A Message From OJJDP 

Addressing disproportionate minority contact (DMC) 

with the juvenile justice system is a core requirement 

of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(JJDP) Act. More important, it is a fundamental matter 

of justice and fair play. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) works proactively with States 

to ensure that they comply with the JJDP Act’s 

requirements, including DMC. This goal is pursued 

through a variety of means, including onsite visits, 

technical assistance, and national and regional 

training conferences. 

OJJDP has trained a large number of juvenile justice 

professionals in the core requirements. This training 

provides them with information to address DMC 

and other significant challenges facing the juvenile 

justice system. 

The key focus of OJJDP’s efforts to combat DMC is 

prevention. By preventing disproportionate minority 

contact with the juvenile justice system, we also will 

lower the rate of disproportionate minority confinement and enhance the administration of justice. 

A companion to the latest edition of OJJDP’s Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Manual, 

this Bulletin describes strategies that States and communities can use to reduce DMC. 

It is OJJDP’s hope and conviction that the information 

provided in this Bulletin, as well as the ongoing efforts 

described above, will advance that worthy end. 

Reducing Disproportionate 

Minority Contact: Preparation 

at the Local Level 

Mark Soler and Lisa M. Garry 

Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) refers to the disproportionate representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. DMC first came

to national attention in 1988, when the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (formerly

the National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups) focused 

on the problem in its annual report to Congress. In response to the report,

Congress required that all States receiving formula grant funds address disproportionality among detained and confined youth. In 1992, Congress elevated 

DMC to a core requirement for States. Under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, if a State fails to address the overrepresentation

of minority youth in the juvenile justice system, the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) may withhold 20 percent of the State’s formula grant allocation for the subsequent year. The Act expanded the requirement

to include disproportionality at all points in the juvenile justice system. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has long been a

leader in DMC-reduction efforts, offering a wide range of training, technical

assistance, and other resources for States and localities. Recently, OJJDP added 

the Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Manual, 4th Edition

(see sidebar, page 8) to its Web site. The manual provides detailed guidance on

all aspects of DMC reduction. 

This Bulletin was written by the authors of the manual’s chapter on local

preparation. In addition to useful “how to” information (including a six-step

preparation process) drawn from the manual, the Bulletin presents important

background on the context in which local preparation takes place—media

coverage and public attitudes about crime, race, and youth. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

Addressing disproportionate minority contact in juvenile justice 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

September 2009 Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Preparation Is Important 

Preparation before launching a DMC-reduction effort has several

benefits. Major benefits include— 

•	 Establishing relationships with and among key stakeholders. 

•	 Determining the key goals of DMC-reduction efforts. 

•	 Identifying available data and research on DMC in the jurisdiction. 

In addition, preparing locally for a DMC-reduction effort has a number of specific advantages. For example, planning at the local level is 

less susceptible to bureaucratic and political intervention than planning at the State level. Further, local stakeholders are likely to invest

in viable solutions aimed at particular issues in the community. From

a practical perspective, local DMC efforts place the issue closer to the

direct work of agency staff and community

leaders who either (1) closely resemble 

the population of youth most represented 

in the juvenile justice system in terms of 

race and ethnicity or (2) are experienced in

planning and problem-solving for a specific

population of youth and families in a way

that is responsive to culture and context. 

Preparation at the local level is critical to 

understanding the roles, values, priorities,

and joint missions of local stakeholders as

they begin to reduce DMC. 

Talking About DMC 

Critical to any DMC-reduction effort is

an understanding of the context in which the effort takes place.

Negative public attitudes about the association between race 

(particularly minority races) and crime are an important part of 

that context. These issues form a volatile combination: they are 

sensitive and controversial, stereotypes are common, and opinions

are strong. However, the reality may not correspond with public

attitudes. 

The most important influence on public attitudes about these 

issues is the media, especially local television news, which is the 

way most people receive information about crime in their community (ABC News, 2000; Merkle, 2000). The depiction of crime,

race, and youth in the media can have a significant impact on the 

level of motivation for and commitment to DMC intervention 

strategies (Braxton, 1997; McCombs and Shaw, 1993). Reports 

that perpetuate racial and ethnic stereotypes can raise difficult

barriers to DMC efforts (Martindale, 1996). 

Public opinion research demonstrates the impact that this media

coverage can have (Bell, 2006). At the same time, opinion research

indicates that the public has mixed views on justice system responses to juvenile crime: a desire to hold young offenders 

Preparation at the 

local level is critical to 

understanding 

the roles, values, 

priorities, and joint 

missions of local 

stakeholders as they 

begin to reduce DMC. 

accountable, frustration at perceived ineffectiveness of the current

system, and a belief that young people in trouble can change for

the better. Perhaps most important, the public is concerned about

the fairness of a justice system that may treat youth differently

based on their race or ethnicity. 

Public opinion polls should certainly not control policy changes 

and DMC efforts. However, research on these issues may help a

community prepare to launch a DMC-reduction effort (Dorfman

and Schiraldi, 2001a, 2001b; Soler, 2001). 

Crime, Race, and Youth in the Media 

Dorfman and Schiraldi (2001a, 2001b) examined 77 studies on

how the media report crime. The studies covered stories in local

and network television news programs, newspapers, and broadcast

and print news magazines between 1910 

and 2001. Their finding was clear: 

“Overall, the studies taken 

together indicate that depictions 

of crime in the media are not reflective of the rate of crime generally, the proportion of crime 

which is violent, the proportion 

of crime committed by people of 

color, or the proportion of crime 

committed by young people.” 

The problem is not inaccuracy of individual

stories.The problem is that the cumulative 

effect of what is included in the news—and 

what is not included—makes it seem as though crime is more frequent

and more severe than is actually the case. 

It is not surprising that newspapers and television emphasize and 

report extensively on violent crime, particularly on local television

news, where “if it bleeds, it leads” is an unspoken but well understood

journalistic mantra. However, this creates a problem for DMCreduction efforts because it contributes to the public’s erroneous 

impression that violent crime is a common and increasingly frequent

occurrence. In fact, the opposite is true. As Dorfman and Schiraldi 

report, three different studies of television news in the 1990s1

 all 

found that homicides made up more than a quarter of the crimes 

reported on the evening news (27 to 29 percent) during the periods 

studied, while homicides accounted for only 0.1 to 0.2 percent of 

all arrests during the same periods. From 1990 to 1998, homicide 

coverage on network news increased 473 percent (Center for Media

and Public Affairs, 2000), while the incidence of homicides decreased 

more than 30 percent (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000). 

Another problem for DMC-reduction efforts is that media

coverage, particularly television news, disproportionately connects 

crime with race and ethnicity. The studies noted above found that 

| 2 Disproportionate Minority Contact 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nyder 

 The public also 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

African Americans and Hispanics were overrepresented as perpetrators in news reports, especially those involving violent crimes,

and underrepresented as victims (Dorfman and Schiraldi, 2001b,

table 1). Articles about homicides with African American suspects 

were longer than those about homicides with white suspects (Weiss 

and Chermak, 1998). More articles were written about white victims

of homicide than about black victims (Sorenson, Manz, and Berk,

1998), and the articles about white victims were longer (Weiss and 

Chermak, 1998). In local television news coverage, black suspects 

were less likely to be identified by name than white suspects, were not

as well dressed as white suspects, and were more likely to be shown

being physically restrained.Thus, African American suspects were 

regularly depicted as poor, dangerous, and indistinct from other

noncriminal members of the black community (Entman, 1992). 

The third problem for DMC-reduction efforts is that media coverage disproportionately connects violent crime with young people,

particularly minority youth. As Dorfman and Schiraldi note, an

analysis of 840 newspaper stories and 109 network news segments 

in 1993 showed that 40 percent of all newspaper stories on children and 48 percent of network television news stories on children

were about violence (Kunkel, 1994). A study of 3,172 youthrelated stories appearing in 3 California newspapers2

 in 1 year

found that 25 percent were about youth violence, although only

3 percent of young people are either violent offenders or victims 

of violence (McManus and Dorfman, 2000). 

Minority youth may fare badly in the media. For example, as 

Dorfman and Schiraldi report, a study of cover stories in Time 

and Newsweek between 1946 and 1995 found that the term “young 

black male” became synonymous with the word “criminal” in the 

late 1960s. In later stories in the 1970s, both magazines portrayed 

crime as “largely perpetrated by ‘young Black males’” (Barlow, 1998).

Research covering reports from 1990 to 1995 found that minority

youth were also more likely than white youth to appear in television

news stories about crime (Dorfman and Woodruff, 1998). 

The combination of a focus on violent crime, disproportionate linking 

of crime with people of color, and overrepresentation of young people

(especially minority youth) in stories of criminal violence may have 

a significant effect on public attitudes toward crime, race, and youth.

Because these attitudes are an important part of the context in

which DMC-reduction efforts take place, those working on DMC

preparation at the local level should be aware of local media coverage

of crime, race, young people, and related topics. 

1 Rocky Mountain Media Watch’s 1-day snapshot of local television news in 

55 markets around the country on February 26, 1997 (Klite, 1995); the Kaiser 

Family Foundation (1998) analyses of national television news in 1996; and 

Gilliam et al.’s (1996) and Gilliam and Iyenger’s (2000) studies of the evening 

news on KABC–TV in Los Angeles from 1993 to 1994. 

2 The stories were randomly selected from the Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, 

and San Francisco Chronicle. 

Several types of stories may convey messages or

receive coverage that perpetuates racial or ethnic

stereotypes.These include stories on violent crimes 

(especially in white neighborhoods) (Brown,

2006; Fischer, 2006); police crackdowns (Stewart

and Klein, 2006); statements by political candidates; aggressive efforts by community activists;

and new studies of issues such as poverty, race,

crime, “urban decay,” and “the plight of the poor”

(Gans, 1995).To the extent that juvenile justice 

stakeholders, public officials, or other members of 

the community accept racial/ethnic stereotypes

conveyed in the media, these stereotypes present

barriers to DMC-reduction efforts. 

Public Attitudes About Crime, 

Race, and Youth 

Of course, the media do not dictate the 

attitudes of individuals, and, as mentioned 

earlier, research indicates that members of 

the public have complex views on the juvenile 

justice system. Some of these attitudes present

additional barriers to DMC-reduction efforts, 

but others provide important support. Opinion

polls consistently show that the public is very

fearful about juvenile crime (Soler, 2001). In

fact, although arrests of juveniles for violent

crime decreased 33 percent from 1994 to 2003 

(National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2006), the 

public believes that juvenile crime is increasing (S

and Sickmund, 1999; Gray, 2003; Wagner, 2003).

believes that young people who break the law will commit other

crimes in the future and that the juvenile justice system is ineffective in dealing with young offenders (Butts, 1999). There is widespread belief that the system does not hold youth accountable for

their actions but instead lets delinquent youth back on the streets 

without effective interventions or rehabilitation. Moreover, the 

public is unsympathetic to arguments that delinquent behavior is a

result of immaturity (the “youth excuse”) (Soler, 2001). All of these

opinions present challenges for DMC-reduction efforts. 

On the other hand, the public has great concern about what happens to young people in the justice system. It overwhelmingly

supports a focus on prevention and rehabilitation rather than

imprisonment and strongly endorses a variety of rehabilitation

programs (Steinhart, 1988; Ladd, 1997; Hart Research, 2002). The 

public is concerned about dangerous conditions in juvenile facilities 

(Amnesty International, 1998) and does not want delinquent youth

incarcerated with adult inmates (Schiraldi and Ziedenberg, 2000;

Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2005). Instead, it supports programs 

that emphasize responsibility and accountability (e.g., victim 

Disproportionate Minority Contact 3 | 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reconciliation and restitution) and programs that provide adult

models (e.g., mentoring) (Marcus, 2005; Sherman et al., 1998). 

Public attitudes about race and juvenile crime are complex. Many

people subscribe to racial stereotypes. In a national poll conducted 

for Building Blocks for Youth, when asked direct questions, more 

than one-third of respondents agreed with statements that African

American youth are more likely to commit crimes than white 

youth. Black respondents were less likely to agree with the statements, but only slightly: at least one-quarter of black respondents 

agreed with the statements (Soler, 2001). Nevertheless, the public

is concerned that the justice system may treat minority youth

unfairly. “Fairness” is the critical issue (Dunnaville, 2000). In the 

Building Blocks poll, large majorities considered the issue to be

serious and supported measures to remedy unequal treatment of

minority youth, such as diversity training and new guidelines for

arrest, prosecution, and sentencing. 

Taking Public Attitudes Into Account: 

Suggestions for Local DMC Efforts 

These findings about public attitudes may help a jurisdiction

develop its approaches to enlisting support for DMC-reduction

efforts. They suggest that strongly held beliefs may present

challenges to DMC interventions but that approaches may

be successful if they emphasize some basic principles of 

juvenile justice reform: 

•	 Young people should be held accountable for their behavior. 

•	 Holding young people accountable does not necessarily mean 

incarcerating them. 

•	 Alternatives to incarceration are desirable, but interventions for 

delinquent youth should be proven to be effective. 

•	 Having a race-neutral justice system is a matter of basic fairness. 

Thus, local preparation should include research on media coverage of crime, race, youth, and related sensitive issues to determine 

whether the community may have attitudes (in general or related 

to a particular, highly publicized incident) that DMC-reduction

efforts must overcome. 

With these findings in mind, people working on local DMCreduction efforts should consider how the public may receive their

efforts in view of widespread attitudes about DMC-related issues 

(Schwartz, 2001; DeMuro, 1999). For example, it probably will

not be effective to argue that DMC-reduction efforts are important because many minority youth come from poor homes in

which parents have many difficulties. The argument that DMC is 

a matter of basic fairness—minority youth should not be treated 

differently in the justice system because of their race or ethnic

background—is more likely to find support. Similarly, DMCreduction efforts should avoid any suggestion of excusing delinquent behavior or calling for a slap on the wrist of young people 

who commit crimes. A better approach is to agree that young 

people should be held accountable for their misbehavior—after

all, everyone must learn from their mistakes, and everyone makes 

mistakes when they are young—and then discuss whether incarceration is the most effective way of holding youth accountable.

Stakeholders, public officials, and members of the community may

be receptive to proposals for effective alternatives to incarceration,

such as evidence-based intervention programs (U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, 2001). 

Funding Sources for Local DMC Efforts 

An initial issue in preparation for local DMC-reduction efforts is how

to support them financially. OJJDP awards Title II Formula Grant

funds to States for system improvement and programmatic efforts as

well as technical assistance and other support for DMC-reduction

and other reforms. OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Block Grant and

Title V Community Prevention Grant Program funds provide additional financial support to States for juvenile justice reform, intervention, and prevention services in the area of juvenile delinquency.Title

II Formula Grant funds passed from States to communities support

the work of the Burns Institute, described below, in many communities. State and county agencies may also support DMC-reduction

efforts with State or local dollars. Local foundations, particularly community foundations, may be a source of funds.The Council on Foundations and other organizations provide information on locating and 

contacting community foundations. Several national foundations, such

as the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T.

MacArthur Foundation, support juvenile justice reform initiatives—

e.g., the Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative 

and the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change—that have 

DMC-reduction components. 

Steps in Local Preparation 

Establishing a Steering Committee 

Local preparation should begin with the establishment of a steering committee. The committee should include key stakeholders in

the juvenile justice system, such as the chief judge in the juvenile 

court, chief juvenile probation officer, senior prosecutor in the juvenile

court, senior public defender, and police captain or lieutenant in charge

of juvenile cases. It is important to have chiefs or senior officials on the

committee to ensure that committee decisions are implemented. 

The committee should also include nontraditional stakeholders (i.e.,

persons with an interest in DMC from the perspective of program 

services rather than system policies and practices).These representatives are identified from community-level leadership, such as directors of community groups, civil rights organizations, child advocates,

parent advocates, and others in the community who are concerned 

with DMC issues.The committee should also include young people 

| 4	 Disproportionate Minority Contact 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or representatives of young people who are or have been in the system

to anchor the work to the population most affected. For example, the

composition of DMC workgroup members in Cook County, IL 

(South Suburbs), is exemplary in its engagement of nontraditional

stakeholders, such as community-based service providers, grassroots leaders, and community residents. Community representatives

often understand the program and service delivery needs of youth,

families, and communities in greater context. Reductions in overrepresentation cannot be sustained without an infrastructure of effective community-based detention alternatives, diversion, and other

programs to address and prevent youth involvement in the criminal

justice system. 

Identifying Leadership 

DMC is a difficult issue to address, so it is critical to identify

strong leadership for the steering committee. This usually means 

the chief judge in the juvenile court or chief juvenile probation

officer, since they will most likely control policy changes that

may be necessary to implement DMC reduction. Leadership by

high-level administrators of the judicial and/or probation system

also conveys and lends validity to the message that DMC reduction is an important issue within system agencies. 

Reaching Consensus 

The first task of the steering committee is to reach consensus on

the goals of the DMC-reduction effort and the responsibilities of 

participants in the effort. If the local effort will conduct its activities in

conjunction with a State DMC-reduction effort, State leaders should

use the preparatory phase to introduce DMC as a shared vision and

responsibility of both State and local entities.This approach will incorporate the concerns, insights, and innovations of local communities in

the broader context of statewide DMC-reduction activities. 

At the early stage, this foundational step in preparation at the local

level will be based more on dialog than on data research. Dialog 

among all participants on the committee will help establish consensus, prioritize problematic decision points, and create a sense of 

urgency among local leaders and stakeholder groups. 

Members of the steering committee may come to the effort with

different expectations and understandings of the goals. The preparatory dialog will reveal the shared agendas and differences of 

position among stakeholders concerning variables contributing most

to DMC. Leadership of the steering committee should anticipate 

and plan for differences among stakeholders in goals, priorities, or

strategies. Creative tension helps the collaborative build consensus 

and trust. 

Conveying a Sense of Urgency 

DMC reduction will not occur as an afterthought or a by-product

of other initiatives. The leadership of the steering committee must 

convey a sense of urgency about the issue. The members of the 

committee should address the following questions: 

•	 Do the stakeholders consider DMC to be an important issue? 

•	 Do they believe that fair and equitable treatment of minority youth will improve their outcomes and, therefore, reduce 

concerns about public safety? 

•	 What changes in policy are they prepared to consider to 

reduce DMC? 

•	 What resources can they bring to the effort? 

Conveying a sense of urgency reflects the committee’s determination to search for active solutions to racial and ethnic disparities. 

Setting Priorities 

DMC may occur at any decision point in the system—arrest,

referral to juvenile court, diversion, secure detention, petition

(charges filed), delinquent findings, probation placement, secure 

confinement, and transfer to adult court. The steering committee 

should lead an effort to gather available data—broken down by

race, ethnicity, gender, geography (ZIP code or census tract), and 

offense—at all or selected decision points (e.g., secure detention).

The committee should then oversee an analysis of the data in order 

Disproportionate Minority Contact 	 5 | 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to develop interventions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities.

Collecting and assessing data, creating interventions, and analyzing the efforts can be challenging and time-consuming. In order

to simplify the process, a committee may want to address one 

decision point at a time. Although committees should set priorities based on data, other factors—such as the level of collaboration 

among stakeholders, the community’s readiness for change, and

availability of resources—may drive local efforts. 

Consensus, urgency, and priority are keystones of DMC preparation and planning. The process may take months, or even longer,

to accomplish. Local communities should not move forward 

until they meet these prerequisites. By the same token, when

they meet these prerequisites, the community should acknowledge and celebrate them as notable successes in the DMC

planning process. 

Organizing the Work by Defining Success 

The next step in local-level DMC-reduction preparation is defining success. How do local stakeholders define success based on

their own perspective of need and their collective experience in local juvenile justice work? Although the goal is to reduce disproportionate representation at particular points in the system, there are 

many ways to move toward that goal, such as adopting an objective 

risk assessment instrument to control detention admissions, developing new community-based programs and services as alternatives 

to secure detention, modifying police procedures to better track

contacts with minority youth, adopting policies to reduce transfer

to adult criminal court, and reducing postdispositional placements 

in secure confinement. As with the consensus-building process,

reaching agreement among stakeholders on the definition of success may be a struggle, but it is an important step. 

Basic Tasks for the Steering Committee 

The lessons learned from the Baltimore City DMC Reduction

Initiative’s planning and preparation activities have identified the 

following basic tasks for the steering committee. 

Articulating Local Goals and Objectives 

The core goals and objectives of the DMC reduction initiative in

Baltimore City, MD, are to reduce over representation of youth of

color at the secure detention decision point by altering conditions,

policies, and practices that contribute to their overrepresentation

in the system and by influencing the culture and values of the

system and community toward least-restrictive and communitybased sanctions. The steering committee has clearly articulated a

set of objectives, identified specific tasks, made assignments, and 

developed timelines for activities. The result is a tangible workplan to which the steering committee, its staff, and consultants 

hold themselves accountable and by which they measure progress 

toward policy and practice reforms and, ultimately, DMC 

reductions. Additionally, routine dissemination of the workplan

to partners and community stakeholders helps to communicate 

the steering committee’s work, findings, and progress. 

Mediating Discussions 

Initial discussions about the system decision points at which

disproportionality was greatest unveiled differences of opinion and 

perspectives among key stakeholders within the steering committee. Although some stakeholders believed that disparate law

enforcement practices resulted in the high numbers of juveniles 

being presented at intake, others were convinced that disparate 

system policies and practices following juvenile arrest were the 

issue and priority. Opinions differed even more when the jurisdiction experienced an increase in the number of difficult-to-place,

postadjudicated juveniles who were in confinement, and thereby

increased disproportionality even further. Through its mediation

of the DMC discussions and debates, the steering committee 

facilitated a shift from disagreements on the extent of disproportionality at various decision points to a mutually agreeable focus 

on decision points where DMC-reduction victories could be 

gained more readily and rapidly. City stakeholders agreed that the 

steering committee’s influence over policies and practices at the 

doors of detention was greater than its influence over the public

attitudes and perceptions that were driving law enforcement practices. Ultimately, DMC-reduction activities in Baltimore City

were better served by this focus on detention rather than law

enforcement. 

Keeping DMC at the Forefront of 

Juvenile Justice Activities 

The task of keeping the issue of DMC front and center in all juvenile justice discussions and activities in the jurisdiction is strongly

tied to the principle of creating and maintaining a sense of local

urgency on the issue. Early in the planning process, Baltimore 

City’s DMC steering group identified all other local planning and 

strategy initiatives that shaped and drove outcomes for youth of 

color who were either involved, or at risk for involvement, in the 

juvenile justice system. The intention was to establish racial disparity as an agenda item for the other initiatives. This was accomplished through the active involvement of DMC group members 

in the other initiatives to apply a “racial lens” to their planning and 

strategies. For example, the DMC steering committee and the 

other committees within Baltimore City’s detention reform initiative formed working partnerships to assess and redevelop detention alternatives, expedite case processing, and study the nexus 

between the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Through a

full-time DMC coordinator in Baltimore City, the DMC steering committee has taken the lead on detention utilization studies

and community capacity building to increase community-based 

resources that serve juveniles in less restrictive settings. 

| 6 Disproportionate Minority Contact 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moving Ahead With 

Intervention Strategies 

Jurisdictions must be careful not to allow extended dialog and 

analyses of assessments to immobilize them so that they fail to 

move forward with active reduction strategies and interventions.

This “analysis paralysis” is a common experience in jurisdictions 

that lack measurable goals and objectives and a detailed workplan

to accomplish them. While the State of Maryland had been examining the issue of DMC through various data analyses, reports, and

conferences for several years, communities lacked viable strategies 

toward attainable goals. The development of its DMC workplan

and the decision to hire a full-time DMC coordinator enabled 

the Baltimore City DMC Reduction Initiative to move beyond 

abstract discussion and to finally focus on the development

and implementation of intervention strategies that address

day-to-day agency practices and increase community-based

resources and detention alternatives. 

of juvenile detention, the Annie E. Casey

Foundation established the Juvenile DetenThe Burns Institute tion Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) in 1992.

Process: Building The objectives of JDAI are to reduce the 

number of children unnecessarily or inappropriately detained, to minimize the number of 

Community Momentum 

The W. Haywood Burns Institute is a youth who fail to appear in court or reoffend 

national organization working with lo- pending adjudication, to redirect public funds 

cal jurisdictions to reduce the dispro­ toward successful reform strategies, and to 

portionate representation of minority improve conditions of confinement. As miyouth in their juvenile justice systems nority youth are consistently overrepresented 

using a data-driven, consensus-based in juvenile detention facilities, the elimination

process model that engages both tradi­ of disparate treatment and decisionmaking

tional and nontraditional stakeholders. for these youth is a core JDAI strategy. Other

The Institute has a range of services to core strategies include collaboration, reliance

assist jurisdictions in reducing racial on data, objective admissions screening, alterdisparities in the juvenile justice system, from consulting to intensive engagement. 

The Institute model requires the active commitment and participation of the key traditional and nontraditional stakeholders in the 

juvenile justice system in each site. This includes judges, prosecutors, public defenders, police, probation, school officials, political

leaders, service providers, and community groups. The Institute 

leads these stakeholders through a process that focuses specifically

and intentionally on reducing DMC. 

Without a committed and intentional approach to reducing

DMC, jurisdictions often lose momentum because of changes in

stakeholders, inconsistent approaches, and short attention spans.

To ensure that sites stay focused, the Institute has developed a

manual and workbook to guide them through the process. The 

Institute’s model of Intensive Site Engagement calls for stakeholders to develop a workplan and to meet monthly to move it forward.

The model requires each site to hire a full-time local coordinator to 

lead the process. In addition, an Institute staff member is assigned 

to each site, attends all local meetings, and is available for the local

site coordinator and stakeholders to contact for technical assistance and guidance. Site coordinators from each of the Institute 

sites meet twice yearly to compare best practices and are available 

year-round for consultation with one another. The Institute also 

provides a Readiness Assessment Consultation to enable a site to 

assess its readiness to address DMC. In 2006, the Institute worked 

in Baltimore, MD; Louisville, KY; Pima County, AZ; Cook County (Lawndale and South Suburbs), IL; St. Clair County, IL; Peoria

County, IL; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; and Seattle, WA. 

The Juvenile Detention Alternatives 

Initiative: Changing the System 

To demonstrate that jurisdictions can establish more effective and 

efficient systems to accomplish the purposes 

natives to secure detention, expedited case 

processing, interventions for special detention cases (e.g., probation 

violations), and rigorous facility inspections. 

In May 2005, the Foundation began developing system assessment

frameworks for sites participating in JDAI.The frameworks provide a

structured, content-specific way for local jurisdictions to examine their

detention policies, practices, and programs and to gauge progress in

JDAI’s eight core strategies for detention reform. 

As part of this process, the Foundation and the Burns Institute developed a framework for viewing the JDAI core strategies “through a

racial lens.” This JDAI Core Strategies Matrix can help jurisdictions to

examine detention policies, practices, and programs and can also serve

as a workplan to help jurisdictions accomplish the following: 

•	 Structure a diverse DMC-reduction collaborative that has authority, common agendas, shared responsibilities, and community

representation. 

Disproportionate Minority Contact 	 7 | 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Rely on both quantitative and qualitative data to assess and 

reform detention utilization and to determine the most effective 

allocation and placement of community resources. 

•	 Eliminate intentional and unintentional biases in detention 

admission screening. 

•	 Develop culturally and racially competent detention alternatives. 

•	 Equalize case processing at all system decision points to minimize delay and ensure equity in the judicial process. 

•	 Address disparate handling of special detention cases (e.g., writs, 

warrants, violations of probation). 

•	 Ensure that confinement conditions are acceptable and competent. 

The JDAI Core Strategies Matrix supports the more than 80 JDAI

sites around the country when they examine system practices. The 

matrix is also useful to non-JDAI jurisdictions that are planning or

expanding DMC-reduction initiatives and developing workplans 

for racially equitable juvenile justice systems. 

This Bulletin includes a draft section from the JDAI Core Strategies Matrix (see pages 10–11). The full matrix is included in chapter 3 of OJJDP’s online Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical

Assistance Manual, 4th Edition (see sidebar). 

Conclusion 

This Bulletin outlines minimum core steps for local jurisdictions 

to prepare to engage in DMC-reduction activities. Additional preparatory steps will be unique to the specific climate for system reform in each particular site. Public attitudes and beliefs about race,

crime, and youth, and key decisions by key juvenile justice system 

stakeholders reflect that climate. Engaging in preparatory activities

presents an important opportunity for local leaders to develop concrete strategies toward measurable DMC-reduction results. 

References 

ABC News. 2000. Large majorities of Americans say the news 

media influence their perceptions about crime. May 31–June 4.

Republished on Public Agenda Online. Accessed January 9,

2007, at www.publicagenda.com/issues/pcc_detail.cfm?issue_

type=crimeandlist=4. 

Amnesty International USA. 1998. Betraying the young—

Children in the U.S. justice system. Accessed online November 28,

2006, at www.amnestyusa.org/regions/americas/document.do?id=

50F375DF4236C3BA80256900006931A1. 

Barlow, M.H. 1998. Race and the problem of crime in Time and 

Newsweek cover stories, 1946–1995. Social Justice 25:149–182. 

Bell, J. 2006. Correcting the system of unequal justice. In The Covenant 

with Black America. Chicago, IL: Third World Press, pp. 49–69. 

Disproportionate Minority Contact 

Technical Assistance Manual, 

4th Edition 

OJJDP’s online Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical 

Assistance Manual, 4th Edition, provides detailed guidance 

on DMC identification and monitoring, assessment, intervention, and evaluation. Its intended audience is juvenile 

justice specialists, members of State planning agencies and 

State advisory groups, DMC researchers and consultants, 

and policymakers and practitioners involved in the juvenile 

justice system at the State and local levels. 

The manual incorporates lessons learned in DMC efforts 

over the years. It brings States and localities the latest 

information and tools for understanding and effectively 

addressing disproportionate minority representation in 

the juvenile justice system. Electronic publication of the 

manual offers important benefits, including: 

• Wide distribution.

• Hyperlinks for instant access to related materials. 

• Annual updates: new information, resources, and 

examples of effective DMC-reduction strategies. 

Access the manual at www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/ 

dmc_ta_manual/index.html. 

Braxton, G. 1997. Ratings vs. crime rates: Putting L.A.’s changing

numbers into perspective. Los Angeles Times ( June 4):A1. 

Brown, D.L. 2006. Fear’s neighbors: Violent crime is no stranger to 

one side of the city, now it’s crossed the line. The Washington Post 

( July 19):C01. 

Butts, J.A. 1999. Youth Violence: Perception Versus Reality. Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute. 

Center for Media and Public Affairs. 2000. The media at the millennium: The networks’ top topics, trends, and joke targets of the 1990s.

Media Monitor 14(4):1–6. 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 2005. Childhood on Trial: The Failure of 

Trying and Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal Court. Washington, 

DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 

DeMuro, P. 1999. Consider the alternatives: Planning and implementing detention alternatives. In Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform.

Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

Dorfman, L., and Schiraldi, V. 2001a. Off Balance: Youth, Race, and Crime in 

the News, Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth. 

| 8	 Disproportionate Minority Contact 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dorfman, L., and Schiraldi, V. 2001b. Off Balance: Youth, Race, and Crime 

in the News, Full Report. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth. 

Dorfman, L., and Woodruff, K. 1998. The roles of speakers in local

television news stories on youth and violence. Journal of Popular 

Film and Television 26:80–85. 

Dunnaville, C.M. 2000. Unequal justice under the law—Racial inequalities in the justice system. Virginia Lawyer December (Senior 

Lawyer’s Section):20–25. 

Entman, R.M. 1992. Blacks in the news: Television, modern racism, and cultural change. Journalism Quarterly 69:341–361. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2000. Crime in the United States, 

Uniform Crime Reports, 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Fischer, M. 2006. D.C.’s reaction to killing misses the point. The 

Washington Post ( July 18):B01. 

Gans, H.J. 1995. The War Against the Poor: The Underclass and Antipoverty Policy. New York, NY: Basic Books. 

Gilliam, F.D., and Iyengar, S. 2000. Prime suspects: The influence 

of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of 

Political Science 44(3):560–573. 

Gilliam, F.D., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., and Wright, O. 1996. Crime

in black and white: The violent, scary world of local news. Harvard 

International Journal of Press-Politics 1(3):6–23. 

Gray, E.S. 2003. The media—Don’t believe the hype. Stanford Law 

and Policy Review 14(45):45–50. 

Hart Research. 2002. The New Politics of Criminal Justice: A Research 

and Messaging Report for the Open Society Institute. Washington, DC: 

Peter D. Hart Research Associates. 

Kaiser Family Foundation and the Center for Media and Public

Affairs. 1998. Assessing Local Television News Coverage of Health Issues.

Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. 

Klite, P. 1995. A day in the life of local news in America. Rocky

Mountain Media Watch. www.bigmedia.org. 

Kunkel, D. 1994. How the news media “see” kids. Media Studies 

Journal 8:74–84. 

Ladd, E. 1997. Crime and punishment: An American odyssey. The 

Public Perspective June/July:8–26. 

Marcus, D. 2005. Communities helping kids: Why diversion, outreach,

and counseling programs serve troubled children—and society—better

than prisons. The American Prospect September (Special Report). 

Martindale, C. 1996. Newspaper stereotypes of African Americans.

In Images That Injure: Pictorial Stereotypes in the Media, edited by P. 

Lester. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, pp. 21–26. 

McCombs, M., and Shaw, D. 1993. The evolution of agendasetting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas.

Journal of Communication 43(2):58–67. 

McManus, J., and Dorfman, L. 2000. Youth and Violence in California 

Newspapers. Issue 9. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Media Studies Group. 

Merkle, D. 2000. Crime fears linger, public still concerned 

despite improvements. ABCNews.com: June 7. Accessed online 

November 30, 2006, at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/

DailyNews/poll000607.html. 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2006. Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics, 1994–2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. Accessed online November 28, 2006, at

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr. 

Schiraldi, V., and Ziedenberg, J. 2000. The Florida Experiment: An

Analysis of the Impact of Granting Prosecutors Discretion To Try Juveniles as Adults. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. 

Schwartz, R.G. 2001. Promoting and sustaining detention reforms.

In Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform. Baltimore, MD: Annie 

E. Casey Foundation. 

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, 

P., and Bushway, S. 1998. Preventing Crime: What Works, What 

Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 

1999 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Disproportionate Minority Contact 9 | 
 

 

 

 

 

Soler, M. 2001. Public Opinion on Youth, Crime, and Race: A Guide 

for Advocates. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth. 

Sorenson, S.B., Manz, J.G., and Berk, R.A. 1998. News media 

coverage and the epidemiology of homicide. American Journal of 

Public Health 88:1510–1514. 

Steinhart, D. 1988. California opinion poll: Public attitudes on

youth crime. NCCD Focus December. 

Stewart, N., and Klein, A. 2006. Council approves earlier curfew:

Video surveillance in neighborhoods also wins support. The Washington Post ( July 20):A01. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. Youth Violence: 

A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center 

for Injury Prevention and Control; Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services; 

and National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health. 

Wagner, P. 2003. The Prison Index: Taking the Pulse of the Criminal 

Justice System. Portland, OR: The Prison Policy Initiative. 

Weiss, A., and Chermak, S.M. 1998. The news value of AfricanAmerican victims: An examination of the media’s presentation of 

homicide. Journal of Crime and Justice 21(2):71–88. 

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Core Strategies Matrix 

Collaboration

Issue What We’re Looking For, 

Why This Is Important 

Review, Observe, 

and Interview 

Major 

Findings 

Best Practices, 

Recommendations 

Authority •	 Is there an official imprimatur that reducing racial disparities is 

an explicit responsibility of the JDAI collaborative? 

Composition •	 Does the collaborative reflect the diversity of the kids and 

families involved in your juvenile justice system? 

•	 Do we have the decisionmakers sitting at the table with the 

appropriate community representatives? 

•	 Does the collaborative effort include representatives of the 

impacted neighborhoods of color? 

•	 Are civil rights advocates at the table? 

•	 Are community-based service providers at the table? 

Organizing •	 The intentionality and infusion of the racial lens needs to be 

the work driven in unison with decisionmakers and communities of 

color. 

•	 Is the current configuration (e.g., work group, ad hoc 

committee) working? 

•	 Is each subcommittee held accountable for contributions to 

reducing racial disparities? 

•	 Common challenges are: “work groups” working in a silo, 

which are expected to “fix” the problem.. 

Creating a •	 Are discussions regarding disproportionality undertaken with 

safe place respect and tolerance? 

•	 Are the discussions mainly finger-pointing sessions? 

•	 Are deliberations based on facts and supported by data or 

impressions? 

•	 Have efforts been made to ensure equal and full participation 

in the discussions and deliberations? 

| 10 Disproportionate Minority Contact 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Core Strategies Matrix (continued) 

Collaboration

Issue What We’re Looking For, 

Why This Is Important 

Review, Observe, 

and Interview 

Major 

Findings 

Best Practices, 

Recommendations 

Forging a •	 Do members of the collaborative, including work group members 

common if relevant, have a common understanding of, and embrace, the 

agenda same agenda: detention as the entry point to the reduction of 

racial disparities? 

•	 Members of the collaborative understand that the work entails 

changing policies and practices under the control of their 

juvenile justice system. 

•	 Members of the collaborative reach a consensus on the use of 

detention in their jurisdiction. 

•	 A shared value that pretrial detention should not be used as 

either punishment or treatment. 

Disaggregating •	 Baseline data of youth ages 10–17, disaggregated by race, ethnicdata by race and ity, gender, and geography, should be collected as a foundation to 

ethnicity identify the disproportionality and to commence the discussion. 

•	 Has the collaborative compared the percentage of youth of color 

in the juvenile justice system with the percentage of minorities in 

the general youth population? All ensuing data collection—e.g., 

admissions by reason, risk assessment instrument (RAI) screening, RAI overrides, length of stay (LOS), average daily population 

(ADP), use of alternatives to detention—should be disaggregated 

by race/ethnicity/gender/geography. 

•	 Routine management reports present basic utilization statistics 

by race/ethnicity/gender to enable stakeholders to identify disparities and to assess trends and change policies and practices. 

Detention •	 One of the first steps in planning for reform is to document how 

utilization detention is currently used through careful data collection and 

study analysis. A thorough description of recent trends and current 

practices in detention utilization provides the foundation for the 

problem identification and analysis, as well as the subsequent 

development of change strategies. The detention utilization 

study should provide the collaborative with a quantitative picture 

of how detention use varies for different categories of youth. 

Geocoding •	 Identify the target area(s), i.e., the geographic area(s) contriband community uting the highest number of kids in detention. 

mapping •	 Map the community assets, including community-based 

organizations currently providing services to youth and their 

families in the target neighborhoods. 

•	 Identifying the target neighborhoods and mapping communitybased services will assist in informing strategies for effective 

and efficient alternatives to detention. 

Routine •	 Using data to monitor progress toward reducing racial disparities 

management and disproportionate minority confinement. The JDAI quarterly 

reports reports are an example of fundamental management reports. As 

the data from the reports raise questions, further data queries 

should be developed to dig deeper and acquire clarity... 

Qualitative •	 Digging deeper generally leads to going “behind the data” 

analysis to look at individual policies and practices to clarify reasons 

behind the statistics. 

•	 What are the practices or policies contributing to the statistical 

disproportionality? 

Comprehensive •	 Is the community informed of the state of racial disparities/ 

annual analysis of DMC on an annual basis in your jurisdiction? 

racial disparities •	 Annual reports developed by the system partners help keep 

eyes on the prize and promote accountability and transparency. 

Disproportionate Minority Contact 11 | 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~218861*

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/OJJDP
 

PERMIT NO. G–91
 

Bulletin NCJ 218861 

Acknowledgments 

Mark Soler is Executive Director at the Center for Children’s Law and Policy in

Washington, DC. Lisa M. Garry was the Baltimore City DMC Coordinator in

Baltimore, MD, and is currently DMC Policy Director at the Center for Children’s 

Law and Policy. 

The authors are deeply indebted to Sarah Boyle, Saint Louis University School of Law

summer intern, for her excellent research for this Bulletin. 

Share With Your Colleagues 

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in

your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and the authors

of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you received a

copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP materials meet your

individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to: 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420 

301–519–5600 (fax)

Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov 

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 2004–JL–FX–0083 

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. 

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 

Community Capacity Development Office; the National Institute 

of Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, 

and Tracking (SMART). 

For information about other
 

OJJDP programs, go to
 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp.
 

| 12