Investigating the Impact of Juvenile Court Intake Structures on Decision-Making Outcomes and Inequities in Juvenile Justice

Introduction: Juvenile court intake decisions – the decision to prosecute, divert, or dismiss specific charges – are essential to our juvenile justice system. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes intake procedures as a key feature that distinguishes juvenile courts from criminal courts. Research shows: (a) prosecuting children in minor cases imposes significant harms in academic, behavioral, social, and economic outcomes, (b) large racial disparities exist in intake decisions, (c) intake decisions have grown more punitive, and (d) significant variation exists in intake laws/practices across jurisdictions. However, no empirical studies have investigated the different legal and administrative structures that shape intake decisions, nor have asked how these structures influence decisions. Historically, law and the social sciences have largely worked independently. Contemporaries in the academy have recognized the importance of cross-discipline collaboration, however, particularly in regards to assimilation of data analysis and statistical expertise into legal policy evaluation. The lack of empirical inquiry into intake processes hinders our ability to inform policy, and represents a critical research-to-policy gap that has implications for inequities in the system. Our multidisciplinary research-practice-policy partners will discuss a guiding hypothesis that greater prosecutorial control manifests in more punitive intake decisions and present results from research aimed at investigating this issue.

Method: Juvenile justice intake coordinators, solicitors, and public defenders from all counties (N=46) in SC are completing a mixed-methods survey (current n ~ 110). We developed the survey through an iterative process of expert feedback and pilot testing with individuals in the juvenile justice field. The survey comprises Likert-style and open-ended questions to assess levels of Department of Juvenile Justice and solicitor control in intake decisions. SC represents an ideal place to investigate our hypothesis given the state intake statute is flexible enough to permit different practice across jurisdictions.

Results: We will present quantitative results of our statewide survey to reveal profiles of intake structure control across counties. We will share qualitative findings to characterize how different stakeholders perceive their involvement in the juvenile court intake process.

Conclusions: Data presented will elucidate juvenile intake structure practice and inform the foundation of further inquiry into how differences in these structures – and, more specifically, differences in the relative power of Department of Juvenile Justice staff and prosecutors in locally elected prosecutors’ offices – may influence existing racial disparities in intake decisions.