Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

DMC as a Core Requirement

In the 1988 amendment to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), Congress mandated that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) require all States participating in the Formula Grants Program (Title II, Part B, of the Act) to address disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) in their State plans. Specifically, if the proportion of a given minority group of youth who are detained or confined in State’s secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups exceeded the proportion of that group represented in the general population, the State was required to develop and implement plans to reduce the disproportionate representation (Section 223(a)(23)).

In the 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act, DMC was elevated to a core protection for youth, with future funding eligibility tied to State compliance.

The JJDP Act of 2002, signed into law on November 2, 2002, modified the DMC requirement of the Act as follows: “In order to receive formula grants under this part (Part B), a state shall submit a plan for carrying out its purposes applicable to a 3-year period…In accordance with regulations which the Administrator shall prescribe, such plan shall…(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. This change essentially broadens the DMC initiative from disproportionate minority “confinement” to disproportionate representation of minority youth at all decision points along the juvenile justice system continuum. It further requires multi pronged intervention strategies including not only juvenile delinquency prevention efforts, but also system improvement efforts to assure equal treatment of all youth.

How to Meet the DMC Core Requirement of JJDP Act

Pursuant to section 223(a)(22) of the JJDP Act, States must address specific delinquency prevention and system improvement efforts to reduce the rate of contact with the juvenile justice system of a specific minority group, if that rate is significantly greater than the rate of contact for whites or for other minority groups. The analysis should be conducted separately for each minority group within the State or locality that represents at least 1% of the total youth population at risk.

For purposes of this statutory mandate, majority population is defined as white (not Hispanic). Minority populations are defined as non-white and grouped as: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African-American; Hispanic or Latino; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. These six racial/ethnic categories serve as a minimum standard and permit additional categories provided they can be aggregated to the standard categories. States and localities are encouraged to address specific subgroups (e.g., the Filipinos or Samoans officially classifies as Other Pacific Islanders) if their State and local circumstances indicate that such groups may be affected by DMC.

Contact refers both to the initial legal encounters through law enforcement (arrest) and to ongoing contact through actions within the juvenile justice system such as diversion, detention, referral to juvenile court, issuance of petitions, adjudication as delinquent, placement on probation, placement in secure juvenile corrections, transfer to adult court, and other such processes unique to the States and localities.

The purpose of this core requirement is to ensure equal and fair treatment for every youth (regardless of membership in a minority or majority population group) involved in the juvenile justice system. It is essential that States approach this statutory mandate in a comprehensive, balanced, multi-prong, and ongoing manner and address any individual, family, community, education system, and other issues related to juvenile justice system involvement and any features of their juvenile justice system and related laws and policies that may account for disproportionate juvenile justice system contact by juveniles of a specific minority group relative to all other racial/ethnic groups.

States undertake efforts to reduce DMC by moving through the following phases on an ongoing basis:

• Identification: to determine the extent to which DMC exists.
• Assessment: to assess the contributing factors to DMC, if it exists
• Intervention: to develop and implement intervention strategies to address these identified contributing factors.
• Evaluation: to evaluate the effectiveness of the chosen intervention strategies.
• Monitoring: to note changes in DMC trends and to adjust intervention strategies as needed.

Each State must report on its progress and describe its DMC reduction plan for the coming 3 years and the next year in its comprehensive JJDP 3-year plan and subsequent plan updates, respectively. OJJDP reviews the plan and its updates annually. Any State that fails to show progress in its DMC reduction plan under review stands to lose 20 percent of its Formula Grants allocation for the year.

Challenges in Reducing DMC

Many States and localities have made great strides in understanding the factors that contribute to DMC and have designed and implemented strategies to address those factors. Some States and localities have even attempted to evaluate their efforts and monitor their DMC trends. However, important challenges remain, and they must be overcome before a significant reduction in DMC is achieved. These challenges include:

• Factors contributing to DMC have still not been identified in a number of States. Although a majority of States has implemented strategies to address DMC, many States have yet to identify the factors contributing to DMC in their communities. This is primarily because they have been unable to complete quality assessment research, a task that requires not only high levels of data collection and analysis skills but also an in-depth conceptual understanding of complex DMC issues.
• Incomplete and inconsistent data systems hinder DMC efforts. Incomplete and inconsistent data systems constitute another important barrier to DMC assessment and monitoring in many States. Some States have recognized a need to enhance juvenile justice information systems but have improved little to date.
• Evaluation of DMC efforts and monitoring of DMC trends should be ongoing. Ongoing and comprehensive data collection to monitor DMC rates provides valuable feedback on the effectiveness of a State’s overall strategy to reduce DMC over time. Evaluation of intervention activities yields information about whether a specific intervention is working. The State can then examine which elements of the strategy made a difference. On the other hand, where DMC rates persist or increase further, careful study can lead to appropriate modifications or new intervention strategies. Although many States recognize the need to conduct an ongoing evaluation of DMC efforts to monitor trends, many States have not done so, in part because of the data problems described above.
• Reducing DMC requires systems change as well as programmatic components. Although the majority of States commonly recognize that multiple factors at different decision points contribute DMC, they have primarily invested in delinquency prevention and intervention programs that focus on minority youth, their families, and communities. System change – efforts to address the factors within the juvenile justice system that contribute to DMC – is also necessary as specified in the JJDP Act of 2002 Section 223(a)(22). As part of efforts to institute a cultural competency model, cultural sensitivity training for personnel involved in the juvenile justice system and increasing cultural diversity among staff should be systematically provided, enhanced, and monitored. Similarly, systematic training in the use of standardized screening instruments is necessary to achieve maximum objectivity in decision-making.
• Mechanisms to assess and respond to DMC issues need to be institutionalized. DMC is a pervasive and deeply entrenched social phenomenon that requires multi-faceted, comprehensive efforts over a long period of time. Factors such as frequent staff turnover, competing priorities and the complex nature of the issues affecting DMC can impede these efforts. To achieve focus and consistency in reducing DMC, States should establish and institutionalize mechanisms that examine and respond to the factors that contribute to it. At a minimum, State infrastructure should include: a State-level DMC coordinator and an effective DMC subcommittee working in partnership to address DMC issues.

North Carolina ’s DMC Reduction Initiative

In 2002, the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission hired a full time DMC Coordinator to staff the DMC subcommittee and maintain the State’s momentum in developing strategies to reduce minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. North Carolina’s overall approach to addressing DMC consists of the following:

• Working with four demonstration counties to provide resources, technical assistance, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of programs and activities designed to reduce DMC in these jurisdictions
• Collaborating with the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in developing an uniform data collection system which will allow for accurate collection of data disaggregated by race; this data is to be collected at the decision points which would allow for an accurate measurement of possible disparities in decision-making
• Increasing the awareness of disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system and educating the public, juvenile justice professionals, as well as the full Governor’s Crime Commission through conference presentations, developing print materials to be disseminated, and utilizing technical assistance resources available through the federal government

DEMONSTRATION COUNTIES

The counties of Guilford, New Hanover, Union, and Forsyth were selected by the DMC Committee to partner with the Governor’s Crime Commission to develop county specific plans to address minority overrepresentation. Each of the counties have in place working groups that serve as the primary point of contact between the Governor’s Crime Commission and the county. Meetings are held in each jurisdiction with the purpose of discussing how each would address the issue. The Juvenile Justice Specialist and DMC Coordinator provides technical assistance in the areas of grant writing, strategic planning, and mission development. The DMC working groups in each of the counties are well represented and each has membership from the community, law enforcement, courts, the school system, and private citizens. The Governor’s Crime Commission made the decision to allow each of the counties to apply for a one year planning grant that would be available only to the demonstration counties so that each would have the resources to begin gathering data and accessing the extent of minority overrepresentation. These grants would still go through the regular grant cycle and still be subject to approval from the Juvenile Justice Planning Committee. At the completion of each of the planning grants, each county anticipates having a comprehensive county plan based on research gathered from the previous year and a clear direction on how they will begin to implement activities to address DMC the following year.

DATA COLLECTION

One of the identified challenges to addressing DMC was incomplete and inconsistent data and the need for improved juvenile justice information systems. North Carolina has recognized the need for the development of a more uniform data collection process in order to effectively collect the required data to measure disparities in the juvenile justice decision making process. The Governor’s Crime Commission is working with the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in developing a statewide data collection system (NCJOIN) so that statistics may be collected in a more uniform and consistent manner. Once this data collection system is fully operational, the State will be able to collect all the statistics needed to compute the Relative Rate Index of minority overrepresentation as required by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Governor’s Crime Commission is also working with the Statistical Analysis Center section of this agency to address GIS (Geographical Information System) mapping as a means to target DMC efforts in specific communities.

EDUCATION

Creating awareness and educating the public as well as the member’s of the Governor’s Crime Commission is also an identified area of concern for North Carolina’s DMC reduction initiative. In order to effectively address this issue, the Crime Commission feels it is important to educate themselves on the various factors that effect the rate at which minority youth are coming into contact with the juvenile justice system. Serving as the advisory body to the State on criminal justice and juvenile justice issues, it is a priority that the Governor’s Crime Commission and DMC subcommittee be knowledgeable on emerging DMC trends, issues and best practices. As a part of the DMC education initiative, the DMC Committee receives technical assistance and training on an ongoing basis from various agencies including the Juvenile Justice Institute and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The DMC Committee, members of the Crime Commission and member’s of the Juvenile Justice Planning Committee all take the opportunity to speak about the DMC issue in North Carolina at various meetings and workshops and conferences including the Safe Schools Conference hosted by the Department of Public Instruction. The DMC Coordinator, Juvenile Justice Specialist, and staff members of the juvenile justice planning section of the Crime Commission are active on various committees and are often part of the meeting agenda’s to speak about DMC in North Carolina.

Useful Tools

OJJDP’s DMC website at www.ojjdp.ncirs.org/dmc. Learn about DMC chronology, various publications, State reports, tools, resources, and State (and some local) contacts in efforts to reduce DMC, plus links to other useful DMC-related websites.

Proposed Methods in Measuring DMC (a video presentation).

DMC Technical Assistance Manual, 2 nd edition (to be updated).

DMC Listserv dmccoordinators@list:rea-ch.com

For more information, please contact:

Kimberly Wilson, DMC Coordinator

kimberly.wilson@ncmail.net