Volume 16, No.4, November 2006

A Look at Disproportionate Minority Contact in Missouri

Contributors:
Maria Kaylen,
Anne Dannerbeck, Ph.D.,
Andrew Muriuki,
Shreya Bhandari, &
Jennifer Heineken, MU School of Social Work

The juvenile justice system in the United States has the dual goals of keeping citizens safe and rehabilitating delinquent youth. Those working in the system strive to attain these goals while maintaining a level of community trust. One issue that has been brought up countless times is Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) (Bilchik, 1999). DMC occurs when the proportion of minorities in contact with the juvenile justice system is different than their proportion in the general population. In other words, if the rate of minority youth in contact with the juvenile justice system is higher or lower than the rate of contact for Caucasian youth, DMC exists.

Disproportionate Minority Contact became a national initiative in 1988 when the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was re-authorized, requiring all states to address efforts to reduce DMC. When the initiative began, only disproportionate minority confinement was examined (Devine, Coolbaugh, Jenkins 1998). It was not until 2002 that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention expanded confinement to contact. The goal of this national initiative was to ensure equal and fair treatment of every youth in the juvenile justice system, regardless of race or ethnicity (Hsia, 2005).

Along with the rest of the country, Missouri began to address DMC in the 1980s. DMC is present in Missouri, with minority youth making up 18.5% of youth ages 10 to 17 but representing 37% of all commitments to the Division of Youth Services (Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Youth Services Annual Report: FY2004). Following federal guidelines, a statewide coordinator regularly sends reports to the federal government. Furthermore, Jackson County, St. Louis City, and St. Louis County currently have programs to address DMC.

With support from the U.S. Department of Justice and Missouri Department of Public Safety, a research team from the MU School of Social Work has spent the last few months studying DMC in Missouri. Not only are we analyzing whether or not DMC exists, we are also trying to figure out why it exists. Ultimately our goal is to work with the state and communities to reduce disproportionality. Since St. Louis and Kansas City have their own DMC initiatives, we did not include them in our study. In order to choose our study sample, we decided to look at counties in Missouri which have at least a five percent minority population. We added a few counties which did not meet that criteria for the general population, but did have at least a five percent minority youth population. Our final study count is 24 counties which are highlighted on the map in Figure 1.

In order to evaluate the level of DMC in each county, we used court processing data from 2004, given to us by the Division of Youth Services (DYS), to analyze rates of contact for racial/ethnic groups at various points in the justice system. Referring to Figure 2, rather than looking at individuals coming into contact at each point, we looked at numbers of incidences. Contact points begin with arrest, known in the juvenile system as taken into custody. The next point of contact is cases diverted. This decision is made by the juvenile officer as a way of keeping the youth out of the system. The next contact point is cases involving secure detention. This involves youth who are held in detention while awaiting their adjudication hearing, rather than being released to the custody of a parent or guardian. The next point of contact is cases petitioned. The juvenile officer has decided there is sufficient evidence to have an adjudication hearing for the youth. Cases resulting in delinquent findings are cases in which the judge has deemed the youth to have committed the offense. The final contact points which we analyzed were cases resulting in probation placement and cases resulting in confinement in secure juvenile correctional facilities, which refer to dispositions given by the judge.

To measure the amount of disproportionality at each point, we used a Relative Rate Index (RRI). At each contact point, a rate per 1000 youth is calculated for each racial/ethnic group. The rate per 1000 of each minority group is compared to the rate per 1000 of Caucasian youth. A rate of 1.00 shows proportionality. Overrepresentation is denoted by numbers greater than 1.00 while underrepresentation is denoted by numbers less than 1.00.

Looking at the range of RRIs in Table 1, there is overrepresentation and underrepresentation at each point. There are a number of explanations for this. First, some contact points are more desirable than others; therefore, overrepresentation is sometimes a good thing while at other times it is less attractive. For example, a youth would rather be placed on probation than be placed in confinement in a secure juvenile detention facility. A second example is that youth would rather be diverted than go through the system; therefore, it is interesting to note that the highest RRI at cases diverted is relatively low.

Another explanation for why minority youth are sometimes overrepresented and sometimes underrepresented is that some counties have low numbers of youth. For example, if one youth is constantly getting into trouble in a small community, the rate for that youth’s racial/ethnic group will seem much higher than if that youth were in a larger population.

Also interesting to note is how relatively low the highest RRI is at cases resulting in delinquent findings (1.15). If one looks at how high the RRIs go for arrest (7.80), the rate of those cases found to be delinquent is much lower(0.56 – 1.15). This disparity may imply that youth are being arrested for presumably breaking the law, but when it comes to being proven in court, these accusations are not being confirmed. It is also plausible that police in a given community may pick up youth, give them a stern lecture about behavior and take them home. These youth may never formally enter the justice system beyond that initial point of contact. Police may be doing a good job of keeping tabs without the need for further action.

Because so many plausible reasons could explain the contact patterns for a particular community, a very important component of this study is to interview judges, law enforcement officials, juvenile officers, treatment providers, and community members and to conduct focus groups with youth. Knowing that numbers only tell part of the story, we wanted to talk to people in each community to get a better understanding of why proportionality or disproportionality exists at different points of contact in each county.

While conducting the interviews, our research team was also analyzing secondary data in order to look at the community social climate and determine if it can help explain disproportionality in the justice system. We acquired secondary data on school discipline; racial profiling; abuse and neglect; and perceptions of parents, youth, and faculty about the school system.

Looking at the school discipline data (Table 2), in 17 counties, the rate of occurrence of school discipline incidents per 1000 youth is higher for minority than for Caucasian youth. In only seven of the 24 counties was the rate higher for Caucasian youth than for minority youth, and three of these counties (McDonald, Greene, and Sullivan) had relatively similar rates.

These secondary data, coupled with the court processing data and our interviews, will help us to better understand why different counties have different levels of disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile justice system. The next phase of our project involves conducting four one-day workshops throughout the state. We will invite members of the juvenile justice system as well as members of the community to these workshops. After presenting our findings, we will strategize with the participants to develop solutions to DMC.

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 1

Figure 2

References

Bilchik, S. (1999). Minorities in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Devine, P., Coolbaugh, K., Jenkins, S. (1998). Disproportionate minority confinement: Lessons from Five States. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Hsia, H. A disproportionate minority contact chronology: 1988 to date. U.S. Dept. of Justice, www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dmc/about/chronology.html

View this issue in Adobe Acrobat Format (146KB)