1 / 173

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Community and Strategic Planning (CASP) Curriculum

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Community and Strategic Planning (CASP) Curriculum. Part I: Enhanced DMC Reduction Model. Module 1: Overview of the DMC CASP Curriculum. Objectives of CASP Curriculum.

sage-cox
Download Presentation

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Community and Strategic Planning (CASP) Curriculum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Community and Strategic Planning (CASP) Curriculum Part I: Enhanced DMC Reduction Model

  2. Module 1:Overview of the DMC CASP Curriculum

  3. Objectives of CASP Curriculum Equip participants with the following knowledge and skills necessary to provide training and technical assistance, public education, coordination, and outreach: Knowledge base to understand OJJDP enhanced DMC Reduction Model. Ability to communicate clearly what DMC is, how to measure it, analyze and interpret the data. 1-1

  4. Objectives of CASP Curriculum(cont’d) Design empirically based delinquency prevention and systems improvement strategies. Increase state capacity to assist/guide localities in DMC reduction activities. Learn how to conduct a local DMC assessment study 1-2

  5. How to Achieve the Objectives Review OJJDP’s enhanced DMC Reduction Model. Have trainers demonstrate the curriculum. Using data from participants engage in facilitation exercises and practice delivery. Have OJJDP trainers provide feedback on participant use of the curriculum. 1-3

  6. Module 2:DMC Core Requirement

  7. History of DMC The original goals of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974: Help state and local governments prevent and control juvenile delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. Protect juveniles in the juvenile justice system from inappropriate placements and from the physical and psychological harm that can result from contact with adult inmates. Provide community-based treatment for juvenile offenders. 2-1

  8. History of DMC (continued) The evolution of the four JJDP Act Core Requirements: Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)—1974 Separation—1974 Jail Removal—1980 Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)—1988 Became a Core Requirement—1992 Expanded to Disproportionate Minority Contact — 2002 2-2

  9. History of DMC (cont’d) 1988 Annual Report to Congress by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (then the National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups), A Delicate Balance. DMC as a requirement in the JJDP Act of 1974, as amended in 1988: Requiring states participating in the JJDP Act’s Part B Formula Grants program to “address efforts to reduce the proportion of juveniles detained or confined in secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups who are members of minority groups if such proportion exceeds the proportion such groups represent in the general population.” DMC as a Core Requirement in the JJDP Act of 1974, as amended in 1992: Twenty-five percent of that year’s Formula Grants allocation was tied to state compliance. 2-3

  10. Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) as a Core Requirement in the JJDPA of 2002 2-4 Requiring states participating in the JJDP Act’s Part B Formula Grants program 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.” Twenty percent of the state’s Formula Grants allocation in the subsequent year is tied to the state’s compliance status.

  11. Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) as a Core Requirement in the JJDPA of 2002: What DMC Is Not Does not establish or require an approximate percentage/rate of minority youth not be arrested, charged, adjudicated, detained, confined, etc. Does not give minority youth preferential treatment. Does not point blame at the different decisions making points in the juvenile justice system because DMC is due to many contributing factors. Does not seek to directly “change” a delinquent youth’s family, community, and a host of other risk factors (i.e. poverty, single parent homes, etc.). Does not make generalizations about minority youth based on the presence or number of risk factors or the lack of protective factors. Does not take away discretion when making decisions about how to process minority youth. Does not solely focus on providing direct services to minority youth. Does not make decisions on how youth are arrested, charged, adjudicated, detained, confined, etc. based on values of juvenile justice system stakeholders. 2-5

  12. Purpose of the DMC Core Requirement To ensure equal and fair treatment for every youth in the juvenile justice system, regardless of race and ethnicity. 2-6

  13. Disproportionate Minority Contact Disproportionate Minority Contact 2-7

  14. Disproportionate A rate of contact with the juvenile justice system among juveniles of a specific minority group that is significantly different from the rate of contact for whites (i.e., non-Hispanic Caucasians) or for other minority groups. 2-8

  15. Minority: Race and Ethnicity Categories 2-9

  16. Using Race and Ethnicity Categories Counts for all other groups should remove Hispanic/Latino (e.g., “African-American” should really be “non-Hispanic African-American”). Groups MORE specific than the six major groups may be defined IF they may be aggregated into the six major groups. Any of the six groups consisting of one (1) percent or more of the juvenile population in a specific jurisdiction (subject to juvenile justice contact and processes) should be assessed independently. Reports should describe the categories and allocation rules used. Be consistent within a state/local report. 2-10

  17. Juvenile Justice System Contact Points 2-11

  18. Contact Points: Standard Definitions 2-12

  19. Contact Points: Standard Definitions (cont’d) 2-13

  20. Contact Points: Standard Definitions (cont’d) 2-14

  21. OJJDP’s DMC Reduction Model 2-15

  22. Module 3: Phase 1: Identification: Measuring the Extent of DMC

  23. Phase 1. Identification Answer the questions: Does DMC exist? If so, where on the juvenile justice continuum? And with what minority population? To what extent? 3-1

  24. Important Considerations in Measuring DMC The need to compare jurisdictions and trends despite vast differences in the demographic composition of communities. DMC measurement is like taking vital signs in a hospital—it doesn’t tell you what the illness is or how to fix it, but it does tell you if it is getting better or worse and where to aim diagnostic resources. 3-2

  25. Why Measure DMC? To determine the existence and extent of disproportionality—“between race” comparisons within jurisdictions and at specific decision points. To make comparisons across multiple jurisdictions and select jurisdictions to receive primary attention. For data-based targeting of assessment studies, identifying points of intervention, and resource allocation. To enable monitoring/comparison of DMC trends. 3-3

  26. Rates Total number of units measured by the indicator in relation to some base (population or volume of activity at the juvenile justice system contact points). 3-4

  27. Relative Rate Index Formula When Compared With White Rate(Most Frequently Used Formula) Relative Rate Index = minority rate÷white rate 3-5

  28. Relative Rate Index Formula When Compared With Another Minority Rate(When minority youth comprise the majority of the youth population) Relative Rate Index = minority rate ÷another minority rate 3-6

  29. Identifying the numerical bases for rate calculations 3-8

  30. Magnitude: How much RRI is above or below 1.0 3-17

  31. A Simple Example A state with nearly 1,100,000 white non-Hispanic youths has 22,175 arrests in 2002 involving such youths. What is the rate of arrests per 1,000 white non-Hispanic youth? The same state has nearly 185,000 non-Hispanic black or African-American youths with 12,700 arrests in 2002,. What is the rate of arrests per 1,000 non-Hispanic black or African-American youth? What is the Relative Rate Index, indicating the relative volume of arrests involving black or African-American youth compared with that of white youth? 3-9

  32. A Simple Example (cont’d) A state with nearly 1,100,000 white (non-Hispanic) youths has 22,175 arrests in 2002 involving such youths. What is the rate of arrests per 1,000 white non-Hispanic youth? 22,175 / 1,100,000 x 1,000 = 20.1 The same state has nearly 185,000 (non-Hispanic) black or African-American youths with 12,700 arrests in 2002. What is the rate of arrest per 1,000 non-Hispanic black or African-American youth? 12,700 / 185,000 x 1,000 = 68.6 What is the Relative Rate Index indicating the relative volume of arrests involving black or African-American youth compared with that of white youth? RRI = 68.6 / 20.1 = 3.41, indicating that the rate of arrests of black/African-American youth was more than 3 times higher than that for white non-Hispanic youth. 3-10

  33. Magnitude: How much RRI is above or below 1.0 3-17

  34. A Second Example In 2002, this state had 3,588 episodes of diversion among white non-Hispanic youth with a total referral activity of 22,175. What was the rate of diversions of per 100 referrals for white youth? Among black or African-American youth, there were 1,121 episodes of diversion with a total referral activity of 12,681. What was the rate of diversion per 100 referrals for black or African-American youth? What was the RRI, indicating the rate of diversion activity for black or African-American youth compared with that for white youth? 3-11

  35. A Second Example (cont’d) In 2002, this state had 3,588 episodes of diversion among white non-Hispanic youth, with a total referral activity of 22,175. What was the rate of diversions per 100 referrals for white non-Hispanic youth? 3,588 / 22,175 x 100 =16.18 Among black or African-American youth, there were 1,121 episodes of diversion with a total referral activity of 12,681. What was the rate of diversion per 100 referrals for black or African-American youth? 1,121 / 12,681 x 100 = 8.84 What was the RRI, indicating what the rate of diversion activity for black or African-American youth compared with that for white youth? RRI = 8.84 / 16.18 = 0.55 indicating that the rate of diversion for black/African-American youth is a little more than half the rate of diversion for white non-Hispanic youth. 3-12

  36. Five Steps of Interpreting and Analyzing RRI Values to Drive Decision-Making Step 1. Statistical significance Step 2. Magnitude of RRI Step 3. Volume of activity Step 4. Comparison with other jurisdictions Step 5. Contextual Considerations (Examining the local context) 3-13

  37. Step 1 of Interpreting and Analyzing RRI Values to Drive Decision-Making Step 1. Statistical significance Statistically significant does not mean that a difference is big or important. A statistically significant difference does mean that there is statistical evidence that a difference in rates is unlikely to have occurred by chance. In other words, we can have confidence that 95 times out of 100 (contingent upon the significance level chosen) the difference was not random. 3-14

  38. Five Steps of Interpreting and Analyzing RRI Values to Drive Decision-Making (cont’d) 3-15 • Step 2. Magnitude of RRI • Step 3. Volume of activity • Step 4. Comparison with other jurisdictions • Step 5. Contextual Considerations (i.e. examining the local context)

  39. Step 2 of Interpreting and Analyzing RRI Values to Drive Decision-Making Step 2: Magnitude of RRI (i.e. the effect size) The size of the RRI based on the magnitude of the index values. Statistical equality in processing should generate an RRI value of 1.0. To what extent does each stage generate a value substantially different from 1.0? Values under 1.0 reflect disproportionality as well Step 3: Volume of activity Step 4: Comparison with other jurisdictions Step 5: Examining the local context 3-16

  40. Magnitude: How much RRI is above or below 1.0 3-17

  41. The greatest statistically significant rates are at arrests, secure detention, and cases resulting in secure confinement for Black youth and secure detention for Hispanic/Latino youth. Analysis Based on Magnitude of RRI 3-18

  42. Step 3 of Interpreting and Analyzing RRI Values to Drive Decision-Making Step 3: Volume of activity The amount of activity at each contact point. In which stages (among the ones showing significant RRIs) are the most youth involved? Focus on the groups and stages that will have the impact on the largest numbers of youth. Step 4: Comparison with other jurisdictions Step 5: Examining the local context 3-19

  43. Volume of Activity by Race and Contact Point 3-20

  44. Achieving Statistical Parity:What Would it Take in Anywhere County for White and Minority Youth to have the same rate of contact? 3-21

  45. Step 4 of Interpreting and Analyzing RRI Values to Drive Decision-Making Step 4: Comparison with other jurisdictions How the county compares with other counties across the country with available data (900+ counties). Step5: Examining the local context 3-22

  46. Compare Your Rate with the National Data Using the National DMC Databook and/or the RRI Comparison Tool Examine basic rates and RRI values for Black/African-American, Native American/Alaska Native, and Asian youth (not Hispanic/Latino yet) Explore trends over time and for differing crime categories View sample text interpretations for the RRI values. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/index.html 3-23

  47. Step 5 of Interpreting and Analyzing RRI Values to Drive Decision-Making Step5: Examining the local context Is the agency involved in that decision point amenable to change? Have there been recent events (public relations issues) that make a change in DMC patterns more or less likely? Are funds or resources available that might assist (or hinder, if lacking) the DMC effort at this decision point? Is strong leadership available that is committed to addressing DMC issues? 3-24

  48. Step 5 of Interpreting and Analyzing RRI Values to Drive Decision-Making (continued) Are best practices models for this decision point available and applicable? Is there support for DMC reduction within the affected minority group and within the political leadership of that group? Are there issues with the affected minority group regarding media attention at this decision point (e.g., potentially high visibility events that could generate support or resistance for DMC)? 3-25

  49. DMC Data – Common Issues Missing data elements Inability to find Hispanic/Latino data for arrest Data definitions that don’t match the OJJDP recommendations Small numbers Racial “minority” may actually be the statistical majority Homogenous communities in which there are few white youth 3-26

More Related