寄养青少年是否面临更严厉的少年司法结果?重新调查少年司法处理中的儿童福利偏见

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Ezra G. Goldstein, Sarah A. Font, Reeve S. Kennedy, Christian M. Connell, Allison E. Kurpiel
{"title":"寄养青少年是否面临更严厉的少年司法结果?重新调查少年司法处理中的儿童福利偏见","authors":"Ezra G. Goldstein, Sarah A. Font, Reeve S. Kennedy, Christian M. Connell, Allison E. Kurpiel","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research summaryFor decades, child welfare scholars and policy makers have been concerned with the strong association between foster care and juvenile justice involvement. Foster care placement may lead to differences in justice system outcomes if youth in foster care face “processing bias”—differentially harsh treatment by agents of the juvenile court. Previous research found that youth in foster care at the time of juvenile justice contact were treated more harshly by the court, resulting in higher rates of punitive case outcomes. We revisit the question of processing bias using detailed administrative data on more than 10,000 adolescents in Pennsylvania in 2015–2019 and a selection‐on‐observables design. We find no evidence of processing bias against youth in foster care. Compared to observationally equivalent cases, those that involve youth in foster care do not experience more punitive outcomes. If anything, our estimates suggest the opposite—youth in foster care are less likely to have a charge adjudicated, be placed under court‐ordered supervision, or enter into juvenile detention. The precision of our estimates and bounding exercises allow us to rule out even modest evidence of punitive processing bias.Policy implicationsThis paper highlights the importance of revisiting the evidence of processing bias within juvenile justice and child welfare agencies. Given the decentralized and continuously evolving nature of these systems, local jurisdictions should investigate their own case outcomes and contexts before implementing reforms to address bias. Yet, many lack the resources for such research and federal support is essential to enhance local data analysis capabilities, promoting more tailored and effective policy reforms. Initiatives that aim to integrate data from multiple systems can better understand and address the needs of overlapping populations, ultimately improving the quality of services and outcomes.","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do foster youth face harsher juvenile justice outcomes? Reinvestigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice processing\",\"authors\":\"Ezra G. Goldstein, Sarah A. Font, Reeve S. Kennedy, Christian M. Connell, Allison E. Kurpiel\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1745-9133.12689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research summaryFor decades, child welfare scholars and policy makers have been concerned with the strong association between foster care and juvenile justice involvement. Foster care placement may lead to differences in justice system outcomes if youth in foster care face “processing bias”—differentially harsh treatment by agents of the juvenile court. Previous research found that youth in foster care at the time of juvenile justice contact were treated more harshly by the court, resulting in higher rates of punitive case outcomes. We revisit the question of processing bias using detailed administrative data on more than 10,000 adolescents in Pennsylvania in 2015–2019 and a selection‐on‐observables design. We find no evidence of processing bias against youth in foster care. Compared to observationally equivalent cases, those that involve youth in foster care do not experience more punitive outcomes. If anything, our estimates suggest the opposite—youth in foster care are less likely to have a charge adjudicated, be placed under court‐ordered supervision, or enter into juvenile detention. The precision of our estimates and bounding exercises allow us to rule out even modest evidence of punitive processing bias.Policy implicationsThis paper highlights the importance of revisiting the evidence of processing bias within juvenile justice and child welfare agencies. Given the decentralized and continuously evolving nature of these systems, local jurisdictions should investigate their own case outcomes and contexts before implementing reforms to address bias. Yet, many lack the resources for such research and federal support is essential to enhance local data analysis capabilities, promoting more tailored and effective policy reforms. Initiatives that aim to integrate data from multiple systems can better understand and address the needs of overlapping populations, ultimately improving the quality of services and outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminology & Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminology & Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12689\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12689","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究摘要 几十年来,儿童福利学者和政策制定者一直在关注寄养与青少年司法参与之间的密切联系。如果寄养青少年面临 "处理偏差"--受到少年法庭工作人员不同程度的严厉对待,那么寄养安置可能会导致司法系统结果的差异。以往的研究发现,寄养青少年在接触少年司法时会受到法院更严厉的对待,从而导致更高的惩罚性案件结果。我们使用宾夕法尼亚州 2015-2019 年超过 10,000 名青少年的详细行政数据,并采用观察选择设计,重新审视了处理偏差问题。我们没有发现针对寄养青少年的处理偏差证据。与观察到的同等案件相比,涉及寄养青少年的案件并没有经历更多的惩罚性结果。如果有的话,我们的估算结果恰恰相反--寄养青少年被判定有罪、接受法庭监管或被青少年拘留的可能性更小。本文强调了重新审视少年司法和儿童福利机构内部处理偏差证据的重要性。鉴于这些系统的分散性和不断演变的性质,地方司法机构在实施改革以解决偏差问题之前,应调查自己的案件结果和背景。然而,许多地方缺乏开展此类研究的资源,因此联邦的支持对于提高地方数据分析能力、促进更有针对性和更有效的政策改革至关重要。旨在整合多个系统数据的举措可以更好地了解和解决重叠人群的需求,最终提高服务质量和成果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do foster youth face harsher juvenile justice outcomes? Reinvestigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice processing
Research summaryFor decades, child welfare scholars and policy makers have been concerned with the strong association between foster care and juvenile justice involvement. Foster care placement may lead to differences in justice system outcomes if youth in foster care face “processing bias”—differentially harsh treatment by agents of the juvenile court. Previous research found that youth in foster care at the time of juvenile justice contact were treated more harshly by the court, resulting in higher rates of punitive case outcomes. We revisit the question of processing bias using detailed administrative data on more than 10,000 adolescents in Pennsylvania in 2015–2019 and a selection‐on‐observables design. We find no evidence of processing bias against youth in foster care. Compared to observationally equivalent cases, those that involve youth in foster care do not experience more punitive outcomes. If anything, our estimates suggest the opposite—youth in foster care are less likely to have a charge adjudicated, be placed under court‐ordered supervision, or enter into juvenile detention. The precision of our estimates and bounding exercises allow us to rule out even modest evidence of punitive processing bias.Policy implicationsThis paper highlights the importance of revisiting the evidence of processing bias within juvenile justice and child welfare agencies. Given the decentralized and continuously evolving nature of these systems, local jurisdictions should investigate their own case outcomes and contexts before implementing reforms to address bias. Yet, many lack the resources for such research and federal support is essential to enhance local data analysis capabilities, promoting more tailored and effective policy reforms. Initiatives that aim to integrate data from multiple systems can better understand and address the needs of overlapping populations, ultimately improving the quality of services and outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Criminology & Public Policy
Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Criminology & Public Policy is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to policy discussions of criminology research findings. Focusing on the study of criminal justice policy and practice, the central objective of the journal is to strengthen the role of research findings in the formulation of crime and justice policy by publishing empirically based, policy focused articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信