MinorityConfinementin theJuvenileJusticeSystem

Legal, Social, and Racial FactorsWiffllin Drakeford * . inu M° Staoles

According to The Coalition .for JuvenileJustice (1996), empirical evidence of thedisproportionate arrest and confinement

of African American males emerged as

early as the 1960s. By the 1970s dispro-portionate minority confinement (DMC)among African American youth was atroubling and identifiable issue. Despite

the empirical age of DMC, it continuesto be prevalent in the U.S. juvenile jus-

tice system. In 1999, minority youthrepresented 65% of juveniles in public

facilities and 55% in private facilitiesalthough they accounted for only 34%

of youths in the general population(OJJDP, 2004). Additionally, according

to the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), theminority proportion of the total popula-

tion of juvenile offenders in residentialplacement was higher than 75% in sixstates and the District of Columbia.Furthermore, in half of the states, theproportion of minority to nonminority

White custody rate exceeded 3.3:1, and

in four states the ratio of minority to

52 m COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

nonminority rates exceeded 8:1 (OJJDP,2004).

To further investigate these statistics,this article provides a brief review of theliterature on the legal, social, and racialfactors that affect and describe minorityconfinement in the juvenile justice sys-tem. This review provides particularemphasis on implications for minorityyouth who are not provided access tonecessary services and strategies that

support meaningful rehabilitation. Italso makes recommendations to bothteachers and gatekeepers in the criminaljustice system that will ensure a degreeof equity in juvenile justice processing.

To identify appropriate literature, theauthors searched electronic resourcesthrough the University of Marylandlibrary research system called ResearchPort. This portal offers links to severaldatabases for fields such as business,law, education, psychology, and sociol-ogy. ERIC via EBSCOhost, the CRL cata-log, and Masterfile Premier viaEBSCOhost were the primary utilitiesused in the search. Colleagues conduct-

ing research on minority confinement inthe juvenile justice system were con-tacted and asked for early summaries oftheir work. Criteria for inclusion in thisanalysis were that an article had to usea quantitative or qualitative researchdesign or provide program evaluationdata and be published or in press for apeer-reviewed journal. Finally, theauthors reviewed numerous articles,books, and reports that presented per-spectives on the juvenile justice systemas it relates to legal, social, and racialfactors.

Through this exhaustive search, wefound that the consequences of the pre-viously mentioned statistics are consid-erable and should not be dismissed. Theoverrepresentation of minority youthwithin the juvenile justice system is par-allel to the overrepresentation of minor-ity youth within special education pro-grams-particularly programs for stu-dents with emotional and behavioraldisorders (E/BD). Data on students clas-sified as E/BD indicate that AfricanAmericans are represented at rates 1.6

U

z

CU

times as great as their White counter-parts (Donovan & Cross, 2002). In addi-tion to the overrepresentation of thelabel, placements for minority studentswith E/BD have been more restrictivewith 67% of students with serious emo-tional disturbance (SED) in inner-citydistricts placed in full-time, restrictivesettings. Subsequent reports to Congresshave continued to detail the restrictivenature of all disability services forAfrican American students. This over-representation of minority studentsbegins with more behavior referrals(Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997;Townsend, 2000) and more special edu-cation referrals (Donovan & Cross, 2002;Losen & Orfield, 2002), leading to anoverrepresentation of these youth in thejuvenile justice system.

In theory, the juvenile justice system,as with special education classes forstudents with E/BD, was established toprovide rehabilitation and treatment forindividuals who have been unable tosuccessfully interact with their socialenvironment (Redding, 1999). Thepunitive nature of confinement wasintended only as a last resort. Althoughthe concepts of diagnosis and treatmentcharacterize the intent of the system(Herz, 2001), institutional confinementof youth and/or transfer of youth to thecriminal justice system are indicative ofa current belief that these youth-pri-marily African American and otherminorities-lack suitability for treat-ment and rehabilitation (OJJDP, 1999;Herz).

The realities of punitive treatmentwere described in the findings of a fol-low-up study including formerly incar-cerated delinquent youths. Lewis,Yeager, Lovely, Stein, and Cobham-Portorreal (1994) found that of the 97former juvenile delinquents, 91 hadadult criminal records, 6 weredeceased, 7 had completed highschool, 8 had married, 35 had fatheredchildren, and only 1 indicated sus-tained employment. Increasingly, thosethat were deemed unsuitable for treat-ment were minority youth (OJJDP,1999).

lb. JuvenNle Jusike PrecsDifferential treatment of minority youthin the juvenile justice system is not lim-ited to decisions of confinement orrelease. The juvenile justice process is amultifaceted structure of cumulativeresponses and revolving doors. The far-ther and more frequently youth movethrough this process, the greater thelikelihood that they will face punitiveoutcomes. The steps involved in juve-nile justice processing can be describedas follows (OJJDP, 1999; Pope &Feyerherm, 1995):

1. Arrest: Officers in the field decidewhether to arrest youth and beginthe juvenile justice process, divertthem to another remediation pro-gram, or release the offenders.

2. Intake: Juvenile justice officialsdecide whether to formally processthe case, deal with the case infor-mally, divert the offender to anotherprogram, or dismiss the case.

3. Processing: Officials decide whetherto detain the offenders or returnthem to the community during theprocessing phase. Also, juvenile jus-tice officials (e.g., juvenile prosecu-tor's office) make the determinationwhether to take formal action, onlytake informal action, or remand thecase to the appropriate criminalcourt.

4. Adjudication/Detention: Officialsthen decide to resolve the case byissuing probation, remanding theyouth to custody, or requiring alter-native or additional programming.

During each step of the process,juvenile justice officials (e.g., lawenforcement field officers, intake offi-cers, probation officers, prosecutingattorneys, and judges) assert the deci-sion-making power of their respectiveoffices, which can be influenced by sub-jective factors (e.g., race) in order todetermine the outcome of the case foreach individual youth offender (Macal-lair & Males, 2004; Pope & Feyerherm,1991). This subjective nature of thejuvenile justice decision-making pro-cess, juxtaposed with current data ondifferential outcomes for minorityyouth, demonstrates the need to exam-

me the influence of racial bias in anyserious dialogue on the causes of DMC.

Despite strong circumstantial evi-dence indicating the likelihood of racialbias in differential outcomes, other the-ories have been advanced to explainDMC. The OJJDP (2004) reported thatthe average arrest rate for violent crimebetween 1980 and 1998 was 5.7 timeshigher for African American youth, whorepresent only 15 % of the juvenile pop-ulation, than for White youth (OJJDP,1999). These statistics are reinforced bytheories that link the historical conse-quences of slavery, Jim Crow, second-class citizenship, urbanization, andpoverty with the presence of pervasivecrime and violence in the AfricanAmerican community (West, 1993;Wilson, 1997).

Tkoe orepeset~ ~ti r mn ri

you16 wliltIn Uh {uvo/ stk

v+nsp (� O(Cr

Theories asserting that negative sys-temic and psychological practices of themajority have contributed to the degra-dation of the African American commu-nity are augmented by current literaturethat reveals continued racial discrimina-tion in U.S. public schools. Minority stu-dents, particularly African Americans,have less access to advanced placementclasses, are more likely to be suspendedor expelled, are more likely to drop out,and are less likely to graduate highschool than their White peers (Gordon,Piana, & Keleher, 2000).

In addition, African American stu-dents are more likely than White stu-dents to be labeled as emotionally dis-turbed or mentally retarded (Losen &Orfield, 2002). Students with disabilities

typically hold lower grade point aver-ages and have higher dropout rates thantheir nondisabled peers. Furthermore,the overall educational, employment,and criminal adjudication outcomes forstudents with disabilities are generally

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN m SEPT/OCT 2006 m 53

poor (Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto,Hebbeler, & Newman, 1993).

When examined together, dispropor-tionate rates of suspension, expulsion,dropout, and disability among AfricanAmerican youth are particularly disturb-ing. Independently, each are associatedwith low literacy rates (Kirsch, Junge-blut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993), which isconsistent with unemployment in anincreasingly highly skilled employmentmarket (National Institute for Literacy,1999; Wilson, 1997). Research on thebreakdown of the African Americanfamily unit (Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank,1991) indicates that rapid changes in thedemands of the employment marketconflict with the African American rul-tural mores of self-reliance and self-determined social mobility (West,1993).

Delinquency, Race, andArrest Rates

Accurate youth delinquency rates aredifficult to ascertain. Althoughresearchers have estimated delinquencyrates using local and national arrestrates, the accuracy of these statistics isquestionable at best because of the lati-tude accorded to law enforcement offi-cers to arrest or release suspectedoffenders (OJJDP, 1999). Factors thataffect field officers' arrest decisions arenot always well documented and rangefrom personal bias and stereotypesregarding a youth's background to thelogistical challenges involved in takingsuspects into custody in rural and sub-urban areas (Leiber & Stairs, 1999).

When juvenile arrests are used as theindicator of delinquency, African Ameri-can youth are clearly overrepresentedamong the overall population of thosearrested. However, the OJJDP (1999)reports that among a nationally repre-sentative sample of youth who complet-ed a self-survey on delinquency, AfricanAmerican youth reported no substantialdifference in the amount of delinquentbehavior in comparison to their Whitepeers-with the exception of having sexat an early age. This self-survey alsoindicated that a disproportionate num-ber of the African American participantshad been arrested. Although there arelimitations to the use of a self-survey to

54 m COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

determine delinquency rates (Salvia &Ysseldyke, 2001), the finding of signifi-cant variance in arrest rates by raceamong youth with equivalent delin-quency backgrounds is an indicationthat arrest rates among AfricanAmerican youth may not be entirelyattributable to disproportionately delin-quent behavior. Additionally, these datasuggest that although society may per-ceive African American youth to bemore delinquent than their White coun-terparts because of their arrest rates,this view is not internalized by theyouth themselves.

Confinement, Intake,Processing, and Adjudication

As noted earlier, juvenile justice officialshave considerable discretion regardingprogrammatic and placement optionsfor the youth in their charge. Officialsmay choose to release or further processyouth through the juvenile or criminalcourt, as well as place underage offend-ers into alternative programs or residen-tial confinement (Pope & Feyerherm,1995). According to the OJJDP (1999),African American youth are referred tothe juvenile court at twice the rate oftheir White counterparts. Juszkiewitcz(2000) found that African Americanyouth are also overrepresented amongjuvenile cases sent to criminal court. Inaddition, these youth are disproportion-ately placed in detention, in comparisonto White underage offenders in the juve-nile justice system (OJJDP, 1999).Minority offenders spend more time indetention facilities than their Whitecounterparts. This is comparable to themore restrictive settings that minorityE/BD students encounter in the schoolsystem.

Researchers have speculated thatoverrepresentation of African Americanyouth at each step of the justice processmay be the result of legal, rather thandiscriminatory, factors. It is posited thatdisproportionate representation withinthe juvenile justice process may beexplained by the seriousness and fre-quency of crimes committed by minori-ty youth as well as their often extensivecriminal records (OJJDP, 1999).Although this reasoning may seem logi-cal, it is not reflected in empirical litera-

ture on overrepresentation in manyjurisdictions. Wordes, Bynum, andCorley (1994) examined juvenile offend-er processing data to determine theextent to which race influenced decisionmaking independent of legal factors andfound that typically, police officers'decisions to detain juveniles were tiedto legal factors such as the possession ofa weapon, prior offenses, or involve-ment in a drug offense. Race, however,was also significantly related to policeofficers' decisions to detain youth, inde-pendent of legal factors (p < .001).

Whetn excmi td ogte,qe

disproportionat e rs of suspension,

expuksion, dro ,fJ and disiobdity

aura inj Afrcor Awencan youth

are partkcul y disturb ng.

Similar illustrations of the impact ofrace at juvenile justice system intakeinclude Leiber and Stairs' (1999) study.They found that African Americanyouth were more likely to be recom-mended for formal processing, whereasWhite juvenile offenders were morelikely to be referred to diversionary pro-grams (e.g., probation, community serv-ice, substance abuse treatment, etc.).These outcomes were evident independ-ently of the severity of the offense andlegal factors; African American youthwere also more likely than White youthto be detained during preliminary hear-ings (Wordes et al., 1994).

The lopsided nature of minority rep-resentation may also be a function ofthe fact that more African Americanyouth are being denied diversion to lesspunitive disciplinary programs andremanded for further processing withinthe juvenile justice system at earlystages (MacDonald & Lisa, 1997). In anattempt to address issues of sampleselection, MacDonald and Lisaemployed several analytic models todetermine the extent of differentialtreatment in the Hawaiian juvenilecourt system. Results indicated differ-ences between the treatment of White

and ethnic Hawaiian juvenile offendersand a "general leniency of the court infavor of White youth" (p. 71). In addi-tion, the discussion of the results con-curred with other empirical findings ofsizeable differences at the early decisionmaking points of the juvenile justice

system (Leiber & Stairs, 1999; Wordes etal., 1994).

With regard to juvenile offendertransfer to the criminal court system,decisions to transfer should consider (a)previous or chronic juvenile court histo-ry and (b) whether the offender hascommitted a crime of such a seriousnature that the juvenile is not consid-ered to be a candidate for rehabilitativetreatment within the juvenile justicecourt (OJJDP, 1999). Minority youth areadjudicated for the majority of personaloffenses (83%), and it is personaloffenses that are most likely to result injuvenile transfer. It is not surprisingthen that minority youth are dispropor-tionately represented among cases ofjuvenile transfer (OJJDP, 1999).

An examination of the adult transferrecords in Los Angeles, however, indi-cated that violent minority juvenileoffenders are transferred at a rate morethan twice that of violent White youth(Macallair & Males, 2004). Moreover,controlling for arrest rate, minorityyouth in Los Angeles are overrepresent-ed in adult courts, more likely to be con-victed, and more likely to receive harsh-er sentences than are White youth.

In summary, minority youth may bearrested in numbers that are dispropor-tionate to the number of delinquent actsthey commit. Empirical studies repeat-edly indicate that whether fairly orunfairly arrested, the representation ofAfrican American youth increases dis-proportionately through the formal andpunitive decision-making stages of thejuvenile justice and criminal justiceprocesses. Conversely, the representa-tion of White juvenile offenders dimin-ishes as they filter through the justicesystem: They are frequently diverted toless punitive programs. As a result,White youth tend to have greater accessto more innovative options, includingspecial education, mental health treat-ment services, mentoring, and otherrehabilitative services. These placement

decisions indicate a clear pattern ofdenying more therapeutic and evidence-based programs to those youth whohave historically been denied the mosteffective interventions. In addition,these decisions are inconsistent in appli-cation and biased in their belief thatminority youth are not suitable for reha-bilitation.

Impact of Negative iocial andCommunity Factors on intake,Proces•ng, and Adjudication!Detention Decasion•i

Research suggests that what appears tobe racial bias may, in fact, be class biason the part of juvenile justice profes-sionals (Wordes et al., 1994). Minorityyouth are disproportionately impover-ished (OJJDP, 2002), live in single-parent homes at more than twice therate of White youth, and live with nei-ther parent at three times the rate ofWhite youth (OJJDP, 2002). In addition,minority youth continue to fail in publicschool systems across the nation(Gordon et al., 2000). These data, incombination with invariable studiesdescribing the dearth of positive socialnetworks and resources in poor AfricanAmerican communities, sustain the per-ception that disadvantaged minorityyouth are a lost cause (Wilson, 1997).

Although most research indicatesthat socioeconomic and family risk fac-tors exist, they do not negate the effectsof race on DMC. A regression analysis ofcourt intake data from five counties inone state revealed that socioeconomic,family, school, and personal difficultieswere associated with detention at intake(Wordes et al., 1994). When these char-

acteristics were constant, AfricanAmerican youth continued to be morelikely than their White counterparts tobe detained. In a study that controlledfor severity of crime as well as familyand school status; outcomes for AfricanAmerican juvenile offenders were gen-erally determined by race, whereas out-comes for their White counterparts weremost often associated with family statusand gender (Leiber & Mack, 2003).Leiber and Stairs (1999) sought to deter-mine if decision-making differenceswould be found between jurisdictionswith differing socioeconomic makeup

and conflicting beliefs in racial differ-ences. Results indicated that, as expect-ed, the jurisdictions with greater eco-nomic inequality and belief in racial dif-ferences imposed more severe punish-ments on African American juvenileoffenders. The authors also reportedthat contrary to their expectations,African Americans were also more like-ly than Whites to be referred for further

juvenile processing in jurisdictions withless economic inequality and less beliefin racial differences.

These studies each identified a simi-lar trend in decision making. Althoughsocial factors remained significant, theirimportance did not negate race as anindependently contributing factor injuvenile justice system decision making.The research also suggested that deci-sion making on the part of juvenile jus-tice officials might be closely linked totheir perceptions about the suitability ofAfrican American juvenile treatment forrehabilitation.

Peameptions of Suitabilityfor Treahment

As noted earlier, the juvenile justice sys-tem was developed specifically to pro-vide treatment and rehabilitation(Redding, 1999). It can be argued, there-fore, that further progression into thissystem and/or transfer to the criminaljustice system is indicative of a beliefamong system officials that the allegedoffender is a less appropriate candidatefor treatment. Informal processing anddiversion is predicated on the belief thatthe youth is suitable for treatment andcould benefit from rehabilitation. If thisargument is taken further, it should fol-

low that when legal and social factorsare held constant, juveniles arrested fordelinquent acts would receive diversion-ary or informal processing in equal pro-portion to their respective ethnicgroup's presence within the overalljuvenile delinquent population.

Empirical reports indicate, however,that African Americans are less likely toreceive diversionary programming. Inan examination of mental health place-ment choices, African American youthwere significantly less likely to beplaced in mental health facilities thantheir White counterparts with similar

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN m SEPT/OCT 2006 m 55

offenses (Herz, 2001). Leiber and Mack(2003) found that African Americanyouth of similar family backgrounds,educational status, criminal back-grounds, and charged with similarcrimes were 3 % less likely to be referredfor informal/diversionary programmingthan were White youth. Likelihood ofdiversionary punishment for Whiteyouth was influenced at each step byfamily status and gender (Leiber &Mack, 2003). In a multijurisdictionalstudy of juvenile courts in Iowa, AfricanAmericans were significantly (p = .01)less likely to receive diversionary pro-gramming than Whites in all jurisdic-tions of the state (Leiber & Stairs, 1999).

Results of these studies support thetheory that some juvenile justice offi-cials make decisions based on a beliefthat African American families are dys-functional and unable to control or par-ent their children effectively. AfricanAmerican males are often thought to beaggressive, violent, dangerous, andlacking the discipline necessary torefrain from criminal behavior (Leiber &Mack, 2003). These attitudes are alsoreinforced in the media, who ofteninspire fear about African Americanyouth. The public then responds byelecting judges and prosecutors whofavor more harsh interventions and con-sequences.

The cumulative effects of these per-ceptions on juvenile justice system deci-sion making were illustrated in a studyof attribution assignment of the criminalbehaviors of juvenile delinquents.Hellriegel and Yates (1999) examined233 probation officer reports to deter-mine differences in officers' perceptionsof attribution (e.g., negative internal vs.external and positive internal vs. exter-nal) by race. The authors reported thatofficials consistently attributed thecrimes of African American juvenileoffenders to negative internal attributes,whereas the crimes of White youth were

56 n COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

attributed to negative external attrib-utes. Officers also presumed thatAfrican American youth were more like-ly to become repeat offenders than wereWhite youth. Officer reports were morelikely to include negative internal attri-bution information and less likely toattribute crimes to negative external fac-tors if the youths were AfricanAmerican (Hellriegel & Yates). Assign-ment of each of these attributions wasfound to be statistically significant bythe race of the youth, independent ofthe seriousness of the offense and theyouth's criminal background.

The results of this study indicate thatAfrican American youth are more fre-quently seen as responsible for theircrimes, more likely to become repeatoffenders, and more deserving of retri-bution. Conversely, White youth weremore frequently viewed as victims ofenvironmental factors, less likely tobecome repeat offenders, and moredeserving of some degree of leniency inpunishments imposed.

Implications for Practice andTeacher Education

Teachers and teacher educators of at-risk minority youth can play a signifi-cant role in ameliorating the trends thatlead to youths' involvement with thecriminal justice system. Research on theimpact of critical pedagogy among edu-cators who work with these studentsshows that developing an instructionalframework that includes sustainedattention to social and political stratifi-cations leads to greater social con-sciousness and opportunities for appro-priate learning of social justice (Kanpol,1999; Shor, 1997). The implication isthat when educators are trained to seethemselves as mediators of students'social and political consciousness, theybecome uniquely positioned to help stu-dents impede partiality and bigotrythrough awareness and correspondingaction. Another implication for practiceincludes attention to strategies that cul-tivate sustained inquiry and activelearning among at-risk populations(Shor). The Alliance for ExcellentEducation's (2004) national report oninstruction and programs for at-riskadolescents paid primary attention to

literacy instruction as a means to equipstudents with the wherewithal to criti-cize their social situation and the cogni-tive aptitude to navigate texts and rhet-oric that might oppress them. Thereport notes that good programs forchallenged students (a) are flexibleenough to allow for students' different

learning styles, backgrounds, abilities,and interests; (b) are age appropriate;

(c) address the issue of motivation as itapplies to learning; (d) encourage stu-dents to read for knowledge both indi-vidually and cooperatively; (e) stress

comprehension of multiple texts; and (f)make assessments a regular, ongoing,authentic extension of instruction. Inconcert, these strategies and foci serveto ready teachers and teacher educatorswith the abilities required to address theneeds of at-risk minority students whomay have already encountered thepenal system.

Summary and Conclusions

The findings in the current literaturereported in this review do not negatethe theories that propose that high ratesof crime among African American youthare the result of historical, systemic,socioeconomic, educational, familial,and cultural factors prevalent in theAfrican American community. However,the findings are not sufficient to con-clude that the delinquent behaviors thatmay occur as a consequence of thesefactors explain the disproportionateconfinement of minority youth. Instead,the findings indicate that disproportion-ate minority confinement occurs evenwhen social and legal factors are heldconstant.

We euatos ar ood se

soi nedt oF II es

Shy become uij poll cdt o

bigotr though • rnes rad

cot espondi! action

The inference of these findings incurrent literature is that minority juve-nile offenders are regarded as less suit-

able for rehabilitative treatment thanare their White counterparts because ofrace. Attitudes by gatekeepers within

the juvenile system toward minorityyouth continue to prevent minorityyouth from accessing those servicesand strategies that would enable themto have meaningful rehabilitation.

Consequently, the likelihood thatminority youth will become repeatoffenders and become involved in moreserious crime are increased, and

African American youth become lesshopeful that they can turn their livesaround. The cycle of delinquency andcrime rises, influencing policymaking,reinforcing debilitating stereotypes,and, sadly, not changing behavior forthe better.

Recommendations

Make attempts to remedy overrepresen-tation by minorities within the juvenilejustice system by engaging in moreequitable disciplinary, referral, andplacement practices while students arestill in school. A reduction in segregatedsettings for students with E/BD andminorities and less of a discrepancy indisciplinary practices in educationalexperiences may result in less criminaloffenses from minority youth.

"* Train teachers and administrators atthe school level to be more cultural-ly sensitive and less biased in their

decision making.

"* Develop methods for assessing DMCwithin the juvenile justice system.Individual assessments may allow

jurisdictions to identify officialswhose decision-making tendenciescontribute to DMC. Provide diversity

training or other supportive meas-ures to these officials.

"* Train gatekeepers and decision mak-ers within the criminal justice system

to be more culturally sensitive andless biased in their decision making.

"* Establish more stringent guidelines

for officials to follow when deter-mining which juvenile offenders areremanded to incarceration and

which offenders are diverted to less

confining programs.

Ensure that rehabilitation is made

available to all youth-regardless of

whether they are remanded to or exit-

ed from the juvenile justice system.

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004).How to know a good adolescent literacyprogram when you see one: Quality criteriato consider. Retrieved March 12, 2004 fromhttp://www.all4ed.org/press/pr-060204.htm

Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (1996).Disproportionate minority confinement: Aspecial report from the coalition for juve-nile justice. Washington, DC: Author.

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minoritystudents in special and gifted education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Gordon, R., Piana, L. D., & Keleher, T.(2000). Facing the consequences: Anexamination of racial discrimination inU.S. public schools. Oakland, CA: ERASEInitiative.

Hellriegel, K. L., & Yates, J. R. (1999).Collaboration between correctional andpublic school systems serving juvenileoffenders: A case study. Education andTReatment of Children, 22(1), 51-83.

Herz, D. C. (2001). Understanding the use ofmental health placements by the juvenilejustice system. Journal of EmotionalBehavioral Disorders, 9(3), 172-181.

Juszkiewitcz, J. (2000). Youth crime/adulttime: Is justice served? Building Blocks forYouth. Retrieved October 3, 2001, fromhttp://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/exec.html

Kanpol, B. (1999). Critical pedagogy: Anintroduction. Westport, CT. Bergin Garvey/Greenwood.

Kirsch, I. S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., &Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy inAmerica: A first look at the findings of theNational Adult Literacy Survey. Washing-ton, DC: National Center for EducationStatistics.

Leiber, M. J., & Mack, K. Y. (2003). The indi-vidual and joint effects of race, gender,and family status on juvenile justice deci-sion-making. Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency, 40(1), 34-70.

Leiber, M. J., & Stairs, J. M. (1999). Race,contexts, and the use of intake diversion.Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 36, 56-86.

Lewis, D. 0., Yeager, C. A., Lovely, R., Stein,A., & Cobham-Portorreal, C. S. (1994). Aclinical follow-up of delinquent males:ignored vulnerabilities, unmet needs, andthe perpetuation of violence. Journal ofAmerican Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry, 33(4), 518-528.

Losen, D., & Orfield, G. (2002). Racialinequity in special education. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Macallair D., & Males M. (2004). A failure ofgood intentions: An analysis of juvenilejustice reform in San Francisco during the1990s. Review of Policy Research, 21(1),

63-78.MacDonald, M. & Lisa W (1997). Creating

choices, changing lives: The transforma-tion of women's corrections in Canada.Corrections Today, 63(1), 70-73, 127.

Males, M., & Macallair, D. (2000 January).The color of justice: An analysis of juve-nile justice adult court transfers inCalifornia. Washington, DC: Justice PolicyInstitute.

National Institute for Literacy. Helping equipAmerica for the future. (1999). Washing-ton, DC: Author.

Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. (OJJDP). (1999). Delinquencycases in juvenile courts. Available:http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubResults. asp

Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. (OJJDP). (2002). Dispropor-tionate minority confinement: Update.Available: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/ojjdp/201240.pdf

Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. (OJJDP). (2004). Juvenilecourts statistics. Available: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/209736/index.html

Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L.(1991). An early starter model for predict-ing delinquency. In D. J. Pepler & K. H.Rubin (Eds.), The development and treat-ment of childhood aggression (pp.139-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pope, C., & Feyerherm, W. (1991). Minoritiesin the juvenile justice system. Washington,DC: Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Pope, C. E., & Feyerherm, W. (1995).Minorities in the juvenile justice system:Research summary. Washington, DC:Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Redding, R. E. (1999). Examining legalissues: Juvenile offenders in criminalcourt and adult prison. Corrections Today,61(2), 92-95.

Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Assess-ment (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Shot, I. (1997). When students have power:Negotiating power in a critical pedagogy.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T.(1997). Office referrals and suspension:Disciplinary intervention in middleschools. Education & RTeatment of Child-ren, 20, 295-316.

Townsend, B. L. (2000). The disproportionatediscipline of African American learners:Reducing school suspensions and expul-sions. Exceptional Children, 66, 381-391.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN N SEPT/OCT 2006 u 57

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R.,Hebbeler, K., & Newman, L. (1993). Thetransition experiences of young peoplewith disabilities: A summary of findingsfrom the National Longitudinal TRansitionStudy of special education students. MenloPark, CA: SRI International.

West, C. (1993). Keeping faith: Philosophyand race in America. New York: Rout-ledge.

Wilson, W. J. (1997). When work disappears:The world of the new urban poor. NewYork: Random House.

Wordes, M., Bynum, T. S., & Corley, C. J.(1994). Locking up youth: The impact ofrace on detention decisions. Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency, 31(2),149-165.

William Drakeford (CEC MD Federation),Assistant Professor; and Jeanine M. Staples(CEC MD Federation), Assistant Professor,Special Education Department, University ofMaryland, College Park.

Address correspondence to Jeanine M.Staples, 1308 Benjamin Building, Universityof Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 (e-mail:staples@ umd. edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 39,No. 1, pp. 52-58.

Copyright 2006 CEC.

The Council for Exceptional Childre,2006 Policy and Practice Web SemriCEC's WEB SEMINARS series brings Special Educatioexperts directly to your computer. Each 90-minute sifeatures leaders in the field who will share their expiand answer your questions regarding current issuesaffecting the Special Education field.

The Benefits:

/ Have your questions heard and answered: Parti(in a live Q&A with the experts; submit your que,over the telephone or via the Internet.

/Provide your staff with expert training without eleaving your school: Educators and administrateparticipate together, on-site, to ensure your entibenefits!

/ Earn CEUs: Participants will qualify for .15 ContiEducation Units (CEUs) for each 90-minute serrcompleted.

The Schedule:Visit www.cec.sped.org for the official schedule andof presenters as they are announced!

The Cost:Members $250/per seminarNon-members $300/per seminar

All you need is a computer, telephone, and Internet connection to gaccess to view the slides and to be an active participant via the web.

rSPEDdegreeonline]

Connect directly withthe experts with just a

computer, telephone, andInternet connectionl

The Fall 2006 Series:Subjects to cover both sides ofPolicy and Practice including:

* Response to Intervention (RTI)

* Highly Qualified Teachers

* Testing Accommodations

Stay tuned to www.cec.sped.orgfor the official schedule and listof presenters!

� Council forExceptionalChildren

The oc and Asion of sCalo 00ou on

AddressingOver-Representationof African American

Students inSpecial Education

The PrereferralIntervention Process

An Administrator's Guide

This easy-to-use guideaddresses the impact of

special education referraland classification processes

on African-Americanstudents. The book

describes prereferralintervention processes andthe effect of school climateon overrepresentation and

offers suggestions forinvolving families. The

guide also offersrecommendations foraction and includes

resources and references.

ISBN: 0-86586-955-346 pages

Stock #P5520

Members $16.95NonMembers $20.95

To order call 1-800-224-6830or visit us online atwww.cec.sped.org

0i• Council fbr

ExceptionalChildren

The ,voe orra ,4sn of pCflO eCouCatf

58 m COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Minority Confinement in the Juvenile Justice System:Legal, Social, and

SOURCE: Teaching Exceptional Children 39 no1 S/O 2006PAGE(S): 52-8

WN: 0624400442011

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.cec.sped.org/

Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.