Diversion can address racial bias against justice-involved youth

  • Diversion can address racial bias against justice-involved youth
    Ryan Johnson/FlickrHigh-risk youth who were diverted from court showed 40 percent lower recidivism rates than their peers who were petitioned in court.X

In order to reduce racial and ethnic disparities and enhance outcomes
for young people in our country’s juvenile justice systems, those
systems need to focus on diversion, a new report from the Sentencing
Project argues.

There is overwhelming evidence that youth arrests and delinquency
cases brought before juvenile courts have a negative impact on young
people’s futures and increase their involvement with the legal system.

Compared to youth who are diverted, young people who are arrested and
officially petitioned in court are much more likely to experience
subsequent arrests and academic failure.

A report from the Sentencing Project released Tuesday, titled
“Diversion: A Hidden Key To Combating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in
Juvenile Justice,” argues that these undesirable outcomes can be avoided
through pre-arrest and pre-court diversion — but only if state and
local systems work to address structural and racial disparities in which
young people are given those chances.

According to a review of existing research, Black young people have a
much lower likelihood of being diverted from court after being arrested
than do white youth. Latino, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander
youth and other young people of color are also less likely to be
diverted than their white peers.

The lack of diversion opportunities for young people of color is
critical because their increased likelihood of formal court processing
results in longer court histories and harsher penalties for any
subsequent arrest.

“Expanding diversion opportunities for youth of color therefore
represents a crucial, untapped opportunity to address continuing
dis-proportionality in juvenile justice,” report author Richard Mendel, senior research fellow on youth justice at the Sentencing Project wrote.

Diversion is generally more productive and developmentally
appropriate for young people accused of crimes than court. According to
compelling research, Mendel writes, formal involvement in the justice
system tends to decrease young people’s chances of success in the future
as well as public safety.

Young people who are diverted from the criminal justice system are
less likely to re-offend, to serve time in prison and to engage in
violent behavior, and are more likely to complete their education,
enroll in college and to earn more as working adults.

Just 7 percent of juveniles who are referred to juvenile or family
courts are charged with serious violent crimes. Still, according to
surveys, pre-arrest diversion is used by only one third of law
enforcement agencies nationwide.

Despite growing research into the effectiveness of diversion, less
than half of youth referred to juvenile courts in 2019 were handled
informally, and these rates have not changed significantly in more than a
generation.

Research finds that disparities in diversion reflect systemic bias,
with severe consequences for young people. At least 20 academic studies
over the past 25 years have detected significant racial or ethnic bias
in decisions regarding formal processing of delinquency cases referred
to juvenile court.

Justice disparities

Many leading scholars have found that disparities in the early stages
of the juvenile justice process, including diversion, are a key driver
of larger disparities in subsequent stages of the process, including
commitments to residential confinement.

“The evidence leaves no doubt that the justice system is toxic for
youth and should be employed only in cases when young people pose a
serious and imminent threat to the safety and well-being of others,”
Mendel writes.

According to national data, Black youth are much more likely than
their white peers to be arrested and are much less likely to have their
cases diverted from court after arrest. And these decisions are largely
discretionary, allowing for bias to distort the system even through
policies that appear impartial.

“Diversion decisions most often rest on spur-of-the-moment judgments –
making this stage of the process highly prone to disparities and to
wide geographic variations,” Mendel writes.

Unequal treatment floods the process during these early stages,
separating the experiences of many young people along demographic lines.

There is no empirical support for rules banning diversion for young
people who are considered to be at a higher risk of recidivism and those
who have committed felonies, Mendel writes. In fact, a 2013
meta-analysis discovered that diversion was just as effective for youth
classified as moderate to high risk as it was for those classified as
low risk.

Lower recidivism rates

Another 2014 study that looked at the recidivism outcomes for
thousands of young people in Ohio discovered that, at every risk level,
the recidivism rates of youth who were diverted from court were
significantly lower than those of those who were formally petitioned.

High-risk youth who were diverted from court showed 40 percent lower
recidivism rates than their peers who were petitioned in court.

Given the compelling evidence demonstrating that arrest and formal
court processing increase the likelihood of subsequent arrests, have
negative effects on school attendance, dropout rates, and self-reported
delinquent behavior, the resulting lack of diversion opportunities for
youth of color is critical and harmful, the Sentencing Project argues.

Mendel and the Sentencing Project suggest seven principles for state
and local advocates and system leaders to seize on the opportunities to
improve youth diversion:

    • Make diversion a primary focus in juvenile justice reform;
    • Make reducing racial and ethnic disparities the core emphasis in efforts to expand and improve diversion;
    • Abandon common rules and practices in diversion that harm youth of color disproportionately and exacerbate disparities;
    • Recognize and respond to the hidden influence of implicit bias by
      adopting policies that reduce subjectivity in diversion decisions;
    • Require that youth justice systems prepare racial impact statements
      to analyze the effects of new and existing policies and practices in
      diversion.
    • Collect, track and regularly report dis-aggregated data documenting
      progress (or the lack of it) in reducing disparities and expanding
      opportunities for diversion; and,
    • Sustain the focus on racial and ethnic equity by appointing an
      oversight body to track progress in expanding and reducing disparities
      in diversion, and to push for adjustments and additional reform steps
      over time.


https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/083022_juvenile_diversion/diversion-can-address-racial-bias-against-justice-involved-youth/