The Disproportionate Overrepresentation of Minority Youth in ...

418
family cooperativeness or deficiences in the youths’ background (e.g., school or family)
may explain these occurrences. Alternatively, the perceived uncooperativeness and/or
deficiences in background may reflect biases. A number of options are available to
address this issue.
The first is to place intake decision making in the control of the prosecutor’s
office which would promote most likely decision making based more on legalistic criteria
than extralegal criteria (e.g., educational problems). A second option is to change the
state law so that an admission of guilt is not a prerequisite for participating in an informal
adjustment. All that would be needed then is an indication from the youth he/she would
be willing to abide by the stipulated conditions. Utilizing a liaison at intake could be a
third option. The use of a liaison at this point could possibly offer insights and dismiss or
reduce distrust and tension that may exist between the juvenile court officers, the youth,
and the parents.
These options are not mutually exclusive but rather they are interrelated efforts.
The adoption of one of these options or all three would most likely lead to the reduction
in the differential treatment of minority youth at the stage of intake.
Recommendation: Place Intake Decision Making in the
Prosecutor’s Office and/or Omit the
Admission of Guilt at Intake From State
Law and/or Utilize Liaison Worker.
Last, further research is needed to assess police interactions with minority youth
and lower-class youth overall.