Assessing and Addressing Disproportionate Minority Contact

(DMC) in Juvenile Justice

Bill Feyerherm, Ph.D., Vice Provost for Research,

April 9, 2007

2

OverviewThe Big Picture – The DMC Process

IdentificationCreating and Using the Relative Rate Index

Selecting Areas of Concern

AssessmentGenerating possible explanations related to the Areas of Concern

Using Data to select targets

Bringing it together – the example of Multnomah County

3

The DMC Process

4

National Custody Data, 2003 On a typical day in 2003

190 of every 100,000 white juveniles were in custody

754 of every 100,000 Black juveniles were in custody

496 of every 100,000 Indian juveniles were in custody

The Custody Rate for Black Youth was 4 times higher than for White Youth

The Custody Rate for Indian Youth was 2.4 times higher than for White Youth

5

2003 Juvenile Confinement Rates

(per 100,000 youth)White Black Hispanic Indian Asian

United States 190 754 348 496 113

Wisconsin 143 1,389 226 580 282

Michigan 169 602 231 287 27

Indiana 316 1,188 381 417 0

Illinois 120 589 144 113 14

Ohio 207 916 296 87 71

Pennsylvania 139 1,207 639 246 329

6

Ratio of Minority to White Confinement Rates

Black Hispanic Indian Asian

United States 4.0 1.8 2.6 0.6

Wisconsin 9.7 1.6 4.1 2.0

Michigan 3.6 1.4 1.7 0.2

Indiana 3.8 1.2 1.3 0.0

Illinois 4.9 1.2 0.9 0.1

Ohio 4.4 1.4 0.4 0.3

Pennsylvania 8.7 4.6 1.8 2.4

7

DMC As A Core Requirement in the JJDPA of 2002

States are required to “address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice system”.

8

DisproportionateA rate of contact with the juvenile justice system among juveniles of a specific minority group that is significantly different than the rate of contact for whites (i.e., non-Hispanic Caucasians) or for other minority groups.

Defining DMC

9

Minority: Race & Ethnicity Categories:(1) White (non-Hispanic)(2) American Indian or Alaska Native (non-

Hispanic)(3) Asian (non-Hispanic)(4) Black or African American (non-Hispanic)(5) Hispanic or Latino(6) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (non-

Hispanic)

Defining DMC

10

Juvenile Justice System ContactArrest (Initial legal encounters with law enforcement)DiversionDetention (pre-adjudication)Referral to juvenile court Issuance of petition

Adjudication as delinquentPlacement on probationPlacement in secure juvenile correctionTransfer to adult courtOthers (e.g., aftercare; revocation of aftercare)

Defining DMC

Phase 1. Identification

Answers the questions:

Does DMC exist?

If so, where on the juvenile justice continuum?

And with what minority population?

To what extent?

2-1

12

Relative Rate Index =

Minority Rate / White Rate

13

Basic Steps: Calculating the RRICreate a model of the justice system, showing the major steps / stages of activity.Record the volume of activity passing through each stage of the JJS during a year for each race / ethnicity group. Compute the rate of occurrence at each stage for each racial / ethnic categories.Divide the rate for the minority group by the rate for the white group to create the Relative Rate Index (RRI).Test to determine if the RRI is statistically significant – whether it is sufficiently different from a neutral value (1.00) that the differences in the rates are not likely to be the result of random chance processes.

Base for Rate Calculations

Juveniles arrested—rate per 1,000 populationReferrals to juvenile court—rate per 100 arrestsJuveniles diverted before adjudication—rate per 100 referralsJuveniles detained—rate per 100 referralsJuveniles petitioned—rate per 100 referralsJuveniles found to be delinquent—rate per 100 youth petitioned (charged)Juveniles placed on probation—rate per 100 youth found delinquentJuveniles placed in secure correctional facilities—rate per 100 youth found delinquentJuveniles transferred to adult court—rate per 100 youth petitioned

2-13

15

Arrest(Law Enforcement

referral)B

J uvenile Court Referrals

C

Diverted from system - (alternative handling)

D

Petition Filed(Charged)

F

Transfer / waiver to Adult Court

J

Found Delinquent(Guilty)

G

Probation Supervision

H

Secure ConfinementI

DetentionE

Other Referral Source

Y outh PopulationA

Relationship of Data Elements for Relative Rate Index Calculations

16

Data – Sample Total Youth White

Black or African-American

Hispanic or Latino Asian

Hawaiian/ Pacific Islanders

American Indian or Alaska Native

Other/ Mixed

All Minorities

1. Population at risk (age 10 through 17 ) 90,848 65,916 9,615 6,804 6,810   1,703   24,932

2. Juvenile Arrests 3,973 2,542 907 285 156   83   1,431

3. Refer to Juvenile Court 6,461 4,116 1,473 444 270   158   2,345

4. Cases Diverted 2,674 1,799 538 164 119   54   875

5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 4,243 2,463 1,108 325 178   169   1,780

6. Cases Petitioned (Charge Filed) 2,393 1,408 651 167 103   64   985

7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 1,792 1,036 504 132 71   49   756

8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 5,163 3,215 1,191 341 262   154   1,948

9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 207 114 66 13 9   5   93

10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court 7 5 0 2 0   0   2

17

Data ItemsWhite Rate

Minority Rate

RelativeRateIndex

1. Population at Risk      

2. Arrest 38.56 94.33 2.45

3. Referral 161.92 162.4 1

4. Diversion 43.71 36.52 0.84

5. Detention 59.84 75.22 1.26

6. Petitioned/ Charge filing 34.21 44.2 1.29

7. Delinquent Findings 73.58 77.42 1.05

8. Probation 310.33 236.31 0.76

9. Confinement in Secure Correctional Facilities 11 13.1 1.19

10. Transferred to Adult Court 0.36 0 --

Sample Output for African – American Youth

18

Data ItemsWhite Rate

Minority Rate

RelativeRateIndex

1. Population at Risk      

2. Arrest 38.56 41.89 1.09

3. Referral 161.92 155.79 0.96

4. Diversion 43.71 36.94 0.85

5. Detention 59.84 73.2 1.22

6. Petitioned/ Charge filing 34.21 37.61 1.1

7. Delinquent Findings 73.58 79.04 1.07

8. Probation 310.33 258.33 0.83

9. Confinement in Secure Correctional Facilities 11 9.85 0.9

10. Transferred to Adult Court 0.36 1.2 --

Sample Output for Hispanic Youth

19

How do we Interpret RRI values?

Step 1. Statistical significance

Step 2. Magnitude of RRI

Step 3. Volume of activity

Step 4. Comparison with other jurisdictions

20

Black Hispanic Asian Am Indian Other All

2. Juvenile Arrests 2.94 1.44 0.39 3.06 0.70 2.143. Refer to Juvenile Court 1.23 1.23 0.62 1.23 1.20 1.254. Cases Diverted 0.81 0.89 0.92 0.79 0.88 0.845. Cases Involving Secure Detention 1.47 1.36 1.10 1.63 0.98 1.396. Cases Petitioned (Charge Filed) 1.06 1.06 1.12 1.23 0.97 1.097. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings

1.01 1.03 1.03 1.00 0.99 1.028. Cases resulting in Probation Placement

0.96 0.96 1.13 0.97 0.93 0.969. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure

Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1.53 1.40 1.38 1.83 1.17 1.4810. Cases Transferred to Adult Court 1.51 1.11  ---- ---- 1.60 1.33

County Level Analyses: Median RRI scores

Based on analysis of 150 US Counties

21

Using the RRI: Moving Toward Assessment

The RRI is like vital signs in a health care setting – it can tell us if we need to pay attention and can guide us to the general area to receive attention. However, taken alone, it doesn’t tell us if we have a problem that needs to be addressed with intervention, let alone what intervention to use.

Phase 2. Assessment

Purpose of Assessment:

To determine probable explanations for the ways in which DMC is created

To determine possible targets for intervention activities

3-1

23

Diagnosis

Determines

Treatment

24

Mechanisms Leading to DMC(A partial listing modified from JRSA “Seven Steps” manuscript )

Differential OffendingDrugs / gangs / serious offensesImportation / displacement effectsRepeated offending

Indirect effects Factors such as SES or Risk Factors which are linked to race / ethnicity

25

Mechanisms Leading to DMC(A partial listing modified from JRSA “Seven Steps” manuscript )

Differential Opportunities for Prevention and Treatment

Access

Implementation

Effectiveness

Differential HandlingDecision making criteria

Cultural Competence: interpretation of language and behavior

26

Mechanisms Leading to DMC(A partial listing modified from JRSA “Seven Steps” manuscript )

Justice By Geography

Legislation, Policies, Legal Factors with Disproportionate Impact

Accumulated Disadvantage

Statistical Aberrations: Census and record keeping issues, small number issues

27

Bringing It Together:The Multnomah County Experience

Identification Studies highlighted detention and sentencing as areas of focusThe JDAI (Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative) became a resource option1994: approx 6000 intakes, 11% detention rate for white youth, 21% for Black youth, 23% for Hispanic youth

28

Assessment issues

1. Lack of alternatives

2. Lack of good control over decision processes

3. Concerns about the Cultural Competence of Staff

29

Implementation - Developing Alternatives

Geographic location

Community based provider agencies

Alternatives to assist youth in establishing & maintaining community ties

30

Implementation: the RAI

Working Team included culturally diverse set of most stakeholders

Examination of models in other communities

Examination of items that inadvertently disadvantage minority youth

Consensus among decision makers

Point based objective criteria for detention decisions.

31

Implementation: Cultural Competence

Staff hiring policies and goals – staff should reflect the demography of our clients

Agency wide Cultural Competence training

32

Detention Rates For All Delinquent Referrals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 0

Year

Pe

rce

nt

De

tain

ed

White

Black

Hispanic

33

Incarceration Rates for Delinquent Referrals

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000

Year

Pre

ce

nt

Ins

titu

tio

na

l pla

ce

me

nt

White

Black

Hispanic

34

Recidivism Prior to Case Closing

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Year of Referral

Per

cent

with

sub

sequ

ent r

efer

ral

White

Black

Hispanic

35

OverviewThe Big Picture – The DMC Process

IdentificationCreating and Using the Relative Rate Index

Selecting Areas of Concern

AssessmentGenerating possible explanations related to the Areas of Concern

Using Data to select targets

Bringing it together – the example of Multnomah County

36

Resources