Proposed Methods for Measuring Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

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

[email protected]

Dr. Jeffrey ButtsThe Urban Institute Washington, DC

[email protected]


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?


First, a Review of Key Terms


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


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


Why Measure DMC?


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


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


The Meaning of DMC has Changed

No longer disproportionate “confinement”

but

Disproportionate”contact” with the juvenile justice system


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.


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


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


Old Method DRI“Disproportionate

Representation Index”

New Method RRI“Relative Rate Index”

Why a New Method?


Confined Youth Total Population

Old Method (DRI)All Races & Ethnicities

A Specific Ethnic Group

% %

Ratio


Confined Youth Total Population

Ethnic Group 1

Ethnic Group 2

#

Per-capitaRate

#

# #Ratio

New Method (RRI)


• Reduces Statistical Bias

• Allows Fair and Accurate Comparisons

• Handles Multiple Racial/Ethnic Groups

The New Method (RRI):


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


• The DRI is a biased estimator

What does this mean?

• Using rates instead of proportions

What other choice is there ?


Developing the RRI

• Creating Rates

• Examining Individual Decision Points


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


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


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


89%11%

100%

71%29%

100%

State B



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


89%11%

100%

71%29%

100%

State B



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


89%11%

100%

71%29%

100%

State B

DRI

2.60.9



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


89%11%

100%

71%29%

100%

State B

DRI

1.30.4



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


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


But, remember, the DRI is a biased estimator

It is affected by the relative size of minority youth populations


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


Let’s go back to State A and State B



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


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



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


89%11%

100%

71%29%

100%

State B

DRI

1.30.4

Rate

3.01.0

Rate

3.20.9



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


89%11%

100%

71%29%

100%

State B

DRI

1.30.4

Rate

3.0

Rate

3.20.9



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


89%11%

100%

71%29%

100%

State B

DRI

1.30.4

Rate

3.0

Rate

3.20.9

3.01.0



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


89%11%

100%

71%29%

100%

State B

DRI

1.30.4

Rate

3.01.0

Rate

3.20.9



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


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.



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


89%11%

100%

71%29%

100%

State B

DRI

1.30.4

Rate

3.01.0

Rate

3.20.9

RRI = 3.0



BlackWhite

Total

60200

260

20,250204,750

225,000


23%77%

100%

9%91%

100%

State A

DRI

2.60.9


BlackWhite

Total

51060

570

160,00065,000

225,000


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


Developing the RRI

• Creating Rates

• Examining Individual Decision Points


court referrals

petitioned

not petitioned

• 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


court referrals

petitioned

not petitioned






not adjudicated

arrests

total population


court referrals

petitioned

not petitioned






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


court referrals

petitioned

not petitioned






not adjudicated

arrests

total population


• 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:


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


This form contains real DMC data from Fresno, CALet’s take a closer look.


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.


The ratio of these two proportions is the DRI.

In the case of Fresno, the DRI equals 2.5


A new data-entry tool for calculating the RRI could use the same data


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


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



State : California




Pacific Islanders

Native American

Other/ Mixed

All Minorities




4. Cases Diverted 306 113 28 136 19 0 10 193








Case counts would be organized by multiple racial/ethnic groups and for multiple processing stages



State : California




Pacific Islanders

Native American

Other/ Mixed

All Minorities




4. Cases Diverted 306 113 28 136 19 0 10 193








Note the addition of “Refer to Juvenile Court” as a stage



State : California




Pacific Islanders

Native American

Other/ Mixed

All Minorities




4. Cases Diverted 306 113 28 136 19 0 10 193








The data entry tool would automatically identify which groups must be examined


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


For example, one automatic report could display the key results for each racial or ethnic group


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





Arrested

Referred to Court

Diverted

Detained

Petitioned/Charged


Placed on Probation

Securely Confined


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

--


Yes

--

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

---

Stages

Differences in the relative rate index could guide further investigations





Arrested

Referred to Court

Diverted

Detained

Petitioned/Charged


Placed on Probation

Securely Confined


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

--


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.





Arrested

Referred to Court

Diverted

Detained

Petitioned/Charged


Placed on Probation

Securely Confined


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

--


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?


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?


The new method also allows stage-specific comparisons

across jurisdictions


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).


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


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


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:

Proposed Methods for Measuring Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

Documents

Transcript of Proposed Methods for Measuring Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)