Minority Contact has been part of the JJDP Act for over 20 years yet arguably little progress has been made in reducing the rate of minority involvement throughout the juvenile justice system.

Minority Contact has been part of the JJDP Act for over 20 years yet arguably little progress has been made in reducing the rate of minority involvement throughout the juvenile justice system. “Limited Disproportionate Minority Contact Discourse may Explain Limited Progress in Reducing Minority Over-representation in the US Juvenile Justice System” by Dorothy Dillard

QUESTIONS:

1.Explain in detail the main points of this article made by Dillard.

2. Use data found from this website in publications (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228306.pdf), from OJJDP, discuss numbers and percentages that impact DMC and explain how the data does or does not support Dillard’s article.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

DISPROPORTIONATEDISPROPORTIONATE MINORITYMINORITY

CONFINEMENTCONFINEMENT 2002 Update2002 Update

SummarySummary

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General

J. Robert Flores Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Disproportionate Minority Confinement 2002 Update

S U M M A R Y

Heidi M. Hsia, Ph.D. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

George S. Bridges, Ph.D. University of Washington

Rosalie McHale (retired) Office of Juvenile Justice Washington State Department of Social and Health Services

September 2004

NCJ 201240

This document was prepared under number OJP–2000–298–BF/01 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Foreword

Although minority youth account for about one-third of the U.S. juvenile population, they comprise two-thirds of the juvenile detention/corrections population. Dispropor tionate minority confinement (DMC) has far-reaching consequences not only for these young offenders but for society as a whole. The challenges are complex and not easily resolved, but progress is being made.

The 1988 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 authorized OJJDP to require states participating in the Formula Grants Program to address DMC in their state plans. The 1992 amendments to the Act ele vated DMC to a core protection, tying future funding levels to compliance. With the training and technical assistance provided by OJJDP, states are determining the factors that contribute to DMC, designing and implementing strategies to address those factors, evaluating their efforts, and monitoring trends.

This Summary provides an overview of recent DMC-related developments. It begins with a brief review of the data, followed by an outline of national efforts during the past 5 years to address this challenge. It then summarizes state activities, providing an update on DMC compliance, presenting findings from assessment studies, document ing efforts to reduce DMC, and identifying remaining challenges.

As an example of a comprehensive approach to DMC, the Summary describes Wash ington State’s three-pronged approach—research, legislative reform, and programmatic and administrative initiatives at the state and county levels—which has brought some important reductions in disproportionality at most stages of the juvenile justice process.

The JJDP Act of 2002 broadens the DMC initiative to encompass disproportionate minority contact at all decision points in the juvenile justice system. The 2002 Act also requires intervention strategies that include delinquency prevention and systems improvement components. Effectively addressing DMC in this new context will require long-term, coordinated efforts at the local, state, and federal levels.

OJJDP looks forward to productive partnerships with all involved in these efforts. Working together, we can reduce the total number of juveniles entering the juvenile justice system, and for those who do, we can ensure equal treatment for every youth.

J. Robert Flores Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

iii

Acknowledgments

This Summary was prepared by Heidi M. Hsia, Ph.D., DMC Coordinator of OJJDP’s State Relations and Assistance Division; George S. Bridges, Ph.D., Professor of Sociol ogy, Dean and Vice Provost, Undergraduate Education, University of Washington; and Rosalie McHale, Washington State’s Juvenile Justice Specialist from 1987 to 2001. Special thanks are due to countless individuals who have tirelessly worked on reducing DMC at the state and local levels and have generously shared their experiences and insights, which are described in this Summary.

Table of Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

National Efforts To Address DMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 OJJDP Assistance to States and Localities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 OJJDP Assistance to States and Localities Through Contractors/Grantees . . . . . . . . 5

Efforts by States To Address DMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Update on State Compliance With the DMC Core Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Findings of States’ DMC Assessment Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 State Actions To Reduce DMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Remaining Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Washington State’s Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Conducting Research Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Enacting Legislation To Ensure Policy and Procedure Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Developing and Sustaining Programmatic Initiatives at the

State and County Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Summary of the Evolution of Washington State’s DMC Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 DMC Trends in Washington State, 1990–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Lessons Learned in Washington State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

vii

In the 1988 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), Congress mandated that the

address disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) in their state plans. Specifical

was required to develop and implement plans to reduce the disproportionate represen tation (Section 223(a)(23)).

In the 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act, DMC was elevated to a core protection for youth, with future funding eligibility tied to state compliance. In the past decade, nu merous efforts to address DMC issues have emerged throughout the nation in response to this requirement. The most recent data available indicate that in 1997, minority youth constituted 34 percent of the juvenile population nationwide but represented 62 percent of the juveniles detained and 67 percent of those committed to secure juvenile correctional facilities (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). In 1997, there were 7,400 new admissions of youth younger than 18 years old to adult prisons, and three out of four

detention and correctional facilities increased between 1983 and 1997, although it decreased slightly between 1995 and 1997.

This Summary attempts to represent the ways that disproportionality is manifested in the juvenile justice system. It is not intended to determine why or how certain juve nile populations are handled within the system. Only further research will uncover the causes of disproportionate minority confinement. Nevertheless, as the next two

the federal government has increased the number and scope of resources (training,

Introduction

Minorities (%)

(%)

1983 32 53 56

1991 32 65 69

1995 32 68 68

1997 34 62 67

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP, or the Office) require all states participating in the Formula Grants Program (Title II, Part B, of the Act) to

ly, if the proportion of a given minority group of youth who were detained or confined in a state’s secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups exceeded the proportion that group represented in the general population, the state

of these youth were members of a minority group (Poe-Yamagata and Jones, 2000). As shown in table 1, the overrepresentation of minority youth in secure juvenile

chapters of this Summary show, progress is being made. Over the past several years,

Total Youth Year Population Secure Detention Secure Correction

Source: Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997, and Snyder and Sickmund, 1999.

Table 1: Percent of Minority Youth in Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities in the United States for Selected Years From 1983 to 1997

technical assistance, publications) that it makes available to the states. For their part, the states have taken significant steps to identify and assess where DMC occurs within their juvenile justice systems, implement plans to reduce DMC, enhance data collec

comprehensive, research-based approach to implement systems change and programs to reduce DMC.

Overrepresentation of African American youth occurs at all stages of the juvenile jus tice system, and African American youth are overrepresented more than any other

■

in 1996–97 than in 1990–91.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

52% 46% 46%

40%

43% 36% 36%

32% 37%

33% 41%

45% 32%

30%

49% 44%

26% 26%

39% 39%

15% 15%

1990–911996–97

origin: 1990–1997 National Crime Victimization Survey Crime in the United States

Juvenile Court Statistics

OJJDP’s

tion, and introduce state legislation to address the problem. In the final chapter, the authors present a case history of how one state, Washington, has taken a proactive,

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update

Nationally, for most stages of juvenile justice system processing, the black proportion was smaller

Cases judicially waived to criminal court

Juveniles in residential placement

Delinquency cases resulting in residential placement

Adjudicated delinquency cases

Petitioned delinquency cases

Delinquency cases involving detention

Delinquency cases in juvenile court

Juvenile arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses

All juvenile arrests

Violent juvenile offenders reported by victims

U.S. population ages 10–17

Percent involving black juveniles

Black Juveniles Are Overrepresented at All Stages of the Juvenile Justice System Compared With Their Proportion in the U.S. Population

Source: Authors’ analysis of Bureau of the Census’ Estimates of the population of states by age, sex, race, and Hispanic [machine-readable data files] for 1991 and 1997, Bureau of Justice Statistics’

[machine-readable data files] for 1991 and 1996, FBI’s reports for 1991 and 1997, OJJDP’s reports for 1991 and 1996, OJJDP’s Children in Custody Census of public and private juvenile detention, correctional, and shelter facilities 1990/91 [machine-readable data file], and

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 1997 [machine-readable data file].

Introduction

minority group. In 1996–97, African American youth constituted about 15 percent of the nationwide juvenile population but represented 26 percent of all juveniles arrested, 45 percent of those who were detained, and 40 percent of those in residential place ment. (See the figure on page 2.) However, for all stages of juvenile justice processing, except arrest and delinquency cases involving detention, the African American pro portion of the national totals was smaller in 1996–97 than in 1990–91.

The number of Hispanic youth in the United States has increased faster than the num ber of youth of any other racial or ethnic group, growing from 9 percent of the juvenile population in 1980 to 16 percent in 2000 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2001). State studies show overrepresentation of Hispanic youth at arrest and other decision points in some states (DeJong and Jackson, 1998; OMNI Research and Training, 1998). Colorado is one example. Although Colorado does not have arrest data for Hispanics because they are included as white, the state’s data for July 1998 to June 1999 show that Hispanics were overrepresented at all later decision points in the juvenile justice system (Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2000). Consistent with national data, the rate of overrepresentation in the Colorado juvenile justice system was lower for Hispanics than for African Americans. However, because of inconsistent categorizations of Hispanic youth in many state and national studies (i.e., some include Hispanics as “white” and some include them as “other”), Hispanic overrepresentation is likely to be underreported.

The 1997 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) showed that American Indian youth ages 10–17 constituted 2 percent of youth in secure correctional facili ties nationwide but were only 1 percent of the national youth population (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). Although national data suggest that American Indian youth are placed in correctional facilities at twice the expected rate, state data give evidence of an even greater overrepresentation. For example, North Dakota’s 1998 data indicate that American Indian youth made up 8 percent of the state’s total juvenile population but accounted for 13 percent of arrests, 21 percent of the secure detention population, and 33 percent of secure correctional placements (Division of Juvenile Services, North Dakota Department of Corrections, 2000). Data at the county level are similar. Further, because most tribal agencies do not report arrest, referral, and detention-related data for inclusion in state statistics, the actual levels of Native American overrepresenta tion may be higher.

Asians and Pacific Islanders are the least studied racial groups. Hawaii has classified Asians and Pacific Islanders as separate groups in its studies, but most studies conduct ed in other states combine data for Asians and Pacific Islanders. The 1997 CJRP showed that Asian youth constituted 4 percent of the national juvenile population but represented only 2 percent of youth in secure correction. The available state data for Asians alone or Asians and Pacific Islanders combined also show, for the most

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update

part, that these youth are underrepresented in the population of confined juveniles at the state and even at the county levels. In cities with high concentrations of Asian youth, however, indications of overrepresentation exist. For example, a study of juve nile transfers to adult court in California showed that, in 1996, the composition of Los Angeles County’s juvenile population ages 10–17 was 25 percent white, 51 percent Hispanic, 13 percent African American, and 11 percent Asian and other races (Males and Macallair, 2000). The Hispanic youth were 6 times more likely, the African Amer ican youth 12 times more likely, and the Asian/other youth 3 times more likely than the white youth to be found unfit for juvenile court and transferred to criminal court. Further, African American and Asian youth tried in criminal court were imprisoned more often than Hispanic or white youth. Taking into account the respective contribu tion of each group to the volume of California’s violence and felony arrests, statewide analyses in the same study indicated that Asian youth, like African American, Hispanic, and other minority youth, were significantly more likely to be sentenced to confine ment by the California Youth Authority than were white youth arrested for the same category of offense.

It should be noted that the data presented above only paint a picture of disproportion ate representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. They, in and of themselves, do not yield evidence of racial bias nor do they explain with any degree of certainty the multitude of factors that contribute to disproportionality. Efforts to reduce DMC at this time are severely handicapped by most states’ lack of ability to consistent ly and comprehensively collect and analyze data generated throughout the juvenile jus tice system. Nevertheless, the present levels of minority overrepresentation within the juvenile justice system, both for minority juveniles as a whole and for individual racial/ ethnic groups, indicate that efforts to reduce DMC must first identify and then address all contributing factors.

This Summary outlines the progress that has been made at the national level during the past 5 years to address DMC; provides an update on DMC efforts and achievements at the state level, including a summary of the status of state compliance with the DMC core protection requirements; and describes Washington State’s efforts to reduce DMC over the past 10 years as an example of a comprehensive, community-based systems change approach to the problem. Washington’s prevention and intervention efforts include afterschool programs, mentoring, and family strengthening and counseling. The Summary concludes with a look at the modifications to the DMC requirement contained in the JJDP Act of 2002 and OJJDP’s action steps in support of continuing efforts to reduce DMC.

OJJDP responded to nearly 80 technical assistance requests from 1997 through 2002, 46 of which were made during the last 2 years. In addition to technical assistance and consultation upon request, OJJDP updated instructions to the states for developing their DMC compliance plans and provided expanded and indepth DMC training for

state DMC compliance, the Office trained its State Representatives in DMC issues and in the use of an updated DMC Compliance Determination Checklist.

In March 2000, OJJDP published the second edition of the Disproportionate Minority (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Manual

Checklist and sample tools that may be adopted for use by the states. OJJDP also conducted training on how to use the Manual.

DMC efforts, and completion of a library of state DMC reports—a central repository

page and library of reports current as these resources have proven valuable to the field.

in March 2002, invited 45 researchers in the social sciences to a meeting that presented an orientation to DMC research, from which a list of 22 interested and qualified

By partnering with a variety of contractors and grantees, OJJDP provides training and technical assistance, research strategies, and tools for disseminating information that help states and localities in their efforts to reduce DMC. Examples of the partnerships

OJJDP Assistance to States and Localities

state personnel at regional training conferences and other training events. Moreover, to enable appropriate monitoring and use of a uniform methodology in determining

Confinement Technical Assistance Manual Prevention, 2000), which has been widely distributed throughout the nation. The

is user-friendly and provides information about lessons learned in the field and exemplary state and local efforts. It contains the Compliance Determination

Other goals reached in recent years include development of a DMC page on OJJDP’s Web site, use of the compliance determination process to guide and enhance state

for historical records of DMC efforts in each state. OJJDP has kept the DMC Web

To expand the DMC research consultant pool for the use of states and localities, OJJDP,

research consultants was developed. In August 2002, OJJDP also sponsored a DMC researchers’ focus group to help the Office develop a DMC research agenda.

OJJDP Assistance to States and Localities Through Contractors/Grantees

supported by OJJDP appear below.

National Efforts To Address DMC

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update

National DMC Training, Technical Assistance, and Information Dissemination Initiative

Recognizing the need to foster the development, documentation, and nationwide dis semination of effective strategies to reduce DMC, OJJDP launched a long-term national training and technical assistance initiative through a cooperative agreement with a private provider, Research and Evaluation Associates (REA), in 1997. The goal of the initiative is to give states and localities broad-based knowledge about DMC and to develop practical and targeted tools to address the factors in their jurisdictions that contribute to it.

The initiative began with an extensive review of DMC literature in academic journals and edited books from the 10 years preceding 1997, resulting in the publication of an OJJDP Bulletin (Pope, Lovell, and Hsia, 2002). REA then developed and field-tested training curriculums to increase awareness of DMC issues among juvenile justice per sonnel and key decisionmakers. Since October 2000, REA has coordinated and moni tored intensive technical assistance to five states—Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and South Carolina. In October 2001, three more states—Alaska, Cali fornia, and Tennessee—were added. REA has also established DMC listservs to facili tate the sharing of information and skills and has identified and trained approximately 50 potential consultants to aid in the delivery of technical assistance on DMC-related issues. Recent activities include:

■ Continued identification of experts who may respond to technical assistance requests from the states.

■ A DMC training of trainers.

■ A full DMC progress review of all states to identify state needs and formulate a training and technical assistance plan to address them.

■ A planning meeting to restructure and refine the DMC intensive technical assistance process.

Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center

As a DMC technical assistance provider, the Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center (JJEC) assists OJJDP in building evaluation capacity in the states, especially as those efforts relate to projects and initiatives funded by the Title II, Part B, State Formula Grants Program. Through a survey and personal contact with state agency staff, JJEC has been assessing the level of need among states and localities for assistance in developing their evaluation capacity. The following activities are particularly important in the effort to reduce DMC:

National Efforts To Address DMC

Publication development. JJEC is developing a publication entitled How To Use Data To Make More Informed Decisions About Dealing With DMC to help states explore why minority overrepresentation exists at various decision points in the juvenile justice system and select appropriate intervention(s) to reduce it.

Short-term, state-specific consultation. JJEC helps states enhance their capacity to assess their DMC-related juvenile justice programs and initiatives and to incorporate evaluation into the program development and planning processes. For example, in response to a request for assistance from Idaho in 2002, JJEC provided state-level re ports of DMC assessment and program implementation from several other states. The outcome was the development of a partnership between the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections and a university to conduct ongoing research and analysis re garding minorities in the Idaho juvenile justice system.

Grants to develop evaluation partnerships. Through existing partnerships with state Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs), JJEC awarded grants to the Colorado, Illinois, and Iowa SACs in 2001. These grants enabled state and local juvenile justice agencies to form partnerships to assess their states’ initiatives to reduce DMC. Colorado studied selected juvenile diversion programs to better understand the extent to which minori ty overrepresentation exists. The study included a comparison of referral rates to suc cessful termination rates for minority and nonminority youth. The work in Illinois focused on the development of a database to support annual county-level monitoring of DMC rates at multiple stages of the juvenile justice system. Iowa worked with a number of key juvenile justice system stakeholders to develop and maintain standard ized reports that included racial categories for planning, evaluation, and monitoring purposes. Iowa also worked with state and local officials to increase their ability to use Iowa court information in their decisionmaking.

Building Blocks for Youth Initiative

The Building Blocks for Youth initiative (Building Blocks) is a partnership of organiza tions in the fields of law, justice, communications, and public policy. The partners in the initiative are the Youth Law Center (this grantee is the lead partner), the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center, the Justice Policy Institute, the Juvenile Law Center, Minorities in Law Enforcement, the National Council on Crime and Delin quency, and the Pretrial Services Resource Center. The primary goals of the Building Blocks initiative are to protect minority youth in the justice system and promote equi table and effective juvenile justice system policies. Building Blocks has obtained finan cial support from seven foundations, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and OJJDP.

The Building Blocks initiative promotes an integrated five-pronged strategy to address DMC. The five strategies, each of which builds on the others, are as follows:

■ Conducting new research.

■ Analyzing decisionmaking in the system.

■ Advocating for minority youth.

■ Building constituencies for change.

■ Developing communications strategies.

Recent and planned activities for the four strategies supported by OJJDP are 1

Conducting new research. Building Blocks has conducted a number of research proj ects and literature reviews on DMC and has published a number of documents on its findings.

Analyzing decisionmaking in the system. This strategy focuses on decisionmaking at

2 cur

initiative also conducts site-based work to reduce overincarceration in Maryland and Louisiana, to reduce unnecessary transfers of youth to criminal court in Florida, and to

Building constituencies for change. This strategy involves broad-based collaboration with national, state, and local organizations, policymakers, and other leaders con cerned with civil rights, community development, and child welfare; the identifica

constituents.

Developing communications strategies. The goal of this strategy is to develop and provide up-to-date, accurate, and useful information to constituent organizations, policymakers, and the public about issues related to DMC. Effective media outreach activities are based on the results of focus groups; relevant publications, policies, and legislation; national polls surveying public attitudes toward youth, crime, and race; and case histories of individual offenders.

1OJJDP does not support providing direct advocacy for minority youth. 2

overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system.

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update

outlined below.

various points of contact within the juvenile justice system, such as initial police con tacts, detention, adjudication, and sentencing. The W. Haywood Burns Institute rently carries out projects in Phoenix, AZ, Seattle, WA, and other locations. The

reduce unnecessary and racially disparate school suspensions in Kentucky.

tion of community leaders nationwide who can be spokespersons on DMC issues; and the dissemination of information about juvenile justice system reform to these

The W. Haywood Burns Institute, located in San Francisco, CA, works with local jurisdictions to reduce minority

Guaranteed A+

Stop Stressing. Your Academic Success is Guaranteed.