Creating New and Enhancing Existing DMC Interventions

One of the primary objectives of the DMC initiative was to design a broad range of strategies to address minority overrepresentation. During the DMC initiative, the pilot States' strategies were only partially implemented. As a result, a full assessment of the interventions' effectiveness was not possible at the time. Critical lessons were learned, however, about the DMC planning process and about factors that support a smooth transition from planning to implementation. Collectively, these lessons stress how important it is to:

  • Clearly specify a role for State organizations.

  • Focus on local planning and implementation.

  • Involve all significant juvenile justice and community representatives.

  • Develop multiple intervention strategies.

  • Anticipate the often protracted transition from planning to implementation.

Examples of pilot State experiences associated with each of these lessons are described below.

Clearly Specify a Role for State Organizations

Although the focus of DMC interventions must be local, State organizations can play a significant role in supporting local planning and implementation efforts. In all of the pilots, staff at the State level took responsibility for developing statewide DMC plans, conducting and monitoring the Phase I data collection and analysis, and supporting the development of Phase II strategies.

Oregon's approach provides a model for clearly delineating State and local roles. In Oregon, the State DMC team:

  • Provided the Phase I research expertise.

  • Introduced the DMC research findings to State and local stakeholders.

  • Identified and financially supported DMC interventions in three counties.

  • Provided monitoring throughout the project and a local process evaluation at the conclusion of the planning activities.

  • Served as a repository of information on additional DMC resources and technical assistance.

  • Facilitated county efforts to seek additional funds. The approach was based on a philosophy of collaboration and encouragement to stimulate community-inspired interventions.

Focus on Local Planning and Implementation

There is no single model solution to eradicate minority overrepresentation at either the Federal or the State level. Juvenile justice is primarily a function of local government. The development of solutions to the high rates of minority confinement must, therefore, involve local communities. Local staff are most knowledgeable about available community resources and best positioned to muster the resources needed for DMC interventions.

The experiences of the five pilot States recognized and reinforced the importance of local involvement. North Carolina developed a DMC committee within each of its 10 pilot counties to identify local contributing factors and to develop and implement interventions to reduce DMC. Florida organized a Core Planning Group in its pilot county to coordinate DMC planning and implementation efforts. In Arizona, Iowa, and Oregon, existing county and local organizations developed plans for DMC pilot projects. Each of these pilot communities demonstrated that local involvement of juvenile justice and other community agencies, together with local minority community representatives, was effective in identifying DMC contributing factors and mobilizing existing resources.

     State Profile: North Carolina

  • Based on 1990 data from the Bureau of the Census, the State's racial composition was approximately 75 percent white, 22 percent African-American, 1 percent Hispanic, 1 percent American Indian, and 1 percent Asian/Pacific Islander.

  • An initial study found that within 10 pilot counties, minority juveniles were more likely to be arrested, presented to intake, referred to juvenile court, and referred to secure confinement facilities. A second study concluded that race did not significantly affect the likelihood of being referred to juvenile court.

  • State-level DMC stakeholders facilitated DMC activity by identifying potential local leadership, providing information-sharing forums, and offering planning grants.

  • Interventions included the development of detailed plans for corrective actions within both the local juvenile justice systems and other juvenile service delivery systems.

Involve All Significant Juvenile Justice and Community Representatives

The pilot States demonstrated that all components of the juvenile justice system must be involved in the assessment, planning, and implementation of DMC interventions, including peace officers, prosecutors, court officials, and corrections personnel. The involvement of these key system players will greatly increase the probability that DMC interventions can effect lasting change. Furthermore, since many of the DMC contributing factors are beyond the realm of the juvenile justice system, social service agencies and other community organizations must also be involved in developing DMC interventions. Pilot State experiences demonstrated at least two benefits of involving all significant stakeholders: (1) they meet, often for the first time, and engage in discussions about DMC and other juvenile justice issues; and (2) the stakeholders who are essential to DMC interventions create a shared vision of an enhanced and more equitable distribution of juvenile justice and other agency services.

Develop Multiple Intervention Strategies

Given that multiple factors contribute to minority overrepresentation in the system, multiple strategies are needed to address it. The analysis of contributing factors suggests a framework of several categories of DMC intervention strategies. Specific types of interventions within a given category can stand alone as useful models to reduce DMC, and all are complementary. Approaching DMC reduction from several of these perspectives simultaneously is likely to multiply the impact of the overall effort.

  • Advocacy strategies seek to improve the ability of juveniles and their families to navigate the system and the ability of the system to serve its minority juveniles. Examples include:

    • Providing information, expertise, and/or advocates to assist minority juveniles and their families to interact more successfully with the juvenile justice system.

    • Exerting pressure on the system to change policies and practices that lead to DMC, such as revising decisionmaking guidelines and modifying existing services to better serve minority juveniles.

  • Collaboration strategies stress cooperation between community-based interventions and the juvenile justice system. Examples include:

    • Addressing cultural competency and attitudinal change among professionals within the system.

    • Creating coalitions among juvenile justice agencies, other public agencies, community organizations, and individual community representatives to address factors leading to DMC.

  • Alternative resource development strategies are appropriate both within and outside the traditional juvenile justice system. Examples include:

    • Developing diversion programs that are appropriate to minority juveniles.

    • Developing prevention programs and services within minority communities.

Pilot State examples of DMC interventions for each of the strategies are described below.

One Oregon county developed an advocacy approach to addressing DMC. In this county, minority juvenile justice specialists support minority juvenile offenders who are processed through intake at the Division of Youth Services and provide additional counseling and mentoring services to juveniles in minority communities. The goal is to improve communication between minority juveniles and the juvenile justice system, improve system outcomes (e.g., reduce confinement decisions), and strengthen the ability of minority juveniles and their families to negotiate the juvenile justice system.

The collaboration approach is exemplified by several of the pilot State initiatives. For example, Iowa developed a statewide cultural competency training program. A major goal of the training is to offer those who interact with minority juveniles better tools for providing meaningful education, guidance, and supportive and rehabilitative services. The training is provided to juvenile justice personnel who make decisions affecting the placement of minority juveniles in secure facilities.

The alternative resources strategy is demonstrated by Florida's Civil Citation Program. Juvenile civil citation is a law enforcement option in Florida that allows a police officer to issue a sanction of up to 40 hours of community service to a juvenile for a nonserious offense without taking the juvenile into custody. The Florida DMC project provided this option, which had not been used previously in the county implementing the DMC initiative in Florida, to divert juveniles from the justice system at the point of initial contact.

     State Profile: Oregon

  • Based on 1990 data from the Bureau of the Census, the State's racial composition was approximately 91 percent white, 4 percent Hispanic, 2 percent African-American, 2 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1 percent American Indian.

  • African-American juveniles were overrepresented at every stage of the juvenile justice process. The greatest magnitude of African-American overrepresentation occurred at the "back end" of the system. The pattern of overrepresentation was less pronounced and more variable for other minority groups.

  • The intervention strategy focused on three different county-level approaches simultaneously, each providing a continuum of DMC programs impacting various aspects of the juvenile justice system.
Anticipate the Often-Protracted Transition From Planning to Implementation

The five pilot States learned that, when they shifted from planning to implementation, all stakeholders remained essential but their roles were changed. By anticipating and planning for changes in organizational roles and clearly defining the roles for each stakeholder and participating agency, interpersonal and interagency tensions were averted or reduced.

Pilot States reported that the State leadership role was less critical to implementation than to planning. As the focus changed to implementation, State roles were commonly limited to monitoring statewide and local DMC activities, offering technical assistance to local projects related to securing funding, and reviewing local implementation plans. It was at this point that local agencies, organizations, and communities typically took the lead in the DMC initiative process. While the role of the State decreased, pilot States reported that the State role should still be clearly defined and that State-level continuity of staff, objectives, and funding was crucial to local DMC program implementation.

The amount of time needed to reach full implementation was underestimated by everyone involved with the pilot State plans. Phase II of the DMC initiatives was slated for implementation and completion within an 18-month timeframe. Without exception, the implementation of new initiatives had not been completed at the conclusion of the 18 months. In fact, several pilot States obtained 12-month extensions for implementation, which also proved inadequate. The primary lesson here is that the process needed to identify DMC and its contributing factors, obtain full cooperation of diverse community factions, and design and implement DMC interventions can be lengthy, costly, unpredictable, and not easily controlled by any single organization or group.

Previous Contents Next

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons Learned From Five States OJJDP Bulletin • December 1998