Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Proposed Methods.

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 Feyerherm Portland State University Portland, Oregon feyerhw@pdx.edu Dr. Jeffrey Butts The Urban Institute Washington, DC jbutts@urban.org

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 M inority? 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.htmlhttp://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.govwww.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 doesnt 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 OJJDPs 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 C ontact 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 D isproportionate M inority C onfinement DMCDMC 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 D isproportionate M inority C ontact DMCDMC 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 MethodDRI Disproportionate Representation Index New MethodRRI 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-capita Rate # # # 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: Arrested Confined 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 Black White Total 60 200 260 23% 77% 100% 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 9% 91% 100% State A Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 2.6 0.9

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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4

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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4 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 Lets 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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4 Rate 3.0 1.0 Rate 3.2 0.9 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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4 Rate 3.0 1.0 Rate 3.2 0.9

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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4 Rate 3.0 Rate 3.2 0.9

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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4 Rate 3.0 Rate 3.2 0.9 3.0 1.0

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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4 Rate 3.0 1.0 Rate 3.2 0.9

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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4 Rate 3.0 1.0 Rate 3.2 0.9 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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4 Rate 3.0 1.0 Rate 3.2 0.9 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 Black White Total 60 200 260 20,250 204,750 225,000 Total Youth Population 23% 77% 100% 9% 91% 100% State A DRI 2.6 0.9 Youth Confined on July 1, 2003 Black White Total 510 60 570 160,000 65,000 225,000 Total Youth Population 89% 11% 100% 71% 29% 100% State B DRI 1.3 0.4 Rate 3.0 1.0 Rate RRI = 3.0 3.2 0.9 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 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 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 wont be true rates – Not : the charging rate among youth referred this year But : number of youth charged this year divided by the 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, CA Lets 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 YouthWhite African- AmericanHispanicAsian Pacific Islanders Native American Other/ Mixed All Minorities 1. Population at risk (age 10_ through _17 )118,722 39,1176,46052,43319,750 972 79,615 2. Juvenile Arrests13,585 3,0582,0557,2201,091 2913210,527 3. Refer to Juvenile Court 4. Cases Diverted306 1132813619 010193 5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 2,3144013541,300243 881,913 6. Cases Petitioned5,859 1,0009013,113523 16364,589 7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings4,058 5558942,195384 15 3,503 8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement2,501 5853621,330201 13101,916 9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1,629284241908189 341,345 10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court24 715 22 Meets 1% rule? Yes 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 YouthWhite African- AmericanHispanicAsian Pacific Islanders Native American Other/ Mixed All Minorities 1. Population at risk (age 10_ through _17 )118,722 39,1176,46052,43319,750 972 79,615 2. Juvenile Arrests13,585 3,0582,0557,2201,091 2913210,527 3. Refer to Juvenile Court 4. Cases Diverted306 1132813619 010193 5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 2,3144013541,300243 881,913 6. Cases Petitioned5,859 1,0009013,113523 16364,589 7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings4,058 5558942,195384 15 3,503 8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement2,501 5853621,330201 13101,916 9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1,629284241908189 341,345 10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court24 715 22 Meets 1% rule? Yes 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 YouthWhite African- AmericanHispanicAsian Pacific Islanders Native American Other/ Mixed All Minorities 1. Population at risk (age 10_ through _17 )118,722 39,1176,46052,43319,750 972 79,615 2. Juvenile Arrests13,585 3,0582,0557,2201,091 2913210,527 3. Refer to Juvenile Court 4. Cases Diverted306 1132813619 010193 5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 2,3144013541,300243 881,913 6. Cases Petitioned5,859 1,0009013,113523 16364,589 7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings4,058 5558942,195384 15 3,503 8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement2,501 5853621,330201 13101,916 9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1,629284241908189 341,345 10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court24 715 22 Meets 1% rule? Yes 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 YouthWhite African- AmericanHispanicAsian Pacific Islanders Native American Other/ Mixed All Minorities 1. Population at risk (age 10_ through _17 )118,722 39,1176,46052,43319,750 972 79,615 2. Juvenile Arrests13,585 3,0582,0557,2201,091 2913210,527 3. Refer to Juvenile Court 4. Cases Diverted306 1132813619 010193 5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 2,3144013541,300243 881,913 6. Cases Petitioned5,859 1,0009013,113523 16364,589 7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings4,058 5558942,195384 15 3,503 8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement2,501 5853621,330201 13101,916 9. Cases Resulting in Confinement in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities 1,629284241908189 341,345 10. Cases Transferred to Adult Court24 715 22 Meets 1% rule? Yes 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, CAPopulation 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 --- NumberRate 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 NumberRate 318.11 -- 1.36 17.23 43.84 99.22 65.23 26.96 0.78 Af-AmerRRI 4.07 -- 0.37 1.31 1.34 1.79 0.62 0.53 -- Statistical Signif.? (p<. 05) 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, CAPopulation 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 --- NumberRate 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 NumberRate 318.11 -- 1.36 17.23 43.84 99.22 65.23 26.96 0.78 Af-AmerRRI 4.07 -- 0.37 1.31 1.34 1.79 0.62 0.53 -- Statistical Signif.? (p<. 05) 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, CAPopulation 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 --- NumberRate 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 NumberRate 318.11 -- 1.36 17.23 43.84 99.22 65.23 26.96 0.78 Af-AmerRRI 4.07 -- 0.37 1.31 1.34 1.79 0.62 0.53 -- Statistical Signif.? (p<. 05) 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, CAPopulation 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 --- NumberRate 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 NumberRate 318.11 -- 1.36 17.23 43.84 99.22 65.23 26.96 0.78 Af-AmerRRI 4.07 -- 0.37 1.31 1.34 1.79 0.62 0.53 -- Statistical Signif.? (p<. 05) 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- AmericanHispanicAsian 2. Juvenile Arrests 4.071.760.71 3. Refer to Juvenile Court --- 4. Cases Diverted 0.370.510.47 5. Cases Involving Secure Detention 1.311.371.70 6. Cases Petitioned 1.341.321.47 7. Cases Resulting in Delinquent Findings 1.791.271.32 8. Cases resulting in Probation Placement 0.622.270.34 9. Cases Resulting in Secure Juv Confinement 0.530.810.96 10. 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 Alameda5.261.790.52 FRESNO4.071.760.71 Population Based Relative Rate of ADJUDICATION (compared to White) Alameda6.281.810.66 FRESNO9.752.951.37 Population Based Relative Rate of SECURE CONFINEMENT (compared to White) Alameda15.321.93-- FRESNO 5.142.391.32 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 Feyerherm feyerhw@pdx.edu Dr. Jeffrey Butts jbutts@urban.org For more information about this presentation: Dr. Heidi Hsia hsiah@ojp.usdoj.gov For more information about OJJDPs DMC program:

Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Proposed Methods.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Proposed Methods."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Proposed Methods.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Presentation Sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice Proposed Methods."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback