Abstract
The study of disproportionate minority contact (DMC) has encountered at least three obstacles: the lack of research on policing, the difficulty of expanding research beyond Blacks and Whites, and the absence of research focused on different regions of the country. The authors of this article seek to fill these three gaps by exploring the reasons why Hispanic juveniles have a greater number of arrests for delinquent and nondelinquent behavior than White youth. The geographic context for this study is the Southern New Mexico border with Mexico, which is one of the poorest regions in the United States. Using various sources of data, both qualitative and quantitative, the authors contribute to the theory of minority group threat to explain how law enforcement officers participate in reinforcing DMC despite a perception of juvenile justice leniency in minority majority communities. We devote special focus toward the policing of poor communities, school discipline, and internal divisions regarding punishment-oriented strategies.
Keywords
A critical point of analysis for reducing disproportionate minority contact (DMC) involves understanding the decision making of law enforcement officers. Individual officers possess the authority whether to initiate a referral to a juvenile for a delinquent act, status offense, or they can simply give a warning. The DMC Technical Assistance Manual (Feyerherm, Snyder, & Villarruel, 2009) categorizes an arrest as the first of nine decision points involving the juvenile justice system: from the point of arrest to cases transferred to adult court. 1 As DMC studies expanded from the original focus of confinement (one decision point) to contact in 2002 (nine decision points), scholars began to question why the study of policing remained the most important yet understudied topic in the juvenile justice system (Davis & Sorensen, 2012; Pope & Feyerherm, 1995; Pope, Lovell, & Hsia, 2002). Pope and Feyerherm (1995) stated, “Police are the gatekeepers controlling who is funneled into the juvenile courts. If such decisions are in any way racially biased, minority youth may be more at risk later during the correctional processing stage” (p. 10). Some researchers attributed the lack of progress attained in reducing DMC to the lack of focus on the front end of the system (Dillard, 2013).
In addition to the importance of studying law enforcement decision making, there is also a gap in studying different geographic areas and racial and ethnic groups beyond Whites and Blacks. 2 Kempf-Leonard (2007) and Leiber and Rodriguez’s (2011) review of 20 years of DMC research emphasized the importance of studying local conditions that increase delinquent involvement and also shape justice official stereotypes. For this study in particular, scholars have described the largely rural U.S.–Mexico border as a militarized zone (Andreas, 2000; Dunn, 1996; Heyman, 1999; Nevins, 2010). This heightened level of enforcement has required an extensive amount of funding devoted toward increased security (Dunn, 2009; Nevins, 2010). Political and media attention has shaped enforcement efforts along the border region and often by individuals who do not live on the border (Posadas & Medina, 2012). Despite these patterns, there has been a major gap in the scholarly literature on policing in this section of the country (Holmes, 1998; Rosas, 2012). Massey, Durand, and Malone (2002) compared the Gross National Product of Mexico and the United States and stated that “… no-where else on earth is there such a sharp contrast along a land border, much less one that is two thousand miles long” (p. 7). In addition, there has been an increased interest among criminologists as to why there has been so little research on Hispanics and the police (Durán, 2012; Martinez, 2007; Weitzer, 2014). Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the country, and research data indicate differential treatment by the police in many ways similar to Blacks (Escobar, 1999; Mirandé, 1987; Solis, Portillos, & Brunson, 2009; Urbina, 2012).
This article presents results from a systematic, ethnographic study of DMC at the point of arrest along the U.S.–Mexico border of southern New Mexico. The analysis benefits from the researchers’ minority perspective, access to law enforcement officers who were Hispanic or White, and an opportunity to explore communities for which Whites were a numerical minority. We report and analyze three important facets of juvenile disparities involving: (a) the policing of White and Hispanic communities, (b) the policing of K–12 educational institutions, and (c) the internal divisions among juvenile probation and law enforcement officers regarding how to alter youth misbehavior. The challenges that exist along the U.S.–Mexico border provide a more nuanced view of the complexities involved in the policing of juveniles.
Policing Minority Communities
Youth of color have limited positive experiences with law enforcement (Brunson & Miller, 2006; Durán, 2013; Fine et al., 2003; Portillos, González, & Peguero, 2012; Rios, 2011; Solis et al., 2009). Brunson and Miller (2006) interviewed African American youth in St. Louis, MO, who reported police harassment, regular stops, and disrespectful treatment. Sometimes this carried over into physical brutality and law enforcement attempts to tamper with evidence to ensure a criminal conviction. Portillos, González, and Peguero’s (2012) study of a high school found Chicana/o and Mexicana/o experiences set in a racialized space that made youth feel marginalized directly and indirectly. Moreover, the educational operation of the institution did not integrate or respect their cultural heritage. In this setting, school surveillance and security in the name of safety only produced greater levels of criminalization.
Law enforcement officers often report the difficulties they experience in minority communities and this can develop into a prejudicial belief system (Bayley & Mendelsohn, 1968; Skolnick, 1975; Vera Sanchez & Rosenbaum, 2012). Bayley and Mendelsohn (1968), in one of the earliest studies on policing and minority communities, stated,
The policeman enters into contacts with minority people holding the stereotypes and prejudices of the community as a whole. His experiences on the force have taught him to be wary of minority encounters, to be alert for violence, and to expect resentment. (p. 169)
Vera Sanchez and Rosenbaum’s (2012) recent study of the policing of racial and ethnic minority communities, in a large Midwestern city, grouped officer responses into several themes including (a) police officers feeling misunderstood and unwelcome in minority neighborhoods and (b) police opinions based on community attitudes and actions. Instead of seeing race, officers thought behaviors were more influenced by (c) age and (d) morals. Finally, officers did not think (e) minority cops could racially profile and (f) police officers categorized African American neighborhoods more negatively. As police departments have become more racially and ethnically diverse, it has provided an opportunity to learn more about the experiences of minority officers (Alex, 1969; Dulaney, 1996; Durán, 2015; Heyman, 2002; Urbina & Álvarez, 2015). Heyman (2002) found that, despite many similarities between Hispanic officers and the populations they police along the U.S.–Mexico border, overall, these officers held a moral distance from recent immigrants, identified themselves with the institution of Immigration and Naturalization Service, and emphasized personal accomplishments that entailed a separate identity and overall restrictive viewpoints on immigration. Despite the overwhelming consensus of minority officers identifying with the institution, or becoming blue, there exists the possibility for Black and Latino officers to provide greater cultural competency within communities of color (Dulaney, 1996; Ruiz, 1997; Sklansky, 2006).
Minority Group Theory in Geographic Lands of Colonialism
Blalock (1967) worked to develop a theory of minority group relations that offers a foundation for explaining the empirical issues presented in this article. By working to create testable theories that allow for micro and macro analyses along with an emphasis on measurement, he concentrated on a power framework involving numbers, resources, and social organization. Blalock posited that in situations where the minority group was small, it could result in political discrimination, symbolic segregation, and threat oriented ideologies. However, in an area with a larger minority group presence, it was unclear whether residents could gain greater political and socioeconomic inclusion in society or simply become middle-man minorities. Blalock particularly focused on the role of geographic context in shaping minority group relations by his interest in comparing the South with the North and looking toward other countries around the world including South Africa and Brazil, which achieved differing outcomes with larger numbers of minority group members compared to the dominant group.
Engen, Steen, and Bridges (2002) found four explanations for DMC including “1) the differential involvement thesis; 2) the differential treatment/discrimination thesis; 3) structural-processual explanations; and 4) macro-contextual explanations” (p. 195). They reported that macro-contextual explanations take into consideration the size of the minority population, levels of inequality and poverty and the type of community studied whether rural, urban, or mixed. As a unique geographic setting, the U.S.–Mexico border has intertwined notions of race and ethnicity with citizenship. Thus, as the southwest shifted from Indigenous, Spanish, Mexican, and then United States political control, it has only heightened issues of perceiving Hispanics with a foreign residency status. Such notions were not new, as Haney López (2006) reported Whiteness classifications were central toward gaining citizenship in the United States. Individuals of Mexican descent have often walked an ambiguous line in terms of racial categorization by state officials (Gómez, 2007). Moreover, Gómez structured her book titled Manifest Destines to follow three themes: (1) the centrality of colonialism for the Mexican American experience, (2) the paradoxical legal construction of Mexicans as racially White whereas the social construction of Mexicans as racially inferior, and (3) the inclusion of a middle group for subordination (Mexican Americans) between the White-over-Black racial order that created a more complicated racial hierarchy.
The U.S.–Mexico border was as a central place for socioeconomic inequality. The border demonstrated a socially constructed political line (i.e., the ground itself cannot tell you which part is Mexico and which part is the United States) that continued to enhance a militarized physical geographic separation. Heyman (2008) argued this separation had even become a virtual wall because of advanced surveillance using computer technologies along with the massing of police forces. Such a geographic and social boundary had the power to shape youth experiences as noted by Bejarano (2005) when she stated:
Border narratives demonstrate young people’s vulnerable and complex lives as well as the turmoil they confront … One might say that these concerns are no different than what other youths confront, but I argue that Latina/o youths face more difficulties as youths securing ‘rights’ claims because of their undesirable ethnic status in the United States and their secondary knowledge of the English language. (p. 49)
In addition, large sections of the U.S.–Mexico border were rural. Bond-Maupin and Maupin’s (1998) study of a rural setting in northern New Mexico found that contrary to many positive perceptions about rural communities, the primarily Hispanic/Mexican American youth in this region were encountering considerable police surveillance and were receiving a high number of referrals compared to White youth. Another study in the rural settings of southern New Mexico (Willging, Quintero, & Lilliott, 2014) found youth feeling a sense of boredom that led to increased troublemaking and drug use. These researchers found Latino males were more likely to feel trapped and unable to escape negative labeling and these adult figures transmitted these reputations to siblings.
Rather than emphasize the contextual nature of difference, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) argue through Social Dominance Theory that all societies develop group-based hierarchies based on age, gender, and socially constructed arbitrary sets such as clan, class, ethnicity, race, and so on. Dominant groups in society seek to hold onto these powers and privileges at the expense of subordinate groups; however, control requires the participation of all human actors. Some institutions were hierarchy reinforcing whereas others were hierarchy attenuating. The differences were primarily based on whether the institution increased or maintained group-based hierarchies. Law enforcement was a hierarchy reinforcing institution and it recruited and hired individuals who held antiegalitarian beliefs (Sidanius, Liu, Shaw, & Pratto, 1994). Educational and juvenile justice institutions also fit into hierarchy reinforcing institutions despite an ideological interest that offered greater levels of equality. Rios (2011) reported how law enforcement, juvenile probation, parents, and schools developed into a youth control complex where each institution began to work contrary to juvenile interests and more toward criminalization. Ward (2012) historically outlined how the juvenile justice system and mass schooling emerged in the 1800s when the authority of parenting shifted toward the state. The language used was to “reform,” “uplift,” and “develop” children into worthy citizens. However, the state consistently treated Black children differently from Whites. Ward stated, “In the view of the dominant group, the antebellum black child was never expected to become an economically independent or politically equal participant in society but was instead a profitable beast of burden, raised to accommodate to a subordinate caste status within the racial order” (p. 36). Nevertheless, many Black leaders, especially women, worked toward child-saving reforms in order to create better alternatives for future generations. Bernard (1992) emphasized the cyclical nature of juvenile justice often moving from perceived leniency to increased punishment. Feld (1999), on the other hand, outlined the increased levels of punishment in the juvenile justice system. Therefore, theoretically, the authors of this article are interested in how contextual geographic specificities influence larger institutional patterns.
The authors of this study began with the following research question “Why are Hispanic youth who live along the U.S.–Mexico border overrepresented at the point of arrest compared to White youth?” A previous publication by the authors found Black and Hispanic youth in the State of New Mexico were overrepresented in the juvenile justice system (Durán & Posadas, 2013). This finding was surprising to many practitioners because New Mexico was a majority–minority state: Hispanics were a numerical majority in the state’s population. In addition, the State has a much longer history of racial and ethnic contestation regarding leadership and pressures for representation in all fields of employment (Gómez, 2007). This study was an attempt to explain these disparities at the first and largest point of the juvenile justice system: arrests or in local terms, Class 3 referrals. We begin by discussing the methods used in gathering these data and settings where we conducted the research. We describe the factors that we observed influencing juvenile arrest rates involving both neighborhoods and school settings. Mixed in this decision-making was a divided viewpoint among law enforcement officers and practitioners in general about how to respond to juvenile delinquency and status offenses. Finally, we offer a conclusion that contributes to analyses using minority group threat, social dominance theory, and the role of law enforcement in countering structural inequalities. This research is unique in its breadth (various sources of data) and depth (interviews and observations conducted during a 7-year period).
Methods and Settings
The research reported in this article is part of a larger study of DMC in the State of New Mexico. This study began by using official statistics obtained through the Family Automated Client Tracking System (FACTS) for the years of 2002–2008. The state of New Mexico’s Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD) collected and housed the data. The annual sets include data on 509, 574 cases separated over nine decision points. Other official data sources came from the DMC Web-based Data Entry System and internal agency files. Official data are convenient and can be very useful once granted permission to incorporate; however, it is also limited by the interests, practices, and priorities of, in this case, law enforcement and CYFD agencies (Blumstein & Beck, 1999). In order to better comprehend and respond to the existence of DMC, the authors decided to expand the number of data sources and focus specifically on one decision point (i.e., juvenile referrals) and a specific region of the State (southern New Mexico along the U.S.–Mexico border). This geographic area encompasses District 3 (Doña Ana County) and District 6 (Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna Counties).
To determine whether DMC existed in District 3 and District 6, we used the relative rate index (RRI). The RRI measure compares minority youth to White youth to determine whether there is disproportionality. It is a measure intended to determine significant differences between how youth of different racial and ethnic backgrounds experience the juvenile justice system throughout the nine decision points used by CYFD and recommended by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The process begins by identifying the youth population in a particular county, district, state, or any other geographical area. Local census data were the most commonly used measure for determining a base rate of the population. The authors calculated rates by using the same formula for conformity in comparing across groups. 3 We divided minority youth rates by the White youth rate to arrive at the RRI. An RRI greater than 1 on the scale means that minority youth experience that specific decision point at a higher rate than White youth (Benekos, Merlo, & Puzzanchera, 2011).
Beyond the official statistics, the authors collected qualitative data during a period of 7 years (2007–2014). Other secondary data sources included newspaper articles, pamphlets, and the Neighborhood Change Database 1970–2010 Tract Data developed by Geolytics. Qualitative data were obtained by direct observation, casual interaction, unstructured and semistructured interviews, photography, and videotaping (Gubrium & Holstein, 1997; Lofland & Lofland, 2006). According to Gubrium and Holstein (1997), naturalism, as a procedural idiom, seeks to understand social reality by being present in the setting and learning the vantage point of the participants by utilizing participant observation and interviews. Jorgensen (1989) states, “… the methodology of participant observation seeks to uncover, make accessible, and reveal the meanings (realities) people use to make sense out of their daily lives” (p. 15). Qualitative research thus allowed the researchers the opportunity to go beyond state collected data to learn more about the processes that played a role in shaping racial and ethnic disparities. Ethnographic observations were more intensive in District 3 from September 2007 to August 2010 and in District 6 from September 2011 to August 2012. The authors of this study also participated in a 6-week Border Patrol Citizens Academy where they were able to learn more about border enforcement. Each week was organized into particular themes such border observations, immigration detention centers, bike and dog patrols, the Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC), technology, immigration and custom inspection laws, and finally a graduation ceremony at the Border Patrol Museum.
Unstructured and semistructured interviews along with several focus groups with practitioners began in 2007 and continued until 2014. Bernard (2006) stated researchers use unstructured interviews based on a clear plan but with the goal of getting individuals to share their thoughts and with an opportunity to talk over an extended period. Semistructured interviews followed an interview guide and made use of the possibility of a 1-time interview. The authors interviewed a total of 76 individuals who were key members in the fields of law enforcement (n = 19), K–12 education (n = 16), juvenile probation (n = 12), and the overall juvenile services work groups including district attorneys, judges, directors of prevention programs, city and county managers, social workers, and corrections personnel (n = 22). In addition, we interviewed seven highly engaged and long-term community members. The researchers took handwritten notes during each interview and interviewees determined the approval or disapproval of a voice recorder. Interviews lasted anywhere from 45 min to 2 hr. We transferred all handwritten notes and tape-recorded transcriptions into a Word document. The key participants were diverse in terms of race and ethnicity: 48 Hispanic, 27 White, and 1 Black. In terms of gender, 29 participants were female and 47 were male. The authors conducted interviews in English; however, both researchers range from intermediate to fluent levels of Spanish and some conversations occurred in both languages. Observations and conversations with law enforcement involved federal, state, county, and local law enforcement officers. Formal interviews with juveniles did not receive institutional review board approval, thus field notes, informal conversations, and the authors parenting of several K–12 children captured some of these experiences.
The authors of this article worked to develop a minority perspective in conducting the research and reporting the results (Phillips & Bowling, 2003; Takagi, 1981). Ethnography can benefit from the researchers’ own biographies in gaining access to communities and developing rapport (Adler & Adler, 1987; Bracey, Meier, & Rudwick, 1973; Durán, 2013; Hayano, 1979). As members of underrepresented groups in academia, the researchers intertwined their access into majority–minority communities that reflected their backgrounds. Personal connections to the community and the concerns of juvenile justice reflected through the work in numerous ways. The first author family has lived in New Mexico for several centuries. This author’s previous work with gangs and the criminal justice system resulted in a number of community presentations and collaborations with various community institutions that resulted in broadening the networks obtained and provided access to previously closed institutions. The second author spent most of his life growing up along both sides of the U.S.–Mexico border. This author’s level of lived experiences in the community provided the opportunity to make this a participatory study that provided a higher level of insight, analysis, and crosschecking. Although some researchers have utilized ethnography as a colonial type of methodology, it also has the unique epistemological ability to uproot positivistic ways of understanding (Blauner & Wellman, 1973; Collins, 2000; Durán, 2013; Jones, 1970; Kirk & Miller, 1986).
The primary geographic area of focus for this study includes two judicial districts, comprising four counties (Doña Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna) that exist along the U.S.–Mexico border. According to most social indicators, the U.S.–Mexico border is one of the poorest regions of the country and if it were a state it would rank 50th (U.S.–Mexico Border Health Commission, 2010). New Mexico in general does not fare much better and the Annie E. Casey Foundation (2013, 2014) review of various social indicators often resulted in this State being the worst place for children to grow up. As of 2013, southern New Mexico was primarily a rural geographic area. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average number of people per square mile in these four counties was 18.1 compared to 87.4 for the United States. The largest city in this area was Las Cruces, which had 101,234 residents whereas some of the smallest villages contained less than 40 individuals. Nearly 64% of residents were Latino (63.8%), 31.6% White, 2.3% Native American, and 2% Black. 4 Twenty-five percent of residents in these counties lived below poverty compared to 15% for the United States.
Policing Disparities
The policing of juveniles along the U.S.–Mexico border involved a wide variety of law enforcement agencies in largely rural and poor geographic settings. Communities that had incorporated into a city had their own police departments that ranged in size from 3 to 161 officers whereas Sheriff Officers monitored the overall county. State (New Mexico State Police and New Mexico Motor Transportation Police) and Federal agencies (Border Patrol, Federal Bureau of Investigations, and U.S. Customs) supplemented local law enforcement. In addition, the National Guard of the U.S. Armed Forced often helped Border Patrol with surveillance. Other forms of social control were present on the military base (i.e., White Sands), private property (i.e., schools and stores—from Wal-Mart to local malls), and universities (i.e., university police departments). The District Attorney’s Offices established a truancy program to monitor and issue citations to juveniles and their parents for excessive school absences. This effort tried to hold not only juveniles accountable but also their parents who the District Attorney could cite for their child’s truancy. Combined, this resulted in a wide number of institutions of social control that had the potential to interact with youth but the most involved and interactive continued to be Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) who reviewed all Class 3 referrals issued by a law enforcement officer.
JPOs responded to referrals in a number of ways from handling informally (the majority) to petitioning the case to go before a district court judge. Over the time period being reviewed, White youth were more likely to have their cases diverted. According to the Children’s Code in New Mexico (32A-2-7), the JPO office has the power to informally dispose of up to three misdemeanor charges brought against a juvenile within 2 years. A felony charge or four misdemeanors automatically brought the juvenile before the Children’s Court Attorney. Once a youth received a referral, 60% of these individuals received a subsequent referral and 96% of these juveniles had between one to three referrals by the age of 18. A small proportion of juveniles, 4.5%, had four or more referrals per year. 5
According to the FACTS data and DMC Web-based Data Entry System, District 3 and District 6 averaged 3,752 arrests per year from 2005 to 2013 for which 80% of these cases occurred in District 3. The number of arrests rose from a low of 3,436 in 2006 to a high of 4,355 in 2009, but surprisingly decreased to the lowest levels in 9 years in 2013 with 2,959 arrests. The RRI during this 9-year-period averaged 1.75 with higher levels of overrepresentation occurring in District 6 (2.40) compared to District 3 (1.37). In other words, police officers arrested Hispanic youth on average at a 75% greater volume than White youth.
Contrary to many law enforcement agencies across the nation lacking in racial and ethnic diversity, there were a sizable, and in some communities along the U.S.–Mexico border, an equitable share of officers who were representative of the communities they serve. For example, 50–57% of the Sheriff’s Office in District 3 and the Las Cruces City Police Department were Hispanic, which was slightly lower than the county at 64%. 6 Hispanic and White officers were also more likely to be bilingual. The more equitable the law enforcement agencies in this geographic area in terms of race and ethnicity appeared to increase rapport with residents. It also created interest in youth for pursuing careers in law enforcement. Criminal justice was the most popular major at the local university where students, primarily between the ages of 18 and 24, often brought with them socialized conservative feelings for legitimate behaviors and the punishments required to change these actions.
Policing of Border Communities
According to an analysis of the Neighborhood Change Database 1970–2010 Tract Data, most neighborhoods (65%) had much higher concentrations of Whites or Hispanics beyond district averages (See Figure 1). Census tract data and field observations showed a higher level of income, wealth, resources, and education levels in the White neighborhoods compared to Hispanic neighborhoods. 7 These highest concentrated neighborhoods had remained that way for the past 30–50 years.
Proportions based on percent Hispanic, 2010.
White neighborhoods provided a geographic separation from the socioeconomic and educational difficulties faced by other residents, particularly high concentrated Hispanic census tracts. Of the two districts, District 3 had higher levels of White segregation (1.8 times greater than proportion of population) between 1980 and 2010, which was possibly due to the location of a national university, and its primarily white-collar workforce for which most administrators and faculty were White. For example, one census tract had an average of being 72% White in a county where less than 30% of residents were of this demographic group. Officer Steve, who was Hispanic and a 20-year veteran of the police department, believed certain areas provided more economic buffers for youth from getting in trouble. He reported,
Poverty does not make bad people, but having money provides buffers. For example, Sonoma Ranch [high concentrated White neighborhood], there are all kinds of buffers from the diagnosis of mental illness to households that have money to put their kids in programs. They can afford to have their kids play sports or put their son or daughter in basketball camp and pay the $500 fee. In lower income areas, having both parents is unusual. Some of these youth live with grandma or change households every six months and that creates a chaotic environment.
Since many residents did not report thinking along the lines of race or ethnicity, it was consciousness raising for the authors to analyze the census data in addition to conducting first hand observations of these racial and economic divisions between communities.
District 3 contained the highest concentrated Hispanic neighborhoods for which several census tracts had an average of 91% Hispanic between 1980 and 2010 and they were primarily concentrated along the U.S.–Mexico border. The poverty rates were nearly 36%, which were very close to a categorization of “ghetto poverty” given by urban sociologists to describe the most economically depressed neighborhoods in the nation. Practitioners explained how economic divisions led to a higher proportion of Hispanic youth having greater contact with the juvenile justice system than White youth. Overall, New Mexico had a low proportion of foreign born residents (9.8%) compared to the United States (12.8%); however, residents along the border region had a much higher proportion (28%). According to Martinez (2015), high levels of immigrants often equates with lower levels of violence. A U.S. Government Accountability Office (2013) study confirmed border counties in New Mexico had lower levels of violence and property crimes than nonborder counties for the years analyzed, 2005 through 2011. In these two districts, children who were undocumented were often unable to receive juvenile justice services because most programs for governmental services required a social security number. Youth picked up by the Border Patrol were detained for a short period and then brought back across the border if they were from Mexico; otherwise, they were detained longer, until a number of individuals from their country of birth were arrested.
Having knowledge of a lack of services in the community pushed certain law enforcement leaders to become more proactive by working with city, county, district, and state officials to search for grants and partner with other agencies. Several federal grants such as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, and Weed and Seed offered services geared toward increased law enforcement support. Officer Steve, the 20-year veteran, along with several other officers helped establish a Weed and Seed Safe Haven center, in one of the poorest and highest concentrated Latino communities in the city. He reported,
One of the primary findings from these early studies was that the youth needed a safe haven within the community where they could go after school and have community support. A house was chosen in the Mesquite neighborhood for such a location and the house was stripped and rebuilt with the help of officers and community leaders to transform the house into a service oriented building … At first the community was resistant to the idea of law enforcement officers stationed in the community but later they began to give their support. Officers learned that when they dressed in plainclothes the community would be more interactive and engaging than when they wore their police uniform even when they already knew they were law enforcement.
Officer Steve and several additional officers reported the chief of police was crucial for efforts to develop community policing and partnerships with residents. As this position rotated, it often moved back and forth from administrators supporting community policing to some not wanting any “headaches” and removing officers from having autonomous flexibility.
Based on field observations, the highest concentrated White neighborhoods received lower levels of law enforcement patrol than the highly concentrated Hispanic neighborhoods. However, the more densely populated Las Cruces received more police attention than more rural geographic areas. There were some exceptions, such as the previously unincorporated area of Anthony, NM, had a section of the town known as the “box.” Officers reported higher levels of crime and gang activity in this small section of town. A Doña Ana County Sheriff Office substation was located in this area and there were greater levels of patrol.
Geographically, there was a wide variance in how to respond to youth misbehavior. Some officers in one particular county described a hands-off approach and that it was not worth officers’ time to arrest juveniles unless it was a very serious offense. A Class 3 referral in either district could take up to an hour to complete and the law enforcement officer would then simply return the youth to their caregiver. JPOs at times wanted more referrals whereas another county was overwhelmed with too many cases. In both districts, police officers wanted JPOs to be stricter with youth referrals. Officer Jack, who was White and a 14-year veteran of the police department, described how the State needed more options for removing children from problem homes:
Most of the time, youth are returned immediately back to their parents after receiving a Class Three referral and thus face little to no consequence. One time we removed a child for using meth at a drug house. The same drug house where her mother had overdosed three times and her aunt. We had to return her back home and 30 minutes later, we received another call that she was home using meth again. The Judge detained her due to being a harm and danger to herself. She was sent to Ruidoso Treatment, but still has the potential to go back and use with such a family environment.
For reasons such as these, most practitioners including law enforcement officers believed the family unit was a major source of the problem. These practitioners identified the problem as generational and nothing was in place to break the cycle. Parents were perceived as no longer disciplining their children and officers felt overburdened when calls to the police requested help in getting children to sleep, making them go to school, or doing simple household chores. Officer Jack mentioned how males were often the head of household in traditional Hispanic families and in single parent families, young boys often took on an authority role.
Several officers reported a belief that giving juveniles a referral was a strategy to get youth the services they need: both in the community and from the juvenile justice system. Officer Steve reported,
I strongly believe in immediate assessment. My view is that it is better to report than to ignore misbehavior. For example, take the un-reporting of domestic violence in the past and how ignoring or dismissing a problem did not make it go away. Therefore, when we created the Safe Haven there became an increase in delinquency and crime because before a lot had gone unreported but that began to change. The East Mesa area of Las Cruces has a lot of activity but in terms of resources, the officers do not have the number of officers to go out there regularly and patrol delinquent activity. My goal is to prevent youth from falling through the cracks and it is important to make an impact and provide resources for kids.
Beyond an immediate assessment and reporting center, many officers and city officials had an interest in maintaining the Police Athletic Leagues and other partnerships with the community. These programs were difficult to maintain without federal or statewide grants to provide officers additional funding to participate because officers’ time could often receive higher compensation for overtime work and working additional shifts.
Different living conditions involving racial, ethnic, and economic segregation shaped police officer strategies for interacting with youth. In areas that appeared to have more resources, it seemed that officers believed in the utilization of resources beyond the juvenile justice system. However, in poorer economic areas, referrals provided an opportunity for youth assessment and increased services.
Policing of K–12 Educational Institutions
As the nationwide discussion began to critique the schoolhouse to jailhouse track or school to prison pipeline (Noguera, 2003), such discussions were largely absent in southern New Mexico schools. Nevertheless, anywhere from one third to one half of all juvenile arrests were occurring in K–12 educational institutions. The reasons for the wide range involved both the number of delinquent and status offenses documented but also the number of truancy referrals that had become more aggressively prosecuted through the District Attorney’s Office. Administrators and school officials appeared more consumed with poor educational outcomes for students. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2012), New Mexico ranked second lowest in terms of on-time graduation rate, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation has continually ranked the State in the bottom 10 (New Mexico Voices for Children, 2012; Kids Count, 2014).
As of 2010, District 3 contained three school districts for 39,367 students enrolled in K–12 whereas District 6 contained five school districts for 10,571 students (New Mexico Public Education Department, 2009–2010). These schools varied in terms of the rate of arrests by grade level, school, and geographic area. For example, for the years of 2005–2008 in District 3, middle schools had the highest referral rates (average of 47 per 1,000) compared to high schools (average 40 per 1,000) and elementary schools (2 per 1,000).
Schools played a prominent role in the life of children, teaching various forms of educational and socialization knowledge in addition to being one of the earliest forms of social control. Officer Steve reported the schools started using School Resource Officers (SROs) in 1996 when the community began having block parties at the parks with the National Guard. He stated,
However, over time we have noticed that is important for school administration to allow SROs [School Resource Officers] the ability to do their jobs as LCPD [Las Cruces Police Department] officers and not be influenced by principals to make unnecessary referrals. The SROs already have one boss and they do not need two, and this has often been difficult for schools to realize that SROs are autonomous from the school.
Some of this conflict may have been why some schools wavered between having their own private security officers or incorporate officers from the police or sheriff’s department. School district administrators occasionally utilized community forums to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each option, but it was unclear what types of empirical data were presented. Private security firms offered increased supervision beyond law enforcement officers who were often short staffed, rotated occasionally between several schools, and more independent.
During field research, one of the authors observed an encounter when a school principal received a tip of several middle school girls on a sports team allegedly smoking marijuana near the school. The next day, the principal brought in each youth to her office with the SRO and began her interrogation. It was determined that some youth did smoke marijuana whereas others were present at the time of the offense. The principal wanted all the youth cited with a referral, and each of the students were removed from the sports team; however, parental advocacy ensured the youth who were not smoking did not receive a Class 3 referral or receive school suspension. The SRO agreed with the parents and so it placed the SRO in strange situation because the principal wanted referrals for everyone but the law enforcement officer and parents countered. An interview with an SRO summarized many of these challenges. Lisa, a 5-year veteran as a SRO, reported how she tries to mediate problems before they get bigger and to be proactive:
I go around to help. I’m a friend to the students, but if you break the line, you have to pay the price. The most important goal is kid safety. I don’t always file a referral. If the law is broken then yes or if it is criminal damage to the school or taking an IPOD or cell phone. Some parents want charges filed. The schools utilize the counselors to try and mediate conflicts, mediate girl bullying, and they keep a harassment log. Some of these youth have special education needs or ADHD. Most of the time I stop and talk to the youth. “What do you like doing?” Try and work things out and get to solutions. I learn the kids’ names and I take their safety personal … The schools operate by a point system. They could get in school suspensions (ISS) or a Category A, B, C, and D, and these are categorized by severity and can result in a letter sent home to short and long term suspensions.
As one of the small number of female police officers, it appeared she had good rapport with the students and administration. Although Class 3 referrals were issued from law enforcement, there were a wide range of consequences that the schools could initiate for children who were perceived to be disrupting the school atmosphere. Based on internal records provided by the school district for the 2006–2008 school years, most school violations were given to young males (83%), Hispanics (86%), and primarily for violating a JICF-RA (violent, gang, and/or gang-like activities; 49%) or JICH-RA (alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; 29%). These could range in seriousness from wearing gang like clothing to engaging in a physical confrontation. Peguero, Shekarkhar, Popp, and Koo (2015) analyzed the 2002 Educational Longitudinal Study and found school discipline was impacted by race, ethnicity, and immigration generational status. Latino youth who had been in the United States longer (i.e., generationally) received more discipline from the school than White youth. In addition, Latino males and females had lower levels of academic self-efficacy that increased their risk of dropping out of school (Peguero & Shaffer, 2015). Hirschfield (2009) found youth in Chicago experiencing their first arrest in 9th or 10th grade were 6–8 times more likely to dropout. Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier, and Valentine’s (2009) analyses of 53 counties in Missouri found jurisdictions targeting African American students with exclusionary sanctions having higher juvenile court referral rates for Black youth. They stated, “These findings suggest that policy interventions within educational institutions are a necessary first step to curb the significant and growing problem of disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system” (p. 1016). Thus, rather than schools concentrating on academic achievement, they may want to pay closer attention to school disciplinary policies that continue to push certain juveniles out and away from school.
Despite schools appearing to take an aggressive stand based on internal records, field experience, and number of Class 3 referrals, some law enforcement officers still perceived schools as being too lenient. For example, Officer Mark, a White officer with the police department, emphasized this was just his opinion but frustration about trying to get schools to take behavior more serious:
I think that they take too much of a ‘let’s hold your hand’ approach to the problem. When you got 2,500 students at [high school name omitted], I don’t think there is any room for putting up with problem behavior. I mean, he should not be allowed back into the Las Cruces Public Schools. It then becomes the parents’ problem. They can take them to a private tutor or send them to private schools, but that is just my opinion. And again [the schools] they think we are a little bit too aggressive. When we go to identify these kids, the ones who are on intensive juvenile probation, the ones that are on contract, the ones that are on bracelets. We’ll just walk up and start talking to them. “Hey,” you know, “where were you last night? We checked with your JPO and they said you were out until four in the morning. Are you still hanging out with those gang members which is a violation of your probation?” And they [schools] are like, “whoa, whoa, whoa, he doesn’t need that now he is at school.” “Well, okay.” It’s just something, we’re working on and again we’ve been into several meetings and we’ve done gang presentations and helped them out because they [schools] truly don’t know.
Officer Mark reported how many of these children have family members who are part of gangs or organized crime groups. He believed local gangs were huge problem but the schools considered them only a moderate problem. He wanted his children to be safe in school. One of the authors found the reported fear of gangs similar to a moral panic because the estimated size of gangs in the community was only one third to one fourth as large as similar sized communities in other states and the U.S. border region maintained lower levels of community violence.
Although there were allegations of some high school students living along the border carrying 50 lb. backpacks of drugs, having bundles of money, or participating in assassinations, such empirical evidence appeared less common. Based on CYFD data, law enforcement officers made anywhere between two and eight arrests per year for a juvenile possessing up to 100 lbs or more of marijuana, and these primarily occurred in the border counties of Doña Ana and Luna. Officer Juan, a top law enforcement official working in Luna County, reported his top two priorities:
Our number one issue is kids coming from Mexico transporting narcotics. Something we have discovered when we have searches is kids bringing drugs into schools. Second, U.S. attorney’s office and the feds won’t process juvenile cases unless it’s a huge amount of drugs. They won’t prosecute for carrying dope into the communities. The cartels know the interstates and the flood systems. If law enforcement officers arrest a juvenile, the parents can’t come across and intervene, even if it is a juvenile. The youth will get a narcotics violation and more than likely get probation, but if you live in Mexico, there is no enforcement. There is a four-day hold by the system and then they are deported. The four-day holds are not made to handle these types of cases. Now days there are more narcotics used by kids and they are involved in selling and distribution. They live in a poorer economy and have chaotic family situations. The government can do repossessions and families lose vehicles, but a lot of parents have substance abuse problems. And they lose everything.
Officer Juan believed many of these youth did not have a choice in whether to bring drugs across the border. During the time of this study, Ciudad Juárez, Mexico became one of the most violent cities in the world as violence between drug cartels escalated. JPOs and teachers reported the challenges for many of their students and staff who lost family members in Mexico due to violence. However, the schools were quick to emphasize some of the top students, valedictorians, in Luna County were from Mexico, and thus stereotypes should not override the good and long historical relationships between both countries.
Policing of Juvenile Probation and Law Enforcement
Every law enforcement officer interviewed (19 of 19) reported frustration with juveniles involving a lack of parental discipline, school discipline, and JPO’s inability to be more punishment oriented. However, rather than presenting a blue wall of loyalty, there were officers who criticized their own policies, practices, and types of law enforcement officers. This section of the article will focus on law enforcement officers perceptions’ of JPO’s inability to be more punishment oriented, and internal divisions among law enforcement agencies.
Overwhelmingly, the view from the law enforcement officers interviewed was that there was too much leniency in the juvenile justice system. The State of New Mexico was not holding youth accountable for violating the law. In 2008, the State of New Mexico entered a new sentencing scheme that required officers to call a JPO (on-call) regarding whether to detain a youth for an offense. The JPO was then required to call Santa Fe (state headquarters) to verify whether the offense met a criterion for detention. Officers reported that a youth “practically had to kill someone” in order to be detained. In one county, according to a detention center administrator, Judges maintained greater latitude as some youth detentions resulted from failing to pay traffic tickets, traffic violations, and/or having various status offenses. In counties without a detention center (Grant and Hidalgo counties), law enforcement officers did not want to even bother with the time and energy required to transport juveniles to detention centers that were anywhere from an hour to 2 hrs. away. Since the State had provided the researchers detention data from 2004 to 2008, we briefly looked into the use of detention prior to the new sentencing scheme. The detention of Hispanic youth occurred regularly during this period and even when the system recommended “not to detain” this decision-making received an override by JPO and the youth was kept in custody. 8 At least 23–27% of all detentions were for probation violations. Therefore, the statewide change in policy had significantly begun limiting the ability for law enforcement officers and probation officers from being able to detain and removed their ability to override the system.
In addition to a perceived lack of detention, police officers argued that, in most instances, it took 3–4 months before the youth appeared before a JPO. Once seen, the JPO handled the case informally. As a whole, law enforcement appeared frustrated with this informal handling, and there was a perception that when a youth turned 18, only then would the system finally become more punitive. JPO officers did report statewide efforts to improve the time frame between law enforcement filing the referral to when a probation officer held an initial preliminary inquiry. Both law enforcement and the juvenile probation officers reported being understaffed and overwhelmed with a caseload that required greater resources.
Individually, law enforcement officers seemed to feel an overwhelming burden of being unable to change the conditions they were witnessing. They could not change youth misbehavior, family home environments including parental discipline, school discipline, and the juvenile justice system, and the reasons for such obstacles were broad in a geographic area with a lack of resources. These overall frustrations seemed to make law enforcement somewhat reluctant to work with other institutions. In addition, disagreements occurred between leadership styles, the age of officers, use of force strategies, and whether to initiate or ignore referrals. Officer Steve, who seemed very grounded and respected in the community, reported the following:
A lot of difficulty with community perceptions of the police are often influenced by rookie officers who are more aggressive … A lot of crime in the community was going unreported because residents did not trust the police. In terms of officer behavior, it is important for officers to recognize that they are given authority but they are not the authority. Officers must be willing to serve the community. He reported there are a lot of good officers in the department who are more dedicated to service, but there is also component of officers who perceive themselves as the authority. It may be a 50/50 split. A lot of times, this is the younger officer. Currently, the police department is short-handed in terms of law enforcement personnel.
Officer Steve was not alone in seeing challenges within the department. Several additional officers talked disparagingly upon officers convicted of misconduct. The court found one detective guilty for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl serving as a police intern and officials later discovered he had been sexually abusing a child relative. District Attorneys tried and convicted a mayor and police chief for running guns to a Mexican drug cartel. Claims of cavity searches on individuals not carrying drugs led to complaints and lawsuits. Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) convictions brought down several law enforcement, school, and juvenile probation officials. Instances of corruption, unethical behavior, and criminal misconduct expanded critiques beyond juveniles to law enforcement officials. To address this issue, one of the cities hired an independent agency to review its police department’s handling of civilian complaints and use of force. Law enforcement agencies criticized other law enforcement agencies and offered insight into possible reasons why they were encountering public scandals. Although all interviews up to this point have included law enforcement officers, an interview with a juvenile public defender summarized some of the difficulties with local conditions when she stated,
Law enforcement is a mixed bag. Some officers are lazy and could care less. It’s almost a sense of the Wild, Wild, West. Officers in New Mexico don’t seem to think the fourth amendment applies. They are used to autonomy with little oversight. They know how to keep people in check and the cops use these tactics to their advantage. I don’t like to see how many young kids are treated. I want to see respect, but XYZ happened. There is a massive disillusionment. The police departments around here have serious issues and are underpaid and overwhelmed. We all know who killed so and so. Everyone knows who killed this kid, but the police won’t investigate … Everything here is hearsay. The Judge rules it doesn’t matter. What you need here is a genealogy chart rather than rules of evidence.
Law enforcement officers, for the most part, seemed to work toward creating a positive community image. Although the expectations of the job were overwhelming, they reported a need to help the community. Not everyone in the community agreed that law enforcement was accomplishing these goals, but there remained a long line of recruits ready to replace any officers who lost their position due to disciplinary issues.
Conclusion
Along the U.S.–Mexico border region of southern New Mexico, in two majority–minority judicial districts, law enforcement officers arrested Hispanic youth at higher rates than White youth. Since arrests were the first critical decision-making point in the juvenile justice system, analyzing the explanations provided by law enforcement allowed additional insight into understanding DMC (Davis & Sorensen, 2012; Dillard, 2013; Durán & Posadas, 2013; Kempf-Leonard, 2007; Leiber & Rodriguez, 2011; Pope & Feyerherm, 1995; Pope et al., 2002). In order to answer why selective enforcement was occurring, the authors interviewed law enforcement officers in addition to a variety of other practitioners and analyzed various sources of data. The patterns influencing Hispanic youth referral rates included differences by (a) the policing of White and Hispanic communities, (b) the policing of K–12 educational institutions, and (c) internal divisions among juvenile probation and law enforcement agencies regarding how to alter behavior.
Similar to the work of Vera Sanchez and Rosenbaum (2012), law enforcement did not describe the policing of White and Hispanic neighborhoods to involve race or ethnicity but rather alternative explanations. In this study, police officers described the issue as economic in nature. Hispanic and White officers reported issuing referrals primarily for helping poor youth from troubled families and home settings to receive additional resources from a juvenile justice system and the various community partners who responded to the informally handled cases. A greater proportion of arrests occurred in District 3, which had higher density and levels of residential segregation between Whites and Hispanics. However, the more rural District 6 had higher levels of racial disparity. Bond-Maupin and Maupin (1998) found high levels of inequality in rural areas, and similar to Willging, Quintero, and Lilliott (2014), negative labels could be transferred to siblings. Thus, greater resources devoted toward law enforcement may exist in more urban communities. These same locations may also have a greater level of checks and balances to ensure youth arrest rates, while disproportionate, do not reach levels too far out of proportion to the general population. Whereas rural areas do not have the same types of oversight.
According to the data collected, the school system was an active participant in not only issuing referrals to youth but also utilizing various school district policies to provide various additional consequences for youth misbehavior. Although SROs reported demonstrating restraint in whether to issue a referral, school administrators wanted consequences in order to create a “safer” school atmosphere. Hispanic youth were more likely to receive school discipline than White youth. For the most part, law enforcement officers thought the consequences for violating school policies were lenient as local community issues involving drugs and gangs were a more serious problem. However, since one third to one half of all juvenile arrests were occurring in schools, over and above the various internal disciplinary consequences, it brings to attention the critical overlap of educational consequences (drop-outs and pushouts) with higher rates of DMC. These findings overlapped with studies conducted on Hispanic and Black experiences with institutions of education (Bejarano, 2005; Hirschfield, 2009; Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier, & Valentine, 2009; Peguero & Shaffer, 2015; Peguero, Shekarkhar, Popp, & Koo, 2015; Portillos et al., 2012).
Law enforcement officers reported a greater desire for juvenile probation officers to detain youth, and in their view provide consequences or take youth out of harmful circumstances. Police officers considered the State of New Mexico’s revisions to the detention policies as too lenient. In addition, youth delinquency was not considered a deterrent because JPO responded too slowly to provide a meaningful form of deterrence. However, in numerous instances where detention guidelines encouraged youth to not be detained, this decision had previously received an override. Thus, Hispanic youth were more likely to be detained in secure juvenile correctional facilities and they were less likely to have their cases diverted.
Rather than law enforcement presenting a “youth control complex” as outlined by Rios (2011), they instead argued on behalf of “system of leniency” that was failing to hold juveniles accountable. Each institution from law enforcement and schools, to juvenile probation, viewed themselves in a role of benevolence where they were “helping” youth. Police officers helped youth by issuing a referral so they could receive additional services from agencies beyond the home. Schools were helping youth to receive an education in a safe environment by utilizing referrals and disciplinary policies, and juvenile probation officers were helping youth have opportunities for more programming and diverting youth from entering the juvenile justice system. However, the entire system from law enforcement, schools, and juvenile probation were in reality “helping” Hispanic youth to have greater contact with referrals, school discipline, and detention. This increased level of oversight merges with the “get tough” movement outlined by Bernard (1992). Emphasizing more punishment detracts from acknowledging that the majority of youth participate in minor levels of offending. Such a role of benevolence toward Hispanic youth contrasted with the hands-off approach given to White youth who law enforcement officers’ perceived to have greater level of socioeconomic and educational outcomes. The result maintained DMC.
Many of the challenges occurring along the U.S.–Mexico border and in southern New Mexico were beyond the institutions of law enforcement, education, and youth services. The border continues to be a militarized area with numerous fears (Andreas, 2000; Dunn, 1996; Heyman, 1999, Nevins, 2010), despite lower levels of violence and property crime (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013). The internal problems in each of these institutions highlighted a resource-deprived community that influenced even the individuals who considered themselves as the helpers because they too occasionally became embroiled in situations that led to unethical and criminal outcomes. Although many individuals, including youth, presume institutions of social control present a united oppositional front, this study found significant conflict between these institutions. Moreover, there were divisions within law enforcement that allowed differing philosophies to emerge within leadership but also by individuals who were making decisions on the ground level. Law enforcement officers were frustrated with not being able to provide more services to youth, to hold them more accountable, and to see discipline influence their behaviors.
Blalock (1967) outlined challenges that have existed for minority groups in settings where Whites were a numerical majority, but in instances where these population patterns were reversed, we can still observe many patterns of institutionalized inequality. Gómez’s (2007) analysis of the impact of colonization on New Mexico residents encapsulates many of these challenges. Although Hispanics were categorized as having the opportunity to claim racial Whiteness, it did not transcend into improved treatment but rather increased opportunities to receive law enforcement referrals, school policy violations, and juvenile correction detentions. Sidanius and Pratto (1999) have argued that hierarchy-reinforcing institutions do not work on behalf of members of subordinate groups, and despite friendships with participants working in these institutions, it was hard to come to terms with such disparate outcomes. Thus leading us to explore the roles, we can play, in dismantling such a system of racialized oppression that begins with our children.
Footnotes
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: Portions of this research were funded by the Children, Youth and Families Department of the State of New Mexico and individual contracts with District 3 and District 6.