| This study examines the adjudication of youth in the juvenile justice system of a single state. It compares the differences in intake outcomes between minority and non-minority youth. The data was extracted from the administrative records of the state's juvenile justice system. In addition, qualitative interviews were conducted with intake workers to identify the process employed to make these decisions. This study utilizes a mixed method approach implementing both quantitative and qualitative analyses to investigate whether minority youth receive disparate treatment by the juvenile justice system, and further explores how intake decisions are made that may lead to disparate outcomes.;The quantitative analysis focuses on the effects of race on intake outcomes using descriptive, multivariate, and multinomial logistic regressions. In addition, it examines the effects of race and prior delinquent history on intake outcomes. The original assumption hypothesized that non-minority youth would receive more lenient outcomes. The findings support this hypothesis.;To identify possible causation, the qualitative section explores the decision making processes of the intake workers. Factors such as high caseloads and internal policies necessitate that workers make quick evaluations based upon limited information. These constraints force workers to rely upon shortcuts to meet caseload demands that can result in intentional or unintentional discrimination. Workers deal with work stress by categorizing people together who share commonalities such as surnames, ethnic, or racial origins. These shortcuts can take on racial casts, either overt or covert, based on the youth's attitude, physical appearance, or surname recognition, and the perceived lack of adequate safety nets or family support. The findings also suggest that less affluent youth do not meet the expectations of the system. In some instances what was perceived as discrimination may actually be an effort by intake workers to provide minority youth with a safety net of essential resources. The study's limitations, implications for further research, policy implications, and overall conclusions are discussed in subsequent sections. |
