youth are at greater risk for delinquent
behavior based on extralegal factors that disproportionately affect the Latino population.
Finally, this report explores the justice system in historical and theoretical terms as a
means of social control, governed by the power interests and values of dominant groups.
My research draws from a wide variety of scholarly literature and studies on

minorities in the justice system. I explore data driven reports conducted on the state and
national levels as well as by individual jurisdictions. I examine efforts to reduce racial
disparities in juvenile court processing through case studies of recent initiatives in
Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon), Santa Cruz, California, and King County
(Seattle, Washington). I am particularly interested in how my analysis of successful
measures can inform statewide policy and practice in Washington State. I examine the
feasibility of such reforms in a case study of Walla Walla County and the Walla Walla
Juvenile Justice Center where my community partner, Vance Norsworthy works as a
juvenile court counselor. Mr. Norsworthy has provided me with critical insight into the
inner workings of the juvenile justice system and general support throughout my research
process.
Overall, the results of my research corroborated my hypothesis about the

existence of racial disparity in the juvenile justice system. I found Latinos are
overrepresented at nearly every stage in the juvenile justice process across state and
national jurisdictions. A substantial amount of research on minority overrepresentation
theorizes that Latinos come into contact with the juvenile system at greater rates than
their Anglo counterparts due to differential crime patterns among racial and ethnic
minority groups and biased law enforcement practices. However, scholarly research
indicates that even after these initial factors disproportionately bring Latino youth into the
“front door”1 of the juvenile system, racial disparities are exacerbated at nearly every
1
Fuller, Joanne. Personal Interview. 11 October 2006.
2
decision-making stage in the process. This amounts to a “cumulative disadvantage”
Latino youth face upon entering the Juvenile Justice System.2
My recommendations for policy reforms address this differential treatment within

the juvenile system, specifically by reducing the potential for extralegal factors, such as
race, socioeconomic class and family circumstance, to influence juvenile court processing
and detention decision-making. The successful initiatives I examined in Portland and
Seattle provide concrete strategies for not only reducing racial disparity in the system, but
reducing the overall numbers of youth detained as well as rates of recidivism. The
strategies aim to end the governance of “Gringo Justice,”3 by ensuring that the criteria
and practices employed by justice personnel are racially and culturally neutral.
An Overview of the Juvenile Justice System
The Juvenile Justice System is an umbrella term for an incredibly complex and
nuanced network of institutions, authorities and practices. Juvenile court processing
significantly differs from the adult criminal proceedings with which people are generally
more familiar. There are a number of critical points and decision-making stages where
racial disparities can occur.4 For these reasons, I preface my report with an overview of
the juvenile system in order to provide definitions and context for some key concepts and
terms that my research relies upon heavily.
While the adult system is generally used for punitive measures, the juvenile
system has historically been guided by the goals of rehabilitation and delinquency
prevention through treatment and individualized justice. Unlike the criminal justice
system where district attorneys select cases for trial, the juvenile court controls its own
intake. Additionally, unlike criminal prosecutors, juvenile intake personnel have the
discretion to consider extra-legal factors, such as the juvenile’s family situation, in
deciding how to handle cases. Juvenile court intake also has discretion to handle cases
informally, bypassing judicial action through “diversion.” Additionally, the juvenile
system uses different, slightly euphemistic terminology, from the adult system;
defendants are referred to as “juveniles,” convictions as “adjudications,” a convicted
criminal is an “adjudicated delinquent,” jail time is “detention,” incarceration is
“confinement,” the sentence imposed is a “disposition,” the trial is an “adjudicatory
hearing,” and a probation officer is a “court counselor.”
Although individual state statutes define who falls under the jurisdiction of
juvenile court, the vast majority of states define juveniles as youth charged with a legal or
2
Munoz, Ed A. “Misdemeanor Sentencing Decision: The Cumulative Disadvantage Effect of ‘Gringo
Justice’.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 20, no. 3. (August 1998): 298-320
3
Ibid.
4
Snyder, Howard N., and Melissa Sickmund. “Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report.”
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. U.S. Department of Justice. March 2006
3
status violation who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offense.5 However, case
processing of juvenile offenders varies significantly from state to state and even within
states, among jurisdictions. Consequently, any descriptions of juvenile processing are
general outlines of the most common sequences of key decision points. The description I
outline here is largely drawn from the national office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) and is corroborated by the majority of my sources. However, it
should be noted that practices at the Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center differ from this
general description in a few regards. I will further expound upon these differences in the
context of my interviews and case studies.
The vast majority of youth first come into contact with the juvenile system
through arrest by a law enforcement official.6 At arrest, a decision is made to either refer
the matter further into the justice system or divert the case out of the system. Referrals
can also be made by parents, victims, probation officers and school personnel. Once the
youth is referred to juvenile court they go through an intake process, generally
administered through the probation department, which screens cases based on whether
the evidence is sufficient to prove the allegation. Then intake personnel decide whether to
release the youth and dismiss the case, handle the matter informally in diversion, or
request formal intervention by the court.
If the case is to be handled formally in juvenile court, the intake worker will file
one of two types of petitions: a delinquency petition requesting an adjudicatory hearing,
or a waiver petition requesting a direct file to adult criminal court. In response to the
adjudicatory petition, an adjudicatory hearing is held and the judge determines whether
the juvenile is responsible for the offense. A waiver petition is filed when the intake
personnel believe a case under the jurisdiction of juvenile court would be handled more
appropriately in criminal court, due to the nature or severity of the offense or prior
adjudications. The court decision in these matters generally centers on the perceptions of
the juvenile’s amenability to treatment and rehabilitation in the juvenile system
During the processing of a case, before adjudication, a juvenile may be held in

pre-trial detention in a secure facility. After arrest, a juvenile court counselor reviews the
case to decide whether a youth should be detained pending a hearing before a judge,
which must be held within 24 hours of the arrest. At the preliminary hearing, a judge
reviews the case and determines whether continued detention is warranted.
If the juvenile is adjudicated in court, a court counselor develops a disposition

plan. To prepare this plan, probation staff assesses the youth often through a variety of
psychological evaluations and diagnostic tests, and consider available support systems
and programs. The juvenile court counselor presents their dispositional recommendations
5
6
4
to the judge at a dispositional hearing and the judge orders a disposition in the case.
Dispositions almost always include some sort of supervised probation, and often include
additional requirements such as drug and alcohol treatment, restitution to the community
or victim, a curfew, random urinalysis tests, and perfect school attendance. Occasionally
the court orders a secure residential placement or commitment to a specialized facility.
To clarify, “secure detention” refers to the pre-trial holding of a youth in a detention
facility while “secure confinement” indicates the youth has been adjudicated delinquent
and committed to the custody of a correctional facility.7
Scholarly literature and studies focusing on minorities in the justice system base
their research off of statistical findings of overrepresentation, disparity and differential
treatment. These three terms have different meanings. Overrepresentation refers to a
situation in which a larger proportion of a particular group is present at various stages
within the juvenile justice system (such as intake, detention, adjudication, and
disposition) than would be expected based on their proportion in the general population.
Disparity means that the probability of receiving a particular outcome (for example,
being detained in a short-term facility vs. not being detained) differs for different groups.
Disparity may in turn lead to overrepresentation. Finally, differential treatment occurs if
and when juvenile justice system decision-makers treat one group of juveniles differently
from another group based wholly, or in part, on their race.8 While my report seeks to
account for statistical indications of overrepresentation in the juvenile system on the basis
of differential treatment of Latino youth, it should be noted that neither
overrepresentation nor disparity necessarily implies differential treatment.
Scholarly Literature Discussion: Accounting for the Causes of Overrepresentation
Theoretical Framework
Race and juvenile justice have been studied extensively in scholarly literature.
That racial minority groups are overrepresented in the juvenile system is undisputed. Yet
findings occasionally conflict over whether higher rates of minority detention necessarily
indicate that race has an effect on case processing decisions.
Scholarly literature identifies a multiplicity of factors contributing to minority

overrepresentation, ranging from differential patterns of delinquency among minority
youth to biases inherent in the system. One scholar, Michael O. Maume, synthesizes the
most salient explanations into three distinct theories.9 The theories are not mutually
7
Austin, James, Kelly Dedel Johnson and Ronald Weitzer. “Alternatives to the Secure Detention and
Confinement of Juvenile Offenders.” US Department of Justice Juvenile Justice Bulletin. September 2005
8
Building Blocks for Youth. “Donde Esta La Justicia?: A Call to Action on behalf of Latino and Latina
Youth in the U.S. Justice System.” (2005)
9
Maume, Michael O. and Reid C. Toth. “Race in Context: The Impact of Structural Factors on Racial
Differences in Juvenile Court Processing.” International Review of Modern Sociology. Vol. 32, no. 1
(Spring 2006)
5
exclusive. Rather they outline a number of complementary, and complexly intertwined
structural causal factors that produce disparity in the juvenile system. These theories
serve as a useful framework to present scholarly findings pertinent to the Latino
overrepresentation in Washington.
The first theory is legal, namely that racial differences at various stages of
juvenile processing are largely due to the legal characteristics of the offender such as
prior record, offense type, seriousness of the offense, and the number of charges. Thus
disparities occur because “some racial minority groups are more likely than whites to
commit offenses that call for formal legal resolution and intervention” and would
logically be expected to appear throughout the legal process.10 The second theory is
interactionist, which applies to the juvenile justice decision-makers “as they interpret
extralegal cues and attributes of the juvenile to inform judicial decisions.” This theory
involves both social and environmental risk factors that disproportionately impact the
Latino population as well as bias inherent to the juvenile system that results in differential
treatment of minorities. The final theory is that of conflict. This theory proposes that
“youth who are members of the lower status groups receive harsher dispositions in order
to ensure that they are brought under the control of the elite group and that they will
mature into law abiding supports of the status quo.”11 Variables such as race and
socioeconomic status determine the relationship of the juvenile to the legal system. Thus
disparities can be accounted for by racism inherent in the legal system.
Legal Theory
Differential Crime Patterns and Risk-Factors for Delinquency
The legal characteristics of Latino youth offenders are salient to account for their
overrepresentation in the juvenile system. Indeed, a few studies maintain that juvenile
justice processing is solely informed by legal factors such as the juvenile’s prior offenses,
number of charges and the severity of the current offense.12 They conclude the
overrepresentation of minority youth is a consequence of differential delinquency
patterns wherein minority youth commit proportionately more crime than white youth,
commit more serious crimes, and have more extensive criminal histories.13 These studies
imply that racial disparity exists in the absence of differential treatment.
The few studies that find no evidence of differential treatment have been critiqued
on the grounds of their sample jurisdictions. Because juvenile justice systems are
10
(Spring 2006)
11
(Spring 2006)
12
Kalogeras, Steven and Marc Mauer. “Annotated Bibliography: Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice
System.” The Sentencing Project. (2003)
13
6
fragmented and administered at the local level, racial disparity exists in some
jurisdictions but not in others. One would not expect research findings to be consistent,
given variation across timeframes and regions. 14 Recent reviews of studies on the effects
of race on decision-making, conducted across a wide range of time frames and
jurisdictions, have yielded more conclusive evidence of differential treatment in juvenile
case processing. 15
While legal characteristics and differential delinquency patterns do not wholly

account for overrepresentation, they certainly contribute to overrepresentation by
disproportionately bringing Latino youth in the “front door”16 of the juvenile system. A
recent study conducted in Washington State by George S. Bridges determined that
between one-fourth and one-half of racial disparity in the juvenile system is due to racial
differences in crime patterns and arrest rates.17 Accounting for overrepresentation based
on legal factors merits the questions of why Latino youth are committing crimes and
getting arrested at greater rates than their Anglo counterparts.
Structural Inequalities: The Social Context of being a Latino youth
Like most matters of race in the Unites States, disparity does not begin at arrest,
but at the “starting gate” – the social contexts into which many Latino youth are born.18
While the overrepresentation of Latino youth in the juvenile system may be partly
attributable to higher rates of delinquency, delinquent behavior is largely a product of
socio-economic and environmental factors generated by structural racism in American
society. Vestiges of racism continue to produce marginalized education, segregated
residential districts, vast socioeconomic inequalities and discrimination in employment.
On every indicator of social and economic well-being, on both the state and
national level, Anglo youth fare better than their Latino counterparts. Latino youth are
disproportionately at risk for exposure to a number of adverse social, economic and
environmental conditions, which studies demonstrate to be risk factors for delinquency.
One study found that while “exposure to a single risk factor slightly increased the
likelihood of later problematic school and legal behaviors, exposure to multiple risks led
14
Pope, Carl E, Kimberly Kempf Leonard and William H. Feyerherm. Minorities in Juvenile Justice.. Sage
Publications. 1995
15
Publications. 1995
16
17
Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. “Washington State Juvenile Justice Report 2005.”
(2006)
18
Hoytt, Eleanor Hinton, Vincent Schiraldi, Brenda V. Smith and Jason Ziedenberg. “8 Pathways to
Juvenile Detention Reform: Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention.” Annie E. Casey
Foundation. <http://www.aecf.org>
7
to significantly greater levels of school and criminal problems.”19 In this way, race has an
indirect bearing on the representation of minorities in the juvenile system; Latino youth
are disproportionately impacted by risk factors that increase their propensity for
delinquency and exacerbate their representation in the juvenile system.
Socioeconomic Conditions
Scholarly research has consistently demonstrated a correlation between

socioeconomic conditions and delinquency.20 Poverty is generally an indicator of fewer
job opportunities, disorganized neighborhoods with higher crime rates, more exposure to
violence and substance abuse, shoddier public education systems, and limited access to
resources that can function as a safety net. The stressors and conditions of poverty and its
correlates increase youth propensity towards delinquency. As Latino youth
disproportionately come from low-income families, reside in segregated communities,
and face tremendous barriers to accessing public services, some studies point to
socioeconomic demographics to account for overrepresentation in the juvenile system. 21
Family Disorganization
Recent scholarly research indicates that family structure is a better predictor of

juvenile delinquency than both poverty and race. 22 Thus, the differences and patterns of
Latino youth family structure are salient to accounting for delinquency trends. Nationally,
Latino youth are significantly more likely than Anglo youth to come from single parent
or female-headed households, in which the parents are likely to deal with unsteady
employment or work multiple jobs, and domestic violence.23 A number of studies,
examining risk factors which increase youth propensity toward delinquency, point to the
importance of parental monitoring and supervision, which would both be impeded by
economic strains and a disorganized family structure.24 Numerous studies emphasize the
challenges Latino parents face acculturating to family standards in American society.25
19
Chapman, John F., Rani A. Desai, Paul R. Falzer and Randy Borum. “Violence Risk and Race in a
Sample of Youth in Juvenile Detention: The Potential to Reduce Disproportionate Minority Confinement.”
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice: A Interdisciplinary Journal. Vol. 4, no. 2 (April 2006): 170-185
20
21
(Spring 2006)
22
23
Hsia, Heidi M., George S. Bridges, and Rosalie McHale. “Disproportionate Minority Confinement 2002
Update.” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. US Department of Justice, September
2004
24
See Cota-Robles, Sonia, and Wendy Gamble. ‘Parent-Adolescent Processes and Reduced Risk for
Delinquency: The Effect of Gender for Mexican American Adolescents.” Youth and Society. Vol. 37, no. 4
(June 2006): 375-392
8
School
There are many other factors that put Latino youth at disproportionate risk for
delinquency involved with their experience in educational systems.26 Research indicates
that when a youth drops out of school their risk for delinquent involvement increases
significantly. Over the last several years, racial disparities in annual dropout rates have
accumulated to produce noticeable differences in the status dropout rates of Latino youth
(the proportion of youth who are not enrolled in school and have not completed high
school or received an equivalency certificate.) Other studies have examined Latinos in
school with regard to school misbehavior and aggression27 and lack of involvement in
activities28 as indicators of delinquency.
Gang Involvement
Furthermore, these socioeconomic conditions, dynamics of family structure, and

school failure rates, which markedly detriment Latino youth, increase their propensity
toward violent, antisocial behavior and joining gangs. Through research conducted
specifically on Latino youth in Washington State, Rosalinda Mendoza found Latino
youth were disproportionately at risk for gang involvement.29
Mental Health Service Underutilization
Studies estimate that more than one half of juveniles in the justice system have at
least one diagnosable mental illness, a proportion much greater than that of the
population at large.30 A substantial amount of research demonstrates a strong correlation
between mental health issues, particularly when untreated, and disruptive or delinquent
behavior. Findings from one recent study, by Purva Rawal, of mental health service
utilization among racial groups in the juvenile system indicated Latino youth had the
Shears, Jeffrey K., and Rich Furman. “Examining Interpersonal Relationship Predictors of Delinquency
Across Ethnic and Racial Samples.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. Vol. 22, no. 3-4 (August
2005): 281-299
25
Perreira, Krista M., Mimi V. Chapman and Gabriela Stein. “Becoming an American Parent: Overcoming
Challenges and Finding Strength in the New Immigrant Latino Community.” Journal of Family Issues. Vol.
27, no. 10 (October 2006): 1383-1414
26
2004
27
Lopez, Vera A., Mark W. Roosa, Jenn-Yun Tein and Khanh T. Dihn. “Accounting For Anglo-Hispanic
Differences in School Misbehavior.” Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Vol 2 (2004): 27-46
28
Wong, Siu Kwong. “The Effects of Adolescent Activities on Delinquency: A Differential Involvement
Approach.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Vol. 34, no. 4 (August 2005): 321-333
29
Mendoza, Rosalinda. “Analysis of the Social Capital Stock of Young Latinas/os and Gang Membership
in Washington State” in The State of the State for Washington Latinos. Whitman College (2005)
30
Rawal, Purva, Jill Romanasky, Michael Jenuwine and John S. Lyons. “Racial Differences in the Mental
Health Needs and Service Utilization of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.” The Journal of Behavioral
Health Services and Research. Vol. 31, no. 3 (July/September 2004): 242-354
9
lowest rate of prior, current and overall mental health service utilization despite having
considerable mental health needs. 31 Rawal proposed this phenomenon was a
consequence of the significant barriers Latinos encounter to access services. Latino youth
had the lowest rates of health insurance coverage which was impacted by low
socioeconomic status and undocumented status due to high rates of immigration.32
Additionally, Latino parent may be more hesitant to seek mental health services
for their children than white parents. Evidence suggests that mental illness may carry a
greater stigma among minority and low-income populations. Additionally, Latino parents
may be unfamiliar with available services and possess their own cultural beliefs about the
causes and proper means of treating mental illness. 33 They may seek support from family
members or ministers rather than mental health professionals. Whatever the reasons for
differential service utilization among Latinos, it not only aggravates risks for
delinquency, but has serious consequences for their subsequent experience within the
juvenile system.
Synthesis
Given the social contexts in which many Latino youth begin it is not surprising
that they are at increased risk for delinquent behavior and be subsequently arrested and
detained in the juvenile system.34 But these environmental and social risk factors for
delinquency are not sufficient to account for disparities in arrest rates or the accumulation
of disparities through subsequent stages of court processing.35 If the social context for
Latino youth puts them behind white youth at the “starting gate,”36 they fall further
behind if they come into contact with the justice system. The first point of contact is most
often with law enforcement.
Law Enforcement Practices
Differential treatment of minority youth in law enforcement is well documented.
31
32
33
34
35
Ibid.
36
10
Individual police practices and policies, such as targeting patrols in low-income or racial
minority neighborhoods and in public places in general, disproportionately impact
minority youth. A number of studies find discrepancies in law enforcement’s treatment of
minority youth. 37 One study examines how police perceptions of “suspicious behavior”
result in bias toward minority youth.38
The differential effects of racial profiling on Latino youth have been documented
extensively in scholarly literature.39 Latinos are similarly affected by police practices of
gang profiling. On the state and national level, Latino youth more likely than white youth
to be involved in a gang. Latino gang members are often targeted. Additionally, family
members, gang affiliates and Latino youth who fit a general gang profile are routinely
persecuted.
A significant amount of research has been conducted on relations between Latinos

and law enforcement. Specifically, one study concluded the effects of the language
barrier impede the delivery of police services to Spanish speaking Latino youth.40
Another study, which focused on Latino youth perceptions of, attitudes towards and
contact with police, found Latinos were more likely to have negative interactions with
law enforcement compared with black and Anglo youth.41
The differential treatment of minority youth by police is made manifest once the
youth enters the juvenile system. Bias is evidenced by the fact that at the intake stage,
minority youth are more likely than white youth to have their case rejected and be
released.42 This influence race has on the intake decision is a false positive. It is not so
much lenient treatment as it is corrective of bias in law enforcement practices that result
in minority youth being arrested on weaker evidence and more questionable grounds than
white youth.
37
Conley, Darlene J. “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.
Vol. 31, no. 2 (May 1994): 135-148
38
Johnson, Richard R. “Confounding Influences on Police Detection of Suspiciousness.” Journal of
Criminal Justice. Vol. 34 (2006):435-442
39
Reitzel, John D., Stephen K. Rice and Alex R. Piquero. “Lines and Shadows: Perceptions of Racial
Profiling and the Hispanic Experience.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 32 (2004): 607-616
40
Herbst, Leigh and Samuel Walker. “Language Barriers in the delivery of police services: A study of
police and Hispanic Interactions in a Midwestern City.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 29 (2001): 329-
340
41
See Hagan, John, Carla Shedd and Monique R. Payne. “Race, Ethnicity and Youth Perceptions of
Criminal Injustice.” American Sociological Review. Vol. 70, no. 3 (June 2005): 381-407
Cheurprakobkit, Sutham and Robert A. Bartsch. “Police Work and the Police Profession: Assessing
Attitudes of City Officials, Spanish Speaking Hispanics, and their English-Speaking Counterparts.” Journal
of Criminal Justice. Vol. 27, no. 2 (1999): 87-100
Cheurprakobkit, Sutham. “Police-citizen contact and police performance attitudinal differences between
Hispanics and non-Hispanics.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 28 (2000): 325-336
42
(Spring 2006)
11
The War on Drugs
The differential treatment of Latinos by law enforcement is most pronounced in

policing and prosecutorial practices toward drug offenders. While some studies find
racial disparities in long term patterns and consequences of addiction,43 the majority find
that the effects of substance abuse do not disparately impact Latinos as adjudication rates
would suggest. Indeed, a national Bureau of Labor Statistics survey found Latino youth
were significantly less likely to use drugs or alcohol than whites, but were significantly
more likely to be arrested and adjudicated delinquent for drug crimes.44 Regardless of this
point of tension on rates and effects of addiction, that racial disparities are produced
through differential policing of drug use, enforcement drug laws and prosecution of drug
crimes is well documented in scholarly literature. 45
In particular, the “War on Drugs” is intimately connected with race and ethnicity
as stereotypes associated with drug trafficking and gang violence are often attached to
Latino males.46 One recent study found that “ethnicity effects are the largest in the
sentencing of drug offenders.”47 There has been a significant amount of research
examining the racial implications for disparate sentencing inherent in drug laws.48
Another study found that in drug cases where juveniles had similar records and were
charged with similar offenses, Latinos were more likely to be charged with a felony than
whites.49
Many studies have attributed disparities in arrests to police practices that tend to
target drug sales and use in public places, like street corners, where they can get higher
rates of arrests. Low-income Latino youth tend to spend more time on the streets and thus
their criminal involvement is often more visible to law enforcement and easily targeted.
43
See Prendergast, Michael L., Yih-Ing Hser and Virginia Gil-Rivas. “Ethnic Differences in Longitudinal
Patterns and Consequences of Narcotics Addiction.” Journal of Drug Issues. Vol. 28, no. 2 (Spring 1998):
495-515
44
45
(Spring 2006)
46
Demuth, Stephen and Darrell Steffensmeier. “Ethnicity Effects on Sentence Outcomes in Large Urban
Courts: Comparisons Among White, Black and Hispanic Defendants.” Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 84,
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
47
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
48
Barnes, Carole Wolff and Rodney Kingsnorth. “Race, Drug and Criminal Sentencing: Hidden Effects of
the Criminal Law.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 24, no. 1 (1996): 39-55
49
(Spring 2006)
12
Similarly, the types of drugs targeted by law enforcement have disparate consequences
for Latino youth.50 A recent study conducted in Seattle, found such policing practices
yielded disparate consequences for minorities.51
Synthesis
Scholarly research on the social and economic structural disadvantages Latino

youth disproportionately face at the “starting gate”52 in the U.S. indicates they are at
greater risk for delinquent behavior. These disadvantages are compounded by biased law
enforcement practices and differential enforcement of drug laws to produce significant
racial disparities in the proportion of youth arrested and referred to juvenile court. Yet the
disadvantage Latino youth face does not cease once they reach the “front door” of the
juvenile system. Extralegal factors such as poverty, neighborhood and family structure
portend to all subsequent stages of case processing wherein race has both direct and
indirect affect on decision-making. 53
Interactionist Theory
Differential Treatment within the System
Once the juvenile is referred to the system internal policies and practices continue
to disadvantage Latino youth. The interactionist theory of minority overrepresentation
points to juvenile justice decision-makers and the system at large as sources of
differential treatment and generators of racial disparity. While some studies find
inconclusive evidence of racial bias in case processing, recent reviews of studies have
yielded more consistent findings of differential treatment.54
Most significant and conclusive of the reviews is a seminal meta-analysis

commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice and conducted by researchers Carl Pope
and Richard Feyerherm. Pope and Feyerherm analyzed thirty-four studies of state and
local juvenile justice systems and found that two-thirds supported the existence of
disparity and bias in the processing of juveniles through the justice system.55 Pope and
50
Beckett, Katherine, Kris Nyrop, Lori Pfingst and Melissa Bowen. “Drug Use, Drug Possession Arrests,
and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle.” Social Problems. Vol. 52, no. 3 (2005): 419-441
51
Beckett, Katherine, Kris Nyrop, Lori Pfingst and Melissa Bowen. “Drug Use, Drug Possession Arrests,
and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle.” Social Problems. Vol. 52, no. 3 (2005): 419-441
52
53
Leiber, Michael J. and Kristin Y. Mack. “The Individual and Joint Effects of Race, Gender, and Family
Status on Juvenile Justice Decision-Making.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 40, no.
1 (February 2003): 34-70
54
Publications. 1995
55
(Spring 2006)
13
Feyerherm found considerable evidence that minority youth are often treated differently
than white youth within the juvenile justice system and that racial and/or ethnic status did
influence decision-making. They concluded that this "race effect" in juvenile processing
negatively affected outcomes for minorities. Their research suggests “the effects of race
may be felt at various decision points, they may be direct or indirect, and they may
accumulate as youth continue through the system.”56 Pope and Feyerherm found that
while racial effects can occur at every stage of juvenile processing, disparities are most
pronounced at the beginning stages of intake and pre-trial detention decision. The
majority of studies found that minority youth are more likely to be detained than white
youth even when legal factors are held constant.57 Proverbially, “Latinos do more time
for the same crime.”58
Since Pope and Feyerherm’s review, a substantial amount of research has

accumulated, confirming interactionist theories of overrepresentation. Interactionist
explanations for overrepresentation look at practices internal to the juvenile justice
system, specifically how decision-makers interpret extralegal cues of the juvenile
offender to inform their judicial decisions. This focus on how decision-making affects
overrepresentation entails an examination of the extralegal factors that impact decision-
making with regard to decision-makers perceptions, stereotypes and risk assessments of
Latino youth. Scholarly literature consistently confirms Pope and Feyerherm’s findings
and locates the most critical junctures of differential treatment as the intake and pre-trial
detention decision-making stages.59
The consequences of differential treatment of Latino youth are particularly

pronounced in dispositional outcomes such as higher rates of direct file to adult criminal
court, lower likelihood to bypass formal case processing in diversion, and higher rates of
confinement to secure facilities. Interactionist theories of overrepresentation are
concerned with differential outcomes and options for Latino youth in the juvenile system,
including their decreased capacity to acquire private council, access alternatives to
detention, and successfully comply with diversion requirements. Furthermore, Latino
youth are disproportionately impacted by inefficient case processing as the disadvantages
they face in the juvenile system are exacerbated.
Decision-Making
56
Pope, Carl E. and Feyerherm, William. (1995) Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System: Research
Summary, (second printing). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of
Justice: Washington, D.C.
57
Leiber, Michael J. “Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) of Youth: An Analysis of State and
Federal Efforts to Address the Issue.” Crime & Delinquency. Vol. 48, no. 1 (January 2002): 3-45
58
Wordes, Madeline, Timothy S. Bynum and Charles J. Corley. “Locking Up Youth: The Impact of Race
on Detention Decisions.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 31, no. 2 (May 1994): 149-
165
59
14
Decision-makers perceptions have a tremendous impact on juvenile court
processing as evidenced by the racial disparities resulting from the critical decision-
making stages of intake and pre-trial detention. Findings from a recent study in
Washington concluded that “Laws and policies that increase juvenile justice
professionals’ discretionary authority over youth – without objective assessments – may
exacerbate racial disparity.”60 Increased discretion in decision-making allows for
subjective interpretations of extralegal factors. Such discretion can result in the
differential treatment of Latino youth wherein decision-makers perceive a greater need
for court intervention in a juvenile’s case.61 Studies find that decision-making at the
intake and pre-trial detention stages is impacted by a number of extralegal factors,
including socioeconomic status, family structure, mental health needs, gang affiliation,
cultural and behavioral characteristics of the youth, and language barriers.
Risk Assessment Tools
Although formal measures and criteria exist at many stages of the juvenile
process to guide decision making, studies have found these allegedly colorblind tools
often have problematic outcomes for racial minority groups. One study by John F.
Chapman indicates that official risk assessment instruments yield racial discrepancies
most pronounced at detention decision making stages. 62 Chapman finds formal measures
of risk tend to privilege middle class white youth and produce less favorable outcomes
for Latino youth. This study concludes that the multitudes of extralegal “risk” and
“protective” factors taken into account in the assessment are not racially and culturally
neutral.63
Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Decision-Making
A recent study conducted by Michael O. Maume found that median income had a
statistically significant effect on juvenile intake decisions.64 Maume assessed court
records from a number of jurisdictions across socioeconomic brackets and found
wealthier jurisdictions were significantly more likely to reject cases at intake. This
finding coincides with prior studies which found that juvenile “punishment not only
60
(2006)
61
Schwalbe, Craig S., Mark W. Fraser, Steven H. Day and Valerie Cooley. “Classifying Juvenile
Offenders According to Risk of Recidivism: Predictive Validity, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender.” Criminal
Justice and Behavior. Vol. 33, no. 3 (June 2006): 305-324
62
63
64
(Spring 2006)
15
responds to crime, but responds as well to specific community conditions.”65 Overall,
juveniles in jurisdictions with higher medium incomes are treated less severely by
juvenile justice decision makers. Maume concludes that income influences community
beliefs, which in turn shape decision makers attitudes. The decision makers may be less
inclined to subject wealthier juveniles to formal social control and process them more
leniently as a result. They tend to consider formal state action, in response to
delinquency, a last resort.66 This finding is significant to accounting for Latino
overrepresentation; as Latino youth disproportionately come from low-income families
and live in low-income neighborhoods, the preferential treatment of middle and upper
income youth would tend to detain and penalize them at higher rates.
Impact of Family Structure on Decision-Making
In this same study, Maume observed that the impact of socioeconomic status on
decision making was generally mediated by an evaluation of the juvenile’s family
structure, a variable which had a more direct correlation to case processing outcomes.
When decision-makers perceived that youth did not have a stable support system at
home, that parents were inadequate disciplinarians or that the family’s resources were
merely insufficient, they were more inclined to intervene with court action. This
intervention could manifest as using detention to keeps a youth off the street, ordering
treatment as a way to socialize youth into dominant society, or giving harsher
dispositions as a form of compensatory discipline. Reflecting on the implications of this
finding, Maume concluded; “The juvenile court supports a structural-functional model of
family life. This model puts minority youth at risk for more intrusive court interventions,
because of the greater likelihood that minority families were perceived as dysfunctional
and non-supportive.”67
A similar study by Vic Bumphus confirmed Maume’s findings that non-

traditional family structures tend to collide with the juvenile justice system and result in
differential treatment for youth that often falls down socioeconomic or racial lines.68
Another study conducted by Stephen Demuth and Darrell Steffensmeier yielded similar
findings and concluded more broadly that juvenile court officials tended to “perceive that
minority families are unable to provide the needed informal social control so minority
youth are in greater need of more formal social control” which predicated their
65
(Spring 2006)
66
Ibid.
67
(Spring 2006)
68
Bumphus, Vic W. and James F. Anderson. “Family Structure and Race in a Sample of Criminal
Offenders.” Journal of Criminal Justice Studies. Vol. 27, no. 4 (1999): 309-320
16
assessment of the need for court intervention.69
A recent study conducted by Michael Leiber and Kristin Mack, examining the
extent to which the effects of race on juvenile justice outcomes are influenced by gender
and family status, corroborated the findings of Maume, Bumphus and Demuth.70 Leiber
and Mack’s study gave particular focus on the perceptions of decision makers with regard
to their reliance on stereotypical beliefs about minority youth as more dysfunctional and
delinquent than whites. It hypothesized that just as racial stereotyping may influence
detention decision makers, traditional notions of the nuclear family may affect the
decision making process as well. Specifically, beliefs that the single-parent family is
inferior to the two-parent family may exacerbate the extent to which racial stereotyping
affects court processing for juveniles.
Leiber’s study drew from juvenile court data from four Iowa jurisdictions and
confirmed previous findings that race impacted decision-making and its effects were
most pronounced at intake.71 Additionally, it revealed that minority youth from a single-
parent household generally receive severer outcomes than their Anglo and two-parent
counterparts. Although this study did not distinguish among racial minority groups, in its
documentation of dispositional outcomes, the bearing family status has on decision
making is pertinent to accounting for the overrepresentation of Latino youth. As Latino
youth disproportionately come from single parent households, this finding represents an
indirect effect race has on decision-making.
Impact of Mental Health Needs on Decision Making
Effectively identifying and addressing mental health needs is an important priority

for rehabilitation and a thus a central function of the juvenile justice system.
Consequently, differential underserviced mental health needs among racial groups signify
an extralegal variable that impacts decision-making and can result in differential
treatment and dispositional outcomes along racial lines.
A recent study by Purva Rawal reviewed 473 juvenile cases across three Illinois
counties, found that Latino youth in the juvenile justice system are most at risk for
underserved mental health needs.72 The juvenile justice system tends to act as a catchall
for mental health, addiction and behavioral needs. Latino youth are much more likely
69
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
70
1 (February 2003): 34-70
71
1 (February 2003): 34-70
72
17
than white youth to have their first contact with a state’s child and adolescent serving
systems, which includes the mental health sector, through the juvenile justice system.73
Court officials often believe that a minority youth’s best chances to receive services may
be in the juvenile system itself. One juvenile court counselor explained, “The courts
incarcerate kids for help. Judges think that incarcerating them is the only way to get them
treatment. The judges cannot order CPS (Child Protective Services) or mental health to
do anything, but they can order me to do it.”74 The court often addresses juvenile mental
health needs through treatment in detention or dispositional stipulations. As Latino youth
often lack the resources or family support to obtain treatment outside of the juvenile
system, this practice would result in higher rates of detention and harsher dispositions for
Latino youth.
Private Counsel
Racial disparities in mental health service utilization reflect racial discrepancies in

access to resources. Limited resources reduce a youth’s ability to access private legal
counsel.75 As they enter the juvenile system Latino youth are more likely than white
youth to rely on the overburdened and often incompetent indigent defense system.76
Juvenile indigent defense attorneys face distinct challenges: excessive caseloads; lack of
resources for independent evaluations; expert witnesses, and investigations; lack of
computers, telephones and office space; lack of training; low salaries, and morale; and
decreased ability to keep up with rapidly changing juvenile codes.77 One study finds
youth represented by private attorneys are less likely to be detained or adjudicated, and
more likely to have their cases returned to juvenile court if they were originally
prosecuted as adults.78
Intake
Scholarly literature consistently affirms the importance of disaggregating the

context of the decision-making to locate the roots of racial disparity. Unlike later stages
of the process which are largely governed by formal legal standards, decision makers’
“discretion is greatest at the intake stage and therefore the potential for differential
73
Ibid.
74
Jones, M.A., and Poe-Yamagata. “And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth in
the Juvenile Justice System.” Building Blocks for Youth. (2000)
75
2004
76
77
Ibid.
78
2004
18
treatment is increased.”79 Indeed the intake decision among all decisions made
throughout the juvenile court process “produces the most collective disparity in the
juvenile justice process.”80 Differential treatment at this early point in the process sets the
stage for disparate treatment at subsequent stages.81 Scholarly literature generally
concurs with Cohen and Kleugel in recognizing decision-making at the intake stage of
court processing to be “the most crucial determinant of the final dispositional outcome.”82
The intake stage is the first decision-making point in the juvenile system to which
juveniles are referred. Intake personnel may decide whether a referral should be
dismissed, diverted, or formally processed.83 Studies consistently reveal that minority
youth are significantly more likely to have their cases formally processed than Anglo
youth, and less likely to bypass formal judicial action through diversion.84
Several recent studies present notable and corroborating findings on the

differential treatment of Latinos at the intake stage. In 2006, Michael Maume examined
statewide juvenile court data of all cases disposed of in Missouri’s juvenile courts, to
determine the impact of race on the intake decision of juvenile processing.85 Maume
hypothesized that both legal and extralegal characteristics affect decision-making.
Maume considered the legal variables of the nature and severity of the offense, the
number of current charges and the number of prior offenses. He also considered the
extralegal factors of age, median household income and race (measured as white v.
nonwhite). Furthermore, Maume’s study drew from a previous study in “operationalizing
the intake decision as a trichotomy,”86 That is, he considering three possible outcomes for
the juvenile at the intake stage: release, informal diversion, and formal processing where
the case is referred further into the system.
79
(Spring 2006)
80
(Spring 2006)
81
1 (February 2003): 34-70
82
Cohen, L.E., and Kleugel, J.R. “Selecting Delinquents for Adjudication: An Analysis of Intake
Screening Decisions in two Metropolitan Juvenile Courts.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.
Vol. 16 (1979): 143-163
83
Ray , K.E.B., and Alarid, L.F. “Examining Racial Disparity of Male Property Offenders in the Missouri
Juvenile Justice System.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. Vol. 2, no. 2 (2004): 107-128
84
Ibid.
85
(Spring 2006)
86
1 (February 2003): 34-70
19
After controlling for all of the aforementioned variables, Maume found “clear
differences between whites and nonwhites at the intake stage.”87 For example, 42% more
nonwhites were released at intake because their case was rejected due to insufficient
evidence to prosecute, recalling differential arrest patterns. Additionally, nonwhite
juveniles were twice as likely to have their cases formally processed, and three times as
likely to receive pre-trial detention. The majority (58 percent) of white juveniles received
an informal adjustment or diversion, compared to 35 percent of non-white juveniles.
Maume finds that decision-makers are often less inclined to refer minority youth to
diversion because of low completion and success rates. Consequently great deals of low-
risk Latino offenders are denied diversionary options even when such a direction is most
appropriate for their offender profile.
The significance of this methodological decision to consider racial proportions of

juveniles referred to diversion highlights a critical juncture of differential treatment.
Official court records frequently only record juveniles “formally processed” and “not
formally processed.” The disproportionate numbers of minority youth whose cases are
rejected at intake tend to mask racial disparities. Because decisions made at the intake
stage are widely believed to be such a significant determinate of the final disposition,
findings of racial disparity predicate further differential treatment as the minority juvenile
is processed through subsequent stages of the system.88
Unsuccessful Diversion
Given thee socioeconomic stressors and contextual limitations disproportionately

faced by Latino youth, Maume’s observation that minority youth have low completion
rates of diversion is logical. This finding holds true in Washington State. A study
conducted in by the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee found that minority
youth are less likely to appear at diversion hearings, less likely to comply with diversion
requirements and less likely to be diverted for subsequent offenses than similarly situated
white youth.89 These trends often resulting in additional punitive measures imposed upon
Latino youth, further exacerbating racial disparities.
Pre-Trial Detention
87
(Spring 2006)
88
(Spring 2006)
89
(2006)
20
Decisions made at the pre-trial detention stage tend to exert a similar formative
influence on the ultimate disposition of the case.90 After the intake decision, if a case is
referred further into the system, the subsequent decision-making stage determines
whether they will be detained before their court appearance, released or set up with a
detention alterative program. A Washington study confirmed national findings that youth
detained prior to adjudication, instead of being released to their parents or a program, are
more likely to be incarcerated. Indeed, it concluded that “pre-adjudication detention is
one of the best predictors of subsequent secure confinement.”91 Under the law, juvenile
detention centers are intended to detain juveniles pending trial only if they pose a danger
to themselves or others or if they are a risk to flee the jurisdiction rather than appear for
scheduled court hearings. Unfortunately, one study found “evidence is abundant that pre-
trial detention is used excessively, inefficiently, and inequitably in many jurisdictions
nationwide, perhaps most.”92 In 1997, 79% of all youth held in juvenile pre-trial
detention nationwide were not charged with violent felony crimes. Many were accused
only of a misdemeanor, status offense or property crime.93
One recent study by George S. Bridges in Washington found that at the pre-trial
detention stage, minority youth were more likely to be detained than white youth even
after differences between the offenses and backgrounds of the youth were taken into
account.94 These findings are particularly troubling because rates of pre-trial detention are
disproportionately high for Latinos, indicating the misuse and overuse of pre-trial
detention has racial repercussion.
A study conducted by Madeline Wordes found similar racial disparities in the

detention of white and Latino youth at three stages in the juvenile justice process: police
detention, court intake detention and preliminary hearing detention.95 The study drew
from a random sample of 728 felony cases across five counties. Wordes’ collected
extensive data from case files, police agencies and juvenile courts to be able to
disaggregate extralegal variables in the youth’s family and social context as well as hold
for actual offense behavior. Her findings indicated that Latino youth were more likely to
be detained at each decision point, even after controlling for the influence of a
90
2004
91
(2006)
92
(Spring 2006)
93
Mendel, Richard A. “Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice.” American
Youth Policy Forum. 2001
94
2004
95
165
21
multiplicity of legal and extralegal factors. Unlike past studies which deduced racial
effects on case processing were mediated through socioeconomic and family factors,
Wordes’ study suggests race has a unique, singular and direct impact on decision-making.
Alternatives to Detention
Limited resources impact a youth’s ability to access and qualify for existing
alternatives to detention. Detention alternatives, also called diversionary detention, give
decision-makers alternatives to sending youth to a secure detention facility while
awaiting adjudication, Additionally, detention alternatives can serve to more generally
provide social services and rehabilitative treatment during that interim time period.
Detention alternatives range from home detention to boot camp to community-based
programs. They often involve intensive case management, drug and alcohol treatment,
therapy, and collaboration with parents and schools. However, studies consistently find
that when decision-makers perceive that minority youth lack the family and community
resources to make them appropriate for alternatives to detention, they determine secure
detention to be the most effective place of treatment. To account for low Latino
enrollment and completion rates of detention alternatives, one study cites language
barriers, unaccommodating hours, and general cultural incompetence, making existing
detention alternatives inaccessible to many Latino youth and their families.96
Inefficient Case Processing
A significant proportion of youth held in pre-trial detention are detained for

failing to appear at an earlier court hearing. Court hearings are often spaced with long
delays, particularly from the arrest date to the preliminary hearing date. In this time, there
is minimal, if any, follow up from the court to remind the juvenile of the hearing or
encourage attendance. This results in “failures to appear,” a major problem in the system
and one which give cause for juveniles to be rounded up and detained.97 Latino youth are
disproportionately impacted by these delays and are more likely to failure to appear at
court dates due to unique cultural and language barriers which I will discuss further
shortly.
The disparate effects of pre-trial detention on minority youth are exacerbated by

inefficient case processing. Inefficient case processing lengthens the duration of stay for
many detained youth – causing the juveniles to spend far more time than necessary away
from their families, out of school, often in overcrowded facilities, and surrounded by
other troubled youth. Due to overcrowding, detention creates a heightened risk for
violence, and decreases the quality for the education, rehabilitation, health and other
services provided, setting the youth up to have trouble reintegrating once released, and
putting them at greater risk to recidivate.98
96
Ibid.
97
Mendel, Richard A. “Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice.” American
Youth Policy Forum. 2001
98
Ibid.
22
Language Barrier
The most direct and evident extralegal factor that uniquely impacts Latinos in the
court system is the language barrier. As mentioned earlier, limited English proficiency
and general unfamiliarity with the American justice system impacts Latino youth at the
earliest stage of the juvenile process, in the delivery of police services.99 As the juvenile
moves into the system and the stakes increase, the language barrier continues obstruct
equal access to justice for non-English speakers and the system consistently demonstrates
its inability to accommodate and serve non-English speakers. As noted by Judge Donna
Carr of the Ohio Court of Appeals, “In a criminal proceeding, rights are conveyed in
words. Words have meaning. If the words have no meaning to a defendant, then such a
defendant has no rights. A trial without rights is a sham.”100 Indeed, the “high level of
abstraction of the terminology used in a courthouse” makes a court appearance a
confusing and often terrifying experience even for native English speakers.101 However,
due to limited resources and pervasive nativist ideologies, overcoming language barriers
has not been a priority in most jurisdictions. This is evidenced by the paucity of data and
scholarship on the issue with no studies examining the language barrier in juvenile
proceedings.
One “explicitly anecdotal” study conducted by Martin Urbina examines the

consequences of the unavailability of court interpreters and unqualified court interpreters
in adult criminal proceedings. Urbina prefaces his study explaining, “The field of court
interpretation is an area that has received little attention, is poorly understood, short
sighted and carries severe negative consequences when not executed in a professional and
proper manner.”102 The study operates on the premise that “equal access to the law is
being denied to non-English speaking Latinos in our nation’s courts due to poor (or lack
of) interpretation.”103 Between 2000 and 2003, Urbina regularly attended both federal and
state court to observe interpretation in Wisconsin, and conversed with over 30
practitioners (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and interpreters) regarding the
problem of the language barrier.
Wisconsin is similar to Washington in terms of the demographics of its Latino

population. Both states have a rapidly growing Latino population composed
predominantly of people of Mexican origin. Notably, the limited English proficient
population in Wisconsin has grown substantially over the last ten years and continues to
be on the rise, increasing the demand for interpreters’ services in the criminal justice
system.104 In both Wisconsin and Washington, as well as nationally, Spanish is by far the
99
Herbst, Leigh and Samuel Walker. “Language Barriers in the delivery of police services: A study of
police and Hispanic Interactions in a Midwestern City.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 29 (2001): 329-
340
100
Urbina, Martin G. “Language Barriers in the Wisconsin Court System: The Latino/a Experience.”
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Vol 2 (2004): 91-119
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid.
103
Ibid.
104
Ibid.
23
most common language for which court interpreters are needed; in Wisconsin 86% of
request for court interpreters are for Spanish.105
The study found as the Latino population in Wisconsin has increased, the shortage
of and demand for qualified court interpreters has become more pronounced; “Not only
are there too few qualified interpreters, but there are far too many unqualified interpreters
being used in the court system.”106 Interpreters are often selected and assigned to cases
primarily because they are bilingual even though most of them have little, if any
experience interpreting and often have little understanding of the legal system let alone of
legal terminology.
Interpreters also need to be able to convey complex legal concepts to people who
are generally unfamiliar with the U.S. justice system and concepts like due process and
constitutional rights. Urbina found interpreters often have no idea of their limitations. He
observed verbatim translations be very deceiving as intended meanings were often lost in
interpretation or translated so literally that they become nonsensical. For example words
like “offense” (crime) and “appearance” (coming before the court) were consistently
translated as “ofensa” (insult) and “apariencia” (physical appearance). Additionally, the
word “plea” is often translated as supplication or entreaty.107
Urbina observed how untrained and unprofessional court interpreters can have a
significant impact on court proceedings. Since the typical Latino defendant is
uneducated, some interpreters make the mistake of correcting the testimony of the
defendant, paraphrasing it, or interpreting what is being said to the defendant in a much
lower vocabulary. Furthermore, interpreters often offered legal advice to defendants or
inserted suggestions into their interpretations. Likewise, confused and scared, some
defendants asked interpreters questions like, “Should I plead guilty?” Indeed, a prior
study on court interpreters noted, “There has probably never been a court interpreter who
has not responded to (or even invited) requests for assistance that fall outside the
interpreter’s functions. The impulse comes from the same source of empathy that makes
people want to be interpreters in the first place.”108
The juvenile system poses its own unique challenges confronting the language
barrier. The language barrier experienced by juveniles and their parents is compounded
by a general unfamiliarity with justice proceedings. Additionally, Latino families are
commonly distrustful of legal authorities due to experiences with corrupt systems in
Mexico and other Latin American countries, experience with persecution and harassment
by INS agents, and the threat of deportation for undocumented individuals. The language
barrier impacts and often informs juvenile outcomes as Spanish speaking families often
105
106
Ibid.
107
Ibid.
108
Ibid.
24
fail to understand the stipulations of the court order and are thus incapacitated to enforce
their child’s compliance with probation requirements.109
Stereotypes and Cultural Insensitivity
A number of the aforementioned aspects of the interactionist theory demonstrate

how seemingly colorblind policies and practices have differential outcomes for Latino
youth. Yet the centrality of race in their effects cannot be understood without recognizing
how racial generalizations and stereotypes may factor into the discretionary authority
juvenile officials are afforded at each decision-making stage. Studies have confirmed that
racial stereotyping affects differential perceptions of youths’ problems which in turn
impacts case processing decisions. In one recent Washington study, George S. Bridges
and Sara Steen tried to determine why minority youth received harsher sentencing
recommendations than whites when they were charged with the same crimes and had a
similar delinquency history. Bridges and Steen examined 233 narrative reports written by
juvenile probation officers in Washington State, analyzed the written judgments and
contrasted the rationale for their decisions with objective measures of risk.110
Bridges and Steen found that juvenile court officials’ subjective assessments of
youth shaped case outcomes, consistently resulting in harsher dispositions for minority
youth.111 They found probation officers assessed minority and white youth using different
causal factors. Probation officers were more likely to see the crimes of minority youth as
caused by “internal factors” (e.g., personal failure, inadequate moral character and
personality) and crimes by whites as caused by “external factors” (e.g., poor home life,
lack of appropriate role models and environment). Probation officers’ interpretations of
subjective factors like the youth’s remorse or cooperativeness ultimately influenced their
assessment that the delinquent behavior of minority youth was the result of individual
failings, unmitigated by larger social forces, for which state intervention was the only
recourse.112
Decision-makers are generally guided by “red flags” that indicate a youth’s

likelihood to re-offend, such as their school performance or family stability. For many
decision-makers, their basis for evaluating the red flags comes from experience and is
more of a subjective judgment of what has worked in the past rather than explicit bias.
Nevertheless, these red flags may or may not be accurate measures of assessing a youth’s
109
Perreira, Krista M., Mimi V. Chapman and Gabriela Stein. “Becoming an American Parent:
Overcoming Challenges and Finding Strength in the New Immigrant Latino Community.” Journal of
Family Issues. Vol. 27, no. 10 (October 2006): 1383-1414
110
Bridges, George S. and Sara Steen. “Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders:
Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review. Vol. 63 (1998)
111
(2006)
112
25
risk and differential perceptions of minority youth can be informed by negative
stereotypes as well as cultural illiteracy.113 Specifically, images of gang members as
predominantly minority youth may infuse perceptions of Latino youth with suspicions of
gang involvement. The consequences of presumed or actual gang affiliations are great.
Such a charge mandates harsher penalties and disproportionately targets profiles of low-
income Latinos.114
The bias of decision-makers is amplified by the gap in communication between

white decision makers and minority youth when cultural differences are misinterpreted.
Prior research suggests that the attitude, body language and general demeanor of youth
affects their sentence outcome. Behaviors such as not making eye contact or wearing
oversized clothing, often relate to generational and cultural aspects of Latino youth of
which the decision maker is unaware or unaccustomed. One court official explained, “I’m
expecting when they come to court they’re going to show some measure of deference
toward the court and not walk in with an attitude. How are we to feel that it’s appropriate
to release the kid who has absolutely no respect for the court, for the law enforcement, for
the attorney, for the cop on the street, for our laws obviously!”115
One study conducted by Ed Munoz addresses factors largely unexamined in

scholarly research which can uniquely inform Washington State’s experience. It
examined Latinos of Mexican origin in rural and small town jurisdictions outside of the
American Southwest. Munoz analyzed misdemeanor sentences in three non-urban
Nebraska counties with significant Latino populations.116 The analysis compared Anglo
and Latino male misdemeanants and controlled for county, offense type, prior offenses,
and age. Latinos overall had significantly greater proportions of individuals charged with
misdemeanor offenses, received more total charges, and subsequently received harsher
punishments in the form of greater fines and lengths of probation.117 The findings suggest
that “biased discretion in the enforcement, processing and sentencing of misdemeanor
offenses is but one part of the cumulative disadvantage that Latinos face in the overall
criminal justice system.” 118 This study is significant because it provides “evidence of
113
114
115
116
117
118
26
‘gringo justice’ outside of the American Southwest,” where Latinos historically have
resided.119 As a result, it can serve as a measure of how the diffusion of stereotypical
beliefs of Mexicans influences society’s reaction to Mexican criminality. Munoz assesses
that Nebraska “provides an excellent social laboratory to explore these claims,” 120 as
would Washington due to similar racial demographics, patterns of Latino immigration in
pursuit of work in farm labor and meatpacking, and relative rapid increase in the Latino
population due to those industries.
Conflict Theory
Recall the conflict theory, the third and final theoretical explanations for minority
overrepresentation in juvenile justice. The conflict theory proposes that race effectively
determines the Latino youth’s relationship to an inherently racist legal system. The
conflict theory proposes “youths who are members of the lower status groups receive
harsher dispositions in order to ensure that they are brought under the control of the elite
group and that they will mature into law abiding supports of the status quo.”121
Throughout American history, Latinos have been caste as a lower status group, and
socioeconomic realities persist in locating them among the most disadvantaged
populations today. The conflict theory is critical to laying the historical and theoretical
groundwork for examinations of Latino overrepresentation. At this day in age racism is
less tangible. By in large, it has been erased, or at least rephrased, in the law books. Yet it
continues to impact juvenile court processing of Latinos in very real ways.
Analyzing themes in sociological research on law and crime, Stephen Demuth and
Darrel Steffensmeir propose three theoretical paradigms where “socially disadvantaged
and/or minority offenders are prone to more coercive treatment by legal agents.” 122 There
conclusions are useful to inform how conflict theory shapes court processing. Demuth
and Steffensmeir explain differential treatment of minority youth occurs because 1) they
lack resources to resist the imposition of negative labels; 2) their behavior threatens the
economic and moral interests of more powerful groups; and 3) their crime is feared more
and thus sanctions will be harsher when criminals are perceived to be racially or
culturally dissimilar and hence more dangerous or unpredictable. Indeed, the conception
is commonplace among the general public that crime is overwhelmingly a minority or
underclass problem.”123
119
Ibid.
120
121
Ibid.
122
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
123
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
27
Stereotypes
The differential treatment of Latinos in the justice system today cannot be

understood in isolation. It has roots in socially constructed stereotypes, images and
beliefs that have been attached to Latinos throughout history and dictate the social and
economic structures that order society. These distorted perceptions have infused legal
systems and judicial institutions with justification and rationale for the dual standard of
enforcement and punishment that favor Anglos over Latinos.”124
Early research on Mexicans and the justice system often portrayed them as
“innately criminal and prone to thievery and lawlessness.”125 Although recent research on
racial stereotyping by juvenile justice authorities has primarily focused on the labeling
and stereotyping of African American male offenders, whom court officials often view as
“aggressive and irresponsible, disrespectful of authority, and more criminal in their
lifestyles.” 126 However, recent research suggests that Latino offenders elicit similar
negative stereotypes. Prior studies of ethnic stereotypes report characterizations of
Latinos as lazy, irresponsible and dangerously criminal.127
These stereotypical images have endured centuries and continue to be invoked to

mobilize bias against Latinos particularly when they are perceived as a threat. Generally,
an increase in the Latino population increases their visibility which in turn can create
inter-ethnic conflict by representing an actual or perceived economic threat. The conflict
theory would predict that long-time Anglo residents, would perceive Latino immigrants
as a threat to maintaining the status quo as it functions to ensure their social, economic
and political dominance. Thus, one powerful way to subordinate Latinos and maintain
dominance is through a system Munoz termed “gringo justice,” wherein differential
treatment of Latinos is justified and executed.128
Language Barriers
Gringo justice is at play in the maintenance of the language barrier in juvenile

courts across the country. Language rights have been poorly defined in U.S. laws, the
right to an interpreter is not found in the Constitution. Consequently, statutes that now
provide protection for language minorities were delayed and the existing few are
124
125
Ibid.
126
165
127
165
128
Ibid.
28
incomplete and at times, contradictory. It was not until the 1970 Supreme Court case of
United States ex rel. Negron v. New York, that non-English speaking defendants were
guaranteed the right to an interpreter during criminal proceedings. Currently there is no
such right for Spanish speaking families of youth in the juvenile justice system.
Resistance to addressing that language barrier in the justice system is rooted the
United States’ history of xenophobia and discrimination toward Latino immigrants.
Throughout history “various voices have argued that immigrants should assimilate to our
customs, culture, and learn our language.”129 Indeed, “English only” sentiments, which
wish to declare English the official language of the country, have resurfaced in recent
years in light of anti-immigrant movements. Studies like Urbina’s testify to remaining
structural obstructions to equal access to justice, with distinctly racial underpinnings.
Critical Synthesis
Scholarly literature generally paints a dim portrait of Latino youth in the juvenile
justice system. Many Latino youth are disadvantaged at the “starting gate” due to the
social and environmental contexts they are born into. Not only are they
disproportionately at risk for delinquency, but biased law enforcement practices tend to
arrest and refer them to the juvenile system at greater rates than their Anglo counterparts.
Upon entering the juvenile system, extralegal factors continue to influence case
processing and produce disparate outcomes, most pronounced at the intake and pre-trial
detention decision-making stages. While decisions at each stage are often explicitly and
formally guided by allegedly colorblind procedures and considerations, documented
disparities in these decisions expose differential outcomes for racial minorities, and
undermine the equal administration of justice. The Latino youth’s access to the system is
further encumbered by language barriers, culturally incompetent services and limited
options for detention alternatives.
The findings and conclusions of my research present a critical tension on the issue
of decision-making that produces racial disparity. On one hand, the influence of
extralegal factors such as socioeconomic status, family stability, school achievement and
mental health needs, are critical factors for decision-makers to consider in evaluating a
youth’s support network and determining appropriate court intervention. However, as my
findings indicate, Latino youth are structurally exposed to conditions considered to be
risk factors and indeed, indicators, of delinquency, at rates much higher than their Anglo
counterparts. The inclusion of extralegal considerations in juvenile case processing,
results in differential treatment of youth along racial lines. My report responds to this
point of conflict in scholarly research. The case studies I conducted redress the tendency
of extralegal factors to dictate dismal court processing outcomes for Latino youth.
The scholarly literature and studies I assessed reinforced my initial inclination to

examine the direct and indirect bearing race has on juvenile case processing. Namely, my
report seeks to engage the causal factors delineated in the interactionist theoretical
framework. I want to understand how differential treatment is generated within the
129
Ibid.
29
system and how it can be combated through specific policy and procedure reform. Based
on my findings, I consider decision-making at the intake and pre-trial detention stages to
be the most critical junctures responsible for exacerbating racial disparity within the
system and forecasting disparate dispositional outcomes. At both stages I want to
investigate the potential for targeted reform to mitigate the bearing extralegal factors,
which disproportionately implicate Latino youth, have on case processing. Namely, how
reform can reduce the direct and indirect impacts of race on decision making and thus
deter disparate outcomes for Latino youth.
A number of studies directed my inquiry toward monitoring the discretion granted

decision-makers in order to prevent the influence of stereotypes and cultural
miscommunication. Specifically I seek to determine whether more formal, genuine risk
indicators can guide detention decisions and ensure Latino youth are not unnecessarily or
exorbitantly detained. Furthermore, I speculated how formal court intervention, which
scholarly research found was often wielded as a surrogate disciplinarian for Latino youth
from low-income or disorganized families could be replaced by means and measures that
addressed specific and unique needs of the Latino population rather than criminalizing
them. In response to a number of studies which stressed a general deficiency in the
delivery and availability of racially appropriate detention alternatives, I am interested in
how culturally competent reform can guide the development of jurisdictional
infrastructures of diversional support and detention alternatives that reinforce the goals of
rehabilitation and recidivism across racial lines.
Research Methods
My decision to narrow my inquiry to outcomes of juvenile decision-making

guided my quantitative research. First and foremost I sought quantitative data to account
for overrepresentation and demonstrated Latino involvement in the juvenile system
exceeded their representation in the general jurisdictional population. Scholarly literature
emphasized the importance of examining the specific stages of decision-making to
determine causes of disparity. Consequently, throughout my research process I sought
local, state and national data that accounted for racial proportions at a number of
subsequent decision-making stages, including arrest, diversion, detention, prosecution,
adjudication, and disposition. Because a number of my scholarly sources found racial
disparities were most pronounced in dispositional outcomes, I sought data to indicate
whether the proportion of juveniles detained or confined in secure correctional facilities
exceeded their representation in the general population. Furthermore, in response to a
number of studies conducted across the country which identified risk factors for
delinquency, indicating Latino youth were disproportionately impacted, I sought data to
determine whether those risk factors held true in Washington State. I directed my inquiry
to compare the demographics and social conditions for Latino youth in Washington State
with those of the nation at large.
My primary sources for quantitative data were reports conducted by government

agencies made available online. I examined two national reports by the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), a federal agency within the U.S.
30
Department of Justice. One study, released in 2004, focused exclusively on evidence of
Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)130, and the other, released in 2006,
provides a general examination of juvenile offenders in the system.131 I also looked at a
2005 collaborative report funded by the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative based out of
Michigan State University entitled “¿Donde está la Justicia? A Call to Action on Behalf
of Latino and Latina Youth in the U.S. Justice System.”132 For data at the state level, I
drew primarily from Washington State’s Juvenile Justice Report, released in 2005 by the
Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, which dedicated a section to minority
youth in the system.133 Additionally, I obtained data from a 2002 analysis of state
compliance with the federal DMC mandate which requires states track and reduce the
overrepresentation of minorities in their juvenile systems.134 The overwhelming majority
of my data on racial proportions at various decision making stages was derived as a
consequence of the DMC mandate. Specifically, much of my state data came from
studies tracking Washington’s compliance with federal DMC regulation.
Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)
Efforts to address Disproportionate Minority Contact have been significant in

recent years on both the state and federal levels. The 1992 Disproportionate Minority
Confinement Amendment to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974, placed DMC among the nation’s most critical juvenile justice issues.135 In response
the recent federal Disproportionate Minority Confinement Act (DMC), encouraging
states to track the representation of minorities in the juvenile system, a number of studies
have been conducted at the state and national levels specifically examining this issue.136
States risked losing federal grant money if they did not agree to undertake studies to
determine if DMC existed, uncover the causes and develop strategies to intervene.
In 2002, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was reauthorized
and broadened the DMC initiative to consider disproportionate minority contact by
requiring an examination of possible disproportionate representation of minority youth at
130
2004
131
132
133
(2006)
134
135
136
(Spring 2006)
31
all decision points throughout the juvenile justice process. Individual states were asked to
determine whether minority youth were being confined in numbers greater than their
proportion in the general youth population. If such an overrepresentation was found to
exist, states were expected develop strategies to address the problem. States receive
funding based on their compliance with the mandate’s requirements.137
Limiting Aspects of Data
The quantitative reports I examined were generally comprehensive although due

to discrepancies in racial classifications, barriers to accessing data, and jurisdictional
inconsistencies, data on Latino youth was often unavailable or incomplete. Latinos are
often either lumped into the “minority” group, or considered racially “white.” In 2002,
18% of Juvenile’s in the US were of Hispanic ethnicity, but ethnicity is different from
race and so more than 9 out of every 10 Hispanic juveniles were classified as racially
white. In 2002, 21% of juveniles classified as “white” were of Hispanic origin.138 Indeed,
the failure to consider defendant’s Latino ethnicity (by combining Latinos and Anglos
together in a single “white” category) in racial disparity studies may result in findings
that significantly underestimate black/white differential treatment.139
Given the limited amount of quantitative data that disaggregated Latinos as a

racial or ethnic group, I considered studies which broke down data into “minority” and
“non-minority,” where Latinos are included in the minority group, as well as a few that
examined African American youth in the system. A number of studies have found that
the experience of Latino youth in the juvenile system is often comparable to that of
African American youth, particularly compared to that of Anglo youth.140 In general, my
quantitative sources corroborated the claims of scholarly literature in that minority youth
are not only overrepresented throughout the juvenile system, but disparities tend to
increase as youth progress through the system and are most pronounced in detention and
secure confinement.
Case Study
Because I am primarily concerned with internal juvenile justice practices that

generate differential treatment, namely decision-making outcomes, I performed a case
study to demonstrate specific efforts being taken within the system to reduce racial
disproportions. I also considered the site’s demographics and geography so that my
137
138
139
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
140
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
32
findings could be used to inform policy in Washington State. Fortunately, efforts to
reduce the disproportionate detention of minority youth in the Pacific Northwest have
been significant in recent years. I found that the Annie E. Casey Foundation had selected
the Seattle and Portland areas (King and Multnomah Counties) as test sites to implement
their Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). JDAI is a “multi-million dollar
grant initiative intended to reduce over-crowding in juvenile justice systems, improve
conditions of confinement, and reduce the disproportionate representation of youth of
color in the system.”141 I was most interested in JDAI’s evidence-based strategies at
reducing racial disproportion, particularly through developing race neutral risk
assessment tools and enhancing culturally competent detention alternatives.
Multnomah County, Oregon was one of the five original JDAI test sites. It was
originally selected in part, because Dr. William H. Feyerherm, the renowned scholar who
conducted the seminal meta-analysis of studies on minority detention with Carl E. Pope,
was a Professor at Portland State University and was authorized to oversee the data
management of the intiative. Today, the Annie E. Casey Foundation recognizes that
Multnomah County’s efforts to reduce racial disparity “had the most measurable impact
of any of the JDAI sites.”142 Indeed, Multnomah County is emerging as “nationally
recognized leader in the effort to address minority over-representation in the juvenile
justice system.”143 In response to JDAI’s success, lessons from “the Multnomah model”
are being implemented around the country. Most recently, successes have been
documented in two promising new sites – Santa Cruz, California and King County
(Seattle), Washington. I chose to conduct case studies on these three JDAI sites to
analyze their successes and strategies in reducing DMC. Specifically, I was interested in
evaluating what made Multnomah County’s exemplar model so innovative and effective.
Due to Santa Cruz’s predominantly Latino population, I briefly examined their efforts to
identify some Latino specific reforms. Finally, I examined King County’s initiative to
evaluate the potential to implement JDAI in Washington, statewide.
In all three models, I was primarily intrigued by how their data-driven reforms
could target differential treatment within the juvenile system without censuring the work
of hard working justice officials. I wanted to examine the potential for reform to be
embraced and executed within the system. A statement by the Chief of Probation in Santa
Cruz, Judith Cox, who oversaw JDAI in her jurisdiction, gave credence to my hopes, “By
using data to improve the justice system processes, you eliminate the barriers and
defensiveness that occur when people think they are being called racists” 144
I obtained the majority of my information on the Multnomah County test site

through personal interviews with two women who have worked closely on the Juvenile
initiative. Elyse Clawson is now the Executive Director of the National Crime and Justice
Institute (CJI). However, prior to joining CJI, she was the Director of the Department of
141
“Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI),” Annie E, Casey Foundation, 2005
<http.www.aecf.org/initiatives/jdai/>. (20 October 2006).
142
Ibid.
143
Governor’s Youth Summit. “Solutions: What’s Working?” http://oya.state.or.us/dmc/solutions.html
144
Ibid.
33
Community Justice (DCJ) in Multnomah County where she oversaw both juvenile and
adult community corrections and led the initial implementation of JDAI.145 Joanne Fuller
currently serves as the Director of DCJ and has spearheaded recent efforts to evaluate and
expand the initiative.146 Both interviews were extremely informative, gave me insight
into the challenges and successes of their efforts, and led me to more resources on
JDAI.147 My information on JDAI in King County came exclusively from online studies
conducted by the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee,148 the Annie E.
Casey Foundation, and a report to the legislature drafted by the Juvenile Rehabilitation
Administration, a division of Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services.149
The documented successes and concrete, evidence-based policy recommendations

of JDAI present promising measures for Washington to adopt. Additionally, Multnomah
and King County contain population demographics similar to Washington as a whole,
with Latinos making up the largest racial minority group and most Latinos being of
Mexican origin. However, both test sites represent the state’s largest, densest and most
populated jurisdictions. The implementation of their JDAI reforms on a state-wide level
may confront difficulties as urban areas generally have a greater concentration of social
services and resources, funding, and potential for collaboration with community service
providers.
Interviews
Considering my focus on how decision-making affects Latinos in the juvenile

system, I felt it was essential to obtain the perspective of a decision-maker. With the help
of my community partner, Vance Norsworthy, I was able to interview Becky Brenwick,
the Intake Officer at the Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center. I spoke with Ms. Brenwick
in her office for approximately forty-five minutes and tape recorded our conversation.
Based on my findings in scholarly literature, I asked about the formal and informal
criteria she used to guide decision-making. I was also interested in whether she perceived
differential delinquency patterns, amenability to treatment, and case processing outcomes
among Latino and white youth. Furthermore, I asked how her working relationship with a
145
Clawson, Elyse. Personal Interview. 10 October 2006.
146
147
See Freda-Cowie, Robb. “Multnomah County’s Juvenile Justice Innovations Threatened by Budget
Cuts: New Documentary Shows Success of At-Risk Programs in Reducing Juvenile Crime and
Incarceration of Minority Youth.” Department of Community Justice. January 9, 2004
Governor’s Youth Summit. “Solutions: What’s Working?” http://oya.state.or.us/dmc/solutions.html
Rhyne, Charlene and Kim Pascual. “Juvenile Minority Over-Representation in Multnomah County’s
Department of Community Justice: Calendar Year 2005 Youth Data.” Multnomah County Department of
Community Justice. June 2006. <http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/evaluation.shtml#juvenilereports/>
Keir, Scott. “Juvenile Crime Trends Report: 2003.” Multnomah County Department of Community Justice.
(July 2005) http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/evaluation.shtml - juvenilereports/
The Latino Gang Violence Prevention Task Force of Multnomah County. “Latino Youth Gang Violence in
Multnomah County: Understanding the Problem, Shaping the Future.” 2004
148
(2006)
149
Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration. “Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System: A
Report to the Legislature.” December 1, 2004
34
juvenile changed if they were Latino or if their family was Spanish speaking.
Mr. Norsworthy also put me in contact with two juveniles with prior
adjudications who were currently involved with the Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center
to some capacity. From my interviews with the youth, I hoped to gauge whether they
perceived differential treatment or if cultural and language differences had impeded their
family’s ability to navigate the juvenile system. I also asked a number of questions about
their family, language competence, immigration status, experience in school, substance
abuse and peer group to determine if they dealt with any unique risk factors or social
circumstances that would be more effectively rehabilitated with culturally specific
services. In order to respect their privacy, I will refer to the juvenile’s I interviewed by
the pseudonyms Consuela and Carlos. Consuela is a sixteen year old Latina currently on
probation. I met Consuela at an Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART) class which Mr.
Norsworthy co-teaches. I spoke with her the following day after her class at the Justice
Center. The interview lasted approximately thirty minutes. We spoke in English and I
tape recorded the conversation. Carlos is a fifteen year old Latino who was in detention at
the time I interviewed him. We spoke in English at the Justice Center for approximately
forty-five minutes. I recorded our conversation by handwritten notes because I was not
authorized to tape record at that time.
Data Presentation
Social Demographics as Indicators of Delinquency
In response to my findings about risk factors of poverty, family disorganization

and school dropout rates that put Latinos at a disproportionate risk for delinquency as
well as portend to influence later decision-making stages, I sought quantitative data to
indicate just how significant those risk factors were for Latino youth nationwide and in
Washington State. I found Washington data reflects national tends and corroborates my
scholarly research in accounting for significant disparities between white and Latino
youth at the “starting gate.”
Poverty
A national study, using data collected in 2002, found that Latino juveniles were
more than 4 times as likely to live in poverty as white juveniles; 22% of Latinos youth,
compared with 5.7% of whites lived below the federal poverty line and 9% of Latino
youth compared with 3% of whites lived below 50% of it.150 In Washington State, Latino
youth live in poverty at a proportion greater than all other minority groups.151 The state’s
2005 Juvenile Justice Report found that 63% of Latino youth come from low-income
families (where low income is defined as below 200% of the federal poverty level),
150
151
(2006)
35
compared with 36% of the general population and 27% of white youth.152
Family Disorganization
Between 1980 and 2002, the proportion of youth living in single-parent

households in the U.S. increased from 18% to 22% for whites and from 21% to 30% for
Latinos. Currently 26% of Latinos live in single parent mother headed households
compared with 17% of whites. The trend has become transgenerational as the birth rate
for Latina females ages 15-17 was almost four times that of whites.153
Gang Affiliation
Survey results from a Bureau of Labor Statistics study, between 1997 and 2001
annually interviewed a nationally representative sample of nearly 9,000 youth ages 12-17
and found that in a nationally representative sample of nearly 9,000 youth ages 12-17, 7%
Anglo youth reported being involved in a gang compared with 12% of Latino youth.154
School factors
Results from that same survey found Latino youth are suspended from school at
higher rates than white youth; 38% of Latino youth reported being suspended compared
with 28% of whites.155 In 2000, the status dropout rate among all youth in the U.S. was
11%, compared with 28% of Latino youth and only 6% of white youth.156 In Washington,
during the 2003-2004 academic year, 11% of Latino high school students dropped out
compared with 4% of white students and 5% of the general population.157
Statewide Racial Proportions in the Juvenile System
In Washington State, Latinos make up the largest and fastest growing racial
minority group. According to 2003 estimates, the racial composition of youth under the
age of 18 was 73 percent white and 13 percent Latino, 7 percent Asian, 5 percent Black,
and 2 percent American Indian.158 Data collected by the Governor’s Juvenile Justice
Advisory Committee examined race as a factor influencing decisions at various points
within the juvenile justice system. Data analyzed from 2002 to 2004 in Washington State
152
Ibid.
153
154
155
156
157
(2006)
158
(2006)
36
have confirmed that minority youth are disproportionately represented at all stages of the
juvenile justice system and the differences between minority and non-minority juveniles’
representation become amplified with each successive decision point. Most significantly,
findings indicated minority youth are referred to juvenile court at much higher rates,
diverted less often, and transferred to adult criminal court more frequently than white
youth.159
An analysis of juvenile court referrals revealed that from 2000 to 2004,

Washington experienced a steady increase of referrals for minority youth. In 2004, 64%
of juvenile court referrals were for white youth and 13% were for Latino (where the race
of 5% of referrals was unknown). This is a 22% increase of minority referrals from 2000.
In that same time period, there has been a steady decrease in the percentage of referrals
for white youth (down from 69%) and a steady increase in the referrals for Latino youth
(up from 9%).160
After the intake stage, Latinos made up 15% of cases referred to the prosecutor
(up 2% from the referral stage), and 17% of cases where charges were filed (up another
2%); the proportion of Latino youth increases through subsequent stages. Furthermore, at
each detention decision point, minority youth were more likely to be detained than white
youth even after differences between the offenses and backgrounds of the youth were
held constant. This finding is significant because research has demonstrated the fact of
being detained prior to adjudication has a direct bearing on subsequent stages of case
processing.161
Secure Confinement
Data analyzed by the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee found

racial disparities between minority and non-minority youth were most pronounced at the
final dispositional stage. As indicated in Graph I, the proportion of minority youth
increased through successive stages of court processing, with the greatest racial disparity
occurring among youth held in JRA, Washington State’s residential rehabilitation
facilities where the most serious juvenile offenders are committed. 162 Furthermore, a
survey of the JRA population in Washington State showed that between 1992 and 2002,
the proportional representation of white juveniles has remained relatively stable, while
the proportion of Latino juveniles has increased (from 9% to 12%).163
Graph I
Minority Youth in Washington State’s Juvenile System 2004
159
Ibid.
160
Ibid.
161
2004
162
Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. “2002 Juvenile Justice Report.” (2003)
163
Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. “2002 Juvenile Justice Report.” (2003)
37
45
40
35
30
25
20
15 Minority Juveniles
10
5
0
Court Referrals Held in Held in JRA
Detention
Facilities
The effects of DMC are also evident in the racial distribution among ultimate
dispositional placements. As evidenced in Graph I, minority youth are disproportionately
represented in JRA facilities. While national research findings are not completely
consistent, data available for most jurisdictions across the country show that the
overrepresentation of minority youth to be similarly most pronounced in rates of
confinement to similar secure facilities. This data collected through the OJJDP, further
suggest that minority youth are more likely to be placed in public secure facilities, while
white youth are more likely to be housed in private facilities or diverted from the juvenile
justice system.164 Detention centers and long-term secure facilities hold the largest
proportion of minority offenders (each holding more than 1/3 of minorities in custody).
Conversely, shelters, reception centers, group homes, boot camps, and wilderness camps
each hold less than 1/10 of the minority population.165
The Relative Rate Index
State compliance with the federal Disproportionate Minority Confinement Act

(DMC) requires monitoring and reporting of racial proportions at each decision-making
stage as well as disparities between subsequent stages. All states are required to calculate
racial proportions using a uniform index value. The Relative Rate Index (RRI) is the most
commonly used mechanism to measure differences with respect to populations, regarding
the level of representation of minorities at various stages in the juvenile justice system.
The index value for each decision point is calculated by dividing the percentage of
minority juveniles represented at each point in the juvenile justice system by the
percentage of minority juveniles in the overall population. An index of 1.00 indicates that
youth of a particular racial group appear in the justice system in exactly the same
proportion as they occur in the general population, while an index greater than 1.00
164
165
38
indicates overrepresentation; the larger the number the greater the disparity.166 The
incidence and extent of Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) is easily
calculated on the basis of RRI measurements.
A recent review of state compliance with the DMC mandate found that minority
youth overrepresentation was evident in every state reviewed.167 Additionally, minority
overrepresentation existed at all of the decision stages. Minorities were on average
represented at index values of 2 to 2.5.168 Differentiating among minority groups
indicated that similar degrees of disparity existed for Latino youth. In Washington State,
data collected in six counties indicated Latino youth were overrepresented at all decision-
making stages.
Graph II
RRI Index of Racial Disparity in State and National Jurisdictions
4
3.5
3
2.5
2 National
1.5 Washington
1
population
0.5
0
secure secure transfers to probation
detention confinem ent adult court
Since the DMC mandate went into effect, racial disparities have declined across
state and national jurisdictions.169 Data collected through the U.S. Department of Justice
using the RRI measurement, exhibited in Graph III, demonstrates the degree to which
racial disparity has declined among subsequent decision-making stages, indicative of
nationwide efforts to address DMC.170
Graph III
RRI Index of Declining Disparity in National Jurisdictions between 1992 and 2002
166
167
168
169
2004
170
2004
39
2.5
1992
2 2002
1.5
0.5
0 Arrest to Referrals to Detained to Petitioned to W aived to Adj udicated Placements to

population arrest referrals referrals petition to petitioned adj udicated
In spite of significant declines in racial disparity at arrest and waivers to adult

criminal court, this national report confirms my other quantitative sources in finding
continued evidence of disparity across subsequent stages of juvenile case processing.171
However, despite general evidence of overrepresentation in the numbers, the report is
inconclusive as to whether such findings necessarily indicate the differential treatment of
minorities. Given that many studies argue that disparity and overrepresentation may exist
in the absence of discrimination, it is a challenge for quantitative data to determine
precisely how and where race impacts juvenile justice decisions making, if at all.
Scholarly studies are generally better equipped to examine differential treatment by
contextualizing data samples as units of analysis and holding certain variables constant.
Yet even if the quantitative data indicated exact racial proportionalities that does
not preclude the possibility that race has an impact on court processing, nor does it
discount the need to develop more culturally competent services to better rehabilitate
Latino youth. One study found that “large, officially aggregate data sets may have the
ultimate effect of masking racial and ethnic discrimination in the legal system due to
intrastate variations in population density.”172 Particularly with regard to Latinos,
empirical support for racial bias has been inconsistent due to “inadequate theoretical
conceptualizations, methodologies and data,” which I will discuss further in
recommendations for further research.173 Nonetheless, the success my case studies have
documented in reducing racial disparities through reforms internal to the system testifies
to the prior existence of differential treatment. My case studies provide a more qualitative
and nuanced perspective on the issue of overrepresentation.
171
2004
172
173
Ibid.
40
Case Study
In December of 1992, the Annie E. Casey Foundation launched a multi-year,

multi-site project known as the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). JDAI
works with communities and government bodies to strategize tactics to reduce the
disproportionate minority confinement of youth in the juvenile justice system. JDAI’s
mission was straightforward: to demonstrate that jurisdictions can establish more
effective and efficient systems to accomplish the purposes of juvenile detention.174 JDAI
was not originally conceived as a DMC reduction program. However, the Annie E. Casey
Foundation recognized DMC was one of the most disturbing aspects of the juvenile
system and made it a priority in reforms.
At the first JDAI conference, the Foundation clarified its objectives on the issue
of DMC in a memo distributed to delegates from the original test sites. The memo stated:
Clearly, JDAI will not result in the eradication of racism, poverty, and other powerful
social forces that contribute to the current racial composition of detention centers.
Detention reform, however, should seek to eliminate systemic bias so that the juvenile
justice system does not exacerbate or contribute to the impact of those forces …
Detention reform that effectively addresses over-representation of minorities in secure
facilities should accomplish at least two measurable changes: (1) the rates at which
minority youth are detained should decline and (2) the number of minority youth in
detention (at a point in time and over time) should decline.175
Multnomah County, Oregon
In 1993, the Department of Community Justice (DCJ) in Multnomah County,

Oregon was awarded a 2.5 million dollar JDAI grant from the Annie E. Casey
Foundation for system reform which included among its goals, the reduction of DMC.176
In the years prior to JDAI’s implementation, Latino youth in Multnomah County were
over-represented and differentially treated in the justice system. A 1993 analysis of
Oregon’s data revealed that detention processing and police referrals had been major
factors contributing to racial disproportions.177 In 1990, Latino youth were more than
twice as likely to be detained as white youth (34% vs. 15%).178 By 2000, after
174
175
Ibid.
176
Freda-Cowie, Robb. “Multnomah County’s Juvenile Justice Innovations Threatened by Budget Cuts:
New Documentary Shows Success of At-Risk Programs in Reducing Juvenile Crime and Incarceration of
Minority Youth.” Department of Community Justice. January 9, 2004
177
178
41
Multnomah County worked with the Annie E. Casey Foundation to reduce
disproportionate minority contact, Latino youth and white youth were detained at
identical rates of 23%. As the use of detention became more equitable, the county also
reduced the overall number of youth entering detention each year, at the same time that
juvenile crime rates declined.179
Elyse Clawson, director of the Department of Community Justice at the time of

JDAI’s initial implementation, oversaw the development of a number of programmatic
initiatives designed to reduce racial bias in the justice system. During my interview with
her, Ms. Clawson articulated general philosophy about JDAI reforms. At the time, she
saw two ways to decrease minority overrepresentation; “You can either reduce the overall
number of kids in detention, or lock up more white kids!” 180 She acknowledged that DCJ
had little control over who came in the “front door” of the juvenile system, but they could
work to stop the accumulating effects of disparity as they moved through the system. Ms.
Clawson accomplished this through strategic efforts to reduce the overall number of
juveniles in detention, detaining only high risk offenders and not those more
appropriately managed outside the juvenile system. Furthermore, DCJ implemented
numerous measures to enhance culturally competency in the system and with regard to
service delivery. Both Ms. Clawson and Joanne Fuller, current director of DCJ, cite the
most successful measures taken as creating the Risk Assessment Instrument, increasing
personnel cultural competency, expediting case processing, enhancing culturally
appropriate detention alternatives and services, and continued monitoring of data.181
Risk Assessment Instrument
The Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) is designed to reduce racial disparities at

detention by monitoring and guiding decision making at this stage. RAI was created in
response to County findings, confirming my scholarly research, that pre-trial detention is
one of the most critical junctures for differential treatment of minorities. RAI improved
upon previous criteria employed at this stage by providing more accurate and objective
measures to gauge a youth’s risk to reoffend before their court date, and thus determine
who should be detained. For example, the county stopped relying on criteria such as
“good family structure” and “gang affiliation,” which tended to be biased against Latino
youth. The use of a risk-based detention screening tool ensures only youth who meet
certain legal criteria, across racial lines, be detained.
Furthermore, for youth released at this stage, DCJ works to develop a support
system for the youth to address their needs during this formative pre-trial period. Elyse
Clawson explained this measure responds to the philosophy that “detention should not be
the place of treatment” whether that be mental health, drug and alcohol, or behavioral. To
bolster this initiative, the Department of Community Justice hired four half-time trial
assistants to help attorneys improve pre-trial placement planning for youth to reduce the
179
180
181
42
use of pre-trial detention for low-risk youth who lacked a stable home to return to or had
compelling social service needs for example. This initiative directly reduced minority
disparities in detention.
Elyse Clawson stressed the formative impact of this reform for reducing
disparities in ultimate disposition. Namely, she explained that erring toward releasing a
youth for those few weeks before their first court appearance is superior to detention both
the terms of case outcomes and rehabilitation. If a youth is locked up in detention before
trial, not only are they kept out of school and away from their family, but court officials
have no way of knowing if the youth is still a threat. Detention tends to bias the judge
toward a severer disposition. On the other hand, if the youth has been released and “made
it” for those few weeks, it speaks favorably to the judge about their potential to
rehabilitate.182
The county also took steps to reduce disparity in referral rates, before youth
reached the “front door” of the system, by targeting arrest and charging practices in law
enforcement. DCJ trained police officers in the goals of JDAI, which reduced the overall
number of referrals to the system as well as the proportion of minorities. To enable law
enforcement officers to fulfill their needs of “getting kids off the street,” without
unnecessarily involving the juvenile justice system, Multnomah County funded a 24 hour
receiving center where police can take youth for shelter or access to social services. 183
This initiative helped distinguish between “at risk” youth and delinquent youth in need of
judicial intervention, and had a significant impact on reducing racial disparities in court
referrals.184
Diversify Workforce and Enhance Cultural Competency
The standardization of risk assessments through the RAI was combined with a
movement to reduce the number of personnel doing screenings.185 This enabled decision
makers to be trained at a higher, more sophisticated level on how the RAI should guide
admission decisions and resulted in a more consistent use of detention and a reduction in
the numbers and proportion of minority youth detained. In addition to reducing the
discretion of decision makers, Multnomah County reformed hiring and training practices
to enhance racial sensitivity, cultural competency and bilingualism among professionals
in the field. The probation department made strides in diversifying its staff to reflect the
demographic diversity of the county. Additionally, the County provides racial sensitivity
and cultural competency training for staff.
Development of Alternatives to Detention
182
183
Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration. “Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System: A
Report to the Legislature.” December 1, 2004
184
185
43
The purpose and success of the RAI was twofold; to reduce disparate treatment of
minorities and to reduce the overall number of youth being detained. Both goals were
accomplished by reducing the influence of extralegal factors on detention decision and
focusing primarily on risk factors. RAI measures were enhanced by facilitating access to
supports and services for youth outside the juvenile system. The latter step aimed to
address the needs youth who were underserviced and disadvantaged, but not measurably
at risk to offend. However, Elyse Clawson acknowledged that realizing this measure
through execution presented many challenges, asking, “So what do we do with kids to
ensure they don’t commit more crimes and can be safely in the community?” 186
The answer came in the development of detention alternatives. Using JDAI funds,
Multnomah County enhanced detention alternatives in the form of official supervision,
shelter care, foster homes, out of home placements, treatment programs and a day
reporting center. 187 Confirming my scholarly findings, DCJ found alternatives to
detention were crucial to the issue of minority overrepresentation by reducing the
juvenile system’s reliance on detention to service extralegal needs. Funding detention
alternatives mitigates the bearing extralegal factors like family structure and access to
resources have on disposition outcomes. Enhancing alternatives through culturally
appropriate and specific measures, ensures that detention alternatives be equally effective
for minority youth in rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. Furthermore, redirecting
youth from unnecessary detention decreased the risk factors associated with facility
overcrowding and confinement which tended to disproportionately harm minority
youth.188
Expedite Case Processing to Reduce Length of Stay
Data collected in Multnomah County revealed that racial disparities and increased
recidivism resulted from inefficient case processing. Consequently JDAI worked to
expedite case processing to reduce the amount of time juveniles have to wait for their
cases to be processed. Reforms included a push for speedy trials which reduced rates of
juvenile reoffending while awaiting their court dates, as well as “failures to appear” in
court. 189 Additionally, DCJ worked to ensure juveniles are linked with a Juvenile Court
Counselor immediately after they get on probation. Joanne Fuller explained that
eliminating lag time at this stage prevented youth from falling through the cracks, and
reduced recidivism as well as racial disparities that arise from reliance on families to
assist in enforcing probation requirements.190
Breaking with INS
186
187
188
Austin, James, Kelly Dedel Johnson and Ronald Weitzer. “Alternatives to the Secure Detention and
Confinement of Juvenile Offenders.” US Department of Justice Juvenile Justice Bulletin. September 2005
189
Ibid.
190
44
Prior to JDAI, Multnomah County detained youth on holds for Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), a factor that partly explains why disparities for Latino
youth were consistently higher than for other groups. As a part of JDAI, the Department
of Community Justice declined to renew its contract with INS in 2001. The proportion of
Latino youth in pretrial detention has since declined by 31%.191
Communities of Color
In light of their success, the Department of Community Justice continues to

dedicate resources to better serve minority youth. In my interview with the current
director of DCJ, Joanne Fuller, she revealed a strategic initiative called “Communities of
Color” that she is currently spearheading in Multnomah County.192 Communities of Color
targets high-risk minority youth on probation and aims to “increase their success upon
release from detention facilities through a decrease in their return to these facilities.” 193 It
does so by engaging minority communities to partner in efforts to rehabilitate and
decrease recidivism rates of minority youth. Communities of Color facilitates cooperation
between minority communities and the justice system by building working alliances with
organizations located in and managed by minority communities.
Communities of Color is a “shared case management” model wherein minority

youth receive individualized case planning that is culturally competent, culturally
appropriate and culturally specific.194 DCJ contracts with community based service
providers for the management of service delivery in the form of family counseling,
individual therapy, mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment, behavioral
services, school support, and academic tutoring. Upon release from detention, all
minority youth assessed as “high risk” are brought before the Communities of Color
Committee. DCJ continues to provide administrative and fiscal oversight, but authorizes
community based agencies to provide whatever is necessary for the youth to be
successful on probation. Currently Latino youth are served by The Latino Network.
Joanne Fuller believed the allocation of County funding to community service

providers was the key to Communities of Color’s success; “The money gets to people on
the ground in a way government never could.” 195 The model promotes shared
191
192
193
Multnomah County Department of Community Justice Juvenile Services Division. “A Business Case
for the Communities of Color Partnership for High Risk Youth.” (4/22/2006)
<http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/jsdcommunitiesofcolor.pdf>
194
195
45
development of services wherein community organizations and governments can learn
together about the methods and services needed to keep youth safely and successfully in
the community.196 Communities of Color not only addresses service delivery gaps from
DCJ’s standpoint, but it empowers and builds capacity in minority communities.
Dedication to Evidence-Based Practice
Multnomah County demonstrates a continuous commitment to reducing DMC

through ongoing efforts to collect and assess data, tracking the representation of racial
minorities in the juvenile system and monitoring the effects of JDAI. Multnomah County
has improved its detention system overall and reduced disproportionate minority
confinement. In an area of justice system policy and practice, for which there are precious
few models, Multnomah County’s success is significant.197
Santa Cruz, California
The implementation of JDAI in Santa Cruz is pertinent because reforms focused

exclusively on Latino youth to reduce racial disparities. Prior to JDAI, Latinos made up
one-third of the youth population but two-thirds of the detention population. In 1997,
31% of youth were Latino and 63% were white; yet, Latino youth represented 64% of the
youth in detention while whites made up only 28%. By 2000, the percentage of the
detention population that was Latino dropped to 50% - a 22% decline in 2 years.
During that same time period, the detention rate for Latino youth declined by 43% while
the rate for white youth rose slightly.
The Santa Cruz probation department began its reforms by conducting internal
audits and collecting data at each decision-making point to target where the system was
failing Latino youth. The Chief of Probation explained; “When we looked for clients who
experience barriers to service or lack of access, we found them. When we looked for
points where subjective rather than objective decisions were made, we found them. When
we looked for examples of cultural insensitivity, we found them. When we looked for
unnecessary delays, which contributed to longer stays in detention, we found them.”
Bilingual Staff
Santa Cruz found that the lack of Spanish-speaking staff at the intake stage made
it difficult to move youth back to their families. Thus, the department made it a goal to
have at least as many Latino or Spanish-speaking staff as the proportion of such youth in
the detention center. Now, when Latino youth are brought to detention, their families
receive a call from an intake officer who speaks Spanish and the opportunity to return a
youth home is not hindered by the inability of probation staff to speak to the parents.
196
197
Ibid.
46
Enhancing Diversion Options
Ensuring culturally appropriate diversion options for the Latino population was a
key piece of JDAI reform in Santa Cruz. A survey of the department’s services showed
that Latino youth rarely selected certain diversion programs, instead opting for traditional
court processing and detention. Additionally, Latino youth who did participate in
diversion, dropped out at rates greater than white youth, and thus reentered detention with
a diversion failure on their record. The department examined the diversion programs it
offered, determined that they were not culturally appropriate for Latino youth, and then
developed new programs which were better suited for the needs of the Latino population.
Since the implementation of JDAI, Santa Cruz probation officials have succeeded in
more than doubling the number of Latino youth diverted to these new programs.198
Detention Alternatives
Furthermore, Santa Cruz identified that Latino youth had lower rates of successful
participation in the probation department’s detention alternatives programs. One of these
alternatives is home detention wherein parental involvement and supervision is a key
component of successful completion. However, the department found that language
differences, transportation problems, and confusion about the court process hindered the
ability of Latino parents to participate effectively. In response to this finding, Santa Cruz
added a community based agency as a partner in the department’s home detention and
electronic monitoring programs. The community-based agency removed some of the
barriers for Latino parents and helped them understand their roles and the court’s
expectations. Santa Cruz has since documented an increase in the participation of Latino
youth in the home detention alternative. 199
King County, Washington
As a result of the success of JDAI in Multnomah County and Santa Cruz among
other jurisdictions, the Annie E. Casey Foundation has continued to give JDAI grants
across the nation. King County, which serves the largest percentage of minority youth in
Washington State, is one of the most recent recipients of the grant. In April of 2003, the
Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (GJACC) got funding through JDAI
and gave a grant to King County to develop programs to reduce DMC. The initiative is
currently in the data gathering stage but they have already adopted several promising
approaches. 200
198
199
200
47
The King County initiative employs a three-tiered model for reducing racial
disparities. The first tier involves the implementation of an objective, risk-based
detention screening tool, like Multnomah County’s RAI, to ensure that only youth who
meet certain criteria are detained. The second aims to increase youth participation in
detention alternatives in lieu of detention and confinement.201 The third tier is an
innovative “warrant reduction program,” wherein the court ensures each youth and his or
her family is sent a notice and receives a phone call reminding them about an upcoming
court date. The program operates as a volunteer run phone bank and has reduced the
issuing of warrants for failure to appear by 70%.202 Additionally, short term results reveal
King County has reduced the overall confinement of youth, the proportion of minority
youth and recidivism rates.203
Political and Tax –Payer Incentives
JDAI’s successes in Washington are being trumpeted as a significant political feat

that can appeal to citizens on both public safety and State spending grounds. One recent
report from the American Youth Policy Forum, entitled “Less Cost, More Safety,”
declares of JDAI; “Washington tax dollars are being spent on programs that actually
work for youth and their families.”204 It points to detention reform as a means to ease
chronic-overcrowding in juvenile facilities and avert the need for new multi-million
dollar juvenile lock ups. It trumpets JDAI as a “fulcrum for a more fundamental change
in juvenile justice – embracing what works and discarding unproductive but still-common
practices that waste money, damage youth and fail to protect citizens.”205 This political
push toward detention reform and away from “get tough” crime reduction strategies does
not have to rely in playing social justice heartstrings, but lets statistics and costs speak for
themselves. JDAI reforms demonstrate how compliance with statistical results and
ongoing adherence to evidence based measures yield achievements in reducing DMC as
well as “improve cost/benefit returns to Washington citizens.” 206
Walla Walla, Washington
201
202
Mendel, Richard A. “Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice.”
American Youth Policy Forum. 2001
203
204
205
Ibid.
206
48
The success of JDAI reforms in Multnomah and King Counties predicate similar
successes would result if Washington adopted aspects of JDAI statewide. As mentioned
earlier, the potential for reforms to be implemented in more rural jurisdictions might be
hindered by lower concentrations of funding and community resources. I conducted a
case study on Walla Walla County, and the Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center which
services both Walla Walla and Columbia County, to examine the need for and potential
to implement such reforms.
Latino Youth Representation
Walla Walla County has one of the largest proportions of Latino youth in the
population, ranking ninth statewide.207 In 2004, the County’s juvenile population was
28% Latino, with approximately 3,661 Latino youth. With a relatively small population,
juvenile detention figures vary significantly year to year; annual arrest data between 2001
and 2004 documented yearly arrest figures varied from 314 to 497.208 Consequently,
racial proportions are often inconsistent and it is difficult to identify points of disparity.
County data collected by the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee in

2004 found disparity as several stages of court processing. The GJJAC found disparity
was most pronounced in juvenile offense referrals.209 Out of 569 total referrals, 244 were
for white youth, 173 for Latino and 139 were unknown. When the unknowns are taken
out of the figure, Latinos account for 40% of court referrals.210 Calculated in RRI terms,
Latinos are overrepresented at an index of 1.43 at the referral stage. After the referral
stage racial disparity tended to decrease but remained disproportionate to the population.
In 2004, the Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center detained 173 white youth and 99 Latino
youth. Although Latinos make up 28% of the Walla Walla County population, they
represented 33% of the detention population.
As youth enter the juvenile system and overall numbers decrease, evidence of
disparity is less conclusive. However, even an absence of racial disparity in data
measurements, does not preclude the existence of differential treatment, nor the potential
benefits from adopting JDAI type reforms. As evidenced by the case studies of
Multnomah and King Counties, such reforms tend to make the justice system more cost-
efficient and competent at working with all juveniles.
207
(2006)
208
(2006)
209
(2006)
210
(2006)
49
Language Barrier
Vance Norseworthy, Juvenile Court Counselor at the Walla Walla Juvenile

Justice Center, cited the language barrier as the single greatest source of differential
treatment in the system for Latinos. Because the juvenile system relies so heavily on
parental support and engagement to effectively rehabilitate youth, the language barrier
manifests for both youth and their parents in the juvenile system. Mr. Norseworthy
explained that while the majority of Latino youth are proficient in English from learning
it in school, it is much more common for the parents to speak little or no English. While
Washington State requires court interpreters be present for Spanish only juveniles, there
is no such requirement for their parents. Families are often unable to communicate with
the judge and juvenile court counselor. Consequently, the onus often falls on the juvenile
to translate for their parents to explain the court process and relay the dispositional
outcome after the fact.
Becky Brenwick, the Intake Officer at the Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center
also cited the language barrier as the most significant obstacle for Latinos in terms of her
work with the family and what she observes of the attorney’s relationship.211
I think they may have more difficulties with the attorneys. I think sometimes the
attorneys forget that they’re kids or that they’re not real fluent in speaking English, and
they use their legal terms. And so I think that gets in the way and causes some fear when
it comes to the courts.
It should be noted that Ms. Brenwick’s role as “Intake Officer” at the Walla Walla
Juvenile Justice Center differs from what the role other jurisdictions assign intake
personnel, and thus is unlike the intake decision-maker I have discussed earlier in this
report. Ms. Brenwick come into contact with juveniles after the prosecuting attorney has
already been determined that their case will continue formally into the system. At that
point she meets with the youth in detention, if they have been arrested and detained, or
sends out a notice to the youth and their family to come in, if they have been referred.
After that first meeting, she follows the juvenile through the entire court process until
sentencing. When asked if she perceived any difference working with Latino youth, as
opposed to white youth, she again cited the language barrier.212
I think the only time that it’s different is if the family doesn’t speak English. Just
personally it is more difficult for me because I do not speak Spanish. And so it can be
hard to get that interpreter in here… I find that with a lot of families that maybe haven’t
been in the U.S. for very long, you need to break it down a lot simpler for them. They
will a lot of times say, “Yeah,” they understand, and you can tell they are not getting it.
And they don’t know how to ask either they’re embarrassed or it’s a cultural thing, you
know I’m not sure. So I really need to break it down and make sure I am continually
211
Brenwick, Becky. Personal Interview. 11 November 2006.
212
50
saying, “Do you have questions? Do you understand?” And you can see on their faces –
they’re blank. They’re like, “what’s goin’ on?”
Detention Alternatives
In addition to managing a caseload of juveniles on probation, Mr. Norsworthy co-

teaches Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART) classes. In addition to ART, the Walla
Walla Juvenile Justice Center provides Multi-Systemic Therapy and Functional Family
Therapy (FFT) as detention alternative programs. These programs receive state funding
and have been implemented in most jurisdictions statewide since the Washington State
Legislature passed the Community Juvenile Accountability Act in 1997. The CJA Act set
aside 7.65 million for local juvenile courts to implement research-driven intervention
programs to lower juvenile crime rates, free up juvenile detention beds reduce recidivism
among juvenile offenders. At the Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center, these detention
alternatives have relatively proportionate Latino participation and Mr. Norsworthy
believes they are effective.
Decision-Making
Before Ms. Brenwick became Intake Officer, she worked in Detention. When I
asked her if they used any formal tool, like the Risk Assessment Instrument, to determine
whether a youth should be detained or released she responded that, “There’s not really
any formal tool. It’s pretty much, go by what the kid’s telling you, go by what the
family’s saying, what was the crime…So there’s not really any tool.” 213 When I asked
what influenced the decision to detain a youth she noted a number of factors detention
officers look for. 214
If they had a lot of criminal history or if they are currently on probation we’ll probably
keep them… Other factors would be, have they been attending school?…If it was a
domestic violence situation we want to make sure the family is ok with them coming
home, and we want to make sure if they are ok with going back home. The family
dynamics are wild. So we need to make sure people are safe…We want to look at the
whole picture; we want to make sure the kid is going to be safe if they get released, and
we want to make sure the services are going to be provided if they are in the community.
And if not, sometimes we’ll keep the kid in detention until these things can be set up.
When asked about whether she perceived any extralegal factors

disproportionately impact Latino youth and have bearing on their case, Ms. Brenwick
cited several factors which could possibly result in a harsher disposition.215
As far as decision-making that I have done, it would revolve possibly around gang
involvement, or if there is a history of gang involvement in the family. Also if the kid is
213
214
215
51
needing those mental health, drug and alcohol services and the family is low-income and
can’t do it. Those may cause me to go different routes or look at those differently.
Possibly sentence them to more days – to get those services. Whether that’s right or fair, I
don’t know. But we look at that.
Ms. Brenwick also recognized a juvenile’s family involvement as a significant

extralegal factor that influenced decision making; “If the kid’s got a lot of support and the
family wants to help them and keep them under control, we definitely look at that.” 216
Family Involvement and Attitudes Toward Treatment
Ms. Brenwick acknowledged significant differences in her role, working with a

juvenile when their family is not involved. She explained that little contact with a youth
and involvement in their life is generally indicative of an effective relationship. However,
if a youth “is needing more support, if they are not having it within their own family” her
role changes. 217
A lot of kids do need [support] and we become their main support. We go to the schools
and basically be their surrogate parent because they are not there. And advocate for them
to get back in school and get into this kind of program. So we take that role too.
Ms. Brenwick also noted differences in working with Latino youth and their
families that centered around drug and alcohol treatment. She observed that Latino
parents were less likely to perceive drug and alcohol use as a problem. 218
I’ve seen more acceptance with the Latinos as far as alcohol and marijuana use. And if
the kid’s using maybe cocaine, the family takes that serious. But some families, and I see
it more often with the Hispanics, basically that “It’s just marijuana.” It’s more accepted.
As long as they are doing o.k. in everything else. As long as they are going to school and
not getting into fights or anything, it’s more accepted. In the big picture.
Due to these perceptions combined with other socioeconomic factors, she noted
Latino parents are disinclined to push for treatment or support court efforts to do so;
“You know, the drug and alcohol treatment, it’s a big commitment. It’s a lot of time away
from the family, and if they are needed to help support the family, they are not going to
enforce it.” 219
This attitude toward treatment carried over to mental health issues. Ms. Brenwick
noted, “When we do try to hook up services for families, whether it be anger
management or some mental health, the follow through from families a lot of times isn’t
216
217
218
219
52
there.” 220 Ms. Brenwick’s observations of low mental health service utilization among
Latino youth contradicted my scholarly research findings, which indicated Latino youth
are at risk to be caught up in the juvenile system to service mental health needs.
I would say, a lot of our Latino kids we don’t see as much in the mental health treatment
as we do the white-Caucasians. Now that I think about it, we don’t refer as many, it tends
to be more the drug and alcohol. The drug and alcohol, that’s for both sides. But mental
health, I would say that’s really more of a white-Caucasian…I’m just trying to think of a
few I’ve referred, but there’s not many I can remember I’ve referred for like depression
or those kinds of things. More if it’s been the anger management. And there hasn’t been a
whole lot of follow through…the follow through is not there.
Furthermore, Ms. Brenwick mentioned that when Latino youth are undocumented
and lack health coverage, they face barriers within the system to access services. 221
Other barriers, a lot of times comes to treatment, whether it be drug and alcohol or mental
health if they don’t have insurance or access to you know, federal assistance programs,
that slows things down for them… A lot of times, if they are not legal, that’s a big battle
just to try and get those kids the coverage they need to get the services they need to help
them stay out of the system. So that’s a hard thing for them. That causes them setbacks.
On Walla Walla’s System
In the course of a prior conversation with Vance Norsworthy, he explained to me

that because the Walla Walla juvenile system was so small and familiar, the court
counselors were able to make a lot of decisions on a case by case basis based largely on
their experience and sense judgment. When I asked Ms. Brenwick how she thought this
informal approach worked for juveniles, she believed it was very effective.222
I definitely think it’s a good thing. Because we’re able to meet the families and if it’s a
youth that’s getting in trouble over and over or it’s a sibling or an older brother of
someone that we already know, we already know the family the family dynamics, the
judge is already aware of problems. We can kind of cut through that and get to the heart
of it. I think because of the close relationship we have within the system and with the
schools and with the service providers, we can work with them quicker, we can work
with them better. I also think that the judges, because they know family dynamics,
because they are familiar with how we feel and how we work and other agencies, they
can trust us to go forward with a plan or an idea and be creative and make it individual
and try something different, get somebody else involved. So I think it does make it better.
It seems to work here.
When I asked if she perceived any ways this discretion could have negative
implications she mentioned because court counselors and judges were so familiar with
families, a sibling of a notorious trouble maker could be put at a disadvantage. For
220
221
222
53
example, even if the younger sibling just gets a minor charge “the judge may see their
name and say ‘Well, ah well… I know about you.’ And they might think, ‘oh you’re all
going to be the same.’ And many of them do follow in their footsteps, but there are some
who do break away. So that could hinder their experience with some decisions.” 223
Juvenile Exposure to Risk Factors
After speaking with Becky Brenwick, I spoke with two juveniles involved in the
Walla Walla court system who I will refer to as Carlos and Consuela.224 In the course of
my interviews with them, I obtained some general demographic information to determine
whether they had been exposed to any of the risk factors for delinquency that my
scholarly findings had indicated. Consuela and Carlos reported several, including their
socioeconomic status, immigrant status, primary language, school achievement, drop out
status, substance abuse, lack of health coverage, being profiled by law enforcement
officials.225
Through a question about what their parents did for a living, I concluded that both
Consuela and Carlos come from low-income families; Consuela lives with her single
mother who is a “caretaker for old people,” Carolos’ father works for Broetje Orchards
and his mother works at Smith Frozen Foods.226 Both Consuela and Carlos are Mexican
immigrants and all of their parents were born in Mexico. Both said their parents speak a
little English, but that they are far more proficient and speak a combination of both
languages at home. When I asked Consuela whether her mother understands how the
juvenile system works, she responded negatively, citing the number of times her mother
has referred her to the juvenile system.227
I don’t think she does. I don’t thin she gets it at all. Like you can’t call the cops every
time you get mad. Like my uncle tells her that. Like she can’t just do that all the time
because it gives me a record. She doesn’t get it.
Both Consuela and Carlos had trouble and got into trouble in school. Consuela
recently transferred to an alternative school after her former school nearly expelled her
for her poor attendance and grades. She reported getting into a lot of trouble in school,
mostly around physical altercations, as well as one suspension over alcohol. Carlos
reported doing “alright” in school, but had been expelled or fighting a few weeks before I
spoke with him. He is currently not planning on going back to school. Once he gets out of
detention, he hopes to start working with his dad at Broetje Orchards, “in a spot doing
223
224
Carlos. Personal Interview. 6 November 2006.
225
Consuela. Personal Interview. 11 November 2006.
226
227
54
boxes,” where he will work ten hour days.228 Carlos reported a few altercations with the
police where he felt him and his “banger” friends were targeted. One time in particular,
he was in a car with some friends and pulled over, “because the cops thought I had a
weapon, but I didn’t.” 229
Both Consuela and Carlos reported using alcohol and drugs since they were
young. Consuela drinks regularly and started using cocaine when she was fourteen, but
has recently quit. Carlos started drinking when he was twelve and has since used a
number of drugs including marijuana, PCP, mushrooms, acid, and reports he is currently
addicted to crystal meth. Carlos conveyed a strong desire to get into drug treatment and
explained he has been asking his probation officer, Vance Norsworthy to do so.230 In a
subsequent conversation with Mr. Norsworthy, he explained to me that Carlos is
undocumented and thus uninsured and so there are no funds to support his treatment.
Juvenile Justice Service Needs
While neither Carlos nor Consuela reported ever experiencing any discrimination
based on their race, whether in the justice system or elsewhere in their lives, both would
benefit significantly from culturally appropriate and specific services if they were
designed and implemented at the Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center. Through my
analysis of their primary needs, I believe Consuela would benefit from culturally
competent, bilingual family therapy that addressed conflicts between Mexican immigrant
parents and their Americanized children. Carlos would benefit from a culturally specific
community partnership like Communities of Color that addressed the needs of gang
affiliated and at-risk Latino youth and facilitated more pro-social involvement with other
activities, including support to complete his high school eduation.
Consuela’s delinquency issues centered around her relationship with her mother.
Her first contact with the juvenile system was when her mother reported her as a runaway
and all subsequent contact has been through referral by her mother. Consuela reports that
her mother keeps calling the police on her because “she doesn’t think she can handle it.
Like she can’t handle me anymore, like the way I am.” 231 When I asked whether the
difficulties in their relationship might have to do with her mom being accustomed to a
different way of raising kids in Mexico, Consuela responded affirmatively.232
228
229
230
231
232
55
Yeah, that too, like her, she way she was raised. And I always tell her that. I’m like, you
know, you were raised differently and you can’t try to raise me the way you were raised.
It’s not going to work. Like we’re in a new country now. You can’t do that in the U.S.
In fact, when their relationship hit rock bottom Consuela’s mother sent her down
to Guadalajara, Mexico to live with her father in the hopes that she would get straight.
Consuela reported she hated life in Mexico because she missed going out with friends.
When I asked if there was anything her probation officer could do to help her rehabilitate,
she responded, “I think it’s all on me.” When I asked what she needed to do, she
answered unequivocally, to “try to get along with my mom better.” Indeed, Consuela has
a lot of work to do on her relationship with her mother, but they would be greatly assisted
by court provided or contracted services that addressed their culturally specific needs.
Carlos cited the source of his delinquent behavior to be his gang involvement, a
largely Latino phenomenon in the Walla Walla area. Carlos joined a gang when he was
thirteen, following in the footsteps of his older brother and in an effort to avenge some of
his brother’s outstanding “beefs.” 233 When he was younger, Carlos knew a lot of
“bangers” (gang members) who got into trouble with the law and thought it was “cool to
be in here [in detention].” Carlos refers to his life before he joined the gang as “when I
was normal.” Carlos reported that he joined the gang because when he was younger, “I
was a normal kid, but I wanted to be a big guy. I got a lot of respect but I lost a lot of
good friends.” 234
Carlos spoke very apologetically about his involvement with the gang and said of
it, “I regret everything.” 235 He admitted that he got into a lot of physical and legal
altercations through his involvement but insisted, “We don’t look for problems, problems
look for us.” 236 He maintained throughout our interview that he is trying to quit the gang,
“But it is hard, I don’t have any good friends. The only good people I got here are like
two hours away.” 237 When I asked Carlos what he wanted to be when he grew up he
responded immediately, “a good dad, and teach my kids not to be in gangs.” Like
Consuela, when I asked what his probation officer could do to help him get back on track
he said it was all on him to make the changes and he knew what he had to do; “stop
fighting, anger and gang and respect my family.” 238
233
234
235
236
237
238
56
These ambitions, while admirable and necessary are extremely difficult for one
boy to take on without professional support or services. Carlos is currently fifteen years
old and out of school. He is trying to keep himself out of trouble and hopes that starting
ten hour work days at Broetje Orchards will keep him away from his “banger” friends
long enough to get straight. Without professional treatment for his methamphetamine
addiction, he is likely to relapse and fall back into his old social group. Carlos would
benefit tremendously from culturally specific, culturally appropriate services. It is a
nothing short of a travesty that he has been unable to access social supports and public
services up until this point in his life. However, as his life intersects with the juvenile
justice system, we, as concerned individuals, as community members and as citizens,
have a unique and precious opportunity to address as yet underserviced needs and give
these kids another shot at life.
Synthesis of Thoughts Thus Far
The answer to the question of why Latino youth are overrepresented in the
juvenile justice system, is lengthy, involves a myriad of factors, and invokes histories of
bias as well as contemporary practice. Addressing this question entails a deconstruction
of the insidious, interpersonal expressions, and the structural, socioeconomic products of
racism. Yet the question of why the proportion of Latino youth tends to increase as
juveniles move through the system is a much more pointed question, with significantly
more feasible, tangible, and immediate solutions. Whether or not racial disparity exists in
a given jurisdiction, the current legal system is essentially set up to best serve Anglo
Americans of middle or upper class socioeconomic means. The system is dominated by a
certain “Gringo Justice” that generates disparate outcomes for minority youth, lacking
means.
It does not have to be this way. The juvenile justice system need not transform
into a welfare state in order to reduce racial disparity. In fact, just the opposite is true.
The successful reforms implemented through the Juvenile Detention Reform Initiative
demonstrate that disparity can be reduced at the same time as reducing the numbers of all
youth detained, reducing juvenile crime, reducing recidivism and reducing tax
expenditures in juvenile corrections. Disparity can be reduced by restoring the essence of
the system, justice. Disparity can be reduced by reinstating a legal lens on the system
wherein race, class and family status do not have bearing on a youth’s legal treatment or
dispositional outcome. This does not mean such extralegal factors cannot merit attention.
Indeed, for justice to be restored, they must elicit an extralegal response or support
whether from the juvenile system itself or contracted through partnerships with
community based service providers. The essence of justice is equality. Historical,
structural and contextually rooted social and economic realities produce vast inequality in
society today which tends to fall down racial lines. Truly, it is the duty of our justice
system to work to rectify these inequalities.
Recommendations for Further Research and Data Collection
Rural and Small Town Jurisdictions
57
As evidenced by Walla Walla case study, more research and studies are needed to
understand the unique circumstances posed by rural and small town jurisdictions court
processing, particularly with regard to Washington State’s non-urban communities.239
Research on racial disparities in juvenile court processing has relied almost exclusively
on urban samples, neglecting rural and small town jurisdictions which manifest unique
latitudes for differential treatment. 240 Popular media portrayals of crime and delinquency
perpetuate an image of such phenomena as uniquely urban and characteristic of inner
cities. Rural samples are generally examined only as a point of contrast to urban samples
rather than as a primary focus of inquiry.
The focus on urban centers as targets for reform is evidenced by my case studies
in Seattle and Portland because JDAI funding grants were almost exclusively given to
urban jurisdictions. In fact, because crime is perceived and portrayed as a largely urban
phenomenon, rural disparities are often considered negligible. Yet, research suggests that
some of the greatest proportional disparities in minority confinement are found in
characteristically rural and predominantly white northern and central states that tend to
rely more heavily on formal social control in dealing with troubled youth.241
The Invisible “Latino”
Scholarly literature and studies examining Latinos in the justice system present a
quandary wherein employing the categorical term “Latino” is problematic, but at the
same time it is more problematic that “Latino” is often not made a category. Research on
racial and ethnic bias in the criminal justice system overwhelmingly focuses on African
American youth.242 Despite the fact that Latinos compose the largest and fastest growing
minority group in the United States, social science scholars continue to reduce racial
disparity to a binary issue where white and black, white and non-white, or minority and
non-minority are the only groups disaggregated.243More research should distinguish
Latinos from the black/white binary.244
The few studies on Latinos that have been conducted focus primarily on regional
concentrations of Latinos in the southwestern United States or in large, urban centers in
239
Bond-Maupin, Lisa J. and James R. Maupin. “Juvenile Justice Decision Making in a Rural Hispanic
Community.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 5 (1999) 373-384
240
Ibid.
241
242
Schuck, Amie M, Kim Michelle Lersch and Steven W Verrill. “The Invisible Hispanic - The
Representation of Hispanic in Criminal Justice Research: What Do We Know and Where Should We Go.”
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Vol. 2, no. 3 (2004): 5-22
243
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
244
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
58
the Northeast where Latinos are predominantly of Puerto Rican origin.245 Furthermore,
the Latino population is diverse by many measures including race, national origin,
culture, socioeconomic status, level of assimilation and U.S. citizenship.246 Thus, data
collected should further break down more specific groups within “Latino.” Specifically,
past studies have found notable differences in the treatment of “black-Hispanic” and
“white-Hispanic,” English proficient and limited-proficiency, as well as recent
immigrants and longtime residents.247
The main reasons for inattention to the Latino experience stems from the limited
availability of relative data. Research on the justice system relies heavily on the use of
data collected by the State. Government statistics on criminal justice have historically
lacked reliable measures of ethnicity, thus Latinos are often classified as either black or
white. Much less is known about disparity and discrimination in the criminal justice
system of Hispanics relative to white and black defendants.248 The current means for
collecting and accessing data are inadequate, resulting in under-counting and inaccuracies
in reporting disproportionate representation and treatment of Latino youth in the U.S.
justice system. Methods and categories are inconsistent among jurisdictions and
consequently data collected is generally inaccurate and incomplete. One study contributes
these inconsistencies to the lack of bilingual and bicultural staff to oversee the data
collection.249
Congress should mandate uniform standards of data collection because the

inconsistencies pose problems to complying with the DMC mandate as well as for
juvenile processing trends to be understood on a greater scale to inform policy changes.
When Latino’s are considered racially “white”, their ethnicity must be considered as
well, Latino be considered a racial category unto itself. Ongoing racially specific and
accurate data collection is essential to inform and monitor evidence based efforts to
reduce racial disparities in the juvenile system. Disparities are often unintended
consequences of seemingly colorblind or race-neutral practices. Often times, decision-
makers simply do not know that certain laws or policies have a disparate impact on
minority youth. A consistent, data driven, self-conscious focus on the potential racial
impacts of policies and practices is necessary to avoid these unintended consequences.
Recommendations
245
246
Schuck, Amie M, Kim Michelle Lersch and Steven W Verrill. “The Invisible Hispanic - The
Representation of Hispanic in Criminal Justice Research: What Do We Know and Where Should We Go.”
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Vol. 2, no. 3 (2004): 5-22
247
248
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
249
59
Based on my research and case studies I have a number of recommendations for
jurisdictions in Washington State to address the issue of Latino overrepresentation in the
juvenile justice system.
• Enhance detention alternatives and make them culturally competent, racially

specific, and bilingual.
• Whenever possible, contract with community-based service providers akin

to the Communities of Color model in Multnomah County.250
• Develop a Risk Assessment Instrument for detention screening and decision

making based off of Multnomah County’s model.
• Mandate juvenile justice professional training for cultural competency and

racial sensitivity, particularly for decision makers.
• Diversify juvenile justice personnel; change hiring practices to preference

bilingualism, biculturalism, and racial minority status.251
• Recruit Latinos for professional positions in corrections, law enforcement,

juvenile justice professions and policy positions. They should have a stronger
voice in the law enforcement/corrections policies that impact them.
• Mandate certified court translators for youth and parents at every court
appearance. Improve training for translators, raise the standard to become
“certified,” and increase recruitment efforts in Latino communities with
specific outreach to address suspicions of government agencies.252
• Enhance community based mental health services combined with culturally

competent educational efforts aimed at parents to ensure Latino youth with
mental health needs are identified and served in the community prior to their
contact with the juvenile system.253
Conclusion
250
251
(Spring 2006)
252
253
60
The overrepresentation of racial minorities in the juvenile justice system should
be of great concern to all Americans. The devastating repercussions of a justice system in
which a “young person’s physical liberty is in part determined by his or her race are
intolerable.”254 The experience of Latino youth with differential treatment in the system
should be of particular concern as Latinos as largest and fastest growing minority group
and youth as fastest growing sector of the population. The Census Bureau estimates tat
the number of Hispanic juveniles in the US will increase 58% between 2000 and 2020,
bringing the Hispanic proportion of the juvenile population to 23% by 2020 and 31% by
2050.255
The evidence of racial bias in the enforcement and administration of the law
undermines the notion of “equality under the law” that is an important symbol of freedom
in the United States. Evidence of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system fuels
broader social and political concerns surrounding inequality and stratification in
American society. Not only does the unnecessary and inappropriate detention of youth
have a deleterious effect on their education, employment prospects and family stability, it
comes at great expense to taxpayers and has long lasting, transgenerational consequences
for public safety.256
The incidence of minority overrepresentation becomes more pronounced in the

adult criminal system. Disparate rates of involvement in the juvenile system leading to
confinement have a dramatic impact on Latino youth as they become adults. The overuse
and abuse of the juvenile system in dealing with minority youth effectively acts as a
“feeder” into the adult system. Disproportionate rates of confinement for Latino youth
and adults has a devastating impact on communities, removing a large number of
potential wage-earners, disrupting family relationships, disenfranchising voters, and
imbuing them with a sense of isolation and alienation from dominant society.
Disproportionate minority confinement sends a signal that we need to take a

closer look at how our society treats minority children, not just those who become
offenders. Providing all youth with an equal opportunity to learn, thrive, and achieve at
every stage of their lives is the best guarantee of a safe and prosperous future for future
generations. Washington State has a tremendous opportunity to lead the country in this
direction.
254
165
255
256
no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
61
Appendix A: Interview Questions
1. Tell me about the process of working with a juvenile from the point of their
referral through their disposition.
a. What is your first contact with the juvenile? How do they get assigned to
you?
i. Do you do intake screenings?
ii. What influences the intake decision? Do you use a formal risk
assessment tool? What other factors do you consider?
b. Do you make the decision whether or not they should be detained before
their first court appearance?
i. What are the reasons for using pre-trial detention?
ii. What influences the pre-trial detention decision? Do you use a
formal risk assessment tool? What other factors do you consider?
c. What kind of relationship do you generally have with the juvenile?
i. What is the most effective kind of relationship? How do you try to
achieve that relationship?
ii. What do you perceive is your role in their lives?
iii. Does your role/relationship differ when working with a Latino or
Spanish speaking juvenile? How so? Why?
d. How is it different working with a Latino juvenile?
2. My report mostly focuses on why Latino youth are overrepresented in the juvenile
justice system in Washington. What are your thoughts on possible explanations
for this occurrence?
a. Do you perceive any ways Latino delinquency patterns differ from those
of white youth? How so?
b. Do you perceive any social conditions that seem to disproportionately
impact Latino youth and their families?
c. Do you perceive Latinos face any unique barriers in the juvenile system?
d. Is the language barrier a problem for juveniles and their parents? How?
e. Do you perceive any differences in how Latinos respond to the juvenile
system in terms of drug treatment? Mental health treatment? Diversion?
Probation? Detention?
f. Do you think factors like race or socio-economic class can impact
decision-making or the juvenile’s experience in the system? How?
3. Talking with Vance earlier, he thought that because the Walla Walla juvenile
court system is so small and court counselors are very familiar with the judges,
they are able to make more decisions based on experience and sense judgment
rather than always going by strict, hard and fast criteria.
a. How do you think this familiarity is a positive thing for decision making?
How does it better serve the juveniles?
b. Do you think there are any ways this increased discretion could play out in
a negative or inconsistent way?
c. What do you like most about your job?
62
Appendix B: Interview Transcript
November 11, 2006 1 pm

Walla Walla Juvenile Justice Center
Becky Brenwick, Intake Officer
What is your role in the juvenile system? Tell me about the process of working with a
juvenile from the point of their referral through their disposition.
My role, technically I’m called the “Intake Officer,” and what happens is, when a kid is
either arrested or the referral comes through the prosecuting attorney, I am the first
contact through our office. I will sit down and meet with the families explain what the
court process is step by step with them and then I will work with that family through the
court process through sentencing.
So, your first contact with the juvenile is at the intake stage?
Correct.
Can you tell me about what happens there?
What usually happens is if a youth has been arrested and detained I will meet with the
youth while in detention, get their background, we’ll talk about school, we’ll talk about
what happened and see where they’re at and then I’ll contact the family and ask similar
questions: how have they been doing at home? Are they staying out of trouble? Are they
going to school? Are there any drug and alcohol issues, mental health issues? What’s
going on, why are they here?
Either way, if they are arrested or go by referral, then their first appearance its just purely
their rights are read to them, the judge will appoint an attorney and then it is determined
whether they stay in detention or are released. If it is by referral, then what I do is I send
out a letter for an appointment to have the youth and the family come in and explain the
whole process, go over their rights, explain that there will be a court appointed attorney
unless they want to hire one and then I go over the rules of release. And those rules, they
are pretty basic, staying out of trouble, going to school. The court puts on a curfew of
8:00, even though they are not on probation, they’ll put some rules on them. If it’s a drug
and alcohol offense or if drugs and alcohol are an issue than we’ll refer them to get an
alcohol assessment. If they are in need of counseling we’ll refer them to get some mental
health counseling or anger management.
Are there any tools or formal assessment criteria that you use to determine where they
should go?
63
As far as whether they should stay in detention or be released? As far as formal tools, the
only thing we have is the disposition standards; the offender sentencing grid. Typically if
they qualify for any Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration time, which would mean
juvenile institution time. More than likely if they are in detention and being held we’ll
probably continue that until we have a better feeling about what’s going on. If they’re
local sanctions, which would mean if they are found guilty, they would just get the 30
days detention, probation, the standard rules. There’s not really any formal tool. It’s
pretty much, go by what the kid’s telling you, go by what the family’s saying, what was
the crime; we look at criminal history, we look at the schooling. So there’s not really any
tool.
What are some reasons for using pre-trial detention? What influences that decision?
We’d look for factors like say if they had a lot of criminal history or if they are currently
on probation we’ll probably keep them. You know, don’t know how long, sometimes it’s
just a couple of days. Some other factors would be, have they been attending school?
If they’ve been truant, we want to make sure we get them sent back into school. If it was
a domestic violence situation we want to make sure the family is ok with them coming
home, and we want to make sure if they are ok with going back home. The family
dynamics are wild. So we need to make sure people are safe. We want to make sure the
family is ready and that the kid is ready to follow the rules. Some kids will blatantly say,
“I’m not gonna follow those rules.” So that’s pretty simple. And they’re going to stay
here for a few more days until they start calming down and getting the picture. We want
to look at the whole picture; we want to make sure the kid is going to be safe if they get
released, and we want to make sure the services are going to be provided if they are in the
community. And if not, sometimes we’ll keep the kid in detention until these things can
be set up. Whether it’s just a matter of scheduling those appointments, having that set up.
Then we will release them. Sometimes we wait until a counselor can come in to see them,
if they need drug and alcohol counseling. Or make that referral back to the school and
say, “Ok, they are coming back.” And make sure that all the agencies that need to be
involved are set up.
What kind of relationship do you generally have with a juvenile? How long do you follow
them after intake?
I follow them through the court process, through sentencing and that can be anywhere
from one month to six months. Sometimes I see a kid over and over so you build that
relationship with the kids and their family. Since I don’t work with them after their
sentencing I don’t have that close relationship that the probation officers do. What I do is
a lot of our kids go through intake and then at that first appearance I meet with them and
then once they are out of detention, or not in detention, I have them check in by phone
once a week. That way I know they’re still out there, know things are going well. That’s a
good tool and then they start calling and asking questions. So you build a bit of a
relationship. And then prior to sentencing I sit down with them again. So if things are
going well, I should only see them at first appearance and sentencing.
64
How big is your caseload?
Gosh right now I have approximately 150 cases that are going through intake. That could
mean that I have one kid who has 2 or 3 cases, so that’s not 150 kids.
What do you consider an effective relationship with a juvenile?
If they are needing more support, if they’re not having that within their own family,
getting them hooked up to what they are needing. I guess to be effective, not having me
there in their life is good. The less contact they can have with me sometime is better. But
a lot of kids do need it and we become there main support. We go to the schools and
basically be there surrogate parent because they are not there. And advocate for them to
get back in school and get into this kind of program. So we take that role too.
Do you feel your role or relationship differs at all when working with Latino youth or
Spanish speaking youth?
I think the only time that it’s different is if the family doesn’t speak English. Just
personally it is more difficult for me because I do not speak Spanish. And so it can be
hard to get that interpreter in here. If the family has somebody that can interpret than I
don’t see there being any difference because the family is comfortable with that person
that they’re bringing. Sometimes it’s a sister or an aunt or something. But typically it’s
not an issue and many families, even if they do speak Spanish, they speak enough
English to call and ask a question if they have a struggle. To me, I feel good about that
because they are comfortable enough to call and ask for help. But I don’t think there’s
much difference as far as working with them.
Is it ever hard to find a translator?
It has been at times, but right now it seems we have a lot more. And that has been a huge
help. But we have in the past only has one person available, and it’s been difficult. But
we also go through waves where we have families that aren’t non-English speaking.
Aside from not speaking English, do you find that a lot of Latino families don’t
understand the American court process as well?
I find that with a lot of families that maybe haven’t been in the U.S. for very long, you
need to break it down a lot simpler for them. They will a lot of times say, yeah, they
understand, and you can tell they are not getting it. And they don’t know how to ask
either they’re embarrassed or it’s a cultural thing, you know I’m not sure. So I really need
to break it down and make sure I am continually saying, “Do you have questions? Do you
understand?” And you can see on their faces – they’re blank. They’re like, what’s goin’
on?
65
Does the fear of deportation, of INS getting involved, ever come up?
I really haven’t had that as an issue with a Hispanic family, but I have had it with some
Russian families.
Do you perceive any differences between white and Latino youth in terms of crime
patterns or delinquency?
That’s a good question. I know, I’ve never looked at the numbers. It seems like we go
through waves. Like Friday is the big court date for us. And if you bring in youth from
detention, they’re sitting in the jury box and you look over there and sometimes you’re
like “Oh, that’s disproportionate.” Like sometimes 9 out of 10 will be Hispanic, or the
opposite. That’s kind of where you see it. I think, overall – I mean, I’d be curious to see
what you find out – but I don’t know when it is really disproportionate to the population.
Every once in a while the population in detention, you know the population is out of
proportion, but overall, I’m not sure.
Do you think Latinos face any unique barriers in the juvenile system? In terms of the
language barrier, how does that play out in other stages?
I think they may have more difficulties with the attorneys. I think sometimes the
attorneys forget that they’re kids or that they’re not real fluent in speaking English, and
they use their legal terms. And so I think that gets in the way and causes some fear when
it comes to the courts. Other barriers, a lot of times comes to treatment, whether it be
drug and alcohol or mental health if they don’t have insurance or access to you know,
federal assistance programs, that slows things down for them. But you know, we try to
assist them and walk them through the steps to get those things. And a lot of times, if they
are not legal, that’s a big battle just to try and get those kids the coverage they need to get
the services they need to help them stay out of the system. So that’s a hard thing for them.
That causes them setbacks.
Do you see any differences in how Latinos respond to drug and alcohol treatment or
mental health treatment?
I’ve seen more acceptance with the Latinos as far as alcohol and marijuana use. And if
the kid’s using maybe cocaine, the family takes that serious. But some families, and I see
it more often with the Hispanics, basically that “It’s just marijuana.” It’s more accepted.
As long as they are doing o.k. in everything else. As long as they are going to school and
not getting into fights or anything, it’s more accepted. In the big picture.
So are Latino parents less likely to push their kid to go into treatment then?
Right. Yeah and you know, the drug and alcohol treatment, it’s a big commitment. It’s a
lot of time away from the family, and if they are needed to help support the family, they
are not going to enforce it as much. So yeah, it is not as much of a push.
66
I’ve read some studies about how because of stigmas of mental illness in the Latino
community, a lot of times they haven’t gotten treatment or accessed services before
coming to detention. So a lot of times this is the first place they get that treatment. Do you
perceive any higher proportions of need in terms of mental health treatment among
Latino youth?
That’s a good question. I would say, a lot of our Latino kids we don’t see as much in the
mental health treatment as we do the white-Caucasians. Now that I think about it, we
don’t refer as many, it tends to be more the drug and alcohol. The drug and alcohol, that’s
for both sides. But mental health, I would say that’s really more of a white-Caucasian.
When we do try to hook up services for families, whether it be anger management or
some mental health, the follow through from families a lot of times isn’t there. I’m just
trying to think of a few I’ve referred, but there’s not many I can remember that I’ve
referred for like depression or those kinds of things. More if it’s been the anger
management. And there hasn’t been a whole lot of follow through. And I don’t know
which person that is, whether it’s the parents or the youth. A lot of times the parents will
ask for it but the follow through is not there.
So sometimes you recommend the treatment and they don’t push for it, there are also
times when the judge can order it, right?
The judge can order it. But when it comes to mental health though, if they don’t want to
do it, they’re not going to have to. So its kind of a double edged sword where we’re
telling you that you have to, but you say no, you’re not going to have to. So you can only
push so far.
I’ve found a few studies that talk about like extralegal factors such as race, or class or
language barriers can impact decision-making in the system. Do you see any of these
factors, specifically, it they’re Latino or low-income, that influence decision-making or
whether there is any room for them to?
I think as far as decision-making that I have done, it would revolve possibly around gang
involvement. Or if there is a history of gang involvement in the family. Also if the kid is
needing those mental health, drug and alcohol services and the family is low-income and
can’t do it. Those may cause me to go different routes or look at those differently.
Possibly sentence them to more days – to get those services. Whether that’s right or fair, I
don’t know. But we look at that. Those factors I would say we do look at.
Yeah, I bet that’s another big one – support of the family – I bet that’s probably a
significant factor for you.
Yeah, I mean if the kid’s got a lot of support and the family wants to help them and keep
them under control, things are going to go well. We definitely look at that.
Talking with Vance earlier, he thought that because the Walla Walla juvenile court
system is so small and court counselors are very familiar with the judges and the system,
67
they are able to make a lot of decisions on a case by case basis, based on experience and
sense judgment. How do you think this familiarity and is a positive thing and helps you
better serve juveniles?
I definitely think it’s a good thing. Because we’re able to meet the families and if it’s a
youth that’s getting in trouble over and over or it’s a sibling or an older brother of
someone that we already know, we already know the family the family dynamics, the
judge is already aware of problems. We can kind of cut through that and get to the heart
of it. I think because of the close relationship we have within the system and with the
schools and with the service providers, we can work with them quicker, we can work
with them better. I also think that the judges, because they know family dynamics,
because they are familiar with how we feel and how we work and other agencies, they
can trust us to go forward with a plan or an idea and be creative and make it individual
and try something different, get somebody else involved. So I think it does make it better.
It seems to work here.
Are there are any ways you think that discretion could be a bad thing or have any
negative impacts?
I think it could be. Possibly if a young sibling or some kid who got in a lot of trouble, the
younger sibling may just get just a minor charge. I think the judge may see their name
and say “Well, ah well…” I know about you. And they might think, oh you’re all going
to be the same. And many of them do follow in their footsteps, but there are some who do
break away. So that could hinder their experience with some decisions.
What do you like most about your job?
I like working with the kids. A lot of people think it’s crazy. They’re like, why would you
want to work with those bad kids! I mean there’s kids that make mistakes or haven’t been
taught or educated the right way. They’re a lot of fun to work with. I mean they’re very
emotional and high strung, and all over the place! But I enjoy it. I really like to make that
connection with the kids.
I used to have a caseload. I’ve been doing intake now for 2 years, but I did probation and
parole and I still have kids calling me who are now like 20 years old. So when you make
that connection and they call you and they’re like hey I need help with this, can you write
me a letter? Can you help me get housing. I mean you still see some of them going
through the adult system and in jail, there’s going to be those. But it’s the kids, working
with them. Challenging! But they’re fun.
68
Appendix C: Interview Questions
1. How long have you lived in Walla Walla?

a. Where were you born?
2. Tell me about your family.
a. Who do you live with?
b. Where were your parents born?
c. What language do you speak at home? Is Spanish your first language?
d. What do your parents do for a living? When do they work?
3. Where do you go to school?
a. What grade are you in?
b. Do you like school? Do you have any favorite teachers/classes?
c. Have you ever gotten in trouble at school? What happened?
d. Have you ever been suspended or expelled? Why?
4. What do you like to do for fun?
a. Do you work?
b. What do you usually do with friends?
5. Do you drink or do any drugs?
a. What? How often? How much?
b. How old were you when you first tried alcohol? Drugs?
c. Why did you start drinking/doing drugs?
6. Tell me about why you’re in here right now
a. When was the first time you got in trouble with Juvie?
i. Were you put in detention?
b. What are your current charges? What happened? Where were you? Who
were you with?
i. What happened after you were arrested? Did you come down here
for “intake”? What happened there?
ii. What is happening right now with your case? Have you been in
court yet, in front of a judge? What happened?
c. How did your parents find out you were arrested? How did they react?
7. Vance is your probation officer, right?
a. When did you first meet him?
b. What is your relationship like? How often do you talk to him?
c. What do you think Vance wants for you? What kind of things does he tell
you to work at?
d. What do you think should happen with your case?
e. What should Vance do to help you?
8. What does your family think about you getting into trouble?
a. What do they do to keep you out of trouble?
b. Do you think they understand how the juvenile justice system works? Do
they understand what is going on with your case?
9. Have you ever been discriminated against?
10. What do you want to be when you grow up? Who are your role models?
69
Appendix D: Interview Transcript
November 11, 2006 4 pm

Consuela
So Consuela, how long have you lived in Walla Walla?
Since I was like 4.
Where were you born?
In Mexico.
Yeah, where?
In Guadalajara.
And why did you guys move to the U.S.?
Because all of my mom’s family was here, so they just decided to move here.
In Walla Walla?
Yeah, my mom’s parents live here. She wanted to be with her parents.
So do you have a lot of family here?
Yeah.
Do you have brothers and sisters?
I have one sister, she’s younger.
Who do you live with?
I live with my mom.
And your sister?

Pseudonym
70
And my sister.
What language do you speak at home?
Right now. Both.
Does your mom speak English?
Um, somewhat. But I don’t really talk to her a lot. I mostly talk to my sister, or my friend
that lives with me.
What is your mom’s job?
She’s a caretaker, for old people.
Where do you go to school? I know you just transferred, right?
Yeah, I was going to WaHi, but now I go to Paine.
Why did you transfer?
Because of my attendance and my grades were really bad. I mean my attendance, like I
went to school every day, but there was one class that I never went to. I just really got
tired of it. It was my first period class. It was math and that’s like my worst subject.
Did you like school?
I mean I liked it. I think more for the social part, not like doing homework and being in
class.
So how long ago did you leave?
Like 3 weeks ago.
And you just started at Paine a couple days ago?
Yeah.
Do you like it so far?
No, there’s a lot of weird people!
What’s it like?
Like there’s a lot of like punk rockers and I’m like scared of them.
71
Are there many other Latinos?
Not as much as there is at WaHi.
Why did you choose to go to Paine?
Because they made me. I didn’t want to go there, but that was my only option. Like they
told me, there wasn’t an option.
Have you ever been in trouble in school?
Yeah (laughs).
When was the first time you were in trouble?
I don’t remember, a long time ago (laughs)
What kinds of things do you usually get in trouble for?
Well I’ve gotten into fights and stuff. And other kinds of stuff. But I’ve gotten into fights
a couple of times.
Over what kind of stuff?
Like girls, girl stuff.
Have you been suspended or expelled?
I’ve been suspended. Oh, I got in trouble last year because I went to my homecoming like
real drunk and I was like puking all over the place. And I got a ticket for it and I got
suspended for 5 days.
What grade are you?
A sophomore.
What do you like to do in your free time?
I like to go out a lot. Go out with my friends. Watch movies, talk on the phone.
Do you party? Do you drink or do any drugs?
Well I did, but not now because I’m on probation. Sometimes I still drink when I go out,
but I haven’t done that in a while. I don’t want to get in trouble.
How long have you been on probation for?
72
Since like the beginning of August I think.
When did you start drinking?
I was like 14.
And did you used to use drugs?
Yeah. Like I’ve smoked but the drug I used to do a lot was cocaine.
When did you start using cocaine?
When I was 14.
And do you still use it?
No I don’t.
Did you go through any treatment?
No, they really wanted me to go through treatment, but I was like no I don’t need that. I
just didn’t show up.
When was the first you got in trouble when Juvy was involved?
Homecoming I think… oh no, it was before. Because I was really mad one time. Like we
were driving back home and we just went to McDonalds, and I was mad, and I rolled
down the window and threw my food out and I like freaked out and then the cops, like
my aunt freaked out because she thought I was going to go psycho on her so she called
the cops and the cops were like “oh, well pick up that garbage,” and I was like “no, I’m
not going to pick it up.” So they brought me here. And then he said I was like talking
back to him or something, so I got in trouble for that.
Were you in detention?
No, my mom came and picked me up. But I still had to write a letter and like do
community service.
And then what happened last year at the dance?
I just like puked. And there were cops there. They took me in and they were like so were
you – and I was like “I’m sick!” And they like had me take a breathalyzer test, and I was
like ok I’ll do it. And then it came up and they said it I’d drank a little more I would have
been close to alcohol poisoning. So when I got home my mom was freaking out.
73
Were you in detention then?
No, my mom picked me up.
When was the first time you were in detention?
Like in the beginning of March.
What happened then?
I had this boyfriend. And like, I don’t know, he was like really controlling and stuff. And
I was trying to leave with him like to the Tri-Cities. And my mom, she didn’t know I was
trying to leave. And I got caught and I was like walking off to the car and she brought me
back. And she was like you’re not going to go with him, she didn’t like him and I was
like no, I am. And then we started fighting. And then she like pushed me and pulled my
hair. And I was like really mad and I was like throwing stuff all over my room and stuff.
And so I left and I was gone for like 2 weeks and when I got I got arrested.
She called the cops on you?
Yeah.
And reported you as a runaway?
Yeah and she said that I like assaulted her.
And then you were in detention?
Yeah for 3 days. And then I got out, and then I was out for like 2 weeks and I was already
doing it again, I was trying to leave with him again. And she got mad. And she called the
cops again and they took me in here again. And that time I was here for 17 days.
What were your charges?
Assault.
Is that why you are on probation right now?
Yeah.
And that’s why you do A.R.T.257?
Yeah.
Why don’t you get along with your mother?
74
I don’t know, she’s really like, she treats me like I’m like 10 years old. So like when I go
out or something, she’s always checking on me like constantly. And it’s always been like
that. Like even before I ever got in trouble or even before I ever started drinking or
anything, it’s always been like that. And so I’m like you know I’m almost 17 years old
and you can’t go checking on me like every 5 minutes. She has like a hard time with me
and like rules. Because she thinks like “Oh, she doesn’t have a Dad, so I have to be extra
hard to make up for it.”
Do you think it could have to do with her being accustomed to different things in Mexico?
Yeah. That too, like her, the way she was raised. And I always tell her that, I’m like you
know you were raised differently and you can’t try to raise me the way you were raised.
It’s not going to work. Like we’re in a new country now. You can’t do that in the U.S.
So what are your probation requirements?
If I get a UA I have to be clean. I have a curfew that’s at 8. And I have to go to A.R.T.

And I can’t talk to that guy, the one I was trying to run off with. I have to go to school
every day.
So when did you get assigned to your probation officer?
I just got assigned to him when I went to court. Cause I left. Like the last time I was
locked up it was like a Tuesday and then on that Sunday I tried to leave again. But this
time I didn’t try to hit my mom because I didn’t want to get charged for that again. So
when she called the cops and stuff but because I didn’t hit her they couldn’t take me to
Juvy. And she was like well you can’t live with me, you have to go live with your dad.
Where does your dad live?
In Mexico. But I didn’t like it. Like I could do whatever I wanted, but I didn’t know
anybody. So it wasn’t like I was going to go out.
Why do you think your mom always tries to involve the police and juvy when you get in
trouble?
I think its because she doesn’t think she can handle it. Like she can’t handle me anymore,
like the way I am.
So do you get along with your probation officer?
Yeah, he’s alright.
What is your relationship like with him? Like how often do you talk with him.
75
Just like 3 times a week, just at A.R.T.
What kind of things does he tell you to do differently or work harder at?
My relationship with my mom. Not to fight so much. I have to try to like get along with
her too. It’s hard. It’s hard to get along with her. Because she’s just so… it’s hard to live
with her.
And anger stuff too?
Yeah, that too.
Do you like the A.R.T. classes?
No, they’re boring.
Are you getting anything out of it?
No, I don’t think so. Some people think they are but I think it depends on the person
What do you usually do?
We usually do role plays and stuff. Like I don’t even know. We do the same thing every
day, like we’ll do like role plays or we have like little cards and stuff. And everybody
reads their cards, and stuff like that
Do you think you have an anger problem?
Sometimes, I get angry a lot.
What should your probation officer do to help you?
I think its all on me.
What do you think you should do?
Try to get along with my mom better. And be a good example for my sister.
How old is your sister?
Eleven.
Does she get in trouble too?
No, she’s like the total opposite of me
76
What does your mom do to try and keep you out of trouble?
She won’t let me go out, and when I do she calls me all the time.
Do you think she understands how the juvenile system works? Like what it means every
time she calls the cops?
No I don’t think she does. I don’t think she gets it at all. Like you can’t call the cops
every time you get mad. Like my uncle tells her that. Like she can’t just do that all the
time because it just gives me a record. She doesn’t get it.
Does she understand what is going on with your case?
Yeah. She knows, and she always uses it to like hang over my head.
Do you think the language barrier makes it harder for her to understand it all?
Probably.
At your court appearance did she understand what the judge was saying?
She had a translator.
How does she talk with your probation officer?
I don’t think they have talked…
Have you ever been discriminated against?
No.
What do you want to be when you grow up?
Like a vet or something, I like animals a lot.
Who are your role models?
I don’t have any.
77
Appendix E: Interview Notes
November 6, 2006 2:30 pm

Carlos
Carlos is fifteen and has lived in Walla Walla for three years. He came to the
United States eight years ago from Baja, Mexico. He lives with his parents and two
younger sisters. He also has an older brother who moved out several years ago. His
parents speak English, but his English is much better and they speak both Spanish and
English at home. His father works at Broetje Orchards and generally works evenings and
his mother works at Smith Frozen Foods during the day. Carlos reports he is almost never
home “I get up real early and then I’m like out all day and sometimes I don’t even go
home to sleep.” He reports he spent most of his time with his girlfriend or with his
“banger” friends (fellow gang members).
Carlos started drinking when he was twelve. He mostly drank with friends and
their drink of choice was Tequila. After alcohol he tried marijuana, coke, PCP,
mushrooms, and acid. He currently snorts crystal meth “whenever [he] can get some.”
When asked why he uses drugs, Carlos says, “It’s mostly because of my life. I’m mad a
lot and I feel lonely and stuff.” Carlos reports he has been asking his probation officer,
Vance Norsworthy, if he can go to rehab for drug and alcohol treatment.
Carlos has been in detention for eight days and his court date is tomorrow. He
went to Paine School where he reports, “They treat me good,” and did “alright,” but got
kicked out for fighting two weeks ago. He reports he gets into a lot of trouble in school,
mostly related to fights. When I asked why he shrugged and said, “I’ve been a
troublemaker since I was small. I just got some anger.” When asked about his plans to
return to school Carlos reports, “I can’t go to WaHi. I can’t be like a normal student
His first contact with the juvenile system was when he was ten and got caught
stealing Pokemon cards from ShopCo. He was subsequently held in detention because
upon arrest, the cops alleged he assaulted them. At the time he completed Anger
Replacement Therapy (ART) at the Justice Center. In a subsequent detention, he
completed “Pathways Back” and reports, “I had a good month here then.”
He is currently in detention being charged with stolen vehicle, possession of

alcohol, and driving without a license. He started getting into more serious trouble with
the law after he joined a gang when he was thirteen. He reports “I was a normal kid, but I

Pseudonym
78
wanted to be a big guy. I got a lot of respect but I lost a lot of good friends.” Carlos
reports that him and his fellow “bangers” mostly go out to parties. He reports “We don’t
look for problems, problems look for us.” He insists that he is trying to quite the gang,
“but it’s hard. I don’t have any good friends. The only good people I got here are like two
hours away” When asked about altercations with the police while he was with other
“bangers” Carlos reported getting pulled over a few times and that one time when he was
on the street, “the cops stopped me because they thought I had a weapon.”
When asked what his parents do when he gets in trouble, Carlos says they try to
talk to him but he doesn’t listen. After he was arrested, his dad got mad but would rather
have him locked up than out getting into trouble. His mom doesn’t worry about him when
he’s in here. His brother also gets mad at him for getting into trouble, but the two of them
don’t talk very often. His sisters look up to him a lot. Carlos reports his eleven year old
sister is “already following in my steps, but I tell her no, stop doing that stuff.” He reports
his three year old sister understands what it means when his parents say, “Carlos is in
juvie, again.”
When asked how he feels about being in detention he reports, “It’s horrible, I hate
it. You don’t get to do what you can outside.” He reports that his parents don’t come visit
him. But when he was younger he used to think it was “cool to be in here.” He knew a lot
of people in detention and currently has several friends in detention.
Carlos reports his girlfriend of thirteen months recently broke up with him
because of the trouble he was getting into. She didn’t like his “banger” friends or when
he went out to parties. Carlos reports he was really jolted by the breakup. He is trying to
“get clean and stay straight “ for her. Of the trouble he has gotten into, Carlos reports, “I
regret everything.”
When asked what he thought his probation officer could do to help him, Carlos
said it was all on him to make the changes and he knew what he had to do, “stop fighting,
anger, gangs and respect my family.” He reports he’s been trying to change; “I haven’t
been gangbanging so much, my fighting is getting lower. I used to fight a lot. And I’m
working on my respect.” He reports he’s been trying to put “family first” and stay away
from his banger friends.
When he grows up, Carlos reports he wants to be “a good dad,” teach his kids
“not to be in gangs” and “give them whatever they want.” When asked what he would do
if his kid was getting into trouble, Carlos reports “I’d put him in rehab.”
When he gets out of juvie, Carlos reports he is going to try to get a job at Broetje
Orchards with his dad who said he could “get into a spot doing boxes.”
79
Bibliography
Albert, David H. “Tobacco, Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Trends in Washington State
2001 Report.” Washington State Department of Social and Health Services: The Division
of Alcohol and Substance Abuse. Olympia, WA. January 2001
Austin, James, Kelly Dedel Johnson and Ronald Weitzer. “Alternatives to the Secure
Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders.” US Department of Justice Juvenile
Justice Bulletin. September 2005
Barnes, Carole Wolff and Rodney Kingsnorth. “Race, Drug and Criminal Sentencing:
Hidden Effects of the Criminal Law.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 24, no. 1 (1996):
39-55
Beckett, Katherine, Kris Nyrop, Lori Pfingst and Melissa Bowen. “Drug Use, Drug
Possession Arrests, and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle.” Social Problems.
Vol. 52, no. 3 (2005): 419-441
Bilchik, Shay. “Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System.” 1999 National Report Series
Juvenile Justice Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice. (December 1999)
Bond-Maupin, Lisa J. and James R. Maupin. “Juvenile Justice Decision Making in a

Rural Hispanic Community.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 5 (1999) 373-384
Bridges, George S., Conley, D., Engen, R.L. and Beretta, G. “Racial Disproportionality
in the Juvenile Justice System: Final Report.” Olympia, WA: Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services and the Washington State Legislature, 1995
Bridges, George S. and Sara Steen. “Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of

Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms.” American
Sociological Review. Vol. 63 (1998)
Building Blocks for Youth. “Donde Esta La Justicia?: A Call to Action on behalf of
Latino and Latina Youth in the U.S. Justice System.” (2005)
Bumphus, Vic W. and James F. Anderson. “Family Structure and Race in a Sample of
Criminal Offenders.” Journal of Criminal Justice Studies. Vol. 27, no. 4 (1999): 309-320
Chapman, John F., Rani A. Desai, Paul R. Falzer and Randy Borum. “Violence Risk and
Race in a Sample of Youth in Juvenile Detention: The Potential to Reduce
80
Disproportionate Minority Confinement.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice: A
Interdisciplinary Journal. Vol. 4, no. 2 (April 2006): 170-185
Cheurprakobkit, Sutham and Robert A. Bartsch. “Police Work and the Police Profession:
Assessing Attitudes of City Officials, Spanish Speaking Hispanics, and their English-
Speaking Counterparts.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 27, no. 2 (1999): 87-100
Cheurprakobkit, Sutham. “Police-citizen contact and police performance attitudinal

differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 28
(2000): 325-336
Cohen, L.E., and Kleugel, J.R. “Selecting Delinquents for Adjudication: An Analysis of
Intake Screening Decisions in two Metropolitan Juvenile Courts.” Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 16 (1979): 143-163
Conley, Darlene J. “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. Vol. 31, no. 2 (May 1994): 135-148
Cota-Robles, Sonia, and Wendy Gamble. ‘Parent-Adolescent Processes and Reduced

Risk for Delinquency: The Effect of Gender for Mexican American Adolescents.” Youth
and Society. Vol. 37, no. 4 (June 2006): 375-392
Crutchfield, Robert D., George S. Bridges and Susan R. Pitchford. “Analytical and
Aggregation Biases in Analyses of Imprisonment: Reconciling Discrepancies in Studies
of Racial Disparity.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 31, no. 2 (May
1994): 166-182
Dean, Bernard C. “Juvenile Justice & Disproportionality: Patterns of Minority Over-

Representation in Washington’s Juvenile Justice System.” Sentencing Guidelines
Commission: State of Washington. (December 1997)
<http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Disproportionality/JUVENILE_JUSTICE>
Demuth, Stephen and Darrell Steffensmeier. “Ethnicity Effects on Sentence Outcomes in

Large Urban Courts: Comparisons Among White, Black and Hispanic Defendants.”
Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 84, no. 4 (December 2004): 994- 1011
Department of Court Services and Division of Children and Family Services

Collaboration Project. Walla Walla, Washington. 2000-2001
81
Engen, Rodney L., Sara Steen and George S. Bridges. “Racial Disparities in the
Punishment of Youth: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of the Literature.” Social
Problems. Vol. 49, no. 2 (May 2002): 194-220
Freda-Cowie, Robb. “Multnomah County’s Juvenile Justice Innovations Threatened by

Budget Cuts: New Documentary Shows Success of At-Risk Programs in Reducing
Juvenile Crime and Incarceration of Minority Youth.” Department of Community Justice.
January 9, 2004
Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. “Washington State Juvenile Justice

Report 2005.” (2006)
Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. “2002 Juvenile Justice Report.”

(2003)
Governor’s Youth Summit. “Solutions: What’s Working?”

http://oya.state.or.us/dmc/solutions.html
Graham, Sandra and Brian S. Lowery. “Priming Unconscious Racial Stereotypes about
Adolescent Offenders.” Stanford Graduate School of Business Research Paper Series
(July 2004)
Hagan, John, Carla Shedd and Monique R. Payne. “Race, Ethnicity and Youth
Perceptions of Criminal Injustice.” American Sociological Review. Vol. 70, no. 3 (June
2005): 381-407
Herbst, Leigh and Samuel Walker. “Language Barriers in the delivery of police services:
A study of police and Hispanic Interactions in a Midwestern City.” Journal of Criminal
Justice. Vol. 29 (2001): 329-340
Hood, David L. “Sentencing Disparities in Yakima County: The Washington Sentencing

Reform Act Revisited.” Explorations in Ethnic Studies: The Journal of the National
Association of Interdisciplinary Ethnic Studies. Vol. 16, no. 2 (1993): 99-115
Hoytt, Eleanor Hinton, Vincent Schiraldi, Brenda V. Smith and Jason Ziedenberg. “8
Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform: Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile
Detention.” Annie E. Casey Foundation. <http://www.aecf.org>
Hsia, Heidi M., George S. Bridges, and Rosalie McHale. “Disproportionate Minority
Confinement 2002 Update.” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. US
Department of Justice, September 2004
82
Iguchi, Martin Y., James Bell, Rajeev N. Ramchand, and Terry Fain. “How Criminal
System Disparities May Translate into Health Disparities.” Journal of Health Care for the
Poor and Underserved. Vol. 16, no. 4 (2005): 48-56
Jackson, Kevin L. “Journal in the Background and Criminal Justice Characteristics of

Young Black, White and Hispanic Male Federal Prison Inmates.” Journal of Black
Studies. Vol. 27, no. 4 (March 1997): 494-510
Johnson, Richard R. “Confounding Influences on Police Detection of Suspiciousness.”

Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 34 (2006):435-442
Jones, M.A., and Poe-Yamagata. “And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.” Building Blocks for Youth. (2000)
“Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI),” Annie E, Casey Foundation, 2005

<http.www.aecf.org/initiatives/jdai/>. (20 October 2006).
Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration. “Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice

System: A Report to the Legislature.” December 1, 2004
Kalogeras, Steven and Marc Mauer. “Annotated Bibliography: Racial Disparities in the
Criminal Justice System.” The Sentencing Project. (2003)
Keir, Scott. “Juvenile Crime Trends Report: 2003.” Multnomah County Department of
Community Justice. (July 2005) <http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/evaluation.shtml -
juvenilereports/>
Kempf-Leonard, Kimberly and Elicka S.L. Peterson. “Expanding realms of the new
penology.” Punishment & Society. Vol. 2, no 1 (2001): 66-97
The Latino Gang Violence Prevention Task Force of Multnomah County. “Latino Youth
Gang Violence in Multnomah County: Understanding the Problem, Shaping the Future.”
2004
Leiber, Michael J. “Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) of Youth: An

Analysis of State and Federal Efforts to Address the Issue.” Crime & Delinquency. Vol.
48, no. 1 (January 2002): 3-45
Leiber, Michael J. and Kristin Y. Mack. “The Individual and Joint Effects of Race,
Gender, and Family Status on Juvenile Justice Decision-Making.” Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 40, no. 1 (February 2003): 34-70
Leiber, Michael J. and Kristan C. Fox. “Race and the Impact of Detention on Juvenile
Decision Making.” Crime & Delinquency. Vol. 51, no. 4. (October 2005): 470-497
83
Lopez, Vera A., Mark W. Roosa, Jenn-Yun Tein and Khanh T. Dihn. “Accounting For
Anglo-Hispanic Differences in School Misbehavior.” Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal
Justice. Vol 2 (2004): 27-46
Lowe, Theresa and Yi Zhao. “Washington Minority Population Growth Continues.”

Washington State Office of Financial Management. September 30, 2004
Macallair, Daniel. “Reducing Disproportionate Minority Confinement: The Multnomah

County Oregon Success Story and its Implications.” Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice <http://cjcj.org/pubs/portland/portland.html>
MacDonald, John M. “The Effect of Ethnicity on Juvenile Court Decision Making in

Hawaii.” Youth & Society. Vol. 35, no. 2. (December 2003): 243-263
Maume, Michael O. and Reid C. Toth. “Race in Context: The Impact of Structural
Factors on Racial Differences in Juvenile Court Processing.” International Review of
Modern Sociology. Vol. 32, no. 1 (Spring 2006)
Martinez-Ebers, Valerie, Luis Fraga, Linda Lopez and Arturo Vega. “Latino Interests in
Education, Health, and Criminal Justice Policy.” Political Science and Politics. Vol. 33,
no. 3 (September 2000): 547-554
Mears, Daniel P. “A Critique of Waiver Research: Critical Next Steps in Assessing the
Impacts of Laws for Transferring Juveniles to the Criminal Justice System.” Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice. Vol. 1, no. 2 (April 2003): 156-172
Mendel, Richard A. “Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile
Justice.” American Youth Policy Forum. 2001
Mendoza, Rosalinda. “Analysis of the Social Capital Stock of Young Latinas/os and
Gang Membership in Washington State” in The State of the State for Washington Latinos.
Whitman College (2005)
Multnomah County Department of Community Justice Juvenile Services Division. “A

Business Case for the Communities of Color Partnership for High Risk Youth.”
(4/22/2006) <http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/jsdcommunitiesofcolor.pdf>
Munoz, Ed A. “Misdemeanor Sentencing Decision: The Cumulative Disadvantage Effect

of ‘Gringo Justice’.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 20, no. 3. (August
1998): 298-320
National Council of La Raza. “State of Hispanic America 2004: Latino Perspectives on

the American Agenda.” Washington DC, February 2004
84
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. “Ethnic and Gender Equity in Missouri
Juvenile Court Decisions: Preliminary Findings.” Missouri Office of the State Courts
Administrator (September 2004)
Nelson, James F. “A Dollar A Day: Sentencing Misdemeanants in New York State.”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 31, no. 2 (May 1994): 183-201
Olson, Jodi K. “Waiver of Juveniles to Criminal Court: Judicial Discretion and Racial
Disparity.” Justice Policy Journal. Vol. 2, no. 1 (Summer 2005): 1-20
Perreira, Krista M., Mimi V. Chapman and Gabriela Stein. “Becoming an American
Parent: Overcoming Challenges and Finding Strength in the New Immigrant Latino
Community.” Journal of Family Issues. Vol. 27, no. 10 (October 2006): 1383-1414
Pope, Carl E, Kimberly Kempf Leonard and William H. Feyerherm. Minorities in

Juvenile Justice.. Sage Publications. 1995
Prendergast, Michael L., Yih-Ing Hser and Virginia Gil-Rivas. “Ethnic Differences in
Longitudinal Patterns and Consequences of Narcotics Addiction.” Journal of Drug Issues.
Vol. 28, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 495-515
Ray , K.E.B., and Alarid, L.F. “Examining Racial Disparity of Male Property Offenders
in the Missouri Juvenile Justice System.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. Vol. 2,
no. 2 (2004): 107-128
Rawal, Purva, Jill Romanasky, Michael Jenuwine and John S. Lyons. “Racial Differences
in the Mental Health Needs and Service Utilization of Youth in the Juvenile Justice
System.” The Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research. Vol. 31, no. 3
(July/September 2004): 242-354
Reitzel, John D., Stephen K. Rice and Alex R. Piquero. “Lines and Shadows: Perceptions
of Racial Profiling and the Hispanic Experience.” Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 32
(2004): 607-616
Rhyne, Charlene and Kim Pascual. “Juvenile Minority Over-Representation in

Multnomah County’s Department of Community Justice: Calendar Year 2005 Youth
Data.” Multnomah County Department of Community Justice. June 2006.
<http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dcj/evaluation.shtml#juvenilereports/>
Rodney, Elaine and Richard Tachia. “Over-representation of Minorities in the Juvenile

Justice System: Three Counties in Rural Texas.” Federal Probation: December 2004
Newsletter <http://www.uscourts.gov/fedprob/December_2004/minorities.html>
Schuck, Amie M, Kim Michelle Lersch and Steven W Verrill. “The Invisible Hispanic -
The Representation of Hispanic in Criminal Justice Research: What Do We Know and
85
Where Should We Go.” Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Vol. 2, no. 3 (2004): 5-
22
Schwalbe, Craig S., Mark W. Fraser, Steven H. Day and Valerie Cooley. “Classifying
Juvenile Offenders According to Risk of Recidivism: Predictive Validity, Race/Ethnicity,
and Gender.” Criminal Justice and Behavior. Vol. 33, no. 3 (June 2006): 305-324
Shears, Jeffrey K., and Rich Furman. “Examining Interpersonal Relationship Predictors
of Delinquency Across Ethnic and Racial Samples.” Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal. Vol. 22, no. 3-4 (August 2005): 281-299
Sickmund, Melissa. “Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2002: Selected Findings.” US

Department of Justice Juvenile Offenders and Victims National Report Series Bulletin.
June 2006
Snyder, Howard N., and Melissa Sickmund. “Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006
National Report.” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. U.S.
Department of Justice. March 2006
State of Washington. “Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders: Fiscal Year 2005.” Sentencing

Guidelines Commission. December 2005
Steiger, John C. “Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines Simulation: Documentation.” Office of

Financial Management, October 1998
Urbina, Martin G. “Language Barriers in the Wisconsin Court System: The Latino/a
Experience.” Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Vol 2 (2004): 91-119
Villarruel, Francisco A., Nancy E. Walker, Pamela Minifee, Omara Rivera-Vazquez,

Susan Peterson and Kristen Perry. “Donde Esta La Justicia? A Call to Action on Behalf
of Latino and Latina Youth in the U.S. Justice System.” Institute for Children, Youth and
Families. Building Blocks for Youth. Michigan State University. 2000
Welsh, Wayne N., Patricia H. Jenkins and Philip W. Harris. “Reducing Minority
Overrepresentation in Juvenile Justice: Results of Community-Based Delinquency
Prevention in Harrisburg.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 36, no. 1
(February 1999): 87-110
Wong, Siu Kwong. “The Effects of Adolescent Activities on Delinquency: A Differential

Involvement Approach.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Vol. 34, no. 4 (August
2005): 321-333
Wordes, Madeline, Timothy S. Bynum and Charles J. Corley. “Locking Up Youth: The
Impact of Race on Detention Decisions.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.
Vol. 31, no. 2 (May 1994): 149-165
86
87

Latino Youth in Washington State's Juvenile Justice System

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Latino Youth in Washington State's Juvenile Justice System

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

AND GRINGO JUSTICE FOR ALL?

LATINO YOUTH IN WASHINGTON STATE’S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

My research focuses on Latino youth in the juvenile justice system. It addresses

My research draws from a wide variety of scholarly literature and studies on

Overall, the results of my research corroborated my hypothesis about the

My recommendations for policy reforms address this differential treatment within

An Overview of the Juvenile Justice System

During the processing of a case, before adjudication, a juvenile may be held in

If the juvenile is adjudicated in court, a court counselor develops a disposition

Scholarly Literature Discussion: Accounting for the Causes of Overrepresentation

Scholarly literature identifies a multiplicity of factors contributing to minority

Differential Crime Patterns and Risk-Factors for Delinquency

While legal characteristics and differential delinquency patterns do not wholly

Structural Inequalities: The Social Context of being a Latino youth

Scholarly research has consistently demonstrated a correlation between

Recent scholarly research indicates that family structure is a better predictor of

Furthermore, these socioeconomic conditions, dynamics of family structure, and

Mental Health Service Underutilization

Law Enforcement Practices

Differential treatment of minority youth in law enforcement is well documented.

A significant amount of research has been conducted on relations between Latinos

The differential treatment of Latinos by law enforcement is most pronounced in

Scholarly research on the social and economic structural disadvantages Latino

Differential Treatment within the System

Most significant and conclusive of the reviews is a seminal meta-analysis

Since Pope and Feyerherm’s review, a substantial amount of research has

The consequences of differential treatment of Latino youth are particularly

Risk Assessment Tools

Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Decision-Making

Impact of Family Structure on Decision-Making

A similar study by Vic Bumphus confirmed Maume’s findings that non-

Impact of Mental Health Needs on Decision Making

Effectively identifying and addressing mental health needs is an important priority

Racial disparities in mental health service utilization reflect racial discrepancies in

Scholarly literature consistently affirms the importance of disaggregating the

Several recent studies present notable and corroborating findings on the

The significance of this methodological decision to consider racial proportions of

Given thee socioeconomic stressors and contextual limitations disproportionately

A study conducted by Madeline Wordes found similar racial disparities in the

Inefficient Case Processing

A significant proportion of youth held in pre-trial detention are detained for

The disparate effects of pre-trial detention on minority youth are exacerbated by

One “explicitly anecdotal” study conducted by Martin Urbina examines the

Wisconsin is similar to Washington in terms of the demographics of its Latino

Stereotypes and Cultural Insensitivity

A number of the aforementioned aspects of the interactionist theory demonstrate

Decision-makers are generally guided by “red flags” that indicate a youth’s

The bias of decision-makers is amplified by the gap in communication between

One study conducted by Ed Munoz addresses factors largely unexamined in

The differential treatment of Latinos in the justice system today cannot be

These stereotypical images have endured centuries and continue to be invoked to

Gringo justice is at play in the maintenance of the language barrier in juvenile

The scholarly literature and studies I assessed reinforced my initial inclination to

A number of studies directed my inquiry toward monitoring the discretion granted

My decision to narrow my inquiry to outcomes of juvenile decision-making

My primary sources for quantitative data were reports conducted by government

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)

Efforts to address Disproportionate Minority Contact have been significant in

Limiting Aspects of Data

The quantitative reports I examined were generally comprehensive although due

Given the limited amount of quantitative data that disaggregated Latinos as a

Because I am primarily concerned with internal juvenile justice practices that

I obtained the majority of my information on the Multnomah County test site