Hand of Punishment Falls Heavily on Black Youths : Justice: Far fewer white youngsters serve time in detention facilities. Attitude toward the poor is cited.

The statistics are so startling that they appear to cry out for an explanation:

Seventy percent of juveniles who are arrested nationally for criminal offenses are white, yet whites make up only 35% of those in custody. Black juveniles make up only about 25% of those arrested, but 44% of those in custody.

Out of every 100,000 white youngsters in the nation 287 are in custody, but for every 100,000 black youngsters 1,009 are in custody.

To some inside the juvenile justice system, these figures from 1991--the latest available--represent a disparity that smacks of racism and bias.

But the numbers are not that easily explained. Prosecutors and police say there is a good reason for the gap: Black juveniles are arrested for a disproportionate number of serious and violent offenses, which carry tougher sentences. They say that explains their inordinate numbers in the nation’s juvenile halls, training schools, youth camps and state correctional facilities.

There is some truth to that explanation. For some offenses, FBI statistics show, black juveniles are arrested at double, triple, and sometimes even five times the rate of their white counterparts. However, given those rates in total, white juveniles still outnumber black juveniles arrested for murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary and drug offenses.

On the other side of the analysis, many public defenders, parents, and even some judges blame the disparity on a juvenile-justice system dominated by biased, insensitive white judges and prosecutors who release white youths to probation or treatment programs for the same offenses that send black youths into custody.

Stiffer Sentences

Again, there is evidence to support their claim. Justice Department statistics, they note, show that black juveniles receive stiffer terms for drug offenses, motor vehicle theft and burglary than whites charged with the same crimes.

But how do they account for separate studies in Missouri and Pennsylvania showing that black judges are more likely than white judges to place black juveniles in custody?

While each argument has some merit, the punishment gap between white and black children also appears to reflect a larger and harsher reality, one rooted in the nation’s changed attitude about how to deal with the children of poor and disadvantaged families.

During the last decade, juvenile justice officials say, the nation moved away from social programs designed to aid indigent children.

“The people in this country, having destroyed the children of poor people through neglect, have decided that they are not going to do anything to repair the damage,” said Judge Frank Reynolds, Philadelphia’s presiding juvenile-court justice. “The alternative then is to just lock them up. And that’s what they are doing.”

Across the country, states and counties have largely abandoned rehabilitation efforts for juveniles as the public has called for punishment through time in lockup.

One result is that the faces of those inside the juvenile-detention facilities have changed. Eight years ago, most were white. Now most are black, and, in any case, most of the juveniles in custody are poor and undereducated.

(Because of reporting disparities, figures for Latino juveniles are impossible to pin down accurately, but in California, according to a study by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Latino youngsters generally appear to be incarcerated at a rate roughly matching their percentage of the population.)

Opportunity is Key

Juvenile-justice officials say there are two underlying reasons for the change inside juvenile halls:

* Children with more opportunities--such as good schools, recreation, supportive community organizations, involved churches and stable families--end up in court less often.

“Delinquency and (lack of) opportunity are two things that go together,” said Robert Walavich, head of probation for suburban Chicago areas. “Opportunities can mean an end to delinquency for a kid because he’s less likely to get into trouble in the first place.”

* When children do get into trouble, those who do not have working parents, supportive school officials, readily available counseling facilities and support organizations are much more likely to be placed in custody.

Consequently, just as black children make up a disproportionate share of the children mired in poverty, of those in dysfunctional families, of high school students who drop out or are expelled, of those living in desolate urban neighborhoods, so do they bear the brunt of get-tough policies toward juveniles.

Perhaps the best example of the change that has taken place in the complexion of the juvenile custody population can be seen in the nation’s response to youths involved with drugs.

Analysts say that though murder and robbery make for bigger headlines, drug crimes are responsible for vastly higher numbers of juvenile arrests and incarcerations.

From 1968 to 1981, the per capita arrest rate for black juveniles lagged behind that of whites for drug violations, according to FBI statistics. Between 1982 and 1984, however, the arrest rate for blacks moved just ahead.

In 1985, the numbers exploded; arrests of black youths for drug-related offenses skyrocketed. Paradoxically, white youth arrest rates during the same period fell significantly--22%--even though federal agencies reported that the drug use rate by white youngsters was actually higher than for black youths.

That increase in arrests, however, appears to be only the first factor in the dramatic rise in the number of black youngsters in custody. The second, and more important factor, is what happens to those juveniles once they come to court.

Despite the disparity in arrest rates, the total number of white juveniles brought to court on drug charges in 1990 exceeded the total number of blacks by 6,300. As those cases were sifted through the juvenile-court system, however, a far greater number of white youths were sent home without being tried, were released to drug counseling programs or were placed on probation. Consequently, 2,200 more blacks than whites ended up in correctional facilities.

The disparity is even greater for violent crimes. In 1990, 32,200 more white juveniles than black juveniles were arrested for crimes such as murder, forcible rape, robbery and assault, and aggravated assault. Despite that difference, 300 more blacks than whites were placed in custody, and 2,100 more blacks than whites were transferred out of juvenile court so they could be tried in more punitive adult courts.

Disparity on Display

Across the nation, this disparity is played out in almost every category of offense.

In Chicago, for example, studies show that youngsters from the predominantly black South Side and West Side neighborhoods who were charged with property offenses, such as minor theft, were twice as likely to be brought to trial as youngsters from the predominantly white North Side.

In California, according to a 1992 study by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, black delinquents were four times more likely than whites to be committed to the California Youth Authority, the juvenile equivalent of prison, whether it was the first offense or the third.

Black youngsters were twice as likely as whites to be incarcerated for a serious property or sex offense, three times more likely for a violent offense, seven times more likely for a serious drug offense and nearly 10 times more likely for a serious weapons offense.

“After you control for violence of offense, you still find that black kids were more likely to be committed to the California Youth Authority than white kids who committed similar crimes,” said David Steinhart, who directed the study.

Consequently, while blacks make up only 9% of the state’s youth population, they account for 34% of youngsters in secure-custody facilities.

The reasons for disparities in custody rates are numerous, juvenile-justice officials and analysts say; race is a factor, class is a factor, severity and number of offenses is a factor.

Ultimately, however, they say that what happens to children involved in delinquent activity comes down to the availability of resources.

“The whole thing really addresses resources for kids even before they start coming into the system,” said Raul Solis, chief of juvenile field services for the Los Angeles County Probation Department. “That’s why we’ve been concentrating on going after young kids, at-risk kids, the younger brothers of gang members before they get in trouble. That’s where it’s at, in our opinion.

“These kids are very isolated from access to things that most people take for granted every day. They see this mainstream on television, and their existence is very different. Many of them have never even been to a restaurant. They’ve never ordered from a menu. Some of these kids have never seen the ocean. Many of them have never learned how to swim because they never had the opportunity.

“All of the things other kids get exposure to, these kids don’t have. But because of dwindling resources, we must deal with those kids who are arrested, and we have less money and personnel to deal with kids before they get into the system.”

Once a crime is committed, it is often a slippery slope into a correctional facility for those without outside assistance.

“If a kid is picked up in the suburbs, depending on the crime, the chances are, if he’s got the resources available, the kid won’t hit the front door of the courtroom,” Walavich said.

When children of the middle- and upper-class do come to court, they often arrive with both parents in tow, community counselors at their side, school representatives bearing report cards, and private attorneys presenting their cases.

“You have some excellent lawyers in the public defender’s office, but they do get overwhelmed,” Solis said. “I’m not so sure that kids aren’t getting a short shrift because of that.”

Chicago Juvenile Judge Charles May is sure.

“Kids represented by private attorneys are usually much better off,” he said. “That has a tremendous influence. The public attorneys do a good job, but in too many cases they just shoot from the hip. Good lawyers come up with the proposals. Ordinary lawyers, which most black and poor kids get, just stand there.”

The Insurance Factor

Most important, those in the juvenile-justice system say, white youngsters more often have private health insurance, meaning that they may qualify for private treatment and often avoid custody.

“If a kid comes from a home and somebody’s working and carrying a Blue Cross card, it’s like somebody struck gold,” Walavich said. “An insurance card will open up all kinds of doors.”

Edward P. Young, who oversees juvenile probation for the San Fernando Valley, agrees: “We find a lot of our white kids who have committed an offense going to in-patient psychiatric facilities before they even get to the court system. An attorney says to the parents: ‘Get your kids some help and maybe we can get him off.’

“When they go to court, the court looks at the fact that the kids have spent 30 days in detoxification or treatment, and the judge is likely to just put them on probation or give them credit for that as time served.

“If it’s a serious offense and the court wants detention before the court date, they’ll put him in a private psychiatric unit as part of his detention. It’s always amazing that the kid is cured just before the insurance runs out.”

On one hand, the tactic “is a way for affluent families to avoid having their kid go to (detention) camp,” Young said. “It’s a way to manipulate the attitude of the court away from having the kid do hard time.”

On the other hand, Walavich says, children of affluent families are able to avail themselves of the kind of positive and productive intervention that the public sector should be offering to all.

“Why would a judge or a probation officer or a policeman send a kid to jail before they tried something, if it was possible to try something?” Walavich asked.

And what happens to juveniles who don’t have insurance, access to neighborhood counseling facilities and other diversion resources?

“That black kid is still in juvenile hall waiting for a hearing,” Young said. “He’s going to sit in detention until his court date comes up. He’s probably not going to get any psychiatric counseling. Depending on the situation, he’ll go to camp or suitable placement facility or the California Youth Authority.”

It’s not fair or equitable, Judge May says, it’s just the way things are.

“You’ve got an impossible situation,” he said. “So you go for the next best alternative, which might not be meaningful. We’ve got to do something with this kid, and nothing else is available for him. It’s not done because it’s correct. It’s just the only alternative.”

It is a disparity played out daily in juvenile courts across the nation.

In Los Angeles, a judge sends a 13-year-old black boy to youth camp for six months for stealing a radio. He was arrested twice at age 12 for sneaking onto public buses. Though his offenses are minor, a pattern of delinquency appears to be developing.

The real problem, apparent to everyone in court, is that he and his sister are being raised by a frail great-grandmother unable to provide adequate direction and control. His parents were lost to him long ago, his mother to drugs, his father to unemployment and despair.

His great-grandmother, though willing, obviously cannot provide what the boy needs, the judge reasons. Maybe in camp the youngster will learn discipline and control, the judge says.

However, at least 43% of the juveniles who go through Los Angeles County’s youth camps return on new charges--and some studies put the figure much higher.

A black Philadelphia judge voids a 14-year-old’s probation and places him in custody because he is not attending school regularly. Civil libertarians are outraged. How dare she send a kid to jail simply for not attending school, they fume.

Her response: What hope is there for a black boy in America without an education? At least in custody he must go to classes. Maybe, just maybe, he will get on track.

In the Courts

In Chicago, Judge Walter Williams prepares to sentence a youngster guilty of a relatively minor offense. Williams, the probation officer and the prosecuting and defense attorneys have all agreed that the youngster should be placed on probation or in some kind of intensive supervision program instead of custody.

After hearing from the boy’s mother, however, Williams changes his mind and turns the boy over to the state Department of Corrections for a year.

“His mother begged me to put him in custody,” Williams said. “She begged me to take him off the streets. There had been a threat made against his life.

“She said: ‘He will die, he’ll be dead if you let him out.’ Now, if a mother tells me that and I let that kid go out and something happens to him, I would never be able to live with myself.”

The underlying theme, those inside the juvenile-justice system say, is that when parents, police, politicians, public officials, school systems, and community and religious organizations fail to provide a nurturing environment for children, they are dumped on the doorsteps of the nation’s judicial system, which has little to offer them but custody.

“It’s sad, but sometimes that’s just it,” Williams said. “That’s all we have for them.”

Next: Juvenile-justice programs that work.

Custody’s Complexion

Law enforcement authorities say the disproportionate number of blacks in custody reflects their more serious offenses. Critics cite what they say is a biased justice system that is easier on white youths. U.S. juveniles in custody, rates per 100,000, in 1991: White: 261 Black: 978 Latino: 453 Other: 115 +

THE CHANGING FACE

The faces of those under age 18 inside juvenile halls and other detention facilities has changed from mostly white to mostly black.

1985 White: 53% Black: 33% Latino: 12% Other: 2% +

1991 White: 35% Black: 44% Latino: 18% Other: 3% +

THEIR DAY IN COURT

Here is what happens to youngsters in court, by race (1990 figures):

Drug offenses White Black Other* Transferred to adult courts 1.1% 6.2% 0.5% Placed in custody 10.2% 19.5% 13.2% Probation 37.0% 30.7% 33.8% Case dismissed 39.3% 33.2% 46.7% Other 12.5% 10.4% 5.7% Crimes against people Transferred to adult courts 1.3% 3.9% 2.3% Placed in custody 9.0% 12.1% 15.2% Probation 36.1% 31.7% 34.2% Case dismissed 41.1% 40.2% 38.2% Other 12.4% 12.1% 10.1%

* Includes Latinos and Asians

Sources: Census of public and private juvenile detention, correctional and shelter facilities; National Council on Crime and Delinquency