assessing and addressing disproportionate minority contact (dmc) in juvenile justice bill feyerherm,...
Post on 29-Jan-2016
240 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Assessing and Addressing Disproportionate Minority Contact
(DMC) in Juvenile Justice
Bill Feyerherm, Ph.D., Vice Provost for Research,
April 9, 2007
2
OverviewThe Big Picture – The DMC Process
IdentificationCreating and Using the Relative Rate Index
Selecting Areas of Concern
AssessmentGenerating possible explanations related to the Areas of Concern
Using Data to select targets
Bringing it together – the example of Multnomah County
3
The DMC Process
4
National Custody Data, 2003 On a typical day in 2003
190 of every 100,000 white juveniles were in custody
754 of every 100,000 Black juveniles were in custody
496 of every 100,000 Indian juveniles were in custody
The Custody Rate for Black Youth was 4 times higher than for White Youth
The Custody Rate for Indian Youth was 2.4 times higher than for White Youth
5
2003 Juvenile Confinement Rates
(per 100,000 youth)White Black Hispanic Indian Asian
United States 190 754 348 496 113
Wisconsin 143 1,389 226 580 282
Michigan 169 602 231 287 27
Indiana 316 1,188 381 417 0
Illinois 120 589 144 113 14
Ohio 207 916 296 87 71
Pennsylvania 139 1,207 639 246 329
6
Ratio of Minority to White Confinement Rates
Black Hispanic Indian Asian
United States 4.0 1.8 2.6 0.6
Wisconsin 9.7 1.6 4.1 2.0
Michigan 3.6 1.4 1.7 0.2
Indiana 3.8 1.2 1.3 0.0
Illinois 4.9 1.2 0.9 0.1
Ohio 4.4 1.4 0.4 0.3
Pennsylvania 8.7 4.6 1.8 2.4
7
DMC As A Core Requirement in the JJDPA of 2002
States are required to “address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice system”.
8
DisproportionateA rate of contact with the juvenile justice system among juveniles of a specific minority group that is significantly different than the rate of contact for whites (i.e., non-Hispanic Caucasians) or for other minority groups.
Defining DMC
9
Minority: Race & Ethnicity Categories:(1) White (non-Hispanic)(2) American Indian or Alaska Native (non-
Hispanic)(3) Asian (non-Hispanic)(4) Black or African American (non-Hispanic)(5) Hispanic or Latino(6) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (non-
Hispanic)
Defining DMC
10
Juvenile Justice System ContactArrest (Initial legal encounters with law enforcement)DiversionDetention (pre-adjudication)Referral to juvenile court Issuance of petition
Adjudication as delinquentPlacement on probationPlacement in secure juvenile correctionTransfer to adult courtOthers (e.g., aftercare; revocation of aftercare)
Defining DMC
Phase 1. Identification
Answers the questions:
Does DMC exist?
If so, where on the juvenile justice continuum?
And with what minority population?
To what extent?
2-1
12
Relative Rate Index =
Minority Rate / White Rate
13
Basic Steps: Calculating the RRICreate a model of the justice system, showing the major steps / stages of activity.Record the volume of activity passing through each stage of the JJS during a year for each race / ethnicity group. Compute the rate of occurrence at each stage for each racial / ethnic categories.Divide the rate for the minority group by the rate for the white group to create the Relative Rate Index (RRI).Test to determine if the RRI is statistically significant – whether it is sufficiently different from a neutral value (1.00) that the differences in the rates are not likely to be the result of random chance processes.
Base for Rate Calculations
Juveniles arrested—rate per 1,000 populationReferrals to juvenile court—rate per 100 arrestsJuveniles diverted before adjudication—rate per 100 referralsJuveniles detained—rate per 100 referralsJuveniles petitioned—rate per 100 referralsJuveniles found to be delinquent—rate per 100 youth petitioned (charged)Juveniles placed on probation—rate per 100 youth found delinquentJuveniles placed in secure correctional facilities—rate per 100 youth found delinquentJuveniles transferred to adult court—rate per 100 youth petitioned
2-13
15
Arrest(Law Enforcement
referral)B
J uvenile Court Referrals
C
Diverted from system - (alternative handling)
D
Petition Filed(Charged)
F
Transfer / waiver to Adult Court
J
Found Delinquent(Guilty)
G
Probation Supervision
H
Secure ConfinementI
DetentionE
Other Referral Source
Y outh PopulationA
Relationship of Data Elements for Relative Rate Index Calculations
16
Data – Sample Total Youth White
Black or African-American
Hispanic or Latino Asian
Hawaiian/ Pacific Islanders
American Indian or Alaska Native
Other/ Mixed
All Minorities
1. Population at risk (age 10 through 17 ) 90,848 65,916 9,615 6,804 6,810 1,703 24,932
2. Juvenile Arrests 3,973 2,542 907 285 156 83 1,431
3. Refer to Juvenile Court 6,461 4,116 1,473 444 270 158 2,345
4. Cases Diverted 2,674 1,799 538 164 119 54 875
5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 4,243 2,463 1,108 325 178 169 1,780
6. Cases Petitioned (Charge Filed) 2,393 1,408 651 167 103 64 985
7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 1,792 1,036 504 132 71 49 756
8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 5,163 3,215 1,191 341 262 154 1,948
9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 207 114 66 13 9 5 93
10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court 7 5 0 2 0 0 2
17
Data ItemsWhite Rate
Minority Rate
RelativeRateIndex
1. Population at Risk
2. Arrest 38.56 94.33 2.45
3. Referral 161.92 162.4 1
4. Diversion 43.71 36.52 0.84
5. Detention 59.84 75.22 1.26
6. Petitioned/ Charge filing 34.21 44.2 1.29
7. Delinquent Findings 73.58 77.42 1.05
8. Probation 310.33 236.31 0.76
9. Confinement in Secure Correctional Facilities 11 13.1 1.19
10. Transferred to Adult Court 0.36 0 --
Sample Output for African – American Youth
18
Data ItemsWhite Rate
Minority Rate
RelativeRateIndex
1. Population at Risk
2. Arrest 38.56 41.89 1.09
3. Referral 161.92 155.79 0.96
4. Diversion 43.71 36.94 0.85
5. Detention 59.84 73.2 1.22
6. Petitioned/ Charge filing 34.21 37.61 1.1
7. Delinquent Findings 73.58 79.04 1.07
8. Probation 310.33 258.33 0.83
9. Confinement in Secure Correctional Facilities 11 9.85 0.9
10. Transferred to Adult Court 0.36 1.2 --
Sample Output for Hispanic Youth
19
How do we Interpret RRI values?
Step 1. Statistical significance
Step 2. Magnitude of RRI
Step 3. Volume of activity
Step 4. Comparison with other jurisdictions
20
Black Hispanic Asian Am Indian Other All
2. Juvenile Arrests 2.94 1.44 0.39 3.06 0.70 2.143. Refer to Juvenile Court 1.23 1.23 0.62 1.23 1.20 1.254. Cases Diverted 0.81 0.89 0.92 0.79 0.88 0.845. Cases Involving Secure Detention 1.47 1.36 1.10 1.63 0.98 1.396. Cases Petitioned (Charge Filed) 1.06 1.06 1.12 1.23 0.97 1.097. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings
1.01 1.03 1.03 1.00 0.99 1.028. Cases resulting in Probation Placement
0.96 0.96 1.13 0.97 0.93 0.969. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure
Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1.53 1.40 1.38 1.83 1.17 1.4810. Cases Transferred to Adult Court 1.51 1.11 ---- ---- 1.60 1.33
County Level Analyses: Median RRI scores
Based on analysis of 150 US Counties
21
Using the RRI: Moving Toward Assessment
The RRI is like vital signs in a health care setting – it can tell us if we need to pay attention and can guide us to the general area to receive attention. However, taken alone, it doesn’t tell us if we have a problem that needs to be addressed with intervention, let alone what intervention to use.
Phase 2. Assessment
Purpose of Assessment:
To determine probable explanations for the ways in which DMC is created
To determine possible targets for intervention activities
3-1
23
Diagnosis
Determines
Treatment
24
Mechanisms Leading to DMC(A partial listing modified from JRSA “Seven Steps” manuscript )
Differential OffendingDrugs / gangs / serious offensesImportation / displacement effectsRepeated offending
Indirect effects Factors such as SES or Risk Factors which are linked to race / ethnicity
25
Mechanisms Leading to DMC(A partial listing modified from JRSA “Seven Steps” manuscript )
Differential Opportunities for Prevention and Treatment
Access
Implementation
Effectiveness
Differential HandlingDecision making criteria
Cultural Competence: interpretation of language and behavior
26
Mechanisms Leading to DMC(A partial listing modified from JRSA “Seven Steps” manuscript )
Justice By Geography
Legislation, Policies, Legal Factors with Disproportionate Impact
Accumulated Disadvantage
Statistical Aberrations: Census and record keeping issues, small number issues
27
Bringing It Together:The Multnomah County Experience
Identification Studies highlighted detention and sentencing as areas of focusThe JDAI (Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative) became a resource option1994: approx 6000 intakes, 11% detention rate for white youth, 21% for Black youth, 23% for Hispanic youth
28
Assessment issues
1. Lack of alternatives
2. Lack of good control over decision processes
3. Concerns about the Cultural Competence of Staff
29
Implementation - Developing Alternatives
Geographic location
Community based provider agencies
Alternatives to assist youth in establishing & maintaining community ties
30
Implementation: the RAI
Working Team included culturally diverse set of most stakeholders
Examination of models in other communities
Examination of items that inadvertently disadvantage minority youth
Consensus among decision makers
Point based objective criteria for detention decisions.
31
Implementation: Cultural Competence
Staff hiring policies and goals – staff should reflect the demography of our clients
Agency wide Cultural Competence training
32
Detention Rates For All Delinquent Referrals
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 0
Year
Pe
rce
nt
De
tain
ed
White
Black
Hispanic
33
Incarceration Rates for Delinquent Referrals
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000
Year
Pre
ce
nt
Ins
titu
tio
na
l pla
ce
me
nt
White
Black
Hispanic
34
Recidivism Prior to Case Closing
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Year of Referral
Per
cent
with
sub
sequ
ent r
efer
ral
White
Black
Hispanic
35
OverviewThe Big Picture – The DMC Process
IdentificationCreating and Using the Relative Rate Index
Selecting Areas of Concern
AssessmentGenerating possible explanations related to the Areas of Concern
Using Data to select targets
Bringing it together – the example of Multnomah County
36
Resources
top related