Assessing and Addressing Disproportionate Minority Contact DMC in

Assessing and Addressing Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in Juvenile Justice 9, 2007 Bill Feyerherm, Ph. D. , Vice Provost for Research, 1

Overview The Big Picture – The DMC Process Identification Creating and Using the Relative Rate Index Selecting Areas of Concern Assessment Generating possible explanations related to the Areas of Concern Using Data to select targets Bringing it together – the example of Multnomah County 2

The DMC Process 3

National Custody Data, 2003 On a typical day in 2003 190 of every 100, 000 white juveniles were in custody 754 of every 100, 000 Black juveniles were in custody 496 of every 100, 000 Indian juveniles were in custody The Custody Rate for Black Youth was 4 times higher than for White Youth The Custody Rate for Indian Youth was 2. 4 times higher than for White Youth 4

2003 Juvenile Confinement Rates (per 100, 000 youth) White Black Hispanic Indian Asian United States 190 754 348 496 113 Wisconsin 143 1, 389 226 580 282 Michigan 169 602 231 287 27 Indiana 316 1, 188 381 417 0 Illinois 120 589 144 113 14 Ohio 207 916 296 87 71 Pennsylvania 139 1, 207 639 246 329 5

Ratio of Minority to White Confinement Rates Black Hispanic Indian Asian United States 4. 0 1. 8 2. 6 0. 6 Wisconsin 9. 7 1. 6 4. 1 2. 0 Michigan 3. 6 1. 4 1. 7 0. 2 Indiana 3. 8 1. 2 1. 3 0. 0 Illinois 4. 9 1. 2 0. 9 0. 1 Ohio 4. 4 1. 4 0. 3 Pennsylvania 8. 7 4. 6 1. 8 2. 4 6

DMC As A Core Requirement in the JJDPA of 2002 States are required to “address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice system”. 7

Defining DMC Disproportionate A rate of contact with the juvenile justice system among juveniles of a specific minority group that is significantly different than the rate of contact for whites (i. e. , non -Hispanic Caucasians) or for other minority groups. 8

Defining DMC Minority: Race & Ethnicity Categories: (1) White (non-Hispanic) (2) American Indian or Alaska Native (non. Hispanic) (3) Asian (non-Hispanic) (4) Black or African American (non-Hispanic) (5) Hispanic or Latino (6) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (non. Hispanic) 9

Defining DMC Juvenile Justice System Contact Arrest (Initial legal encounters with law enforcement) Diversion Detention (preadjudication) Referral to juvenile court Issuance of petition Adjudication as delinquent Placement on probation Placement in secure juvenile correction Transfer to adult court Others (e. g. , aftercare; revocation of aftercare) 10

Phase 1. Identification Answers the questions: Does DMC exist? If so, where on the juvenile justice continuum? And with what minority population? To what extent? 2 -1

Relative Rate Index = Minority Rate / White Rate 12

Basic Steps: Calculating the RRI Create a model of the justice system, showing the major steps / stages of activity. Record the volume of activity passing through each stage of the JJS during a year for each race / ethnicity group. Compute the rate of occurrence at each stage for each racial / ethnic categories. Divide the rate for the minority group by the rate for the white group to create the Relative Rate Index (RRI). Test to determine if the RRI is statistically significant – whether it is sufficiently different from a neutral value (1. 00) that the differences in the rates are not likely to be the result of random chance processes. 13

Base for Rate Calculations Juveniles arrested—rate per 1, 000 population Referrals to juvenile court—rate per 100 arrests Juveniles diverted before adjudication—rate per 100 referrals Juveniles detained—rate per 100 referrals Juveniles petitioned—rate per 100 referrals Juveniles found to be delinquent—rate per 100 youth petitioned (charged) Juveniles placed on probation—rate per 100 youth found delinquent Juveniles placed in secure correctional facilities—rate per 100 youth found delinquent Juveniles transferred to adult court—rate per 100 youth petitioned 2 -13

Relationship of Data Elements for Relative Rate Index Calculations 15

Black or African. American Indian or Alaska Native Othe r/ Mixe d All Minoritie s Data – Sample Total Youth White 1. Population at risk (age 10 through 17 ) 90, 848 65, 916 9, 615 6, 804 6, 810 1, 703 24, 932 2. Juvenile Arrests 3, 973 2, 542 907 285 156 83 1, 431 3. Refer to Juvenile Court 6, 461 4, 116 1, 473 444 270 158 2, 345 4. Cases Diverted 2, 674 1, 799 538 164 119 54 875 5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 4, 243 2, 463 1, 108 325 178 169 1, 780 6. Cases Petitioned (Charge Filed) 2, 393 1, 408 651 167 103 64 985 7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 1, 792 1, 036 504 132 71 49 756 8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 5, 163 3, 215 1, 191 341 262 154 1, 948 207 114 66 13 9 5 93 7 5 0 2 0 0 2 9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court Hispanic or Latino Hawaiian/ Pacific Islanders Asian 16

Sample Output for African – American Youth White Rate Minority Rate Relative Rate Index 2. Arrest 38. 56 94. 33 2. 45 3. Referral 161. 92 162. 4 1 4. Diversion 43. 71 36. 52 0. 84 5. Detention 59. 84 75. 22 1. 26 6. Petitioned/ Charge filing 34. 21 44. 2 1. 29 7. Delinquent Findings 73. 58 77. 42 1. 05 8. Probation 310. 33 236. 31 0. 76 11 13. 1 1. 19 0. 36 0 -- Data Items 1. Population at Risk 9. Confinement in Secure Correctional Facilities 10. Transferred to Adult Court 17

Sample Output for Hispanic Youth White Rate Minority Rate Relative Rate Index 2. Arrest 38. 56 41. 89 1. 09 3. Referral 161. 92 155. 79 0. 96 4. Diversion 43. 71 36. 94 0. 85 5. Detention 59. 84 73. 2 1. 22 6. Petitioned/ Charge filing 34. 21 37. 61 1. 1 7. Delinquent Findings 73. 58 79. 04 1. 07 8. Probation 310. 33 258. 33 0. 83 11 9. 85 0. 9 0. 36 1. 2 -- Data Items 1. Population at Risk 9. Confinement in Secure Correctional Facilities 10. Transferred to Adult Court 18

How do we Interpret RRI values? Step 1. Statistical significance Step 2. Magnitude of RRI Step 3. Volume of activity Step 4. Comparison with other jurisdictions 19

County Level Analyses: Median RRI scores Based on analysis of 150 US Counties Black Hispanic Asian Am Indian Other All 2. Juvenile Arrests 2. 94 1. 44 0. 39 3. 06 0. 70 2. 14 3. Refer to Juvenile Court 1. 23 0. 62 1. 23 1. 20 1. 25 4. Cases Diverted 0. 81 0. 89 0. 92 0. 79 0. 88 0. 84 5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 1. 47 1. 36 1. 10 1. 63 0. 98 1. 39 6. Cases Petitioned (Charge Filed) 1. 06 1. 12 1. 23 0. 97 1. 09 1. 01 1. 03 1. 00 0. 99 1. 02 0. 96 1. 13 0. 97 0. 93 0. 96 1. 53 1. 40 1. 38 1. 83 1. 17 1. 48 1. 51 1. 11 ---- 1. 60 1. 33 7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court 20

Using the RRI: Moving Toward Assessment The RRI is like vital signs in a health care setting – it can tell us if we need to pay attention and can guide us to the general area to receive attention. However, taken alone, it doesn’t tell us if we have a problem that needs to be addressed with intervention, let alone what intervention to use. 21

Phase 2. Assessment Purpose of Assessment: To determine probable explanations for the ways in which DMC is created To determine possible targets for intervention activities 3 -1

Diagnosis Determines Treatment 23

Mechanisms Leading to DMC (A partial listing modified from JRSA “Seven Steps” manuscript ) Differential Offending Drugs / gangs / serious offenses Importation / displacement effects Repeated offending Indirect effects Factors such as SES or Risk Factors which are linked to race / ethnicity 24

Mechanisms Leading to DMC (A partial listing modified from JRSA “Seven Steps” manuscript ) Differential Opportunities for Prevention and Treatment Access Implementation Effectiveness Differential Handling Decision making criteria Cultural Competence: interpretation of language and behavior 25

Mechanisms Leading to DMC (A partial listing modified from JRSA “Seven Steps” manuscript ) Justice By Geography Legislation, Policies, Legal Factors with Disproportionate Impact Accumulated Disadvantage Statistical Aberrations: Census and record keeping issues, small number issues 26

Bringing It Together: The Multnomah County Experience Identification Studies highlighted detention and sentencing as areas of focus The JDAI (Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative) became a resource option 1994: approx 6000 intakes, 11% detention rate for white youth, 21% for Black youth, 23% for Hispanic youth 27

Assessment issues Lack of alternatives 2. Lack of good control over decision processes 3. Concerns about the Cultural Competence of Staff 1. 28

Implementation - Developing Alternatives Geographic location Community based provider agencies Alternatives to assist youth in establishing & maintaining community ties 29

Implementation: the RAI Working Team included culturally diverse set of most stakeholders Examination of models in other communities Examination of items that inadvertently disadvantage minority youth Consensus among decision makers Point based objective criteria for detention decisions. 30

Implementation: Cultural Competence Staff hiring policies and goals – staff should reflect the demography of our clients Agency wide Cultural Competence training 31

32

33

34

Overview The Big Picture – The DMC Process Identification Creating and Using the Relative Rate Index Selecting Areas of Concern Assessment Generating possible explanations related to the Areas of Concern Using Data to select targets Bringing it together – the example of Multnomah County 35

Resources 36