Moving on Up: Outcome Disparities among Black Youth Offenders in Wealthy vs. Poor Areas of Connecticut

Abstract

My research hypothesized that Black youth offenders sentenced in a Connecticut court located in a poor district are more likely to receive a detention sentence. Conversely, I believe that Black youth offenders in a Connecticut court located in a wealthy community are more likely to receive an alternative sentence to detention. My study examined sentencing data for Black children from two juvenile courts in Connecticut over an entire year. One court was in a wealthy district, and the other was in a less affluent community. My research revealed that judges between the two juvenile courts in Connecticut do not sentence youth offenders to imprisonment consistently, fairly, and impartially. The data I analyzed showed that the court in the low-income district sentenced children to confinement at a higher rate than in the high-income community. Currently, no publicly available Connecticut data delineates income strata in its juvenile justice outcomes analysis or reporting. My research uncovered a problem not being considered by those who run the judiciary or those who rally to improve the juvenile justice system. My investigation exposes that the system yields even worse outcomes for Black youths of an impoverished background compared to their affluent Black peers. Put another way, when Black children are cast in the light of affluence, they fare better than their peers in low-income communities. Therefore, more profound than race, it seems that class is also negatively influencing judicial outcomes. As such, to be Black and poor is a sentence of double jeopardy for certain youth offenders. The Connecticut judiciary must consider changes to the juvenile justice system to correct the inequities emerging from my research. The data in this study may provide the impetus to increase the use of alternative sentences, especially for low-income offenders. Additionally, the state can consider altogether eliminating the detention route, with all its harmful consequences, for its youthful offenders and, in doing so, level the options for all juvenile offenders no matter where they are located statewide.