Race, Contexts, and the Use of Intake Diversion

Abstract

A modified version of Sampson and Laub's integrative conflict perspective, which emphasizes structural contingencies, racial stereotyping, and punitiveness, is used to understand the influence of race on diversionary decision making at intake in three juvenile courts in the state of Iowa. The authors hypothesized that in a jurisdiction that has greater economic and racial inequality and personnel that adhere to beliefs in racial differences and retribution, African Americans, particularly those charged with drug offenses, would receive greater social control than similarly situated whites. The results provide partial support for the hypothesis. The discussion focuses on the need to broaden the scope of the search for the contingencies of decision making, to employ multiple research methodologies, and to refine conflict theory to account for the differential treatment of African American youth.