Resear Research Summary ch Summary

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJ DP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

A Publication of the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

M inorities and the

Juvenile Justice System
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies

how delinquency develops and the best methods

for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and

analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice

system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides juvenile justice training and technical assistance to Federal, State, and local governments; law

enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel;

and private agencies, educational institutions, and

community organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to replicate tested approaches to

delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in

such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders,

community-based sanctions, and the disproportionate

representation of minorities in the juvenile justice

system.

State Relations and Assistance Division supports

collaborative efforts by States to carry out the mandates of the JJDP Act by providing formula grant

funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to

States, local governments, and private agencies;

and monitoring State compliance with the JJDP Act.

Information Dissemination and Planning Unit

informs individuals and organizations of OJJDP

initiatives; disseminates information on juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and missing children;

and coordinates program planning efforts within

OJJDP. The unit’s activities include publishing research and statistical reports, bulletins, and other

documents, as well as overseeing the operations of

the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes interagency cooperation and coordination

among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the

area of juvenile justice. The program primarily carries

out this responsibility through the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an

independent body within the executive branch that

was established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

Missing and Exploited Children Program seeks to

promote effective policies and procedures for addressing the problem of missing and exploited children.

Established by the Missing Children’s Assistance Act

of 1984, the program provides funds for a variety of

activities to support and coordinate a network of resources such as the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children; training and technical assistance

to a network of 43 State clearinghouses, nonprofit

organizations, law enforcement personnel, and attorneys; and research and demonstration programs.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415, as

amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is to

provide National leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice

system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by

seven components within OJJDP, described below.

OJJDP provides leadership, direction, and resources to the juvenile justice community to help prevent and

control delinquency throughout the country.
Minorities and the

Juvenile Justice System

Research Summary

Carl E. Pope William Feyerherm

Criminal Justice Program Regional Research Institute

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Portland State University

Second Printing

July 1995

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

This report was prepared under grant number 87–JN–CX–0014 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.
iii

Since the publication of this document in December 1993, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has continued its work in addressing

the disproportionate rate with which juveniles from racial or ethnic minorities

become involved in the juvenile justice system. National data sources, research

studies, and individual State analysis over the past 2 years have documented the

fact that minority offenders are also overrepresented in secure facilities across the

country. While minority juveniles make up 32 percent of the juvenile population,

the most recent Children in Custody Census shows an increase in the percentage of

minority juveniles in secure detention and correctional facilities from 53 to 63

percent in the 6-year period from 1987 to 1993.

While the research literature is far from conclusive with regard to the effect that

race or ethnicity may play in influencing the differences in the handling of minority

youth within the juvenile justice system, it does suggest that racial or ethnic status

may be a factor that influences decisions in certain jurisdictions, at particular

decision points, during certain time periods, and in response to specific behaviors.

In its continuing work in this area of focus, OJJDP followed the development of

this Research Summary with a demonstration initiative entitled Disproportionate

Minority Confinement (DMC) that documented a variety of approaches for assessing the minority confinement issue, as well as model programs and strategies for

addressing the problem. Five pilot sites (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina,

and Oregon), the technical assistance providers (Portland State University and

Community Research Associates), and the national evaluator (Caliber Associates)

participated in the program.

The DMC activity in each of the five States has had a range of effects on the

juvenile justice system within those States. While it is too early to determine the

overall effect on overrepresentation, the strategies developed and implemented by

the participating States and captured by the researchers and technical assistance

providers will have a significant impact on the handling of minority youth in the

juvenile justice system. Ultimately, it will result in a wide range of alternatives and

services designed to reduce disproportionate minority representation.

The final products and techniques developed and documented in the demonstration

sites, the manuals created by the technical assistance providers, and the findings of

the national evaluator will provide detailed information on this critical topic.

It is my hope that this Research Summary and the forthcoming information reflecting the lessons learned from our efforts in the DMC area will serve as valuable

tools for ensuring an equitable juvenile justice system for our Nation.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Foreword
v

Table of Contents

Foreword.........................................................................................................iii

Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

Literature analysis ........................................................................................... 1

Program initiatives .......................................................................................... 3

Secondary data analysis .................................................................................. 4

Proposed analytic model ............................................................................. 5

A second analytic model ............................................................................. 7

Application of the model ............................................................................ 8

The research and policy agenda........................................................... 9

Research guidelines ......................................................................................... 9

The problem of aggregation and disaggregation ........................................ 9

Multiple decision points............................................................................ 10

Quantitative vs. qualitative approaches .................................................... 10

Police and correctional processing ........................................................... 10

Multivariate models and indirect effects .................................................. 10

Organizational characteristics ................................................................... 11

Identification of minority groups .............................................................. 11

Family background ................................................................................... 11

Jurisdictional differences .......................................................................... 11

Sample selection bias ................................................................................ 12

Policy guidelines ........................................................................................... 12

Postscript ....................................................................................................... 13

Policy background .................................................................................... 13

Current research ........................................................................................ 14

References .................................................................................................... 16
1

Introduction

This report concludes a 15-month research project examining the role that

minority status (African American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native

American) plays in the processing of youth by the juvenile justice system.

The research encompassed three major tasks. The first included a review and

summary of existing research examining minority status and juvenile processing. The second task required developing a strategy for identifying existing

programs and policies that may have dealt with differential processing of

minority youth. Finally, a number of preexisting data bases were examined in

order to identify methodological problems associated with previous work in this

area and to aid in understanding the dynamics of juvenile processing. Based on

the results of these tasks, we developed policy and program recommendations

to address the issue of disproportionate involvement of minorities in the juvenile justice system, and we proposed an agenda for future research.

This report focuses on the official processing of minority youth and does not

deal with the conditions that can lead minority youth into contact with the

juvenile justice system. Disproportionate representation may be accounted for

by some combination of selection bias on the part of the juvenile justice system

and the nature and volume of offenses committed by minority youth. In the

latter case, structural and economic factors associated with the urban underclass

may result in an increase in the type and number of crimes committed by

youthful offenders. Thus, differential involvement in youth crime may, in part,

account for the increasing number of minorities coming into contact with the

juvenile justice system. However, differential involvement in crime is a different issue from what happens to youthful offenders once they enter the juvenile

justice system.

Literature analysis

In the last three decades, a body of literature has accumulated which focuses on

the problem of selection bias in juvenile justice systems. Much of this literature

suggests that processing decisions in many State and local juvenile justice

systems are not racially neutral: Minority youth are more likely than majority

youth to become involved in the system. The effects of race may be felt at

various decision points, they may be direct or indirect, and they may accumulate as youth continue through the system (Pope 1984; Pope and Feyerherm

1990).

Thus, the research literature raises concerns regarding the juvenile system

processing of minority youth and presents a number of issues that need to be

addressed. It is critically important to examine this body of research so that

strengths and weaknesses can be determined and gaps in our knowledge base be

identified. Although racial effects on the adult criminal justice system have

undergone thorough review, no one has yet applied rigorous methodology to

inquiring just what effect minority status has on juvenile justice.

he effects of race

may be felt at various

decision points, they

may be direct or indirect, and they may

accumulate as youth

continue through the

system.

T
2

Efforts to identify research literature on the processing of minority youth in the

juvenile justice system centered on publications since 1969, and four data base

searches of criminal justice abstracts, sociological abstracts, the social science

citation index, and the legal resource index yielded more than 1,000 citations.

Relevant major journals included The Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency, Criminology, Crime and Delinquency, and Journal of Criminal

Justice. Professional society records identified more than 90 scholars who had

written on race and crime, and letters to each of them inquired about unpublished or ongoing research in this area.

This process identified about 250 potentially relevant articles. In many of them,

however, minority status was not a major focus of the analysis or specific

juvenile justice decision points were not included. The research staff selected

46 articles as most relevant,1

 and these constitute the core of the research. These

were among the most salient findings:2

■ Most of the literature suggests both direct and indirect race effects or a

mixed pattern—racial effects are present at some stages and not at others.

Roughly a third of the studies found no evidence of disparity. The

remaining studies found evidence that minorities were treated

disproportionately even after statistical controls were introduced. These,

however, divided about evenly between those that found an overall pattern

of disparity and those we call “mixed.” The mixed label can apply when a

study examines several decision points (such as intake decisions, detention,

and judicial sentence) and finds disparities at only some of those points. It

can also apply when a pattern of disparity is only apparent for certain types

of offenders or offenses (such as first offenses or personal offenses).

■ The studies that found evidence of selection bias are generally no less

sophisticated in methodology than those that found no such evidence. Their

data are of no less quality. There appears to be no relationship between the

rigor of the studies and the findings of disparity. Studies using sophisticated

analytic techniques such as log-linear analysis were no more or less likely

to find disparities. Recent analysis has become much more sophisticated in

its use of complex analytical techniques. Advanced techniques allow an

examination of direct as well as indirect race effects that show how

minority status may be linked to other case characteristics. For example,

most of the studies that use a multivariate design also examine the effects

of interaction between minority status and other case characteristics. The

use of random samples as opposed to total populations or the use of larger

aggregations of jurisdictions (such as statewide) did not appear to explain

the differences in findings.

■ When bias does exist, it can occur at any stage of juvenile processing. We

found studies in which disproportional treatment occurred at each of the

major decision points. Of course, fewer large-scale studies examined the

decision process of the police than that of any other major decisionmakers,

1

 In order to remain as objective as possible, the authors of this report excluded their own work

from the sample.

2

 The extracts that follow have been lightly edited from those appearing at the end of the

“Literature Analysis” chapter of the full report.
3

and those studies tended to examine police decisions made after the

decision to do something. A typical study examined the decision of police

to transport a juvenile to a detention facility as opposed to issuing an order

to appear at a later date.

■ In some instances, small racial differences accumulate and become more

pronounced as minority youth proceed further into the juvenile justice

system. In particular, our own analysis of statewide data from both

California and Florida illustrated this accumulation of disadvantages.

Differences between minority and majority offenders increased as youth

moved across various decision points.

■ Many studies that found no evidence of disparity or only mixed results

reached that finding by using control variables in a multivariate analysis.

One frequently used variable reflects the theme of family composition or

stability. Controlling for such variables appears typically to reduce the

difference in treatment received by majority and minority youth. However,

in a logical sense what these studies identified was the mechanism by which

majority and minority youth are distinguished. Thus, “family situation” may

in fact mean “race.” Even such “legally relevant” variables as prior arrests

may not be racially neutral. If, for example, police were initially more likely

to pick up and process African-American youth than white, it enhances race

differences within the system. The system needs to address whether these

types of variables ought to be used in juvenile justice system decisionmaking and whether they ought to produce the degree of difference between

majority and minority youth that they appear to produce. Finding a

statistical method of reducing the difference between majority and minority

youth is not enough. Instead we must address the propriety of using these

variables at all.

Examining these studies together with our own previous research (Pope and

Feyerherm 1990) suggests substantial support for stating that both direct and

indirect race effects operate within certain juvenile justice systems. Perhaps the

most interesting finding is the number of studies that report a race effect or a

mixed pattern. Literature reviews of the adult criminal justice system often

report that race effects are not common, but clearly this is not the case in the

juvenile justice system. Here, the evidence suggests that race effects (or at least

a mixed pattern) are more pronounced.

Program initiatives

The second phase of this project was to identify program initiatives or policies

across jurisdictions that addressed the question of equity or fairness in processing minority youth. The basic question here is, “Are there specific programs

targeted toward minority youth that attempt to reduce disproportionate representation or ensure that decisions regarding such youth are reached in an equitable

manner?” At this stage, the objective was to identify such programs or policies,

not to evaluate them.

Capturing such information involved a relatively straightforward methodology.

State Advisory Groups (SAG’s) are responsible for advising States and the

ne frequently

used variable reflects

the theme of family

stability. However,

“family situation” may

in fact mean “race.”

O
4

Federal Government on juvenile justice issues. The principal investigators for

this report participated at the national meeting of the advisory groups at Jackson, Mississippi, in May 1988. At that time, we explained our project and asked

for help in identifying program initiatives, following up with a request by mail.

Next, a letter asking for help in finding program initiatives went to chief probation officers in major metropolitan areas. A third mailing went to prosecutors in

the five largest metropolitan statistical areas of each State. Then letters and

phone calls went to such national organizations as the Urban League, National

Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Police Executive Research

Forum, Police Foundation, and International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Individuals such as academics, community organizers, and juvenile court judges

helped identify further contacts, and this “snowball sampling” continued until

further efforts appeared unpromising.

In one sense, the overall results were disappointing. The 33 responses received

represented 27 States without any programs specifically targeted to minorities

or toward ensuring equity in juvenile processing. A number of agencies sent

statistical reports, including profiles of youth processed. Other agencies described existing programs (such as projects Pay and Sprite in Wisconsin) that

did not specifically focus on minorities. A more consistent response said only

that since all youth were mandated to be treated equally, there were no programs specifically geared toward minority populations. A few States such as

Georgia, New Jersey, Missouri, and Florida had funded projects dealing with

minority overrepresentation, but for the most part, these were research projects

rather than action projects.

Secondary data analysis

Apparently very little had been done to develop specific policies about this

problem. One possible explanation was the lack of systematic information about

differences in processing minority and majority youth. No specific model for

information analysis existed to direct inquiry toward segments of the juvenile

justice system that might be the greatest contributors to disparity. This section

seeks to show how to address this problem using existing juvenile justice data

bases.

In the review of literature on the effects of race on juvenile justice processing,

a variety of conclusions may be drawn having direct implications for any

jurisdiction that may seek to engage in a self-analysis of its own processing to

determine the extent of disparities in its handling of minority juveniles. These

conclusions can be briefly cataloged as follows:

1. When disparity exists, it may occur at any decision point in the juvenile

justice system. Moreover, it may exist at wholly different points in different

jurisdictions.

2. Disparity may comprise either large differences in processing at some one

stage in the system, or more likely, a series of accumulations of relatively small

differences in processing, with a relatively large net effect.

isparity may

[mean] either large

differences at some

one stage or more

likely, a series of

relatively small differences with a relatively

large net effect.

D
5

3. Because each jurisdiction may set out many of its own specific rules and

practices, the search for disparity may require identifying jurisdictions that may

need more intense scrutiny. Each locality, in essence, has its own version of the

juvenile justice system and each behaves differently.

As a whole, these conclusions suggest an analytic strategy that considers the

total juvenile justice system, yet allows examination of its constituent parts to

permit identification of jurisdictions for more intense examination. Moreover,

the fluidity of the system suggests the need for an analytic model that can be

easily reexamined periodically.

Proposed analytic model

Analysis meeting these criteria will first require a simplified model of the

juvenile justice system. The existing multiplicity of options and decision points

may obscure the basic operations and make it impossible to observe patterns of

decisionmaking. To simplify, look at the juvenile justice system as a series of

decisions (usually dichotomous). For example, segments of the juvenile justice

system may be considered thus:

1. A decision to arrest a juvenile or to order the juvenile to appear in the

juvenile court for intake processing.

2. An intake decision to handle the case at intake or to process it further.

3. A decision to remove the juvenile from his or her current residence during

processing (for example, detention or shelter home care) as opposed to allowing

the current residential arrangements to continue.

4. A decision to file a formal petition of delinquency or engage in other formal

action (such as waiver) as opposed to seeking informal resolution.

5. A decision to resolve the case by one of several dispositions, including

informal probation, formal probation, or custody transfer.

Figure 1: Racial Composition of Population at Stages in the Juvenile

 Justice System, Scenario 1

White African American Hispanic Other

Arrest Intake Detention Probation Incarceration

20

10

70%

60

50

40

30
6

The simplest analytic strategy shows the relationship of these decisions by

comparing the proportions of minority and majority youth receiving various

types of treatment. One can construct alternative scenarios such as those presented in figures 1 through 3.

In this hypothetical set of information, one then compares the proportions of

minority youth arrested with the proportion whose cases are resolved at intake

or the proportions detained. In the first figure, the hypothetical example shows

that the proportion of minority youth detained, placed on probation, and incarcerated is clearly very stable as one progresses from the beginning of the system

toward incarceration. A jurisdiction with such results would reasonably conclude that there is little evidence of disproportionate processing.

In the second figure the data portray a situation in which the proportion of

minority youth dramatically increases between arrest and intake, then remains

relatively constant. In this situation, clearly the major focus of attention would

be to examine the decisionmaking processes in the intake procedure. Intake

Figure 2: Racial Composition of Population at Stages in the Juvenile

 Justice System, Scenario 2

20

40

60%

Arrest Intake Detention Probation Incarceration

10

30

50

White African American Hispanic Other

Figure 3: Racial Composition of Population at Stages in the Juvenile

 Justice System, Scenario 3

20

40

60%

Arrest Intake Detention Probation Incarceration

White African American Hispanic Other

10

30

50
7

Figure 4: Sample Decision-Tree Model

Intake Referral Detention Petition End State

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

would probably be the focus of whatever intervention took place to reduce

disparity, whether to change policy, procedures, personnel training, or something else. Of course after this intervention, it would be important to reexamine

that jurisdiction to ensure that disparate processing had not shifted to another

decision point.

In the third figure, the hypothetical data portray a somewhat different pattern,

leading to different conclusions. In this instance, the proportion of minority

youth steadily increases at each stage of the juvenile justice system. None of

the increases is substantially larger than any of the others, suggesting that there

is no single point at which efforts to reduce disparities might begin. In essence

this figure reflects the process of accumulated disadvantages noted earlier. A

jurisdiction obtaining such results would be led into a detailed review of

decision processes at each stage of the juvenile justice system.

The model in figures 1 through 3, however, presents several problems. First, the

model does not address the odds of transition from one stage to another in the

juvenile justice system. Moreover, it does not allow consideration of the effects

of one decision process on later decisions. The model, however, may be used

with either computer-based data or with tallies of activity at each stage.

A second analytic model

An analytic model that goes beyond the first and resolves many of the problems

associated with it is a branching network or decision-tree model. The operations

of such a model presume the existence of transactional data and a simplified

view of the juvenile justice system. Inasmuch as most juvenile justice data bases

begin with the second stage described above (that is, excluding arrest), we may

show the relationships of the next three decision points as a series of branches

like those in figure 4.
8

Here we have not only described all the possible decision combinations, but we

have also created a mechanism by which we can summarize the operation of the

system in general. The column labeled “End State” contains eight mutually

exclusive categories. Taken together, these contain all of the information

describing the operation and interrelationship of these three decision points.

This model may be used in two very different but useful ways with regard to

considering disparities in processing. First, we may examine the probability of

moving from one condition into the next. For example, given that a juvenile is

referred out of intake and is removed from the current living arrangements

(detained), we can calculate the probability that a petition will be filed in this

case. This probability may be quite different from that in the case of a juvenile

who is referred out of intake, but who is not placed in detention.

More important, we can calculate these probabilities separately for majority and

minority youth. A comparison of these probabilities may identify particular

combinations of decisions that are likely to disadvantage minority youth. These

obviously would be those decisions in which the probability of moving to the

next stage is most dissimilar for majority and minority youth.

The model presents us with another opportunity, however, aside from examining individual decision points. By focusing on the “end states,” we can determine the extent to which the system appears, overall, to operate differently for

majority and minority youth. This perspective allows us to address the accumulation of small disadvantages earlier addressed in conclusion 2. (See page 4.)

It is important to keep in mind, however, that this model has defects. Perhaps

the most serious of these is that the model simplifies potentially complex

decisions into discrete categories (preferably, again, dichotomies). For example,

removing juveniles from their current residential situations may put them in

secure detention, nonsecure detention, a crisis shelter, or placement with a

foster family or even a relative. Each of these has a somewhat different meaning, yet all of them involve at least temporary (and involuntary) changes in the

juveniles’ residences. This simplification is necessary in order to capture the

general direction of the set of juvenile justice decisions. The alternative is a

proliferation of categories at each stage that would render the model completely

useless.

This also implies that this model cannot really specify situations in which

discrimination definitely occurs, but rather can only suggest those situations.

It must then be used as an indicator of potential discrimination, rather than as

a final arbiter of its presence.

Application of the model

To illustrate the development and use of the model, we obtained two data sets

through the cooperation of the National Juvenile Court Data Archive (NJCDA).

The data sets came from California and Florida, both for calendar 1985. The

NJCDA staff recommended these data sets for several reasons, particularly the

quality of the data reported at the State level and the relatively high proportions

of minority youth in each State.3

his model cannot

really specify situations

in which discrimination

definitely occurs, but

rather can only suggest

those situations. It

must then be used as

an indicator of potential discrimination,

rather than as a final

arbiter.

T

3

 The choice of these States does not imply that they represent any greater or lesser level of

disparity in the treatment of minority youth, only that data were readily available.
9

Results of the analysis for both States underscored the following:

■ For both States, differences appear between minority and majority youth,

with minority youth generally receiving the more severe

dispositions.

■ The earlier stages (intake and detention) show more pronounced differences

than the latter stages (adjudication and disposition).

■ In neither State did disparities in the treatment of minority youth occur at

just one decision point. Rather, they display an accumulation of differences

in how cases are handled.

■ For both California and Florida, marked differences with regard to severity

of dispositions appear among the counties when compared to the overall

State pattern.4

The processing differences between minority and majority youth do not establish the existence of discrimination in the California and Florida juvenile justice

systems. Rather, the analysis points to disparities in outcome and serves as a

model for further investigation.

The research and policy agenda

Research guidelines

Given the earlier discussion of the research literature and the analysis of the

California and Florida juvenile justice systems, a number of issues can be

identified to guide future research on minorities in the juvenile justice system.

We write “guide” rather than “direct” because perfect research designs do not

exist and probably never will. In addition, the way juvenile justice agencies

compile information does not lend itself completely to social science-based

research. Critical pieces of information are sometimes missing, variables not

specified in detail, information not consistently reported. Given these “real

world” drawbacks, competent research is still possible while recognizing its

limitations. The issues identified below should help future researchers.

The problem of aggregation and disaggregation

Future research on minorities and juvenile processing must pay more

attention to the fact that race effects may be masked when information is

combined on a statewide or county basis.

The more our reporting systems aggregate (combine) data, from place to city to

county to State, the more likely that evidence of racial disparity will be lost or

hidden. Future research needs to pay attention to masking effects when dealing

with aggregated data of any sort. Researchers should examine the data as finely

as possible to determine the extent to which race effects are present. If this is

not possible, researchers should recognize the limitations of the findings due to

possible masking effects.

he more our

reporting systems

aggregate (combine)

data, from place to

city to county to State,

the more likely that

evidence of racial

disparity will be lost or

hidden.

T

4

 Refer to the full report for a detailed presentation of the analysis and results.
10

Multiple decision points

Research efforts should focus on the juvenile justice system in its entirety

by examining multiple processing stages.

Research that does not examine multiple decision points in juvenile processing

may be suspect. At the very least, the findings have to be considered incomplete. Again, race effects at any one stage of processing may be canceled out or

enhanced at later stages. Only by examining multiple decision points can we

gain a more complete picture of how minority status does or does not influence

outcome decisions.

Quantitative vs. qualitative approaches

While not ignoring quantitative or statistical approaches, research should

also incorporate sound qualitative strategies (field and observational

studies) into its designs.

More qualitative approaches are needed in examining minority status and

juvenile justice processing. Researchers should go beyond a quantitative

analysis of case records and incorporate a qualitative approach. Ideally, a

triangulated research design will use a variety of quantitative and qualitative

approaches. Funding agencies should recognize the importance of this strategy

and encourage researchers to pursue it.

Police and correctional processing

While research focusing on juvenile court processing should continue to

be encouraged, more research should target police-juvenile encounters

and correctional processing.

Without downplaying the continued importance of research focusing on minority status and court processing, attention should also be given to the earlier and

later stages in the system. Police are the gatekeepers controlling who is funneled

into the juvenile courts. If such decisions are in any way racially biased, minority youth may be more at risk later during the correctional processing stages.

Similarly, differences in the correctional experiences of white and nonwhite

youth may have important implications. Thus, research designs focusing on the

police encounter and juvenile corrections should be stressed.

Multivariate models and indirect effects

Research examining data on minority youth and the juvenile process

should employ techniques that are capable of detecting direct, as well as

more subtle and indirect, race effects.

Research that fails to take into account proper control variables will remain

suspect. Fortunately, most current research focusing on minorities and juvenile

processing does employ multivariate models that accomplish this task. Researchers seem to be aware of the necessity to do so. Similarly, more research is

examining both direct and indirect race effects and acknowledging the fact that

race may interact with other case characteristics to the disadvantage of minority

youth. In sum, as a methodological strategy, multivariate models should be

encouraged, especially those that are sensitive to indirect effects.

olice are the gatekeepers controlling

who is funneled into

the juvenile courts.

If [their] decisions are

in any way racially

biased, minority youth

may be more at risk

later during the correctional processing.

P
11

Organizational characteristics

Research should be attentive to the organizational structure within

which juvenile justice decisions are reached, as well as environmental

influences in the communities of which they are a part.

While the importance of both internal and external environmental pressures

have been recognized, they have not been adequately researched. As our

examination of the research literature revealed, few studies have taken these

factors into account. Part of the problem lies in the difficulty of coding and

measuring organizational characteristics. Still, it is important that future research address such factors if we are to increase our understanding of how

decisions are made, especially those pertaining to race.

Identification of minority groups

Research should attempt to focus on minorities other than African

Americans.

By far, the majority of the research literature has targeted African-American

youth while virtually ignoring Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Native

American populations. While there are reasons for this, future research on

juvenile processing should include these additional groups. Also, researchers

should specify the operational definitions that lead to the identification of the

youth being studied.

Family background

Research should attempt to include information on the family

characteristics of those minority youth processed through the system.

When possible, information should be obtained on the family situation of those

minority and majority youth who are being processed through the juvenile

justice system. At a minimum, this should include whether the home is intact

and with whom the youth resides. Information should also be collected on

whether parents or guardians are willing or have the resources to provide

support. A body of research indicates that youth from single-parent homes,

especially if female-based, often face more severe dispositions than those from

intact homes. These homes may have fewer resources to provide needed support. Since African-American youth are proportionately more likely to reside in

single-parent homes, they may be more at risk than white youth. In other words,

family situation may be one mechanism through which race indirectly affects

outcome decisions.

Jurisdictional differences

Research should focus on rural and suburban jurisdictions as well as on

major metropolitan areas.

The bulk of research to date has examined race and juvenile processing in major

metropolitan areas. Although certain minority groups such as African Americans are more likely to be found among urban populations, this is not necessarily true for Hispanics, Native Americans, or African Americans living in the

South. Thus, future research should give some attention to the way in which

race may affect decisionmaking in rural and suburban settings.

outh from singleparent homes, especially if female-based,

often face more severe

dispositions. Since

African-American youth

are more likely to

reside in such homes,

they may be more at

risk than white youth.

Y
12

Sample selection bias

Research should take into account changes in sample size as cases are

processed through the system.

Within the juvenile justice system, sample sizes change as youth are screened

and filtered out at various processing stages. Thus, probabilities change at

different decision points. Most previous research has not taken into account

sample-attrition bias. One way of doing this is by computing a hazard rate, the

probability that each case is eliminated at various stages. Another possibility

would be to draw supplementary samples at later stages in the system. Future

research designs should take this into account, if possible, in order to avoid

misspecification.

Policy guidelines

The first steps in developing program initiatives to address differential processing would be to educate local communities and juvenile justice agencies (including police, courts, corrections, and other agencies) so that they understand

the nature of the problem, to develop a review and monitoring procedure, and

to conduct training exercises to reduce the potential for disparate treatment.

The following recommendations are offered for consideration:

1. As long as the juvenile justice system is fragmented and administered on a

local level, programs and policy cannot be applied across the board but must

be adapted to local communities. Therefore, States and local communities must

conduct a self-assessment to determine if there is a problem with racially

disproportionate representation and, if so, the exact nature of the problem.

The means to accomplish these tasks would include the following steps:

■ A systematic monitoring procedure should be developed to determine,

at regular intervals, the percentage of minority and majority youth being

processed at each stage of the juvenile justice system. As the literature

review suggests, disproportionate representation may be evident at some

stages but not at others. Therefore, it is important to target the decision

points at which major disparities occur.

■ A critical examination should be made of the local stages with the widest

gaps between minority and majority youth. This would include a detailed

evaluation of the criteria used in reaching those decision points in order

to determine the role that minority status plays, by itself or in conjunction

with other factors.

■ A research program should be implemented to test the race-bias hypothesis.

This model could be implemented at both the State and local levels.

2. If race bias is found to be a factor within any jurisdiction’s juvenile justice

system, programs should be implemented to eliminate it. Examples may include

the following program recommendations:

■ Consideration should be given to providing staff training to develop

sensitivity to the issues of race within the system. In addition, efforts should

be made to increase the representativeness of minority staff.

o long as the

juvenile justice system is fragmented and

administered on a

local level, programs

and policies cannot

be applied across the

board.

S
13

■ Workshops modeled after sentencing institutes in the adult system should

be held for juvenile court personnel (probation officers, judges, etc.). Such

workshops would promote discussion and evaluation of decisionmaking

with regard to minority youth.

■ Where disparities appear to exist with regard to individual decisionmakers

(such as those typically found in intake and detention), it may be feasible to

restructure the decisionmaking process to include multiple decisionmakers.

Thus, decisionmaking would not be the sole responsibility of one person,

but rather a “check and balance” system. It may then be possible to

establish a procedure for routine audit and review of these decisions to

ensure fairness.

■ Each jurisdiction should carefully evaluate the criteria used in reaching

decisions at any given stage. This is particularly important given the fact

that decisionmaking is much less constrained within the juvenile than the

adult criminal justice system. Consideration should be given to developing

guidelines to help decisionmakers reach outcome decisions. This is particularly important with regard to detention decisions, because previous

research consistently demonstrates the importance of early detention on

subsequent outcomes and that within many jurisdictions these decisions

are relatively unconstrained. Development of a guideline-based approach

to decisionmaking should be geared toward keeping youth from further

penetration into the system. In other words, guidelines should state that

youth may be detained only if they meet very specific criteria.

Postscript

While a draft of this report was completed in October 1989, comments and

suggestions from outside reviewers, as requested by OJJDP, were received

in February 1991. We then began making the final revisions for this report.

Because of time pressures for publication and numerous requests for the final

document, OJJDP and the principal investigators decided not to update the

research and analyses or make any major substantive changes. We are aware,

however, of additional research since this report was made final. On review,

we believe this new research does not change the earlier findings and recommendations in any substantive manner. Moreover, we believe that the most

recent research demonstrates that minority status does make a difference in

outcome decisions and documents the need for more attention to this critical

issue. In future publications we will address this additional body of literature.

The following is a discussion of policy issues and research findings regarding

minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system.

Policy background

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended in

1988, directed States that sought juvenile justice formula grants to address the

overrepresentation of minority youth incarcerated within the juvenile justice

system.5

 Regulations for complying with that requirement provided for two

phases. Under Phase I, States must demonstrate whether minority youth were

orkshops

modeled after

sentencing institutes

in the adult system

should be held for

juvenile court

personnel.

W

5

 JJDP Act § 223(a)(23).
14

overrepresented in secure facilities with regard to their population base. In event

of such overrepresentation, a State must take steps to account for it. Under

Phase II, this typically took the form of examining additional stages in the

juvenile process (that is, intake, detention, adjudication, and disposition), which

often involved additional data collection.

To date, three States (Florida, Georgia, and Missouri) have completed research

projects, thus complying with Phase II requirements. Together these projects

lend further support to the argument that minority status does make a difference

within the juvenile justice system.

Current research

Bishop and Frazier (1990) used statewide data over a 3-year period to examine

case processing through Florida’s juvenile justice system. Their analysis

revealed that race (if nonwhite) did make a difference with regard to outcome

decisions. According to Bishop and Frazier (1990, 3):

Nonwhite juveniles processed for delinquency offenses in 1987 received

more severe (i.e., more formal and/or more restrictive) dispositions than

their white counterparts at several stages of juvenile processing. Specifically,

we found that when juvenile offenders were alike in terms of age, gender,

seriousness of the offense which prompted the current referral, and seriousness of their prior records, the probability of receiving the harshest disposition available at each of several processing stages was higher for nonwhite

than for white youth.

These disparities were found to exist for petition, secure detention, commitment

to an institution, and transfers to adult court.

A second stage of this study included a telephone survey with a random sample

of juvenile justice decisionmakers (e.g., intake workers, judges, and the like).

Interestingly, most respondents thought that race did make a difference within

Florida’s juvenile justice system. Responses indicated that race differences were

tied to the lack of social and economic resources as well as prejudicial attitudes

within the system (Bishop and Frazier 1990, 5). Among the policy recommendations of this project, the need was cited to establish clearer criteria to guide

decisionmaking and to provide cultural diversity training. One of the more

controversial recommendations centered on the lack of resources available to

minority youth. In essence, the recommendation was that economic and family

situation (e.g., whether the family is able or willing to provide support) should

not have a negative impact on nonwhite youth.

Lockhart et al. (1990) examined racial disparity within Georgia’s juvenile

justice system. With 1988 as the base year, this study analyzed juvenile case

records across Georgia’s 159 counties. In addition, survey data were obtained

through mailed questionnaires sent to court workers and juvenile court judges.

Analysis of the case records revealed that a major determinant of outcome was

the severity of the current charge and the extent of prior contact with the

juvenile justice system. Compared to white youth, African-American youth

tended to have more prior contact and to be arrested for more severe offenses.

hen juvenile

offenders were alike

in terms of age,

gender, and

seriousness of the

offense and their

prior records,

the probability of

receiving the harshest

disposition was higher

for nonwhite than for

white youth.

—Bishop and Frazier, 1990.

W
15

As the authors note:

Thus, gross racial disparities do exist in Georgia’s juvenile justice system.

The fact that law enforcement officials have considerable discretion in the

determination of how many and what types of charges to place against an

alleged offender complicates the interpretation of such disparities. Black

youth either are committing more serious crimes at younger ages than are

white youth, or they are being charged with more serious crimes at younger

ages than are white youth. In the former instance, we have understandable

disparity. The second scenario constitutes racial discrimination. (Lockhart

et al. 1990, 10).

These results point to the possibility that offense and prior record are not legally

neutral factors. If bias influences these decisions, then race differences will be

accentuated throughout the system.

Finally, Kempf, Decker, and Bing (1990) examined the processing of minority

youth through the Missouri juvenile justice system. This study examined

processing differences between African-American and white youth across eight

juvenile circuit courts with varying degrees of urbanization. Results in the urban

courts demonstrated that, all else being equal, African-American youth were

more likely than their white counterparts to be held in detention and were also

more likely to be referred for felony offenses. Parental influences were also

found to affect outcome decisions such as parental willingness to provide

support and whether the youth resided in an intact home. For rural courts,

however, African Americans received more severe outcomes at the disposition

stage in that they were more likely than white youth to be placed out of the

home. As Kempf, Decker, and Bing note (1990, 18):

As shown in this study, race and gender biases do exist within juvenile

justice processing in Missouri. They are less obvious than the glaring rural

and urban differences, but they are no less important. Evidence exists that

decision processes are systematically disadvantaging youths who are either

Black, female, or both. They receive harsher treatment at detention, have

more petitions filed “on their behalf,” and are more often removed from their

family and friends at disposition.

Perhaps one of the major findings of the Missouri study is the difference

between the urban and rural courts. In essence, two different types of juvenile

courts operate in Missouri—a legalistic court in urban areas and a traditional

pre-Gault model in rural areas—each of which provides differential treatment

that places African-American youth at greater risk.

Thus, recent research findings from Missouri, Georgia, and Florida again

demonstrate that there are problems with the juvenile justice system and the

manner in which it processes minority youth. Currently, a number of other

States (Michigan, Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, and Iowa) are in various

stages of research in addressing issues pertaining to minorities and the juvenile

justice system, and these reports will be forthcoming.

vidence exists

that decision processes

are systematically

disadvantaging youths

who are either Black,

female, or both.

—Kempf, Decker, and Bing,

 1990.

E
16

References

Bishop, D.M., and C.E. Frazier, 1990. A study of race and juvenile processing

in Florida. A report submitted to the Florida Supreme Court Racial and Ethnic

Bias Study Commission.

Kempf, K.L., S.H. Decker, and R.L. Bing, 1990. An analysis of apparent

disparities in the handling of black youth within Missouri’s juvenile justice

system. Department of Administration of Justice, University of Missouri–

St. Louis.

Lockhart, L.L., P.D. Kurtz, R. Stutphen, and K. Gauger, 1990. Georgia’s

juvenile justice system: A retrospective investigation of racial disparity. Research report to the Georgia Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council: Part I of the

Racial Disparity Investigation. School of Social Work, University of Georgia.

Pope, C.E., and W. Feyerherm, 1990. “Minority status and juvenile justice

processing.” Criminal Justice Abstracts, 22(2), 327–336 (part I); 22(3),

527–542 (part II).

Pope, C.E., 1984. “Blacks and juvenile crime: A review.” In D.E. GeorgesAbeyie (ed.), The criminal justice system and blacks. Clark Boardman.
ore detailed information about this study and issues surrounding

minorities in the juvenile justice system is available through the Juvenile

Justice Clearinghouse.

The full 176-page report Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System

discusses in detail the study’s findings and its design and research

methodologies. The full report is available for a modest fee and is useful

for conducting further research, making planning decisions,

or drafting policy.

For your copy of the full report Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System,

complete and return the order form below with your payment of $11.50.

For further information on this or other juvenile

justice topics, call the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at

800–638–8736.

✂

To order copies of the full report Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System (NCJ 139556), please complete the following:

Payment: $11.50 (U.S.) $13.65 (Canada) $17.75 (Other International)

Total number of copies x Cost (each) = Total $

Enclosed is my personal check or money order (payable to Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse in U.S. funds, drawn on U.S. bank)

Please charge my credit card as follows

 MasterCard VISA Number

 Expiration Date / Signature

Bill to government purchase order number

(Include an additional $1.95 processing fee on your purchase order.)

Please Send My Copies to:

Name: Title:

Organization:

Street Address:

City: State:

ZIP: Telephone: ( )

Enclose payment and mail this order form to Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, Department F, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850.

Orders may also be placed by calling the Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736.

Researchers

Planners

Policymakers

M
Publications From OJJDP

The following OJJDP publications are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. To obtain copies, call or write:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849

800–638–8736

Internet Address:

look@ncjrs.aspensys.com

Most OJJDP publications are available free

of charge from the Clearinghouse; requests

for more than 10 documents or those from

individuals outside the United States require

payment for postage and handling. To obtain

information on payment procedures or to

speak to a juvenile justice information specialist about additional services offered, contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7p.m., e.t.

Delinquency Prevention

Delinquency Prevention Works (Program

Summary). 1995, NCJ 155006 (76 pp.).

Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A

Policymaker’s Guide. 1994, NCJ 140517

(65 pp.).

Family Strengthening in Preventing Delinquency—A Literature Review. 1994,

NCJ 150222 (76 pp.), $13.00.

Matrix of Community-Based Initiatives

(Program Summary). 1995, NCJ 154816

(51 pp.).

OJJDP and Boys and Girls Clubs of

America: Public Housing and High-Risk

Youth. 1991, NCJ 128412 (5 pp.).

Strengthening America’s Families: Promising

Parenting Strategies for Delinquency Prevention. 1993, NCJ 140781 (105 pp.), $9.15.

Missing and Exploited Children

The Compendium of the North American

Symposium on International Child Abduction:

How To Handle International Child Abduction

Cases. 1993, NCJ 148137 (928 pp.), $17.50.

Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and

Thrownaway Children in America, First Report: Numbers and Characteristics, National

Incidence Studies (Full Report). 1990,

NCJ 123668 (251 pp.), $14.40.

Missing Children: Found Facts. 1990,

NCJ 130916 (4 pp.).

Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of

Parentally Abducted Children. 1994,

NCJ 143458 (21 pp.).

Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of

Parentally Abducted Children (Full Report).

1993, NCJ 144535 (877 pp.), $22.80.

Parental Abductors: Four Interviews (Video).

1993, NCJ 147866 (43 min.), $12.50.

Law Enforcement

Drug Recognition Techniques: A Training

Program for Juvenile Justice Professionals. 1990, NCJ 128795 (4 pp.).

Innovative Law Enforcement Training Programs: Meeting State and Local Needs.

1991, NCJ 131735 (4 pp.).

Law Enforcement Custody of Juveniles

(Video). 1992, NCJ 137387 (31 min.),

$13.50.

Law Enforcement Policies and Practices

Regarding Missing Children and Homeless

Youth. 1993, NCJ 145644 (25 pp.).

Law Enforcement Policies and Practices

Regarding Missing Children and Homeless

Youth (Full Report). 1993, NCJ 143397

(217 pp.), $13.00.

Courts

The Child Victim as a Witness, Research

Report. 1994, NCJ 149172 (143 pp.).

Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice System: A Program Handbook.

1991, NCJ 139731 (282 pp.), $15.00.

How Juveniles Get to Criminal Court. 1994,

NCJ 150309 (5 pp.).

Juvenile Court Property Cases. 1990,

NCJ 125625 (5 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1992. 1994,

NCJ 147487 (240 pp.).

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1992. 1994,

NCJ 150039 (11 pp.).

Gangs

Gang Suppression and Intervention:

An Assessment (Full Report). 1994,

NCJ 146494 (197 pp.), $15.00.

Gang Suppression and Intervention: Community Models. 1994, NCJ 148202 (26 pp.).

Gang Suppression and Intervention: Problem and Response. 1994, NCJ 149629

(21 pp.).

Rising Above Gangs and Drugs: How To

Start a Community Reclamation Project

(Training Manual). 1995, NCJ 133522

(264 pp.).

Restitution

Guide to Juvenile Restitution. 1985,

NCJ 098466 (162 pp.), $12.50.

Liability and Legal Issues in Juvenile Restitution. 1990, NCJ 115405 (24 pp.).

Victim-Offender Mediation in the Juvenile

Justice System. 1990, NCJ 120976 (16 pp.).

Corrections

American Probation and Parole

Association’s Drug Testing Guidelines and

Practices for Juvenile Probation and Parole

Agencies. 1992, NCJ 136450 (163 pp.).

Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. 1994,

NCJ 141873 (16 pp.).

Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation

Practice. 1991, NCJ 128218 (141 pp.).

A Resource Manual for Juvenile Detention

and Corrections: Effective and Innovative

Programs. 1995, NCJ 155285 (164 pp.),

$15.00.

Effective Practices in Juvenile Correctional

Education: A Study of the Literature and

Research 1980–1992. 1994, NCJ 150066

(194 pp.), $15.00.

Improving Literacy Skills of Juvenile Detainees. 1994, NCJ 150707 (5 pp.).

Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:

An Assessment (Full Report). 1994,

NCJ 144018 (195 pp.), $15.00.

Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:

A Community Care Model. 1994,

NCJ 147575 (20 pp.).

Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:

Policies and Procedures. 1994, NCJ 147712

(28 pp.).

Juvenile Correctional Education: A Time for

Change. 1994, NCJ 150309 (3 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1992 (Statistics

Report). 1995, NCJ 154168 (93 pp.).

Juvenile Intensive Supervision: An Assessment (Full Report). 1994, NCJ 150064

(89 pp.), $13.00.

Juvenile Intensive Supervision: Planning

Guide. 1994, NCJ 150065 (80 pp.).

Juveniles Taken Into Custody: Fiscal Year

1993 Report. 1993, NCJ 145746 (195 pp.).

National Survey of Reading Programs for

Incarcerated Juvenile Offenders. 1993,

NCJ 144017 (51 pp.). $6.75.

OJJDP: Conditions of Confinement Teleconference (Video). 1993, NCJ 147531

(90 min.), $14.00.

Public Juvenile Facilities: Children in Custody 1989. 1991, NCJ 127189 (10 pp.).

Reduced Recidivism and Increased Employment Opportunity Through Research-Based

Reading Instruction. 1993, NCJ 141324

(76 pp.), $7.70.

General Juvenile Justice

Balanced and Restorative Justice. 1994,

NCJ 149727 (16 pp.).

Breaking the Code (Video). 1993,

NCJ 146604 (83 min.), $20.65.

Bridging the Child Welfare and Juvenile

Justice Systems (JJ Bulletin). 1995,

NCJ 152155 (4 pp.).

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. 1993,

NCJ 143453 (46 pp.).

Gould-Wysinger Awards (1993): A Tradition

of Excellence. 1994, NCJ 146840 (6 pp.).

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders (Update on Statistics).

1995, NCJ 153681 (255 pp.).

Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected

Juvenile Samples. 1993, NCJ 145326

(11 pp.).

Innovative Community Partnerships: Working Together for Change. 1994, NCJ 146483

(32 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A Focus on

Violence (Statistics Summary). 1995,

NCJ 153570 (35 pp.).

Law-Related Education for Juvenile Justice

Settings. 1993, NCJ 147063 (173 pp.),

$13.20.

Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System.

1993, NCJ 145849 (18 pp.).

Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System

(Full Report). 1993, NCJ 139556 (176 pp.),

$11.50.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Brochure. 1993, NCJ 144527

(24 pp.).

Study of Tribal and Alaska Native Juvenile

Justice Systems. 1992, NCJ 148217

(208 pp.), $17.20.

Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse:

Initial Findings. 1994, NCJ 143454 (27 pp.).

Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse:

Technical Report and Appendices. 1993,

NCJ 146416 (400 pp.), $25.60.
Resear Research Summary ch Summary

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G-91

NCJ 145849