Usdj Off Juvenile Justice Disproportionate Minority Confinement Nov 2012
Download original document:
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/53/6d/536dc41eb71179e95898b89ef7360bb7.jpg)
Document text
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/53/6d/536dc41eb71179e95898b89ef7360bb7.jpg)
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Office Of Juvenile Justice and delinquency PreventiOn Working for Youth Justice and Safety U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention n ovem b er 2 012 The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is continued from p. 2 • Evaluation. Phase IV involves conducting a systematic, objective, and unbiased evaluation of a program’s implementation and effectiveness. • Monitoring. Phase V involves looking for changes in state demographics that affect DMC trends, looking for fluctuations in DMC rates that may require adjustments in intervention strategies, and sustaining DMC reduction efforts. Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator a component of the Office of The challenges of DMC reduction are complex and not easily resolved, but states are making progress. Several states have shown reductions in disproportionality at secure detention, and attitudinal change of law enforcement officers at the arrest contact points, that were based on their DMC activities (see “Summary of States’ DMC Reduction Activities,” p. 3). Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice What Is Disproportionate Minority Contact? Disproportionate Minority Contact of Justice; the Office for Victims Disproportionate minority contact of Crime; and the Office of Sex refers to the disproportionate Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, number of minority youth who The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers the Formula Grants program under Title II, part B, of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act ( JJDP Act) of 1974.The 1988 amendments to the JJDP Act authorized OJJDP to require states1 participating in the program to address disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) in their state juvenile justice and delinquency prevention plans. Specifically, the JJDP Act required states to develop and implement plans to reduce the proportion of minority youth de tained or confined in secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups if they exceeded the percentage of minority youth in the general population. Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. come into contact with the juvenile justice system. States participating in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act’s For More Information on Disproportionate Minority Contact Part B Formula Grants program are required to address juvenile delinquency prevention and system To learn more about OJJDP’s efforts to reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in the nation’s juvenile justice system, visit OJJDP’s DMC Web site: ojjdp.gov/dmc. The site provides tools and resources to help states comply with the JJDP Act’s DMC requirement. improvement efforts to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, OJJDP’s National Training and Technical Assistance Center offers a broad range of DMCrelated training and technical assistance. Contact your state’s DMC Coordinator or Juvenile Justice Specialist to request OJJDP-sponsored training and technical assistance. Contact information is available on the OJJDP Web site: the overrepresentation of minority youth in the nation’s juvenile justice system. • Visit ojjdp.gov. Learn more at ojjdp.gov. • Click on “State Contacts” in the left navigation panel. • Select the checkbox next to “DMC Contact” or “Juvenile Justice Specialist.” Amendments to the JJDP Act in 1992 elevated efforts to address DMC to a “core requirement” and tied 25 percent of grant funds to state com pliance, further strengthening national efforts to address the problem. In the years since DMC became a core requirement, both research and practice have taught many lessons. Two of the most important lessons are that: • Click on your state in the map. In this fact sheet, the term “state” refers to any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). 1 For information about other OJJDP programs, go to ojjdp.gov. • In most jurisdictions, disproportionate juvenile minority representation is not limited only to secure detention and confinement; it is evident at nearly all contact points on the juvenile justice system continuum. • Contributing factors to DMC are multiple and complex; reducing DMC requires comprehensive and multipronged strategies that include programmatic and systems change efforts. Thus, when the JJDP Act was reauthorized in 2002, Congress expanded the DMC core requirement from “confinement” to “contact.” This change required states participating in the Formula Grants program to “address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and systems improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the dispropor tionate number of juvenile members of the minority groups, who come in contact with the juvenile justice system” (Section 223(a)22). The purpose of the core requirement remains the same: to ensure equal and fair treatment for every youth in the juvenile justice system, regardless of race and ethnicity. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 4 InFocus *NCJ~239457* Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov Determining States’ Compliance With the DMC Core Requirement OJJDP requires all states to collect and report data that measure the results of funded activities and to use these data to inform their administration of grant funds to improve program performance. OJJDP requires states participating in the Formula Grants program to: • Identify the extent to which DMC exists within their jurisdictions. • Assess the reasons for DMC, if it exists. • • Summary of States’ DMC Reduction Activities* Activity Develop and implement delinquency prevention and systems improvement strategies, if DMC exists. Evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the chosen strategies. • Identification. In phase I, states calculate disproportionality at nine contact points in the juvenile justice system (i.e., arrest, referral to court, diversion, case petitioned, secure deten tion, delinquency finding, probation, confinement in a secure correctional facility, and case transferred, certified, and waived to adult criminal court) using the relative rate index (RRI). The RRI provides a single index number that indicates the extent to which the volume of that form of contact or activity differs for minority youth and majority youth. In its simplest form, the RRI is the rate of activity involving minority youth divided by the rate of activity involving majority youth. Any number more than 1 indicates disproportionality, except at the diversion and probation contact points.5 AR, AK, CO, FL, IA, IL, IN, KY, MD, MI, NC, NY, OR, OK, TN, UT, WI, WV 37 AL, AS, AZ, CA, CT, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, DE, DC, GA, Guam, HI, ID, KS, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MT, MS, ND, NE, NH, NJ, Have DMC subcommittees under their State Advisory Groups. Have data for all nine contact points in their juvenile justice systems. 29 Have data for six or more (out of nine) contact points in their juvenile justice systems. 13 AL, AZ, CO, DE, IN, KY, MA, MN, MS, NJ, PA, RI, WA Update data annually (more frequently than OJJDP’s minimum requirement of every 3 years). 27 AK, CA, FL, ID, IN, IA, KS, LA, MD, MN, MT, NE, NM, NY, ND, OH, OK, OR, Have invested in targeted local DMC reduction sites. 34 PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI AK, AR, AZ, CA, FL, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, NE, Ongoing DMC Reduction Activities 2 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam 18 AK, CT, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, MD, ME, MN, MS, ND, OK, PA, RI, TX, UT, WI Have implemented DMC systems improvement and delinquency prevention strategies. 34 AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, FL HI, KY, IA, ID, IN, IL, MA, MD, MN, MO, MT, Have or are implementing DMC delinquency prevention and/ or systems improvement strategies for American Indian/ Alaska Native youth. 10 AK, CA, ID, MT, ND, NM, OR, SD, UT, WA Have funded, received funding, and/or received technical assistance to implement nationally recognized models to reduce DMC. 30 AL, AZ, AR, CA, DE, DC, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MN, MO, Have recently (2005–11) completed DMC assessment studies. Identification Phase III: Intervention PHASE II Assessment/ Diagnosis PHASE IV PHASE III Evaluation Intervention ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI MT, NJ, NM, ND, NH, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, VA, WA Phase IV: Evaluation Have conducted at least one formal methodological evaluation of delinquency prevention and/or systems improvement strategies statewide or in their local DMC reduction sites. Puerto Rico is exempt from the DMC core requirement because the U.S. Census Bureau did not require data collection by race and ethnicity until the 2010 census. The other three core requirements are deinstitutionalization of status offenders, removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups, and sight and sound separation of juvenile offenders from adults in secure institutions. Have provided a timeline for tracking and monitoring RRI trends over time.†† 39 AK, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI Per Section 223(3)(A) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act, states participating in Part B of the Title II Formula Grants program are required to “provide for an advisory group, that shall consist of not less than 15 and not more than 33 members appointed by the chief executive officer of the state.” In the 1992 reauthorization of the JJDP Act, OJJDP was to withhold 25 percent of a state’s Formula Grant allocation for each finding of noncompliance with the four core requirements. In its 2002 reauthorization of the JJDP Act, Congress reduced the penalty for noncompliance to 20 percent. †† The national RRI of 0.9 reported in the National DMC Databook (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/index.html) shows that, with the exception of Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander youth, minority youth are not being diverted or probated disproportionately relative to white youth. CA, CT, KY, TN * Derived from state DMC compliance plans submitted in fiscal year 2011. † 4 4 Phase V: Monitoring 3 InFocus OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV Phase II: Assessment/Diagnosis PHASE I continued on p. 4 2 AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, HI, IA, ID, KS, MD, ME, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NM, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, VA, WA, WI Have provided data for relative rate index (RRI) analysis. • Intervention. In phase III, plans for appropriate delinquency prevention and systems improvement activities should be implemented. Effective pre vention and intervention activities include diversion, alternatives to secure confinement, advocacy, and training and technical assistance on cultural competency with youth and staffing practices. Systems improvement activities include advocating for legislative reforms; making administrative, policy, and procedural changes; and implementing structured decisionmaking tools at various contact points within the juvenile justice system. 5 AK, AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, NM, NY, NC, NJ, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI • Assessment/Diagnosis. In phase II of the model, states assess the mechanisms that contribute to DMC. This includes discussing each probable explanation, asking questions about the data and information collected, and consulting other data sources to verify the explanation. 2 41 Phase I: Identification DMC Reduction Cycle Monitoring 18 Have part-time or other state-level staff designated as DMC Coordinators. NM, NV, OH, PA, RI, SD, SC, TX, VA, VI, VT, WA, WY Each state2 reports progress in a comprehensive 3-year plan and annual plan updates [in compliance with Section 223(a)(22)]. Because addressing DMC is one of four core requirements3 of the JJDP Act, OJJDP withholds 20 percent4 of their annual Formula Grant allo cation for the subsequent fiscal year for states that fail to meet the DMC plan requirement. PHASE V States Have full-time, state-level DMC Coordinators. † OJJDP’s DMC Reduction Model OJJDP’s five-phase DMC Reduction Model (see figure) helps states determine whether dispropor tionality exists within their jurisdictions and, if it does, provides a step-by-step model to guide their DMC reduction efforts: # of States DMC Coordination The District of Columbia and the U.S. territories (with the exception of Puerto Rico) did not provide a timeline for tracking and monitoring RRI trends over time because minority youth comprise the majority of the youth population. Thus, the extent of DMC is not comparable to the contiguous states. InFocus 3 Determining States’ Compliance With the DMC Core Requirement OJJDP requires all states to collect and report data that measure the results of funded activities and to use these data to inform their administration of grant funds to improve program performance. OJJDP requires states participating in the Formula Grants program to: • Identify the extent to which DMC exists within their jurisdictions. • Assess the reasons for DMC, if it exists. • • Summary of States’ DMC Reduction Activities* Activity Develop and implement delinquency prevention and systems improvement strategies, if DMC exists. Evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the chosen strategies. • Identification. In phase I, states calculate disproportionality at nine contact points in the juvenile justice system (i.e., arrest, referral to court, diversion, case petitioned, secure detention, delinquency finding, probation, confinement in a secure correctional facility, and case transferred, certified, and waived to adult criminal court) using the relative rate index (RRI). The RRI provides a single index number that indicates the extent to which the volume of that form of contact or activity differs for minority youth and majority youth. In its simplest form, the RRI is the rate of activity involving minority youth divided by the rate of activity involving majority youth. Any number more than 1 indicates disproportionality, except at the diversion and probation contact points.5 AR, AK, CO, FL, IA, IL, IN, KY, MD, MI, NC, NY, OR, OK, TN, UT, WI, WV 37 AL, AS, AZ, CA, CT, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, DE, DC, GA, Guam, HI, ID, KS, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MT, MS, ND, NE, NH, NJ, Have DMC subcommittees under their State Advisory Groups. Have data for all nine contact points in their juvenile justice systems. 29 Have data for six or more (out of nine) contact points in their juvenile justice systems. 13 AL, AZ, CO, DE, IN, KY, MA, MN, MS, NJ, PA, RI, WA Update data annually (more frequently than OJJDP’s minimum requirement of every 3 years). 27 AK, CA, FL, ID, IN, IA, KS, LA, MD, MN, MT, NE, NM, NY, ND, OH, OK, OR, Have invested in targeted local DMC reduction sites. 34 PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WI AK, AR, AZ, CA, FL, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, NE, Ongoing DMC Reduction Activities 2 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam 18 AK, CT, DE, FL, HI, IA, ID, MD, ME, MN, MS, ND, OK, PA, RI, TX, UT, WI Have implemented DMC systems improvement and delinquency prevention strategies. 34 AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, DE, FL HI, KY, IA, ID, IN, IL, MA, MD, MN, MO, MT, Have or are implementing DMC delinquency prevention and/ or systems improvement strategies for American Indian/ Alaska Native youth. 10 AK, CA, ID, MT, ND, NM, OR, SD, UT, WA Have funded, received funding, and/or received technical assistance to implement nationally recognized models to reduce DMC. 30 AL, AZ, AR, CA, DE, DC, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MN, MO, Have recently (2005–11) completed DMC assessment studies. Identification Phase III: Intervention PHASE II Assessment/ Diagnosis PHASE IV PHASE III Evaluation Intervention ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI MT, NJ, NM, ND, NH, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, VA, WA Phase IV: Evaluation Have conducted at least one formal methodological evaluation of delinquency prevention and/or systems improvement strategies statewide or in their local DMC reduction sites. Puerto Rico is exempt from the DMC core requirement because the U.S. Census Bureau did not require data collection by race and ethnicity until the 2010 census. The other three core requirements are deinstitutionalization of status offenders, removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups, and sight and sound separation of juvenile offenders from adults in secure institutions. Have provided a timeline for tracking and monitoring RRI trends over time.†† 39 AK, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI Per Section 223(3)(A) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act, states participating in Part B of the Title II Formula Grants program are required to “provide for an advisory group, that shall consist of not less than 15 and not more than 33 members appointed by the chief executive officer of the state.” In the 1992 reauthorization of the JJDP Act, OJJDP was to withhold 25 percent of a state’s Formula Grant allocation for each finding of noncompliance with the four core requirements. In its 2002 reauthorization of the JJDP Act, Congress reduced the penalty for noncompliance to 20 percent. †† The national RRI of 0.9 reported in the National DMC Databook (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/index.html) shows that, with the exception of Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander youth, minority youth are not being diverted or probated disproportionately relative to white youth. CA, CT, KY, TN * Derived from state DMC compliance plans submitted in fiscal year 2011. † 4 4 Phase V: Monitoring 3 InFocus OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV Phase II: Assessment/Diagnosis PHASE I continued on p. 4 2 AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, HI, IA, ID, KS, MD, ME, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NM, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, VA, WA, WI Have provided data for relative rate index (RRI) analysis. • Intervention. In phase III, plans for appropriate delinquency prevention and systems improvement activities should be implemented. Effective prevention and intervention activities include diversion, alternatives to secure confinement, advocacy, and training and technical assistance on cultural competency with youth and staffing practices. Systems improvement activities include advocating for legislative reforms; making administrative, policy, and procedural changes; and implementing structured decisionmaking tools at various contact points within the juvenile justice system. 5 AK, AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, NM, NY, NC, NJ, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WV, WI • Assessment/Diagnosis. In phase II of the model, states assess the mechanisms that contribute to DMC. This includes discussing each probable explanation, asking questions about the data and information collected, and consulting other data sources to verify the explanation. 2 41 Phase I: Identification DMC Reduction Cycle Monitoring 18 Have part-time or other state-level staff designated as DMC Coordinators. NM, NV, OH, PA, RI, SD, SC, TX, VA, VI, VT, WA, WY Each state2 reports progress in a comprehensive 3-year plan and annual plan updates [in compliance with Section 223(a)(22)]. Because addressing DMC is one of four core requirements3 of the JJDP Act, OJJDP withholds 20 percent4 of their annual Formula Grant allocation for the subsequent fiscal year for states that fail to meet the DMC plan requirement. PHASE V States Have full-time, state-level DMC Coordinators. † OJJDP’s DMC Reduction Model OJJDP’s five-phase DMC Reduction Model (see figure) helps states determine whether disproportionality exists within their jurisdictions and, if it does, provides a step-by-step model to guide their DMC reduction efforts: # of States DMC Coordination The District of Columbia and the U.S. territories (with the exception of Puerto Rico) did not provide a timeline for tracking and monitoring RRI trends over time because minority youth comprise the majority of the youth population. Thus, the extent of DMC is not comparable to the contiguous states. InFocus 3 Office Of Juvenile Justice and delinquency PreventiOn Working for Youth Justice and Safety U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention n ovem b er 2 012 The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is continued from p. 2 • Evaluation. Phase IV involves conducting a systematic, objective, and unbiased evalu ation of a program’s implementation and effectiveness. • Monitoring. Phase V involves looking for changes in state demographics that affect DMC trends, looking for fluctuations in DMC rates that may require adjustments in intervention strategies, and sustaining DMC reduction efforts. Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator a component of the Office of The challenges of DMC reduction are complex and not easily resolved, but states are making progress. Several states have shown reductions in disproportionality at secure detention, and attitudinal change of law enforcement officers at the arrest contact points, that were based on their DMC activi ties (see “Summary of States’ DMC Reduc tion Activities,” p. 3). Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice What Is Disproportionate Minority Contact? Disproportionate Minority Contact of Justice; the Office for Victims Disproportionate minority contact of Crime; and the Office of Sex refers to the disproportionate Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, number of minority youth who The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers the Formula Grants program under Title II, part B, of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act ( JJDP Act) of 1974.The 1988 amendments to the JJDP Act authorized OJJDP to require states1 participating in the program to address disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) in their state juvenile justice and delinquency prevention plans. Specifically, the JJDP Act required states to develop and implement plans to reduce the proportion of minority youth detained or confined in secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups if they exceeded the percentage of minority youth in the general population. Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. come into contact with the juvenile justice system. States participating in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act’s For More Information on Disproportionate Minority Contact Part B Formula Grants program are required to address juvenile delinquency prevention and system To learn more about OJJDP’s efforts to reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in the nation’s juvenile justice system, visit OJJDP’s DMC Web site: ojjdp.gov/dmc. The site provides tools and resources to help states comply with the JJDP Act’s DMC requirement. improvement efforts to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, OJJDP’s National Training and Technical Assistance Center offers a broad range of DMCrelated training and technical assistance. Contact your state’s DMC Coordinator or Juvenile Justice Specialist to request OJJDP-sponsored training and technical assistance. Contact information is available on the OJJDP Web site: the overrepresentation of minority youth in the nation’s juvenile justice system. • Visit ojjdp.gov. Learn more at ojjdp.gov. • Click on “State Contacts” in the left navigation panel. • Select the checkbox next to “DMC Contact” or “Juvenile Justice Specialist.” Amendments to the JJDP Act in 1992 elevated efforts to address DMC to a “core requirement” and tied 25 percent of grant funds to state compliance, further strengthening national efforts to address the problem. In the years since DMC became a core requirement, both research and practice have taught many lessons.Two of the most important lessons are that: • Click on your state in the map. In this fact sheet, the term “state” refers to any of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). 1 For information about other OJJDP programs, go to ojjdp.gov. • In most jurisdictions, disproportionate juvenile minority representation is not limited only to secure detention and confinement; it is evident at nearly all contact points on the juvenile justice system continuum. • Contributing factors to DMC are multiple and complex; reducing DMC requires comprehensive and multipronged strategies that include programmatic and systems change efforts. Thus, when the JJDP Act was reauthorized in 2002, Congress expanded the DMC core requirement from “confinement” to “contact.” This change required states participating in the Formula Grants program to “address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and systems improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of the minority groups, who come in contact with the juvenile justice system” (Section 223(a)22). The purpose of the core requirement remains the same: to ensure equal and fair treatment for every youth in the juvenile justice system, regardless of race and ethnicity. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 4 InFocus *NCJ~239457* Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov