Usdj Off Juvenile Justice Disproportionate Minority Confinement Nov 2012

• Topics: Discrimination, Racial Discrimination

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Office Of Juvenile
Justice and
delinquency PreventiOn
Working for Youth
Justice and Safety

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

n ovem b er 2 012

The Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention is

continued from p. 2

• Evaluation. Phase IV involves conducting
a systematic, objective, and unbiased evaluation of a program’s implementation and
effectiveness.
• Monitoring. Phase V involves looking for
changes in state demographics that affect
DMC trends, looking for fluctuations in
DMC rates that may require adjustments
in intervention strategies, and sustaining
DMC reduction efforts.

Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator

a component of the Office of

The challenges of DMC reduction are
complex and not easily resolved, but states
are making progress. Several states have
shown reductions in disproportionality at
secure detention, and attitudinal change of
law enforcement officers at the arrest contact
points, that were based on their DMC activities (see “Summary of States’ DMC Reduction Activities,” p. 3).

Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice

What Is Disproportionate
Minority Contact?

Disproportionate Minority Contact

of Justice; the Office for Victims

Disproportionate minority contact

of Crime; and the Office of Sex

refers to the disproportionate

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,

number of minority youth who

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) administers the Formula
Grants program under Title II, part B, of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act ( JJDP Act) of 1974.The 1988 amendments
to the JJDP Act authorized OJJDP to require
states1 participating in the program to address
disproportionate minority confinement (DMC)
in their state juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention plans. Specifically, the JJDP Act
required states to develop and implement plans
to reduce the proportion of minority youth de
tained or confined in secure detention facilities,
secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups if
they exceeded the percentage of minority youth
in the general population.

Assistance; the Bureau of Justice
Statistics; the National Institute

Apprehending, Registering,
and Tracking.

come into contact with the
juvenile justice system. States
participating in the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act’s

For More Information on
Disproportionate Minority Contact

Part B Formula Grants program
are required to address juvenile
delinquency prevention and system

To learn more about OJJDP’s efforts to reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in
the nation’s juvenile justice system, visit OJJDP’s DMC Web site: ojjdp.gov/dmc. The site
provides tools and resources to help states comply with the JJDP Act’s DMC requirement.

improvement efforts to reduce,
without establishing or requiring
numerical standards or quotas,

OJJDP’s National Training and Technical Assistance Center offers a broad range of DMCrelated training and technical assistance. Contact your state’s DMC Coordinator or Juvenile
Justice Specialist to request OJJDP-sponsored training and technical assistance. Contact
information is available on the OJJDP Web site:

the overrepresentation of minority
youth in the nation’s juvenile justice
system.

• Visit ojjdp.gov.

Learn more at ojjdp.gov.

• Click on “State Contacts” in the left navigation panel.
• Select the checkbox next to “DMC Contact” or “Juvenile Justice Specialist.”

Amendments to the JJDP Act in 1992 elevated
efforts to address DMC to a “core requirement”
and tied 25 percent of grant funds to state com
pliance, further strengthening national efforts to
address the problem. In the years since DMC
became a core requirement, both research and
practice have taught many lessons. Two of the
most important lessons are that:

• Click on your state in the map.
In this fact sheet, the term “state” refers to any of the 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories (American
Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

For information about other
OJJDP programs, go to
ojjdp.gov.

• In most jurisdictions, disproportionate
juvenile minority representation is not
limited only to secure detention and
confinement; it is evident at nearly all
contact points on the juvenile justice
system continuum.
• Contributing factors to DMC are
multiple and complex; reducing DMC
requires comprehensive and multipronged
strategies that include programmatic and
systems change efforts.
Thus, when the JJDP Act was reauthorized
in 2002, Congress expanded the DMC core
requirement from “confinement” to “contact.”
This change required states participating in
the Formula Grants program to “address
juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and
systems improvement efforts designed to
reduce, without establishing or requiring
numerical standards or quotas, the dispropor
tionate number of juvenile members of the
minority groups, who come in contact with
the juvenile justice system” (Section 223(a)22).
The purpose of the core requirement remains
the same: to ensure equal and fair treatment
for every youth in the juvenile justice system,
regardless of race and ethnicity.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

InFocus

*NCJ~239457*

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Determining States’ Compliance With
the DMC Core Requirement
OJJDP requires all states to collect and report data that measure the results of funded
activities and to use these data to inform their
administration of grant funds to improve
program performance.
OJJDP requires states participating in the
Formula Grants program to:
•

Identify the extent to which DMC exists
within their jurisdictions.

•

Assess the reasons for DMC, if it exists.

•

Summary of States’ DMC Reduction Activities*
Activity

Develop and implement delinquency
prevention and systems improvement
strategies, if DMC exists.
Evaluate and monitor the effectiveness
of the chosen strategies.

• Identification. In phase I, states calculate disproportionality at nine contact points in the
juvenile justice system (i.e., arrest, referral to court, diversion, case petitioned, secure deten
tion, delinquency finding, probation, confinement in a secure correctional facility, and case
transferred, certified, and waived to adult criminal court) using the relative rate index (RRI).
The RRI provides a single index number that indicates the extent to which the volume of
that form of contact or activity differs for minority youth and majority youth. In its simplest
form, the RRI is the rate of activity involving minority youth divided by the rate of activity
involving majority youth. Any number more than 1 indicates disproportionality, except at the
diversion and probation contact points.5

AR, AK, CO, FL, IA, IL, IN, KY, MD, MI, NC, NY, OR, OK, TN, UT, WI, WV

AL, AS, AZ, CA, CT, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, DE,
DC, GA, Guam, HI, ID, KS, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MT, MS, ND, NE, NH, NJ,

Have DMC subcommittees under their State Advisory Groups.

Have data for all nine contact points in their juvenile
justice systems.

Have data for six or more (out of nine) contact points in their
juvenile justice systems.

AL, AZ, CO, DE, IN, KY, MA, MN, MS, NJ, PA, RI, WA

Update data annually (more frequently than OJJDP’s
minimum requirement of every 3 years).

AK, CA, FL, ID, IN, IA, KS, LA, MD, MN, MT, NE, NM, NY, ND, OH, OK, OR,

Have invested in targeted local DMC reduction sites.

PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI
AK, AR, AZ, CA, FL, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, NE,

Ongoing
DMC Reduction
Activities

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam

AK, CT, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, MD, ME, MN, MS, ND, OK, PA, RI, TX, UT, WI

Have implemented DMC systems improvement and
delinquency prevention strategies.

AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, FL HI, KY, IA, ID, IN, IL, MA, MD, MN, MO, MT,

Have or are implementing DMC delinquency prevention and/
or systems improvement strategies for American Indian/
Alaska Native youth.

AK, CA, ID, MT, ND, NM, OR, SD, UT, WA

Have funded, received funding, and/or received technical
assistance to implement nationally recognized models to
reduce DMC.

AL, AZ, AR, CA, DE, DC, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MN, MO,

Have recently (2005–11) completed DMC assessment
studies.

Identiﬁcation

Phase III: Intervention
PHASE II

Assessment/
Diagnosis

PHASE IV

PHASE III

Evaluation

Intervention

ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI

MT, NJ, NM, ND, NH, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, VA, WA

Phase IV: Evaluation
Have conducted at least one formal methodological
evaluation of delinquency prevention and/or systems
improvement strategies statewide or in their local
DMC reduction sites.

Puerto Rico is exempt from the DMC core requirement because the U.S. Census Bureau did not require data collection by race and ethnicity until the 2010 census.

The other three core requirements are deinstitutionalization of status offenders, removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups, and sight and sound separation of juvenile offenders from adults in
secure institutions.

Have provided a timeline for tracking and monitoring RRI
trends over time.††

AK, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI,
MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN,
TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI

Per Section 223(3)(A) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act, states participating in Part B of the Title II Formula Grants program are required to “provide for an advisory
group, that shall consist of not less than 15 and not more than 33 members appointed by the chief executive officer of the state.”

In the 1992 reauthorization of the JJDP Act, OJJDP was to withhold 25 percent of a state’s Formula Grant allocation for each finding of noncompliance with the four core requirements. In its 2002
reauthorization of the JJDP Act, Congress reduced the penalty for noncompliance to 20 percent.

††

The national RRI of 0.9 reported in the National DMC Databook (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/index.html) shows that, with the exception of Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander youth, minority
youth are not being diverted or probated disproportionately relative to white youth.

CA, CT, KY, TN

* Derived from state DMC compliance plans submitted in fiscal year 2011.
†

Phase V: Monitoring

InFocus

OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV

Phase II: Assessment/Diagnosis

PHASE I

continued on p. 4

AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, HI, IA, ID, KS, MD, ME, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NM, NV,

NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, VA, WA, WI
Have provided data for relative rate index (RRI) analysis.

• Intervention. In phase III, plans for appropriate delinquency prevention and systems improvement activities should be implemented. Effective pre
vention and intervention activities include diversion, alternatives to secure confinement, advocacy, and training and technical assistance on cultural
competency with youth and staffing practices. Systems improvement activities include advocating for legislative reforms; making administrative,
policy, and procedural changes; and implementing structured decisionmaking tools at various contact points within the juvenile justice system.

AK, AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO,
MS, MT, NE, NH, NM, NY, NC, NJ, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI

• Assessment/Diagnosis. In phase II of the model, states assess the mechanisms that contribute to DMC. This includes discussing each probable
explanation, asking questions about the data and information collected, and consulting other data sources to verify the explanation.

Phase I: Identification

DMC Reduction Cycle

Monitoring

Have part-time or other state-level staff designated as
DMC Coordinators.

NM, NV, OH, PA, RI, SD, SC, TX, VA, VI, VT, WA, WY

Each state2 reports progress in a comprehensive 3-year plan and annual plan updates [in
compliance with Section 223(a)(22)]. Because
addressing DMC is one of four core requirements3 of the JJDP Act, OJJDP withholds 20
percent4 of their annual Formula Grant allo
cation for the subsequent fiscal year for states
that fail to meet the DMC plan requirement.

PHASE V

States

Have full-time, state-level DMC Coordinators.

†

OJJDP’s DMC Reduction Model
OJJDP’s five-phase DMC Reduction Model (see
figure) helps states determine whether dispropor
tionality exists within their jurisdictions and, if it
does, provides a step-by-step model to guide their
DMC reduction efforts:

# of States

DMC Coordination

The District of Columbia and the U.S. territories (with the exception of Puerto Rico) did not provide a timeline for tracking and monitoring RRI trends over time because minority
youth comprise the majority of the youth population. Thus, the extent of DMC is not comparable to the contiguous states.

InFocus

Identify the extent to which DMC exists
within their jurisdictions.

•

Assess the reasons for DMC, if it exists.

•

Summary of States’ DMC Reduction Activities*
Activity

Develop and implement delinquency
prevention and systems improvement
strategies, if DMC exists.
Evaluate and monitor the effectiveness
of the chosen strategies.

• Identification. In phase I, states calculate disproportionality at nine contact points in the
juvenile justice system (i.e., arrest, referral to court, diversion, case petitioned, secure detention, delinquency finding, probation, confinement in a secure correctional facility, and case
transferred, certified, and waived to adult criminal court) using the relative rate index (RRI).
The RRI provides a single index number that indicates the extent to which the volume of
that form of contact or activity differs for minority youth and majority youth. In its simplest
form, the RRI is the rate of activity involving minority youth divided by the rate of activity
involving majority youth. Any number more than 1 indicates disproportionality, except at the
diversion and probation contact points.5

AR, AK, CO, FL, IA, IL, IN, KY, MD, MI, NC, NY, OR, OK, TN, UT, WI, WV

AL, AS, AZ, CA, CT, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, DE,
DC, GA, Guam, HI, ID, KS, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MT, MS, ND, NE, NH, NJ,

Have DMC subcommittees under their State Advisory Groups.

Have data for all nine contact points in their juvenile
justice systems.

Have data for six or more (out of nine) contact points in their
juvenile justice systems.

AL, AZ, CO, DE, IN, KY, MA, MN, MS, NJ, PA, RI, WA

Update data annually (more frequently than OJJDP’s
minimum requirement of every 3 years).

AK, CA, FL, ID, IN, IA, KS, LA, MD, MN, MT, NE, NM, NY, ND, OH, OK, OR,

Have invested in targeted local DMC reduction sites.

PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI
AK, AR, AZ, CA, FL, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, NE,

Ongoing
DMC Reduction
Activities

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam

AK, CT, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, MD, ME, MN, MS, ND, OK, PA, RI, TX, UT, WI

Have implemented DMC systems improvement and
delinquency prevention strategies.

AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, FL HI, KY, IA, ID, IN, IL, MA, MD, MN, MO, MT,

Have or are implementing DMC delinquency prevention and/
or systems improvement strategies for American Indian/
Alaska Native youth.

AK, CA, ID, MT, ND, NM, OR, SD, UT, WA

Have funded, received funding, and/or received technical
assistance to implement nationally recognized models to
reduce DMC.

AL, AZ, AR, CA, DE, DC, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MN, MO,

Have recently (2005–11) completed DMC assessment
studies.

Identiﬁcation

Phase III: Intervention
PHASE II

Assessment/
Diagnosis

PHASE IV

PHASE III

Evaluation

Intervention

ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI

MT, NJ, NM, ND, NH, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, VA, WA

Phase IV: Evaluation
Have conducted at least one formal methodological
evaluation of delinquency prevention and/or systems
improvement strategies statewide or in their local
DMC reduction sites.

Puerto Rico is exempt from the DMC core requirement because the U.S. Census Bureau did not require data collection by race and ethnicity until the 2010 census.

Have provided a timeline for tracking and monitoring RRI
trends over time.††

AK, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI,
MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN,
TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI

††

CA, CT, KY, TN

* Derived from state DMC compliance plans submitted in fiscal year 2011.
†

Phase V: Monitoring

InFocus

OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV

Phase II: Assessment/Diagnosis

PHASE I

continued on p. 4

AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, HI, IA, ID, KS, MD, ME, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NM, NV,

NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, VA, WA, WI
Have provided data for relative rate index (RRI) analysis.

• Intervention. In phase III, plans for appropriate delinquency prevention and systems improvement activities should be implemented. Effective prevention and intervention activities include diversion, alternatives to secure confinement, advocacy, and training and technical assistance on cultural
competency with youth and staffing practices. Systems improvement activities include advocating for legislative reforms; making administrative,
policy, and procedural changes; and implementing structured decisionmaking tools at various contact points within the juvenile justice system.

AK, AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO,
MS, MT, NE, NH, NM, NY, NC, NJ, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI

Phase I: Identification

DMC Reduction Cycle

Monitoring

Have part-time or other state-level staff designated as
DMC Coordinators.

NM, NV, OH, PA, RI, SD, SC, TX, VA, VI, VT, WA, WY

Each state2 reports progress in a comprehensive 3-year plan and annual plan updates [in
compliance with Section 223(a)(22)]. Because
addressing DMC is one of four core requirements3 of the JJDP Act, OJJDP withholds 20
percent4 of their annual Formula Grant allocation for the subsequent fiscal year for states
that fail to meet the DMC plan requirement.

PHASE V

States

Have full-time, state-level DMC Coordinators.

†

OJJDP’s DMC Reduction Model
OJJDP’s five-phase DMC Reduction Model (see
figure) helps states determine whether disproportionality exists within their jurisdictions and, if it
does, provides a step-by-step model to guide their
DMC reduction efforts:

# of States

DMC Coordination

InFocus

Office Of Juvenile
Justice and
delinquency PreventiOn
Working for Youth
Justice and Safety

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

n ovem b er 2 012

The Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention is

continued from p. 2

• Evaluation. Phase IV involves conducting
a systematic, objective, and unbiased evalu
ation of a program’s implementation and
effectiveness.
• Monitoring. Phase V involves looking for
changes in state demographics that affect
DMC trends, looking for fluctuations in
DMC rates that may require adjustments
in intervention strategies, and sustaining
DMC reduction efforts.

Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator

a component of the Office of

The challenges of DMC reduction are
complex and not easily resolved, but states
are making progress. Several states have
shown reductions in disproportionality at
secure detention, and attitudinal change of
law enforcement officers at the arrest contact
points, that were based on their DMC activi
ties (see “Summary of States’ DMC Reduc
tion Activities,” p. 3).

Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice

What Is Disproportionate
Minority Contact?

Disproportionate Minority Contact

of Justice; the Office for Victims

Disproportionate minority contact

of Crime; and the Office of Sex

refers to the disproportionate

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,

number of minority youth who

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) administers the Formula
Grants program under Title II, part B, of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act ( JJDP Act) of 1974.The 1988 amendments
to the JJDP Act authorized OJJDP to require
states1 participating in the program to address
disproportionate minority confinement (DMC)
in their state juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention plans. Specifically, the JJDP Act
required states to develop and implement plans
to reduce the proportion of minority youth detained or confined in secure detention facilities,
secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups if
they exceeded the percentage of minority youth
in the general population.

Assistance; the Bureau of Justice
Statistics; the National Institute

Apprehending, Registering,
and Tracking.

come into contact with the
juvenile justice system. States
participating in the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act’s

For More Information on
Disproportionate Minority Contact

Part B Formula Grants program
are required to address juvenile
delinquency prevention and system

improvement efforts to reduce,
without establishing or requiring
numerical standards or quotas,

the overrepresentation of minority
youth in the nation’s juvenile justice
system.

• Visit ojjdp.gov.

Learn more at ojjdp.gov.

• Click on “State Contacts” in the left navigation panel.
• Select the checkbox next to “DMC Contact” or “Juvenile Justice Specialist.”

Amendments to the JJDP Act in 1992 elevated
efforts to address DMC to a “core requirement”
and tied 25 percent of grant funds to state compliance, further strengthening national efforts to
address the problem. In the years since DMC
became a core requirement, both research and
practice have taught many lessons.Two of the
most important lessons are that:

For information about other
OJJDP programs, go to
ojjdp.gov.

• In most jurisdictions, disproportionate
juvenile minority representation is not
limited only to secure detention and
confinement; it is evident at nearly all
contact points on the juvenile justice
system continuum.
• Contributing factors to DMC are
multiple and complex; reducing DMC
requires comprehensive and multipronged
strategies that include programmatic and
systems change efforts.
Thus, when the JJDP Act was reauthorized
in 2002, Congress expanded the DMC core
requirement from “confinement” to “contact.”
This change required states participating in
the Formula Grants program to “address
juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and
systems improvement efforts designed to
reduce, without establishing or requiring
numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of the
minority groups, who come in contact with
the juvenile justice system” (Section 223(a)22).
The purpose of the core requirement remains
the same: to ensure equal and fair treatment
for every youth in the juvenile justice system,
regardless of race and ethnicity.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

InFocus

*NCJ~239457*

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods