Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth

1
Equitable Treatment of Minority Youth

• 3rd State-wide 2006 DMC Report CardAugust 21,
  2008Arizona Supreme CourtCommission on
  Minorities
• David Redpath-AOC
• Carisa Dwyer-Governors Office
• Jesus J. Diaz-Pima County

2
About our Presentation

• Introductions
• Background on Report
• Major findings
• Efforts to Reduce DMC

3
Third Report Card

• Produced with Calendar 2006 Data
• Is comparable in methodology to the First Report
  Card
• Decision Points used as points in time for
  analysis
• Relative Rate Index used as major measurement
  tool

4
Decision Points

• The process of Juvenile Justice is reviewed at
  various points in time (Decision Points) to
  analyze juveniles penetration into the system
• Referral
• General rate of referral
• Brought to Detention or Not
• Detention Decisionbased on Brought to Detention
• Detained
• Released

5
Decision Points

• Informal or Formal Court Processing
• No Petition
• Diversion
• Petition Filed
• Direct Filing in Adult Court
• Post Petition Handling in Juvenile Court
• Adjudication
• Transfer to Adult Court
• Non Adjudication

6
Decision Points

• Disposition Options
• Penalty Only
• Probation
• If Probation
• Standard
• Intensive
• Commitment to Department of Juvenile Corrections

7
Relative Rate Index

• This analytical process is the most appropriate
  currently accepted practice to examine potential
  disparities in the treatment of juveniles of
  different racial characteristics
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
  Prevention champions the use of this methodology

8
(No Transcript)
9
RRIHow is it calculated

• First Decision PointReferral
• Create the Ratio For White Youth
• Number of Referrals for White Youth/
• Number of the White at Risk Youth
• Result is the baseline ratio of 11
• Using that baseline a comparison is made of the
  ratio of other racial groups to the White ratio

10
Relative Rate IndexWhat it is!

• It is a gauge, like a thermometer, that alerts
  you that something is wrong, but it does not tell
  you what it is.
• It is meant to be an warning signal as to
  possible inequitable treatment of youth based on
  racial characteristics
• It looks to the Ratio of youth being processed in
  a given way
• It looks at each Decision Point independently of
  the points that precede or follow it

11
Relative Rate IndexWhat it is NOT!

• It is not a measure of what processes are taking
  place but the impact of those actions
• It does not give the reasons for the inequity
• It does not mean racism is the reason for the
  differences at each Decision Point

12
Lets Calculate One!Arizona Example FY07

• Anglo Youth at risk 440,031
• Anglo Youth Referred 21,495
• Thus Anglo Rate of Referral is 21,495/440,031
  .049
• African American Youth 39,973
• African American Youth referred 3,698
• African American Rate of Referral is
  3,698/39,973.093
• RRI is the ratio of the rates .093/.0491.9
• RRI of 1.9 indicates that African Americans were
  referred at a rate almost twice that as white
  youth.
• -Numbers drawn from page 5 of Report Card

13
Relative Rate IndexWhat it is good for!

• The larger the difference in the ratio, the more
  potential there is that problems exist in the
  system that will create disproportionate
  treatment based on race
• The larger the difference in the ratio, the more
  demand there should be to look at the root causes
  that seem to create the differences
• The more discretion allowed at each decision
  point seem to seem to drive larger RRIs.
• It can alert us to areas that need to be
  investigated further to reverse the
  over-representation of minority populations at
  the any part of the system of Juvenile Justice

14
Relative Rate Indexand Percentages!

• Percentages and RRI both look at the overall
  population
• Usually percentages in comparison are shown to
  the general population
• More difficult with percentages to see the impact
  at Decision Points
• RRI tries to be a clear and simple indicator of
  discrepancies
• RRI re-sets the at risk population to the group
  involved in the Decision Point not general
  population

15
EXAMPLE

• 50 of all Referrals were for Anglo youth
• 25 of all Referrals were for Hispanic youth
• 15 of all Referrals were for African American
  youth
• 10 of all Referrals were for Other youth
• Detained during a year 1,000 juveniles
• 45 Anglo -- 450 youth
• 30 Hispanic -- 300 youth
• 20 African American -- 200 youth
• 5 Other -- 50 youth
• Generally appears to be equitable
• Does anyone notice a problem?

16
Relative Rate Indexand Percentages!

• What would the RRI be?
• Hispanic 1.33
• African American 1.48
• Other 0.56
• Notice that African Americans were detained at a
  rate almost 1 and ½ times that of Anglo, is that
  an issue?
• White youth were detained nearly twice as much as
  the Other youth.
• Percentages can mask the issues and allow them to
  be ignored

17
The REAL Issue

• Do
• The Scales of Justice
• Balance Differently
• for
• Different Individuals

18
RRIAt Decision Point

• The RRI is recalculated at each decision point to
  create a new 11 Ratio and compared to other
  racial groups
• Larger discrepancies at any given Decision Point
  should point to more potential problems in
  processing youth within that decision point
• The cumulative effect of disproportionate
  treatment is thus seen as an additive result not
  a single point

19
RRIIs it Significant?

• Really two different questions
• Did this happen by chance
• Evaluation of the degree of
• over-representation
• The more deviation from 1.00 RRI the less
  probability there is that Chance created the
  disparity.
• The more deviation from 1.00 RRI the more concern
  should be shown to the degree of
  over-representation.
• It is up to jurisdictions us to examine why there
  is deviation and target interventions aimed at
  reducing this deviation.

20
Low RRIs

• Is a low RRI good?
• Not a yes or no answer
• A Low RRI on Diversion means that group
  receives less of that opportunity to resolve the
  issue at that level
• Again must ask the question
• What does this mean?

21
Low RRIs

• Be careful on the lower scores, they can mean
  more than they appear
• Upper and lower comparisonthese are the same
  values
• 1 same as 1
• 2 same as .5
• 3 same as .33
• 4 same as .25
• 5 same as .20

22
RRI Scores

• Again we must ask the question
• What does this mean in my situation?
• Each situation or Court may have very
• different reasons for the differences in
• RRI Scores

23
Summary of Findings

• Only 5.2 of Arizonas youths are referred to
  juvenile court.
• Only 19.7 of arrested youth are referred for
  detention.
• Of those referred for detention 79.6 are
  detained.
• Youth of color are brought to detention at higher
  rates.
• Youth of Color are more likely to be formally
  petitioned.
• No difference in adjudication for Anglo and youth
  of color.
• African American and Native youth less likely to
  assigned penalty only.
• Youth of color less likely to be assigned to be
  diverted.
• No difference in rates of youth assigned standard
  probation.

24
Summary of Findings

• African American Youth were
• Referred 2 times higher than their general
  population number.
• Referred to detention at higher rates.
• Committed to ADJC at higher rates.
• More likely to direct file in adult court than
  any of their peers. Had the highest RRI of all
  decision points.

25

Summary of Findings

• Hispanic Youth were
• Disproportionately referred for detention.
• Overrepresented in Transfer Hearings.
• Assigned to JIPS at higher rates.
• Direct filed at higher rates

26
Summary of Findings

• Native Youth were
• Much better off than other youth of color in the
  juvenile justice system.
• More likely to be released than their peers.
• Less likely to be
• Petitioned for Transfer Hearings
• Petitioned for delinquency
• Committed to ADJC
• Assigned to JIPS

27
Four Core Requirements of theJJDP Act

• The JJDP Act established four core requirements
  that States must comply with to receive grants
  under the JJDP Act
• Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)
  - 1974
• Sight and Sound Separation - Separation of
  juveniles from adults in institutions - 1974
• Jail Removal removal of juveniles from adult
  jails and lockups - 1980
• Reduction of Disproportionate Minority Contact
  (DMC) - 1988

28
DMC Requirements of the JJDP Act

• The DMC core requirement provides that States
  address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts
  and system improvement efforts designed to
  reduce, without establishing or requiring
  numerical standards or quotas, the
  disproportionate number of juvenile members of
  minority groups who come into contact with the
  juvenile justice system

29
Arizonas DMC Efforts

• AJJCs State DMC Plan that includes RRI Data and
  statewide DMC Reduction Efforts
• Statewide DMC Committee
• Establish benchmarks for data collection and
  analysis
• Target funding to Alternative to Detention
  programs
• Support jurisdictions implementing DMC-reduction
  efforts

30
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission

• Targeted Funding
• Alternatives to Detention Alternative services
  provided to a juvenile offender in the community
  as an alternative to incarceration
• Delinquency Prevention Programs or other
  initiatives designed to reduce the incidence of
  delinquent acts and directed to the general youth
  population thought to be at risk of becoming
  delinquent

31
Alternatives and Prevention

• Maricopa County
• Gateway Truancy Prevention Program
• City of Phoenixs PASS Initiative
• City of Tempes Strategies for Success
• CPLC Cultural Pride Linking Communities
• Alternatives Centers
• Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development
• New Leafs Mayfield Center and Juvenile
  Assessment Center Glendale
• Maricopa County DMC Committee

32
Alternatives and Prevention

• Pima County
• JDAI/DMC Initiative
• W. Haywood Burns Institute
• Annie E. Casey Juvenile Detention Alternative
  Initiative
• Open Inn Assessment/Alternative Center
• Evening Reception Alternative to Detention Center
  

33
Alternatives and Prevention

• Maricopa County Juvenile Court Community
  Services Unit
• City of Phoenix Human Services Truancy
  Prevention
• Free Arts of AZ Mentoring/Life Skills
• Greater Phoenix Youth at Risk Truancy
  Prevention
• Valley of the Sun YMCA Evening Reporting Center
• Pima County Juvenile Court Center Evening
  Reception Center
• Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development
  Alternatives for Runaway and Homeless Youth
• Hualapai Tribal Nation
• San Carlos Apache Tribe

34

• Thank you for your continued support and
  assistance in helping Arizona maintain compliance
  with the JJDP Act regulations.

35
Next Steps

• Utilization of this report
• Self-analysis of your Court
• As a tool for court administrators to identify
  possible decision points for further review
• Opportunity to establish partnerships with the
  community and other stakeholders
• Increase public trust and confidence in courts
  commitment to fair and equitable justice

36
Next Steps

• The Statewide DMC Committee will use the report
  to assist local jurisdictions to assess their
  level of DMC
• Assist local jurisdictions to establish
  appropriate strategies to reduce DMC

37
(No Transcript)
38

Questions and Comments
39

• Thank You