Juvenile Justice System Outcomes Among Foreign-Born and Native-Born Latinos in the United States

Abstract

A growing body of research has identified a negative relationship between generational status and criminological outcomes such that foreign-born Latinos are significantly less likely to report offending, victimization, and drug use compared to their native-born counterparts. What has been explored to a lesser degree is the extent to which generational status impacts the experiences of Latino youth within the juvenile justice system. Using the Add Health data set, this article explores the prevalence of juvenile court involvement among foreign (i.e., first generation) and native-born (i.e., second generation or higher) Latino youth as well as the types of offenses for which they were adjudicated delinquent. Results suggest that significant differences exist between the foreign and native-born both in terms of juvenile court involvement and offense types. These findings are discussed relative to the extant literature and juvenile justice policy and practice.

Keywords

Latino delinquency juvenile justice processes nativity status immigration status juvenile justice outcomes

Introduction

A growing body of research reveals a significant association between generational status and criminological outcomes among the Latino population in the United States. In particular, first-generation Latinos (i.e., those born outside the United States or foreign-born) are significantly less likely to report offending, victimization, or drug use compared to their native-born (i.e., second-generation or higher) counterparts (Amaro, Whitaker, Coffman, & Heeren, 1990; Buriel, Calzada, & Vasquez, 1982; Chappin & Brook, 2001; Gibson & Miller, 2010; Gilbert, 1987; Lopez & Miller, 2011; Miller, 2012). This somewhat unexpected relationship is often referred to as the “Latino paradox” and was first identified by researchers examining outcomes unrelated to crime, such as educational attainment, health, and psychological well-being (Burnam, Hough, Karno, Escobar, & Telles, 1987; Cortes, 2003; Love, Yin, Codina, & Zapata, 2006; Zambrana, Scrimshaw, Collins, & Dunkel-Schetter, 1997). Overall, prior work suggests that foreign-born Latinos are less likely to experience negative life outcomes, including those related to crime and delinquency.

This Latino paradox is inconsistent with the classical view of the immigrant experience in the United States, which saw assimilation into mainstream American culture as paramount to immigrant groups’ success (Perlmann & Waldinger, 1997; Shaw & McKay, 1942). This view was supported to a great extent by the experiences of those who immigrated to the United States prior to WWII; however, for the post–1965 Cohort (to which most Latino immigrants belong), there is doubt as to whether their experiences will mirror those of their early 20th-century counterparts (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Zhou, 1997). There are several reasons offered to account for these divergent experiences, most notably race/ethnicity (i.e., most of the post–1965 cohort is non-White), location (i.e., many of the post–1965 Cohort, particularly Latinos, reside in disadvantaged neighborhoods), and economy (i.e., contrary to the manufacturing-based economy of the early 20th century, today’s economy resembles an hourglass—jobs at the top requiring advanced training and education and jobs at the bottom paying minimum wage; Portes & Zhou, 1993; Zhou, 1997). Consequently, second-generation and higher immigrants may be blocked from the opportunities available to earlier generations and may be socialized into American society via the native-born poor in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Portes & Zhou, 1993; Zhou, 1997). These negative experiences and lack of economic opportunity coalesce to impact the life outcomes of the second and third generations.

Although research on Latino groups in the United States has increased in recent years, little attention has been directed toward the possible differences in juvenile justice system experiences between native-born and foreign-born Latino youth. Building on the extant literature related to generational status and criminological outcomes, this study explores the prevalence of juvenile justice system involvement among foreign-born and native-born Latino youth to determine if significant differences exist between the two groups. Using the Latino subsample (n = 743; native-born = 547, foreign-born = 196) data from Wave 3 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health; Harris, 2009), the prevalence of police contact, arrest, juvenile court conviction (i.e., adjudicated delinquency in juvenile court), probation, and detention is assessed, as well as the types of offenses with which and for which respondents were charged and adjudicated delinquent. The odds of experiencing at least one police contact, arrest, conviction, probation, or detention relative to nativity status and other demographic variables is also examined.

Prior to presentation of the current analysis, a brief summary of the extant literature is offered. Although no peer-reviewed studies to date have explicitly considered generational status relative to juvenile justice system outcomes, two general areas of research inform this study. First, the role of Latino ethnicity in juvenile justice system outcomes is reviewed since a number of studies, especially in recent years, have shed light on differences in juvenile court outcomes between Latinos and non-Latino Blacks and Whites. Second, a robust literature exists which examines generational status relative to other criminological outcomes, such as drug use, violence, delinquency, gang membership, and criminal victimization. The findings from this body of work also inform the current study’s key hypotheses which predict that foreign-born Latinos will be less likely to report any of the five main juvenile justice system outcomes (i.e., police contact, arrest, juvenile court conviction, probation, and detention).

Background

Race, Ethnicity, and Criminal/Juvenile Justice Outcomes

A considerable amount of prior research has been devoted to investigation of racial and ethnic differences in juvenile justice-related outcomes (Bishop, 2005; Bishop & Leiber, 2011; Howell & Hutto, 2012; Leiber & Mack, 2003; Leiber & Peck, 2013; Rodriguez, 2007, 2010). Past studies have examined a range of outcomes associated with different junctures of the juvenile justice system, including pre-adjudication detention (Frazier & Cochrane, 1986; Rodriguez, 2007), post-adjudication detention (Howell & Hutto, 2012; Leiber, 2013), probation (Howell & Hutto, 2012; Jordan & Freiburger, 2010; Leiber & Peck, 2013), restitution (Howell & Hutto, 2012), jail (Howell & Hutto, 2012; Jordan & Freiburger, 2010), and prison (Jordan & Freiburger, 2010; Kupchik, 2006). While some research has shown that the effects of race or ethnicity are indirect, or that the effects of these variables are mediated by legal factors such as the seriousness of the offense and criminal history (see, e.g., Demuth & Steffensmeier, 2004), generally, Blacks and Latinos are more likely to receive harsh outcomes compared to their White counterparts at nearly every stage of the criminal and juvenile justice system.

Although most of the work devoted to the impact of race and ethnicity on juvenile justice system outcomes focuses on disparities between Blacks and Whites, more recent work has begun to examine Latino experiences in the juvenile justice system (see Leiber & Peck, 2013; Rodriguez, 2007, 2010). Bond-Maupin and Maupin (1998), in an early study of Latinos in the juvenile justice system, found that those referred to court were disproportionately poor, with 63.3% hailing from families with incomes below the median. Their data, drawn from a rural area of New Mexico where Latinos are the numerical majority, also indicated that Latino youth were significantly overrepresented in terms of referrals to juvenile court (92% of those referred were Hispanic relative 82% of the general population) while White youth were significantly underrepresented relative to the overall population (1.4% vs. 16.7%). Interviews with juvenile probation officers sought to contextualize these quantitative findings to understand how ethnicity and class intersects to impact juvenile court outcomes in this particular jurisdiction. Results suggested that because the majority of the local population was Hispanic, as were the majority of juvenile justice system actors, juvenile justice decisions were more complex than traditional interpretations of race/ethnic tensions and discriminations (i.e., racial threat). Probation officers reported that evaluation of the quality of a juvenile’s environment and parents served as an important factor at intake, particularly the decision to detain (Bond-Maupin & Maupin, 1998, p. 382). This study is important in that it was able to parse out the subtler nuances of the effects of ethnicity in areas where Latinos are the numerical majority and dominant group in a given area. These findings are particularly relevant for this study in that they may also provide insight into possible differences in juvenile court outcomes between native and foreign-born Latinos. More recently, Vazsonyi and Chen (2010) examined representative samples from five different racial/ethnic groups, including Latinos, and found that Latinos had a 2-fold increase in the risk for entry to the juvenile justice system relative to each of the four other groups (i.e., African American, Asian American, American Indian, and Caucasian). This study examined nearly 3,000 lower to lower-middle socioeconomic status (SES) youth from a range of racial and ethnic backgrounds and found evidence of disproportionate minority contact only for the Hispanic subjects. Taken together, these studies suggest that juvenile justice outcomes for Hispanics are dependent, in part, upon the samples being analyzed as well as the population characteristics and geographic contexts in which they reside.

Pre-adjudication detention is one area in particular that has received attention in the extant literature, in large part due to its significance for later juvenile justice system junctures such as adjudication and disposition (Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005; Frazier & Cochrane, 1986; Rodriguez, 2007). More specifically, those youth who are detained prior to adjudication are at an increased risk for severe back-end system outcomes such as conviction and detention. Pre-adjudication detention differs from detention as a sentence in that it occurs following arrest and before final juvenile court disposition. Generally, prior studies have found that Latino juveniles are more likely than Whites to be placed in detention (Armstrong & Rodriguez, 2005; Wu, 1997; Wu & Fuentes, 1998), although more recent research paints a somewhat more complicated picture. Rodriguez (2007), for example, in a multilevel analysis, examined how ethnicity influenced detention decisions, both directly and indirectly, and found that the effect of ethnicity varied across communities and that it was mediated by economic and community-level variables such as unemployment and poverty. The findings derived from this analysis were consistent with those of Bond-Maupin and Maupin (1998; reviewed previously) in that community characteristics were important to understanding juvenile court decision making within jurisdictions, particularly for Latinos. Rodriguez’s (2007, p. 649) study indicated that Latinos from high-crime areas were actually less likely to be detained than similarly situated Whites but that they were more likely to be detained regardless of whether they resided in low or high-income communities. Rodriguez interpreted these somewhat paradoxical findings through the lens of the political climate in Arizona (the study’s site) where the external attributes of Latinos (i.e., community characteristics) were found to have stronger effects in predominantly White, higher income areas (Rodriguez, 2007, p. 650).

Rodriguez (2010) also examined how race and ethnicity influenced a wider range of juvenile court outcomes, including diversion, petition, pre-adjudication detention, adjudication, and disposition decisions. Using data from a random sample of youths processed in Arizona, she found that minority youth (Latino, Black, and American Indian) experienced more severe juvenile justice system outcomes than did White youth, generally, but that no significant differences were found between Latinos and Whites with respect to having a petition filed or dismissed by a judge, or receiving an out-of-home placement. Although ethnicity itself was not a direct predictor of having a formal petition filed, Latino youth were significantly more likely (1.25 times) than Whites to be detained prior to adjudication. In turn, youth who were detained prior to adjudication were more likely to be removed from the home or have a petition filed and less likely to have petitions dismissed. In this way, ethnicity acted indirectly through pre-adjudication decisions to disproportionately impact juvenile court outcomes for Latino youth.

Similarly, other research has shown that Latino youth are at greater risk of probation violations while under community supervision (Gies, Cohen, & Villarruel, 2009; Moeller, 2011). These violations, many of them technical¹ in nature, in turn increase the likelihood of placement in secure detention for minority youth (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006, Mendel, 2009). Leiber and Peck’s (2013) recent analysis of the interrelationships among ethnicity and probation violations with juvenile justice decision making produced somewhat inconsistent results. Findings indicated that Latino (and Black) youth received more severe outcomes at various stages in the proceedings, including pre-adjudication detention (consistent with the work of Rodriguez discussed previously). Latino ethnicity was not, however, associated with more severe outcomes post-adjudication such as out-of-home placement or detention. Despite some inconsistent evidence, collectively, these studies support the general idea that Latino ethnicity is a salient factor in juvenile justice system outcomes, but that the relationship is complex and interactive. What has not been examined extensively, however, is how juvenile justice system outcomes vary among Latino youth by generational status. Building on the existing knowledge base, this study explores the prevalence of juvenile court involvement among foreign (i.e., first generation) and native-born (i.e., second generation and higher) Latinos in a nationally representative sample. Further, this study extends this area of inquiry by examining generational differences in the types of offenses for which court involved youth were adjudicated delinquent.

Generational Status and Criminological Outcomes Among Latinos

While no published study to date has explicitly considered the role of generational status on juvenile court outcomes among Latino youth, there is a considerable body of work from which to formulate basic hypotheses about the relationships. As noted earlier, increased attention has been afforded to generational status, or acculturation, in the study of Latino crime and delinquency. Much of this work has been motivated by the Latino paradox which was first identified by researchers from the health sciences (see, e.g., Cagney, Browning, & Wallace, 2007; Cobas, Balcazar, Benin, Keith, & Chong, 1996; Palloni & Arias, 2004). These studies suggest that foreign-born Latinos tend to experience better health outcomes relative to the native-born in similar socioeconomic situations. These observations have been labeled as paradoxical in that foreign-born Latinos, given their relatively low SES, are expected to share experiences similar to those of the native poor. However, nativity appears to serve as a protective factor for this group, although the effect has been shown to be strongest within the context of ethnic enclaves (Cagney et al., 2007). Social scientists have extended this line of inquiry to assess if the same is true for behavioral outcomes as well, including crime, delinquency, victimization, and drug use.

Consistent with work from other disciplines, prior studies have found that second-generation, or native-born, Latinos are more likely to experience a range of negative criminological outcomes, including drug use and abuse (Amaro et al., 1990; Chappin & Brook, 2001; Gilbert, 1987; Miller, 2011), delinquency (Buriel et al., 1982; Gibson & Miller, 2010; Lopez & Miller, 2011), and victimization (Gibson & Miller, 2010; Miller, 2012). Regarding drug use, empirical analyses have long indicated that native-born and more acculturated Latinos are significantly more likely to use or abuse substances. Prior work has shown that more acculturated or native-born Latinos are more likely to use both licit substances such as alcohol and tobacco (Caetano, 1987; de la Rosa, 1998; Gilbert, 1987; Marin, Perez-Stable, & Marin, 1989; Neff, Hoppe, & Perea, 1987) and illicit substances such as marijuana (Amaro et al., 1990; Miller, Miller, Yin, & Zapata, 2008), cocaine (Amaro et al., 1990; Miller et al., 2008), and inhalants (Barrett, Joe, & Simpson, 1991). Similarly, other research has shown that native-born and more acculturated Latinos are more likely to engage in violent delinquency (Gibson & Miller, 2010).² Gibson and Miller (2010) also found that second generation Latinos were significantly more likely to report being violently victimized compared to their first generation counterparts. Based on these findings, and consistent with the Latino paradox, this study hypothesizes that native-born Latinos will be more likely to report contact with and involvement in the juvenile justice system, and to have been charged and convicted with more serious offenses.

The Current Study

Researchers have devoted considerable effort in recent years toward understanding the experiences of Latino immigrants, particularly as they relate to crime and delinquency. Prior work has linked nativity and acculturation to a wide range of social outcomes, including crime, delinquency, and victimization. What has yet to be explored, however, is the association between nativity status (i.e., native-born vs. foreign-born) and juvenile justice system outcomes, such as police contact, arrest, and juvenile court adjudication. This exploratory, descriptive study seeks to address this gap in the literature by assessing group differences across five main juvenile justice system outcomes (police contact, arrest, juvenile court conviction, probation, and detention) and across a range of offenses. Using data from Wave 3 of the Add Health, I analyze the prevalence of juvenile justice system outcomes, including the specific charges with which and for which respondents were adjudicated delinquent (i.e., conviction). Based on the extant literature, I hypothesize that native-born Latinos will be more likely to report police contact, arrest, juvenile court conviction, probation, or detention compared to their foreign-born counterparts even after controlling for demographic factors such as age, sex, and SES, and that they will be charged and adjudicated delinquent for more serious offenses.

Method

Data and Sample

This study employs data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health; Harris, 2009), a longitudinal (Wave 4), nationally representative sample of adolescents enrolled in U.S. middle and high schools (Grades 7–12) during the 1994–1995 school year. The initial sample consisted of approximately 90,000 respondents who were queried via the in-school self-report survey about their behavior, families, and peers (among other topics). During 1995, a subsample (n = 20,745) of the original sample was selected for the in-home interview portion of the study. Since this first wave of the survey, three additional rounds of data were collected including Wave 2 in 1996, Wave 3 in 2001–2002, and Wave 4 in 2007–2008. The data used for this analysis are drawn primarily from Wave 3 when respondents were in their late teens and early 20s and were asked about their prior involvement in the juvenile justice system. This analysis utilizes the publicly available Wave 3 data which consists of 6,504 adults, 743 of whom self-identified as Latino during the initial wave of data collection.³

Variables

Juvenile justice system involvement

Five variables were utilized to assess juvenile justice system involvement. All five measures are dichotomous and reflect whether the respondent has ever, as a juvenile, been stopped by police (i.e., police contact), arrested (i.e., arrest), convicted (i.e., conviction), was sentenced to probation (i.e., probation), or detention (i.e., detention).⁴ All responses are coded where 1 = yes and 0 = no.

Nativity

Respondents were asked to report if they had been born in the United States (i.e., native-born, second generation or higher) or elsewhere (i.e., foreign-born, first generation). This measure is dichotomous and coded where 1 = native-born (n = 547) and 0 = foreign-born (n = 196).

Types of crimes by charges and convictions

For those who have been arrested and charged with a crime, the Wave 3 in-home questionnaire asked respondents to identify the types of crimes with which and for which they were charged and convicted. These measures are also dichotomous and reflect if they respondent was charged and/or convicted for each of the particular offenses listed in the survey. A total of 16 offenses are examined here and can be found in Appendix A and listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Prevalence of Police Contact, Arrest, and Juvenile Court Conviction by Nativity.

	Total (%)	Native-Born Latinos (%)	Foreign-Born Latinos (%)
Police contact	20.5	21.6	16.5*
Arrest	11.4	9.8	6.9*
Conviction	3.4	3.4	3.4
Probation only	2.1	1.8	3.4*
Detention	.8	1.0	0*

*Significant χ², p < .0001.

Table 2.

Juvenile Court Charges by Nativity.

Offense Charge	Total (%)	Native-Born Latinos (%)	Foreign-Born Latinos (%)
Assault	1.3	1.5	.9*
Robbery	.7	.9	0*
Theft	1.2	1.5	0*
Possession of stolen property	.2	.2	0*
Destruction of property	.9	.9	.9
Possession/use of Marijuana	.9	1.2	0*
Sale of Marijuana	.2	.2	0*
Possession of other drug	0	0	0
Sale of other drug	.2	.2	0*
Major traffic charge	.4	.5	0*
Purchase/use of alcohol	1.2	1.2	.9*
Animal abuse	0	0	0
Illegal firearm	.2	.2	0*
Solicitation	0	0	0
Other felony	.6	.2	1.7*
Other misdemeanor	1.9	1.7	2.6*

*Significant χ², p < .0001.

Demographics

Three variables were included for the purpose of demographic controls. Age was measured continuously in years and sex was a dichotomous variable where male = 1. Finally, low SES was measured by creating a proxy dummy variable drawn from the parental questionnaire during Wave 1 which queried guardians on whether the family was in receipt of public assistance (1 = received public assistance).

Analytic Technique

The analysis proceeded as follows: First, descriptive statistics were generated in order to assess the prevalence of the five main juvenile justice system outcomes for both native-born and foreign-born Latinos. Next, descriptive statistics were used to examine the prevalence of the 16 offense types, by both charges and convictions, queried in Wave 3. Then, to assess variation in the prevalence of the outcomes between the two groups, χ² analyses were employed. χ² tests are utilized to explore differences in proportions; in this case, the χ² was used to identify significant differences in the prevalence of juvenile justice system outcomes between foreign-born and native-born Latinos. Finally, logistic regression is used to examine the odds of each of the five main juvenile justice system outcomes (police contact, arrest, conviction, probation, and detention) relative to nativity and the three demographic control variables.

Findings

Table 1 presents the findings from the prevalence analysis as well as the χ² tests. While approximately one in five Latino respondents (20.5%) reported having at least one police contact while under the age of 18, this varied significantly by nativity status. A greater proportion of native-born (i.e., second generation or higher) Latinos (21.4%) were stopped by the police than foreign-born (i.e., first generation) Latinos (16.4%), a difference that was statistically significant ( p < .0001). Similarly, a greater proportion of native-born Latinos (12.6%) were arrested by the police than foreign-born Latinos (6.9%), a difference that was also statistically significant ( p < .0001). The prevalence of juvenile justice court conviction did not, however, vary significantly by nativity, with an equal proportion of both groups responding in the affirmative. More specifically, 3.4% of both native and foreign-born Latinos reported having been convicted or pleading guilty in juvenile court. A greater proportion of foreign-born Latinos (3.4%) received a sentence of probation only compared to native-born Latinos (1.8%), a difference that was statistically significant ( p < .0001). However, a greater proportion of native-born Latinos (1.0%) were sentenced to detention, compared to none of the foreign-born Latino respondents (0%). This difference was also statistically significant ( p < .0001).

Table 2 displays the juvenile court charges for the sample as a whole and by nativity status. Significant differences ( p < .0001) in the types of charges were found for 12 of the 16 offenses, including assault (1.5% native-born vs. .9% foreign-born), robbery (.9% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), theft (1.5% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), possession of stolen property (.2% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), possession/use of marijuana (1.2% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), sale of marijuana (.2% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), sale of other drug (.2% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), major traffic charge (.5% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), purchase/use of alcohol (1.2% native-born vs. .9% foreign-born), illegal firearm (.2% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), other felony (.2% native-born vs. 1.7% foreign-born), and other misdemeanor (1.7% native-born vs. 2.6% foreign-born). Native-born Latinos were more likely to have been charged with all but two of these, “other felony” and “other misdemeanor.”

Table 3 reveals the juvenile court convictions for the sample as a whole and by nativity status. Again, significant differences in the types of offenses for which respondents were convicted were identified through the χ² analysis. Specifically, significant differences were found for 7 of the 16 offenses, including assault (.5% native-born vs. .9% foreign-born), robbery (.7% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), theft (1.2% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), possession of other drug (.2% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), major traffic charge (.5% native-born vs. 0% foreign-born), purchase/use of alcohol (.2% native-born vs. .9% foreign-born), and other misdemeanor (.5% native-born vs. .9% foreign-born). A significantly larger proportion of native-born Latinos were convicted of robbery, theft, possession of other drug, and a major traffic charge, while a significantly larger proportion of foreign-born Latinos were convicted of assault, purchase/use of alcohol, and other misdemeanors.

Table 3.

Juvenile Court Convictions by Nativity.

Offense Conviction	Total (%)	Native-Born Latinos (%)	Foreign-Born Latinos (%)
Assault	.6	.5	.9*
Robbery	.6	.7	0*
Theft	1.2	1.2	0*
Possession of stolen property	0	0	0
Destruction of property	.4	.2	0
Possession/use of Marijuana	0	0	0
Sale of Marijuana	0	0	0
Possession of other drug	.2	.2	0*
Sale of other drug	0	0	0
Major traffic charge	.4	.5	0*
Purchase/use of alcohol	.2	.2	.9*
Animal abuse	0	0	0
Illegal firearm	0	0	0
Solicitation	0	0	0
Other felony	0	0	0
Other misdemeanor	.6	.5	.9*

*Significant χ², p < .0001.

The results from the logistic regression models are presented in Table 4. Both bivariate and multivariate findings indicate inconsistent odds across the five outcomes relative to nativity status. Bivariate regression results are reported first. Specifically, native-born Latinos were significantly more likely to report both contact with the police (odds ratio [OR] = 1.752, p < .0001) and arrest (OR = 1.207, p < .0001). Conversely, however, native-born Latinos were significantly less likely to report a juvenile court conviction (OR = .497, p < .0001). The models predicting receiving a sentence of probation and detention revealed insignificant findings for the nativity variable. Overall, native-born Latinos have greater odds of being either stopped by police or arrested, while foreign-born Latinos have a greater likelihood of actually being convicted once charged. Nativity status did not significantly increase the odds of either probation or detention. Findings from the multivariate models were similar to the bivariate logistic models in that nativity status remained significantly related to police contact with native-born Latinos more than 1.5 times more likely to have been stopped by the police (OR = 1.688, p < .0001). Males also reported significantly higher odds of police contact (OR = 5.699, p < .0001) while low SES (OR = .829, p < .0001) and age (OR = .878, p < .0001) were both inversely and significantly related to being stopped by the police. Nativity status significantly increased the odds of arrest as well (OR = 1.291, p < .0001), as did being male (OR = 1.359, p < .0001), older (OR = 1.001, p < .0001), and receiving public assistance (OR = 1.060, p < .0001). Similarly, once the demographic variables were included in the model, nativity continued to significantly increase the odds of conviction but in the opposite direction. More specifically, as in the bivariate models, foreign-born Latinos were actually more likely to be adjudicated delinquent (i.e., convicted) than were the native-born (OR = .568, p < .0001), despite being less likely to report police contact or arrest.

Table 4.

Logistic Models Regressing Nativity and Control Variables on Juvenile Justice System Outcomes.^a

	Police Contact	Arrest	Conviction
	B (SE) OR	B (SE) OR	B (SE) OR
Native-born	.524 (.005) 1.688*	.255 (.009) 1.291*	−.566 (.016) .568*
Sex	1.740 (.004) 5.699*	.307 (.007) 1.359*	−712 (.017) .491*
Age	−.130 (.001) .878*	.011 (.002) 1.011*	−387 (.004) .679*
Low SES	−.187 (.006) .829*	.059 (.011) 1.060*	—

Note. SES = socioeconomic status; SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio.

^aOnly multivariate models are shown. Probation and detention models are not shown due to limited “n.”

*p < .0001.

Discussion

Summary of Findings

Prior research suggests that Latinos are treated more harshly in the juvenile justice system when compared to their White counterparts. Fewer studies have examined within-group differences among Latinos residing in the United States. This study assessed the prevalence of various juvenile justice system outcomes among a sample of native-born and foreign-Latinos in order to identify possible group differences. This exploratory analysis considered five main juvenile justice system outcomes (police contact, arrest, conviction, probation, and detention) as well as differences across 16 types of offenses. Consistent with the study’s hypotheses, results suggested that significant differences exist between the two groups relative to police contact, arrest, probation, and detention, while the proportion of both foreign-born and native-born Latinos that reported having been adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court was equal (3.4% of both groups reported being convicted in juvenile court). Consistent with the proposed hypotheses, a greater proportion of native-born Latinos reported police contact, arrest, and detention, while a greater proportion of foreign-born Latinos reported being sentenced to probation. Findings from the bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models indicated that being native-born was significantly and positively related to police contact and arrest. Conversely, and inconsistent with the study’s hypotheses, being native-born also significantly decreased the likelihood of being convicted. Regression models also revealed that nativity was not significantly associated with the likelihood of either of the two sentences considered here: probation and detention.

The types of offenses for which and with which the groups were charged and adjudicated delinquent also varied considerably. Native-born Latinos were more likely to be charged with violent crimes such as assault, robbery, and firearm offenses, as well as other property and vice crimes including theft, possession of stolen property, possession or sale of marijuana, the sale of drugs other than marijuana, and the purchase/use of alcohol. The foreign-born were more likely to be charged with “other” felonies or misdemeanors. Unfortunately, because of the design of the Add Health, we are unable to determine what these types of offenses were specifically. The native-born were more likely to be convicted for robbery, theft, and possession of drugs other than marijuana while the foreign-born were more likely to be convicted of assault, the purchase/use of alcohol, and other misdemeanors.

This study hypothesized that native-born Latinos would be more likely to report contact with the juvenile justice system (via the five main variables considered) and more likely to be charged with and convicted of more serious offenses. The results provided mixed support for these propositions. A greater proportion of the native-born reported contact with police, arrest, probation, and detention, but not conviction. Being native-born increased the likelihood of contact with police or arrest but decreased the likelihood of conviction, suggesting that despite being less likely to draw the initial attention of the juvenile justice system overall (via police contact and arrest), immigrant youth are not protected from more severe outcomes at later stages in the decision-making process. Generally, the native-born were charged with more serious offenses but were not necessarily more likely to be convicted for them. The native-born were more likely to be charged and convicted of robbery and theft while the foreign-born were more likely to be convicted of assault (despite the native-born being more likely to have been charged with assault).

Policy Implications

It is not clear from the current analysis why immigrant youth are more likely to be convicted, but it is possible that these youth are viewed differently by the juvenile justice system because of their nativity status. In studies that have used primarily Latinos samples, researchers have found that class impacts juvenile justice decision making when ethnicity is held constant, such that poor Latinos were significantly more likely to be referred to juvenile court compared to middle- or working-class Latino youth (Bond-Maupin & Maupin, 1998). It is possible that nativity status represents a proxy for social class.

Alternatively, foreign-born youth may be labeled by the juvenile court as more threatening than native-born youth. This interpretation may be viewed as a variant of the racial threat hypothesis (Liska, 1992), wherein immigrant status becomes a proxy for racial threat. Prior research on race and ethnicity in criminal justice processing (i.e., adults) has suggested that the Latino effect may be attributable to immigrant threat and flight risk (see Butcher & Piehl, 2000; Demuth & Steffensmeier, 2004). Butcher and Piehl (2000), in an analysis of California prison admissions over a 10-year period, revealed that foreign-born Latinos were significantly more likely to have been incarcerated than their native-born counterparts. The findings from this analysis of back-end criminal justice outcomes are consistent with those of this study that found the foreign-born were more likely to have been convicted in juvenile court (i.e., adjudicated delinquent). These hypotheses are better tested, however, through the use of data drawn from juvenile court sources (see, e.g., Rodriguez, 2007). While the Add Health data are advantageous for a number of empirical inquiries, extensive investigation of juvenile justice outcomes may be better executed with official data containing large enough sample sizes of native-born and foreign-born Latinos to draw meaningful multivariate inferences on specific adjudication outcomes such as detention or community supervision. Latino respondents represented only 11% of the Add Health sample and while this number is large enough to conduct various multivariate analyses (n = 743), recall that only 3.4% of the sample reported ever being convicted in juvenile court. Consequently, future research should look to larger samples of juvenile justice-involved youth.

This study suggests that, similar to findings on delinquent or criminal behavior more generally, immigrant youth are less likely to report contact with the police or arrest, consistent with the hypotheses offered here and with the Latino paradox. However, contrary to the study’s hypotheses, but consistent with other prior work on nativity in the adult justice system (see Butcher & Piehl, 2000; Demuth & Steffensmeier, 2004), once involved in the juvenile court system, immigrants are more likely to be convicted. These findings are important for policy in that little is known about immigrant youth’s experiences in juvenile court. This study serves as a first step in fleshing out the subtler nuances of court experiences for this rapidly growing segment of the population. Findings such as these inform juvenile justice system policy and practice by revealing intraethnic biases that can result in disproportionate immigrant contact with the justice system. These findings may also inform juvenile justice practitioners as to the disproportionate prevalence of problem behavior, including serious delinquency, between native and foreign-born Latinos which may, in turn, impact justice system decision making.

Limitations

While this study is the first to consider group differences in juvenile justice system outcomes between native-born and foreign-born Latinos, there are a few limitations worth noting. First, as noted previously, the analyses conducted here should be replicated using juvenile court-specific data with large enough numbers of both native-born and foreign-born Latinos. Because only 3.4% reported being adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court, it is difficult to say with certainty that these results would hold up against a more appropriate sample.

Second, this study represents only an exploration of the differences found between these two groups on a number of juvenile justice system experiences and outcomes. It does not attempt to explain why these differences are found. This line of inquiry should extend next to multivariate analyses that attempt to understand the mechanisms by which generational status impacts juvenile court outcomes. Prior research has found that variables such as delinquent peers and self-control are able to partially mediate the relationship between acculturation and offending and victimization (see Gibson & Miller, 2010; Miller, 2011), but that generational status maintains significant direct effects nonetheless. Future inquiries can benefit from multivariate analyses that attempt to model both the direct and indirect effects of generational status on juvenile court outcomes.

Another limitation of this analysis is the datedness of the data set used. Because the Add Health sample was first drawn in the mid-1990s, it is no longer representative of the current U.S. population, generally, and with respect to Latinos in particular. Latino population growth has outpaced that of all other ethnic groups in the United States over the past two decades and the number of children under the age of 18 years who are Latino has increased considerably. Consider this—while fewer than 12% of the Add Health sample is Latino, more than 20% of children under 18 in the United States are now Latino (U.S. Census, 2013). It is possible that these demographic shifts may produce significantly different results if the same analyses were undertaken using contemporary data. Furthermore, the sociopolitical climate surrounding immigration is quite different from 20 years ago. Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration have evolved considerably in this timeframe and not necessarily in a favorable direction. Today’s juvenile justice system decision makers may view immigrant youth as even more threatening now than they have in the past which may affect the types of outcomes considered in the current analysis. More recent data are paramount for future work in this area.

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Overall, this study largely confirms the work of others who have found that the native-born are more likely to experience negative criminological outcomes compared to their foreign-born counterparts. The native-born were more likely to report police contact and arrest, but were less likely to be convicted. The analyses presented here show that the foreign-born are actually less likely to be either stopped by the police or arrested and are less likely to be charged with serious, violent crimes such as assault and robbery, while prior work indicates that the foreign-born are also less likely to report crime and delinquency (Gibson & Miller, 2010; Lopez & Miller, 2011). These findings, coupled with the inconsistent conviction finding, suggest that extralegal factors operating within the context of the juvenile court adjudication process may coalesce to impact the likelihood of conviction for foreign-born Latino youth.

Partial evidence for the Latino paradox was found in that the foreign-born are less likely to report being stopped by police or arrested. Along with the prior work that shows first-generation Latinos are less likely to report delinquency and other forms of problem behavior, these findings suggest that immigrant status is actually a protective factor against juvenile justice system involvement overall, perhaps due to their disproportionately lower involvement in criminal activity initially. However, there remain many areas for future research. Analyses such as these should be undertaken using samples drawn directly from juvenile court and other agencies to determine the extent of possible bias against foreign-born Latinos at different stages of justice processing. Moreover, the models estimated here were basic and exploratory in nature; future endeavors should include additional variables that may mediate the link between nativity status and juvenile justice outcomes. Prior research has shown that ethnicity often acts indirectly to influence criminal justice decisions and this may well be the case for nativity status.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Amaro

Whitaker

Coffman

Heeren

(1990). Acculturation and marijuana and cocaine use: Findings from HHANES 1982-84. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 54–60.

Armstrong

Rodriguez

(2005). Effects of individual and contextual characteristics on pre-adjudication detention of juvenile delinquents. Justice Quarterly, 22, 521–539.

Barrett

M. E.

Joe

G. W.

Simpson

D. D.

(1991). Acculturation influences on inhalant use. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 276–296.

Bishop

D. M.

(2005). The role of race and ethnicity in juvenile justice processing. In Hawkins

Kempf-Leonard

(Eds.), Our children, their children: Confronting racial and ethnic differences in American juvenile justice (pp. 23–82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bishop

Leiber

(2011). Race, ethnicity, and juvenile justice: Racial and ethnic differences in delinquency and justice system responses. In Bishop

Feld

(Eds.), Juvenile Justice (pp. 445–484). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bond-Maupin

L. J.

Maupin

J. R.

(1998). Juvenile justice decision making in a rural Hispanic community. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 373–384.

Buriel

Calzada

Vasquez

(1982). The relationship of traditional Mexican American culture to adjustment and delinquency among three generations of Mexican American adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 41–55.

Burnam

Hough

R. L.

Karno

Escobar

J. I.

Telles

C. A.

(1987). Acculturation and lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders Among Mexican Americans in Los Angeles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 89–102.

Butcher

K. F.

Piehl

A. M.

(2000). The role of deportation in the incarceration of immigrants. In Borgas

G. J.

(Ed.), Issues in the economics of immigration (pp. 351–386). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

10.

Caetano

(1987). Acculturation and drinking patterns among U.S. Latinos. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 789–799.

11.

Cagney

K. A.

Browning

C. R.

Wallace

D. M.

(2007). The latino paradox in neighborhood context: The case of asthma and other respiratory conditions. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 919–925.

12.

Chappin

S. R.

Brook

J. S.

(2001). The influence of generational status and psychosocial variables on marijuana use among black and Puerto Rican adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23, 22–36.

13.

Cobas

J. A.

Balcazar

Benin

M. B.

Keith

V. M.

Chong

(1996). Acculturation and low-birthweight infants among Latino women: a reanalysis of HHANES data with structural equation models. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 394–396.

14.

Cortes

D. E.

(2003). Idioms of distress, acculturation, and depression: The Puerto Rican experience. In Chun

K. M.

Organista

P. B.

Marin

(Eds.). Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 207–222). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

15.

De La Rosa

(1998). Prevalence and consequences of alcohol, cigarette, and drug use among Hispanics. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 16, 21–54.

16.

Demuth

Steffensmeier

(2004). Ethnicity effects on sentence outcomes in large urban courts: Comparisons among white, black, and Hispanic defendants. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 994–1011.

17.

Frazier

C. E.

Cochran

J. C.

(1986). Detention of juveniles: Its effects on subsequent juvenile court processing decisions. Youth and Society, 17(3), 286–305.

18.

Gies

Cohen

Villarruel

(2009). In Hsia

Heidi

(Ed.), Intervention. In Disproportionate minority contact technical assistance manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

19.

Gilbert

M. J.

(1987). Alcohol consumption patterns in immigrant and later generation Mexican American women. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 299–313.

20.

Gibson

C. L.

Miller

H. V.

(2010). Crime and victimization among Hispanic adolescents: A multilevel longitudinal study of acculturation and segmented assimilation. Final Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. NCJ , 232–278.

21.

Harris

K. M.

(2009). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994–1996; Wave III, 2001–2002; Wave IV, 2007-2009 [machine-readable data file and documentation]. Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

22.

Holman

Zeidenberg

(2006). The dangers of detention: The impact of incarcerating youth in detention and other secure facilities. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

23.

Howell

R. J.

Hutto

T. S.

(2012). Sentencing convicted juvenile felony offenders in the adult court: The direct effects of race. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30, 782–799.

24.

Jordan

K. L.

Freiburger

T. L.

(2010). Examining the impact of race and ethnicity on the sentencing of juveniles in adult court. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 185–201.

25.

Kupchik

(2006). The decision to incarcerate in juvenile and criminal courts. Criminal Justice Review, 31, 309–336.

26.

Leiber

(2013). Race, pre-and post-detention, and juvenile justice decision-making. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 396–418. doi:10.1177/0011128709345970

27.

Leiber

M. J.

Mack

K. Y.

(2003). The individual and joint effects of race, gender, and family status on juvenile justice decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 34–70.

28.

Leiber

M. J.

Peck

J. H.

(2013). Probation violations and juvenile justice decision-making: Implications for blacks and Hispanics. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 60–78.

29.

Liska

(1992). Social threat and social control. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

30.

Lopez

K. M.

Miller

H. V.

(2011). Ethnicity, acculturation, and offending: Findings from a sample of Hispanic adolescents. Open Family Studies Journal, 4, 27–37.

31.

Love

A. S.

Yin

Codina

Zapata

J. T.

(2006). Ethnic identity and risky health behaviors in school-age Mexican-American children. Psychological Reports, 98, 735–744.

32.

Marin

Perez-Stable

E. J.

Marin

B. V.

(1989). Cigarette smoking among San Francisco Hispanics: The role of acculturation and gender. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 196–198.

33.

Mendel

R. A.

(2009). Two decades of JDAI: From demonstration project to national standard. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

34.

Miller

H. V.

(2011). The social context of acculturation: Findings from a sample of Hispanic adolescents. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 93–105.

35.

Miller

H. V.

(2012). Correlates of delinquency and victimization in a sample of Hispanic youth. International Criminal Justice Review, 22, 153–170.

36.

Miller

J. M.

Miller

H. V.

Yin

Zapata

J. T.

(2008). Mexican-American youth drug use and acculturation: A note on the mitigating effects of contextual dynamics. Journal of Drug Issues, 38, 199–214.

37.

Moeller

(2011). Reauthorizing the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act: The impact of Latino youth. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.

38.

Neff

J. A.

Hoppe

S. K.

Perea

(1987). Acculturation and alcohol use: Drinking patterns and problems among Anglo and Mexican American male drinkers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 151–181.

39.

Palloni

Arias

(2004). Paradox lost: Explaining the Hispanic adult mortality advantage. Demography, 41, 385–415.

40.

Perlmann

Waldinger

(1997). Second generation decline? Children of immigrants, past and present–A reconsideration. International Migration Review, 31, 893–922.

41.

Portes

Zhou

(1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74–96.

42.

Rodriguez

(2007). Juvenile court context and detention decisions: Reconsidering the role of race, ethnicity, and community characteristics in juvenile court processes. Justice Quarterly, 24, 629–656.

43.

Rodriguez

(2010). The cumulative effect of race and ethnicity in juvenile court outcomes and why pre-adjudication detention matters. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 47, 391–413.

44.

Shaw

McKay

(1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

45.

U.S. Census. (2013). Profile America: Facts for features. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb13ff-19_hispanicheritage.pdf

46.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Chen

(2010). Entry risk into the juvenile justice system: African American, American Indian, Asian American, European American, and Hispanic children and adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 668–678.

47.

B. I.

(1997). The effect of race on juvenile justice processing. Juvenile and Family Court Judges Journal, 48, 43–51.

48.

B. I.

Fuentes

(1998). Juvenile justice processing: The entangled effects of race and urban poverty. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 49, 41–54.

49.

Zambrana

R. E.

Scrimshaw

S. C. M.

Collins

Dunkel-Schetter

(1997). Prenatal health behaviors and psychological risk factors in pregnant women of Mexican origin: The role of acculturation. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1022–1026.

50.

Zhou

(1997). Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies, and recent research on the new second generation. International Migration Review, 31, 975–1008.