Monitoring DMC Interventions

Design Monitoring Systems at the Local Level

The capacity to assess progress toward achieving DMC goals should be designed and should function at the local level. Local monitoring of program operations and systems is more likely to provide the detailed and timely information necessary to position the community and its system of providers to respond to emerging needs and incorporate new DMC strategies.

North Carolina, for example, focused on building local monitoring information systems and developed a procedural and resource manual to support local efforts. The manual described a process for planning and implementing a DMC monitoring system and identified the data elements needed for DMC monitoring.

Select an Appropriate Monitoring Organization

Within the pilot States, at both the State and local levels, acceptance of the overrepresentation message depended largely on the credibility of the participants or agencies reporting the DMC findings. Any DMC monitoring system must, therefore, be perceived as having a legitimate basis for continuing to raise questions about progress toward DMC goals. DMC intervention efforts can be monitored successfully when the monitoring is based on objective data and is carried out under the auspices of an appropriate group or agency. The monitoring process must engage all stakeholders in examining the results, conclusions, and assumptions of those generating the information.

Capture Overall Results and Impacts

The key question about DMC interventions—as with any program—is: “Did they make any difference?” The challenge in answering that question is that many of the strategies and interventions undertaken are designed to effect changes in deeply ingrained beliefs and systems, a process that may take some time. Although developing and implementing monitoring systems are essential first steps toward assessing ongoing, long-term improvements in levels of minority overrepresentation, it is also important to identify and acknowledge other early impacts of DMC initiatives. Several important improvements resulting from the DMC activities in the five pilot State juvenile justice systems are described below.

Recognize Information Needs and Create Appropriate Information Systems. The assessment approach used by the five States revealed important information gaps. None of the States had existing information resources sufficient to meet the needs of the DMC assessment. In North Carolina, for example, no automated juvenile justice information existed. As a result of the development of information for the DMC project, North Carolina recognized that DMC and related information is useful for a variety of assessment purposes and moved to develop information systems. Florida, on the other hand, had a fairly complete juvenile justice information system, but the DMC project identified ways to link information systems with the State Departments of Education and Labor to provide additional information on juveniles. For all of the pilot States, the initial focus on DMC identification frequently had the effect of making local officials more aware of what information resources were available and how to access them, and whether critical information was collected by other agencies or at other jurisdictional levels. As these States continue to monitor the effects of DMC activity, they plan to continue to refine their information systems.

Develop New Community Collaborative Relationships. One feature common to most of the DMC projects was the effective use of collaboration among community agencies to develop and enhance the provision of juvenile services. For example, the Florida pilot project resulted in new partnerships among State government, the Urban League, the Hillsborough County Children’s Board, a set of 18 juvenile service agencies, and the local Juvenile Assessment Center. In Iowa, the project involved strengthening the relationship between the juvenile justice system and the Jane Boyd House, an organization providing “wraparound” community services to Cedar Rapids neighborhoods.

As collaborative efforts take more of a foothold in communities across the country (for example, with Title V Community Prevention Grants), DMC interventions can continue to benefit from existing collaborative structures. Ideally—and it is a goal of the JJDP Act—communities that are seeking to effect systemwide changes in how they prevent and respond to juvenile problems will infuse all of their efforts with an awareness of the issue of disproportionate representation of minority juveniles in the system. With ongoing collaborative processes, attention to DMC issues can become “institutionalized” in all decisions made about youth services.

Institutionalize Mechanisms To Examine and Respond to DMC Issues. In each of the five pilot States, DMC activities resulted in the development of additional institutionalized mechanisms to continue the assessment of DMC issues and the development of responses. Florida developed an entirely new Department of Juvenile Justice, with a major commitment to the overrepresentation issue and significant resources with which to address the problem. In Iowa, staff hired for DMC issues have been retained in positions created to help eliminate DMC. In two Oregon county projects, the county government found ways of “picking up” the DMC activities as ongoing county functions. In North Carolina, a new section was created in the Human Services Department to extend the State audit capacity to examine and improve DMC conditions throughout the State.

Improve Local Service Systems. Under the auspices of the five pilot DMC programs, a number of local activities have effectively improved the entire range of local services. For example, Marion County, OR, juvenile court service providers are now required to undergo an agencywide cultural competency assessment and improvement process, which was supported by county-provided technical assistance. Performance standards were written into the agency contracts. In Arizona, community groups were encouraged to develop new resources for at-risk juveniles and those currently involved in the juvenile justice system.

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