‘Immature Brains’: Research and Evolving Youth Justice Policy

• In Event: Juvenile Development and Juvenile Justice

Abstract

Qualitative methods are being used with greater frequency in applied policy research to contextualize “what exists” and diagnose the “causes of, what exists” (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002). Capitalizing on these strengths, this paper describes the juvenile justice (JJ) policy context in Massachusetts and examines the attitudes and values of various JJ stakeholders. Data include semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample (n=25) of JJ practitioners (e.g., judges, law enforcement officers, service providers); over 15 hours of observations at JJ public meetings; and news articles, reports, and memos pertaining to JJ. Data were inductively coded thematically. Massachusetts is one of 40 states engaged in the Annie E. Casey foundation’s, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), and the foundation’s priorities have reshaped the state’s policy context. First, I find that JDAI priorities, such as limiting pre-trial detention and reducing racial disparities in detention, now dominate JJ policy conversations. Second, the introduction of JDAI in Massachusetts prompted shifts in practitioners’ perspectives and actions. Last, stakeholders justify JDAI reforms with neurocognitive research, rather than criminological research or legal doctrine. However, this scientific evidence is often oversimplified. I conclude by discussing the consequences of Massachusetts’ evolving policy for youth and the implications for disseminating translational research.

Author

• Abena Subira Mackall, Harvard University