You may click here for a printable Adobe Acrobat PDF version of this article.

More minority youths than whites tried as adults

by Patty Machelor, Arizona Daily Star, October 1, 2002

Pima County's minority youths are being transferred to adult courtrooms at a rate far exceeding that of their white counterparts, according to a new Arizona Supreme Court study.

The Court's Commission on Minorities' report, "Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth in the Arizona Juvenile Justice System," finds Pima County fares worse than Maricopa County in several areas.

"The data basically shows that we've got some significant increases in Pima County that are not reflected in Maricopa County. Why, we're really not sure," said Jon Perez, the commission's committee chairman.

The report, based on 2000 data, was released late last week. It's a follow-up to a 1990 examination of minority youth in the two counties' juvenile justice systems.

Perez said that while the findings show minority youths are still overrepresented in both counties, there also have been improvements. "Not that things are equitable yet, because they certainly are not," he said.

The report shows the number of white youths in Pima County transferred for adult prosecution declined 47 percent between 1990 and 2000, while the percentage of Hispanic youths transferred to adult court increased by 43 percent.

The rate for black youths being transferred to adult court in Pima doubled from 1.6 youths per 1,000 to 3.2 per 1,000.

American Indian youths transferred to Pima County adult court were not included.

One contributing factor could be a 1996 change in law that mandates an automatic transfer for any juvenile 15 or older who commits one or more of several violent offenses. The legislation also gives prosecutors discretion in filing adult charges against juveniles 14 and older for certain felonies.

"We certainly don't look at their ethnic background in making a decision," Deputy County Attorney Clint Stinson said of deciding which juveniles get referred to adult court. "If there are more Hispanics committing those crimes, for example, I would assume that would be who we're sending to the adult court."

Richard Wood, interim director of the county's Juvenile Court, said he had not read the report and could not comment.

Presiding Juvenile Court Judge Hector Campoy said the criminal justice system is a microcosm of society that should not be judged alone. He said a number of societal factors in the minority population contribute, such as poverty rates, inadequate prenatal care and lack of access to education.

Other findings include:

The rate of minority referrals to Juvenile Court decreased between 1990 and 2000 in Maricopa County but not in Pima County.

The number of youths committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections by Maricopa County decreased from 610 to 417 between 1990 and 2000. During the same period there was more than a 50 percent increase in youths committed from Pima County, from 215 in 1990 to 330 commitments in 2000.

At the detention stage, rates decreased in both counties, except detention rates went up for American Indian youths in Maricopa County.

White youths continue to receive probation at a lesser rate than minority youths in Pima County. However, improvements in probation rates for minors are noted among all minority populations except Hispanics, whose rates increased from 38 percent to 44 percent.

In 2000, Hispanic and American Indian youths in Maricopa County were twice as likely to be committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections and black youths were three times likelier to be committed than were white youths. Similar disparities exist in Pima County, the report shows.

People interviewed for the study cited a bias in assessments to determine whether a youth should be detained after being referred to Juvenile Court. The score reportedly increases if transportation is lacking, there is evidence of poverty, a lack of education or parents are not available.

The findings take into account changes in the youth population.

Between 1990 and 2000, white youths in Pima County dropped from 55 percent to 46 percent of the youth population while Hispanic youth numbers increased from 36 percent to 39 percent.

The black population stayed the same at 4 percent while American Indian youths increased from 4 percent to 5 percent.

James Bell, director of the W. Haywood Burns Institute in San Francisco, said his group is working to reduce race disparities in several cities around the country, including Phoenix.

"It is a question of expectation, and I think there are lower expectations for kids of color in the system in terms of where they come from and what they may become," he said. He believes it's an "institutional bias," not racism.

Melissa Sickmund of the National Center for Juvenile Justice said juveniles from more affluent families are better able to avoid the justice system by accessing services outside of it.

The juvenile justice system "has been sort of a system of last resort for minority youths who don't otherwise have access to services," Sickmund said.

Perez said the commission, which will present its findings to Chief Justice Charles E. Jones Oct. 10, will recommend starting a study group on the issue. He hopes they can start issuing yearly report cards on the minority youths in all areas of the criminal justice system, and work to increase the number of service providers in areas where referred minors live.

Steven Drizin, a law professor at Northwestern University's School of Law Legal Clinic, said crime rates are not the only factor in examining young people in the criminal justice system.

"When children of color are involved, they seem to get deeper and deeper in the criminal justice system while for white children, there is a greater effort to keep them from getting into the criminal justice system at just about every point," he said.