Examining the Type of Legal Representation and Its Influence on Disaggregated Dispositions in Juvenile Court

Abstract

While prior studies of juvenile court outcomes have examined the impact of legal representation on out-of-home placement versus community sanctions, previous research has not fully explored the variation within sanctions that youth receive. The current study examines the influence of type of legal representation (public defender or private attorney) when predicting juvenile adjudications and dispositions. Using a sample of delinquent referrals from a Northeast state between 2009 and 2014, results showed that youth do receive different outcomes (e.g., probation, drug and alcohol treatment, accountability-oriented dispositions, etc.) based on the type of legal representation. The findings have important implications for juvenile court processing related to how courtroom actors impact case outcomes.

Keywords

juvenile justice courts rehabilitation punishment legal representation

Within the juvenile justice system, the juvenile court is tasked with determining a youth’s degree of responsibility for a delinquent act and the assigned sanction if adjudicated delinquent. Specifically, the courtroom workgroup (i.e., probation officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges) is guided by the goals of the juvenile justice system to provide accountability and rehabilitation to youth. Outcome decisions, received most formally from disposition hearings in the court process, impart sanctions that are both treatment-oriented (e.g., rehabilitative) and punishment-oriented (e.g., hold youth accountable). Improving the lives of juveniles while also holding them responsible for delinquent behavior set the foundation for the creation of a separate judicial system from adults (Martin, 1992). Most notably, the juvenile court operates under the parens patriae doctrine, which directs courts actors to consider the best interests of the child. Over time, the juvenile justice system has shifted its focus to punishment and back to rehabilitation throughout a continuous cycle (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010), which subsequently influences the courtroom actors and the decisions regarding the best interests of youth.

Given that accountability is one of the objectives of the juvenile justice system and youth may receive punishment-oriented outcomes, youth are afforded certain due process rights. Youth within the juvenile court have a right to legal representation (i.e., defense lawyer). Specifically, the defense lawyer assists in explaining the court process to the youth at the adjudication and disposition stages, while also serving as an advocate. However, the type of legal representation (i.e., public defender or private attorney) has been shown to impact court outcomes (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Burruss et al., 2020; Clarke & Koch, 1980; Guevara et al., 2004, 2008; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). When examining the impact of type of counsel on court processing, most prior scholarship has measured dispositional outcomes as a binary indicator of community sanctions (i.e., probation) compared to out-of-home (i.e., residential) placement (Armstrong & Kim, 2011; Feld & Schaefer, 2010; Mears et al., 2011; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). Moreover, fewer studies have examined the impact of legal representation, particularly the type of representation on accountability and rehabilitation-oriented outcomes at the disposition stage (Cochran & Mears, 2015; Mears et al., 2011). A more complete understanding of the variety of dispositional outcomes above and beyond community versus residential sanctions will show how the juvenile court holds youth accountable, while also providing rehabilitation.

Based on these limitations, the objectives of the current study are to: 1) investigate the effect that type of legal counsel has on the likelihood of youth being adjudicated delinquent, 2) examine the effect that type of legal counsel has on a nine-category dispositional outcome variable for adjudicated youth, and 3) determine if type of counsel results in more treatment-oriented or accountability-oriented placement types for adjudicated youth. Highlighting the effect that representation by a public defender or private attorney has on dispositional outcomes, (which have not been formally operationalized based on rehabilitation-oriented or punishment-oriented intentions), the process of sanctioning and the type of legal counsel can be explored.¹

Literature Review

The Juvenile Court and Role of Legal Representation

The juvenile justice system was established based on the overall notion that youth should be held accountable for delinquent acts, yet also receive rehabilitative services to decrease the likelihood of future offending (Feld, 1988b, 1989; Mears et al., 2011). Therefore, the juvenile court and each decision-maker have a responsibility to uphold the foundational ideas of the juvenile justice system. Punishment-oriented sanctions are given to deter youth from recidivating, while treatment-oriented sanctions (i.e., rehabilitative efforts) are made to provide pro-social changes in a juvenile’s life and reduce recidivism (Feld, 1988b). Employing the parens patriae doctrine, juvenile courts have a more rehabilitative approach and are identified as being different from the adult criminal justice system by focusing on treating youth as compared to a punishment and deterrence philosophy (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Nagin, 1998). In the late 1960s, several foundational Supreme Court cases re-directed the philosophy of the juvenile court.

With the Supreme Court decision of In re Gault (1967), it was established that juvenile courts up until that time were not giving procedural safeguards to juveniles throughout the court process. The In re Gault (1967) decision included such safeguards as: the right to counsel, the opportunity for cross-examining witnesses, the right to a hearing, and the right against self-incrimination. Generally, it was recognized that if the juvenile court was going to punish juvenile offenders, youth had to have some basic rights to protect them against the power of the state such as legal representation that could act in the “best interests” of the youth (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010). Prior to In re Gault (1967), the Supreme Court did not require juveniles to have counsel present, but only advised that the both the youth and parent be aware of the right to counsel. By youth being awarded the right to counsel, defense lawyers became a new prominent courtroom actor within the juvenile court process (Feld & Schaefer, 2010).

The role of the defense lawyer in the juvenile courtroom workgroup is complex in nature (Birckhead, 2017; Emerson, 1969; Mears et al., 2016). Due to the goals of the system, the choice to rehabilitate or punish juveniles creates role conflict for legal representation within juvenile courts. More specifically, legal counsel is forced to decide between “winning” a case versus acting as a guardian to advocate for services that the youth may need. For defense lawyers, “winning” a case would involve the juvenile being dismissed or not being adjudicated. However, “winning” would also mean the youth would not receive services through the juvenile court. At the adjudication hearing, the role of the defense lawyer could be seen as a formal component of the fact-finding portion of the juvenile court process. In other ways, such as at the disposition hearing, the defense lawyer is there to help the court achieve the rehabilitative purpose set by the juvenile justice system. Ultimately, there is an informal approach to sanctioning youth as the juvenile court focuses more on the individual rather than the delinquent act (Emerson, 1969; Mears et al., 2011). Due to the dual philosophies of rehabilitation and punishment within the juvenile justice system, legal representation is placed in a very unique position and can impact outcomes for youth in the juvenile court.

Impact of the Type of Counsel on Dispositional Outcomes

The presence of counsel has largely been argued as an aggravating factor in juvenile court proceedings and dispositional outcomes, often being designated as the “lawyer penalty” (Burruss et al., 2020; Clarke & Koch, 1980; Feld, 1988a; Feld & Schaefer, 2010). A vast amount of research has indicated that judges deliver harsher sentences to juveniles who retain counsel compared to those without legal representation (Armstrong & Kim, 2011; Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld, 1988a; Feld & Schaefer, 2010). The presence of legal representation may cause youth to receive a harsher sanction based on legal counsel’s inadequate training, experience, or the judge’s perception of the youth unwilling to take responsibility (Clarke & Koch, 1980; Feld, 1988a; Feld & Schaefer, 2010; Kempf-Leonard, 2010).² In a recent meta-analysis, Burruss and colleagues (2020) found that across 17 studies that comprised 29 courts, youth who had legal representation were more likely to receive placement in an institution than youth who did not have legal representation.

As legal representation in general has been shown to effect court experiences, scholars then began to explore the impact of public defenders and private attorneys on youth outcomes. The type of counsel has been found to influence juvenile court outcomes; however, results have been mixed (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Carrington & Moyer, 1990; Clarke & Koch, 1980; Feeney & Jackson, 1990; Feld, 1989; Guevara et al., 2004; Guevara et al., 2008; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). Youth represented by a private attorney have been found less likely to be adjudicated and more likely to have charges dismissed (Carrington & Moyer, 1990; Clarke & Koch, 1980). Most recently, Peck and Beaudry-Cyr (2016) found that the type of counsel and the offender’s race/ethnicity impacted whether the youth was more likely to receive out-of-home placement compared to community sanctions. For example, Black youth with a public defender in a Midwest state were more likely to receive out-of-home placement than community sanctions compared to all other groups (i.e., Whites with no counsel, Whites with private counsel, Blacks with no counsel, and Blacks with private counsel) except White youth with public counsel (Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016).

Some research however has pointed toward the benefit of having a public defender (Guevara et al., 2004; Guevara et al., 2008). Specifically, Guevara and colleagues (2004) found that youth with a public defender were more likely than those with a private attorney to have cases dismissed or receive placement in a group or foster home and less likely to be placed in secure confinement. In another study, youth with a public defender were more likely than those with a private attorney to have charges dismissed and therefore, less likely to receive a placement (Guevara et al., 2008). Overall though, the majority of research tends to find that youth represented by private attorneys are more likely to have cases dismissed and less likely to be placed in secure confinement compared to youth represented by public defenders (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Carrington & Moyer, 1990; Clarke & Koch, 1980; Feeney & Jackson, 1990; Feld, 1989; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016).

The defense attorney’s role of acting in the “best interest” of the youth aligns with the rehabilitative aspect of the juvenile court. However, prior research has shown that youth with a public defender typically receive more negative and seemingly punitive outcomes (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feeney & Jackson, 1990; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). This finding may be due to how dispositional outcomes are being aggregated and operationalized by previous literature (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld & Schaefer, 2010). While youth with public defenders have been found to receive some of the harshest dispositional outcomes (i.e., out-of-home placement), research has neglected the diversity of outcomes available to the courtroom workgroup as potential sanctions for delinquent behavior.

Heterogeneity of Dispositional Outcomes

There exists a heterogeneous set of dispositional outcomes that a youth can receive upon being adjudicated within the juvenile justice system (Cochran & Mears, 2015; Mears et al., 2011). For example, various programs, interventions, and services are options for judges to sentence youth that provide rehabilitative efforts, as well as holding the youth more accountable for his/her behavior. These programs can include drug use services, mental health services, or aggressive behavior interventions. Ideally, not only will a program rehabilitate the youth and increase pro-social behaviors, but also reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Unfortunately, prior research has neglected the within-sanction variation that can befall youth, particularly related to the effect of type of legal representation.

An issue that has made research in the area of dispositional outcomes difficult is that no consensus exists among scholars for determining which dispositional outcomes are more rehabilitative or more punitive in nature (Cochran & Mears, 2015; Mears et al., 2011). Typically, secure confinement is the most punitive sanction for youth in the juvenile justice system (Feld, 1989; Mears et al., 2011). While prior literature has found that the presence of legal counsel has an aggravating effect (Clarke & Koch, 1980; Feld, 1988a; Feld & Schaefer, 2010), studies have not examined the impact that type of legal counsel has on the variation within these sanctions. The inclusion of a greater number of categories will provide an opportunity to examine multiple outcomes of the juvenile justice system that are accountability (i.e., punitive in nature) and rehabilitation-oriented. Additionally, a separate category will be included for probation as it is the most common disposition in juvenile cases that receive a court sanction (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2020). As such, the three categories of accountability-oriented, probation, and treatment-oriented outcomes represent a continuum of dispositional sanctions youth may receive from the juvenile court.

Operationalizing Juvenile Court Dispositions

The limitations of prior research provide justification for the importance to examine the effects of type of legal representation on disaggregated dispositional outcomes (Armstrong & Kim, 2011; Feld & Schaefer, 2010; Mears et al., 2011; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). Most of the earlier literature has examined legal representation and dispositional outcomes as a dichotomous variable representing out-of-home placement versus community supervision (Armstrong & Kim, 2011; Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld, 1988a; Feld & Schaefer, 2010). With prior research only examining this concept of “out-of-home” placement (which is typically seen as a punitive sanction), researchers may be oversimplifying the sanctions and treatment-oriented interventions that formally processed youth receive from the juvenile court when they are removed from their home. Based on the rehabilitative aspect of the juvenile justice system, multiple programs have been created to address the individual needs and situations of each juvenile who comes into contact with legal authorities (e.g., Multisystemic therapy; Henggeler et al., 1992, Aggression Replacement training; Goldstein et al., 1986, LifeSkills training; Botvin et al., 2006). In turn, youth who are removed from their home may not be sanctioned to a punishing outcome, but instead are placed within a rehabilitative or treatment-oriented intervention (e.g. mental health treatment program or drug and substance abuse program).

Grounded in prior literature that has examined the link between type of legal representation and dispositional outcomes, a more nuanced approach to operationalizing these outcomes is examined in the current study. Previous operationalizations of potential dispositions have consisted of: “out-of-home” placement and “other,” which included probation and dismissal (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002), “out-of-home” placement, probation, and dismissal (Guevara et al., 2008), and “out-of-home” placement and community sanctions (Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). Even the national juvenile court processing statistics only use a small number of categories to represent the sanctions that youth receive (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). “Out-of-home” placement is typically seen as the harshest sanction in prior literature (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld & Schaefer, 2010), yet a youth who is removed from their home for mental health services is not technically receiving punishment (like in prior research) but, rather he/she is actually obtaining services.

As an objective of the current study, determining if the type of counsel results in a heterogeneous set of outcomes for youth acknowledges that legal representation may be influencing variation within the “typical” out-of-home placement and community sanctions. Examining the impact that counsel has, if any, on disaggregated dispositional outcomes, will help to determine the potential effect of type of legal counsel on placement types and how this relates to the various outcomes of the juvenile justice system that are accountability and rehabilitation-oriented. For example, if findings from the current study indicate that youth having legal representation, regardless of whether it is a public defender or private attorney, results in outcomes that are rehabilitative in nature, it is possible that the negative outcomes associated with public defenders has been misunderstood by not examining “out-of-home” placements that are rehabilitative. If youth receive rehabilitative sanctions regardless of the type of lawyer, the juvenile justice system should be sure to provide an opportunity for all youth to be represented by legal counsel who take on the role of acting in the most beneficial and effective way for youth. Moving forward, lawyers should be aware of the needs of his/her client and what would be in the “best interest” of their juvenile defendants.

If findings from the current study indicate that having a public defender does result in more punishment-oriented outcomes such as secure confinement, residential placement, or boot camp, this would provide support for prior research (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Carrington & Moyer, 1990; Clarke & Koch, 1980; Feeney & Jackson, 1990; Feld, 1989; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). After examining the disaggregated dispositional outcomes, if being represented by both a public defender and private attorney result in more negative outcomes, then the rehabilitative objective of the juvenile justice system would need to be further examined. Additionally, if findings suggest that youth represented by public defenders are more likely to receive probation compared to accountability or rehabilitative-oriented outcomes, this would align with the practical application of the juvenile court. Often, public defenders may not have adequate time to meet with clients to suggest outcomes to a judge that would be in a youth’s best interests; as such, public defenders may recommend probation. As mentioned earlier, probation is the most frequently received outcome in the juvenile court (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2020). The current study can help to determine the willingness of the juvenile court to give more accountability-oriented outcomes versus rehabilitative outcomes when legal counsel is a private attorney or public defender. Disaggregating dispositional outcomes into categories not utilized in earlier studies has the potential to show that sanctioning patterns emerge based on the type of legal representation.

Research Questions

Three general questions guide the present study based on prior literature that has examined dispositional outcomes (Clarke & Koch, 1980; Cochran & Mears, 2015; Mears et al., 2011) and research surrounding the impact of type of legal representation on case processing (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Carrington & Moyer, 1990; Clarke & Koch, 1980; Feeney & Jackson, 1990; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). Addressing objectives one and two of the present study, the first two research questions add to the literature by examining two stages, adjudication and disposition, by exploring if defense attorneys (public defenders or private attorneys) significantly impact adjudication and dispositional decision-making. Stated differently, for the first research question, does the type of legal representation have an impact on youth being adjudicated delinquent? The second research question assesses the extent to which youth having either a public defender or private attorney significantly predicts a variety of dispositional outcomes, controlling for the influence of other legal and extralegal variables. Specifically, what effect does the type of legal representation have on disaggregated dispositional outcomes for adjudicated youth? The third research question, which addresses objective three of the present study, examines the impact that the type of legal representation has on a continuum of outcomes for adjudicated youth. In other words, does the type of counsel result in accountability-oriented placement, probation, or treatment-oriented sanctions for delinquents? Examining the significant predictors of sanctioning adjudicated youth within a continuum of outcomes (e.g., punishment, probation, and rehabilitation outcomes) will help to compare the potential effect of type of legal counsel on placement types to the objectives (i.e., accountability and rehabilitation) of the juvenile justice system.

Method

Data and Sample

Data for this study come from the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) which houses the National Juvenile Court Data Archive (NJCDA). Case-level data were provided that includes demographic information, legal and extra-legal characteristics, and decision-making outcomes for youth processed through the juvenile court. Detailed outcomes and categorizations of services were also provided which allows for the range of dispositional and service outcomes to be created. The sample consists of all petitioned referrals from all counties in a Northeast state from 2009 through 2014. During this time period, all referrals were required to have legal representation. The final sample consists of 77,996 petitioned juveniles. Table 1 presents the coding and distribution of the dependent variables, independent variable, and covariates.

Table 1.

Description of Variables.

Variable	Value	N	%
Dependent
Adjudication	0 = Not Adjudicated	32,902	42
Adjudication	1 = Adjudicated Delinquent	45,094	58
Dispositional Outcome^a	0 = Probation	19,853	44
	1 = Drug and Alcohol Treatment	2,874	6
	2 = Mental Health Treatment	233	1
	3 = Independent Living/Group Home	1,452	3
	4 = Day Treatment	1,933	4
	5 = Boot Camp	1,011	2
	6 = Residential Placement	11,515	26
	7 = Secure Confinement	2,562	6
	8 = Other	3,661	8
Dispositional Outcome^a	0 = Rehabilitation-Oriented^b	10,153	23
	1 = Probation	19,853	44
	2 = Accountability-Oriented^c	15,088	33
Independent
Type of Legal Representation	0 = Private Attorney	8,587	11
Type of Legal Representation	1 = Public Defender	69,409	89
Controls
Gender	0 = Male	62,171	80
Gender	1 = Female	15,825	20
Age	Years (low to high)	M = 15.47, SD = 1.63Range = 10–21
Race/Ethnicity^d	0 = White	33,347	43
	1 = Black	33,042	43
	2 = Hispanic	8,143	11
	3 = Other	2,382	3
Offense Severity	0 = Misdemeanor	47,887	61
Offense Severity	1 = Felony	30,109	39
Offense Type^e	0 = Person	30,991	40
	1 = Property	23,233	30
	2 = Drugs	15,596	20
	3 = Other	8,176	10
Police Referral	0 = No	4,407	6
Police Referral	1 = Yes	73,589	94
Number of Charges	Number (low to high)	M = 2.58, SD = 3.66Range = 1–10
Number of Prior Referrals	Number (low to high)	M = 0.99, SD = 1.58Range = 0–10
School Status	0 = In School	70,074	90
School Status	1 = Out of School	7,552	10
Family Status	0 = Two Parents	20,847	27
Family Status	1 = One Parent/Guardian	56,646	73
Urban	0 = Rural	16,597	21
Urban	1 = Urban	61,339	79
Region^f	0 = Region 1	4,516	6
	1 = Region 2	14,863	19
	2 = Region 3	3,009	4
	3 = Region 4	3,390	4
	4 = Region 6	544	1
	5 = Region 6	14,749	19
	6 = Region 7	5,324	7
	7 = Region 8	31,601	40

N = 77,996.

^aReference category is Probation. ^bRehabilitation-oriented outcomes includes drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, independent living/group home, day treatment, and other. ^cAccountability-oriented outcomes includes boot camp, residential placement, and secure confinement. ^dReference category is White. ^eReference category is Person. ^fReference category is Region 8.

Dependent Variables

As the first research question seeks to examine the type of legal representation on youth being adjudicated delinquent, decision-making was examined at both adjudication and disposition. At the adjudication stage, cases included youth who were not adjudicated delinquent (0) and youth who were adjudicated delinquent (1). Fifty-eight percent of the sample was adjudicated delinquent. For those who were not adjudicated delinquent, their cases were dismissed and ultimately removed from the sample. Of those youths who were adjudicated delinquent, a second dependent variable was created.

The second dependent variable was disaggregated into nine dispositional outcomes. The outcomes were divided into the following categories: drug and alcohol treatment (6%), mental health treatment (1%), independent living/group home (3%), day treatment (4%), boot camp (2%), residential placement (26%), secure confinement (6%), and other (8%).³ Probation (44%) served as the reference category. To examine the objectives of the juvenile court, the nine outcomes were aggregated into a continuum of dispositional sanctions to create a third dependent variable.⁴ Rehabilitation-oriented interventions were comprised of drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, independent living/group home, day treatment, and other (23%). Probation remained a stand-alone outcome as this sanction could provide both accountability and rehabilitation for youth (44%). Accountability-oriented interventions (i.e., punitive sanctions) were comprised of boot camp, residential placement, and secure confinement (33%).

Independent Variable

The independent variable, Type of Legal Representation, was coded as private attorney (0) or public defender (1). Youth with public representation could either have a court appointed attorney or public defender.⁵ Eighty-nine percent of the sample had a public defender throughout court proceedings.

Control Variables

Several covariates, including both legal and extra-legal factors, were included in the analyses as they may influence juvenile court outcomes.⁶ Gender was coded as male (0) and female (1). Eighty percent of the sample was male. Age was measured as a continuous variable based on a juvenile’s age at the time of referral.⁷ On average, youth were 15.47 years old. Race/Ethnicity was coded based on the demographic information included in the case-level data. White (Non-Hispanic), Black, Hispanic, and Other youth made up the final sample. Three dummy variables were constructed for Blacks (43%), Hispanics (11%), and Other (3%) youth. Whites (43%) comprised the reference category. Offense Severity was a dichotomous variable coded as misdemeanor (0) and felony (1). Sixty-one percent of the sample was charged with a misdemeanor, and 39% were referred to juvenile court for a felony offense. Offense Type was also included, with three dummy variables constructed for property offenses (30%), drug offenses (20%), and other offenses (10%).⁸ Person offenses (40%) were the reference group. A variable was also included to indicate if the referral originated from law enforcement (0 = no, 1 = yes). Ninety-four percent of the sample was referred to juvenile court by a police officer. The Number of Charges and Number of Prior Referrals were also accounted for in all statistical models.⁹ On average, the sample had 2.58 current charges and 0.99 prior referrals to juvenile court.

Extralegal variables were also incorporated into the analyses based on prior literature (Armstrong & Kim, 2011; Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld & Schafer, 2010; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016; Peck & Jennings, 2016). School Status, either in school (0) or out-of-school (1) was included. Ninety percent of the sample was in school, compared to ten percent being out-of-school. Family Status indicated who the youth was living with at the time of the referral and was a dichotomous variable with (0) two parents and (1) one parent/guardian.¹⁰ Twenty-seven percent of the sample was residing with two parents at the time of the referral, compared to 73% residing with one parent or guardian. Finally, two variables were included to account for differences in the Northeast state’s population and geography. An Urban variable, either rural (0) or urban (1) was included to consider the possibility of differences across population density for each referral. Seventy-nine percent of juveniles resided in an urban county. To account for differences in case processing based on geographic Region, seven dummy variables were also created (Region 1 (6%), Region 2 (19%), Region 3 (4%), Region 4 (4%), Region 5 (1%), Region 6 (19%), and Region 7 (7%). Region 8 (40%) was the reference category.¹¹

Analytic Strategy

Logistic and multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of type of legal representation on juvenile court adjudication and sanctioning decisions. First, logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the main effect of legal representation and all control variables on decision-making at adjudication (Table 2). Second, due to the categorical nature of the first dispositional dependent variable operationalized by nine distinct outcomes, multinomial regression analyses were used to model the role of attorney type and other legal and extra-legal criteria on decision-making for adjudicated youth at judicial disposition (Table 3). Third, multinomial regression analyses were once again utilized to predict the influence of the type of legal representation and control variables on judicial disposition based on if the youth received a rehabilitation-oriented, probation, or accountability-oriented outcome (Table 4).¹²

Results

Effect of Type of Lawyer on Adjudication Outcomes

Table 2 presents the logistic regression model of the effect of type of legal representation on decision-making at adjudication. As shown in the table, youth with a public defender were more likely (b = .08) to be adjudicated delinquent than youth with a private attorney. Specifically, youth with public representation had an increased odds of being adjudicated delinquent by 8% (odds ratio = 1.08) compared to youth with a private attorney. This finding aligns with prior research that suggests youth with a certain type of lawyer (i.e., public defender) are more likely to be adjudicated (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld & Schaefer, 2010; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). Females (b = −.37), youth referred by the police (b = −.37), and youth in urban counties (b = −.35) were less likely to be adjudicated.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Results for Decision-Making at Adjudication.

Variable	b (SE)	Exp(B)
Independent
Public Defender	.08 (.02)^a	1.08^b**
Controls
Female	−.37 (.02)	0.69**
Age	.07 (.01)	1.08**
Black	.01 (.02)	1.01
Hispanic	.01 (.03)	1.01
Other Race	.03 (.05)	1.03
Felony	.33 (.02)	1.39**
Property	.06 (.02)	1.07**
Drugs	.13 (.02)	1.14**
Other Offense	.17 (.03)	1.19**
Police Referral	−.37 (.04)	0.69**
Number of Charges	.06 (.01)	1.06**
Number of Priors	.50 (.01)	1.64**
Out of School	.19 (.03)	1.21**
One Parent Family	.07 (.02)	1.07**
Urban	−.35 (.03)	0.70**
Region 1	.63 (.04)	1.87**
Region 2	−.39 (.02)	0.68**
Region 3	−.41 (.05)	0.66**
Region 4	−.98 (.05)	0.37**
Region 5	.32 (.11)	1.37**
Region 6	−.17 (.02)	0.84**
Region 7	.35 (.04)	1.42**
−2 Log Likelihood	94466.84**
Nagelkerke R²	.18

Note. For the dependent variable, 0 = not adjudicated and 1 = adjudicated delinquent.

^aregression coefficient (standard error). ^bodds ratio.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

A juvenile’s race/ethnicity was not a significant predictor of adjudication outcomes. Youth who committed felony offenses (b = .33), had a greater number of charges (b = .06), greater number of priors (b = .50), were not in school (b = .19), or came from a one parent family (b = .07) were more likely to be adjudicated. These findings demonstrate that youth who were greater risk were more likely to be adjudicated by the juvenile court. For example, youth who were higher risk based on criminal history and other extra-legal factors (e.g., school and family situations) were more likely to recidivate (Bonta & Andrews, 2016; Vincent et al., 2012). Regional differences were also found as three regions were more likely to adjudicate youth (Region 1, 5, and 7) and four regions were less likely to adjudicate youth (Region 2, 3, 4, and 6). These disparities across geographic regions suggest “justice by geography” where a youth’s county or jurisdiction significantly affects court outcomes (Feld, 1991). Youth with offenses that were not person-related (e.g., property drug, other) were more likely to be adjudicated compared to youth charged with person offenses. Overall, both legal and extra-legal factors were found to influence youth’s likelihood of adjudication.

Effect of Type of Lawyer on a Nine-Category Disposition Measure

To account for the various sanctions assigned by the juvenile court at the disposition stage, a nine-category outcome measure was used in the next stage of the analyses. In the multinomial logistic regression model (Table 3), the disposition outcome measure was regressed on type of legal representation and control variables. Probation was selected as the reference category.

Table 3.

Multinomial Logistic Regression Results for Dispositional Decision-Making of a Nine-Category Disposition Measure.

	Drug and Alcohol Treatment		Mental Health Treatment		Independent Living/Group Home		Day Treatment		Boot Camp		Residential Placement		Secure Confinement		Other
	Exp(B)	SE	Exp(B)	SE	Exp(B)	SE	Exp(B)	SE	Exp(B)	SE	Exp(B)	SE	Exp(B)	SE	Exp(B)	SE
Independent
Public Defender	.57^a**	.07^b	.67	.22	.54**	.10	.51**	.10	.49**	.12	.55**	.04	.64**	.08	.66**	.07
Controls
Female	1.63**	.06	.46**	.15	.92	.07	1.78**	.07	3.02**	.12	2.07**	.04	1.24**	.06	1.17**	.05
Age	1.13**	.02	.75**	.04	.94**	.02	.89**	.02	.89**	.02	.95**	.01	.91**	.02	.95**	.01
Black	1.41**	.05	1.20	.16	1.21**	.06	.18**	.06	.98	.07	.48**	.03	.42**	.05	.66**	.04
Hispanic	1.16*	.07	.80	.21	.96	.09	1.85**	.17	.90	.11	.50**	.04	.54**	.08	1.01	.07
Felony	1.08	.05	.45**	.15	.78**	.06	.54**	.06	1.04	.07	.72**	.03	.60**	.05	1.59**	.05
Property	.74**	.06	1.13	.18	.83**	.07	.90	.06	.96	.08	.99	.03	.92	.06	.84**	.05
Drugs	.35**	.06	1.78*	.28	1.31**	.09	1.03	.07	.96	.09	.83**	.04	1.01	.07	.78**	.05
Other Offense	1.30**	.09	.23**	.17	.71**	.09	1.22*	.09	1.78**	.14	1.13**	.05	.59**	.07	1.27**	.07
Police Referral	.94	.10	1.01	.30	.85	.14	3.10**	.08	.82	.17	1.26**	.05	1.59**	.09	1.73**	.07
Number of Charges	1.05**	.01	.99	.03	.99	.01	.91**	.01	1.05**	.01	1.06**	.01	1.06**	.01	.93**	.01
Number of Priors	1.15**	.01	1.38**	.04	1.28**	.02	1.23**	.01	1.19**	.02	1.25**	.01	1.49**	.01	1.14**	.01
Out of School	.89	.06	1.04	.26	.99	.09	1.67**	.10	1.20	.12	.87**	.04	.68**	.06	.92	.06
One Parent Family	.80**	.05	1.35*	.15	.81**	.07	.77**	.07	1.02	.07	.73**	.03	.61**	.06	.86**	.04

Note. −2 Log Likelihood = 88,725.85; Nagelkerke R² = .19.

Other Race, Urban, and Region variables were removed from the model due to a lack of variation in the day treatment category of dispositional outcomes.

^aOdds ratio. ^bStandard error.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Relative to youth with private attorneys, youth with public defenders were associated with significantly lower odds of receiving drug and alcohol treatment (b = −.57), independent living/group home (b = −.62), day treatment (b = .67), boot camp (b = −.72), residential placement (b = −.59), secure confinement (b = −.45), and other dispositions (b = −.41) compared to probation. The magnitude of the effects ranged in strength from a 34% decrease (other dispositions) to a 51% decrease (boot camp) in non-probation dispositional outcomes. There was no significant difference among youth who had a public defender or private attorney for receiving mental health treatment compared to probation. Thus, compared to probation, representation by a private attorney increased the likelihood of youth receiving drug and alcohol treatment, independent living/group home, day treatment, boot camp, residential placement, secure confinement, and other dispositions. While prior research (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld, 1989; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016) has found that youth represented by private attorneys are less likely to receive out-of-home placement, based on the nine-category measure, representation by private attorneys led to an increased likelihood of placement for youth.

Significant differences were also found across the disposition measure for demographic characteristics. Females were more likely to receive drug and alcohol treatment (b = .49), day treatment (b = .57), boot camp (b = 1.11), residential placement (b = .73), secure confinement (b = .22), and other dispositions (b = .15) compared to probation than males. Females were less likely to receive mental health treatment (b = −.77) compared to probation than males. Generally, minority youth were less likely to receive residential placement (Black b = −.74; Hispanic b = −.70) and secure confinement (Black b = −.87; Hispanic b = −.61) than White youth. Minority youth were more likely to receive drug and alcohol treatment (Black b = .34; Hispanic b = .15) compared to probation than White youth. Black youth were more likely to receive independent living/group home (b = .19) than probation but, less likely to receive day treatment (b = −1.72) or other dispositions (b = −.42) compared to White youth. Hispanic youth were more likely to receive day treatment (b = .62) than probation, relative to White youth. There were no significant differences between White youth and minority youth receiving mental health treatment or boot camp compared to probation. Additionally, no significant differences emerged between Hispanic and White youth receiving independent living/group home or other dispositions. Overall, younger youth were more likely to receive mental health treatment (b = −.29), independent living/group home (b = −.06), day treatment (b = −.12), boot camp (b = −.11), residential placement (b = −.05), secure confinement (b = −.10), and other dispositions (b = −.06) compared to probation. Older youth were more likely to receive drug and alcohol treatment (b = .13) compared to probation.

Various legal and extra-legal factors were also significant across the disposition measure. Youth adjudicated of a felony were less likely to receive mental health treatment (b = −.81), independent living/group home (b = −.25), day treatment (b = −.61), residential placement (b = −.33), and secure confinement (b = −.52) compared to probation than youth adjudicated of a misdemeanor. Relative to youth who committed person offenses, youth with property or drug offenses were less likely to receive drug and alcohol treatment and other dispositions compared to probation. Youth with drug offenses were more likely to receive mental health treatment and independent living/group home but, less likely to receive residential placement relative to youth who committed person offenses.

Effect of Type of Lawyer on a Continuum of Sanctions

Table 4 presents the multinomial regression results of the effect of type of legal representation on a measure based on the purpose of the juvenile court (i.e., accountability and treatment). Recall that drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, independent living/group home, day treatment, and other dispositions were aggregated into rehabilitation-oriented interventions. Probation remained a separate category and was the reference category when making comparisons to treatment and accountability-oriented outcomes. Accountability-oriented (e.g., punishment) sanctions were aggregated from boot camp, residential placement, and secure confinement. As the juvenile court includes a continuum of sanctions (e.g., treatment, probation, punishment) we ran the analyses alternating the reference category from probation to treatment in order to compare punishment to treatment-related outcomes. Therefore, the models compared rehabilitation-oriented intervention to probation, accountability-oriented sanctions to probation, and accountability-oriented to rehabilitation-oriented outcomes.

Table 4.

Multinomial Logistic Regression Results for Dispositional Decision-Making of a Three-Category Disposition Measure.

	RehabilitationVersusProbation		AccountabilityVersusProbation		AccountabilityVersusRehabilitation
	b (SE)	Exp(B)	b (SE)	Exp(B)	b (SE)	Exp(B)
Independent
Public Defender	−.52 (.05)^a	.59^b**	−.63 (.04)	.53**	−.11 (.05)	.90*
Controls
Female	.23 (.04)	1.26**	.66 (.03)	1.94**	.43 (.04)	1.54**
Age	−.03 (.01)	.98**	−.07 (.01)	.94**	−.04 (.01)	.96**
Black	−.19 (.03)	.83**	−.67 (.03)	.51**	−.49 (.03)	.62**
Hispanic	−.07 (.05)	.93	−.53 (.04)	.59**	−.45 (.05)	.64**
Other Race	−.25 (.08)	.78**	−.75 (.07)	.47**	−.50 (.08)	.61**
Felony	.09 (.03)	1.09**	−.36 (.03)	.70**	−.44 (.03)	.64**
Property	−.21 (.03)	.81**	−.08 (.03)	.93**	.14 (.04)	1.14**
Drugs	−.52 (.04)	.59**	−.11 (.03)	.89**	.41 (.04)	1.50**
Other Offense	.04 (.05)	1.04	−.03 (04)	.98	−.07 (.05)	.94
Police Referral	.24 (.05)	1.28**	.41 (.05)	1.50**	.17 (.06)	1.18**
Number of Charges	.01 (.01)	1.01	.03 (.01)	1.03**	.03 (.01)	1.03**
Number of Priors	.14 (.01)	1.15**	.28 (.01)	1.32**	.14 (.01)	1.15**
Out of School	−.12 (.04)	.89**	−.11 (.04)	.90**	.01 (.04)	1.01
One Parent Family	−.15 (.03)	.86**	−.30 (.03)	.74**	−.15 (03)	.86**
Urban	−1.31 (.05)	.27**	−.14 (.04)	.87**	1.16 (.05)	3.20**
Region 1	−1.11 (.05)	.33**	.20 (.05)	1.22**	1.31 (.06)	3.69**
Region 2	−1.43 (.04)	.24**	1.01 (.04)	2.72**	2.43 (.05)	11.41**
Region 3	−.89 (.09)	.41**	.24 (.08)	1.28**	1.14 (.10)	3.11**
Region 4	−1.65 (.08)	.19**	.58 (.09)	1.80**	2.23 (.10)	9.29**
Region 5	−.97 (.16)	.38**	.34 (.13)	1.40*	1.31 (.18)	3.69**
Region 6	−.18 (.04)	.84**	.33 (.03)	1.39**	.51 (.04)	1.66**
Region 7	−.80 (.06)	.45**	−.09 (.05)	.92	.71 (.06)	2.04**
−2 Log Likelihood	69,235.20**
Nagelkerke R²	.22

^aregression coefficient (standard error). ^bodds ratio.

* p < .05, **p < .01.

As shown in the first model, youth with public defenders are 41% less likely to receive rehabilitation-oriented outcomes compared to probation, relative to youth with private attorneys. Females are 26% more likely to receive rehabilitation outcomes compared to probation (b = .23). Additionally, older youth (b = −.03) are less likely to receive rehabilitation-oriented outcomes compared to younger youth. Black and Other youth are less likely to receive rehabilitation-oriented outcomes compared to probation than White youth (Black b = −.19; Other b = −.25). Both legal and extra-legal factors were also significant as youth who are out-of-school (b = −.12), from a one-parent family (b = −.15), and residing in urban counties (b = −1.31) were less likely to receive rehabilitation-oriented outcomes. Youth charged with felonies are 9% more likely to receive rehabilitation-oriented outcomes than youth charged with misdemeanors (b = .09). Youth referred by the police (b = .24) and with a greater number of priors (b = .14) are 28% and 15% more likely to receive rehabilitation-oriented outcomes compared to probation, respectively. Across offense types, youth with property offenses (b = −.21) and drug offenses (b = −.52) were less likely to receive rehabilitation-oriented outcomes. Overall, all regions are more likely to provide probation than rehabilitation-oriented outcomes.

The second model shows that youth with public defenders are 47% less likely to receive accountability-oriented outcomes compared to probation. Youth who are female (b = .66), referred by the police (b = .41), and have a greater number of priors (b = .28) and charges (b = .03) were more likely to receive accountability-oriented sanctions compared to probation. Legal and extra-legal factors that were associated with being less likely to receive accountability-oriented sanctions include: older youth (b = −.07), minorities (Black b = −.67; Hispanic b = −.53; Other b = −.75), youth charged with a felony (b = −.36), and youth charged with property (b = −.08) and drug offenses (b = −.11). In addition, youth who are out-of-school (b = −.11), from a one-parent family (b = −.30), and residing in urban counties (b = −.14) were less likely to receive punishment compared to probation. With one exception, all regions had a greater likelihood in receiving accountability-oriented outcomes than probation.

In the third model, youth with public defenders are 10% less likely to receive accountability-oriented sanctions compared to rehabilitation-oriented outcomes relative to youth with private attorneys. Females are 54% more likely to receive punishment compared to treatment. Minority youth are less likely to receive accountability sanctions compared to rehabilitation outcomes than White youth (Black b = −.49; Hispanic b = −.45; Other b = −.50). Similar to the other two models, both legal and extra-legal factors were significant. Youth charged with felonies are 36% less likely to receive accountability-oriented sanctions than youth charged with misdemeanors (b = −.44). Youth who are more likely to receive punishment compared to treatment include those who are: younger (b = −.04), charged with property (b = .14) and drug (b = .41) offenses, have a greater number of charges (b = .03), a greater number of priors (b = .14), and live in urban counties (b = 1.16). This finding aligns with higher risk youth receiving dispositions that correspond to their risk level (Andrews et al., 1990; Bonta & Andrews, 2016; Vincent et al., 2012). All regions were more likely to provide accountability-oriented sanctions compared to rehabilitation-oriented outcomes.

Discussion

Using 2009–2014 juvenile court referral data from all counties in a Northeast state, the purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between the type of legal representation and court outcomes, with a dual focus on disaggregated dispositions and the purpose of the juvenile justice system (accountability and rehabilitation for youth). Three objectives guided the present study: 1) investigate the effect that the type of legal counsel has on the likelihood of youth being adjudicated delinquent, 2) examine the effect that the type of legal counsel has on a nine-category dispositional outcome variable for adjudicated youth, and 3) determine if the type of counsel results in more rehabilitation-oriented or restrictive placement (i.e., accountability-oriented) types based on a continuum of sanctions for adjudicated youth that align with the purpose of the juvenile justice system. To assess a more nuanced set of outcomes for youth, the current study utilized a nine-category measure of dispositional outcomes. Then, to assess a continuum of court outcomes and variation within out-of-home placements, the nine categories were aggregated into: rehabilitation, probation, and accountability-oriented outcomes.

The first research question examined the extent to which type of legal counsel (private attorney or public defender) impacted juvenile justice decision-making at the adjudication stage. Youth with a public defender were more likely to be adjudicated delinquent than youth with a private attorney. Prior research has pointed to a similar finding as youth with public representation are more likely to be adjudicated (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld & Schaefer, 2010; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016). Thus, findings from the current study indicate youth do receive different outcomes based on type of legal representation, but those represented by a specific type of lawyer (private attorneys) were less likely to be adjudicated. One potential explanation for this finding may be the timing of when legal representation are assigned to a case. For private attorneys, they may work with youth leading up to the adjudication hearing and prepare an argument that leads to the youth not being adjudicated. Public defenders may not be assigned to the case until right before the hearing and thus, not be able to prepare a reasoning why the youth should not be adjudicated, resulting in higher rates of youth with public defenders being adjudicated delinquent. A second potential explanation for variation in court outcomes based on the type of legal representation may be due to the use of plea bargains entered by public defenders. Plea bargains in juvenile court result in a youth pleading “guilty” and as part of the plea bargain, are considered adjudicated (Fountain & Woolard, 2018; Redlich & Shteynberg, 2016). Fountain and Woolard (2018) note that plea bargaining is a quick process in the juvenile court that does not always allow for time to explain potential consequences of a youth’s decision and according to public defenders, youth accept plea bargains to receive an outcome in the community rather than one that is more serious (e.g., secure placement). Thus, if public defenders are entering a greater number of plea bargains on behalf of their client than private attorneys, this may lead to youth represented by public defenders having a greater odds of being adjudicated delinquent.¹³

With regard to the second question, the effect of type of legal representation on a nine-category disposition outcome measure was assessed. Findings demonstrated that youth with public defenders were less likely to receive drug and alcohol treatment, independent living/group home, day treatment, boot camp, residential placement, secure confinement, and other dispositions compared to probation. Recall that there was no significant difference among youth who had a public defender or private attorney for receiving mental health treatment. This null effect could be due to the lack of statistical power, as only 1% of youth were given this outcome. While some prior literature has shown that youth with private attorneys have lower rates of out-of-home placement and secure placement (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld, 1989; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016), the current study discovered that youth with private attorneys were more likely to receive some of these specific categories that are punitive in nature (i.e., boot camp, residential placement, and secure confinement).

In general, youth with public defenders were more likely to receive probation compared to any other outcome. One potential explanation for this finding is that public defenders may have higher caseloads than private attorneys. Thus, with larger caseloads, public defenders may not be able to spend as much time discussing potential outcomes or beneficial services for youth with juvenile court judges. Therefore, youth with public defenders were more likely to receive the most common disposition in juvenile court—probation. In addition, the type of lawyer may also be indirectly influencing the type of outcome assigned by the juvenile court. Youth who have serious charges (i.e., a felony) may be more likely to: (1) retain private attorneys, and (2) receive some of the harshest outcomes (secure confinement, residential placement, and boot camp) based on the type of delinquent act committed. Thus, this would indicate a selection effect rather than a legal representation effect (Guevara et al., 2004).

The third research question determined if the type of counsel results in more rehabilitation-oriented outcomes, probation, or accountability-oriented sanctions for adjudicated youth. The nine-category disposition measure was modified so that drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, independent living/group home, day treatment, and other dispositions were aggregated into rehabilitation-oriented interventions. Punishment-oriented (i.e., accountability) sanctions were aggregated from boot camp, residential placement, and secure confinement. Probation remained a separate category. Results demonstrated that youth with public defenders were more likely to receive probation compared to accountability- or rehabilitation-oriented outcomes relative to youth with private attorneys. When comparing only punitive sanctions to treatment outcomes, youth with public defenders were then less likely to receive accountability-oriented outcomes. Recall, when utilizing the 9-category disaggregated measure, youth with public defenders were more likely to receive probation compared to any other outcome. Thus, when all possible sanctions are considered, youth with public defenders have a higher likelihood of receiving probation than those with private representation, yet when only comparing rehabilitation versus accountability-oriented outcomes, public representation results in an increased likelihood of youth having more treatment-oriented placements.

The findings from all three research questions provide a more informed understanding of the juvenile court process for youth with legal representation.¹⁴ Based on the juvenile justice system’s objectives, youth should be: rehabilitated, held accountable for their actions, and given a sanction that considers public safety and protection of the community (Feld, 1989; Martin, 1992; Mears et al., 2011). Therefore, when the juvenile court sanctions youth, not only is punishment being dispensed, but interventions and services should also be provided. Thus, the findings suggest that the juvenile justice system may not be meeting the objectives of accountability and rehabilitation. Depending on what outcomes are being compared, youth represented by private attorneys receive either rehabilitative interventions or the most punitive sanctions. As mentioned earlier, receiving punitive sanctions could be due to the seriousness of the crime and decision to hire private representation. Also, youth may receive rehabilitation-oriented outcomes due to the amount of time private attorneys can spend with their clients. This additional time may let private attorneys suggest potential rehabilitative services or interventions to the judge based on the individual/situational aspects of their client’s life. However, receiving services within the most punitive sanctions, such as boot camp and secure facilities, is uncommon. Therefore, the rehabilitative goal of the juvenile justice system may not be achieved for youth with private attorneys. Further, youth with public defenders were more likely to receive probation compared to any other outcome. If services are not provided while on probation, the juvenile justice system is not meeting the goal of rehabilitation for youth with public defenders either.¹⁵ As such, the following section will focus on policy and practical implications based on the current findings.

Policy and Practical Implications

While the results suggest that the juvenile justice system is not fully meeting the objectives of both accountability and rehabilitation, policies that address legal representation in the juvenile court may impact future outcomes for youth. One of the due process rights given to youth in the juvenile court process is that youth can select the type (e.g., public or private) of counsel that represents them. Additionally, defense lawyers do not make dispositional outcome decisions in the court process, that is the responsibility of the judge. As such, the three policies suggested in the present study focus on aspects that may help defense lawyers in their complex roles within the juvenile court.

First, while some prior literature (Armstrong & Kim, 2011; Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Clarke & Koch, 1980; Feld, 1989; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016) and the current study have demonstrated support for harsher outcomes (i.e., adjudication) for youth with public defenders, youth with counsel (regardless of the type of representation) received both positive (i.e., less restrictive) and negative (i.e., punitive) outcomes. Thus, having legal representation does not inherently determine that youth will receive only negative outcomes in the juvenile court process. Specifically, findings from the current study show that while youth represented by public defenders were more likely to be adjudicated, at the dispositional stage these youth were most likely to receive probation. This finding speaks to the importance of ensuring youth across the United States are competent throughout juvenile court proceedings and fully understand the impact that the decision to waive counsel could have on the juvenile’s dispositional outcome.

While the state examined in the current study does not allow youth to waive their right to legal representation unless very rare circumstances occur, our ability to more fully understand juvenile court processing in a state with youth that require representation can be considered a strength of the analyses. As we were able to examine the nuances of how the type of legal representation impacts juvenile court outcomes for youth who are required to be represented by legal counsel, this study extends prior research that compared case outcomes for youth either with or without legal counsel. Forty-three states allow youth to waive their right without even consulting with a private attorney or public defender before making this decision (National Juvenile Defender Center, 2017), and most prior research suggests that youth do not fully understand the decision to waive counsel and are not competent throughout court proceedings (Feld, 2017; Grisso et al., 2003; Steinberg, 2009). As earlier studies have demonstrated that the presence of counsel is an aggravating factor in juvenile court proceedings (Burruss et al., 2020; Feld, 1988a, Feld & Schaefer, 2010), the current findings also found disparities in adjudication and disposition decisions depending on if youth are represented with public or private counsel. Therefore, the results provide insight for proponents of mandatory juvenile counsel (for an example, see Feld, 2019), where all youth, regardless of whether there is a potential for out-of-home placement or not, are represented in the juvenile court by a statewide public defense system. Scali (2019) also makes the recommendation for all juvenile courts to appoint legal representation for youth facing delinquency charges, especially to assist youth in understanding the lifelong impacts and consequences. As an example, Minnesota passed legislation that mandated youth to have legal representation. To help with lawyers increased caseload, Minnesota reduced nonserious misdemeanors to status offenses, and those with status offense charges were not eligible to receive out-of-home placement (Feld & Schaefer, 2010).

Second, if attorneys do not have adequate time to meet with their client, this may lead to a higher likelihood of adjudication and/or dispositions that do not align with the accountability and rehabilitative objectives of the juvenile justice system. In some jurisdictions, youth are assigned counsel right before the adjudicatory hearing and meet their representation for the first time in the courtroom (Miller-Wilson, 2003). Therefore, the lawyer representing the youth is required to make suggestions based on an insufficient amount of time. Thus, caseloads should stay at a level that allows for legal representation to meet with their client for a period of time prior to the adjudication hearing to allow for adequate preparation to represent youth. To date, there have been few empirical studies examining a caseload standard for defense attorneys in juvenile court.

The most recent national caseload standard was recommended in 1973 by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, and stated that caseloads for public defenders should not exceed more than 200 juvenile court cases per year. A new standard should be calculated based on a weighted formula similar to those used for juvenile court judges and probation officers (Farole & Langton, 2010; Hurst, 1999). However, to be feasible and have an effective public defense system, the number of working hours per week should be used rather than working hours per year. This standard should be separate from an adult court caseload standard and consider the amount of time defense attorneys need to: (1) meet with clients, (2) learn about the youth’s circumstances (e.g., family, peers, school, community), and (3) develop a disposition plan that will meet the dual goals (i.e., punishment and rehabilitation) of the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, implementation of a system that allows for legal representation to be assigned and notified of upcoming hearing dates is crucial to allow extra time for a meeting between counsel and client. If hearings need to be postponed so that a meeting can occur between legal representation and the youth, there should be no penalty when the youth returns for the hearing.

Finally, legal counsel may be unfamiliar with the types of services or programs that youth could receive as a disposition. Being familiar with the disposition outcomes that clients could be referred to may aid legal representation in making recommendations to the juvenile court judge. For example, if legal counsel becomes more aware of the effectiveness and philosophies of certain programs, the quality of legal representation may increase, as well as the court meeting the rehabilitative goal of the juvenile system. Thus, legal representation can suggest outcomes that hold the youth accountable but also provide treatment services. Attorneys can become more familiar with programs through brief trainings and data information systems. Training could include names and descriptions of available programs within the jurisdiction that youth could be sanctioned to. Descriptions should include the services offered and the type of youth issues (i.e., substance use, mental health, family problems) and risk level the program is most effective for. After training, when creating a disposition plan for clients, public defenders and private attorneys will be aware of the resources in the community that should be recommended for their client. Additionally, juvenile court attorneys should have access to information systems that allow them to see if the recommended dispositions were followed and/or effective (i.e., has the youth recidivated). This provides an opportunity to recognize the benefit of getting to know clients and recommending services that are appropriate and help to rehabilitate youth.

Limitations

The present study is not without limitations. First, the majority of youth received probation, and we were unable to disentangle any additional services youth received while on probation. For example, probation could have also required that youth participate in drug and alcohol testing, mentoring, mental health treatment, or tutoring. Thus, for youth who had a public defender and were most likely to receive probation, the current study could not distinguish if supplementary treatment or services were provided during the probation sanction period. Second, while youth with public representation could either have a court appointed attorney or public defender, it is also possible that private attorneys could be doing pro bono work (i.e., providing free services to those in need). Therefore, according to the court, the youth would have public representation. However, this representation would be by a pro bono private attorney, which could not be identified in the present study. Additionally, different states and jurisdictions have various strategies for public defense which could alter the quality of representation. Third, no data were available that relates to the evidentiary strength of the case. While the severity and type of the offense are legal factors that predict juvenile justice decision-making, the “strength of the case” is another factor that could influence adjudication and dispositional outcomes. Fourth, the data did not include indicators of risk level to recidivate or domain scores from any structured decision-making tools (i.e., risk/needs assessment), which could have provided additional control variables and context to the findings. Finally, no variables accounting for the family’s socioeconomic status were available in the data, which may have impacted the type of legal counsel youth could afford to have representing them.¹⁶ Although the current study was unable to include socioeconomic status, variables that were in the models are those typically used in research examining the impact of legal representation on court outcomes (Burruss & Kempf-Leonard, 2002; Feld, 1989; Feld & Schaefer, 2010; Peck & Beaudry-Cyr, 2016).¹⁷

Future Research

Additional research is needed to fully understand the impact of type of legal representation on disaggregated dispositions in juvenile court. As differences were found across the disaggregated disposition variable, it is important for future studies of juvenile justice decision-making to include multiple categories when evaluating the impact of legal representation or other factors on dispositional outcomes. Thus, a more robust understanding of sanctioning patterns can be developed, which will improve researcher’s ability to inform policy and practice related to the juvenile court. As seen in the current study, if youth with legal representation are more likely to receive “out-of-home” placement in the form of rehabilitative intervention (e.g., substance abuse treatment or mental health treatment), this would not automatically be as punitive of a sanction for youth compared to secure placement. Future research should also consider whether the relationship between type of legal representation and disaggregated court outcomes varies across gender and race/ethnicity. Based on findings from the current study and prior research that highlights differences in the outcomes youth receive based on gender (Bishop & Frazier, 1992; Cochran & Mears, 2015) and race/ethnicity (Donnelly, 2017; Peck & Jennings, 2016; Rodriguez, 2010), it is possible that individual extra-legal factors may condition the relationship between type of legal representation and court outcomes. It is also vital that research continues to explore the impact of numerous legal, extra-legal, and situational factors on outcomes for youth in the juvenile court. While shown to have a significant effect on outcomes for youth, the type of legal representation was not the only variable nor strongest factor always influencing adjudication or dispositional decision-making in the juvenile court. Future research should assess the multitude of juvenile and offense-specific characteristics that might lead to youth experiencing harsher court outcomes.

In summary, the present study was able to shed new light on the impact of the type of legal representation on court outcomes for youth by exploring: (1) a nuanced variable of dispositional outcomes for youth and (2) what role defense attorneys are aligning with in the juvenile courtroom workgroup. The current study supports that the type of legal representation influences court outcomes; however, this impact depends on the specific adjudicatory and dispositional outcomes for youth. By not disaggregating sanctions across a multitude of outcomes, the use of rehabilitative or less restrictive interventions may be lost in the dichotomy of out-of-home placement and community sanctions. Therefore, this may be attributing a negative view of legal representation within the juvenile court when youth experienced both positive and negative outcomes when represented by either a public defender or private attorney.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The data utilized in this publication were housed and made available by the National Juvenile Court Data Archive, which is maintained by the National Center for Juvenile Justice in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and supported by a grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. The National Center for Juvenile Justice bears no responsibility for the analyses and interpretations presented therein.

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.

ORCID iD

Jennifer H. Peck

Notes

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

Hoge

R. D.

(1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.

Armstrong

G. S.

Kim

(2011). Juvenile penalties for “Lawyering Up” the role of counsel and extralegal case characteristics. Crime & Delinquency, 57(6), 827–848.

Bernard

T. J.

Kurlychek

M. C.

(2010). The cycle of Juvenile justice. Oxford University Press.

Birckhead

T. R.

(2012). Delinquent by reason of poverty. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 38, 53108.

Birckhead

T. R.

(2017). The racialization of juvenile justice and the role of the defense attorney. Boston College Law Review, 58, 379–461.

Bishop

Frazier

(1992). Gender bias in Juvenile justice processing: Implications of the JJDP act. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(4), 1162–1186.

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2016). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Taylor & Francis.

Botvin

G. J.

Griffin

K. W.

Nichols

T. D.

(2006). Preventing youth violence and delinquency through a universal school-based prevention approach. Prevention Science, 7(4), 403–408.

Burruss

G. W.

Jr Kempf-Leonard

(2002). The questionable advantage of defense counsel in juvenile court. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 37–68.

10.

Burruss

G. W.

Peck

J. H.

Cameron

A. L.

(2020). Fifty years post Gault: A meta-analysis of the impact of attorney representation on delinquency outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 101634.

11.

Bushway

Johnson

B. D.

Slocum

L. A.

(2007). Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2), 151–178.

12.

Carrington

P. J.

Moyer

(1990). The effect of defence counsel on plea and outcome in juvenile court. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 621–637.

13.

Chappell

A. T.

(2019). Predicting the behavior of law in the juvenile court: A focus on noncompliance cases. Crime & Delinquency, 65(8), 1027–1049.

14.

Clarke

S. H.

Koch

G. G.

(1980). Juvenile court: Therapy or crime control, and do lawyers make a difference? Law and Society Review, 14, 263–308.

15.

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

(2015). Race, ethnic, and gender divides in juvenile court sanctioning and rehabilitative intervention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(2), 181–212.

16.

DeJong

Jackson

K. C.

(1998). Putting race into context: Race, juvenile justice processing, and urbanization. Justice Quarterly, 15(3), 487–504.

17.

Donnelly

E. A.

(2017). The disproportionate minority contact mandate: An examination of its impacts on juvenile justice processing outcomes (1997-2011). Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(4), 347–369.

18.

Emerson

R. M.

(1969). Judging delinquents: Context and process in the Juvenile courts. Aldine.

19.

Farole

D. J.

Jr Langton

(2010). A national assessment of public defender office caseloads. Judicature, 94(2), 87–90.

20.

Feeney

Jackson

P. G.

(1990). Public defenders, assigned counsel, retained counsel: Does the type of criminal defense counsel matter. Rutgers Law Journal, 22, 361–456.

21.

Feld

B. C.

(1988a). In re Gault revisited: A cross-state comparison of the right to counsel in juvenile court. Crime & Delinquency, 34(4), 393–424.

22.

Feld

B. C.

(1988b). The juvenile court meets the principle of offense: Punishment, treatment, and the difference it makes. Boston University Law Review, 68, 821–915.

23.

Feld

B. C.

(1989). The right to counsel in juvenile court: An empirical study of when lawyers appear and the difference they make. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 79(4), 1185–1346.

24.

Feld

B. C.

(1991). Justice by geography: Urban, suburban, and rural variations in juvenile justice administration. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82(1), 156–210.

25.

Feld

B. C.

(2017). Competence and culpability: Delinquents in Juvenile courts, youths in criminal courts. Minnesota Law Review, 102, 473–576.

26.

Feld

B. C.

(2019). The evolution of the juvenile court: Race, politics, and the criminalizing of juvenile justice (Vol. 4). NYU Press.

27.

Feld

B. C.

Schaefer

(2010). The right to counsel in juvenile court: The conundrum of attorneys as an aggravating factor at disposition. Justice Quarterly, 27(5), 713–741.

28.

Ferster

Courtless

(1972). Pre-dispositional data, role of counsel, and decisions in a juvenile court. Law and Society Review, 7, 195–222.

29.

Ferster

Courtless

Snethen

(1971). The juvenile justice system: In search of the role of counsel. Fordham Law Review, 39, 375–412.

30.

Fountain

E. N.

Woolard

J. L.

(2018). How defense attorneys consult with juvenile clients about plea bargains. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(2), 192–203.

31.

Freiburger

T. L.

Jordan

K. L.

(2011). A multilevel analysis of race on the decision to petition a case in the juvenile court. Race and Justice, 1(2), 185–201.

32.

Goldstein

A. P.

Glick

Reiner

Zimmerman

Coultry

T. M.

Gold

(1986). Aggression replacement training: A comprehensive intervention for the acting-out delinquent. Journal of Correctional Education, 37(3), 120–126.

33.

Grisso

Steinberg

Woolard

Cauffman

Scott

Graham

Schwartz

(2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 333–363.

34.

Guevara

Herz

Spohn

(2008). Race, gender, and legal counsel: Differential outcomes in two juvenile courts. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(1), 83–104.

35.

Guevara

Shekarkhar

Fuller

(2018). When does race matter in juvenile court outcomes? A test of the “type of offense” hypothesis. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 69, 5–24.

36.

Guevara

Spohn

Herz

(2004). Race, legal representation, and juvenile justice: Issues and concerns. Crime & Delinquency, 50(3), 344–371.

37.

Heckman

J. J.

(1974). Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply. Econometrics, 42(4), 679–694.

38.

Heckman

J. J.

(1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4), 475–492.

39.

Henggeler

S. W.

Melton

G. B.

Smith

L. A.

(1992). Family preservation using multisystemic therapy: An effective alternative to incarcerating serious Juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 953–961.

40.

Hockenberry

Puzzanchera

(2020). Juvenile court statistics 2018. National Center for Juvenile Justice.

41.

Hurst

(1999). Workload measurement for juvenile justice system personnel: Practices and needs. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).

42.

Kempf-Leonard, K. (2010). Does having an attorney provide a better outcome? Criminology & Public Policy, 9(2), 357–363.

43.

Leiber

M. J.

(2016). Race, prior offending, and juvenile court outcomes. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 88–106.

44.

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.

45.

Leiber

M. J.

Peck

J. H.

Beaudry-Cyr

(2016). When does race and gender matter? The interrelationships between the gender of probation officers and juvenile court detention and intake outcomes. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 614–641.

46.

Lowery

P. G.

(2019). Plea bargains among serious and violent girls: An intersectional approach exploring race in the juvenile court. Feminist criminology, 14(1), 115–139.

47.

Martin

G. A.

Jr . (1992). The delinquent and the juvenile court: Is there still a place for rehabilitation. Connecticut Law Review, 25, 57–93.

48.

Mears

D. P.

Cochran

J. C.

Greenman

S. J.

Bhati

A. S.

Greenwald

M. A.

(2011). Evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile court sanctions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(6), 509–520.

49.

Mears

D. P.

Kuch

J. J.

Lindsey

A. M.

Siennick

S. E.

Pesta

G. B.

Greenwald

M. A.

Blomberg

T. G.

(2016). Juvenile court and contemporary diversion: Helpful, harmful, or both? Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 953–981.

50.

Miller-Wilson

L. S.

(2003). Pennsylvania: An assessment of access to counsel and quality of representation in delinquency proceedings. American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center.

51.

Nagin

(1998). Deterrence and incapacitation. In Tonry

(Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 345–368). Oxford University Press.

52.

National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. (1973). Report on the courts. U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

53.

National Juvenile Defender Center. (2017). Access denied: A national snapshot of states’ failure to protect children’s right to counsel. https://njdc.info/snapshot/

54.

Peck

J. H.

Beaudry-Cyr

(2016). Does who appears before the juvenile court matter on adjudication and disposition outcomes? The interaction between client race and lawyer type. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 131–152.

55.

Peck

J. H.

Jennings

W. G.

(2016). A critical examination of “being Black” in the Juvenile justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 219–232.

56.

Redlich

A. D.

Shteynberg

R. V.

(2016). To plead or not to plead: A comparison of juvenile and adult true and false plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 611–625.

57.

Rodriguez

(2007). Juvenile court context and detention decisions: Reconsidering the role of race, ethnicity, and community characteristics in juvenile court processes. Justice Quarterly, 24(4), 629–656.

58.

Rodriguez

(2010). The cumulative effect of race and ethnicity in juvenile court outcomes and why preadjudication detention matters. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 391–413.

59.

Scali

M. A.

(2019). Meeting the mandates of gault: Automatic appointment of counsel in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 70(3), 7–23.

60.

Snyder

H. N.

Sickmund

(2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

61.

Steinberg

(2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 459–485.

62.

Stolzenberg

R. M.

Relles

D. A.

(1990). Theory testing in a world of constrained research design: The significance of Heckman’s censored sampling bias correction for nonexperimental research. Sociological Methods & Research, 18, 395–415.

63.

Swigert

V. L.

Farrell

R. A.

(1977). Normal homicides and the law. American Sociological Review, 42, 16–32.

64.

Tittle

C. R.

Curran

(1988). Contingencies for dispositional disparities in juvenile justice. Social Forces, 67, 23–58.

65.

Vincent

G. M.

Guy

L. S.

Grisso

(2012). Risk assessment in Juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice, MacArthur Foundation.

66.

Wilbanks

(1987). The Myth of a racist criminal justice system. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.