Dmc Report

• Topics: Crime/Demographics, Statistics/Trends

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

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

MINORITY CONFINEMENT

DISPROPORTIONATE

I N M A S S AC H U S E T T S
Failures in Assessing and Addressing the
Overrepresentation of Minorities in the
Massachusetts Juvenile Justice System

MINORITY CONFINEMENT

DISPROPORTIONATE

I N M A S S AC H U S E T T S
Failures in Assessing and Addressing the
Overrepresentation of Minorities in the
Massachusetts Juvenile Justice System

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is the
nation’s premier guardian of liberty, working daily
in courts, legislatures and communities to defend
and preserve the individual rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the
United States.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
NADINE STROSSEN, President
ANTHONY D. ROMERO, Executive Director
KENNETH B. CLARK, Chair, Executive Advisory
Council
RICHARD ZACKS, Treasurer

NATIONAL OFFICE
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2500
www.aclu.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

II.

Summary of Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

III. Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . .2
IV. The Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
V.

Massachusetts’ Efforts to
Address Minority Overrepresentation . . . . . . . .5

VI. Alternative Sources of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . .13
VII. Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . .16
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

AN ACLU REPORT

DISPROPORTIONATE
MINORITY CONFINEMENT
IN MASSACHUSETTS
Failures in Assessing and Addressing the
Overrepresentation of Minorities in the
Massachusetts Juvenile Justice System
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States Constitution guarantees similarly
situated persons equal treatment under the law. It
entitles juveniles who commit the same types of
offenses and have similar delinquency histories to
equal treatment by the police, the prosecutors and the
courts, regardless of their race, ethnicity or gender.
According to national research, however, this does
not happen. In almost every state, youth of color are
treated more harshly than their white counterparts.
They are more likely to be detained, to be formally
charged in juvenile court, and to be confined to state
correctional systems than white youth who have
committed the same types of offenses and have similar delinquency histories.1
The disparate treatment of youth of color has a devastating impact not only on the lives of the children
and families directly involved in the juvenile justice
system, but also on the integrity of the system itself.
The unaddressed perception that racial bias influences decision-making undermines public confidence in the ability of the system to conduct the fair
administration of justice.
Since 1992, Congress has required states receiving
federal funding pursuant to the Formula Grants program of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (the “Delinquency Prevention Act”)
to identify the extent to which minorities are overrepresented in their juvenile justice systems, assess
the underlying causes and take steps to address the
overrepresentation.2 The federal Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (“OJJDP”) monitors each participating state’s compliance with this
mandate, sanctions those states that are not in com-

pliance and provides technical assistance to states
that need and request it.3
Massachusetts receives federal funding pursuant to
the Formula Grants program. To determine the
degree to which it has complied with the
Delinquency Prevention Act’s mandate concerning
minority overrepresentation, the American Civil
Liberties Union (“ACLU”) obtained relevant documents for the period 1995 through 2002 from OJJDP
and the Programs Division of Massachusetts’
Executive Office of Public Safety, the state agency
responsible for administering federal and state-funded criminal justice grants.

II. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
These documents reveal that, for at least the last ten
years, Massachusetts’ youth of color have been overrepresented at every decision-making point in the
Commonwealth’s juvenile justice system. According
to statistics generated on behalf of Massachusetts’
Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, in 1993, youth
of color represented approximately 17% of the
Commonwealth’s juvenile population, 29% of youth
arrested, 59% of youth arraigned, and 57% of juveniles committed to secure facilities.4 In 2002, youth
of color represented 23% of the juvenile population,
25% of youth arrested and 63% of juveniles committed to secure facilities (arraignment statistics were
not available).5
Although OJJDP audits repeatedly have found
Massachusetts to be in compliance with the
Delinquency Prevention Act’s mandate, the
Commonwealth appears to have taken no meaningful
steps to address racial disparities.
•

No single entity or individual has taken a
leadership role in addressing the issue.
Neither of the state entities charged with
implementation of the Delinquency Prevention
Act, the Commonwealth’s Juvenile Justice
Advisory Committee and the Executive Office
of Public Safety, has made the elimination of
racial disparities a priority.

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
•

•

The Commonwealth has yet to identify adequately the nature and scope of the racial
disparities in its juvenile justice system.
Between 1995 and 2003, the Commonwealth
tried four times to collect the data necessary to
determine the degree to which youth of color
were overrepresented. Each effort failed. The
Commonwealth has no centralized management information system that tracks youth
from arrest to disposition and adjudication.
Juvenile courts and correctional agencies do
not maintain data in a uniform manner. Certain
key data does not distinguish Latino youth
from African-American and White youth.
Other data cannot be accessed without a manual search of court records, many of which
contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate or unverifiable. Still other data is simply
unavailable.
The Commonwealth has yet to determine
the true causes of these disparities. Based on
studies conducted between 1995 and 1997, the
Commonwealth claims that racial disparities
do not result from any systemic biases, but
from the fact that youth of color are arrested
more frequently. According to the
Commonwealth, they are arrested more frequently because they live in high crime areas
that are aggressively (and appropriately)
patrolled by law enforcement.6 The studies
upon which the Commonwealth relies do not
support this conclusion:
∆

Racial disparities continue to exist in
detention and adjudication decisions
after controlling for gender, age, severity of offense and prior record.

∆

Although there are more Latino youth
than African-American youth in
Massachusetts, the studies focus exclusively on African-American arrest rates.
They contain no data on the arrest rates
of Latino youth.

∆

The authors of the studies never examined the arrest rates and police behavior
in the areas they deemed as high crime.

Instead, they relied upon generalized
social science literature on crime and
urbanization. A meta-analysis of studies
on race and the juvenile justice system
found that about two-thirds of the studies of disproportionate minority confinement showed negative “race effects” at
one stage or another of the juvenile justice process.7
•

Although the Commonwealth has developed
plans to reduce minority overrepresentation, these plans have not been implemented.
The plans call for such things as the improvement of data collection systems; the training
and education of juvenile justice practitioners;
the creation of a staff position to identify problems in the juvenile justice system and hold
practitioners accountable; and the development and/or maintenance of programs for atrisk minority youth. As of December 2002,
none of the above objectives had been accomplished.

•

Almost none of the millions of federal dollars received by the Commonwealth for
youth-related programs (including juvenile
delinquency efforts) has been allocated to
minority overrepresentation. Until FY01,
none of the roughly $1.3 million the
Commonwealth received each year in Formula
Grant funding was allocated to minority overrepresentation. In both FY01 and FY02,
approximately 5% of that amount was set aside
to address the issue. Although the
Commonwealth participates in several other
programs pursuant to which it receives federal funds for youth-related purposes, these
monies appear to have been disseminated to
communities throughout the Commonwealth
with little regard for the minority juvenile
arrest rates of those communities or the number of at- risk minorities in the communities.

III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

National research has shown that the overrepresentation of minority youth may result from any number

AN ACLU REPORT
of complex factors, including the unintended consequences of seemingly race-neutral practices.8
Regardless of their origin, however, racial disparities
must be squarely confronted, analyzed and addressed
to ensure fairness in a juvenile justice system. In various jurisdictions around the country, the right leadership, sufficient political support and the appropriate distribution of resources have enabled juvenile
justice policymakers to identify concrete steps they
can take to reduce minority overrepresentation, create fairer and more effective juvenile justice systems,
and ensure better outcomes for many children.
Based on their work in these jurisdictions, the Annie
E. Casey Foundation, the Youth Law Center’s
Building Blocks for Youth and the W. Haywood
Burns Institute have identified the hallmarks of successful reform strategies. If Massachusetts is to
address its own overrepresentation issues in a meaningful manner, it should develop and implement system-wide strategies that incorporate these hallmarks.

Recommendation #1
The Governor should reconfigure the Juvenile
Justice Advisory Committee to ensure that it represents adequately the broad spectrum of individuals and entities who work with at-risk youth and
communities and people of color. Historically, individuals with close ties to the Commonwealth’s
Department of Youth Services have dominated the
Committee and have shown little interest in addressing minority overrepresentation. Reconfiguring the
Committee will permit the appointment of individuals who are willing and capable of taking a leadership role with respect to the issue.

Committee and the Executive Office of Public Safety
should be held accountable to the public for their
efforts to address it. Within sixty (60) days of its
appointment, the Advisory Committee should establish new policies and procedures that require it to,
among other things, meet on a regular and periodic
basis throughout each calendar year and open those
meetings to the public.

Recommendation #3
Starting with the City of Boston, the Governor, the
Legislature and the Judiciary should take immediate steps to identify the root causes of the racial
disparities in the juvenile justice system. By July
2004, the Governor should issue a report examining decision-making by law enforcement personnel who interact with Boston’s youth of color, and
the Judiciary should issue a report examining
decision-making by court personnel in the Boston
juvenile and criminal court systems. Both reports
should identify actions that contribute to minority overrepresentation and steps that will be taken
to reduce overrepresentation. The Legislature
should appropriate the funds necessary to prepare
the reports within the time periods indicated.
Common sense dictates that the Commonwealth cannot begin to address racial disparities in any meaningful manner until it determines the causes of those
disparities. As is explained in more detail later in the
report, the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee
recently selected Boston as the site for an initiative
designed to reduce minority overrepresentation. The
Commonwealth should expand that initiative to
include a comprehensive study of the causes of racial
disparities in the Boston area. The Boston study can
then act as a prototype for similar studies in other
areas of the Commonwealth with a high percentage
of youth of color.

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
color by July 2004. Accurate and timely data will be
needed to expand the Boston project to other areas.
The Commonwealth should begin to develop the
means of gathering and analyzing that data now.
The Advisory Committee and the Executive Office
of Public Safety should determine the type of data
they will need and work with representatives of the
court system, juvenile and adult correction agencies,
indigent defender associations and law enforcement
offices to develop policies and procedures for uniform data collection by these agencies, associations
and offices. Data categorized by age, gender, race
and ethnicity should be collected at every important
stage of the juvenile justice system.

Recommendation #5

pendent evaluator with extensive experience in
indigent defense delivery systems to conduct a
thorough review of defender services available to
indigent youth of color throughout the state. To
the extent that indigent defense providers do not
have the resources to provide all minority youth
with constitutionally adequate legal representation, the Commonwealth should take immediate
steps to rectify this deficiency. Competent legal
advocates can act to ensure the fair treatment of
youth of color once they have entered the juvenile
justice system and can empower children to seek the
services and make the changes necessary to avoid
future court involvement.

IV. THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT

During the next legislative cycle, the Legislature
should condition state funding for the Judiciary,
the District Attorney’s Association, the
Department of Youth Services, the Office of the
Commissioner of Probation and local police
departments on their collaboration and cooperation with the Advisory Committee and the
Executive Office of Public Safety in collecting and
analyzing relevant data.

The Formula Grants program of the Delinquency
Prevention Act makes federal funds available to states
to support “state and local programs that prevent
juvenile involvement in delinquent behavior.”9 These
funds are known as Formula Grant funds because the
federal government determines the amount for which
each state is eligible under the program using a formula based upon the state’s juvenile population.
Every three years, participating states must submit a
plan to OJJDP. The plan, in turn, must:

Recommendation #6

Establish an advisory group of between 15 and
33 members, appointed by the governor, to
assist in the formulation of the plan, review
and comment on the state’s use of Formula
Grant funds, and make policy recommendations on juvenile justice to the governor, legislators and other state agencies. A majority of
the members of the group may not be full-time
government employees.10

Attempt “to reduce . . . the disproportionate
number of juvenile members of minority
groups who come in contact with the juvenile
justice system”11 by

By April 2004, the Juvenile Justice Advisory
Committee and the Executive Office of Public
Safety should review and revise existing federal
grant programs to ensure that youth of color have
equal access to appropriate community-based
alternatives to detention and are provided with a
local continuum of culturally sensitive post-adjudicative services, including treatment, supervision
and placement options. Funding decisions should be
made on the basis of need, not grant-writing abilities.

Recommendation #7
a.
The Executive Office of Public Safety, working in
partnership with the Committee for Public
Counsel Services, should contract with an inde-

Identifying the nature and extent of
overrepresentation in the system using
“quantifiable” data,12

AN ACLU REPORT

Assessing the data to identify and
explain differences in arrest, diversion,
pre-trial detention, adjudication rates,
and disposition rates,13 and

Developing and implementing strategies, based on the above assessment, to
diminish overrepresentation.14

Ensure that juvenile status offenders, aliens in
custody, and juvenile non-offenders are not
detained in secure detention or correctional
facilities.15

Ensure that juveniles are not detained or confined in any institution in which they have contact with incarcerated adults.16

Ensure that juveniles are not detained or confined in any adult jail or lockup facility for
longer than six hours.17

Participating states must submit annual plan amendments and performance reports to OJJDP describing
their progress in implementing the programs set forth
in their plans and analyzing the effectiveness of those
programs.18 OJJDP audits each state to determine its
compliance with the above provisions of the Act. A
state not in compliance with any one of these mandates may lose some of its funding.19

V. MASSACHUSETTS’ EFFORTS TO ADDRESS
MINORITY OVERREPRESENTATION
V.A. The State Advisory Committee
As required by the Delinquency Prevention Act, the
Commonwealth has established a Juvenile Justice
Advisory Committee. According to its mission statement, the Advisory Committee is responsible for the
implementation of the objectives of the Delinquency
Prevention Act, the coordination of juvenile justice
and delinquency prevention efforts within the
Commonwealth, and the provision of policy recommendations to the Governor and state legislators on
matters concerning juvenile justice.20 The Programs
Division of the Executive Office of Public Safety
staffs it.

Although the Advisory Committee and the Executive
Office of Public Safety would be the logical leaders
of any effort to address minority overrepresentation,
a review of the documents produced to the ACLU
reveals that neither has played such a role. Both entities have concerned themselves primarily with the
mechanics of disseminating federal and/or state
funds to counties, municipalities, law enforcement
agencies and others for youth-related programs
(including juvenile delinquency prevention).
The Advisory Committee decides how to allocate
monies obtained by the Commonwealth pursuant to
the following federal grant programs: the Formula
Grants Program; Title V, §§ 501-506, of the
Delinquency Prevention Act;21 Title II, Part E of the
Delinquency Prevention Act (“Challenge Grant funding”);22 and the Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grant Program (“JAIBG”).23 The Executive
Office of Public Safety assists the Advisory
Committee in its funding decisions and, without the
Advisory Group’s input, disseminates funding
obtained through the federal Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program24 and various
other programs.
Historically, neither the Advisory Committee nor the
Executive Office of Public Safety has been concerned about the degree to which the programs they
fund serve youth or communities of color. As is discussed in further detail, the Advisory Committee first
awarded grants to programs designed to address
minority overrepresentation in 2001. At that time, it
set aside Challenge Grant funds for two programs in
Brockton and Worcester.
In 2002, with the assistance of technical assistance
providers supplied by OJJDP, the Advisory
Committee began to require applicants for certain
youth-related program grants to explain in their
applications whether their programs would address
racial disparities. In early 2003, the Executive Office
of Public Safety made available $275,000 for a twoyear initiative in Boston to promote alternatives to
incarceration for youth of color.
Outside of the funding arena, the Advisory
Committee and the Executive Office of Public Safety

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
have done even less to address minority overrepresentation. Between 1995 and 1997, the two groups
commissioned three studies to identify and assess the
causes of overrepresentation. In 1998, the Advisory
Committee prepared a Disproportionate Minority
Confinement Action Plan,25 which was incorporated
into plans prepared by the Commonwealth pursuant
to the Delinquency Prevention Act, and has yet to be
implemented. In September 2002, the Executive
Office of Public Safety prepared a new plan to
address minority overrepresentation.
The reason for the lack of activity may be due to any
number of reasons. Contrary to the mandates of the
Delinquency Prevention Act, the Advisory
Committee has been heavily dominated by full-time
government employees, many of whom were actively involved in juvenile law enforcement or corrections. In 1997, the Committee had 26 members, 16 of
whom were full-time government employees.26
OJJDP twice directed the Commonwealth to reduce
the number of government employees.27 In early
2003, the Committee had 23 members, 12 of whom
were full-time government employees.28
The subcommittee to which the Advisory Committee
has delegated responsibility for addressing minority
overrepresentation meets infrequently. While the
Commonwealth has represented to OJJDP that the
subcommittee meets at least four times per year,29 its
meetings have been sporadic and irregular. In 1999,
for example, it met only three times. In 2000, it met
five times, but four of those meetings took place
between mid-September and early November.
During 2001 and 2002, the subcommittee met slightly more frequently.30
And, the Advisory Committee has effectively shielded itself from any type of public oversight or scrutiny. In contravention of the Massachusetts Open
Meetings Law,31 neither the meetings of the Advisory
Committee nor those of its subcommittees are open
to the public. Local advocates report that the
Executive Office of Public Safety has refused to
release the dates, times and locations of the meetings,
even in response to requests made pursuant to the
Commonwealth’s Public Records Act.32

V.B. The Overrepresentation Mandate
Despite the inactivity of the Advisory Committee and
the Executive Office of Public Safety, OJJDP has
repeatedly found Massachusetts to be in compliance
with the Delinquency Prevention Act’s requirements
pertaining to the overrepresentation of minority
youth.33 As previously mentioned, the Act’s overrepresentation mandate has three components: identification, assessment and the development and implementation of strategies. According to OJJDP, the
Commonwealth has complied with the first two of
these three components. It has adequately identified
the scope of the racial disparities in its juvenile justice system and assessed their causes.34 Between
1995 and 1997, the Commonwealth commissioned
three studies that concluded that although racial disparities exist, they do not result from systemic biases, but from the fact that youth of color live in highcrime areas aggressively patrolled by the police and
thus are arrested more frequently.35
In FY00, however, OJJDP conditioned its continued
certification of compliance on Massachusetts’ receipt
of technical assistance.36 While Massachusetts had
developed strategies to address overrepresentation as
required by the third component of the mandate, it
had taken almost no steps to implement them.37 In
1999, Massachusetts was one of five states selected
by OJJDP to participate in a Disproportionate
Minority Confinement Intensive Technical
Assistance Initiative.38
Based on a review of the documents provided to the
ACLU, however, it appears that the Commonwealth
has not adequately complied with any of the mandate’s components. The three studies conducted during the mid-1990s are flawed. The statistics upon
which they rely are neither accurate nor complete
and do not support the conclusions the
Commonwealth has drawn from them. Moreover,
while the Commonwealth is participating in the
Technical Assistance Initiative, it has responded
defensively to recommendations made by the technical assistance providers and has been reluctant to
implement them.

AN ACLU REPORT
ly at arrest and did not increase or decrease substantially thereafter.40

V.B.1. Identification and Assessment
In 1995 and 1996, the Executive Office of Public
Safety and the Advisory Committee commissioned
the independent consulting firm, Social Science
Research and Evaluation, Inc. (“SSRE”), to conduct
two studies to identify the scope of and assess the
causes for minority overrepresentation. SSRE
reviewed arrest, diversion, arraignment, adjudication, transfer to adult court, disposition, and commitment data from Suffolk, Worcester, Middlesex and
Hampden counties for calendar year 1993. It also
examined the race of the juveniles detained in secure
juvenile detention facilities, secure juvenile correctional facilities, adult lockups, and adult jails for the
same calendar year.

The quality of the data upon which SSRE was forced
to rely, however, was so poor that the study cannot
support the Commonwealth’s conclusions. Because
the Commonwealth’s juvenile justice system did not
track youth from arrest to disposition and adjudication in any meaningful way, SSRE had to collect data
from outside sources over which it had no control or
manually by reviewing individual case records.43
SSRE obtained arrest statistics from the FBI’s
Uniform Crime Report system, which relied on local
police departments for its primary data. In 1993, 50%
of the police departments in the four counties surveyed by SSRE failed to submit all relevant data to
the FBI.44 The FBI, in turn, categorized
Latino/Hispanic arrests as either White or AfricanAmerican, leaving SSRE’s matrixes with no arrest
data for Latino youth and overstating the arrests of
White and African-American juveniles.45

In September 1995, it published the results of its
first study, together with the Commonwealth’s first
set of Disproportionate Minority Confinement
matrixes.39 Based on this study, the Commonwealth
concluded that overrepresentation occurred primari-

FIRST DISPROPORTIONATE PROCESSING OF MINORITY YOUTH INDEX MATRIX41
STATEWIDE (AGGREGATE RESULTS FROM FOUR COUNTIES); 1993 DATA
% of juvenile
population

African-American
Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
All Minorities
White

6.0%
7.6%
2.8%
17.2%
82.8%

% of youth
arrested
(delinquent)

28.2%
n/a
1.4%
28.6%
71.4%

% of youth
arraigned

% of youth
% of youth
adjudicated committed to state
delinquent
secure facility

28.9%
25.9%
2.6%
59%
41%

33%
29.4%
1.4%
65.1%
34.9%

30.1%
19.5%
2.4%
57.3%
42.7%

FIRST DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT INDEX MATRIX42
STATEWIDE (AGGREGATE RESULTS FROM FOUR COUNTIES); 1993 DATA
% of juvenile % of youth
population
arrested

African-American
Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
All Minorities
White

6.0%
7.6%
2.8%
17.2%
82.8%

27.2%
n/a
1.4%
28.6%
71.4%

% of youth
in adult
lockups

17.4%
21.3%
1.3%
40.5%
59.5%

% of youth
in adult
jails

20%
40%
20%
80%
20%

% of youth % of youth
in secure
in secure
juvenile det. juvenile det.
facilities
facilities

35.5%
16.1%
2.1%
65.8%
34.2%

30.1%
19.5%
2.4%
57.3%
42.7%

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
To obtain arraignment, adjudication and disposition
data, SSRE reviewed 1,222 juvenile records from ten
courts in the four counties,46 each of which had its
own record-keeping system. In some jurisdictions,
crucial information was either missing from the files
or unverifiable; in others, records were in complete
disarray.47 Board of Probation Reports frequently
contained inaccurate information about the status of
a case; Juvenile Intake Probation Forms were often
only partially completed or contained information of
dubious validity; some court records contained arrest
reports while others did not; some juveniles had different folders in different courts with different pieces
of information.48
In 1996, SSRE published a second report examining
the relationship between race and the decision to place
a child in a secure facility during detention; to adjudicate a juvenile delinquent; and to commit a child to a
secure treatment facility after adjudication.49 SSRE
analyzed the data collected during its first study using
a multiple regression analysis and interviewed or surveyed 193 police officers, judges, prosecutors,
Department of Youth Services staff and probation officers; only 20% were minority.50 It also interviewed
approximately 110 youth in the juvenile justice system, roughly 60% of whom were minority.51
The multiple regression analysis demonstrated that
racial disparities continued to exist in detention,
adjudication and post-adjudication placement decisions after controlling for factors such as gender, age,
severity of offense and prior record.
Yet, without further explanation, SSRE dismissed all
disparities as statistically insignificant56 and concluded that there was no “significant empirical evidence
that the juvenile justice system operates in a biased
or differential manner toward youth of color.”57 At
the same time, however, it cautioned that the poor
quality of the data prevented it from definitively stating that “extra-legal” factors, such as race, did not
play a role in juvenile justice decision-making.58 And
it noted that while a majority of the white professionals interviewed or surveyed thought most youth
received equal treatment and processing, a substantial number of minority professionals thought that
youth of color were treated differently at every stage
of the juvenile justice system.59 A majority of the

youth interviewed or surveyed reported frequent
abuse, harassment and bias by the police.60
In 1997, the Executive Office of Public Safety and
the Advisory Committee asked the Commonwealth’s
Statistical Analysis Center to study the interaction
between youth of color and the police at the point of
arrest, a decision-making point not examined in
SSRE’s second report. On the basis of 1990 census
information, the Statistical Analysis Center concluded that “a majority” of Asian, African-American and
Native American juveniles lived in census blocks61
where more than 20% of the population was minority.62 It then noted that most of these census blocks
were located in urban areas with high population
densities and “a host of other characteristics associated with high crime locations,”63 such as a greater
number of poor residents, a greater number of residents who were unemployed and a greater number of
female-headed households with children.64
Based on a review of social science literature on
crime throughout the United States, the Statistical
Analysis Center concluded that police patrol those
areas inhabited by the urban poor more aggressively. More aggressive policing leads to more juvenile
arrests. Since many of the urban poor are minority, it
also leads to “a population of minority youth with a
larger criminal record than their suburban counterpart.”65 Longer criminal records, in turn, result in
dispositions involving confinement and juvenile
correctional facilities with a population that is largely minority.66
According to the Statistical Analysis Center, there
was no bias within the Commonwealth’s juvenile
justice system. Adolescents of color were overrepresented in the juvenile justice system because they
lived in the wrong neighborhoods.67
Significantly, the Statistical Analysis Center did not
include Latino youth in its analysis despite the fact
that one-third of all juveniles adjudicated delinquent
in Massachusetts are Latino. The 1990 census data,
like the UCR arrest data, categorized Latinos as
either White or African-American.68
Even more significantly, the Statistical Analysis
Center took no steps to confirm that the findings of

AN ACLU REPORT

PERCENTAGE OF YOUTH PLACED IN SECURE AND NON-SECURE FACILITIES
DURING PRE-ADJUDICATION DETENTION, ADJUSTED FOR AGE AND OFFENSE52
Non-secure Placement
During Detention

Secure Placement
During Detention

13%
14%
21%

87%
86%
79%

African-American Males
Latino Males
White Males

PERCENTAGE OF YOUTH PLACED IN SECURE AND NON-SECURE FACILITIES
AFTER ADJUDICATION, ADJUSTED FOR AGE AND OFFENSE53
Non-secure Placement
After Adjudication

Secure Placement
After Detention

32%
34%
42%

68%
66%
58%

African-American Males
Latino Males
White Males

PERCENTAGE OF JUVENILES ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT,
ADJUSTED FOR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS54

African-American Males
Latino Males
White Males

Adjudicated
Delinquent

Not Adjudicated
Delinquent

35.4%
35.6%
30.3%

64.6%
64.4%
69.7%

PERCENTAGE OF JUVENILES ASSIGNED TO SECURE TREATMENT FACILITIES,
ADJUSTED FOR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS55
Assigned to Secure
Treatment Facilities

Rejected, Escalated,
Diverted or Waived

64.7%
64.5%
57.6%

35.3%
35.5%
42.4%

African-American Males
Latino Males
White Males
the social science studies it reviewed actually applied
to Massachusetts. It did not examine arrest rates
within its “high percent minority” census blocks to
confirm that these blocks were high crime areas.69 It
did not interview law enforcement personnel or
neighborhood residents to confirm that these areas
were patrolled more aggressively. It made no effort
to determine the policies, practices and attitudes of
the arresting police officers.

In early 2001, Massachusetts updated its initial
Disproportionate Minority Confinement matrixes.
Apparently unable to gather all relevant data from a
single calendar year, it compared 2000 demographic
information with 1999 arrest data, 1997 arraignment
data, 1993 adjudication data, 1999 data on juveniles
confined in adult lockups, data generated in 1993 for
juveniles confined in secure juvenile detention facilities, and 2001 data for juveniles confined in secure
juvenile correctional facilities.

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS

FOURTH DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY PROCESSING INDEX MATRIX STATEWIDE
(AGGREGATE RESULTS FROM FIVE COUNTIES)72; 1999-2002 DATA73

African-American
Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
All Minorities
White

% of juvenile
population
(2000)

% of youth
arrested
(delinquent)
(1999)

% of youth
arragined

% of youth
adjudicated
delinquent

% of youth
committed to
secure facility
(2002)

6%
10%
4%
23%
77%

20%
15%74
2%
22%
78%

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

29%
26%
2%
63%
37%

FOURTH DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT INDEX MATRIX
STATEWIDE (AGGREGATE RESULTS FROM FIVE COUNTIES); 2000-2002 DATA75
% of juvenile % of youth % of youth % of youth % of youth % of youth
population
arrested in adult jails in adult
in secure
in secure
lockups
juvenile det. juvenile cor.
(2000)
(2000)
(2002)76
(2002)
facilities
facilities
(2002)
(2002)

African-American
Latino
Asian/Pacific Islander
All Minorities
White

6%
10%
4%
23%
77%

24%
n/a
1%
25%
75%

In August 2001, OJJDP advised the Commonwealth
that the matrixes were inadequate because the data
came from different years and asked the
Commonwealth to revise them.70 In late 2001, the
Commonwealth produced a third set of DMC matrixes, this time focusing on Suffolk, Hampden and
Bristol counties. In April 2003, it published a fourth
set, aggregating data from Bristol, Essex, Hampden,
Suffolk and Worcester counties. The matrixes continue to use data from different years.71

100%
0%
0%
100%
0%

24%
22%
4%
60%
40%

29%
26%
2%
63%
37%

tives, which incorporate elements of the Advisory
Committee’s Action Plan, include:
•

The improvement of the quality of juvenile
justice system data.

•

The continued identification of the causes of
minority overrepresentation.

•

The ongoing training and education of juvenile
justice practitioners, elected officials, and the
general public regarding disproportionate
minority confinement issues and trends.

•

The creation and/or maintenance of programs
for at-risk minority youth and support for prevention programs in communities with a high
percentage of minority residents.

V.B.2. Implementation
For the last seven years, the Commonwealth’s
Delinquency Prevention Act plans have contained
essentially the same objectives with respect to the
overrepresentation of minority youth. These objec-

16%
22%
3%
43%
57%

AN ACLU REPORT
•

•

The development and/or maintenance of
appropriate community-based alternative lockup programs for pre-arraigned minority youth
in the juvenile justice system.
The creation of positions or the enhancement
of existing positions in the Office of the
Juvenile Justice Monitor to identify problems

in the juvenile justice system and hold practitioners accountable.77
In FY00, the Commonwealth added:
•

Support for a system of graduated sanctions
and a continuum of treatment alternatives to
minority youth.78

SUBGRANTS MADE WITH FORMULA GRANT FUNDING AWARDED TO THE
COMMONWEALTH FOR FY98, FY99, FY00 AND FY0182
Grantee

Type of Program

Total Award

FY98

FY99

FY00

FY01

$1,345,000

$1,403,000

$1,377,000

$1,376,000

Bristol County

Alternative Lockup

$300,000

$275,000

$265,325

n/a

Division of Youth
Services

Alternative Lockup

n/a

$108,900

n/a

$143,900

Greenfield Police
Dept.

Transportation to
Alternative Lockups

$76,000
$53,00083

$53,000

n/a

Overnight
Arrest Unit

$270,000

$271,000

$67,000
$165,40084

$232,700

Secure Juvenile
Facility

$243,000
$216,00085

n/a

$220,000

n/a

Plymouth County
Sheriff

Alternative Lockup

$32,200

n/a

Springfield Center
for Human Dev.

Alternative Lockup

$75,000

$ 75,000

$94,000

n/a

Worcester KEY

Alternative Lockup

$250,000

n/a

$300,000

Yarmouth KEY

Alternative Lockup

n/a

$102,000

n/a

Juvenile Justice
Planning

$134,000

$140,300

$137,700

$137,600

Advisory
Committee

$30,000

$31,900

$31,750

Juvenile Justice
Monitoring

$150,000

n/a

$150,000

Lawrence Boys
and Girls Club
New Bedford

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
And in FY02, it added:
•

The maintenance of programs administered
with Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block
Grant and Title V funds that have disproportionate minority confinement implications.79

The only program objective the Commonwealth
states that it actually achieved between FY97 and
FY02 was the continued identification of the causes
of disproportionate minority confinement – a task
that it claims that it accomplished with the Statistical
Analysis Center’s September 1997 report.80 The
Commonwealth contends that a lack of funding has
prevented it from completing the remaining tasks.81
Although Massachusetts received roughly $1.3 million in funding pursuant to the Formula Grants program of the Delinquency Prevention Act during each
of the last five years, it did not allocate any of that
funding to address the overrepresentation of minorities until FY01.
Instead, almost all Formula Grant funding was used
by the Commonwealth to ensure its compliance with
that provision of the Delinquency Prevention Act forbidding the detention of juveniles in adult jails and
lockups. In FY97 and FY98, OJJDP concluded that
the Commonwealth was not in compliance with this
provision, reduced its federal funding by 25% and
required that it spend all remaining Formula Grant
funding on lockup removal programs and training
until it could demonstrate compliance.86 Formula
Grant funds were then used to purchase additional
beds and spaces in juvenile correctional facilities
throughout the state and transportation to and from
those facilities. Although Massachusetts achieved
compliance with the lockup removal provision in
FY99,87 it continued to allocate all funding to lockup
alternative programs until FY01.88
At that time, it set aside roughly $250,000 to address
minority overrepresentation, $50,000 of which was
to be used in FY01 and $200,000 in FY02.89 The
amount allocated for FY02 was later reduced to
$150,000.90 As of August 2002, however, the
Advisory Committee had yet to decide how to spend
the funds.

In September 2002, apparently fearful that the FY01
funds would revert back to the federal government if
not spent by September 2003,91 the Executive Office
of Public Safety informed the Advisory Committee
that it would use the funds to finance the Boston initiative mentioned earlier in this report.92 It also prepared and distributed a new plan for addressing the
overrepresentation of minorities. The plan calls for
the implementation of the Boston initiative and proposes similar strategies in Springfield and New
Bedford, an assessment of the programs funded by
the Executive Office of Public Safety to determine
how they are addressing overrepresentation, and
exploration of the possibility of working with the
Annie E. Casey Foundation to implement a
Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform Project.93
This plan was subsequently incorporated into the
Commonwealth’s FY03 Delinquency Prevention
Act Plan.94

V.C. Technical Assistance
As previously mentioned, Massachusetts was one of
five states selected by OJJDP to receive technical
assistance through the DMC Intensive Technical
Assistance initiative. Three cities, Boston,
Springfield and New Bedford, were subsequently
invited to participate.95 Documents produced by the
Commonwealth indicate that the Advisory
Committee has had little involvement with the provision of technical assistance on the local level, and has
been largely resistant to technical assistance at the
state level.
The first statewide technical assistance provider,
Thomas R. English, conducted an assessment to
determine the Commonwealth’s readiness to address
minority overrepresentation and to provide the
groundwork necessary to inform and build support.
Based on site visits in October and November 1999,
he concluded, among other things, that key players
were either unaware or lacked a clear understanding
of the issue.96 A few weeks after he published his
findings, OJJDP asked him to step aside, apparently
because of dissatisfaction expressed by some state
officials.97 He was replaced with new technical assistance providers who began to work with the
Advisory Committee in September 2000.

AN ACLU REPORT
The relationship between the new providers and the
Advisory Committee appears to have been strained.
In January 2002, after having worked with the
Advisory Committee for over one year, the providers
issued a report expressing concern about the infrequency of the meetings of the subcommittee to which
the Advisory Committee had delegated the minority
overrepresentation issue; the low attendance at those
meetings; the subcommittee’s lack of diversity
(seven of its eight members were white); the fact that
it was “heavily influenced” by the Department for
Youth Services; and its passivity and indecisiveness
on the issue. The providers recommended that the
subcommittee “take an active stance,” permit community representatives to serve on the subcommittee
and increase the frequency of its meetings.98
In a May 2002 draft letter responding to the report,
the subcommittee refused to permit community
members to sit on the subcommittee, defended the
Department of Youth Services’ representation on
the subcommittee, stated that the subcommittee
already met with the requisite frequency, and
expressed general reluctance to deviate from its current method of operation.99
At the subcommittee’s September 10, 2002, meeting, its Chair stated that he felt that the subcommittee “and [the Executive Office of Public Safety] are
heading in the right direction and [technical assistance] may no longer be necessary.” He then asked
an OJJDP representative present at the meeting
about the possibility of changing technical assistance providers and finding someone closer to
Massachusetts. OJJDP felt that the subcommittee
would benefit from additional technical assistance,
but agreed to inquire into the possibility of changing providers.100

VI. ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING
As previously stated, the Commonwealth receives
federal funding for youth related programs pursuant
to Title V of the Delinquency Prevention Act; the
Challenge Grant program; the Edward Byrne
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Formula Grant Program; and the JAIBG
program. Also, as previously stated, the Advisory
Committee and the Executive Office of Public Safety
are responsible for the dissemination of these funds.
Based on the documents produced to the ACLU, neither entity has a strategic plan or a set of articulated
goals guiding its funding decisions.
FY99 Challenge Grant funds were the first federal
funds that Massachusetts set aside specifically for
minority overrepresentation. In mid-2000, the
Executive Office of Public Safety issued a Request
for a Response (RFR) to Hampden County, seeking
proposals for a minority overrepresentation pilot
project using the FY99 Challenge Grant funds. No
one responded. The Executive Office of Public
Safety subsequently revised the RFR and in February
2001 sent it to eleven cities with significant number
of juvenile arrests (although not necessarily minority
juvenile arrests): Boston, Brockton, Fall River,
Holyoke, Lawrence, Lynn, Lowell, New Bedford,
Pittsfield, Springfield and Worcester. Interested parties were asked to submit proposals for programs
addressing minority overrepresentation in one of
three designated areas: alternatives to incarceration;
alternatives to suspension and expulsion; or
increased aftercare services.103

FEDERAL FUNDING AWARDED TO THE COMMONWEALTH
BY SOURCE AND FISCAL YEAR101

Title V
Challenge Grant
JAIBG
Byrne Grant102
TOTAL

FY98

FY99

$358,000
$183,000
$4,589,700
$9,986,400
$15,117,198

$807,000
$169,000
$4,636,900
$9,959,400
$15,572,399

FY00

$723,000
$163,000
$4,412,600
$8,548,000
$13,846,600

FY01

$742,000
$162,000
$4,601,750
$8,747,400
$14,253,151

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
In July 2001, the Commonwealth awarded $36,700
to the City of Worcester to fund programs to explore
the use of electronic monitoring devices as an alternative to incarceration and to provide services to suspended or expelled students and their families.104 It
awarded $125,000 to the Brockton Area Private
Industry Council, Inc. to provide increased services
to minority youth released from juvenile correctional
facilities through internship opportunities and career
development services.105 During FY02, the Worcester
alternatives to incarceration program served 35 children, approximately 71% of whom were minority.106
Between September 2001 and June 2002, the
Brockton program served 78 youth, 78% of whom
were minority.107 Additional Challenge Grant funding
has been allocated to extend these programs until
September 2003.

Grants from other federal sources appear to have
been awarded with little regard for the number of
minorities served by the programs financed with the
funds. According to the Massachusetts Statistical
Analysis Center, 23% of all juvenile arrests for Part I
crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
larceny, burglary, arson, motor vehicle theft)108 and
15% of all juvenile arrests for Part II crimes (DUI,
liquor law violations, disorderly conduct, drunkenness, vagrancy, vandalism, etc.) involve an AfricanAmerican arrestee.109 Roughly 70% of both Part I and
Part II African-American juvenile arrests are made in
five counties. These five counties, however, are not
the recipients of the most federally funded grants,
either in terms of the number of grants awarded or
the amount of money distributed.

COUNTIES WITH THE GREATEST NUMBER OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUVENILE
ARRESTS FOR PART I CRIMES; CALENDAR YEAR 1998110
Counties

Number of Part I Arrests

Suffolk
Hampden
Norfolk
Plymouth
Worcester

814
169
125
124
118

COUNTIES WITH THE GREATEST NUMBER OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN JUVENILE
ARRESTS FOR PART II CRIMES; CALENDAR YEAR 1998111

Counties

Number of Part II Arrests

Suffolk
Hampden
Plymouth
Worcester
Norfolk

836
364
259
183
130

AN ACLU REPORT

NUMBER OF SUBGRANTS MADE TO INDIVIDUAL COUNTIES WITH BYRNE,
CHALLENGE, JAIBG, AND TITLE V FUNDS AWARDED TO COMMONWEALTH
IN FEDERAL FY98, FY99, FY00 AND FY01112
FY98

FY99

Middlesex
Essex
Worcester
Hampden
Plymouth
Norfolk
Suffolk
Berkshire
Barnstable
Bristol
Franklin
Hampshire
TOTAL

21
17
10
7
7
6
6
5
4
4
4
1
92

Middlesex
Essex
Worcester
Hampden
Suffolk
Bristol
Plymouth
Barnstable
Franklin
Norfolk
Berkshire
Hampshire
TOTAL

FY00

20
15
12
9
9
8
6
5
5
4
3
2
99

Middlesex
Essex
Worcester
Bristol
Suffolk
Hampden
Berkshire
Plymouth
Barnstable
Norfolk
Franklin
Hampshire
TOTAL

FY01

20
14
9
9
7
7
5
5
4
4
3
2
89

Middlesex
Essex
Suffolk
Barnstable
Hampden
Bristol
Norfolk
Worcester
Plymouth
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampshire
TOTAL

16
14
9
8
7
6
6
6
5
4
3
2
85

TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUBGRANTS MADE TO INDIVIDUAL COUNTIES WITH
BYRNE, CHALLENGE, JAIBG AND TITLE V FUNDS AWARDED TO COMMONWEALTH
IN FEDERAL FY98, FY99, FY00 AND FY01113
FY98

Suffolk
Middlesex
Essex
Worcester
Hampden
Plymouth
Norfolk
Bristol
Berkshire
Barnstable
Franklin
Hampshire
TOTAL

$1,086,374
$1,058,924
$1,052,926
$659,236
$546,947
$501,013
$484,252
$389,379
$219,191
$201,715
$180,459
$20,000
$6,400,416

FY99

FY00

FY01

Suffolk
$1,169,174
Essex
$1,160,031
Middlesex $911,605
Worcester $666,086
Hampden $535,663
Bristol
$451,831
Plymouth $372,905
Norfolk
$353,000
Barnstable $267,515
Franklin
$266,659
Berkshire $182,768
Hampshire $40,000
TOTAL $6,377,237

Suffolk
$1,110,174
Essex
$941,009
Middlesex $879,180
Worcester $521,586
Bristol
$480,293
Hampden $453,189
Berkshire $435,424
Plymouth $329,751
Norfolk
$253,764
Barnstable $202,515
Franklin
$196,959
Hampshire $75,000
TOTAL $5,878,844

Suffolk $1,180,130
Middlesex $858,998
Essex
$558,796
Hampden $470,482
Berkshire $425,510
Worcester $363,752
Plymouth $361,747
Bristol
$321,425
Barnstable $300,166
Norfolk
$248,523
Franklin
$134,219
Hampshire $97,675
TOTAL $5,321,423

While grant recipients are required to submit to the
Executive Office of Public Safety quarterly reports,
most of which record the number and race of the children served by their programs, the Commonwealth
has made little use of such information. The only formal analysis appears to be in a publication by the

Statistical Analysis Center released in 2000. Based in
part on a review of quarterly progress reports prepared by Title V grant recipients in FY97, FY98 and
FY99, the Statistical Analysis Center concluded that
the majority of the youth served by the programs
administered by these recipients were white.114

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS

PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS IN TITLE V PROGRAMS WHO WERE WHITE
FY97, FY98 AND FY99
Town or
Country

Amherst

Program

Juvenile Diversion

Bridgewater Alternative HS

% of Participants who were White
FY97

FY98

FY99115

40-50%

0-18%

56-60%

15-33

93-100%

100%

90-100%

Cambridge

Supervised visitation 28–56
in cases of domestic
violence and father
absence

n/a

70-85%

68-76%

Franklin

Juvenile Diversion

83-100%

87-94%

77-90%

Harvard

Student/Community 79-579
Assistance Program

86-96%

not available

86-92%

Holliston

Youth Diversion
Program

10-34

100%

Lynnfield

Community Youth
Center

98-595

96%

93%

Natick

Delinquency
Prevention Program
Project Now

9-58

61-95%

71-100%

78-94%

–

83-87%

86-87%

22-45%

25-40%

–

North
Andover

Number of
Participants
Per Quarter

6-63

235-666
(1998, 1999)

Southbridge Youth Center

261-369

26-48%

Stoneham

Delinquency
Prevention

628 (1997)

97%

Ware

Youth Center
Court-ordered
Community Service
Program

1,500 (1998)
4-17
(1997 and
1999)

–
50-60%

97%
not available

82-100%

Wilbraham/ Family Involvement 286-1,335
Hampden
Project

99-100%

70-88%

85-87%

Worcester

50-63%

51-64%

52-65%

Truancy Abatement
Program

44-169

AN ACLU REPORT
In FY01, Title V grant applications were amended
to ask applicants to include, “if applicable,” a
description of how their proposed program would
address the minority overrepresentation. Few, if
any, of the FY02 Title V applications included such
a description. JAIBG grant applications were to be
similarly amended.
As previously stated, in September 2002, the
Executive Office of Public Safety announced its
intention to survey all programs funded by its office
to assess how these programs addressed the overrepresentation of minorities.116 The survey is to be completed in mid-2004.117

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on documents produced by OJJDP and the
Programs Division of the Executive Office of Public
Safety, Massachusetts is failing to meet its obligation
under the Delinquency Prevention Act with respect
to overrepresentation of youth of color. Although it
acknowledges that youth of color are overrepresented at almost every stage of its juvenile justice system,
it has yet to adequately identify the scope of the problem or to determine its causes. While it has developed plans to address minority overrepresentation, it
has taken no meaningful steps to implement them. It
has allocated little of the youth-related federal funding it receives to the issue.
National research has shown that racial disparities
can result from a host of complex factors, including
the unintended consequence of seemingly race-neutral practices. Regardless of their origin, however,
such disparities must be confronted and addressed if
juvenile justice systems are to be seen as genuinely
fair. Strategies developed and implemented in various jurisdictions around the country demonstrate that
with the right leadership, sufficient political support,
relevant data and appropriate distribution of
resources, factors contributing to minority overrepresentation can be successfully addressed.
Based on their work in these jurisdictions, the Annie
E. Casey Foundation, the Youth Law Center’s

Building Blocks for Youth, the W. Haywood Burns
Institute, and other youth advocacy groups have
identified the hallmarks of successful reform strategies. If Massachusetts is to address its own overrepresentation issues in a meaningful manner, it must
develop and implement systemic strategies that
incorporate these hallmarks.

Recommendation #1
The Governor should reconfigure the Juvenile
Justice Advisory Committee to ensure that it adequately represents the broad spectrum of individuals and entities who work with at-risk youth and
communities and people of color.118 Historically,
individuals with close ties to the Commonwealth’s
Department of Youth Services have dominated the
Committee and have shown little interest in addressing minority overrepresentation. Reconfiguring the
Committee will permit the appointment of individuals who are willing and capable of taking a leadership role with respect to the issue.

Recommendation #2
At the same time the Governor appoints the
Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, he should
issue an Executive Order directing the Committee
and the Executive Office of Public Safety to make
the reduction of racial disparities in the
Commonwealth’s juvenile justice system a priority. Because this issue is so important to the viability
of the juvenile justice system, the Advisory
Committee and the Executive Office of Public Safety
should be held accountable to the public for their
efforts to address it. Within sixty (60) days of its
appointment, the Advisory Committee should establish new policies and procedures that require it to:
•

Meet on a regular and periodic basis throughout each calendar year.

•

Open its meetings and those of its subcommittees to the public by advertising widely the
date, time and location of each meeting.

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS

•

• Make its minutes and those of its subcommittees publicly available by posting them on
the Committee’s website.
Issue periodic reports to the public on the steps
that it has taken to address racial disparities
and include a detailed summary of those
reports in its Annual Report.

Recommendation #3
Starting with the City of Boston, the Governor, the
Legislature and the Judiciary should take immediate steps to identify the root causes of the racial
disparities in the juvenile justice system and to
address those causes in a manner that reduces the
disparities. By July 2004, the Governor should
issue a report examining decision-making by law
enforcement personnel who interact with Boston’s
youth of color, and the Judiciary should issue a
report examining decision-making by court personnel (e.g., judges, probation officers, etc.) in the
Boston juvenile and criminal court systems. Both
reports should identify actions that contribute to
minority overrepresentation and steps that will be
taken to reduce overrepresentation. The
Legislature should appropriate the funds necessary to prepare the reports within the time periods indicated.
Common sense dictates that the Commonwealth cannot begin to address racial disparities in any meaningful manner until it determines the causes of those
disparities. Because each county has its own police
departments and juvenile courts, and each police
department and juvenile court has its own set of policies, procedures and personnel, the causes may differ
from county to county or from city to city.
The Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee recently
selected Boston as the site for an initiative designed
to reduce minority overrepresentation. The
Commonwealth should expand that initiative to
include a comprehensive study of the causes of racial
disparities in the Boston area. The Boston study can
then act as a prototype for similar studies in other
areas of the Commonwealth with a high percentage
of youth of color.

Recommendation #4
The Advisory Committee and the Executive Office
of Public Safety should develop the capacity to
monitor statewide, countywide and municipalitywide trends on the overrepresentation of youth of
color by July 2004. Accurate and timely data will be
needed to expand the Boston project to other areas.
The Commonwealth should begin to develop the
means of gathering and analyzing that data now. The
Advisory Committee and the Executive Office of
Public Safety should determine the type of data they
will need and work with representatives of the court
system, juvenile and adult correction agencies, indigent defender associations and law enforcement
offices to develop policies and procedures for uniform data collection by these agencies, associations
and offices. Accurate and timely data categorized by
age, gender, race and ethnicity should be collected at
every important stage of the juvenile justice system.
This data must distinguish Latino youth from
African-American and White youth. At a minimum:
•

Local police departments, starting with the
Boston Police Department, should be required
to collect data on juvenile pedestrian stops and
arrests;

•

Court personnel, including the Probation
Department, should be required to collect data
on juvenile arraignments, dispositions, the
length of sentences, probationary periods and
confinement, and the number of juveniles tried
for murder in adult court;

•

Correction agencies should be required to collect data on juveniles committed to the
Department of Youth Services and the
Department of Corrections.

Recommendation #5
During the next legislative cycle, the Legislature
should condition state funding for the Judiciary,
the District Attorney’s Association, the
Department of Youth Services, the Office of the
Commissioner of Probation and local police

AN ACLU REPORT
departments on their collaboration and cooperation with the Advisory Committee and the
Executive Office of Public Safety in collecting
and analyzing relevant data. 119

Recommendation #6
By April 2004, the Juvenile Justice Advisory
Committee and the Executive Office of Public
Safety should review and revise existing federal
grant programs to ensure that youth of color have
equal access to appropriate community-based
alternatives to detention and are provided with a
local continuum of culturally sensitive post-adjudicative services, including treatment, supervision
and placement options. Funding decisions should
be made on the basis of need, not grant-writing abilities. At a minimum, the Committee and the
Executive Office of Public Safety should:
•

Conduct an audit of federal funding currently
allocated to lockup removal initiatives to determine whether that money is being used in the
most effective way possible.

•

Require grant recipients to document, on a
quarterly basis, the number of minority youth
served by their programs and incorporate that
information into funding decisions.

•

Examine the manner in which grant applicants
are solicited and take additional steps to
encourage organizations located in communities of color, managed by people of color and
outside the law enforcement and correctional
arenas to apply for grants.

the extent that indigent defense providers do not
have the resources to provide all minority youth
with constitutionally adequate legal representation, the Commonwealth should take immediate
steps to rectify this deficiency. Competent legal
advocates can act to ensure the fair treatment of
youth of color once they have entered the juvenile
justice system and can empower children to seek the
services and make the changes necessary to avoid
future court involvement.

Recommendation #7
The Executive Office of Public Safety, working in
partnership with the Committee for Public
Counsel Services, should contract with an independent evaluator with extensive experience in
indigent defense delivery systems to conduct a
thorough review of defender services available to
indigent youth of color throughout the state. To

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
ENDNOTES
1

42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(22). Minority youth are defined as
African-American, Native American, Latino, Pacific
Islander and Asian American. 28 C.F.R. 31.303(j)(6).
They are overrepresented in a juvenile justice system if
the percentage of such youth arrested, detained, arraigned
and adjudicated delinquent exceeds their percentage in
the general population. 28 C.F. R. 31.303(j).
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 5611, 5614; see also Devine, Patricia,
Coolbaugh, Kathleen and Jenkins, Susan,
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons
Learned From Five States, Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December
1998.
Social Science Research and Evaluation, Inc.,
Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) Analysis:
Stage 1 Final Report, Sept. 14, 1995, Appendixes D and
E.

FY03 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
Formula Grant Application and State Three Year Plan,
Apr. 30, 2003, Attachment 3, at 39.

See Kaufmann, Charles F., Disproportionate Minority
Confinement in Massachusetts, Boston, Mass: Statistical
Analysis Center, Sept. 1997 (“1997 MSAC Report”).

Leonard, K., Pope, C., & Feyerherm, W. (eds.),
Minorities in Juvenile Justice, Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE, Inc. (1995). A study in Washington state concluded that juvenile justice decision-makers were more likely
to see the criminal behavior of youth of color as indicative of inadequate moral character and personality flaws,
“internal factors” which only state intervention could
resolve. The criminal behavior of white youth, however,
was seen as resulting from external forces such as the
environment or a lack of appropriate role models.
Bridges, George S., and Steen, Sara, Racial Disparities in
Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional
Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms,” American
Sociological Review, Vol. 63 (1998).

See Poe-Yamagata, Eileen and Jones, Michael A., And
Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority
Youth in the Justice System, Washington, DC: Building
Blocks for Youth, April 2000; Villarruel, Francisco A.
and Walker, Nancy E., ¿Dónde Está La Justicia? A Call
to Action on behalf of Latino and Latina Youth in the U.S.
Justice System, Washington, DC: Building Blocks for
Youth, July 2002.

See, e.g., Hoytt, Eleanor H., Schiraldi, Vince, Smith,
Brenda V., and Ziedenberg, Jason, Reducing Racial
Disparities in Juvenile Detention, Annie E. Casey
Foundation, 2002, at 13-14.

42 U.S.C. § 5602.

42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(3). The group must include representatives from law enforcement and juvenile justice
agencies, public agencies concerned with delinquency
prevention and treatment, private nonprofit organizations,
and persons with experience in school violence, learning
disabilities, emotional difficulties and child abuse and
neglect. Id.

42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(22).

28 C.F.R. 31.303(j)(1).

28 C.F.R. 31.303(j)(2).

28 C.F.R. 31.303(j)(3)(i)-(v).

42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(11).

42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(12).

42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(13).

42 U.S.C. §§ 5633(a); 5633(a)(21)(B).

42 U.S.C. § 5633(c).

Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee brochure,
www.state.ma.us/jjac/jjac1.html.

The Title V Delinquency Prevention program supports
communities that have developed comprehensive and collaborative strategies to prevent juvenile delinquency.
Program Overview, at www.state.ma.us/ccj/titlev.htm.

Challenge Grant funding is available to states to develop,
adopt and improve juvenile delinquency prevention policies and programs in one or more of 10 areas specifically
designated by Congress, including alternatives to incarceration, increased aftercare and alternatives to suspension and expulsion. Program Overview,
ww.state.ma.us/ccj/challenge.htm.

The Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant
(JAIBG) Program provides grants to states to strengthen
policies, programs, and administrative systems that foster
the creation of safe communities. Funds must be spent in
one of 16 purpose areas: (1) developing, implementing
and administering graduated sanctions for juvenile
offenders; (2) building, expanding, renovating or operating juvenile detention or correctional facilities; (3) hiring
additional judges, probation officers and defenders; (4)
hiring additional prosecutors; (5) providing funds to

AN ACLU REPORT
enable prosecutors to address drug, gang and youth violence problems more effectively and to purchase technology, equipment and training to expedite prosecution; (6)
establishing and maintaining training programs for law
enforcement and other court personnel with respect to
preventing and controlling juvenile crime; (7) establishing juvenile gun courts for the prosecution and adjudication of juvenile firearms offenders; (8) establishing drug
court programs; (9) establishing and maintaining a system of juvenile records designed to promote public safety; (10) establishing and maintaining interagency information-sharing programs; (11) establishing and maintaining accountability-based programs designed to reduce
recidivism among juveniles who are referred by law
enforcement personnel or agencies; (12) establishing and
maintaining programs to conduct risk and need assessments of juvenile offenders that facilitate the effective
early intervention and provision of comprehensive services, including mental health screening and treatment and
substance abuse testing and treatment to such offenders;
(13) establishing and maintaining accountability-based
programs that are designed to enhance school safety; (14)
establishing and maintaining restorative justice programs;
(15) enabling courts and probation offices to be more
effective and efficient; and (16) hiring and training detention and corrections personnel. 42 U.S.C. § 3796ee.

The Byrne program focuses on assisting state and local
law enforcement with the control of violent and drugrelated crime and serious offenders. Gifford, Sidra Lea,
and Owens, Stephen D., Justice Variable Pass Through
Data, 1997, Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics, November 2001.

Among other things, the Plan called for: (a) the improvement of the quality of juvenile justice data and the establishment of a client tracking system; (b) the development
of policy guidelines and training; (c) the development of
a pilot project to improve opportunities for youth who are
diverted; (d) the consideration of a pilot diversion program; (e) supporting prevention programs in high minority areas; and (f) creating a Juvenile Justice Monitor to
identify problems and hold practitioners accountable for
their decisions. FY02 Formula Grant Application, ThreeYear Comprehensive State Plan Amendments, Mar. 29,
2002, at 76, 86; FY01 Formula Grant Application, ThreeYear Program Plan (undated) at 77; FY00 Formula Grant
Application, Three-Year Program Plan, Apr. 28, 2000, at
70, 81; FY99 JJDPA Formula Grant Application, ThreeYear Program Plan, May 27, 1999, at 20.

FY97 JJDPA Formula Grant Application, State Advisory
Group Composition, Mar. 28, 1997.

U.S. Dept of Justice, Award, No. 98-JF-FX-0025, Sept. 4,
1998, at 4; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Award, No. 1999-JFFX-0025, Sept. 24, 1999, at 3.

www.state.ma.us/jjac/members.html. As of May 2003, the
Governor’s Office was reconsidering the configuration of
the Advisory Committee and the appointment of new
members. FY03 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act Formula Grant Program Application and
State Three Year Plan, Apr. 30, 2003, at 119.

See, e.g., FY01 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Program Plan (undated), at 70; FY00 Formula Grant
Application, Three-Year Comprehensive State Plan, Apr.
28, 2000, at 72; FY97 Formula Grant Application, ThreeYear Plan, Mar. 28, 1997, at 11.

Minutes of Apr. 2, 2002 DMC Subcommittee Meeting,
Apr. 5, 2002, ¶ VI.

“All meetings of a governmental body shall be open to
the public and any person shall be permitted to attend any
meeting….” M.G.L. 30A § 11A 1/2.

M.G.L. 66 § 10.

Ltr. from J. Robert Flores, Administrator, OJJDP, to
Michael O’Toole, Executive Director, Massachusetts
Committee on Criminal Justice, Executive Office of
Public Safety, June 25, 2002; Ltr. from Terrence
Donahue, Acting Administrator, OJJDP, to Michael J.
O’Toole, Executive Director, Executive Office of Public
Safety Programs Division, Sept. 30, 2001; Memo from
Ellen Shields-Fletcher, State Representative, to John J.
Wilson, Acting Administrator, OJJDP, re Review of
FY2000 Formula Grant, undated; Ltr. from Shay Bilchik,
Administrator, OJJDP, to Michael O’Toole, Executive
Director, Executive Office of Public Safety, Sept. 14,
1999; Memo from Kimberly J. Budnick, SRAD (State
Relations and Assistance Division), to Shay Bilchik,
Administrator, OJJDP, re Review of FY1998 State Plan
Update, June 30, 1998; Memo from Gregory C.
Thompson, State Representative., SRAD, to Shay
Bilchik, Administrator, OJJDP, re Review of FY1997
Formula Grant, Sept. 30, 1997.

Memo from Ellen Shields-Fletcher, State Representative,
to John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator, OJJDP, re
Review of FY2000 Formula Grant, undated; Memo from
Ellen Shields-Fletcher, SRAD, to Shay Bilchik,
Administrator, OJJDP, re Review of FY1999 State Plan
Update, Sept. 9, 1999; Memo from Kimberly J. Budnick,
SRAD (State Relations and Assistance Division), to Shay
Bilchik, Administrator, OJJDP, re Review of FY1998
State Plan Update, June 30, 1998; Memo from Gregory
C. Thompson, State Rep., SRAD, to Shay Bilchik,
Administrator, OJJDP, re Review of FY1997 Formula
Grant Application, Sept. 30, 1997.

FY02 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan Amendments, Analysis of
Juvenile Justice Needs and the Juvenile Crime Problem,

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
46

For reasons not set forth in SSRE’s report, Hampden
County is overrepresented in the sample; 41% of the
1,222 cases came from Hampden County, 21% from
Worcester County, 18% from Suffolk County, and 20%
from Middlesex County. Stage 1 Report, at 11.

Id., at 5-6.

Stage 2 Report, at 60.

Id., at 13-16.

Id., at 13, 17.

Id., at 30, 36.

Id., at 45-46.

Id., at 46-47.

Id., at 48-49 (adjusted for age, severity of offense,
weapon use, prior offenses, previous and DYS commitments, and prior probation violations or defaults).

Id., at 50 (adjusted for age, offense, family status (twoparent family), number of times recommitted to DYS,
and services being received (mental health counseling,
foster care, residential care, probation, special education
and medical services)).

FY02 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan Amendments, Mar. 29, 2002,
at 85; FY01 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Program Plan, undated, at 76; FY00 Formula Grant
Application, Three-Year Comprehensive State Plan, Apr.
28, 2000, at 81.

Id., at 48-49, 50, 54, 55, 57, 59.

Id., at 58.

Id., at 58-60. See 1997 MSAC Report, at 21.

Stage 1 Report, Appendix E.

Stage 2 Report, at 25-29, 52, 59.

Id., Appendix D.

See Social Science Research and Evaluation, Inc.,
Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) Analysis:
Stage Two Final Report, Apr. 1996 (“Stage 2 Report”), at
60.

Stage 1 Report, at 9. Sixteen of the 26 Hamden County
police departments, 10 of the 16 Suffolk County police
departments, 34 of the 62 Worcester County police
departments, and 23 of the 64 Middlesex County police
departments did not report all data for calendar year
1993. Id., at 10.

Id., Appendix I. At the conclusion of its report, SSRE
recommended, among other things, that the Executive
Office of Public Safety and the Advisory Committee
commission a study to examine the nature of policeyouth interactions, establish a number of community
forums across the state at which police-youth interactions
could be addressed, improve the quality of juvenile justice system data and establish a client tracking system,
increase the presence of bilingual staff within the
Department of Youth Services, investigate the conditions
of confinement of youth detained in secure and nonsecure facilities and convene a daylong symposium to
discuss the findings of SSRE’s reports. Id., at 59-63. The
recommendations were not implemented.

Id., at 9, 17. See also 1997 MSAC Report, at 5 (noting
the difficulty in assessing trends in minority overrepresentation without complete and accurate arrest data).

The smallest geographic group used by the United States
Census Department is the block group. A block group
generally contains between 250 and 550 housing units

Mar. 29, 2002 at 58-59; FY01 Formula Grant
Application, Three-Year Program Plan, undated, at 54,
76-77; FY00 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan, Apr. 28, 2000, at 81.

Memo from Ellen Shields-Fletcher, OJJDP State
Representative, to John J. Wilson, OJJDP Acting
Administrator, Review of FY2000 Formula Grant (undated), at 6.
See, e.g., FY02 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan Amendments, Mar. 29, 2002,
at 86; FY01 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Program Plan, undated, at 77; FY00 Formula Grant
Application, Three-Year Comprehensive State Plan, Apr.
28, 2000, at 81; FY99 Formula Grant Application, ThreeYear Program Plan, May 27, 1999, at 20.
Ltr. from Roberta Dorn, Director, State Relations and
Assistance Division, OJJDP, to Michael J. O’Toole,
Executive Director, Programs Division, Executive Office
of Public Safety, Apr. 26, 1999.
Social Science Research and Evaluation, Inc.,
Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) Analysis:
Stage 1 Final Report, Sept. 14, 1995 (“Stage 1 Report”).
Federal reporting requirements permit states to examine
as few as three counties when trying to determine the
nature and extent of disproportionate minority confinement. Id., at 5.

AN ACLU REPORT
with the average being about 400 housing units. For purposes of the 1990 census, Massachusetts had 5,603 block
groups. Some small towns were encompassed with a single block group. In urban areas, a block group could consist of a single city block. 1997 MSAC Report, at 8-9.

The Disproportionate Minority Confinement Matrixes
reproduced in the text contain data for youth between the
ages of 10 and 16.

FY03 Formula Grant Application, Apr. 30, 2003,
Attachment 3, at 39-43.

This figure appears larger than it should be because the
data on which the percentage of Latinos arrested for
delinquency is based differs from that used for other
minorities. Id., at 41.

1997 MSAC Report, at 11-13.

Id., at 20.

Id., at 12.

Id., at 20.

Id., at 9-13.

Id., at 20.

There was only 1 juvenile in an adult jail.

Id., at 20. At the conclusion of its report, the Statistical
Analysis Center recommended that the Executive Office
of Public Safety and the Advisory Committee act to
improve the quality of juvenile justice data, develop consistent policies for data gathering by courts and juvenile
correctional agencies, mandate diversity training for juvenile justice personnel, encourage community policing,
develop clear policies for handling juveniles and create
positions for juvenile justice system auditors. Id., at 2128. Again, the recommendations were not implemented.

See FY02 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan Amendments, Three-Year
Program Plan, Mar. 29, 2002, at 74-75; FY01 Formula
Grant Application, Three-Year Program Plan, undated, at
68-71; FY00 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan, Apr. 28, 2000, at 70-73; FY99
JJDPA Formula Grant Application, Three-Year Program
Plan, May 27, 1999, at 9-12; FY98 Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant Application,
Three-Year Plan, Mar. 30, 1998, at 9-12.

Id., at 9-10.

Id., at 8.

FY01 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year Program
Plan, undated, at 77; FY00 Formula Grant Application,
Three-Year Comprehensive State Plan, Apr. 28, 2000, at
72.

E-mail from Heidi Hsia, OJJDP, to Michael Leiber, ITA
consultant, re Massachusetts’ updated DMC Identification
Matrixes, Aug. 31, 2001: “There is no way to ascertain
the extent of DMC for any one year nor to compare from
one year to another in the 8 years [sic] period.” See also
memo from Lynn Wright, Director of Juvenile Programs,
Executive Office of Public Safety Programs Division, to
Michael J. O’Toole, Executive Director, Executive Office
of Public Safety Programs Division, re DMC Meeting
Discussion Points, Oct. 24, 2001.

FY02 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan Amendments, Three-Year
Program Plan, Mar. 29, 2002, at 74-75.

FY99 JJDPA Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Program Plan, May 27, 1999, at 10; FY98 Juvenile
Justice Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant
Application, Three-Year Plan, Mar. 30, 1998, at 10.

FY02 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan Amendments, Three-Year
Program Plan, Mar. 29, 2002, at 73, 85; FY01 Formula
Grant Application, Three-Year Program Plan, undated, at
68, 77.

Ltr. from Michael J. O’Toole, Executive Director,
Programs Division, Executive Office of Public Safety, to
Robin Dahlberg, ACLU, Nov. 13, 2001; Ltr. from Robin
Dahlberg, ACLU, to Lynn Wright, Director of Juvenile
Programs, Programs Division, Executive Office of Public
Safety, Oct. 1, 2001; Memo from Gregory C. Thompson,
State Rep., SRAD to Shay Bilchik, Administrator, OJJDP,
Sept. 30, 1997; U.S. Dept of Justice, Award, No. 98-JFFX-0025, Sept. 4, 1998; U.S. Dept. of Justice, Award,
No. 1999-JF-FX-0025, Sept. 24, 1999; U.S. Dept. of

The Commonwealth continues to be plagued by data collection problems. In its FY98 Formula Grant Application,
a 1999 letter to OJJDP requesting technical assistance,
and its FY03 Formula Grant Application, it stated that the
retrieval of statistics regarding juvenile crime and juvenile demographics was a consistent problem, preventing
Massachusetts from accurately monitoring racial disparities and juvenile crime and detention trends. FY98
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula
Grant Application, Technical Assistance Needs, Mar. 30,
1998; Ltr. from Michael J. O’Toole, Executive Director,
Programs Division, Executive Office of Public Safety, to
Ellen Shields-Fletcher, OJJDP, May 13, 1999; FY03
Formula Grant Application, Apr. 30, 2003, Attachment 3,
at 2.

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
Justice, Award No. 2000-JF-FX-0025, Sept. 30, 2000;
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Award No. 2001-JF-FX-0025, Sept.
30, 2001.

The first amount is for the period February through
September 1999, and the second for the period October
1999 to September 2000.

The first amount is for the period October to December
2000,and the second for the period January through June
2001.

The first amount is for the period October 1998 through
September 1999, and the second for the period October
1999 through September 2000.

Ltr. from Shay Bilchik, Administrator, OJJDP, to Michael
J. O’Toole, Acting Executive Director, Executive Office
of Public Safety, Sept. 4, 1998; Memo from Kimberly J.
Budnick, SRAD, to Shay Bilchik, Administrator, OJJDP,
re Review of FY1998 State Plan Update, June 30, 1998.

Ltr. from Shay Bilchik, Administrator, OJJDP, to Michael
J. O’Toole, Executive Director, Executive Office of
Public Safety, Sept. 14, 1999.

FY01 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year Program
Plan, undated, at 71.

FY02 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan Amendments, Three-Year
Program Plan, Mar. 29, 2002, at 77; Ltr. from Michael J.
O’Toole, Executive Director, Programs Division,
Executive Office of Public Safety, to Robin Dahlberg,
ACLU, July 1, 2002.

FY02 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan Amendments, Three-Year
Program Plan, Mar. 29, 2002, at 85; FY01 Formula Grant
Application, Three-Year Program Plan, undated, at 77;
FY00 Formula Grant Application, Three-Year
Comprehensive State Plan, Apr. 28, 2000, at 73. At various times, the Commonwealth has contended that by
complying with the lockup removal provision it has also
acted to reduce minority overrepresentation. See, e.g.,
FY98 Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act
Formula Grant Application, Three-Year Plan, Mar. 30,
1998, at 9. There is no evidence, however, that the children who would have been placed in adult jails and lockups but for the Delinquency Prevention Act’s mandate are
now released back into the community. Instead, it appears
that they are placed in the juvenile pre-adjudication
detention facilities paid for with Formula Grant funding.

Memo from James Houghton, Juvenile Justice Specialist,
to DMC Subcommittee members, re Minutes of Sept. 10,
2002 meeting, dated Oct. 1, 2002. See Memo from Amy
Dickert, Juvenile Justice Program Coordinator, to DMC

Subcommittee members, Minutes of May 15, 2002
Meeting.

E-mail from Amy Dickert, Juvenile Justice Program
Coordinator, to Elaine Riley, Chair, Juvenile Justice
Advisory Committee, dated Sept. 26, 2002.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Proposed Plan for
Further Addressing Disproportionate Minority
Confinement (DMC), draft dated Sept. 3, 2002.

FY03 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
Formula Grant Program Application and State Three Year
Plan, Attachment 3: Other Program Attachments, Apr. 30,
2003, at 6.

Technical assistance to these localities was subsequently
suspended in late 2002 or early 2003. FY03 Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant
Program Application and State Three Year Plan,
Attachment 3: Other Program Attachments, Apr. 30,
2003, at 2.

See English, Thomas R., Report of On-Site DMC
Readiness for the State of Massachusetts, Cygnus
Corporation, undated, at 2.

Ltr. from Thomas R. English to Karen B. Francis,
Cygnus Corporation, Dec. 15, 1999.

Leiber, Michael, and Respass, Selena, “Intensive
Technical Assistance, MA,” Report #4, Jan. 22, 2002.

Draft letter to Michael Leiber, ITA Provider, from Elaine
Riley, Chair, Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, and
Steven Jefferson, Chair, DMC Subcommittee, May 28,
2002.

100 Memo from James Houghton, Juvenile Justice Specialist,
to Disproportionate Minority Confinement Subcommittee
members, re Minutes of Sept. 10, 2002, dated Oct. 1,
2002.

101 Ltr. from Diana A. Brensilber, Acting Executive Director,
Executive Office of Public Safety Programs Division, to
Robin Dahlberg, American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, Apr. 15, 2003.

102 Less than half of Byrne Grant funding is allocated to
youth programs. The remainder is used to finance other
programs related to the Commonwealth’s criminal justice
system.

103 Executive Office of Public Safety Programs Division
website, www.state.ma.us/ccj/challenge.htm;
Disproportionate Minority Confinement Challenge Grant
Application: Disproportionate Minority Confinement

AN ACLU REPORT
Challenge Grant for Community Alternatives to
Incarceration, Aftercare Services, Alternatives to
Suspension and Expulsion; undated.

104 Program Overview, www.state.ma.us/ccj/challenge.htm.
105 Id.
106 University of Massachusetts Memorial Community
Healthlink, Worcester Youth Guidance Center,
Disproportionate Minority Confinement Challenge Grant,
Fiscal Year 2002. See also City of Worcester Challenge
Grant/DMC Pilot Program Application, Apr. 30, 2002.

107 The Disproportionate Minority Confinement Challenge
Grant, Brockton Update, Nov. 6, 2002. See also DMC
Challenge Grant: Continuation Application for Aftercare
Services, The “CO-OP” Program: Community
Opportunities for Minority Juveniles in the City of
Brockton, Brockton Area Private Industry Council, Inc.,
May 2, 2002, at 10.

108 Massachusetts Statistical Analysis Center, Juvenile Crime
in Massachusetts: The Characteristics of Massachusetts’
Juvenile Population, Juveniles in the Justice System,
Juvenile Arrests, and Data Reported by Massachusetts
Law Enforcement to the National Incident-Based
Reporting System, Nov. 2000, at 43.

109 Id., at 53. Because the Massachusetts Statistical Analysis
Center relied on the FBI’s arrest data that consider
“Latino” an ethnicity as opposed to a race, there were no
similar figures for Latino youth.

110 Id., at 43.
111 Id., at 53.

113 Id.
114 Massachusetts Statistical Analysis Center, Title V
Delinquency Prevention: Program Years 1997-1999: A
Report of the Juvenile Justice Evaluation Partnership
Project, June 2000.

115 FY99 statistics are only for the first three quarters of that
fiscal year.

116 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Proposed Plan for
Further Addressing Disproportionate Minority
Confinement (DMC), draft dated Sept. 3, 2002.

117 FY03 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
Formula Grant Program Application and State Three Year
Plan, Attachment 3, Apr. 30, 2003, at 6.

118 Implementation of this recommendation appears to be
under way as this report goes to press. FY03 Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant
Program Application and State Three Year Plan, Apr. 30,
2003, at 119.

119 When the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission conducted a study on recidivism (Comprehensive Recidivism
Study (June 1, 2002)), cooperation with the
Commission’s work was specifically mandated in the
budgetary line items for relevant criminal justice agencies. For example, with respect to the Department of
Correction, line item 8900-0002 states that funds are allocated to the Department provided that it “shall collaborate and cooperate with the sentencing commission for
the completion of the comprehensive recidivism study
required of said commission in item 0330-0317 by supplying all data, information and reports requested pursuant to said study in a timely and complete fashion.”

112 Ltr. from Diana A. Brensilber, Acting Executive Director,
Executive Office of Public Safety Programs Division, to
Robin Dahlberg, American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, Apr. 15, 2003.

NATIONAL OFFICE
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2500
www.aclu.org