Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Proposed Methods for Measuring Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
as required by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act §223(a)(22)
Revised 2002
Dr. William FeyerhermPortland State University
Portland, Oregon
Dr. Jeffrey ButtsThe Urban Institute Washington, DC
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Contents• Why do we measure DMC?
• Why do we need a new method of measuring DMC?
• What is the new method?
• What are the next steps in implementing the new method?
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
First, a Review of Key Terms
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Minority?Racial and Ethnic Categories(1) White
A person having origins in any of the original people of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
(2) American Indian or Alaska Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
(3) Asian A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
(4) Black or African American A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
(5) Hispanic or Latino A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
(6) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Island.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/html/fedreg.html
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Race and Ethnicity Categories in DMC
• Should account for Hispanic/Latino status(e.g., “White” should include only non-Hispanic whites)
• Groups more detailed than the six major groups may be used if they can be aggregated back into the six major groups
• Any group accounting for 1% or more of the juvenile population (i.e., youth subject to juvenile court jurisdiction and juvenile justice handling) should be assessed independently
• Reports should describe the categories and allocation rules used – and be consistent throughout each report
Data source: www.census.gov
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Why Measure DMC?
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
DMC is a Question, Not an Answer
Measuring DMC is like taking vital signs in a hospital emergency room
– it doesn’t identify illness or tell you how to treat it
– it alerts you to potential problems and tells you where to focus your diagnostic efforts
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
OJJDP’s Goals for DMC• Identify existence/extent of disproportionality
– “between race” comparisons within jurisdictions and at specific decision points in the system
• Assess data about DMC to target detailed studies, identify points of needed intervention, and allocate resources for system interventions
• Intervene to reduce DMC
– assist policymakers in choosing jurisdictions that should receive increased attention and intervention
• Evaluate how DMC responds to policy initiatives and system interventions
• Monitor trends in DMC within and across jurisdictions
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
The Meaning of DMC has Changed
No longer disproportionate “confinement”
but
Disproportionate”contact” with the juvenile justice system
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Contact• Initial encounter with law enforcement
(i.e., arrest)
and
• Ongoing juvenile justice contacts, such as: – Diversion – Referral to juvenile court – Hold in secure detention– Issuance of petition – Adjudication as delinquent – Placement on probation – Placement in secure facilities– Transfer to adult court
And other points where sufficient data exist:– Pre-arrest diversion– Aftercare– Revocation of aftercare etc.
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
The purpose of the DMC statute and regulation is to ensure equal and fair treatment for every youth in the juvenile justice system, regardless of race and ethnicity
DisproportionateMinorityConfinement
DMC
DMC Goals are not Changing
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
The purpose of the DMC statute and regulation is to ensure equal and fair treatment for every youth in the juvenile justice system, regardless of race and ethnicity
DisproportionateMinorityContact
DMC
DMC Goals are not Changing
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Old Method DRI“Disproportionate
Representation Index”
New Method RRI“Relative Rate Index”
Why a New Method?
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Confined Youth Total Population
Old Method (DRI)All Races & Ethnicities
A Specific Ethnic Group
% %
Ratio
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Confined Youth Total Population
Ethnic Group 1
Ethnic Group 2
#
Per-capitaRate
#
# #Ratio
New Method (RRI)
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
• Reduces Statistical Bias
• Allows Fair and Accurate Comparisons
• Handles Multiple Racial/Ethnic Groups
The New Method (RRI):
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Consider two fictional places where Latinos are twice as likely as whites to be confined:
ArrestedConfined
1,000 100
White
1,000 200
Latino
1,000 100
White
1,000 200
Latino
10% 20%Confinement probability
10% 20%
67%Latino % of confined youth
67%
Diversityville Homogenous Town
10%50%Latino % of all youth
DRI = 1.3 6.7
only difference
Latinos are twice as likely to be confined in both places, but the DRI distorts this equivalence
Divide
Equals
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
• The DRI is a biased estimator
What does this mean?
• Using rates instead of proportions
What other choice is there ?
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Developing the RRI
• Creating Rates
• Examining Individual Decision Points
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
State A: 225,000
Consider Two Hypothetical States
Same youth population size, different demographic mix and different confinement population
Youth Population (Ages 10-17)
State B: 225,000
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
23%77%
100%
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
9%91%
100%
State A
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
2.60.9
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Using the old DRI method, it appears that DMC in State A is twice that of State B
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
But, remember, the DRI is a biased estimator
It is affected by the relative size of minority youth populations
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Rate Ratios are unaffected by either:
1. the relative proportion of minorities in the total youth population, or 2. the number of different population groups that must be compared
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Let’s go back to State A and State B
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Rate
3.01.0
Rate
3.20.9
Confined youth per 1,000 juveniles in
the general population
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Rate
3.01.0
Rate
3.20.9
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Rate
3.0
Rate
3.20.9
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Rate
3.0
Rate
3.20.9
3.01.0
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Rate
3.01.0
Rate
3.20.9
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Rate
3.01.0
Rate
3.20.9
To calculate the “relative rate index” (or RRI), divide one rate over the other to create a ratio.
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Rate
3.01.0
Rate
3.20.9
RRI = 3.0
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
60200
260
20,250204,750
225,000
Total Youth Population
23%77%
100%
9%91%
100%
State A
DRI
2.60.9
Youth Confined on July 1, 2003
BlackWhite
Total
51060
570
160,00065,000
225,000
Total Youth Population
89%11%
100%
71%29%
100%
State B
DRI
1.30.4
Rate
3.01.0
Rate
RRI = 3.0
3.20.9
RRI = 3.6
Note the very different conclusions suggested by the DRI and the RRI
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Developing the RRI
• Creating Rates
• Examining Individual Decision Points
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
court referrals
petitioned
not petitioned
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
waived to criminal (adult) court
formally adjudicated
not adjudicated
arrests
total population
The old method (DRI) compares percentages of minority youth at each stage of the juvenile justice system to the percentage of minorities in the population as a whole
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
court referrals
petitioned
not petitioned
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
waived to criminal (adult) court
formally adjudicated
not adjudicated
arrests
total population
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
court referrals
petitioned
not petitioned
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
waived to criminal (adult) court
formally adjudicated
not adjudicated
arrests
total population
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
court referrals
petitioned
not petitioned
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
waived to criminal (adult) court
formally adjudicated
not adjudicated
arrests
total population
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
court referrals
petitioned
not petitioned
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
waived to criminal (adult) court
formally adjudicated
not adjudicated
arrests
total population
The new method (RRI) compares the percentage of minority youth at each stage of the juvenile justice system to the percentage of minorities at the previous stage
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
court referrals
petitioned
not petitioned
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
waived to criminal (adult) court
formally adjudicated
not adjudicated
arrests
total population
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
court referrals
petitioned
not petitioned
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
waived to criminal (adult) court
formally adjudicated
not adjudicated
arrests
total population
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
court referrals
petitioned
not petitioned
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
waived to criminal (adult) court
formally adjudicated
not adjudicated
arrests
total population
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
court referrals
petitioned
not petitioned
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
• placed out of home• probation• other sanctions• dismissed/released
waived to criminal (adult) court
formally adjudicated
not adjudicated
arrests
total population
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
• The definitions of processing stages will probably vary slightly across jurisdictions
• Data will have to be for youth handled in one year (e.g., cases disposed in one year) even though they may have been arrested in different years
Thus, calculations won’t be “true rates” –
Not: “the charging rate among youth referred this year”
But: “number of youth charged this year divided bythe number of youth referred this year”
To make these comparisons possible, two compromises are likely:
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
How Should States Calculate the RRI?
• The same type of data used for the DRI can be used to calculate the RRI
1. Number of all youth… a) in the total population, and b) at various stages in the j.j. process
2. Number of youth of specific races and ethnicities… a) in the total population, and b) at various stages in the j.j. process
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
This form contains real DMC data from Fresno, CALet’s take a closer look.
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
The DRI requires states to calculate the proportion of various ethnic groups among the the general youth population.Then, the proportion of those youth in the committed population.
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
The ratio of these two proportions is the DRI.
In the case of Fresno, the DRI equals 2.5
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
A new data-entry tool for calculating the RRI could use the same data
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
The array of data required for the DRI
The same information could be entered in a spreadsheet and used to create the RRI and various tables or reports
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
AREA REPORTED Data Entry Section
State : California
County: FRESNO Reporting Period 1 /2002 (Month / Year)
through 12 / 2002 (Month / Year)
Total Youth WhiteAfrican-American Hispanic Asian
Pacific Islanders
Native American
Other/ Mixed
All Minorities
1. Population at risk (age 10_ through _17 ) 118,722 39,117 6,460 52,433 19,750 972 79,615
2. Juvenile Arrests 13,585 3,058 2,055 7,220 1,091 29 132 10,527
3. Refer to Juvenile Court
4. Cases Diverted 306 113 28 136 19 0 10 193
5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 2,314 401 354 1,300 243 8 8 1,913
6. Cases Petitioned 5,859 1,000 901 3,113 523 16 36 4,589
7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 4,058 555 894 2,195 384 15 15 3,503
8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 2,501 585 362 1,330 201 13 10 1,916
9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1,629 284 241 908 189 3 4 1,345
10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court 24 7 15 22
Meets 1% rule? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
All case counts could be entered one time in one place
A prototype spreadsheet for entering DMC data
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
AREA REPORTED Data Entry Section
State : California
County: FRESNO Reporting Period 1 /2002 (Month / Year)
through 12 / 2002 (Month / Year)
Total Youth WhiteAfrican-American Hispanic Asian
Pacific Islanders
Native American
Other/ Mixed
All Minorities
1. Population at risk (age 10_ through _17 ) 118,722 39,117 6,460 52,433 19,750 972 79,615
2. Juvenile Arrests 13,585 3,058 2,055 7,220 1,091 29 132 10,527
3. Refer to Juvenile Court
4. Cases Diverted 306 113 28 136 19 0 10 193
5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 2,314 401 354 1,300 243 8 8 1,913
6. Cases Petitioned 5,859 1,000 901 3,113 523 16 36 4,589
7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 4,058 555 894 2,195 384 15 15 3,503
8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 2,501 585 362 1,330 201 13 10 1,916
9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1,629 284 241 908 189 3 4 1,345
10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court 24 7 15 22
Meets 1% rule? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
Case counts would be organized by multiple racial/ethnic groups and for multiple processing stages
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
AREA REPORTED Data Entry Section
State : California
County: FRESNO Reporting Period 1 /2002 (Month / Year)
through 12 / 2002 (Month / Year)
Total Youth WhiteAfrican-American Hispanic Asian
Pacific Islanders
Native American
Other/ Mixed
All Minorities
1. Population at risk (age 10_ through _17 ) 118,722 39,117 6,460 52,433 19,750 972 79,615
2. Juvenile Arrests 13,585 3,058 2,055 7,220 1,091 29 132 10,527
3. Refer to Juvenile Court
4. Cases Diverted 306 113 28 136 19 0 10 193
5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 2,314 401 354 1,300 243 8 8 1,913
6. Cases Petitioned 5,859 1,000 901 3,113 523 16 36 4,589
7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 4,058 555 894 2,195 384 15 15 3,503
8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 2,501 585 362 1,330 201 13 10 1,916
9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1,629 284 241 908 189 3 4 1,345
10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court 24 7 15 22
Meets 1% rule? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
Note the addition of “Refer to Juvenile Court” as a stage
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
AREA REPORTED Data Entry Section
State : California
County: FRESNO Reporting Period 1 /2002 (Month / Year)
through 12 / 2002 (Month / Year)
Total Youth WhiteAfrican-American Hispanic Asian
Pacific Islanders
Native American
Other/ Mixed
All Minorities
1. Population at risk (age 10_ through _17 ) 118,722 39,117 6,460 52,433 19,750 972 79,615
2. Juvenile Arrests 13,585 3,058 2,055 7,220 1,091 29 132 10,527
3. Refer to Juvenile Court
4. Cases Diverted 306 113 28 136 19 0 10 193
5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 2,314 401 354 1,300 243 8 8 1,913
6. Cases Petitioned 5,859 1,000 901 3,113 523 16 36 4,589
7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 4,058 555 894 2,195 384 15 15 3,503
8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 2,501 585 362 1,330 201 13 10 1,916
9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1,629 284 241 908 189 3 4 1,345
10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court 24 7 15 22
Meets 1% rule? Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
The data entry tool would automatically identify which groups must be examined
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
The Data Entry Tool Could Also Display Results Automatically
• Comparisons across processing stages within race/ethnicity categories
• Comparisons across race/ethnicity categories within processing stages
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
For example, one automatic report could display the key results for each racial or ethnic group
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Area: FRESNO, CA Population Group: AFRICAN-AMERICAN
Reporting Period: 01/2002 -- 12 /2002
At risk (ages 10-17)
Arrested
Referred to Court
Diverted
Detained
Petitioned/Charged
Adjudicated/Found Delinq.
Placed on Probation
Securely Confined
Transferred to Adult Ct.
39,117
3,058
--
113
401
1,000
555
585
284
---
Number Rate
78.18
--
3.70
13.11
32.70
55.55
105.41
51.17
---
White
6,480
2,005
--
28
354
901
894
362
241
7
Number Rate
318.11
--
1.36
17.23
43.84
99.22
65.23
26.96
0.78
Af-Amer RRI
4.07
--
0.37
1.31
1.34
1.79
0.62
0.53
--
Statistical Signif.?(p<. 05)
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
---
Stages
White youth were arrested at a rate of 78.18 per 1,000 --because 3,058 divided by 39,117 times 1,000 equals 78.18
African-American youth were arrested at a rate of 318.11 --because 2,055 divided by 6,460 times 1,000 equals 318.11
The ratio of the two rates equals 4.07 --- or 318.11 divided by 78.18
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Area: FRESNO, CA Population Group: AFRICAN-AMERICAN
Reporting Period: 01/2002 -- 12 /2002
At risk (ages 10-17)
Arrested
Referred to Court
Diverted
Detained
Petitioned/Charged
Adjudicated/Found Delinq.
Placed on Probation
Securely Confined
Transferred to Adult Ct.
39,117
3,058
--
113
401
1,000
555
585
284
---
Number Rate
78.18
--
3.70
13.11
32.70
55.55
105.41
51.17
---
White
6,480
2,005
--
28
354
901
894
362
241
7
Number Rate
318.11
--
1.36
17.23
43.84
99.22
65.23
26.96
0.78
Af-Amer RRI
4.07
--
0.37
1.31
1.34
1.79
0.62
0.53
--
Statistical Signif.?(p<. 05)
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
---
Stages
Differences in the relative rate index could guide further investigations
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Area: FRESNO, CA Population Group: AFRICAN-AMERICAN
Reporting Period: 01/2002 -- 12 /2002
At risk (ages 10-17)
Arrested
Referred to Court
Diverted
Detained
Petitioned/Charged
Adjudicated/Found Delinq.
Placed on Probation
Securely Confined
Transferred to Adult Ct.
39,117
3,058
--
113
401
1,000
555
585
284
---
Number Rate
78.18
--
3.70
13.11
32.70
55.55
105.41
51.17
---
White
6,480
2,005
--
28
354
901
894
362
241
7
Number Rate
318.11
--
1.36
17.23
43.84
99.22
65.23
26.96
0.78
Af-Amer RRI
4.07
--
0.37
1.31
1.34
1.79
0.62
0.53
--
Statistical Signif.?(p<. 05)
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
---
Stages
The black-to-white ratio of arrest rates is 4.07, meaning that African-American youth are 4 times more likely than whites to be arrested.
However, the black-to-white ratio of petitioning is just 1.34, meaning that, once arrested, African-Americans are only slightly more likely to be charged.
And, the black-to-white ratio of secure confinement is 0.53, which suggests that once adjudicated, African-American youth are half as likely to be confined.
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Area: FRESNO, CA Population Group: AFRICAN-AMERICAN
Reporting Period: 01/2002 -- 12 /2002
At risk (ages 10-17)
Arrested
Referred to Court
Diverted
Detained
Petitioned/Charged
Adjudicated/Found Delinq.
Placed on Probation
Securely Confined
Transferred to Adult Ct.
39,117
3,058
--
113
401
1,000
555
585
284
---
Number Rate
78.18
--
3.70
13.11
32.70
55.55
105.41
51.17
---
White
6,480
2,005
--
28
354
901
894
362
241
7
Number Rate
318.11
--
1.36
17.23
43.84
99.22
65.23
26.96
0.78
Af-Amer RRI
4.07
--
0.37
1.31
1.34
1.79
0.62
0.53
--
Statistical Signif.?(p<. 05)
Yes
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
---
Stages
These cross-stage patterns in the RRI could lead to very different conclusions than an analysis based only on the DRI for confinement … Why?
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Relative Rate Index Compared with White Juveniles
African-American Hispanic Asian
2. Juvenile Arrests 4.07 1.76 0.713. Refer to Juvenile Court --- --- ---4. Cases Diverted 0.37 0.51 0.475. Cases Involving Secure Detention 1.31 1.37 1.706. Cases Petitioned 1.34 1.32 1.477. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 1.79 1.27 1.328. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 0.62 2.27 0.349. Cases Resulting in Secure Juv Confinement 0.53 0.81 0.9610. Cases Transferred to Adult Court --- --- ---
Other reports could portray decision-specific comparisons of the RRI by race and ethnicity
African-American youth are four times more likely to be arrested than white youth.
Hispanic youth are twice as likely as white youth to be arrested.
What other differences do you see, and what could they mean?
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
The new method also allows stage-specific comparisons
across jurisdictions
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Comparing Two Jurisdictions
Population Based Relative Rate of African-ARREST (compared to White) Amer. Hisp. Asian
Alameda 5.26 1.79 0.52FRESNO 4.07 1.76 0.71
Population Based Relative Rate of ADJUDICATION (compared to White)
Alameda 6.28 1.81 0.66FRESNO 9.75 2.95 1.37
Population Based Relative Rate of SECURE CONFINEMENT (compared to White)
Alameda 15.32 1.93 --FRESNO 5.14 2.39 1.32
How should these comparisons be interpreted?
In this example, each rate is calculated by dividing the number of youth at that stage of the system by the number of youth in the general population (or, “population based rates).
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Conclusions• The RRI should be viewed as a set of “vital signs”
for system monitoring and to guide analysis
• The shift to “Contact” allows a more encompassing examination of the juvenile justice system
• The shift to rates and the Relative Rate Index will eliminate many of the problems inherent in the DRI
• A single data entry tool could automatically calculate all necessary rates and ratios, tables, and reports
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Next Steps --In 2003 and 2004, OJJDP will:
• Revise DMC Technical Assistance Manual
• Design and disseminate new a data-entry tool (spreadsheet first, then move to web-based)
• Train consultants and contractors on the use and interpretation of the RRI – make other T.A. available
• Convert previous data reports to RRI approach in order to establish comparative / historical base
Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Proposed Methods for Measuring Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
Dr. William [email protected]
Dr. Jeffrey [email protected]
For more information about this presentation:
Dr. Heidi [email protected]
For more information about OJJDP’s DMC program: