Minority Youth Over Representation in the Juvenile Justice System: An Overview of the Issue and Federal and State Respo

1. Minority Youth Over Representation in the Juvenile Justice System: An Overview of the Issue and Federal and State Responses Michael J. Leiber, Ph.d. Virginia Commonwealth University mjleiber@vcu.edu Presented at the Youth Violence Prevention Conference – University of Missouri-St. Louis April 8, 2010

2. Background • In 1989, the disproportionate minority confinement mandate (DMC) was passed as part of the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-415, section 223[a][23].

3. Background • States receiving funds from the federal government are to develop a comprehensive approach to the disproportionate minority youth presence in the juvenile justice system - Formula Grant Funds

4. Background • In 2002, the DMC mandate was amended as part of the reauthorization of the JJDP Act: “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.” • Changed from confinement to contact

5. DMC - History The purpose of the DMC Core Requirement remains the same: to ensure equal and fair treatment for every youth in the juvenile justice system, regardless of race and ethnicity.

6. DMC mandate

7. DMC mandate Interrelated and Ongoing Stages Identification – extent of presence Assessment – search for causes/ contributing factors Interventions – reduce DMC Evaluation – see if interventions working Monitoring – assess over time

8. Extent of Presence • Nation wide From 2002 to 2004, African Americans were: 16% of youth. 28% of juvenile arrests. 30% of referrals to juvenile court. 37% of the detained population. 34% of youth formally processed by the juvenile court. 30% of adjudicated youth. 35% of youth judicially waived to criminal court. 38% of youth in residential placement. 58% of youth admitted to state adult prison.

9. Latest stats - 2005 • See Table 1

10. DMC assessment phase • The purpose of conducting an assessment study is to provide policy makers and system practitioners with precise information upon which interventions can be developed and implemented to reduce DMC • A search for causes, contributing factors to DMC

11. DMC To understand DMC – Differential offending minorities commit more crime and more serious crime Tracy – some studies that find evidence of bias, discover minorities commit more crime

12. DMC • Arrests suggest race differences in delinquent behavior or differential offending; however, problems with arrests- police deployment patterns, race profiling, biased decision-making, data itself

13. DMC BACKGROUND Additionally, some self-report survey data indicate few race differences in the commission of delinquency (e.g., Piquero & Brame, 2008). Or Huizinga and colleagues (2007) found that the extent of self-report differential offending did not solely account for differences in police referrals to juvenile court

14. DMC BACKGROUND • Second explanation for DMC, selection bias This is where the system focus comes into play

15. DMC BACKGROUND Bias has many forms Direct = intentional, overt, conscious Subtle = unintentional, indirect, unconscious – tied to legitimate factors but racially tainted, just as harmful, disadvantaged

16. DMC Subtle = unintentional, indirect – tied to legitimate and extralegal factors e.g., assessments about family – Pope and Feyerherm secure detention – Leiber and Fox Assessment studies need to be conducted with this in mind

17. DMC - Other Examples of Subtle Bias • Bridges and Steen’s (1998) analysis of pre-disposition reports written by juvenile probation officers provides powerful evidence of racial stereotypes and their influence on recommendations at disposition. In these accounts, race was correlated with attributions about the causes of crime and to perceptions of the risk of re-offending and harsher dispositions.

18. DMC BACKGROUND • That is, probation officers more often attributed offending among whites to external and alterable causes (e.g., delinquent peers, problems at school), while crimes committed by African American youth were more often attributed to internal and enduring character traits (e.g., aggressiveness, lack of remorse). • These causal attributions corroborated beliefs that minority offenders are more dangerous than whites, which in turn provided the basis for more punitive recommendations (see also, Steen et al. 2005).

19. DMC BACKGROUND • Graham and Lowery (2004) also found attributions about the causes of crime to be linked to racial disparities in punishment responses among juvenile court probation officers and police officers.

20. DMC assessment Studies of Juvenile Justice System • Pope and Feyerherm (1993) • Pope and colleagues (2003) • Bishop (2005) • Engen and colleagues (2005) • Pope and Leiber (2005) Conclude – most studies find evidence of overt and subtle bias even after considering influence of legal and extralegal factors

21. DMC BACKGROUND • Appears Both Differential Offending and Selection Bias play a role in DMC

22. DMC mandate

23. DMC BACKGROUND • If differential offending as a reason for DMC Interventions focus on crime prevention: family dysfunction drugs negative peer influences, associations lack of quality education lack of access to meaningful employment

24. DMC BACKGROUND If bias accounts for DMC Example Solutions: structure decision making at detention and intake (race neutral) cultural sensitivity training advocates diversity in hiring education

25. DMC • Recently, Bishop (2005), Kempf-Leonard (2007) and Piquero (2008) have argued that there is a need to examine factors that may be linked to both differential offending and selection bias e.g., impoverished communities, heavy emphasis on crime control, high crime rates, etc.

26. DMC mandate Evaluations/Monitoring Overall, there are only a few interventions that have been evaluated (e.g., detention diversion advocacy program or DDAP, Alternatives for Youth’s Advocacy initiative or AFY, detention reform in Multnomah county) These have shown some success at reducing DMC.

27. DMC mandate • Given that twenty years have passed since the passage of the DMC mandate, this is a significant limitation since there are relatively few known evaluations of strategies created and implemented to reduce minority overrepresentation.

28. DMC mandate Success or Failure? On one side of the continuum, Tracy (2005; 2002) views as a failure, wrong focus, should be on crime prevention

29. DMC mandate Another view but seen as failure: Bell and Ridolfi (2008) of the W. Haywood Burns Institute critique of the DMC mandate centers on the lack of benchmarks and the failure to change procedures that result in bias and minority youth overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system

30. DMC mandate Leiber and Rodriguez are in the middle of these 2 views - some problems, some room for improvement but also see advances not a zero sum situation. Bringing about change within organizations is often slow, complex and evolutionary. It is a process involving forward movement, backward movement, and at times, no movement.

31. DMC mandate