Assigning Organizational Responsibility

A successful DMC initiative requires organizational capacity, commitment, leadership, and resources. Every DMC initiative should designate a lead agency to spearhead the effort. For the pilot States, the first step was to designate the OJJDP grant recipient, which assumed overall responsibility for the DMC project. Because this responsibility ultimately must be assigned in every State, the general lessons learned from the pilot States can be instructive to other States’ efforts.

Assigning responsibility for DMC-related initiatives entails (1) determining the lead organization, (2) appointing a coordinator, and (3) allocating adequate resources for both development and implementation.

Determine the Optimal Lead Organization

An essential first step in addressing DMC is to assign one agency lead responsibility for overseeing and coordinating the assessment of the problem and the intervention design and implementation. Because of the political, cultural, and social sensitivities associated with DMC, several factors should be considered when choosing a lead agency. These factors include location, political and funding stability, and the ability to provide ongoing leadership for the initiative. The lead agency should have credibility and standing with other juvenile justice system agencies to ensure the following:

• Collection and submission of data required for State and local DMC assessment.

• Analytical rigor in identifying factors that contribute to DMC.

• Organizational support for local interventions.

• Ongoing monitoring of DMC-related activities to determine their impact.

• Participation in the initiative by other juvenile justice agencies and related youth services.

One of the overriding responsibilities of the lead agency is to secure and maintain ongoing support at both State and local levels. The experiences of the pilot States reinforced the understanding that addressing DMC requires a long-term commitment from the juvenile justice system and other State and local community representatives. The responsible agency must, therefore, be positioned to ensure that DMC efforts can survive changes in administrations, political climate, and funding priorities. An agency’s ability to secure and maintain necessary organizational relationships and funding will help preserve stability for DMC objectives, staff, and activities.

In four of the five pilot States, the lead agencies were the State agencies responsible for administering the JJDP Act. The lead agency in the fifth State, North Carolina, was the Division of Youth Services, which shared JJDP Act administrative responsibility with a sister State agency, the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety.

These State agencies assumed lead responsibility for DMC assessment and then supported counties and smaller organizational units in developing and implementing their DMC interventions. These agencies also provided technical assistance to support State, county, and local activities related to developing automated juvenile justice information systems. In some States, lead agencies coordinated activities throughout the State, encouraged collaboration among groups doing similar work, handled interactions with the media, and provided technical assistance.

The availability of technical assistance was of particular importance to the efficient and effective assessment of DMC and intervention identification and development. In reflecting on the process, the Juvenile Justice Specialist from Iowa noted that sufficient technical assistance early in the process can help avoid “reinvention of the wheel” by providing States with tools to successfully address DMC. He suggested that technical assistance on the following topics would greatly benefit the planning phase of any DMC initiative: descriptions of DMC model programs, “best practices” related to the development and implementation of DMC initiatives, and methods to develop minority community networks. These minority community networks would include local leaders who could advise projects and inform communities about DMC initiatives and programs.

Appoint a DMC Coordinator

One of the most critical tasks for each of the five lead agencies was to garner the support of other State and local agencies associated with DMC. The pilot States each designated one individual as the DMC coordinator to help engage all ofthe critical organizations and community representatives. A State-level staff person has the perspective to effectively promote DMC ideas and strategies at both the State and local levels. Also, State-level coordinators can assume responsibility for ensuring comprehensive DMC-related data collection, periodic reviews of state-wide DMC initiatives, and dissemination of DMC information. The coordinator can also serve as a repository for and cataloger of local and statewide DMC data and other information.

Allocate Adequate Resources

The pilot States identified three important DMC-related resource requirements. First, the DMC identification process requires resources to cover DMC staff salaries and the collection and analysis of juvenile justice data. Second, providing interventions to address DMC can be resource intensive, particularly if new services must be created. Finally, resources are also required for ongoing monitoring of DMC activities and measuring their effects.

For the pilot States, the cost of the DMC assessment process was covered primarily by the OJJDP grant. When designing and implementing DMC interventions, however, all of the States encountered resource-related barriers. Moreover, none of the States fully resolved the problem of insufficient funding for juvenile services in general and DMC intervention services in particular. Nonetheless, recognizing the resource implications for DMC interventions ensured that each of the States documented the extent of inadequate resources and attempted to address these resource issues.

Iowa, for example, addressed the issue of limited DMC resources by applying the OJJDP grant funds to the development of a program that integrated the services of several juvenile service providers. The goal of this approach was to reduce the number of agencies interacting with each juvenile and to assign primary responsibility for each juvenile to the most appropriate service provider. This cooperative, streamlined approach provided a model for improving the efficiency of service delivery and attracted the attention of other Federal grant programs, which resulted in the acquisition of additional resources.

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