Blog Post #7: Disproportionate Minority Confinement

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) refers to the problem of overrepresentation of minority youth at different stages in the juvenile justice system [1]. The concept of DMC has been expanded in recent years to include disproportionate contact as well as confinement. DMC exists in most states and at all decision points. It is greater for African Americans than Hispanics and is often greater in states where there are smaller minority populations [2]. Research in DMC has yielded varying results. In earlier studies, some found no effects, while others found either direct or indirect race effects during intake, detention, probation, and confinement. Recent research has focused on identifying effective strategies for reducing DMC and examining it in the context of race and gender, at multiple stages and inclusive of Blacks, Latino/as, and American Indians.

Several plausible explanations exist as to why DMC exists at several stages in juvenile justice. First, juvenile justice has always been a racialized system [3]. Feld (1999) cited race and the macrostructural transformation of cities as two societal-level factors important for understanding juvenile justice policies and practices. Specifically, Feld referred to the racial segregation in urban areas and the deindustrialization of cites that has occurred during the last few decades [4]. Feld (1999) stated, “As African Americans became urban Americans and the public attributed increases in crime primarily to urban Black youth, race and crime intersected to produce more punitive juvenile justice policies” [4]. Another explanation is that within a racialized system, law enforcement and others within juvenile justice hold stereotypical views of minority youth which often leads to differential treatment.

In 1988, Congress formerly addressed the DMC issue by amending the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974. Under the amendment, any state receiving federal funding via formula grants was required to determine whether DMC existed and, if it did, tackle the problem. Four years later Congress made DMC a core requirement of the JJDP Act, which mandated compliance as a condition of funding, One year earlier, in 1991, OJJDP began to assist states in addressing DMC issues [5]. OJJDP developed an equation for determining the extent of minority overrepresentation, which became known as the “DMC index.” The DMC index is a ratio of the percentage of the confined minority juvenile population divided by the percentage of minority juveniles in the general population. According to Leiber (2002), “OJJDP has adopted a judicious approach to implementation of DMC, which appears to follow the ‘spirit’ of the mandate and attempts to make inroads—‘to get something done’ rather than accomplishing ‘nothing at all’” [2]. OJJDP has developed a “problem-solving process” which involves several actions, including assigning organizational responsibility, identifying the extent to which DMC exists, assessing the reason for DMC if it exists, developing an intervention plan, evaluating the effectiveness of strategies to address DMC, and monitoring DMC trends over time [5].

Future efforts to reduce DMC will require federal, state, and local officials to continue to recognize the importance of this problem for youth, families, communities, and juvenile justice. One group helping to recognize the importance of DMC is the W. Haywood Burns Institute, which assists communities in developing strategies to reduce the number of minority youth in detention [6]. As Pope and Feyerherm (1990) suggested, the DMC problem and race effects will not end until structural and economic factors that contribute to youth involvement in delinquency are recognized and addressed [7]. Thus, future research on DMC should focus on these issues.

Sources:

[1] Snyder, M., & Sickmund, M. (2008). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

[2] Leiber, M. J. (2002). Disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) of youth: An analysis of state and federal efforts to address the issue. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 3-45.

[3] Ward, G. (2001). Color lines of social control: Juvenile justice administration in a racialized social system, 1825-2000. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

[4] Feld, B. (1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. New York: Oxford University Press.

[5] Devine, P., Coolbaugh, K., & Jenkins, S. (1998). Disproportionate minority confinement: Lessons from five states. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

[6] Bell, J. (2005). Solvable problem: Reducing the disproportionality of youths of color in juvenile detention facilities. Corrections Today, 67, 80-83.

[7] Pope, C. E., & Feyerherm, W. H. (1990). Minority status and juvenile justice processing: An assessment of the research literature, Parts I & II. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 22, 327-336 (Part I); 22, 527-542 (Part II).