Common use of Detention Clause in Contracts

Detention. In the present study, while race does not have a statistical significant main effect with detention outcomes, there is once again the presence of an interaction effect involving race and being charged with a person offense. White youth charged with a person offense is inverse and statistically significant. Black youth charged with a person offense is positive and statistically significant. In fact,  Black youth involved in a person offense increases the likelihood of being detained by over 11ൗ2 times relative to all other youth. Estimations for other interactions produced evidence of two additional statistically significant relationships between race with the number of charges and domestic assault with the dependent variable.  Being Black and having a greater number of charges increased the odds of being detained by 32%. No such effect exists for Whites.  White youth involved in domestic assaults, however, have a decreased likelihood of being detained by 90%. For Blacks, domestic assault is not a statistically significant determinant of the decision to detain (though the effect is positive). Most of the legal and extralegal variables predict detention as one would expect. For example, crime severity is predicts detention. Overall, in 3 of 4 assessment studies race has been found either individually or in combination with other factors, person offense, to influence the decision to detain net considerations of other variables. Recall that the DOJ study reported a strong relationship between race and detention in that Black youth were almost 2¾ times more likely to be detained than similarly situated White youth. In the first assessment study by Leiber, race was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of the detention decision once all legal and extralegal factors were taken into account. In Leiber’s second assessment study, Black youth involved in a person offense increased the likelihood of being detained by over two times relative to all other youth net controlling for other factors, including domestic assault cases. Non-judicial., In the present research, race once again does not have a direct statistically significant effect on non-judicial decision-making. But, additive or direct race effects exist for decisions involving a warning and diversion:  Blacks are more likely to receive a warning by 38% than Whites net controls.  Blacks are less likely to receive diversion than Whites by 44%. This latter result is consistent with the previously discussed findings in the form of the relative rate index. Tests for differences by the separate race models yield evidence of one race interaction effect with being a drug offender and the decision to warn. Recall that Blacks were found more so than Whites to receive a warning at the non-judicial stage:  Being a White drug offender increases the odds of receiving a warning. No such relationship exists for Blacks. In the DOJ assessment study, Blacks were found to be less likely than similarly situated Whites to receive a warning and a fine, restitution or public service sanction. Or, in other words, Blacks were more likely than Whites to be referred for further juvenile court proceedings once controls were considered. The results from Leiber’s first assessment study showed that this effect remained. Blacks were 1 ½ times more likely than Whites to be referred to a court hearing net controls. In the second and third assessment study by Leiber, race was not a statistical significant determinant of the decision to be referred further on at this stage. Thus, in 2 of 4 assessment studies race had a direct relationship on the decision but the last 2 have failed to show a direct effect. The latter findings could be the result of greater awareness and sensitivity to greater equity in the treatment of similar youth, irrespective of race. The Court is commended for making strides in this regard. In the first assessment study by Leiber, differentiating among the non-judicial case options with warning as one variable and diversion as another variable with release as the reference group failed to produce evidence of race main or interaction effects with the dependent variable. Similarly no main or interaction relationships were evident in the second study. These results could differ from those reported by DOJ because of several factors: (1) the studies by Leiber took into account more variables or information about the youth, (2) different data was used, and

Detention. In the present study, while race does not have a statistical significant main effect with detention outcomes, there is once again the presence of an interaction effect involving race and being charged with a person offense. White youth charged with a person offense is inverse and statistically significant. Black youth charged with a person offense is positive and statistically significant. In fact,  Black youth involved in a person offense increases the likelihood of being detained by over 11ൗ2 times relative to all other youth. Estimations for other interactions produced evidence of two additional statistically significant relationships between race with the number of charges and domestic assault with the dependent variable.  Being Black and having a greater number of charges increased the odds of being detained by 32%. No such effect exists for Whites.  White youth involved in domestic assaults, however, have a decreased likelihood of being detained by 90%. For Blacks, domestic assault is not a statistically significant determinant of the decision to detain (though the effect is positive). Most of the legal and extralegal variables predict detention as one would expect. For example, crime severity is predicts detention. Overall, in 3 of 4 assessment studies race has been found either individually or in combination with other factors, person offense, to influence the decision to detain net considerations of other variables. Recall that the The DOJ study reported a strong relationship between race and detention in that Black youth were almost 2¾ times more likely to be detained than similarly situated White youth. In the first assessment study by Leiber, race was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of the detention decision once all legal and extralegal factors were taken are taking into account. This does not mean that racial differences do not exist or can be ignored. Rather, it means that we can specify the way which such racial differences come into being and possibly fashion programs or revise policies to move toward greater equity. In Leiber’s second assessment the present study, while race was not found to have a statistical significant main effect with detention outcomes, there was the presence of an interaction effect involving race and being charged with a person offense. White youth charged with a person offense is inverse and not statistically significant. Black youth charged with a person offense is positive and statistically significant. In fact, Black youth involved in a person offense increased increases the likelihood of being detained by over two times relative to all other youth net controlling for other factorsyouth. Most of the legal and extralegal variables predict detention as one would expect. For example, including domestic assault casescrime severity is predictive of detention. Non-judicial., In the present research, race once again does not have a direct statistically significant effect on non-judicial decision-making. But, additive or direct race effects exist for decisions involving a warning and diversion:  Blacks are more likely to receive a warning by 38% than Whites net controls.  Blacks are less likely to receive diversion than Whites by 44%. This latter result is consistent with the previously discussed findings in the form of the relative rate index. Tests for differences by the separate race models yield evidence of one race interaction effect with being a drug offender and the decision to warn. Recall that Blacks were found more so than Whites to receive a warning at the non-judicial stage:  Being a White drug offender increases the odds of receiving a warning. No such relationship exists for Blacks. In the DOJ assessment study, Blacks were found to be less likely than similarly situated Whites to receive a warning and a fine, restitution or public service sanction. Or, in other words, Blacks were more likely than Whites to be referred for further juvenile court proceedings once controls were are considered. The results from Leiber’s first assessment study showed that this effect remained. Blacks were 1 ½ and half times more likely than Whites to be referred to a court hearing net controls. In the second and third assessment study by Leiberpresent study, race was not found to be a statistical significant determinant of the decision to be referred further on making at this stage. Thus, in 2 While there are some individual effects with the dependent variable by race comparisons of 4 assessment studies race had a direct relationship on the decision but the last 2 have coefficients failed to show a direct effectyield evidence of statistical significance. The latter findings could As at detention, this does not mean that racial differences do not exist or can be ignored. Rather, it means that we can specify the result of way which such racial differences come into being and possibly fashion programs or revise policies to move toward greater awareness and sensitivity to greater equity in the treatment of similar youth, irrespective of race. The Court is commended for making strides in this regardequity. In the first assessment study by Leiber, differentiating among the non-judicial case options with warning as one variable and diversion as another variable with release as the reference group failed to produce evidence of race main or interaction effects with the dependent variable. Similarly In the present study, similarly no main or interaction relationships were evident evident. It is important to note that the non-judicial variable could also be treated as a trichotomy with release/warning (non-judicial), diversion (non-judicial), and a decision for a court hearing (judicial). The variable was constructed in this manner and estimations were conducted using multinomial logistic regression. Although not presented here, the second study. These results could differ from paralleled those reported by DOJ because here. Comparisons of several factors: (1) the studies by Leiber took into account more coefficients failed to show evidence of statistically significant race interaction effects with other independent variables or information about the youth, (2) different data was used, andand decision at this stage.

Detention. In the present study, while race does not have a statistical significant main effect with detention outcomes, there is once again the presence of an interaction effect involving race and being charged with a person offense. White youth charged with a person offense is inverse and statistically significant. Black youth charged with a person offense is positive and statistically significant. In fact,  Black youth involved in a person offense increases the likelihood of being detained by over 11ൗ2 112 times relative to all other youth. Estimations for other interactions produced evidence of two additional statistically significant relationships between race with the number of charges and domestic assault with the dependent variable.  Being Black and having a greater number of charges increased the odds of being detained by 32%. No such effect exists for Whites.  White youth involved in domestic assaults, however, have a decreased likelihood of being detained by 90%. For Blacks, domestic assault is not a statistically significant determinant of the decision to detain (though the effect is positive). Most of the legal and extralegal variables predict detention as one would expect. For example, crime severity is predicts detention. Overall, in 3 of 4 assessment studies race has been found either individually or in combination with other factors, person offense, to influence the decision to detain net considerations of other variables. Recall that the DOJ study reported a strong relationship between race and detention in that Black youth were almost 2¾ times more likely to be detained than similarly situated White youth. In the first assessment study by Leiber, race was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of the detention decision once all legal and extralegal factors were taken into account. In Leiber’s second assessment study, Black youth involved in a person offense increased the likelihood of being detained by over two times relative to all other youth net controlling for other factors, including domestic assault cases. Non-judicial., In the present research, race once again does not have a direct statistically significant effect on non-judicial decision-making. But, additive or direct race effects exist for decisions involving a warning and diversion:  Blacks are more likely to receive a warning by 38% than Whites net controls.  Blacks are less likely to receive diversion than Whites by 44%. This latter result is consistent with the previously discussed findings in the form of the relative rate index. Tests for differences by the separate race models yield evidence of one race interaction effect with being a drug offender and the decision to warn. Recall that Blacks were found more so than Whites to receive a warning at the non-judicial stage:  Being a White drug offender increases the odds of receiving a warning. No such relationship exists for Blacks. In the DOJ assessment study, Blacks were found to be less likely than similarly situated Whites to receive a warning and a fine, restitution or public service sanction. Or, in other words, Blacks were more likely than Whites to be referred for further juvenile court proceedings once controls were considered. The results from Leiber’s first assessment study showed that this effect remained. Blacks were 1 ½ times more likely than Whites to be referred to a court hearing net controls. In the second and third assessment study by Leiber, race was not a statistical significant determinant of the decision to be referred further on at this stage. Thus, in 2 of 4 assessment studies race had a direct relationship on the decision but the last 2 have failed to show a direct effect. The latter findings could be the result of greater awareness and sensitivity to greater equity in the treatment of similar youth, irrespective of race. The Court is commended for making strides in this regard. In the first assessment study by Leiber, differentiating among the non-judicial case options with warning as one variable and diversion as another variable with release as the reference group failed to produce evidence of race main or interaction effects with the dependent variable. Similarly no main or interaction relationships were evident in the second study. These results could differ from those reported by DOJ because of several factors: (1) the studies by Leiber took into account more variables or information about the youth, (2) different data was used, and

Detention. In the present study, while race does not have a statistical significant main effect with detention outcomes, there is once again the presence of an interaction effect involving race and being charged with a person offense. White youth charged with a person offense is inverse and statistically significant. Black youth charged with a person offense is positive and statistically significant. In fact,  Black youth involved in a person offense increases the likelihood of being detained by over 11ൗ2 times relative to all other youth. Estimations for other interactions produced evidence of two additional statistically significant relationships between race with the number of charges and domestic assault with the dependent variable.  Being Black and having a greater number of charges increased the odds of being detained by 32%. No such effect exists for Whites.  White youth involved in domestic assaults, however, have a decreased likelihood of being detained by 90%. For Blacks, domestic assault is not a statistically significant determinant of the decision to detain (though the effect is positive). Most of the legal and extralegal variables predict detention as one would expect. For example, crime severity is predicts detention. Overall, in 3 of 4 assessment studies race has been found either individually or in combination with other factors, person offense, to influence the decision to detain net considerations of other variables. Recall that the The DOJ study reported a strong relationship between race and detention in that Black youth were almost 2¾ times more likely to be detained than similarly situated White youth. In the first assessment study by LeiberXxxxxx, race was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of the detention decision once all legal and extralegal factors were taken are taking into account. This does not mean that racial differences do not exist or can be ignored. Rather, it means that we can specify the way which such racial differences come into being and possibly fashion programs or revise policies to move toward greater equity. In Leiber’s second assessment the present study, while race was not found to have a statistical significant main effect with detention outcomes, there was the presence of an interaction effect involving race and being charged with a person offense. White youth charged with a person offense is inverse and not statistically significant. Black youth charged with a person offense is positive and statistically significant. In fact, Black youth involved in a person offense increased increases the likelihood of being detained by over two times relative to all other youth net controlling for other factorsyouth. Most of the legal and extralegal variables predict detention as one would expect. For example, including domestic assault casescrime severity is predictive of detention. Non-judicial., In the present research, race once again does not have a direct statistically significant effect on non-judicial decision-making. But, additive or direct race effects exist for decisions involving a warning and diversion:  Blacks are more likely to receive a warning by 38% than Whites net controls.  Blacks are less likely to receive diversion than Whites by 44%. This latter result is consistent with the previously discussed findings in the form of the relative rate index. Tests for differences by the separate race models yield evidence of one race interaction effect with being a drug offender and the decision to warn. Recall that Blacks were found more so than Whites to receive a warning at the non-judicial stage:  Being a White drug offender increases the odds of receiving a warning. No such relationship exists for Blacks. In the DOJ assessment study, Blacks were found to be less likely than similarly situated Whites to receive a warning and a fine, restitution or public service sanction. Or, in other words, Blacks were more likely than Whites to be referred for further juvenile court proceedings once controls were are considered. The results from Leiber’s Xxxxxx’x first assessment study showed that this effect remained. Blacks were 1 ½ and half times more likely than Whites to be referred to a court hearing net controls. In the second and third assessment study by Leiberpresent study, race was not found to be a statistical significant determinant of the decision to be referred further on making at this stage. Thus, in 2 While there are some individual effects with the dependent variable by race comparisons of 4 assessment studies race had a direct relationship on the decision but the last 2 have coefficients failed to show a direct effectyield evidence of statistical significance. The latter findings could As at detention, this does not mean that racial differences do not exist or can be ignored. Rather, it means that we can specify the result of way which such racial differences come into being and possibly fashion programs or revise policies to move toward greater awareness and sensitivity to greater equity in the treatment of similar youth, irrespective of race. The Court is commended for making strides in this regardequity. In the first assessment study by LeiberXxxxxx, differentiating among the non-judicial case options with warning as one variable and diversion as another variable with release as the reference group failed to produce evidence of race main or interaction effects with the dependent variable. Similarly In the present study, similarly no main or interaction relationships were evident evident. It is important to note that the non-judicial variable could also be treated as a trichotomy with release/warning (non-judicial), diversion (non-judicial), and a decision for a court hearing (judicial). The variable was constructed in this manner and estimations were conducted using multinomial logistic regression. Although not presented here, the second study. These results could differ from paralleled those reported by DOJ because here. Comparisons of several factors: (1) the studies by Leiber took into account more coefficients failed to show evidence of statistically significant race interaction effects with other independent variables or information about the youth, (2) different data was used, andand decision at this stage.

Detention. In the present study, while race does not have a statistical significant main effect with detention outcomes, there is once again the presence of an interaction effect involving race and being charged with a person offense. White youth charged with a person offense is inverse and statistically significant. Black youth charged with a person offense is positive and statistically significant. In fact,  • Black youth involved in a person offense increases the likelihood of being detained by over 11ൗ2 times relative to all other youth. Estimations for other interactions produced evidence of two additional statistically significant relationships between race with the number of charges and domestic assault with the dependent variable.  • Being Black and having a greater number of charges increased the odds of being detained by 32%. No such effect exists for Whites.  • White youth involved in domestic assaults, however, have a decreased likelihood of being detained by 90%. For Blacks, domestic assault is not a statistically significant determinant of the decision to detain (though the effect is positive). Most of the legal and extralegal variables predict detention as one would expect. For example, crime severity is predicts detention. Overall, in 3 of 4 assessment studies race has been found either individually or in combination with other factors, person offense, to influence the decision to detain net considerations of other variables. Recall that the DOJ study reported a strong relationship between race and detention in that Black youth were almost 2¾ times more likely to be detained than similarly situated White youth. In the first assessment study by LeiberXxxxxx, race was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of the detention decision once all legal and extralegal factors were taken into account. In Leiber’s Xxxxxx’x second assessment study, Black youth involved in a person offense increased the likelihood of being detained by over two times relative to all other youth net controlling for other factors, including domestic assault cases. Non-judicial., In the present research, race once again does not have a direct statistically significant effect on non-judicial decision-making. But, additive or direct race effects exist for decisions involving a warning and diversion:  • Blacks are more likely to receive a warning by 38% than Whites net controls.  • Blacks are less likely to receive diversion than Whites by 44%. This latter result is consistent with the previously discussed findings in the form of the relative rate index. Tests for differences by the separate race models yield evidence of one race interaction effect with being a drug offender and the decision to warn. Recall that Blacks were found more so than Whites to receive a warning at the non-judicial stage:  • Being a White drug offender increases the odds of receiving a warning. No such relationship exists for Blacks. In the DOJ assessment study, Blacks were found to be less likely than similarly situated Whites to receive a warning and a fine, restitution or public service sanction. Or, in other words, Blacks were more likely than Whites to be referred for further juvenile court proceedings once controls were considered. The results from Leiber’s Xxxxxx’x first assessment study showed that this effect remained. Blacks were 1 ½ times more likely than Whites to be referred to a court hearing net controls. In the second and third assessment study by LeiberXxxxxx, race was not a statistical significant determinant of the decision to be referred further on at this stage. Thus, in 2 of 4 assessment studies race had a direct relationship on the decision but the last 2 have failed to show a direct effect. The latter findings could be the result of greater awareness and sensitivity to greater equity in the treatment of similar youth, irrespective of race. The Court is commended for making strides in this regard. In the first assessment study by LeiberXxxxxx, differentiating among the non-judicial case options with warning as one variable and diversion as another variable with release as the reference group failed to produce evidence of race main or interaction effects with the dependent variable. Similarly no main or interaction relationships were evident in the second study. These results could differ from those reported by DOJ because of several factors: (1) the studies by Leiber Xxxxxx took into account more variables or information about the youth, (2) different data was used, and