U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

DISPROPORTIONATE ISPROPORTIONATE

MINORITY INORITY

CONFINEMENT ONFINEMENT

2002 Update 2002 Update

Summary
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

810 Seventh Street NW. 

Washington, DC 20531 

John Ashcroft 

Attorney General 

Deborah J. Daniels 

Assistant Attorney General 

J. Robert Flores

Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

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. 
Disproportionate 

Minority Confinement 

2002 Update 

SUMMARY 

Heidi M. Hsia, Ph.D. 


Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention


George S. Bridges, Ph.D.


University of Washington


Rosalie McHale (retired)


Office of Juvenile Justice


Washington State Department of Social and Health Services


September 2004 

NCJ 201240 
This document was prepared under number OJP–2000–298–BF/01 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 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. 
Foreword 

Although minority youth account for about one-third of the U.S. juvenile population, 

they comprise two-thirds of the juvenile detention/corrections population. Disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) has far-reaching consequences not only for 

these young offenders but for society as a whole. The challenges are complex and not 

easily resolved, but progress is being made. 

The 1988 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) 

Act of 1974 authorized OJJDP to require states participating in the Formula Grants 

Program to address DMC in their state plans. The 1992 amendments to the Act elevated DMC to a core protection, tying future funding levels to compliance. With the 

training and technical assistance provided by OJJDP, states are determining the factors 

that contribute to DMC, designing and implementing strategies to address those 

factors, evaluating their efforts, and monitoring trends. 

This Summary provides an overview of recent DMC-related developments. It begins 

with a brief review of the data, followed by an outline of national efforts during the 

past 5 years to address this challenge. It then summarizes state activities, providing an 

update on DMC compliance, presenting findings from assessment studies, documenting efforts to reduce DMC, and identifying remaining challenges. 

As an example of a comprehensive approach to DMC, the Summary describes Washington State’s three-pronged approach—research, legislative reform, and programmatic 

and administrative initiatives at the state and county levels—which has brought some 

important reductions in disproportionality at most stages of the juvenile justice process. 

The JJDP Act of 2002 broadens the DMC initiative to encompass disproportionate 

minority contact at all decision points in the juvenile justice system. The 2002 Act 

also requires intervention strategies that include delinquency prevention and systems 

improvement components. Effectively addressing DMC in this new context will 

require long-term, coordinated efforts at the local, state, and federal levels. 

OJJDP looks forward to productive partnerships with all involved in these efforts. 

Working together, we can reduce the total number of juveniles entering the juvenile 

justice system, and for those who do, we can ensure equal treatment for every youth. 

J. Robert Flores

Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

iii 

Acknowledgments 

This Summary was prepared by Heidi M. Hsia, Ph.D., DMC Coordinator of OJJDP’s 

State Relations and Assistance Division; George S. Bridges, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Dean and Vice Provost, Undergraduate Education, University of Washington; and 

Rosalie McHale, Washington State’s Juvenile Justice Specialist from 1987 to 2001. 

Special thanks are due to countless individuals who have tirelessly worked on reducing 

DMC at the state and local levels and have generously shared their experiences and 

insights, which are described in this Summary. 

v 

Table of Contents 

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

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

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

National Efforts To Address DMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

OJJDP Assistance to States and Localities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

OJJDP Assistance to States and Localities Through Contractors/Grantees . . . . . . . . 5

Efforts by States To Address DMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Update on State Compliance With the DMC Core Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Findings of States’ DMC Assessment Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

State Actions To Reduce DMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Remaining Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Washington State’s Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Conducting Research Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Enacting Legislation To Ensure Policy and Procedure Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Developing and Sustaining Programmatic Initiatives at the


State and County Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Summary of the Evolution of Washington State’s DMC Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

DMC Trends in Washington State, 1990–99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Lessons Learned in Washington State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

vii 

1 

In the 1988 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), Congress mandated that the 

address disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) in their state plans. Specificalwas required to develop and implement plans to reduce the disproportionate representation (Section 223(a)(23)). 

In the 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act, DMC was elevated to a core protection for 

youth, with future funding eligibility tied to state compliance. In the past decade, numerous efforts to address DMC issues have emerged throughout the nation in response 

to this requirement. The most recent data available indicate that in 1997, minority 

youth constituted 34 percent of the juvenile population nationwide but represented 62 

percent of the juveniles detained and 67 percent of those committed to secure juvenile 

correctional facilities (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). In 1997, there were 7,400 new 

admissions of youth younger than 18 years old to adult prisons, and three out of four 

detention and correctional facilities increased between 1983 and 1997, although it 

decreased slightly between 1995 and 1997. 

This Summary attempts to represent the ways that disproportionality is manifested in 

the juvenile justice system. It is not intended to determine why or how certain juvenile populations are handled within the system. Only further research will uncover 

the causes of disproportionate minority confinement. Nevertheless, as the next two 

the federal government has increased the number and scope of resources (training, 

Introduction 

Minorities (%) 

(%) 

1983 32 53 56 

1991 32 65 69 

1995 32 68 68 

1997 34 62 67 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP, or the Office) require 

all states participating in the Formula Grants Program (Title II, Part B, of the Act) to 

ly, if the proportion of a given minority group of youth who were detained or confined 

in a state’s secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups 

exceeded the proportion that group represented in the general population, the state 

of these youth were members of a minority group (Poe-Yamagata and Jones, 2000). 

As shown in table 1, the overrepresentation of minority youth in secure juvenile 

chapters of this Summary show, progress is being made. Over the past several years, 

Total Youth 

Year Population Secure Detention Secure Correction 

Source: Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997, and Snyder and Sickmund, 1999. 

Table 1: Percent of Minority Youth in Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities in 

the United States for Selected Years From 1983 to 1997 
technical assistance, publications) that it makes available to the states. For their part, 

the states have taken significant steps to identify and assess where DMC occurs within 

their juvenile justice systems, implement plans to reduce DMC, enhance data colleccomprehensive, research-based approach to implement systems change and programs 

to reduce DMC. 

Overrepresentation of African American youth occurs at all stages of the juvenile justice system, and African American youth are overrepresented more than any other 

2 

■ 

in 1996–97 than in 1990–91. 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 

52% 

46% 

46% 

40% 

43% 

36% 

36% 

32% 

37% 

33% 

41% 

45% 

32% 

30% 

49% 

44% 

26% 

26% 

39% 

39% 

15% 

15% 

1996–97 1990–91

origin: 1990–1997 National Crime 

Victimization Survey Crime in the United States 

Juvenile Court Statistics 

OJJDP’s 

tion, and introduce state legislation to address the problem. In the final chapter, the 

authors present a case history of how one state, Washington, has taken a proactive, 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

Nationally, for most stages of juvenile justice system processing, the black proportion was smaller 

Cases judicially waived to criminal court 

Juveniles in residential placement 

Delinquency cases resulting in residential placement 

Adjudicated delinquency cases 

Petitioned delinquency cases 

Delinquency cases involving detention 

Delinquency cases in juvenile court 

Juvenile arrests for

 Violent Crime Index offenses 

All juvenile arrests 

Violent juvenile offenders reported by victims 

U.S. population ages 10–17 

Percent involving black juveniles 

Black Juveniles Are Overrepresented at All Stages of the Juvenile Justice System 

Compared With Their Proportion in the U.S. Population 

Source: Authors’ analysis of Bureau of the Census’ Estimates of the population of states by age, sex, race, and Hispanic 

[machine-readable data files] for 1991 and 1997, Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 

[machine-readable data files] for 1991 and 1996, FBI’s reports for 

1991 and 1997, OJJDP’s reports for 1991 and 1996, OJJDP’s Children in Custody Census of 

public and private juvenile detention, correctional, and shelter facilities 1990/91 [machine-readable data file], and 

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement 1997 [machine-readable data file]. 
Introduction 

minority group. In 1996–97, African American youth constituted about 15 percent of 

the nationwide juvenile population but represented 26 percent of all juveniles arrested, 

45 percent of those who were detained, and 40 percent of those in residential placement. (See the figure on page 2.) However, for all stages of juvenile justice processing, 

except arrest and delinquency cases involving detention, the African American proportion of the national totals was smaller in 1996–97 than in 1990–91. 

The number of Hispanic youth in the United States has increased faster than the number of youth of any other racial or ethnic group, growing from 9 percent of the juvenile 

population in 1980 to 16 percent in 2000 (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and 

Family Statistics, 2001). State studies show overrepresentation of Hispanic youth at 

arrest and other decision points in some states (DeJong and Jackson, 1998; OMNI 

Research and Training, 1998). Colorado is one example. Although Colorado does not 

have arrest data for Hispanics because they are included as white, the state’s data for 

July 1998 to June 1999 show that Hispanics were overrepresented at all later decision 

points in the juvenile justice system (Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department 

of Public Safety, 2000). Consistent with national data, the rate of overrepresentation 

in the Colorado juvenile justice system was lower for Hispanics than for African 

Americans. However, because of inconsistent categorizations of Hispanic youth in 

many state and national studies (i.e., some include Hispanics as “white” and some 

include them as “other”), Hispanic overrepresentation is likely to be underreported. 

The 1997 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) showed that American 

Indian youth ages 10–17 constituted 2 percent of youth in secure correctional facilities nationwide but were only 1 percent of the national youth population (Snyder and 

Sickmund, 1999). Although national data suggest that American Indian youth are 

placed in correctional facilities at twice the expected rate, state data give evidence of 

an even greater overrepresentation. For example, North Dakota’s 1998 data indicate 

that American Indian youth made up 8 percent of the state’s total juvenile population 

but accounted for 13 percent of arrests, 21 percent of the secure detention population, 

and 33 percent of secure correctional placements (Division of Juvenile Services, North 

Dakota Department of Corrections, 2000). Data at the county level are similar. Further, 

because most tribal agencies do not report arrest, referral, and detention-related data 

for inclusion in state statistics, the actual levels of Native American overrepresentation may be higher. 

Asians and Pacific Islanders are the least studied racial groups. Hawaii has classified 

Asians and Pacific Islanders as separate groups in its studies, but most studies conducted in other states combine data for Asians and Pacific Islanders. The 1997 CJRP 

showed that Asian youth constituted 4 percent of the national juvenile population 

but represented only 2 percent of youth in secure correction. The available state data 

for Asians alone or Asians and Pacific Islanders combined also show, for the most 

3 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

part, that these youth are underrepresented in the population of confined juveniles at 

the state and even at the county levels. In cities with high concentrations of Asian 

youth, however, indications of overrepresentation exist. For example, a study of juvenile transfers to adult court in California showed that, in 1996, the composition of Los 

Angeles County’s juvenile population ages 10–17 was 25 percent white, 51 percent 

Hispanic, 13 percent African American, and 11 percent Asian and other races (Males 

and Macallair, 2000). The Hispanic youth were 6 times more likely, the African American youth 12 times more likely, and the Asian/other youth 3 times more likely than 

the white youth to be found unfit for juvenile court and transferred to criminal court. 

Further, African American and Asian youth tried in criminal court were imprisoned 

more often than Hispanic or white youth. Taking into account the respective contribution of each group to the volume of California’s violence and felony arrests, statewide 

analyses in the same study indicated that Asian youth, like African American, Hispanic, 

and other minority youth, were significantly more likely to be sentenced to confinement by the California Youth Authority than were white youth arrested for the same 

category of offense. 

It should be noted that the data presented above only paint a picture of disproportionate representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. They, in and of 

themselves, do not yield evidence of racial bias nor do they explain with any degree of 

certainty the multitude of factors that contribute to disproportionality. Efforts to reduce 

DMC at this time are severely handicapped by most states’ lack of ability to consistently and comprehensively collect and analyze data generated throughout the juvenile justice system. Nevertheless, the present levels of minority overrepresentation within the 

juvenile justice system, both for minority juveniles as a whole and for individual racial/ 

ethnic groups, indicate that efforts to reduce DMC must first identify and then address 

all contributing factors. 

This Summary outlines the progress that has been made at the national level during 

the past 5 years to address DMC; provides an update on DMC efforts and achievements 

at the state level, including a summary of the status of state compliance with the DMC 

core protection requirements; and describes Washington State’s efforts to reduce DMC 

over the past 10 years as an example of a comprehensive, community-based systems 

change approach to the problem. Washington’s prevention and intervention efforts 

include afterschool programs, mentoring, and family strengthening and counseling. 

The Summary concludes with a look at the modifications to the DMC requirement 

contained in the JJDP Act of 2002 and OJJDP’s action steps in support of continuing 

efforts to reduce DMC. 

4 
5 

OJJDP responded to nearly 80 technical assistance requests from 1997 through 2002, 

46 of which were made during the last 2 years. In addition to technical assistance and 

consultation upon request, OJJDP updated instructions to the states for developing 

their DMC compliance plans and provided expanded and indepth DMC training for 

state DMC compliance, the Office trained its State Representatives in DMC issues 

and in the use of an updated DMC Compliance Determination Checklist. 

In March 2000, OJJDP published the second edition of the Disproportionate Minority 

(Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Manual 

Checklist and sample tools that may be adopted for use by the states. OJJDP also 

conducted training on how to use the Manual. 

DMC efforts, and completion of a library of state DMC reports—a central repository 

page and library of reports current as these resources have proven valuable to the field. 

in March 2002, invited 45 researchers in the social sciences to a meeting that presented 

an orientation to DMC research, from which a list of 22 interested and qualified 

By partnering with a variety of contractors and grantees, OJJDP provides training and 

technical assistance, research strategies, and tools for disseminating information that 

help states and localities in their efforts to reduce DMC. Examples of the partnerships 

OJJDP Assistance to States and Localities 

state personnel at regional training conferences and other training events. Moreover, 

to enable appropriate monitoring and use of a uniform methodology in determining 

Confinement Technical Assistance Manual 

Prevention, 2000), which has been widely distributed throughout the nation. The 

is user-friendly and provides information about lessons learned in the field 

and exemplary state and local efforts. It contains the Compliance Determination 

Other goals reached in recent years include development of a DMC page on OJJDP’s 

Web site, use of the compliance determination process to guide and enhance state 

for historical records of DMC efforts in each state. OJJDP has kept the DMC Web 

To expand the DMC research consultant pool for the use of states and localities, OJJDP, 

research consultants was developed. In August 2002, OJJDP also sponsored a DMC 

researchers’ focus group to help the Office develop a DMC research agenda. 

OJJDP Assistance to States and Localities Through 

Contractors/Grantees 

supported by OJJDP appear below. 

National Efforts To Address DMC 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

National DMC Training, Technical Assistance, and Information Dissemination 

Initiative 

Recognizing the need to foster the development, documentation, and nationwide dissemination of effective strategies to reduce DMC, OJJDP launched a long-term national 

training and technical assistance initiative through a cooperative agreement with a 

private provider, Research and Evaluation Associates (REA), in 1997. The goal of the 

initiative is to give states and localities broad-based knowledge about DMC and to 

develop practical and targeted tools to address the factors in their jurisdictions that 

contribute to it. 

The initiative began with an extensive review of DMC literature in academic journals 

and edited books from the 10 years preceding 1997, resulting in the publication of an 

OJJDP Bulletin (Pope, Lovell, and Hsia, 2002). REA then developed and field-tested 

training curriculums to increase awareness of DMC issues among juvenile justice personnel and key decisionmakers. Since October 2000, REA has coordinated and monitored intensive technical assistance to five states—Delaware, Kentucky, Massachusetts, 

New Mexico, and South Carolina. In October 2001, three more states—Alaska, California, and Tennessee—were added. REA has also established DMC listservs to facilitate the sharing of information and skills and has identified and trained approximately 

50 potential consultants to aid in the delivery of technical assistance on DMC-related 

issues. Recent activities include: 

■ Continued identification of experts who may respond to technical assistance 

requests from the states. 

■ A DMC training of trainers. 

■ A full DMC progress review of all states to identify state needs and formulate a 

training and technical assistance plan to address them. 

■ A planning meeting to restructure and refine the DMC intensive technical 

assistance process. 

Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center 

As a DMC technical assistance provider, the Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center (JJEC) 

assists OJJDP in building evaluation capacity in the states, especially as those efforts 

relate to projects and initiatives funded by the Title II, Part B, State Formula Grants 

Program. Through a survey and personal contact with state agency staff, JJEC has been 

assessing the level of need among states and localities for assistance in developing their 

evaluation capacity. The following activities are particularly important in the effort to 

reduce DMC: 

6 
National Efforts To Address DMC 

Publication development. JJEC is developing a publication entitled How To Use Data 

To Make More Informed Decisions About Dealing With DMC to help states explore why 

minority overrepresentation exists at various decision points in the juvenile justice 

system and select appropriate intervention(s) to reduce it. 

Short-term, state-specific consultation. JJEC helps states enhance their capacity to 

assess their DMC-related juvenile justice programs and initiatives and to incorporate 

evaluation into the program development and planning processes. For example, in 

response to a request for assistance from Idaho in 2002, JJEC provided state-level reports of DMC assessment and program implementation from several other states. The 

outcome was the development of a partnership between the Idaho Department of 

Juvenile Corrections and a university to conduct ongoing research and analysis regarding minorities in the Idaho juvenile justice system. 

Grants to develop evaluation partnerships. Through existing partnerships with state 

Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs), JJEC awarded grants to the Colorado, Illinois, and 

Iowa SACs in 2001. These grants enabled state and local juvenile justice agencies to 

form partnerships to assess their states’ initiatives to reduce DMC. Colorado studied 

selected juvenile diversion programs to better understand the extent to which minority overrepresentation exists. The study included a comparison of referral rates to successful termination rates for minority and nonminority youth. The work in Illinois 

focused on the development of a database to support annual county-level monitoring 

of DMC rates at multiple stages of the juvenile justice system. Iowa worked with a 

number of key juvenile justice system stakeholders to develop and maintain standardized reports that included racial categories for planning, evaluation, and monitoring 

purposes. Iowa also worked with state and local officials to increase their ability to use 

Iowa court information in their decisionmaking. 

Building Blocks for Youth Initiative 

The Building Blocks for Youth initiative (Building Blocks) is a partnership of organizations in the fields of law, justice, communications, and public policy. The partners in the 

initiative are the Youth Law Center (this grantee is the lead partner), the American 

Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center, the Justice Policy Institute, the Juvenile Law 

Center, Minorities in Law Enforcement, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and the Pretrial Services Resource Center. The primary goals of the Building 

Blocks initiative are to protect minority youth in the justice system and promote equitable and effective juvenile justice system policies. Building Blocks has obtained financial support from seven foundations, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and OJJDP. 

7 
8 

The Building Blocks initiative promotes an integrated five-pronged strategy to address 

DMC. The five strategies, each of which builds on the others, are as follows: 

■ Conducting new research. 

■ Analyzing decisionmaking in the system. 

■ Advocating for minority youth. 

■ Building constituencies for change. 

■ Developing communications strategies. 

Recent and planned activities for the four strategies supported by OJJDP are 1 

Conducting new research. Building Blocks has conducted a number of research projects and literature reviews on DMC and has published a number of documents on its 

findings. 

Analyzing decisionmaking in the system. This strategy focuses on decisionmaking at 

2 curinitiative also conducts site-based work to reduce overincarceration in Maryland and 

Louisiana, to reduce unnecessary transfers of youth to criminal court in Florida, and to 

Building constituencies for change. This strategy involves broad-based collaboration 

with national, state, and local organizations, policymakers, and other leaders concerned with civil rights, community development, and child welfare; the identificaconstituents. 

Developing communications strategies. The goal of this strategy is to develop and 

provide up-to-date, accurate, and useful information to constituent organizations, 

policymakers, and the public about issues related to DMC. Effective media outreach 

activities are based on the results of focus groups; relevant publications, policies, and 

legislation; national polls surveying public attitudes toward youth, crime, and race; 

and case histories of individual offenders. 

1OJJDP does not support providing direct advocacy for minority youth. 

2

overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

outlined below. 

various points of contact within the juvenile justice system, such as initial police contacts, detention, adjudication, and sentencing. The W. Haywood Burns Institute

rently carries out projects in Phoenix, AZ, Seattle, WA, and other locations. The 

reduce unnecessary and racially disparate school suspensions in Kentucky. 

tion of community leaders nationwide who can be spokespersons on DMC issues; 

and the dissemination of information about juvenile justice system reform to these 

The W. Haywood Burns Institute, located in San Francisco, CA, works with local jurisdictions to reduce minority 
9 

whether DMC is an issue in the state. When states determine that DMC exists, they 

are required to conduct an indepth examination of the treatment of both minority and 

nonminority youth at various decision points in the juvenile justice system and, where 

appropriate, to implement intervention strategies designed to reduce DMC. See “Sumon the compliance status among the jurisdictions participating in the Formula Grants 

review of FY 2002 state plan updates. 

A significant number of jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) have 

completed the identification and assessment phases, are implementing the intervention 

phase, and have submitted updated DMC data, demonstrating ongoing monitoring 

efforts. In addition to these activities, three of these jurisdictions continue to update 

their assessment studies and conduct evaluations of their intervention efforts. The 

other jurisdictions have engaged in various levels of DMC activities. 

The focus of state assessments is to determine why DMC exists in order to address it 

of public forums, interviews, mail surveys of juvenile justice and other related personnel, and interviews of minority juveniles and their families. Responses3 to an OJJDP 

survey of all states conducted in November 2000 yielded a national picture of the facspecific contributing factors and the extent of their influence varied within and across 

states, the most frequently identified factors were found in the following interrelated 

spheres: the juvenile justice system, the educational system, the socioeconomic condi3Information was obtained from 44 states: responses were received from 29 state Juvenile Justice Specialists, and OJJDP 

ing in the Formula Grants Program, and information was not available for four states. Puerto Rico is exempt from the 

DMC core requirement, and the other four territories are exempted from further DMC studies because they have 

determined that DMC does not exist in their facilities of confinement. 

Update on State Compliance With the DMC Core Requirement 

To participate in the JJDP Act Formula Grants Program, a state must first identify 

mary of State Compliance With the DMC Core Requirement” (page 10) for a report 

Program (48 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia), based on OJJDP’s 

Findings of States’ DMC Assessment Studies 

successfully. Assessments to gather information on contributing factors include quantitative research (analysis and tracking of case files) and qualitative research in the form 

tors contributing to DMC, as identified by the states’ assessment research, and of the 

activities and programs the states had designed to address those factors. Although the 

tions, and the family. 

Efforts by States To Address DMC 

State Representatives provided information on 15 states. Two states (South Dakota and Wyoming) are not participat­
10 

* 

* Mississippi 

Missouri 

† ‡ 

* 

‡ 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

Summary of State Compliance With the DMC Core Requirement 

The following summary of state compliance with the DMC core requirement, pursuant to 

Section 31.303(j) of the JJDP Formula Grants Regulation (28 C.F.R. Part 31), is based on 

FY 2002 Formula Grant applications as of December 2002. 

In addition to completing the identification and assessment phases in earlier years, 

three states continue to monitor their DMC trends each year, update their assessment 

studies, implement intervention strategies to address identified factors that contribute 

to DMC, and conduct evaluations of their DMC efforts: 

Colorado 

Pennsylvania 

Washington 

The District of Columbia and 20 states have completed the identification and assessment phases, are implementing the intervention phase, and also have submitted 

updated DMC data, demonstrating ongoing monitoring efforts: 

Alaska Idaho New York 

Arkansas Minnesota North Dakota 

California Oklahoma 

Connecticut Oregon 

Delaware Montana South Carolina

District of Columbia Nevada Tennessee 

Georgia New Jersey Virginia 

Four states have completed the identification and assessment phases, are implementing the intervention phase, and plan to update DMC identification data and/or assessment studies: 

Indiana 

Kansas 

Michigan 

New Mexico

One state has completed the identification phase, is implementing the intervention 

phase, and is conducting a formal assessment study. 

Alabama 

Four states have completed the identification phase, are implementing the intervention phase, and plan to conduct formal assessments: 

Louisiana 

North Carolina 

Ohio 

West Virginia 
11 

‡ 

‡ 

* 

† 

‡ 

Efforts by States To Address DMC 

Eleven states have completed the identification and assessment phases and are 

implementing the intervention phase: 

Arizona Iowa Texas 

Florida Maryland Utah 

Hawaii Massachusetts Wisconsin 

Illinois Nebraska 

One state became a participating state in the Formula Grants Program in 1999. 

It has completed the identification phase and is conducting an assessment study: 

Kentucky

Two states in which the minority juvenile population recently exceeded 1 percent of 

the total juvenile population, which requires them now to comply with the DMC 

requirement, have partially completed the identification phase: 

Maine 

Vermont 

Four territories have completed the identification phase, which revealed that minority 

juveniles were not being disproportionately detained: 

American Samoa 

Guam 

Northern Marianas 

Virgin Islands 

One territory has been exempted by the U.S. Census Bureau from reporting racial 

statistics and, therefore, is exempt from complying with the DMC requirement: 

Puerto Rico 

Two states are under a drawdown restriction of 25 percent of the FY 2002 Formula 

Grant allocation pending submission of required information: 

New Hampshire 

Rhode Island 

Two states did not participate in the FY 2002 Formula Grants Program: 

South Dakota 

Wyoming 

Began to receive intensive DMC technical assistance in January 2002 to further enhance DMC efforts. 

Received intensive DMC technical assistance from November 2000 to July 2001 to further enhance 

DMC efforts. 

Received intensive DMC technical assistance since November 2000 to further enhance their DMC efforts. 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

Juvenile Justice System 

Several factors within the juvenile justice system contribute to DMC: 

■ Racial stereotyping and cultural insensitivity: Eighteen states identified racial 

stereotyping and cultural insensitivity—both intentional and unintentional—on 

the part of the police and others in the juvenile justice system (e.g., juvenile court 

workers and judges) as important factors contributing to higher arrest rates, higher 

charging rates, and higher rates of detention and confinement of minority youth. 

The demeanor and attitude of minority youth can contribute to negative treatment 

and more severe disposition relative to their offenses. The belief that minority 

youth cannot benefit from treatment programs also leads to less frequent use of 

such options. 

■ Lack of alternatives to detention and incarceration: Eight states identified the lack 

of alternatives to detention and incarceration as a cause of the frequent use of confinement. In some states, detention centers are located in the state’s largest cities, 

where most minority populations reside. With a lack of alternatives to detention, 

nearby detention centers become “convenient” placements for urban minority youth. 

■ Misuse of discretionary authority in implementing laws and policies: Five states 

observed that laws and policies that increase juvenile justice professionals’ discretionary authority over youth contribute to harsher treatment of minority youth. One 

state notes that “bootstrapping” (the practice of stacking offenses on a single incident) is often practiced by police, probation officers, and school system personnel. 

■ Lack of culturally and linguistically appropriate services: Five states identified 

the lack of bicultural and bilingual staff and the use of English-only informational 

materials for the non-English-speaking population as contributing to minorities’ 

misunderstanding of services and court processes and their inability to navigate the 

system successfully. 

Educational System 

Ten states identified the lack of educational resources in schools in minority neighborhoods, the failure of schools to engage minority students and their families, the inability to prevent early and high rates of school dropout among minority students, and the 

concomitant failure of minority students and their families to participate fully in the 

educational system as factors contributing to early academic failure and early involvement in delinquency. 

12 
Efforts by States To Address DMC 

Socioeconomic Conditions 

Thirteen states identified poverty, substance abuse, few job opportunities, and high 

crime rates in predominantly minority neighborhoods as placing minority youth at 

higher risk for delinquent behaviors. Moreover, concerted law enforcement targeting 

of high-crime areas yields higher numbers of arrests and formal processing of minority 

youth. At the same time, these communities have fewer positive role models and 

fewer service programs that function as alternatives to confinement and/or support 

positive youth development. 

Three states identified the commission of more crime—and more serious crime—by 

minority youth as an important factor contributing to DMC. An assessment study in 

one of these states determined that between one-fourth and one-half of the racial 

disparity in confinement was due to racial differences in seriousness of the offenses 

and frequency of arrests. 

Family 

Eleven states found that a disproportionate number of youth in confinement came from 

low-income, single-parent households (female-headed households, in particular) and 

households headed by adults with multiple low-paying jobs or unsteady employment. 

Family disintegration, diminished traditional family values, parental substance abuse, 

and insufficient supervision contribute to delinquency development. Poverty reduces 

minority youths’ ability to access existing alternatives to detention and incarceration 

as well as competent legal counsel. One state found that minority youth were diverted 

from criminal prosecution at lower rates than nonminority youth and were less likely to 

appear at diversion hearings, to comply with diversion requirements, and to be diverted 

for subsequent offenses than nonminority youth in similar situations. Another state 

noted that, although preadjudication options were offered equally to minority youth 

and nonminority youth, the rate at which these options were revoked for technical 

violations was higher for minority youth. Given the multiple stressors and limitations 

experienced by many minority families, their relative inability to comply with the 

requirements of diversion programming is not surprising. 

State Actions To Reduce DMC 

The states that responded to OJJDP’s November 2000 survey have instituted a variety 

of activities and programs to address the contributing factors to DMC identified by 

their research. The most frequently adopted strategies were community-based prevention, intervention, and diversion programs (30 states) and cultural sensitivity training 

(20 states). These and other actions to reduce DMC are summarized below. 

13 
14 

Thirty states have funded prevention and intervention programs in communities with 

quent behaviors and place them at a disadvantage in navigating the juvenile justice 

system. Examples of the kinds of programs created are minority family advocate, probation advocate, parenting projects for Spanish-speaking parents, Hispanic case manfor American Indian families, and many afterschool and evening programs. 

In addition to creating prevention and intervention programs, several states increased 

their alternatives to detention and incarceration by instituting home detention, intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, emergency shelters, expedited programs to 

reduce inappropriate and unnecessary confinement, transition and aftercare services 

for African American males leaving secure correctional institutions, and many other 

similar programs. 

forcement, educational, juvenile justice, and human services systems. Some states have 

youth, four states have sought to increase the cultural diversity of their staff through 

recruitment and promotion practices. One of these states established minority internship programs. Five states have made efforts to improve their juvenile justice systems 

by developing informational materials in languages other than English, adding juvenile 

court probation staff in tribal juvenile courts, recruiting members of minority groups to 

serve on community accountability boards, providing better information to parents, and 

DMC.4 

Three states established local committees to monitor and track DMC at the local level 

and advocate for programs to reduce DMC. Six states have worked to enhance relationminority groups in planning and implementing programs for minority youth. In one 

4

In addition to these state conferences, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice holds a national DMC conference annually 

with OJJDP funding support. 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

Community-Based Prevention, Intervention, and Diversion Programs 

large minority concentrations. These most frequently used strategies address the factors 

in the families and communities of minority youth that predispose the youth to delinagers in elementary schools to increase school attendance, an Elder-Mentor Program 

Efforts To Increase Cultural Sensitivity, Cultural Competency, and Public 

Awareness of DMC Issues 

Twenty states have instituted cultural sensitivity training for personnel in the law endeveloped curriculums on cultural sensitivity and some have held conferences. To further assure cultural competency in the juvenile justice system’s response to minority 

reducing barriers to advocacy. Three states have held annual statewide conferences on 

Community Empowerment 

ships between the juvenile justice system and minority communities and have engaged 
Efforts by States To Address DMC 

state, for example, American Indian villages have initiated disposition of various misdemeanor offenses committed by local youth. 

Standardized Screening Instruments 

To counter subtle racial stereotyping and bias, seven states have adopted standardized 

screening instruments to achieve more objective decisionmaking. This includes using 

standardized risk and needs assessment classification systems, developing model intake 

screening guidelines, mandating prosecutorial standards, and employing standardized 

diagnostic tools. 

Strengthened State Leadership 

Twenty-one states have established DMC subcommittees as part of their State Advisory 

Groups. Several of these subcommittees are strong advocates for priority funding to 

reduce DMC. They strive to enhance public awareness of and focus on DMC issues, 

develop plans to reduce DMC, and monitor the implementation of these plans. To 

assure focused efforts, state agencies increasingly recognize the importance of establishing state DMC coordinator positions. As of 2002, 20 states have designated state 

DMC coordinators, an increase from 10 states in 2000. These coordinators, working 

in partnership with DMC subcommittees, can champion DMC issues; become a repository of DMC information, resources, and technical assistance; and facilitate sustained 

DMC efforts statewide. 

Continued Collection and Monitoring of DMC Data 

Eight states plan to collect and monitor DMC data on an ongoing basis. At least two 

of them have done so consistently over the past years. Others will improve, complete, 

or unify their juvenile justice information systems. One state plans to merge its data 

collection efforts with those of other related agencies. 

Systems Change Through Legislation 

Oregon and Washington have institutionalized systems improvement through legislative efforts. Oregon passed a law mandating cultural competency in all state agencies. 

To achieve this, the state first developed youth advocacy services, cultural competency 

program criteria, and a minority internship program in each of the three counties with 

the highest numbers of minority youth and then replicated these elements in other 

counties. Oregon also developed transition services for African American and 

15 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

American Indian males and minority females leaving state secure correctional institutions; alternative education services for high-risk, court-involved Hispanic youth; and 

the Oregon Leadership Institute Project to reduce school dropouts among Hispanic 

youth. 

In Washington State, four pieces of legislation emerged from DMC assessment studies. 

The legislation led to the adoption of prosecutorial standards, the development of 

experimental programs implementing prosecutor guidelines to reduce racial inequality 

in the prosecution of juveniles, a requirement for state agencies supervising youth 

adjudicated delinquent or convicted in criminal court to report annually on minority 

representation, and the establishment of local juvenile justice advisory committees to 

monitor and report annually on proportionality and to review and report on citizen 

complaints regarding bias or disparity within local juvenile justice systems. Washington’s comprehensive systems change efforts to reduce DMC over the past 10 years are 

featured later in this Summary. 

Remaining Challenges 

Many states and localities have made great strides in understanding the factors that 

contribute to DMC and have designed and implemented strategies to address those 

factors. Some states and localities have even attempted to evaluate their efforts and 

monitor their DMC trends. However, important challenges remain, and they must be 

overcome before a significant reduction in DMC is achieved. These challenges 

include: 

■ Factors contributing to DMC have still not been identified in a number of states. 

Although a majority of states have implemented strategies to address DMC, at least 

18 states have yet to identify the factors contributing to DMC in their communities. 

This is primarily because they have been unable to complete quality assessment 

research, a task that requires not only high levels of data collection and analysis 

skills but also an indepth conceptual understanding of complex DMC issues. 

■ Incomplete and inconsistent data systems hinder DMC efforts. Incomplete and 

inconsistent data systems constitute another important barrier to DMC assessment 

and monitoring in many states. Some states have recognized a need to enhance 

juvenile justice information systems but have improved little to date. 

■ Evaluation of DMC efforts and monitoring of DMC trends should be ongoing. 

Ongoing and comprehensive data collection to monitor DMC rates provides valuable feedback on the effectiveness of a state’s overall strategy to reduce DMC over 

time. Evaluation of intervention activities yields information about whether a specific intervention is working. The state can then examine which elements of the 

16 
Efforts by States To Address DMC 

strategy made a difference. On the other hand, where DMC rates persist or increase 

further, careful study can lead to appropriate modifications or new intervention 

strategies. Although many states recognize the need to conduct an ongoing evaluation of DMC efforts to monitor trends, many states have not done so, in part because of the data problems described above. Four states have attempted to gather 

and compare DMC data annually. One of these states has established what can be 

considered a model monitoring system that tracks DMC trends in a consistent and 

timely manner. This state also reports encouraging signs of downward DMC rates. 

■ Reducing DMC requires systems change as well as programmatic components. 

Although the majority of states commonly recognize that multiple factors at different decision points contribute to DMC, they have primarily invested in delinquency prevention and intervention programs that focus on minority youth, their 

families, and communities. Systems change—efforts to address the factors within 

the juvenile justice system that contribute to DMC—is also necessary. As part of 

efforts to institute a cultural competency model, cultural sensitivity training for 

personnel involved in the juvenile justice system and increasing cultural diversity 

among staff should be systematically provided, enhanced, and monitored. Similarly, 

systematic training in the use of standardized screening instruments is necessary to 

achieve maximum objectivity in decisionmaking. Two states have instituted legislative reforms to assure that policy and procedural changes are broad based and 

long lasting. Two other states have expanded their programmatic DMC efforts to 

include a systems change component. 

■ Mechanisms to assess and respond to DMC issues need to be institutionalized. 

DMC is a pervasive and deeply entrenched social phenomenon that requires multifaceted, comprehensive efforts over a long period of time. Factors such as frequent 

staff turnover, competing priorities, and the complex nature of the issues affecting 

DMC can impede these efforts. To achieve focus and consistency in reducing DMC, 

states should establish and institutionalize mechanisms that examine and respond to 

the factors that contribute to it. At a minimum, state infrastructure should include 

a state-level DMC coordinator and an effective DMC subcommittee working in 

partnership to address DMC issues. 

17 

19 

proach to DMC that incorporates both systems change and programmatic efforts. Over 

reduce DMC: 

■ Conducting research studies. 

■ Enacting legislation to ensure policy and procedure changes. 

■ Developing and sustaining programmatic and administrative initiatives at the state 

and county levels. 

sentation in its juvenile justice system. Research studies have identified the factors 

and location of DMC in the main stages of case processing in the juvenile justice sysdecisionmaking at certain stages of the juvenile justice process and also have required 

state agencies to monitor and report annually on how county juvenile courts handle 

tor county courts, with senior staff members of the agencies also serving as advocates 

Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (GJJAC), which is the State Advisory Group, 

has taken a leadership role in assessing the representation of minority youth in the 

juvenile justice system and has allocated funds to conduct research, provide technical 

assistance, and support prevention and intervention projects that address DMC. 

the first of a series of studies and projects to examine the specific problems faced by 

overrepresentation of minority youth. Where disproportionality was found, GJJAC 

developed policies and strategies to remedy the problem. 

Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System (Bridges et al., 1993), 

cases processed in five counties with high rates of violent crime and chronic juvenile 

offending, high levels of minority concentration within the population, and a high 

degree of urbanization. The researchers conducted approximately 170 interviews with 

justice officials and spent 65 hours on police ridealongs. The analyses of this information revealed racial and ethnic disparities at all stages of the juvenile justice process. 

Washington State provides a good example of a comprehensive, research-based apthe past decade, Washington has implemented three basic strategies in its efforts to 

Each strategy has contributed to the state’s overall effort to reduce minority overreprecontributing to DMC in Washington, offering empirical evidence about the degree 

tem. Laws enacted by the Washington State Legislature have established standards for 

minority youth. State agencies in Washington have maintained programs that monifor statewide and local DMC programs and initiatives. In particular, the Governor’s 

Conducting Research Studies 

Since 1988, GJJAC has produced annual reports on the characteristics of youth who 

come in contact with Washington’s juvenile justice system. In 1992, GJJAC initiated 

minority youth in the state’s juvenile justice system. The studies assessed the degree of 

The first study, 

which was conducted by the University of Washington, collected empirical data on 

Washington State’s Experience 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

Minority youth were more likely than whites to be referred, detained, prosecuted, adjudicated, and confined in juvenile correctional facilities, and at rates higher than would 

be expected given their numbers in the population. By comparing differences among 

counties in Washington to identify those with the highest levels of DMC, the study 

concluded that the high levels of DMC in these counties could not be explained solely by a higher number of minority youth committing offenses, getting arrested or cited 

and referred to the juvenile court, and then being prosecuted and adjudicated for their 

offenses. 

The study also showed that the influence of race and ethnicity varied at different 

points within the juvenile justice system. At the detention decision point, minority 

youth were more likely to be detained than white youth, even after differences between 

the offenses and backgrounds of the youth were taken into account. This finding is 

extremely important because the mere fact of being detained prior to adjudication 

seemed to affect subsequent stages of case processing. Although minority youth were, 

on average, prosecuted at substantially higher rates than whites, this occurred primarily because prosecution was significantly more likely for minority youth who had a 

record of juvenile court referral and for any youth detained prior to adjudication. 

At adjudication, minority youth—particularly those with records—were more likely 

than white youth with similar offense records to be adjudicated delinquent. As with 

prosecution, youth who were detained prior to adjudication were also much more likely to be adjudicated delinquent than other youth. These factors combine to cause pronounced disparities at adjudication because white youth and youth who had not been 

detained prior to adjudication were significantly more likely than minority youth to 

have the charges filed against them dismissed by the court. 

Finally, racial and ethnic disparities at sentencing correlated to racial differences in the 

likelihood of detention prior to adjudication. In statistical analyses, detention had a 

direct and independent influence on sentencing outcomes, above and beyond the effects of other factors. Youth who were detained preadjudication were more likely to 

receive sentences to correctional confinement than youth with similar offenses and 

offense histories who were not detained. This last finding was particularly problematic 

because, at the time, the state actually had prescriptive sentencing guidelines for juveniles based solely on the youth’s age, criminal history, and severity of offense. 

In response to the study’s findings and recommendations, the Washington Legislature 

in 1993 directed the Department of Social and Health Services to begin monitoring 

levels of DMC in county courts and state correctional facilities. (See “Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1966,” page 22.) As part of this monitoring requirement, the University of Washington completed a series of subsequent studies between 1995 and 2000 

to evaluate the county programs, assess the causes of DMC, and document any 

20 
Washington State’s Experience 

changes in levels of disproportionality over time (Bridges et al., 1995 and 2000; 

Bridges, Steen, and Bates, 1997; Bridges and Steen, 1998; and Bridges, AndersonBond, and Desmond, 1999). Although all of these studies reveal how statewide 

changes in levels of DMC influence county programs and caseloads, the findings of 

the 1998 study led to new strategies for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice decisionmaking. That study examined case files, predisposition reports, 

and probation officers’ assessments of youth for a sample of cases adjudicated in the 

early 1990s. The study asked whether officials’ perceptions of the crimes of minority 

and white offenders were different, whether differences in perceptions of white and 

minority youth and their crimes resulted in differences in assessments of the risk of 

reoffending, and whether any such differences in assessments of risk resulted in differences in sentencing recommendations. 

The 1998 study found that probation officers consistently portrayed black youth differently than white youth in written court reports, more frequently attributing blacks’ delinquency to negative attitudinal and personality traits. In contrast, depictions of white 

youth more frequently stressed the influence of the individual’s surrounding social environment, including factors such as negative peer influences and dysfunctional families. 

The study also found that probation officers assessed the criminal acts and life situations 

of minority youth and white youth quite differently, even when the youths’ offenses and 

backgrounds were similar. In assessing the likelihood of recidivism of minority offenders, 

probation officers relied more heavily on negative internal attributions (i.e., personality traits) than on the severity of youths’ crimes or on their criminal histories. For 

example, probation officers attributed black crime to negative personality or attitudinal 

traits of black offenders, judged black youth to be more dangerous than white youth, 

and frequently recommended more severe sentences for black youth than white youth. 

Therefore, perceptions and attributions about youth and their crimes were a mechanism by which an offender’s race influenced judgments of dangerousness and sentencing recommendations. 

Based on these findings, the study recommended that court personnel be trained to 

base their assessment of a youth’s risk of reoffending and amenability to treatment on 

criteria applied equally to minority youth and white youth. Further, the study recommended that the courts and state agencies should provide additional training to court 

workers to specifically remedy unwarranted racial disparities in assessments of youth. 

Enacting Legislation To Ensure Policy and Procedure Changes 

Publication of the 1993 study triggered extensive debate about DMC in Washington 

State, including a firestorm of publicity about racial disparities in the juvenile courts. 

As noted earlier, the study documented DMC in Washington’s largest counties, revealing disparities at many points within the juvenile justice system. The study also made 

21 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

significant recommendations for policy initiatives to improve the administration of 

juvenile justice in Washington State and thereby reduce DMC. The following are the 

study’s major findings: 

■ Procedures for the collection and analysis of information on youth referred to and 

prosecuted, adjudicated, and sentenced in juvenile courts need improvement. 

■ Routine and extensive diversity training for law enforcement and juvenile justice 

officials needs to be initiated. 

■ Procedures for disseminating information about the administration of juvenile 

justice, such as specifying that rules and procedures be translated into foreign 

languages to assist new immigrants, need to be improved. 

■ The section of the Washington Criminal Code that specifies criteria for use in 

detention decisions needs to be revised. 

■ The section of the Washington Criminal Code that specifies conditions on state 

funds granted to county juvenile courts needs to be revised. 

■ Uniform principles and practices in the prosecution and adjudication of juvenile 

offenses need to be developed. 

■ Sentencing standards to redress any adverse effects of preadjudication detention 

need to be reviewed and revised. 

■ Alternatives to detention and confinement for juvenile offenders need to be 

developed. 

In response to these recommendations, the research findings, and the public debate, 

the Washington Legislature enacted four major laws designed to reduce disparities in 

Washington’s juvenile justice system. These laws are discussed below. 

Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1966 

Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1966, enacted in 1993, required that counties 

using state funds above and beyond county program funds were required to address 

minority overrepresentation in detention and other juvenile facilities. The bill also 

mandated that a group of justice officials in the Office of the Administrator of the 

Courts (the Juvenile Justice Racial Disproportionality Work Group) develop standards 

for the prosecution of juvenile offenders, review disproportionality in diversion, and 

review the use of detention in an effort to reduce disproportionality. Prosecutorial 

standards were subsequently adopted in 1995. 

22 
Washington State’s Experience 

House Bill 2319 

Enacted in 1994, House Bill 2319 mandated statewide annual monitoring of racial disproportionality in the juvenile courts at the county level. The law also provided funds 

in the 1993–95 biennial budget to “evaluate racial and ethnic disparity within county 

programs,” including annual reporting on the effectiveness of county-based measures 

for reducing disproportionality within the state. Further, the law established local juvenile justice advisory committees at the county level to monitor and report annually on 

proportionality and the effectiveness and cultural relevance of local and state rehabilitative services for juveniles. The committees were also charged with reviewing and reporting on citizen complaints regarding bias or disproportionality within local juvenile 

justice systems. (A number of the local advisory committees funded by GJJAC are also 

designated to serve as these committees.) The committees are required to submit 

reports annually to the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the 

agency that oversees all aspects of juvenile and criminal sentencing in the state and 

that reports biennially to the state legislature. 

House Bill 2392 

In response to concerns about racial disparities in juvenile prosecutions in Washington, 

House Bill 2392, passed in 1996, established an experimental program in two counties 

to implement and evaluate prosecutor guidelines to reduce racial inequality in the prosecution of juveniles. An offender-based tracking system was developed and implemented 

in two participating prosecutors’ offices to track the application of prosecutorial standards in cases brought to juvenile court. The system showed whether the decision to 

prosecute or not prosecute was influenced by the race, gender, religion, or creed of the 

suspect or victim. As part of the experiment, researchers collected and analyzed data 

on the role of race in prosecutorial decisions, adjusting for the characteristics of the 

offense, the suspects, and the victims involved in these cases. 

The analysis found that, despite the guidelines, cases involving minority defendants 

were more likely to be waived to adult court than cases involving white defendants 

and that cases involving male defendants were more likely to be waived to adult courts 

than cases involving female defendants. Cases involving white and female defendants 

had a higher likelihood of being diverted, whereas cases involving minority and male 

defendants had a higher likelihood of having charges filed. Although some racial differences persisted despite the guidelines, no definitive conclusions could be drawn 

about whether prosecutorial discretion contributed to DMC. The study further found 

no clear pattern to explain the differences and recommended additional research to 

include analysis of police reports. 

23 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

Engrossed Substitute House Bill 3900 

ESHB 3900, the Community Juvenile Accountability Act of 1997, required a variety of 

agencies to establish guidelines for the implementation of community-based juvenile 

programs. In response to the law, juvenile court administrators developed criteria for 

evaluating the likelihood that a juvenile will commit subsequent crimes. The criteria 

have been formulated as an assessment instrument for evaluating youth, the “Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators—Risk Assessment.” The criteria 

represent a significant step in the direction of a structured assessment of youth by 

court probation staff to reduce any discretionary biases in making recommendations 

to the court prior to adjudication about risk of reoffense and postdisposition need for 

services. 

Developing and Sustaining Programmatic Initiatives at the State 

and County Levels 

As required by the laws described above, juvenile courts in Washington developed 

a range of new programs and policies directly aimed at reducing DMC in the 

following areas: 

■ Enhancing cultural competency. 

■ Monitoring, assessing, and formulating intervention strategies at the local level. 

■ Using standardized risk assessments at multiple points in the juvenile justice system. 

■ Sustaining state support for local DMC efforts. 

The new programs and policies implemented in each of these areas are summarized in 

the sections below. 

Enhancing Cultural Competency 

All courts in the State of Washington completed cultural awareness or diversity training for juvenile court staff. In many courts, the training has become a routine part of 

staff orientation. In some courts, training focused on how cultural sensitivity to others 

can be applied to concrete decisionmaking situations involving youth. Nearly all courts 

developed and made available to the public materials in different languages that make 

the court more accessible to youth and their families, particularly those whose primary 

language is not English. Interpreters were provided to enable non-English-speaking 

youth and families to participate in juvenile court proceedings. A few courts successfully integrated minorities from their communities into the work of the court. When 

successfully implemented, these types of programs are expected to change the culture 

of the court by fostering more diverse perspectives on juvenile justice and on the 

treatment of juvenile offenders. 

24 
Washington State’s Experience 

The Yakima County Juvenile Court has implemented these changes. Yakima County 

is a large, primarily rural county that relies heavily on agriculture and particularly the 

production of fruit and row crops as its primary source of revenue and employment. 

Hispanics are the largest minority group in Yakima, and 35 percent of all youth in the 

1990 population were of Hispanic or Latin origin. Many of the Hispanics in Yakima are 

relatively recent immigrants, part of the large population of farm workers who support 

the agricultural industry. In 1993, DMC in Yakima reached a peak, with Hispanics 

constituting 51 percent of all youth referred to juvenile court, 63 percent of all youth 

detained, 56 percent of all youth prosecuted, and 57 percent of all youth sentenced to 

juvenile correctional facilities. A change of leadership in the Yakima juvenile court in 

1995 resulted in the implementation of many new programs. Among the most significant of these was the development of volunteer-staffed community accountability boards 

for pretrial diversion. These boards oversee diversion placements in different communities within the county and serve as liaisons among the court, the community, and 

juvenile offenders. In developing the boards, the court successfully recruited volunteers 

from Hispanic communities across the county. As a result, the court now has a workforce of volunteers that includes numerous Hispanics, and a large majority of the diversion boards are Spanish speaking. Creation of the boards and the recruitment of 

volunteers from Hispanic communities across Yakima has had the effect of creating a 

culture within the court that is more aware and responsive to the unique challenges 

and problems of Hispanic youth. 

Monitoring, Assessing, and Formulating Intervention Strategies at the 


Local Level


Some courts undertook the difficult process of examining the unique causes of disproportionality in their own jurisdictions. These courts now routinely monitor the problem 

and examine measures of minority overrepresentation at each stage of court operation. 

The Benton-Franklin Juvenile Court, which has concurrent jurisdiction over juvenile 

justice in two adjacent communities, exemplifies this practice. These counties make up 

the area surrounding the Hanford nuclear reservation in eastern Washington. Although 

the counties are primarily rural, they have concentrated populations in small urban 

centers. Further, the minority population in the two counties consists primarily of Hispanics and African Americans. Whereas the African American community has existed in the area since the 1940s, the Hispanic population has grown in recent years as 

migrant workers and their families passing through eastern Washington permanently 

settled in the counties. 

In response to concerns about DMC, the Benton-Franklin Juvenile Court initiated a 

local DMC study and established procedures for routinely collecting and analyzing information on minority youth referred to the court. The court now produces an annual 

report on DMC, thoroughly documenting the concentration of minority youth at each 

25 
26 

stage of the juvenile justice process. The court has also sponsored an all-staff training 

session on DMC, focusing on the problems of minority youth in the area. The reports 

court administrators have examined and changed rules of procedure for detention and 

diversion in order to guard against racial bias in court proceedings. The Benton-Franklin 

risk assessments in detention and diversion decisions in response to DMC concerns. 

State. Individual courts use the assessment instrument differently: some administrators 

some use the instrument to structure decisionmaking at many stages of the juvenile 

justice process, while others use it simply to record attributes of offenders and to track 

them through disposition. Counties that rely on the risk assessment instrument in 

decisionmaking typically use it for one or more of the following purposes: 

■ For detention screening after a youth has been determined to meet the admis­

■ As part of pre- or postdisposition diagnostic evaluations. 

■ For all cases involving a motion for deferred disposition and all postadjudication 

probation cases. 

■ In the cases of all adjudicated sex offenders. 

All probation counselors use one part of the risk assessment instrument for preliminary 

evaluation of youth when they are placed on probation. Probation counselors complete 

liminary evaluation. 

Although not developed primarily for the purpose of reducing DMC, the risk assessment instrument structures decisionmaking by court officials, imposing a uniform 

procedure to evaluate youth. Using standardized risk assessments has the potential to 

reduce the number of racially biased assessments and recommendations for juveniles 

convicted of crimes.5 

5Analyses of risk assessment data from cases processed since 1998 reveal that racial differences in criminal risk levels 

diminished when differences in defendants’ criminal histories and social risk scores were taken into account. In other 

words, the risk assessment procedures yield assessments of offenders in which race has no statistically significant 

influence. More thorough analyses are needed to determine whether race influences sentencing and treatment 

recommendations. 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

and training have heightened the awareness of court personnel to DMC issues. Further, 

court was among the first in Washington State to discuss and implement standardized 

Using Standardized Risk Assessments at Multiple Points in the 

Juvenile Justice System 

A standard risk assessment is now in use in all of the juvenile courts in Washington 

use it at only one stage in the court process, while others use it throughout. Further, 

sion criteria. 

the full risk assessment for all youth identified as moderate and high risk by the pre­
Washington State’s Experience 

Sustaining State Support for Local DMC Efforts 

DMC studies of individual county courts have addressed the degree of disproportionality at each stage of system processing and the factors associated with that disproportionality. Presently, GJJAC continues to allocate funds for technical assistance to counties 

to further analyze data on racial disproportionality and, based on data, to develop local 

plans and measures for reducing disproportionality. GJJAC currently supports the efforts 

of 17 local Juvenile Justice Advisory Committees. These committees coordinate and 

collaborate on efforts to reduce disproportionality through the development of delinquency prevention and intervention services, community-based alternatives to secure 

detention and confinement, aftercare services, and staff training. 

GJJAC also considers DMC reduction a priority issue and spent more than $500,000 

on supporting it between 1997 and 2000. The following programs are examples of 

those implemented at the county level and statewide to reduce DMC: 

■ Diversion case trackers to assist youth in successfully completing a diversion


agreement.


■ Alternative school programs for youth accused of crimes who might not succeed in 

other public schools. 

■ Community programs that supplement parental supervision and mentoring of 

minority youth accused of crimes to help prevent those youth from committing 

new crimes. 

■ Programs that perform a rapid needs assessment of each minority youth held in 

detention and develop individualized service plans to reduce recidivism. 

■ Projects that work with Hispanic youth and their families to assist with problem 

identification and facilitate referral and access to needed services. 

■ Afterschool and evening activities for American Indian youth to restore cultural 

pride, self-esteem, and commitment to community. 

■ Gang awareness and prevention programs, alcohol and substance abuse education, 

and domestic violence and sexual assault awareness programs. 

Summary of the Evolution of Washington State’s DMC Reforms 

Empirical research on the degree and the causes of DMC has played an integral role in 

Washington’s efforts to address DMC. The research has thus far produced a series of 

widely distributed reports on the problems of minority youth in juvenile courts. These 

reports, repeatedly presented and discussed at local conferences, workshops, and legislative hearings, drew attention to DMC across the state. The research also inspired 

legislators and judicial officials to enact four major laws between 1993 and 1997 to 

27 
28 

the courts, that state agencies monitor and report on the effects of these programs, and 

that courts implement new measures for assessing and evaluating youth adjudicated for 

personnel across the state to the problems of minority youth and the need to reduce 

DMC. This heightened sensitivity to racial and ethnic disparities represents an imporissues have reduced disproportionality at most stages of the juvenile justice system. 

an increase of approximately 264,780 children from 1,267,609 in 1990 to 1,532,386 in 

1999.6 In 1990, minority youth constituted 18 percent of the total youth population, 

percent African American, and 2 percent American Indian. By 1999, the populations 

ed 22 percent of a total youth population that was 78 percent white, 9 percent Hispanic, 

Indian.7 

for the 1990s and the DMC index values for each decision point in 1990 and 1999. 

of minority juveniles represented at each point in the juvenile justice system by the 

6The data reported in this section are taken from 

Experience (Bridges et al., 2000). 

7

due to the effects of rounding. 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

address disparities in the administration of juvenile justice. The laws required that 

counties develop programs and policies to redress the problems of minority youth in 

crimes. In enacting these laws, the legislature and the senior staff in state agencies who 

advocated for the reforms significantly changed the rules and procedures of juvenile 

justice in Washington’s counties. Equally important, they sensitized judges and court 

tant cultural shift within the state’s courts. Concurrently, GJJAC has continued to 

provide financial and technical assistance to support prevention, intervention, and 

aftercare services for minority youth and to monitor DMC trends in the state. 

DMC Trends in Washington State, 1990–99 

As noted earlier in this Summary, Washington is one of only three states that have 

attempted to gather and compare DMC data annually. The data collected in Washington for the period 1990–99 show that the state’s comprehensive efforts to address DMC 

These data and the trends they represent are summarized in the sections that follow. 

Overview 

Between 1990 and 1999, the youth population in Washington State grew 21 percent, 

which was 82 percent white, 6 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, 4 

of Hispanic and Asian youth had increased substantially, and minority youth constitut6 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, 4 percent African American, and 2 percent American 

During the same period, the crime rate in Washington State decreased significantly. Consistent with national trends, Washington’s violent crime rate dropped from 

496 per 100,000 in 1990 to 371 per 100,000 in 1999. Table 2 shows the proportions of 

minority youth processed at several stages of Washington State’s juvenile court system 

The DMC index value for each decision point is calculated by dividing the percentage 

Racial Disproportionality in County Juvenile Facilities: 10 Years 

Data on the racial composition of the population in 1990 and 1999 do not sum to 18 and 22 percent, respectively, 
Race 

N† * 

1990 45,555 41,321 27.9 1.55 

1991 49,242 44,936 27.9 

1992 53,633 50,426 28.8 

1993 53,455 50,938 29.8 

1994 58,674 56,101 29.6 

1995 59,391 57,876 28.6 

1996 60,592 58,620 29.6 

1997 57,568 55,820 29.8 

1998 57,461 55,316 29.7 

1999 52,397 49,720 29.5 1.34 

1990 21,772 19,650 22.6 1.26 

1991 23,468 21,264 22.7 

1992 24,773 22,965 23.0 

1993 24,414 22,991 24.4 

1994 26,011 24,624 24.5 

1995 25,394 23,978 25.0 

1996 25,530 24,516 25.3 

1997 24,202 23,316 26.2 

1998 23,881 22,748 25.6 

1999 22,259 20,867 25.7 1.17 

‡ 

1990 2,489 2,437 48.5 2.70 

1991 4,470 4,344 40.9 

1992 4,544 4,438 44.0 

1993 4,607 4,533 45.6 

1994 5,493 5,409 44.2 

1995 5,743 5,652 41.6 

1996 6,565 6,479 44.6 

1997 6,610 6,541 42.4 

1998 6,725 6,645 40.8 

1999 6,698 6,549 38.6 1.75 

29 

than 1.0 indicates that minorities are disproportionately represented. The greater the 

continued on page 30 

Table 2: Proportion of Minority Youth Processed Through the Juvenile Court System 

in Washington State, 1990–99, Including Changes in DMC Index Values 

Stage of Process Percent DMC Index 

and Year Known Minority Youth Value 

Total referred to court 

Diverted from court/prosecution 

Detained for more than 24 hours before adjudication

Washington State’s Experience 

percentage of minority juveniles in the state’s total juvenile population. A value greater 

index number, the greater the amount of disproportionate representation. Therefore, 
30 

Race 

N† * 

§ 

1990 17,969 17,181 35.8 1.99 

1991 20,040 19,108 34.8 

1992 22,293 21,379 35.3 

1993 21,051 20,480 36.9 

1994 24,006 23,388 35.8 

1995 25,284 24,679 34.2 

1996 26,916 26,386 34.5 

1997 26,388 25,905 34.1 

1998 26,893 26,224 34.2 

1999 23,563 22,817 33.6 1.53 

|| 

1990 11,003 10,530 32.1 1.78 

1991 12,527 11,957 31.7 

1992 14,387 13,818 33.1 

1993 13,866 13,487 34.8 

1994 15,604 15,217 33.5 

1995 16,135 15,804 32.4 

1996 17,093 16,793 33.9 

1997 16,507 16,254 33.5 

1998 17,098 16,760 33.2 

1999 15,188 14,714 31.7 1.44 

Sentenced to county detention¶ 

1990 5,190 4,995 30.6 1.70 

1991 5,733 5,476 31.1 

1992 6,568 6,326 32.6 

1993 6,334 6,197 35.5 

1994 7,160 7,013 34.1 

1995 7,726 7,609 34.1 

1996 8,217 8,101 35.0 

1997 8,069 7,967 35.4 

1998 8,752 8,610 34.3 

1999 6,845 6,696 33.2 1.51 

continued on page 31 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

Stage of Process Percent DMC Index 

and Year Known Minority Youth Value 

Prosecuted (charges filed)

Adjudicated delinquent
31 

Race 

N† * 

# 

1990 1,263 1,229 39.9 2.22 

1991 1,465 1,426 36.5 

1992 1,559 1,521 39.7 

1993 1,557 1,527 40.3 

1994 1,893 1,854 41.4 

1995 1,878 1,846 37.6 

1996 1,805 1,787 40.5 

1997 1,932 1,917 40.6 

1998 1,644 1,624 41.9 

1999 1,195 1,180 43.1 1.96 

† 

* 

‡ 

§ 

|| 

¶ 

# 

DMC, and a consistent reduction in the extent of disproportionate minority represenindex values). 

Between 1990 and 1999, the proportion of minority youth referred to the juvenile court 

increased from 28 percent to 30 percent, a slightly smaller increase than occurred in the 

total youth population. The increase was attributable almost entirely to an increase in 

referrals of Hispanic youth. 

Washington State’s Experience 

Stage of Process Percent DMC Index 

and Year Known Minority Youth Value 

Sentenced to state correctional supervision

Year counts refer to the year in which the originating referral for new criminal conduct occurred. Only referrals 

for felonies and misdemeanors that originated and were handled within a single jurisdiction have been included. 

Total number of identifiable referrals was 547,968. 

Includes African American, American Indian, Asian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and unspecified racial groups. 

“Detained before adjudication” refers to at least one period of more than 24 hours spent in detention before 

the adjudication date. The 1990 counts underestimate the extent of preadjudication detention due to insufficient 

information to link the detention files to the referral files. 

Refers to any charges filed within a single referral. 

Guilty (finding or pleas) on at least one count (within a single referral). 

Incarceration in a county juvenile facility for at least one count (within a single referral). 

Incarceration in a state juvenile correctional facility for at least one count (within a single referral). 

Source: Washington State and King County databases. 

this decade was marked by an increased concentration of minority youth in the population (from 18 percent to 22 percent), a decrease in the amount and seriousness of juvenile crime, significant changes in the laws and policies of Washington in relation to 

tation in Washington’s juvenile justice system (as reflected in decreases in the DMC 

Youth Referred to the Juvenile Court 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

During the same period, the severity of crimes attributed to minority youth declined. 

In 1990, nearly 9 percent of all referrals involving minority youth were for serious 

offenses, compared with 4 percent of referrals for white youth. By 1999, only 6 percent 

of minority referrals were for serious felonies (the proportion for white youth remained 

at 4 percent). The racial composition of referrals (petitions to juvenile court, usually 

following arrests) for serious and violent crimes also changed. 

A similar shift occurred in the history of criminal involvement of minority youth 

referred to court. Although minority youth were more likely than white youth to be 

referred for more than one offense in any given year, the number of multiple referrals 

declined between 1990 and 1999. Whereas 32 percent of minority youth were referred 

for more than one offense in 1990 (compared with 22 percent of white youth), in 1999, 

only 28 percent of minority youth had more than one referral (the proportion for white 

youth remained at 22 percent). 

Youth Diverted From Court/Prosecution 

Between 1990 and 1999, the total number of youth diverted from prosecution increased 

slightly. In 1990, 21,772 youth were diverted. By 1999, the total number diverted 

increased slightly to 22,259, having reached a peak in 1994 of 26,011. Between 

1990 and 1999, the proportion of minority youth among those diverted from court 

increased, paralleling the increase that occurred in minority referrals. Whereas youth 

of color constituted 23 percent of the total population of youth diverted in 1990, they 

represented 26 percent of all youth diverted in 1999. This increase was primarily 

attributable to an increase in the proportion of Hispanic youth diverted, which rose 

from 5 percent in 1990 to 9 percent in 1999. 

Youth Detained Before Adjudication 

Despite increases in minority youth in the general population and in juvenile court referrals, the concentration of minority youth detained before adjudication in Washington dropped sharply over the 10-year period. Prior to 1994, the proportion of minority 

youth detained statewide averaged nearly 45 percent—well above the concentration 

of minority youth referred to juvenile court. By 1999, this proportion had dropped to 

approximately 39 percent. The decline was primarily attributable to decreases in 

detention of African American youth. 

Prosecuted Youth 

Between 1990 and 1999, the concentration of minority youth prosecuted for crimes remained relatively stable across the state. By 1999, minority youth constituted 34 percent of the total population of youth prosecuted. Rates of minority prosecution were 

32 
Washington State’s Experience 

fairly uniform across most counties. Only a few counties experienced increases in the 

percentage of prosecutions of minority youth, while some large counties experienced 

reductions in those percentages. 

Youth Adjudicated Delinquent 

Only slight changes occurred in the concentration of minority youth adjudicated delinquent between 1990 and 1999. In 1990, minority youth constituted 32 percent of the 

total population of youth adjudicated delinquent. The concentration of minority youth 

adjudicated delinquent peaked in 1993, reaching 35 percent of all adjudicated youth. 

By 1999, however, the proportion had returned to 32 percent. 

Youth Committed to Local Detention 

Between 1990 and 1993, the proportion of juveniles sentenced to local detention 

increased from 31 to 36 percent, closely following increases in minority youth being 

adjudicated delinquent. Starting in 1994, however, minority concentration in commitments to detention declined, reaching 33 percent in 1999. This decline was primarily associated with lower levels of detention for African American youth. During the 

same period, slight increases occurred in the percentages of Hispanic and American 

Indian youth committed to local detention. 

Youth Sentenced to Correctional Supervision 

Between 1990 and 1997, the proportion of minority youth sentenced to correctional 

supervision remained relatively stable at about 40 percent, dipping to 38 percent in 

1995. In the last years of the decade, the proportion increased, from 41 percent in 1997 

to 43 percent in 1999. The percentage of juveniles committed to correctional supervision varied significantly across counties and different racial and ethnic groups during 

the last years of the decade. Although the percentage decreased among African Americans, it increased among American Indians, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. 

Analysis of DMC Trends in Washington State 

At many stages of the juvenile justice system after referral, disproportionate minority 

representation declined between 1990 and 1999, with the largest decline in detention 

before adjudication. The numbers of minority youth who were prosecuted, adjudicated, and sentenced were relatively stable. Overall, the proportion of minority youth at 

each stage of the system either declined from peak values occurring in the early 1990s 

or remained stable. Typically, disparities began diminishing in 1994, shortly after the 

release of the first statewide study and the Washington State Legislature’s enactment 

33 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

of the state’s first laws to redress DMC. A notable exception was the increase in the 

percentage of minority youth sentenced to correctional supervision between 1997 and 

1999. Although many factors may have contributed to the increase, laws that took 

effect in 1998 appear to have increased judicial discretion over aspects of sentencing 

to local detention facilities. In 1998, juvenile court judges were afforded discretion to 

sentence some youth to terms as long as 1 year in local detention facilities (in lieu of 

sentencing them to more secure correctional facilities). To the extent that judges sentenced a disproportionate number of white youth to local detention and minority 

youth to correctional supervision, the percentage of minorities among youth sentenced to correctional facilities increased. 

After the development of statewide risk assessment procedures in late 1997, juvenile 

courts began collecting information on assessments of youth and sentencing recommendations in 1998. When adjustments are made for differences in defendants’ criminal histories and social risk scores, these data show that racial differences in risk assessments 

diminished significantly. That is, the risk assessment procedures yielded evaluations of 

offenders in which race had no statistically significant independent influence. Therefore, the use of risk assessment procedures has significantly reduced racial disparities in 

evaluations of offenders. 

Any rigorous analysis of DMC must also examine change at the local level. County 

differences in Washington between 1990 and 1999 were significant. Many courts that 

aggressively implemented measures to reduce levels of disproportionality witnessed 

significant reductions in the percentage of minority youth at many stages of the juvenile justice process. In these courts, judges, administrators, and staff developed policies 

and programs that are consistent with national models for reducing disproportionality. 

A striking example was rural Yakima County in eastern Washington. The proportion 

of minority youth in Yakima’s total youth population increased from 43 percent in 

1990 to 60 percent in 1999, but the proportion of the county’s minority youth referred 

to court increased at a lesser rate—from 54 percent in 1990 to 62 percent in 1999. 

The proportion of minority youth diverted from the legal process in Yakima County 

increased from 43 percent in 1990 to 62 percent in 1999, a level nearly equal to the 

minority representation in the county’s youth population. Similarly, the proportion of 

minority youth detained before adjudication decreased from a peak of 71 percent in 

1993 to 63 percent in 1999, the proportion sentenced to county detention decreased 

from a peak of 70 percent in 1993 to 60 percent in 1999, and the proportion sentenced 

to state correctional facilities decreased from 68 percent in 1990 to 62 percent in 

1999. For each of these stages, the proportion reached in 1999 approximated the 

proportion of minority youth in the county’s youth population. 

34 
Washington State’s Experience 

Some counties that implemented measures to reduce disproportionality did not experience steady or significant reductions. Indeed, several reported increased levels of disproportionality. In King County (Seattle and the surrounding area), for example, the 

percentage of minority youth sentenced to correctional supervision increased dramatically between 1998 and 1999, even though it had dropped steadily between 1990 

and 1998. The precise causes of these changes in levels are unclear. The city of 

Seattle currently is examining racial disparity in the juvenile justice system through 

the Building Blocks for Youth initiative, discussed earlier (see page 7). 

Lessons Learned in Washington State 

Washington’s experience shows that four elements are key to a state’s success in 

reducing DMC: 

■ Leadership at the state level that is committed to addressing all DMC issues. 

■ Consistent local implementation of intervention strategies to reduce DMC. 

■ Multilevel partnerships among researchers, legislators, and juvenile justice 


administrators and practitioners.


■ Adequate resources to support new requirements. 

Commitment and Leadership at the State Level 

All of the measures taken to reduce DMC in Washington State were strongly supported 

by leaders in the legislature and senior staff of the state agencies involved—primarily 

GJJAC and the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration. Over the decade in which 

Washington initiated its DMC reforms, these individuals remained fully committed to 

addressing DMC issues and to ensuring that county courts developed programs to 

reduce DMC. The legislature enacted laws that encouraged courts to reduce DMC. 

Further, staff stability during the decade ensured continuity in the monitoring of programs developed at the county level. The decrease in DMC across most stages of the 

juvenile justice system in Washington shows that a strong, stable state leadership that 

is committed to addressing all DMC issues is critical to the success of a state’s efforts 

to reduce DMC. 

Aggressive Local Implementation of Strategies 

In some of Washington’s large courts, the implementation of programs yielded significant reductions in levels of disproportionality. In other large courts, however, the same 

35 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

programs were much less successful in reducing DMC. The courts that saw reductions 

in DMC typically were those whose administrators or senior staff aggressively implemented the state’s new programs and policies. Where senior administrators accorded 

low priority to reducing DMC, the reductions were minimal. 

Further, because the causes of disproportionality in local courts vary from one community to another, statewide policies and programs alone will not eliminate unwarranted 

racial disproportionality. Local court officials must continue to examine disproportionality within each community, and each court must undertake the following steps— 

which closely mirror state-level efforts—to address its causes: 

■ Implement local data collection on a routine basis and track case flow for minority 

youth and white youth from referral to disposition. 

■ Identify the stages within the local juvenile justice process where minority overrepresentation is highest. 

■ Assess risk and protective factors specific to local communities and develop 

community-specific delinquency prevention strategies. 

■ Identify the factors contributing to overrepresentation at each of these stages. 

■ Train staff about the specific causes of overrepresentation, if appropriate. 

■ Where overrepresentation appears to be related to actions of individual decisionmakers, create a review system to ensure that decisions are made fairly. 

■ Develop and use decisionmaking criteria and risk assessment procedures that are 

explicit and as race-neutral as possible. Use structured risk assessments at any stage 

where minority overrepresentation is high, despite the added workload required to 

implement them. 

Ongoing Partnerships 

Systems change occurs through ongoing partnerships among researchers, legislators, 

and juvenile justice administrators and practitioners. As researchers study trends in 

the administration of juvenile justice, they must collaborate with legislators and practitioners in developing policy initiatives grounded in the research results. Forging collaborative relationships with officials who shape and implement policy is essential to 

integrating research into an agenda of systems and institutional change. Officials who 

contribute to the design and implementation of the research—at least to the framing 

of research questions—are more inclined to embrace the research results, using them 

to inform administrative operations of juvenile justice agencies. 

36 
Washington State’s Experience 

The juvenile courts in Washington State have changed significantly since publication 

of the 1993 study and the enactment of ESHB 1966. Diversity training is now a part 

of juvenile and criminal justice training curriculums and orientation programs for 

most court services staff. Further, the focusing on cultural competency in the workplace has led to an increased emphasis on diversity training that is job specific. Court 

staff members have also become increasingly diverse: the number of minority staff 

members has grown dramatically from 1995 to 1999. 

The collection and analysis of information on race and the legal process are now part of 

the routine administration of local courts. Moreover, the implementation of statewide, 

standardized risk assessment procedures in 1997–98 may significantly reduce racial 

differences in officials’ assessments of juvenile offenders. Preliminary analyses of data 

on youth who were evaluated according to the risk assessment procedures yielded no 

significant racial differences in risk assessments. 

Resources To Meet New Requirements 

Additional resources have not always accompanied the requirements that resulted from 

Washington State’s DMC-related legislation. For example, local courts were expected 

to provide diversity training for all staff, but no new state or local funds were set aside 

for these activities. These new requirements have been particularly difficult for smaller 

courts to implement, given the high costs. 

Washington’s racial and ethnic minority populations are heavily concentrated in urban 

centers across the state. With the exception of the Yakima and Benton-Franklin county 

courts, disproportionate representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system 

occurred primarily in those counties with the largest urban populations (Seattle, Tacoma, 

and Spokane). DMC measures were thoroughly implemented in areas with large minority populations and significant court resources that could be dedicated to this problem. For example, the standardized risk assessment implemented in 1997 has added 

substantial work for the staff of many smaller courts. Although most court administrators recognize and accept the value of the risk assessment procedure, many of them 

voiced strong objection to the added workload. 

Conclusions 

Despite the difficulties some Washington courts have experienced in implementing 

changes designed to reduce DMC, the state’s juvenile justice system overall has changed 

for the better. The increased diversity in most courts’ staff, routine collection of data 

37 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

and monitoring of DMC trends, and the increased use of risk assessment procedures in 

juvenile justice decisionmaking represent critical steps toward a system that is more 

sensitive to cultural differences and that makes decisions about youth and their 

crimes in a more consistent manner. These systems change efforts, combined with 

Washington’s priority investment in the prevention of and early intervention in juvenile crime in neighborhoods with the greatest needs, are the hallmark of the state’s 

comprehensive approach to reducing DMC. Recognizing that eliminating DMC will 

require sustained efforts over many years, Washington and its localities continue to 

evaluate their DMC strategies and monitor their DMC trends through continuing partnerships among researchers, juvenile justice and other youth-serving practitioners, and 

citizens. 

38 
39 

requirement of the Act as follows: “In order to receive formula grants under this part 

(Part B), a state shall submit a plan for carrying out its purposes applicable to a 3-year 

such plan shall . . . [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.” This change essentially broadens the DMC initiative from disproportionate minority “confinement” to 

disproportionate minority “contact” by requiring an examination of possible disproportionate representation of minority youth at all decision points along the juvenile 

justice system continuum. It further requires multipronged intervention strategies 

including not only juvenile delinquency prevention efforts, but also system improvement efforts to assure equal treatment of all youth. 

Effectively addressing DMC will require long-term coordinated efforts at the federal, 

state, and local levels. OJJDP will continue to support research and targeted training 

and technical assistance to states and local communities to help them meet the idenIn sum, DMC is the result of a large number of complex decisions and events. OJJDP 

is committed to ensuring equal treatment for every youth involved in the juvenile 

justice system and to assisting states to adopt a comprehensive, balanced, and 

multidisciplinary approach to reduce DMC. 

Future Directions 

The JJDP Act of 2002, signed into law on November 2, 2002, modified the DMC 

period . . . . In accordance with regulations which the Administrator shall prescribe, 

tified challenges. OJJDP’s action steps are set forth in the sidebar on page 40. 
40 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

OJJDP’s Action Steps To Reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact 

Complete a full DMC progress review and publish a status report that describes 

state progress in addressing DMC, identifies state needs, and provides a training 

and technical assistance plan to address these needs. 

Enhance, through training and technical assistance delivery, the risk- and protectionfocused prevention model; emphasize the selection of promising or effective prevention programs; and provide proactive assistance to communities in accessing 

additional funding sources to implement their comprehensive delinquency prevention 

plans. 

Provide systematic guidance to states, regarding both grant fund utilization and 

intensive technical assistance, as the impetus for change in improving state 

juvenile justice data systems. 

Develop Web-based data entry to allow monitoring of progress in DMC reduction 

efforts within and across states and local jurisdictions over time. 

Emphasize, through the delivery of training and technical assistance, the importance 

of instituting and sustaining systems change. 

Encourage states to develop and institutionalize the infrastructures and mechanisms 

necessary to assess and respond effectively to DMC issues in a focused and sustained 

manner. 

Implement a DMC national evaluation initiative under OJJDP’s State Evaluation 

Support Program to enhance state evaluation of DMC programming and systems 

change efforts. 

Invest in the evaluation and replication of identified promising strategies to reduce 

DMC. Assume the leadership in expanding the number of proven DMC intervention 

strategies and in disseminating effective practices and lessons learned to the field. 

Assume leadership in improving data collection and analysis from the states. 

Work with the states to develop data that will better inform their policy and program 

development. 
41 

Racial DisproporRacial Disproportionality 

in County Juvenile Justice Facilities. 

Social and Health Services. 

Racial Disproportionality 

in the Juvenile Justice System: Final Report. 

Racial Disproportionality 

in County Juvenile Justice Facilities: Final Report. 

Department of Social and Health Services. 

Bridges, G.S., and Steen, S. 1998. Racial Disproportionality in County Juvenile Justice 

Facilities: Neglected Causes. 

and Health Services. 

Bridges, G.S., Steen, S., and Bates, K. 1997. Racial Disproportionality in County Juvenile 

Justice Facilities: Final Report. 

and Health Services. 

DeJong, C., and Jackson, K.C. 1998. Putting race into context: Race, juvenile justice 

processing, and urbanization. Justice Quarterly 15(3):487–504. 

2000–2002 Colorado Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Plan. 

Division of Juvenile Services, North Dakota Department of Corrections. 2000. 

2000–2002 North Dakota Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Plan. Bismarck, 

ND: North Dakota Department of Corrections, Division of Juvenile Services. 

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. 2001. 

Printing Office, p. iii. 

The Color of Justice: An Analysis of Juvenile Adult 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2000. Disproportionate Minority 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

References 

Bridges, G.S., Anderson-Bond, T., Bond, C., and Desmond, S. 2000. 

tionality in County Juvenile Justice Facilities: 10 Years Experience. Olympia, WA: 

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. 

Bridges, G.S., Anderson-Bond, T., and Desmond, S. 1999. 

Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of 

Bridges, G.S., Conley, D., Engen, R.L., and Beretta, G. 1993. 

Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Washington State Legislature. 

Bridges, G.S., Conley, D., Engen, R.L., and Beretta, G. 1995. 

Olympia, WA: Washington State 

Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social 

Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social 

Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety. 2000. Years 

Denver, CO: 

Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice. 

Years 

America’s Children: 

Key National Indicators of Well Being, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Males, M., and Macallair, D. 2000. 

Court Transfers in California. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth. 

Confinement Technical Assistance Manual (2d ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department 
Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 2002 Update 

OMNI Research and Training, Inc. 1998. An Identification and Assessment Study of 

Disproportionate Minority Confinement in Colorado. Denver, CO: OMNI Research and 

Training. 

Poe-Yamagata, E., and Jones, M. 2000. And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of 

Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth. 

Pope, C.E., Lovell, R., and Hsia, H.M. 2002 (online prepublication available at 

ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dmc/pdf/dmc89_01.pdf). Disproportionate Minority Confinement: A 

Review of the Research Literature From 1989 Through 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Sickmund, M., Snyder, H.N., and Poe-Yamagata, E. 1997. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 

1997 Update on Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

42 


iety of materii

and the 

i

ials 

materi

● 

ments from OJJDP and the field about 

● a bimonthly 

topics as JUVJUST—plus recent OJJDP 

Glance 

Corrections and Detention 

2004, NCJ 202713 

2004, NCJ 202885 

2002, NCJ 187078 

2004, NCJ 202019 

le 

l

Delinquency

2003, NCJ 193410 

School. 

Gangs 

2001, 

2002, NCJ 191524 

2004, 

Access to Counsel l

l

(Causes and Correlates Issue), 

2003, 

2003, 

2003, 

Missing and Exploited Children 

i 2002, 

2002, NCJ 190448 

l

NCJ 199832. 

2001, NCJ 190105 

2002, NCJ 194639 

National Estimates of Missing Children: 

2002, NCJ 196467 

2000, 

2002, NCJ 196469 

l

2004, NCJ 203934 

2001, 

2001, 

l 

2001, 

2001, 

Victimization. 

ization. 

2004, 

cent Victimization. 

2002, NCJ 191052 

2004, 

2002, NCJ 195737 

OJJDP produces a wide var

als, including Bulletins, Newsletters, Fact 

Sheets, Reports, Summar es, videotapes, 

Juvenile Justice journal—all available from the Juvenile Justice 

Clearinghouse via the Internet. View and 

download mater als at OJJDP’s Web site 

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp). Order mater

at puborder.ncjrs.org. Ask questions about 

als at askjj.ncjrs.org. Publications may 

also be ordered by phone (800–851–3420). 

To receive notification of new publications— 

and current information on developments 

in the field and at OJJDP—subscribe to 

OJJDP’s free electronic services: 

The JUVJUST listserv e-mails announcenew publications, funding opportunities, 

and upcoming conferences. 

OJJDP News @ a Glance, 

newsletter, covers many of the same 

activities—in greater depth. 

Subscribe to JUVJUST and News @ a 

online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp. 

Assessing the Mental Health Status of Youth in 

Juvenile Justice Settings. 

(8 pp.). 

Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000: 

Selected Findings. 2002, NCJ 196595 (4 pp.). 

Juveniles in Corrections. 

(24 pp.). 

Courts 

Juvenile Drug Court Programs. 2001, 

NCJ 184744 (16 pp.). 

Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability 

and Providing Treatment. 

(12 pp.). 

Juveniles in Court. 2003, NCJ 195420 (32 pp.). 

Delinquency Prevention 

2002 Report to Congress: Title V Community 

Prevention Grants Program. 

(48 pp.). 

Blueprints for Violence Prevention (availab

online only). 2004, NCJ 204274 (180 pp.). 

Child Delinquency: Ear y Intervention and 

Prevention. 2003, NCJ 186162 (20 pp.). 

Prevalence and Development of Child 

. 2003, NCJ 193411 (8 pp.). 

Risk and Protective Factors of Child 

Delinquency. 2003, NCJ 193409 (16 pp.). 

Successful Program Implementation: Lessons 

From Blueprints. 2004, NCJ 204273 (12 pp.). 

Treatment, Services, and Intervention Programs 

for Child Delinquents. 

(16 pp.). 

Truancy Reduction: Keeping Students in 

2001, NCJ 188947 (16 pp.). 

Hybrid and Other Modern Gangs. 

NCJ 189916 (8 pp.). 

Modern-Day Youth Gangs. 

(12 pp.). 

Youth Gangs in Indian Country. 

NCJ 202714 (16 pp.). 

General Juvenile Justice 

(availab e online only). 2004, 

NCJ 204063 (34 pp.). 

Aftercare Services (availab e online only). 2003, 

NCJ 201800 (31 pp.). 

Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability: 

Overview. 2003, NCJ 184745 (12 pp.). 

Changes to OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability 

Program. 2003, NCJ 200220 (6 pp.). 

Juvenile Justice 

Volume IX, Number 1. 2004, NCJ 203555 

(40 pp.). 

Latest Resources From OJJDP. 

BC 000115 (56 pp.). 

OJJDP’s Tribal Youth Initiatives. 

NCJ 193763 (8 pp.). 

Race as a Factor in Juvenile Arrests. 

NCJ 189180 (8 pp.). 

Children Abducted by Family Members: 

Nat onal Estimates and Characteristics. 

NCJ 196466 (12 pp.). 

Explanations for the Decline in Child Sexual 

Abuse Cases. 2004, NCJ 199298 (12 pp.). 

A Family Resource Guide on International 

Parental Kidnapping. 

(139 pp.). Also availab e in Spanish. 2002, 

Issues in Resolving Cases of International 

Child Abduction by Parents. 

(20 pp.). 

A Law Enforcement Guide on International 

Parental Kidnapping. 

(116 pp.). 

An Overview. 2002, NCJ 196465 (12 pp.). 

Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics. 

(16 pp.). 

Overview of the Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse: Update 2000. 

NCJ 178893 (12 pp.). 

Prostitution of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS. 

2004, NCJ 203946 (12 pp.). 

Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics. 

(12 pp.). 

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival 

Guide. 2004 Update, NCJ 204958 (108 pp.). 

Also availab e in Spanish. 2002, NCJ 178902. 

Substance Abuse 

Detection and Prevalence of Substance Use 

Among Juvenile Detainees. 

(16 pp.). 

Violence and Victimization 

Addressing Youth Victimization. 

NCJ 186667 (20 pp.). 

Animal Abuse and Youth Violence. 

NCJ 188677 (16 pp.). 

Community Correlates of Rura Youth Violence. 

2003, NCJ 193591 (12 pp.). 

Crimes Against Children by Babysitters. 

NCJ 189102 (8 pp.). 

Gun Use by Male Juveniles: Research and 

Prevention. 2001, NCJ 188992 (12 pp.). 

Homicides of Children and Youth. 

NCJ 187239 (12 pp.). 

How Families and Communities Influence Youth 

2003, NCJ 201629 (12 pp.). 

Juvenile Delinquency and Serious Injury Victim2001, NCJ 188676 (8 pp.). 

Juvenile Justice (School Violence Issue), Volume 

VIII, Number 1. 2001, NCJ 188158 (40 pp.). 

Juvenile Suicides, 1981–1998. 

NCJ 196978 (8 pp.). 

Offenders Incarcerated for Crimes Against 

Juveniles. 2001, NCJ 191028 (12 pp.). 

Protecting Children in Cyberspace: The ICAC 

Task Force Program. 2002, NCJ 191213 (8 pp.). 

Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Adoles2002, NCJ 191210 (16 pp.). 

Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending: An Analysis 

of Victim Survey Data. 

(20 pp.). 

Victims of Violent Juvenile Crime. 

NCJ 201628 (8 pp.). 

Violent Victimization as a Risk Factor for Violent 

Offending Among Juveniles. 

(12 pp.). 

Publications From OJJDP 

Revised 08/09/2004 
DOJ/OJJDP 

20531 

*NCJ~201240* 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

PERMIT NO. G–91 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Washington, DC 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300