EVALUATION OF THE

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC) INITIATIVE

Oregon Final Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

May 8, 1996
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... iv

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................. I-1

1. OJJDP DMC BACKGROUND ................................ I-1

1.1 Summary of DMC Literature ............................ I-1

1.2 OJJDP's DMC Initiative ............................... I-2

2. OREGON DMC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT OVERVIEW ........ I-3

2.1 Summary of Phase I Research Activities And Findings ....... I-3

2.2 Overview of Phase II Activities .......................... I-5

3. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ............. I-7

II. LANE COUNTY ................................................... II-1

1. BACKGROUND ........................................... II-1

2. MULTICULTURAL ADVOCATE PROGRAM ..................... II-2

3. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS ..................... II-3

3.1 Lane County's Process Evaluation ....................... II-3

3.2 Outcome Evaluation Support ........................... II-6

4. SUMMARY OF LANE COUNTY EVALUATION FINDINGS ........ II-11

III. MARION COUNTY ............................................... III-1

1. BACKGROUND .......................................... III-1

2. MARION COUNTY CULTURAL COMPETENCY INITIATIVE ....... III-2

3. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS .................... III-7

3.1 Marion County Process Evaluation ..................... III-7

3.2 Outcome Evaluation Support .......................... III-9
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

4. SUMMARY OF MARION COUNTY EVALUATION FINDINGS .......... III-11

IV. MULTNOMAH COUNTY .......................................... IV-1

1. BACKGROUND .......................................... IV-1

2. AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE CONNECTION PROGRAM ......... IV-2

3. EVALUATION DESIGN .................................... IV-5

3.1 Data Sources ...................................... IV-6

3.2 Results ........................................... IV-6

V. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE OREGON DMC INITIATIVE ............ V-1

1. OVERVIEW ............................................. V-1

2. SPECIFICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED .................... V-2

2.1 Defining the DMC Problem ............................ V-2

2.2 Designing and Implementing the DMC Intervention ......... V-6

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A ................................................. A-1

APPENDIX B ................................................. B-1

APPENDIX C ................................................. C-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) mandate of the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act requires states to develop and

implement strategies to address and reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in

secure facilities. In an effort to facilitate compliance with the mandate, the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored demonstration

projects in five pilot states. In Phase I of OJJDP's DMC Initiative, each pilot state

assessed the extent of DMC in its juvenile justice system. In Phase II, each state

designed and implemented strategies to address the disproportionate representation

identified in Phase I. The Initiative also included a National Evaluation to document the

lessons learned, identify key factors in the success of state and local efforts, and

determine the efficacy of different interventions in reducing DMC. At the request of

OJJDP, Caliber Associates, in conjunction with state representatives and Portland

State University, conducted the National Evaluation, consisting of separate evaluations

of each pilot state and one non-pilot state. This report presents findings from the

evaluation of the Oregon DMC demonstration project.

METHODOLOGY

The evaluation of Oregon's DMC initiative included a process evaluation and an

outcome/impact evaluation. Data was collected for the evaluation efforts via project

document reviews; individual interviews with local service providers and state, local,

and community representatives; focus groups with community representatives; and

secondary data sources such as juvenile justice and service provider records. 

Qualitative analyses of the focus group and interview data, and statistical analyses of

the secondary data were conducted.

OREGON'S DMC INITIATIVE

During Phase I of Oregon's DMC initiative, the Research and Evaluation

Department of the Oregon Community Children and Youth Services Commission

(OCCYSC) assessed the extent of overrepresentation in the state's juvenile justice

system. This research effort included a statewide assessment of minority youth

overrepresentation and a more intensive analysis of data from three pilot counties: 

Multnomah, Marion, and Lane.
Oregon Community Children & Youth Services Commission. (August 1993). Overrepresentation 1

of minority youth in Oregon's juvenile justice system: Recent findings. Research summary, p. 1. 

Salem, OR: Author.

v

Analysis of statewide data found that African American youth are particularly

likely to be overrepresented at every decision point from arrest to final case disposition. 

The greatest magnitudes of African American overrepresentation occurred at the "back

of the system" (i.e., training school commitments and close custody wardship). The

pattern of overrepresentation was less pronounced and more sporadic for other

minority groups. 1

Following completion of the Phase I background research, the OCCYSC project

team began Phase II of its initiative: developing and implementing plans to redress the

problems identified by the research findings. To address the problems of DMC,

OCCYSC supported and encouraged a number of initiatives, including county-specific

interventions in the three Phase I counties: Lane, Marion, and Multnomah.

The Oregon DMC demonstration recognized the juvenile justice system

perspective as evidenced by the fact that the county interventions wholly or partially

targeted system interventions as their primary focus. In fact, the Oregon approach to

DMC intervention strategies suggests a continuum of DMC program approaches which

impact various aspects of the juvenile justice system including advocacy, collaboration,

and alternative resources development. The Lane County Multicultural Advocate

Program provides an example of the advocacy approach by attempting to influence the

juvenile justice system through the use of sanctioned advocates for minority youth. The

Marion County Cultural Competency Criteria Program provides an example of a

collaborative approach by attempting to directly impact the system from within using

grant awards as leverage for attaining cultural competence. The Multnomah County

African American Male Connection Program is an example of a DMC initiative whose 

strategy was to create an alternative resource, or limited service delivery system, as a

diversion from the juvenile justice system.

As called for in the OJJDP DMC initiative, an evaluation of the pilot state

projects was to be conducted to help OJJDP determine the best methods for assisting

states to comply with legislative mandates and to suggest strategies and useful lessons

for non-pilot states developing or implementing DMC initiatives. For Oregon, an

independent consultant completed a statewide process evaluation in Summer 1994

using the three pilot counties as data sources. The process evaluation indicated

positive results: increased cultural awareness and sensitivity of service providers; the
vi

unique needs of minority juvenile offenders were being addressed in a more culturally

appropriate manner; increased school and employment participation; and increased

self-esteem and self-control of minority juvenile offenders. The results of the

outcome/impact evaluations provided mixed results. The data analysis for one pilot

county did not demonstrate a clear link between program participation and reduced

recidivism. The results for another pilot county provided no support for the effect of

program participation and reduced recidivism.

LESSONS LEARNED

The evaluation is inconclusive as to which particular program approach had the

greatest impact on the juvenile justice system. The important point is that each county

attempted to impact the system rather than the individual minority youth; that is, the

design of the program interventions was based on the DMC problems and not the

solutions. This was evidenced by the three different program approaches adopted by

the three pilot counties as their DMC initiative: the advocacy, collaboration, and

alternative resources development approaches. Each of these approaches attempts to

impact the juvenile justice system in some way.

The Oregon state government planning structure provided an easy opportunity

for collaboration on the DMC problem definition. The Oregon Community Children and

Youth Services Commission (OCCYSC), the lead agency for the DMC demonstration,

has local counterparts within each county. Program funding flows from the state level

to the county level and is distributed locally through the Counties' Children and Youth

Service Commissions. This structure provided the Oregon DMC team with a natural

mechanism to involve counties, and, in turn, encourage counties to involve local

communities in the DMC problem definition process.

Based on the results of the Caliber evaluation team observations, the Oregon

experiences could serve as a model for defining a clear and appropriate role for the

state. Although the state-county Children and Youth Services Commission structure

implicitly defined the state's role, the state DMC coordinator's and the DMC team's

involvement enabled the state role to be carried out effectively. The approach adopted

by the state DMC coordinator and staff was based on collaboration and encouragement

of community-inspired interventions rather than "top-down" directives and control. The

role of the state DMC Coordinator, the function of the state and county Commissions to

support and encourage local planning and programming involvement, and the

uniqueness of each county's approach to DMC provide persuasive evidence of the
vii

value of local planning on the design and implementation of the DMC interventions. In

addition, having minority employees in key decision-making roles within the State and

counties helped to facilitate the collaborative planning and implementation process.
I. INTRODUCTION
I-1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored,

in five states, demonstration projects that were designed to address problems of

Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) within the juvenile justice system. This

report presents findings from the evaluation of the Oregon DMC project. This chapter

presents the purpose and relevant background information, an overview of the Oregon

demonstration project, and the purpose and organization of the report.

1. OJJDP DMC BACKGROUND

Findings from a large body of literature suggest that disproportionate minority

confinement occurs within many juvenile justice systems across the nation (e.g., Bishop

& Frazier, 1988; Pope & Feyerherm, 1992; Zatz, 1987). Recent congressional

legislation requires states to assess the extent of DMC in their juvenile justice systems

and to develop and implement strategies to address DMC problems that are found. 

OJJDP's DMC initiative seeks to assist states to comply with the mandate. The

initiative includes training, financial, and technical support for the development and

implementation of DMC projects in five pilot states, including Oregon. The DMC

initiative also calls for evaluation of pilot state projects to help OJJDP determine the

best methods for assisting these states to comply with the mandate. Pilot state projects

also serve to suggest strategies and provide useful lessons to non-pilot states that are

developing and implementing DMC projects of their own. The following paragraphs

provide a summary of the DMC literature followed by a more detailed description of the

OJJDP DMC initiative.

1.1 Summary of DMC Literature

Disproportionate minority confinement is defined by OJJDP as a ratio of "the

share of the juvenile justice population that is minority relative to the share of the at-risk

population that is minority." Since the late 1960s, scores of researchers have

published studies assessing the extent to which DMC exists within the juvenile justice

system. Approximately two thirds of all published studies found evidence of DMC

(Pope & Feyerherm, 1992). One third of the studies, however, did not find evidence of

DMC. Researchers note that inherent methodological difficulties contributed to the

inconsistent findings. Another factor contributing to the inconsistent findings may be

that most DMC studies were restricted to one stage in juvenile justice system

processing (Bishop & Frazier, 1988). Such an approach, several authors contend, fails
I-2

to measure the "cumulative disadvantage" to minority youth within a juvenile justice

system. Although race may have a small, statistically insignificant effect on decision

making at particular stages, race may still have a significant, cumulative effect on the

juvenile justice system outcomes overall (Zatz, 1987).

Approximately one third of all DMC studies found an overall pattern of DMC,

while an equal proportion of studies found DMC only at particular points within the

juvenile justice system (Pope & Feyerherm, 1992). Many researchers believe that DMC

is most pronounced at the "front end" of the juvenile justice system, yet few DMC

studies have focused on the front end (Conley, 1994). Measuring the racial bias that

occurs when police officers decide which juveniles to question — or when citizens,

social workers, and school officials decide to alert authorities to delinquent behavior —

is fraught with methodological challenges (Sampson, 1986).

Studies finding evidence of DMC typically ascribed its causes to either: (1)

systematic racial bias against minority youth within the juvenile justice system; or (2)

more serious and/or more frequent offenses being committed by minority youth. Both

explanations were considered legitimate in the Federal DMC legislation which was

developed, in part, to answer the inconsistent research findings summarized above.

1.2 OJJDP's DMC Initiative

The 1988 amendments to the OJJDP Act included a requirement of states

participating in the OJJDP Formula Grants Program to address the growing problem of

the disproportionate confinement of minority youth in secure facilities. The 1992

amendments to the JJDP Act included a mandate requiring the states to assess the

level of minority youth confinement in their juvenile justice system and to implement

strategies to reduce disproportionate representation. To facilitate the states' ability to

comply with the mandate of the JJDP Act, OJJDP established the Disproportionate

Minority Confinement Initiative. Through a competitive process, OJJDP selected five

states—Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Oregon, and North Carolina—to receive training,

technical, and financial assistance.

The DMC Initiative was designed to include two 18-month phases. During

Phase I, each of the five pilot states assessed the extent of disproportionate

representation in its juvenile justice system and reported the findings to OJJDP. During

Phase II, the pilot states designed and implemented strategies to address the

disproportionate representation problems identified during their Phase I assessments. 
I-3

Phase II included a National Evaluation of the DMC Initiative. OJJDP has

requested that Caliber Associates design and conduct the evaluation in collaboration

with pilot state representatives and with the national technical assistance providers

from Portland State University. The National Evaluation will include separate

evaluation reports on each pilot state and one non-pilot state. To complement the pilot

states, the National Evaluation will include the State of Michigan which developed and

implemented a DMC plan without OJJDP support. The inclusion of Michigan will

provide a more robust picture of state efforts to reduce minority overrepresentation.

The objectives for the National Evaluation are to document the lessons learned

and factors key to the success of state and local efforts, as well as to determine the

efficacy of different types of interventions in reducing the degree of disproportionate

representation. The evaluation findings will be incorporated into training and technical

assistance manuals that OJJDP will disseminate to all states as a resource which will

assist their planning and implementing approaches to reduce disproportionate

representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system.

2. OREGON DMC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Oregon Community Children and Youth Services Commission (OCCYSC)

had responsibility for the Oregon DMC demonstration project. The Phase I research

effort was conducted by the Research and Evaluation Department of OCCYSC. Phase

II efforts were operationalized in three pilot counties: Lane, Marion, and Multnomah. 

A summary description of Oregon's Phase I research activities and findings and Phase

II plans are provided below.

2.1 Summary of Phase I Research Activities And Findings

The Phase I research effort included a statewide assessment of minority youth

overrepresentation and a more intensive analysis of data for three pilot counties: Lane,

Marion, and Multnomah. Although the JJDP Act emphasizes minority

overrepresentation in confinement, the Oregon research team expanded their scope by

examining decision points throughout Oregon's juvenile justice system. There were

three general objectives for the Phase I research effort:

• To assess the extent of minority youth overrepresentation across the state

and, particularly, within the three pilot counties
DRI Proportion of a specific youth group processed at a given decision point

Proportion of this group within the youth population at risk

I-4

• To identify the decision points in Oregon's juvenile justice system at which

overrepresentation most occurs

• To explore the implications of current research findings for future

research on the reasons why overrepresentation occurs.

The OCCYSC research team conducted the statewide process evaluation. 

OCCYSC's research team employed three primary data collection methods. First, the

team conducted focus group interviews with selected juvenile justice and community

representatives familiar with Oregon's juvenile justice system. Focus group participants

from the three pilot counties offered their perceptions of and insights into the juvenile

justice system. The focus group participants identified the following major issues:

• There are inadequacies in the service delivery system which negatively

affect minority youth and their families, such as a lack of culturally

appropriate placements and other resources

• There is a lack of family involvement and, even when families are actively

involved with their youth, there remains a lack of family-centered services

to support them

• There is a need for cultural competency training throughout the Oregon

juvenile justice system

• There are few alternative placements or treatment services available to

"gang-involved" youth, especially those labelled as violent or involved

with weapons.

Second, the OCCYSC project team collected summary data from a variety of

sources including: census data, juvenile arrest data, juvenile department referral data,

and Children's Services Division (CSD) training school commitment and close custody

ward data. From these sources, Oregon's research team developed a disproportionate

representation index (DRI) to facilitate their statistical analysis:

A DRI value of 1.0 indicates that a given group of youth are represented at a proportion

which precisely corresponds to their presence in the at-risk population. DRI values
Oregon Community Children & Youth Services Commission. (August 1993). Over- 2

representation of minority youth in Oregon’s juvenile justice system: Recent findings. Research

Summary, Salem, OR: Author.

I-5

greater than 1.0 indicate overrepresentation, and DRI values less than 1.0 indicate

underrepresentation.

DRI analyses of statewide data found that: 2

• African American youth are particularly likely to be overrepresented

throughout the juvenile justice system from arrest to final case disposition,

with DRI values ranging from 2.6 to 5.9

• The greater magnitudes of African American overrepresentation occur at

the "back of the system" (i.e., for training school commitments and close

custody wardship), although these findings varied by county

• While there is slight overrepresentation of Native Americans in detention

and training schools, and of Hispanic youth in detention, no other group

appears overrepresented, throughout the juvenile justice system.

Finally, system (or flow) data were assessed to determine the extent of minority

overrepresentation at each decision point in the juvenile justice system. The

preliminary results of the analysis of system data confirmed the same general pattern of

overrepresentation described above: African American youth are more likely to be

overrepresented at each decision point. Although the number of cases was small and

cautions were advised when examining the data, the analysis further demonstrated that

the pattern of overrepresentation is less pronounced and more sporadic for other

minority groups.

2.2 Overview of Phase II Activities

Having concluded the Phase I background research on overrepresentation, the

OCCYSC project team identified five major implementation objectives for Phase II of its

demonstration activities. The Phase II objectives are to:

• Identify state and local decision-making policies, procedures and

practices that lead to initial entry into the system through final separation

from the system
Heuser, J.P. et al. (June 1993). Final Research Report on Phase I of Oregon’s Participation in 3

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Disproportionate Minority Confinement 

Program. Oregon Community Children and Youth Services Commission.

I-6

• Develop and implement uniform policies, procedures and practices to

prevent (or remedy) the disproportionate confinement of minority youth

• Implement program alternatives

• Implement uniform data collection protocols to monitor change in system

decisions and outcomes

• Fund three jurisdictions to determine how existing policies, procedures,

practices and resource utilization contribute to the disproportionate

confinement of minority youth.

While the Oregon Phase I data analysis demonstrated that minority youth were

overrepresented in the juvenile justice system statewide, three counties were selected

for specific Phase II participation, and included: Lane, Marion and Multnomah

Counties. These counties were selected primarily because of population

characteristics. According to the 1990 Census, these counties account for over onethird (39%) of Oregon's general population and a similar proportion (37%) of Oregon's

juvenile population (0-17 years). These counties also accounted for nearly one half

(49.5%) of the minority youth population in 1990 including 85 percent of the state's

African American population. Also, while minority disproportionality occurred

statewide, Oregon's minority youth were particularly disproportionately represented in

Oregon's three largest metropolitan areas (i.e., Portland, Eugene-Springfield and

Salem), each of which is located within one of the three pilot counties. 3

Having selected the three pilot counties of Lane, Marion and Multnomah,

Oregon's project team then identified specific interventions designed to correct the

problems of disproportionate representation; these interventions were either being

planned or had been implemented within the three pilot counties. The county-specific

interventions are described in Chapters II, III, and IV, in conjunction with the description

of the evaluation designs and evaluation findings.

The evaluation of the Oregon DMC initiative was designed to include: (1) a

process evaluation and, to the extent possible, (2) an outcome/impact evaluation. By

design, Portland State University was to provide technical oversight to each of the

evaluation efforts.
Caliber Associates. (January 1994). Disproportionate minority confinement initiative: Evaluation 4

design report for Oregon. Fairfax, VA: Author.

I-7

In accordance with the original OJJDP instructions, OCCYSC moved forward on

the process evaluation by hiring an outside consultant and developing a process

evaluation plan. The independent evaluator, together with OCCYSC and Portland

State University, developed a plan for a state-wide process evaluation which includes

the following objectives:

• Determine the process and other ingredients necessary for generating

successful intervention strategies

• Document the process used for successfully replicating intervention

strategies that work

• Provide support to OCCYSC in its monitoring of the implementation plans

in the pilot counties

• Assess progress towards institutionalizing new reforms and creating

capacity for state and local self-correction.

The process evaluation was completed in the summer, 1994 and the evaluation report:

Brown-Kline, Process Evaluation for Lane, Marion and Multnomah Counties was

published in September 1994.

Meanwhile, Caliber Associates developed an evaluation plan for each of the 4

three counties which addressed the outcomes and impacts of the DMC activities. 

During Caliber's evaluation "kick-off" meetings with each of the three Oregon counties,

Lane and Marion County representatives together with the Caliber evaluation team and

PSU adjusted the evaluation plans so as to more appropriately assess the DMC

activities and provide the most useful evaluation support to the county and state

Children and Youth Services Commissions. The evaluation objectives and activities for

each county are described in subsequent chapters.

3. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The purpose of this document is to provide a description of Caliber's evaluation

activities and findings for the Oregon demonstration project sponsored by OJJDP's

DMC initiative. This chapter has presented introductory material to provide relevant

background for the reader. We devote an entire chapter for each of the three different
I-8

pilot counties within Oregon. Therefore, in Chapters III, IV, and V we provide a

description of the disproportionate minority confinement initiatives relevant to this

evaluation, the methodology used to conduct the evaluations, and the findings of the

evaluation efforts for Lane, Marion and Multnomah Counties. The final chapter,

Chapter V, concludes with a summary of the Oregon DMC evaluation and a discussion

of the lessons learned from the Oregon experiences. Throughout the report, specific

agencies or organizations are introduced by name and (in parentheses) by acronym;

thereafter, they are referred to only by acronym. To assist the reader, Appendix A

provides an alphabetical list of organizations and their acronyms.

With the permission of OJJDP, OCCYSC and the process evaluator, portions of

the process evaluation findings are included within each of the county chapters. Every

effort was made to integrate relevant process evaluation findings with findings from the

Caliber evaluation efforts so as to provide a complete understanding of Oregon's DMC

demonstration.
I-9

REFERENCES

Bishop, D.M. and C. Frazier. "The Influence of Race in Juvenile Justice Processing." 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(3), 1988.

Brown-Kline, J. Process Evaluation for Lane, Marion and Multnomah Counties. 

September, 1994.

Caliber Associates. Disproportionate Minority Confinement Initiative: Evaluation

Design Report for Oregon. Fairfax, VA: Author: January 1994.

Conley, D.J., "Adding Color to a Black and White Picture: Using Qualitative Data to 

Explain Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System ." Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(2), 1994.

Feyerherm, W. Lessons Learned from the Pilot Experiences. Prepared for the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. April 1995.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., & Brewer, D.D. Preventing serious, violent, and chronic

juvenile offending. In Implementation Manual for Serious, Violent and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1995.

Heuser, J.P., and others. Final Research Report on Phase I of Oregon's Participation

in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Disproportionate

Minority Confinement Program. Oregon Community Children and Youth

Services Commission: June 1993

Marion County Children and Youth Services Commission. Minority Initiative Program,

Program Action Plan. August 31, 1992; updated September 30, 1993.

Oregon Community Children and Youth Services Commission. "Overrepresentation of

Minority Youth in Oregon's Juvenile Justice System: Recent Findings." 

Research Summary. Salem, OR: Author: August 1993.

Pope, C. and W. Feyerherm. Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System. Rockville, 

MD: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse: 1992.
I-10

REFERENCES (Continued)

Sampson, R., "Effects of Socioeconomic Context on Official Reaction to Juvenile 

Delinquency." American Sociological Review, 5, 1986.

Zatz, M.S., "The Changing Forms of Racial/Ethnic Biases in Sentencing." Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24(1), 69-92, 1987.
II. LANE COUNTY
Oregon Community Children & Youth Services. (August, 1993). Overrepresentation of Minority 5

Youth in Oregon's Juvenile Justice System: Recent findings. Research Summary, p.1. Salem,

OR: Author.

Ibid. 6

II-1

II. LANE COUNTY

The Lane County Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) initiative

established the Multicultural Advocate Program. The purpose of this chapter is to

provide the background to the Lane County DMC initiative, a description of the

Multicultural Advocate Program, a summary of the process evaluation findings, and a

description of Caliber's evaluation activities and findings for Lane County.

1. BACKGROUND

Statewide Phase I results indicated that disproportionate representation

occurred in Lane County where, in 1990, minority youth made up 9.5 percent of the 5

county's 12-17 year old population at risk, but 15.5 percent of individuals referred to the

juvenile department. Minority youth were also disproportionally represented among

youth proceeding on to juvenile court for the filing of a formal petition (14.3%), all

petitioned cases adjudicated as delinquent (13.9%) and, although the number was

small (N=26), adjudicated delinquents committed to state training schools (15.4%).

Based on these data, the Phase I research team concluded that minority youth

are overrepresented throughout the system in Lane County. The Phase I researchers

further concluded that overrepresentation is basically a front end problem; in other

words, it occurs at the point of referral or intake into the juvenile department and

continues at the same level (approximately) as cases move through the system. 6

The Lane County Department of Youth Services (DYS) is the lead agency in

Lane County's DMC initiative. DYS is responsible for the County's Commission on

Children and Families as well as providing direct services including diversion,

detention, probation, and support services for delinquent youth.

Recognizing the disproportionality of minority youth, the Lane County DYS and

the Youth Development Commission (YDC), requested that the Juvenile Justice

Service Area Committee (SAC) develop strategies to better meet the needs of minority
The Multicultural Advocate Program was previously referred to as the Minority Youth Program. 7

The description of the Lane County activities provided on these pages is based on: (1) Lane

County Department of Youth Services, Minority Youth Project, Program Action Plan - 01/01/93 -

09/30/93, and (2) Brown-Kline, Process Evaluation for Lane, Marion and Multnomah Counties. 

September 1994. To reduce confusion, the program is referred to as the Multicultural Advocate

Program throughout this report.

II-2

youth. The resulting Lane County project, Multicultural Advocate Program, is described

below.

2. MULTICULTURAL ADVOCATE PROGRAM7

The Lane County Juvenile Justice Area Committee worked with DYS, YDC and

volunteers from the minority community to develop and implement a Multicultural

Advocate Program Action Plan which included the following major activities:

• Recruit and contract with minority consultants to work with minority youth

offenders who are processed through intake at DYS

• Provide additional services outside DYS for clients

• Provide ongoing in-house evaluation and project monitoring

Beginning in 1992, Lane County moved forward with their action plan. DYS

received a three-year grant of approximately $99,000 ($33,000 per year) via the OJJDP

funds to reduce and prevent minority youth overrepresentation within the juvenile

justice and corrections systems. As part of the Multicultural Advocate Program, Lane

County has provided youth at DYS with bilingual educational and recreational

materials. In addition, a mentoring program was developed in conjunction with the Big

Brother/Big Sister program to serve young people outside of DYS. Finally, using grant

funds, Lane County hired three part-time consultants (advocates) to provide DYS

intake and advocacy services to minority youth. Two African American advocates and

one Latin American advocate were hired using grant funds. The advocates participate

in intake interviews, make recommendations for appropriate interventions with

multicultural clients, and serve as mentors/advocates for informal and adjudicated

ethnic minority youth at DYS.

The goal of the Multicultural Advocate Program is to provide diversion

interventions to targeted youth at intake and to provide them with the appropriate

services to reduce the risk factors associated with youth that later enter the system. 

The primary objectives of the Lane County initiatives include:
Brown-Kline, J. (September 1994). Process evaluation of programs for Lane, Marion and 8

Multnomah Counties.

II-3

• Address the needs of juvenile offenders within DYS in a more culturally

appropriate manner

• Reduce recidivism of minority youth in Lane County

• Provide a source of support for at-risk minority youth within the larger

community

• Conduct on-going monitoring and evaluation of these activities.

These objectives are being pursued through the activities described above: namely, by

providing culturally diverse DYS intake staff, culturally appropriate materials for youth

within DYS, advocacy services to DYS youth, and mentoring/counseling to young

people within the community.

An indirect objective of the DYS activities was to broaden and strengthen the

cultural awareness and competence of the predominantly Caucasian DYS staff. 

Program management and the evaluation researcher detected a positive change in

staff attitudes and subsequent interactions with DYS minority clients. There was,

however, no mechanism in place to determine the effects of minority intake staff (and

other Minority Youth Project activities) on the majority DYS staff. Therefore, OCCYSC,

together with the DYS Director, requested evaluation support.

3. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS

As described in Chapter I, the Lane County DMC evaluation activities consisted

of two independent efforts: a process evaluation conducted by Brown-Kline &

Company and outcome evaluation support provided by Caliber Associates. The

following paragraphs provide a summary of the major process evaluation findings

followed by a description of Caliber's evaluation methods and results.

3.1 Lane County's Process Evaluation

As stated, an independent evaluator conducted the process evaluation of the

Lane County Multicultural Advocate Program. The results of that process evaluation

described below represent excerpts from the evaluator's report. Data for the process 8

evaluation were collected in group interviews with program participants, program staff,
II-4

and service providers. Individual interviews were conducted with DYS and Lane

County Commission on Children and Families staff who had knowledge about or

experience with the program. Secondary data, such as a sample of program participant

case files, periodic program reports, and client tracking data were also used.

The process evaluation focused on the following activities:

• Scope of the program, services, and case management activities provided

by the advocates

• Involvement of broad-based community organizations, agencies, and

other stakeholders with interest and resources to support the program

• Internal processes and systems that support the program

• Diversity of intervention strategies used in the program 

• Culturally competent staff implementing the program.

Findings from the process evaluation for activities are summarized below.

Scope of program, services, and case management activities

The Multicultural Advocate Program offers a variety of services to minority youth

and their families, including counseling, advocacy in court, mentoring through the Big

Brother Program, school liaison activities, conflict mediation, and referral. These

services were designed for youth with behavioral problems stemming from delinquency,

probation, or status offenses; self-esteem problems; language barriers; family

problems; and/or cultural identity issues, for example.

The case management process begins as minority youth enter the program at

intake. During intake, advocates are notified. The advocates contact the youth and

their family to describe the program and obtain their voluntary participation. The

majority of youth volunteer for the program; however, others are mandated by the

juvenile court to participate in the program as part of their treatment plan. A case plan

is developed for each youth entering the program and their families are encouraged to

participate in the development of the case plan.

An important component of the case management process is the frequent

contacts with youth made by the advocates. Youth who were interviewed reiterated this
II-5

fact. Advocates contact youth at least weekly to check on their status and identify any

new issues impacting their cases. Program staff reported that case closure was a

function of youth moving out of the area, the youth's unwillingness to fulfill the

expectations of the case plan, and/or the meeting of expectations required by the case

plan goals.

Diversity of intervention strategies used in the program

As mentioned above, the program was designed to provide a wide variety of

client services in order to target their diverse client base. The process evaluation

revealed several intervention strategies inherent in the program:

• The use of traditional and nontraditional outreach approaches to promote

the program, recruit volunteers, secure resources, and build relationships

with service providers and communities of color

• Service delivery in settings such as traditional offices, shopping malls,

and the streets

• Consideration of culturally-based needs such as cultural identity among

biracial youth and language challenges for youth and their families (for

which a Spanish-speaking advocate was responsible).

The process evaluation concluded that the use of diversified intervention strategies

was critical to the provision of all program services.

Involvement of broad-based community organizations, agencies and other

stakeholders

The planning process for the development and implementation of the

Multicultural Advocate Program required close working relationships among a variety of

constituents, such as community-based service providers, ethnic/minority

organizations, governmental agencies, law enforcement, educational institutions, and

community leaders. Broad-based community involvement was also inherent in the

delivery of program components as mentioned previously. In addition, program staff

have developed and maintained positive working relationships with this broad base of

community organizations via personal relationships, community board and committee

membership, and contact initiation with organizations that could potentially provide

needed services.
II-6

Internal processes and systems that support the program

The independent evaluator identified three processes, practices, and systems

that help to support the program: funding, the Multicultural Committee, and ongoing

monitoring and valuation activities. Because of the limited funding received from the

State Commission on Families and Children, DYS has been forced to identify and

secure funds from other sources, such as the Lane County Commission on Families

and Children and the County Board of Commissioners. The uncertainty of future

funding has resulted in perceptions by program staff and service providers that the

program is not a high priority within the Department.

After a 1991 evaluation of the cultural climate within DYS found that the

Department was not culturally sensitive, DYS established a Multicultural Committee to:

• Provide a forum for discussion of diversity issues and needs

• Review policies, practices, programs, and procedures

• Encourage others to better understand different cultures.

Although the Committee has been in existence for several years, it is still defining its

roles, developing short and long-term objectives, and generating various approaches

for achieving success.

Culturally competent staff implementing the program

The multicultural advocates have participated in diversity awareness, skillbuilding, and gang-related training workshops. Through their understanding of their

clients' cultures, the advocates have been able to provide culturally-diverse program

components, gain the trust and understanding of the youth, and establish and further

enhance communication with communities of color.

3.2 Outcome Evaluation Support

The purpose of this section is to describe the outcome evaluation activities and

findings. Beginning with a background description, the following paragraphs present

the evaluation objectives an results.

Background
II-7

Caliber developed and published an evaluation plan in conjunction with

OCCYSC, PSU and Lane County. The original plan proposed an assessment of the

extent to which DYS staff have increased awareness and understanding of the needs of

minority youth, following the county's experience with the DMC initiative. 

In August 1994, the Caliber evaluation team visited Lane County to prepare for

the evaluation. By this time, DYS recognized that the comprehensive process

evaluation had adequately addressed the original evaluation research interest. DYS

therefore requested that the Caliber evaluation resource be applied to supporting a

statistical outcomes analysis of participant data from the Multicultural Advocate

Program. The rationale for this request was that, as an independent entity, Caliber was

well-positioned to substantiate or dispute the evaluation findings from the DYS

researcher, thereby adding credibility to the entire DMC initiative. After consulting with

OJJDP, OCCYSC and PSU, it was agreed that Caliber evaluation resources would be

devoted to conducting analyses of DYS Multicultural Advocate Program participant

data.

Evaluation Objectives

The objective of this evaluation was to determine if participation in the

Multicultural Advocate Program impacted upon criminal referrals of African American

and Latin American males and female that had been referred to DYS. The evaluation

conducted for Lane County was a pre-post evaluation with experimental and

comparison groups. Consequently, this evaluation focused on the differences between

juveniles who received the services of the program and those who did not receive the

services, and whether these differences were statistically significant.

The research question of ultimate concern was, "What effect does participation

in the Multicultural Advocate Program have on recidivism?" In the following sections

we provide a description of data sources, the sample, and the methodology used in

attempting to provide answers to the above-mentioned question. Following this

background, we provide a discussion of the findings.

Source of Data

The source of data for this evaluation was a DYS database containing case

summary information for each juvenile offender. The data, including the comparison

group data, were compiled by DYS. The final data set containing the 82 participants in
II-8

the Multicultural Advocate Program and the 77 juveniles representing the comparison

group was received by Caliber evaluators in July 1995.

Sample

A matched comparison group was selected to be as similar to the program

participants as possible. In order to achieve a sample size for the comparison group

that was fairly comparable to the sample size of the program participants, however, it

was necessary to retrieve cases from previous years. Due to this fact, the selection

criteria for obtaining the matched comparison group remained broad. Specifically, the

comparison group was comprised of African American and Latin American males and

females that had been referred to DYS, but did not have a minority advocate. Cases

that were not used in the matching process included youth who were not county

residents and had been referred from outside Lane County, and sex offenders.

To ensure that the selected comparison sample was similar to the program

participants, it was important to compare the two groups prior to conducting further

analyses. Exhibit II-1 provides relevant information about the two groups. Results of

significance tests indicated that there are no statistically significant differences between

the Multicultural Advocate Program participants and the comparison group with respect

to age, gender, or ethnicity.

EXHIBIT II-1

Comparability Analysis of

Multicultural Advocate Program Participants and Comparison Group

Demographics (n=82) (n=77) Test

Program Comparison

Participants Group Significance

a

Ethnicity

African American 54.9% 50.6%

Latin American 45.1% 49.4% X =0.28 2

Gender

Male 75.6% 67.5%

Female 24.4% 32.5% X =1.28 2

Average Age 14.15 14.56

(standard deviation) (2.25) (2.29) t=-1.15

a - all significance tests indicated no statistically significant differences (p 05).

Statistical Analyses
II-9

Because one of the objectives of the Multicultural Advocate Program was to

reduce the recidivism of minority youth in Lane County, it was hypothesized that

program participation would have an impact on youth recidivism. To test this

hypothesis, we conducted t-tests between the program participants and the comparison

group for various dependent variables: the number of criminal referrals, the number of

drug charges, and the number of criminal charges all prior to the program and after the

program had begun operations (see Exhibit II-2). There was a statistical difference

between program participants and the comparison group prior to the start of the

Multicultural Advocate Program with program participants having a significantly higher

number of criminal referrals (t = 3.03, p<.01); however, there was no difference

between these groups after the start of the program (t = 0.76, ns). This was the same

pattern of results for the number of criminal charges. That is, there was a significant

group difference for the number of criminal charges prior to the program (t = 2.52,

p<.01), but not after the start of the program (t= 1.05, ns). On the other hand, there

was no significant difference between program participants and the comparison group

with respect to the number of drug charges before (t= - 0.97, ns) or after (t= -0.01, ns)

program implementation.

EXHIBIT II-2

Descriptive Statistics and Results of T-tests

for the Pre-Program and Post-Program Measures

Variable T-Test

Program Participants Comparison Group

(n=82) (n=77)

Mean Mean

(standard Range (standard Range

deviation) deviation

Pre-Program Measures

Number of 2.11 0-11 1.32 0-4 3.03**

criminal referrals (2.07) (0.98)

Number of drug 0.13 0-3 0.21 0-3 -0.97

charges (0.47) (0.50)

Number of 2.41 0-11 1.65 0-6 2.52**

criminal charges (2.37) (1.27)

Post-Program Measures

Number of 1.70 0-14 1.38 0-16 0.76

criminal referrals (2.69) (2.62)

Number of drug 0.22 0-4 0.22 0-4 -0.01

charges (0.74) (0.64)

Number of 2.41 0-19 1.78 0-20 1.05

criminal charges (4.12) (3.42)
Brown-Kline. Process evaluation of programs for Lane, Marion and Multnomah Counties. 

9

(September 1994). pp 40-42.

II-10

 ** denotes a statistically significant difference between program participants and the comparison group (p < .01).

Another analysis was conducted to determine if group differences existed for the

variable, total number of criminal referrals (excluding status offense referrals). Results

indicated that program participants had a significantly higher total number of criminal

referrals than the comparison group (t = 1.98, p < .05). A follow-up regression analysis

was conducted to investigate the effect of program participation on the total number of

criminal referrals after controlling for gender and age. Again, Multicultural Advocate

Program participants had a significantly higher total number of criminal referrals than

the comparison group (t = 2.29, p<.05) even after controlling for gender and age.

As noted earlier, the development of the comparison group occurred ex post

facto with respect to the current evaluation and it required looking back in time to derive

a reasonable sample size. Therefore, it was thought important to look at changes that

may have occurred before and after program operations within the program participant

group in terms of the number of criminal referrals, the number of criminal charges, and

the number of drug charges. Paired t-tests indicated no statistically significant

differences between the pre- and post-program variables for the minority Multicultural

Advocate Program participants.

Overall, the data provide mixed support for the hypothesis that the Multicultural

Advocate Program had an effect on recidivism. The results indicated significant group

differences between program participants and the comparison group in terms of the

number of criminal referrals and the number of criminal charges before the program,

but not after the program. On the other hand, the results showed that program

participants had a significantly higher number of total criminal referrals (excluding

status offense referrals) than the comparison group even after controlling for age and

gender. Finally, within the program participant group, there were no significant

differences in the pre-and post-program variables.

Process Evaluation Participant Data

The Caliber evaluation team recognizes that the statistical outcome analyses

must be integrated within the program context and the perceptions of the program

participants. Therefore, findings from the process evaluation interviews with the youth

who received Minority Advocate Program services are summarized below. 9
Brown-Kline, 1994. 10

II-11

Services received from the program. The 10 youth who participated in the

process evaluation group interviews were asked: "What services do you receive from

the Multicultural Advocate Program?" The youth responses were positive and focused

on both concrete services ("They help me with finding a job and keeping it") and

supportive services ("They keep me looking toward a positive attitude.") Several of the

respondents reflected an emotional support received from the advocates with such

statements as "They spend time with me" and "They care!"

Program components considered most helpful. The program participants

were asked: "What part of the program has been most helpful to you?" While two

youth identified specific activities (interpreting/translating and "taking me shopping")

most of the respondents appeared to most highly value the emotional support. 

Responses included: "Helping my family", "Working with my family", "Teaching me

respect for myself and others," and "Knowing someone cares about me."

Program impacts. The 10 youth who participated in the process evaluation

cited program impacts which ranged from helping with clothing and transportation to

helping to stay in school and/or get a job. Several youth reported that the advocates

helped them to learn to manage their anger as indicated by the following comments: 

"The staff helps me to keep my cool" and "I can manage my temper better." In total, the

youth who were interviewed appeared to be cognizant of the program and its value to

their lives. Without the program, several youth predicted that they would be worse off: 

"My situation would be worse. I wouldn't have anyone to turn to when I had to talk

through a problem."

4. SUMMARY OF LANE COUNTY EVALUATION FINDINGS

The process evaluation10 found that, overall, the Multicultural Advocate Program

was successful in meeting several key program goals and objectives. First, the

program services and service delivery system appeared to be meeting the unique

needs of the ethnically diverse target population. Second, the ethnic diversity

objectives for the program staff were clearly met as evidenced by these staff members'

ethnicity, cultural awareness and skills. Third, program staff reportedly facilitated

community involvement in the program both during the planning phase and as services

are provided.
II-12

The outcomes and impact of the Multicultural Advocate Program, according to

subjective and objective measures, has been mixed. Program staff together with

representatives from DYS and the community reported the following program

outcomes:

• Provided needed diversion for minority youth

• Strengthened linkages between the community and DYS

• Addressed the unique needs of juvenile offenders in a culturally

appropriate manner

• Strengthened the ability of DYS to become a more culturally competent

organization.

The statistical analyses of the program outcome data did not demonstrate a clear link

between program participation and reduced recidivism. Anecdotal data collected

during program participant interviews suggested positive program impacts, including

increased school and employment participation and increased self-control and selfesteem.
III. MARION COUNTY
OCCYSC. Overrepresentation of Minority Youth in Oregon's Juvenile Justice System: Recent 11

Findings. Research Summary. August 1993.

III-1

III. MARION COUNTY

Marion County's Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) initiative used

grant funds to hire a Multicultural Coordinator to assess and improve the cultural

sensitivity and availability of family service agencies to better serve minority

communities. Agencies wishing to receive funds from the County were required to

prepare plans detailing their efforts to meet a set of cultural competency criteria,

developed by a committee of interested community members and endorsed by the

Marion County Children and Families Commission and the Juvenile Justice Task

Force. 

1. BACKGROUND

The population of Marion County includes 15 percent of Hispanic origin, 5

percent recent Russian immigrants, 4 percent African American, and 1 percent Hmong

from Southeast Asia. The analysis of the Marion County Phase I DMC data shows 11

patterns of overrepresentation that are similar to the state as a whole. Specific

suggestive findings include:

• Minority youth represented one in ten of the county's high risk population

but accounted for one in five of all 1990 and 1991 juvenile department

referrals

• A similar proportion of minority youth referrals (21.2%) were moved for

petition filing and formal juvenile court processing

• Minority youth referrals constituted one in five of all referrals resulting in

adjudication

• Minority youth constituted one-fourth of all referrals resulting in

adjudication and commitment to a juvenile training school.

The Oregon OCCYSC researchers caution that numbers are small making it possible

for shifts of a few individuals to alter percentage values. It still appears, however, that

there is minority overrepresentation in Marion County.

The Marion County Children and Families' Commission (CFC) is the lead

organization in Marion County's DMC initiative. CFC is an independent body that
 The description of the Marion County activities provided on these pages is based on information 12

contained within a report distributed by the Oregon Community Children & Youth Services

Commission. The report is entitled: Marion County Children and Youth Services Commission,

Minority Initiative Program, Program Action Plan. August 31, 1992; updated September 30, 1993.

III-2

coordinates policy and funds programs to provide comprehensive family services in

Marion County. Beginning in 1990, CFC targeted cultural awareness and competence

among service providers as a priority commitment to value the cultural diversity of the

community. Initiatives started in 1990 were accelerated in 1991 when OCCYSC

selected Marion County as one of the DMC project participants. The cultural

competency activities in progress at the time were reconceptualized as a program to

reduce DMC through family services addressing risk factors that lead to delinquency

among minority youth. 

CFC used DMC funds to hire a full-time Multicultural Coordinator who headed

the effort to assess and improve the cultural competence of every CFC grantee agency,

through on-site reviews of program practices, technical assistance to make staff and

routine practices more responsive to the needs of minority clients, and training for

grantees and other interested organizations. The following section describes the DMC

initiative in more detail. 

2. MARION COUNTY CULTURAL COMPETENCY INITIATIVE

The Marion County Children and Families Commission has been committed, 12

since their inception, to recognizing and valuing the ethnic and cultural diversity of their

communities. This commitment was operationalized by the foundation of the Cultural

Diversity Task Force in November 1990; the Task Force has now become a standing

committee of CFC and is called the Cultural Diversity Committee. 

The Committee established several goals to support their commitment to the

recognition of cultural diversity in family service programs including:

• Enable agency awareness of their own cultural barriers

• Provide tools and third-party evaluations to assess delivery of culturally

competent services by associated agencies providing family services

• Set guidelines for agency structure as it relates to cultural competency

• Coordinate efforts regarding cultural diversity with other concerned

groups
III-3

• Assist in empowering the businesses of the county to assess their

receptivity to diversity.

The Committee, building upon their stated goals, then moved to accomplish several

objectives, including:

• Language was added to the CFC's request for proposals and county

contracts for services to require providers to address cultural issues

• The Cultural Diversity Committee developed and refined a set of Cultural

Competency Criteria (CCC), which were adapted after public

comment—providers were required to address the criteria in their request

for funding

• A day-long training workshop on valuing cultural diversity was organized,

training over 50 volunteers.

These activities were adapted and expanded to form the basis of the eventual DMC

initiative.

In the summer of 1991, OCCYSC notified Marion County of their selection for

Oregon's DMC project (otherwise known as the Minority Initiative Project). The

Committee crafted a DMC reduction plan based on their belief that the best long-term

strategy to reduce delinquency was prevention and intervention. Therefore, they

committed DMC funds to programs that reduce risk factors leading to delinquency for

minority youth. Building on the cultural awareness goals already established, the

Committee committed DMC funding for two activities: 1) to enable agencies receiving

CFC funds to gain awareness of their own cultural barriers, both internal and external

to the organization, and 2) to provide cultural diversity training to CFC-funded agencies

and other interested organizations. Exhibit III-1 presents a summary of Marion

County's DMC Initiative.

The CFC's initiative is designed to ensure that all of the agencies receiving

funding for family services maintain a basic defined level of cultural sensitivity and

awareness. The CFC funded 22 programs in 1994 through 16 different agencies

including the County Departments of Health, Recreation, and Juvenile Services, local

school districts, the YWCA, and several other non-profit agencies. CFC administers

funds from Great Start, State Juvenile Services, Child Care and Development Block

Grants, and other sources. Services provided by these programs include: case

management, services for pregnant teens, court advocacy, services for resident of
III-4

shelters, comprehensive pre-natal care, child care referrals, therapeutic services for

elementary-aged children, summer youth employment, and GED services. 
Juvenile Justice Task Force

• Plan for the provision of juvenile

justice services in Marion County

• Endorses the Cultural Competency

Criteria and the CFC activities as a

DMC reduction plan

Marion County Children and Families

Commission (CFC)

• Coodinate policy and funding for family

services

• Contract with local agencies to provide

needed family services.

Multicultural Coordinator (DMC)

• Hired as staff of the CFC

• Introduces the CFC agencies to the Cultural Competency Criteria

• Conducts on-site reviews of CFC-funded agencies

• Provides technical assistance to help agencies develop plans to better comply

with the criteria

• Oversees the cultural sensitivity training to CFC funded agencies and other

interested groups

Cultural Diversity Committee

• Adopt and refine the Cultural

Competency Criteria

• Review the cultural competency plans

of CFC-funded agencies

EXHIBIT III-1

MARION COUNTY DMC INITIATIVE

CFC-funded Agencies

• A group of public and private agencies receiving funds from CFC to provide family

services

• Use the Cultural Competency Checklist to assess institutional and individual cultural

competence

• Prepare plans to improve cultural competence and meet critieria

III-5
III-6

To increase the awareness and elimination of cultural barriers, any agency that

is awarded CFC funds is required to complete an initial assessment of their cultural

barriers using the cultural competency criteria. The CFC hired a full-time Multicultural

Coordinator to oversee the implementation and compliance of agencies with the

Cultural Competency Criteria (CCC). The Multicultural Coordinator first visits the CFCfunded agency to introduce them to the criteria and outline their compliance

requirements. The Multicultural Coordinator provides the agency with a kit used to

complete an assessment of their own cultural competence and identify areas needing

improvement. 

The Multicultural Coordinator (sometimes assisted by members of the

Committee) follows up with an on-site visit with each program to check the selfassessment and the plan for addressing weaknesses. The On-Site Monitoring Review

is a structured audit designed to evaluate whether the agencies' programs and services

are making progress towards meeting the objectives stated in the grant. The Review

lasts about two-and-a-half hours on average while program staff and administrators

answer 17 questions about their performance on several factors including service

delivery, family involvement, accomplishments, and evaluation (see Appendix B for a

copy of the On-site Monitoring Review Guide). Written reports on the findings from

each program site visit, including recommendations for strengthening cultural

competency, are developed. Programs are offered technical assistance to comply with

the criteria. 

Considerable progress has been made, to date, in Marion County's efforts to

assess and improve the cultural competence of its grantees. Every program received

an on-site review in the Spring of 1994 and again in 1995; 30 programs have submitted

plans to comply with the criteria. Also, the cultural competency criteria were refined

based on lessons learned during the first year of implementation. 

One example of specific success in improving cultural sensitivity is provided by

the Mid-Valley Children's Guild. The Guild provides direct services to families of

children with special needs including developmental, emotional, behavioral, or mental

health needs. During their cultural competence assessment, the Guild pointed to the

lack of access to the Hispanic community as an area they would like to improve. The

all-Anglo staff noted that Hispanic clients had historically not used the Guild's services. 

The solution was to add one bilingual staff person; the result was that Hispanic clients

jumped to 40 percent of the total caseload. The experience of creating access to a

previously unserved client group had an energizing effect on the staff. They
III-7

subsequently used the DMC training resources provided by CFC and developed their

own curriculum which addressed issues specific to their organization. By all accounts,

the training was an exciting and successful experience for the organization.

Cultural diversity training, the second DMC project activity, is being provided to

program staff and to CFC and committee volunteers. As of March, 1994, a total of 34

training sessions were held for more than 13 different programs and agencies resulting

in a total of 790 participants who had received training. Training topics include: 

• Diversity awareness

• Cross-cultural conflict

• Migrant lifestyle and outreach

• Developing a diversity plan

• Intercultural communication

• Conflict resolution

• Working with diverse teams and clients

• Gang-affiliated training

• Outreach

• Staff recruiting and hiring.

All of the training has been provided by a pool of seven trainers recruited from the local

area and supervised by the Multicultural Coordinator. Also, CFC provided all of the

training for $4,000 by using trainers who were sometimes able to carry out the required

activities as part of their normal duties.

Under the leadership of the Multicultural Coordinator, additional DMC-related

activities include:

• On-going collection of quantitative and qualitative data (through focus

groups and interviews) so as to document the disproportionality and

contributing factors within the juvenile justice system

• Providing public education and obtaining public input to cultural issues

affecting children and their families. In addition to public forums and

focus group discussions (with a minimum of 25% minority community

representation), a monthly newsletter has been developed for countywide distribution

• Establishing policies and developing action plans related to

overrepresentation of minority youth
The process evaluation was performed by Joan Brown-Kline and the results reported in 13

Process Evaluation of Programs in Lane, Marion, and Multnomah Counties, Sept. 1994. The

summary in this section is based entirely on this work.

III-8

• Involving local legislators in the process of developing legislative and

funding plans to eliminate the disproportionate representation of minority

youth.

The Cultural Diversity Committee is monitoring these activities by reviewing the cultural

diversity of program participants, tracking program staff progress in meeting cultural

competency criterion, and reviewing participant evaluations following each of the

training sessions.

3. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS

As described earlier, the Marion County DMC evaluation activities consisted of

two independent efforts: a process evaluation conducted by Brown-Kline & Company

and outcome evaluation support provided by Caliber Associates. The following

sections provide a summary of the process evaluation and a description of Caliber

evaluation support. Together, these activities provide a picture of the Marion County

DMC initiative.

3.1 Marion County Process Evaluation

The process evaluation of Marion County's DMC Initiative was performed by an

evaluator hired by the OCCYSC . The evaluation answered the following questions: 13

• The method used to introduce the Cultural Competency Criteria to CFCfunded agencies

• How the CCC was used to identify barriers and prepare internal plans to

address barriers

• Conducting the On-Site Monitoring Reviews with agencies

• Providing diversity training and other technical assistance to agencies.

The findings of the process evaluation are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Introducing the CCC to service providers. Most service providing agencies

were introduced to the CCC through the grant application process when they learned of
III-9

the new requirement to assess and to plan to meet the standards. The majority of

agencies found that the process was adequate (and the high level of participation by

agencies supports this) because the introduction included on-site visits by the

Multicultural Coordinator, instruments and directions, suggestions for interventions, and

offers of technical assistance. Half the agencies that responded, however, said that the

process could be improved by a better explanation of the philosophy behind the CCC

and its intended outcomes. The CFC provided agencies with better guidelines for

implementing and complying with the criteria by giving specific examples of the type of

interventions that might be employed.

Using the CCC to identify cultural barriers within organizations and

prepare plans. Most agencies said they used the CCC as a checklist of practices that

make a culturally competent organization. The CCC helped them identify weaknesses

and develop action steps to address challenges. Some agencies said the criteria were

useful in program development as well, strengthening existing programs and examining

how staff relate to clients in the program. The CCC were particularly useful to agencies

because they were comprehensive and specific. The criteria deal with the program

environment, management controls, language, resources, technology, facility and

grounds, services, and feedback.

Conducting the On-Site Monitoring Review. The On-Site Monitoring Review

is designed to assess the progress the agency has made towards their cultural

competency goals. The review is conducted in cooperation with the agency itself and

the CFC staff who complete the review. CFC staff help the agency prepare for the

review by scheduling the date several months in advance, and by making technical

assistance available on an as-needed basis during the course of the contract period. 

Agencies felt that the reviews were a necessary, useful, and constructive part of

the process of improving access to minority communities. They said that this process

gave them a chance to assess their progress and receive feedback on their efforts. 

They also saw the CFC evaluators as supportive and professional. While many of the

agencies said that the process did not require any improvement, several mentioned the

length of the review as a problem (up to three hours). However, respondents also said

that the second round of reviews was better than the first, suggesting that CFC staff

learned how to prioritize and streamline the process.

Providing diversity training and other technical assistance to agencies.

The Multicultural Coordinator recruited seven trainers to address topics discussed in
III-10

the previous section. Trainers tailored the sessions to the particular need of the

agency being addressed. Training participants commented that the greatest

improvement to training would be to continue the assessment of agency needs after

training to continually provide needed information targeted to the agency's level of

sophistication. The other comment concerned the need to provide more information on

the actual application of techniques to specific situations (i.e., more role playing and

participant involvement). 

3.2 Outcome Evaluation Support

The methodology for the Marion County evaluation was developed in two

stages, each following an evaluability assessment of the program. The original design,

developed after the first assessment, was later changed with the agreement of Marion

County, Caliber, and OJJDP, to maximize the usefulness of the available evaluation

resources. Marion County program staff decided that various factors—including the

impending end of their DMC contract and the successful completion of a process

evaluation by another evaluator—combined to make even an informal evaluation of

outcomes difficult and inaccurate. Instead, they requested that Caliber provide

technical assistance to develop data collection forms for later use. The following

paragraphs describe the original methodology and the technical assistance provided in

more detail.

The evaluation team together with the Marion County representatives had

originally identified an opportunity to conduct an assessment of the DMC-related efforts

within Marion County. The purpose of the assessment was to systematically obtain

information on the ability of CFC grantees to increase their levels of cultural

competency. The "treatment" to be evaluated would be the technical assistance

offered by the Multicultural Coordinator and the training offered by the training

contractors. The original assessment would measure the baseline profile of each CFC

grantee's cultural competence by means of two instruments, one examining program

practices against specified cultural competency criteria, the other asking clients of the

programs to rate the services they receive in terms of cultural sensitivity. The same

measures would be repeated after the implementation of cultural competence plans by

each of the grantees in order to assess the amount of change during the interval. 

These survey data would be supplemented by information collected from CFC grantee

staff during the CFC on-site monitoring visits and potentially from interviews conducted

of CFC program staff by the process evaluation contractor.
III-11

This evaluation approach was not an experimental or even quasi-experimental

design, and did not portend to establish overall causality or cause and effect of specific

Marion County training and support activities. Rather, the evaluation assumed that,

given the Marion County focus on the importance of cultural competence, all, some or

even one of the activities or requirements would effect change to an organization's

level of awareness, operations and, ultimately, to the clients' experiences. This

proposed approach further assumed that these changes would be evident provided that

information was systematically collected using carefully structured instruments. And

while the evaluation did not set out to "prove" the effectiveness of specific Marion

County activities, it aimed to provide Marion County, Oregon and OJJDP with valid and

reliable information about this cultural competency approach.

In August 1994, the Caliber evaluation team determined that the evaluability of

outcomes of the Marion County DMC initiative was minimal due to the impending end of

the grant period (September 1994) and the lack of data collection at the beginning of

the period. With the understanding that Oregon's independent evaluation contractor

had recently completed a process evaluation of the Marion County initiative, Caliber

and the CFC staff adjusted the evaluation approach to maximize the impact of the

evaluation resource.

After consulting with OJJDP and the Marion County initiative, the Caliber team

agreed to provide data collection instruments and other evaluation technical assistance

that would help measure outcomes of the possible continuation of the project. 

Specifically, Caliber agreed to provide:

• Customer Feedback Assessment Instrument/Client Satisfaction

Survey. A self-administered tool used by clients of agencies that provide

family services. It reflects the client's impressions of the cultural

competence of the agency.

• A scalar version of the Children and Families Commission's Cultural

Competency Checklist. This new instrument converts the checklist into

a questionnaire utilizing a Likert-type scale. The scale enables CFC to

use the instrument as a measure of changes in institutional cultural

competency before and after implementation of the initiative.

These two instruments are designed to measure the changes in cultural competency of

the agency as perceived by clients receiving the services and as evidenced by

changes in internal program practices. The first instrument measures the outcomes of

changes in the cultural competency of agencies as perceived by consumers. It collects
III-12

information from clients of CFC-supported agencies about their perceptions of the

cultural sensitivity and awareness of agencies and practitioners. Used before and after

cultural sensitivity training, this survey would reveal the impact of training and any other

activities the agency pursued as part of its cultural competency plan. 

The second instrument is designed to measure institutional cultural competency

as defined by a set of practices and beliefs. These criteria, called the Cultural

Competency Criteria, were developed by the Cultural Diversity Committee of the CFC,

and refined following public comment. As part of the DMC Initiative, the Multicultural

Coordinator requests that each grant applicant complete a self-administered

questionnaire entitled The Cultural Checklist -- How Equitable Is Your Organization

Culture? which is based on the cultural competency criteria. This 30-item checklist

requests information about staff attitudes, organizational policies, organizational

framework, data collection and monitoring, events and symbols, staff skills and

information, and the organization's plan for improving intergroup relations.

The revised instrument developed by Caliber is a modification of the Cultural

Checklist from a "yes/no" instrument to one with Likert-type or summated rating scales. 

Employing four- or five-point summated rating scales rather that the two-point yes/no

response allows for more precision in measuring an individual's perceptions or

attitudes about the questionnaire item. More importantly, however, is the fact that a

multiple point scale is necessary to measure change over time.

Caliber researched, designed, tested and delivered both instruments described

above in October, 1994. A copy of the Client Satisfaction Survey is presented in

Exhibit III-2 and a copy of the revised Cultural Checklist is presented in Exhibit III-3, at

the conclusion of this chapter.

Unfortunately, the timing of the development of the instruments and the end of

the program funding in Marion County combined to make it impossible to use the

instruments to measure program impacts or outcomes as a part of this evaluation. The

Multicultural Coordinator of the CFC planned to use them as a part of their continuing

cultural competency development and training effort, however.

4. SUMMARY OF MARION COUNTY EVALUATION FINDINGS

As demonstrated by the process evaluation, the Marion County initiative

succeeded in increasing awareness of cultural sensitivity among service providers and
III-13

giving them assistance to improve their institutional cultural competence. The impacts

of the DMC initiative affected most social service agencies in Marion County. 

Participating agencies told the process evaluator that the initiative had resulted in the

following changes in their organizations: 

• Expanded the diversity of staff

• Improved outreach to minority clients

• Increased awareness of the need for education about cultural sensitivity

• Reallocated funds and resources to better serve minority clients
III-14

• Improved cultural skills

• Formed their own diversity advisory committee.

Both public and private non-profit agencies were equally involved in internal

examination and change. 

In creating these impacts, participants learned important lessons about

successful approaches to creating change in a potentially controversial topic. They

learned that their success was based on three strategies that the initiative employed:

• Enabling broad participation in the definition of cultural competency and

the formulation of the criteria used to measure it. The Cultural Diversity

Committee encouraged broad participation, sought input from the

community, were open to revising the criteria, and invested time in the

process of drafting and revising the CCC.

• Creating clearly defined and comprehensively detailed criteria for

institutional cultural competency. The CCC evolved into a set of 21

factors organized in seven different topics. The effectiveness of the CCC

was directly influenced by its clarity and detail.

• Providing a wide a spectrum of approaches to address deficiencies in

cultural competency. The Multicultural Coordinator and the team of parttime diversity trainers provide flexible solutions to each agency's

particular needs. Agencies may receive training, agencies are provided

suggestions and technical assistance to seek their own solutions, and the

CFC publishes a bi-monthly newsletter that keeps agencies in

communication with others and provides information on committee

meetings, training opportunities, diversity techniques, and community

happenings.

In addition, having a full-time Multicultural Coordinator who was able to approach

agencies as a helper instead of as a compliance monitor was another key factor in the

success of the initiative.
III-15

EXHIBIT III-2

MARION COUNTY

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES COMMISSION

CLIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY

The program wold like to have clients’ opinions of the program so it can adjust the

services if offers to meet the community’s needs. Your answers will all be kept

confidential.

Please record the name of the program:

INSTRUCTIONS: For each statement please circle one number under the statement

which most accurtely reflects what you think about this program.

Program or Service: Questions 1-11 are about the program named above

1. It was easy for me to get information Yes

about this service/program. No

2 I knew about the program services before Yes

I came. No

3. I could understand the information I Never Sometimes Mostly Always

received/saw about this program. 1 2 3 4 5

4. The program tries to help all the people in Never Sometimes Mostly Always

our community. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I could find transportation to come to the Never Sometimes Mostly Always

program. 1 2 3 4 5

6. I could find childcare so I could come to Never Sometimes Mostly Always

the program. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I had difficulty getting time off from work to Never Sometimes Mostly Always

come to the program. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I would know who to talk to about unfair Never Sometimes Mostly Always

treatment by the staff. 1 2 3 4 5

9. The program has staff people from Never Sometimes Mostly Always

different racial, ethnic, and gender groups. 1 2 3 4 5

10. I have made suggestions about how to Never Sometimes Mostly Always

 improve the program or service. (Have 1 2 3 4 5

you put comments in a suggestion box?)
III-16

EXHIBIT III-2 (Continued)

MARION COUNTY

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES COMMISSION

11. The pictures and decorations at the Never Sometimes Mostly Always

program offices reflect the divesity of the 1 2 3 4 5

community.

Staff: Think about the progrm staff person whom you saw most often. Please read the following statments with that staff

person in mind and circle one number under the statement which most accurately reflects how you feel about that

person.

12. The program staff person was friendly. Never Sometimes Mostly Always

1 2 3 4 5

13. The program staff person was patient Never Sometimes Mostly Always

with me. 1 2 3 4 5

14. The program staff person really listened Never Sometimes Mostly Always

to me. 1 2 3 4 5

15. The program staff person took the time Never Sometimes Mostly Always

to get to know about me. 1 2 3 4 5

16. The program staff person understood Never Sometimes Mostly Always

what I was saying. 1 2 3 4 5

17. I understood what the program staff Never Sometimes Mostly Always

person was saying to me. 1 2 3 4 5

18. The program staff person made Never Sometimes Mostly Always

scheduling appointments easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5

19. The program staff person seemed to Never Sometimes Mostly Always

understand the customs and ways of my 1 2 3 4 5

people/family.

Overall Satisfaction: 

20. The program services helped me. Never Sometimes Mostly Always

1 2 3 4 5

21. The program was a good experience for Never Sometimes Mostly Always

me. 1 2 3 4 5

22. Some things I learned in the program will Never Sometimes Mostly Always

help me in the future. 1 2 3 4 5

23. I would recommend this program to a Never Sometimes Mostly Always

friend or family member who needed this 1 2 3 4 5

program’s services.

24. I am better off because I came to the Never Sometimes Mostly Always

program. 1 2 3 4 5
III-17

EXHIBIT III-2 (Continued)

MARION COUNTY

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES COMMISSION

25. What was the most helpful part of the program for you?

 1. Program location 7. Medical help

 2. Program hours 8. Social services

 3. Availability of chidcare 9. Legal aid

 4. Availability of transportation 10. Classes/education

 5. Program fee (affordable/free) 11. General information

 6. Staff could speak my language 12. Other:

26. What was the least helpful part of the program for you?

 1. Program location 8. Needed more social services

 2. Program hours 9. Needed more legal aid 

 3. Lack of childcare 10. Needed more classes/education

 4. Lack of transportation 11. Needed more general information

 5. Program fee (affordable/free) 12. Other

 6. Staff could not speak my language

 7. Needed more medical help

27. In what way could the program or service have been more helpful to you?

28. How did you first hear about this program/service?

 1. Friends/family 6. Television program/ad

 2. Work 7. Newspaper

 3. Clinic/doctor 8. Poster

 4. School 9. Other:

 5. Radio program/ad

Please fill in the following information about yourself.

Race Ethnicity Age Gender Ability

African Hispanic please list any

Caucasian Russian years female physical impairment:

Asian Other male

Other 

What language do you usually speak to work? 

What language do you usually speak at home? 

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
By: Eleanor Linn, Associate Director for Gender Equity; and adapted by: Marco Benavides, 1

Multi-Cultural Coordinator, Children and Youth Services Comission of Marion County.

III-18

EXHIBIT III-3

THE CULTURAL CHECKLIST

HOW EQUITABLE IS YOUR ORGANIZATION CULTURE?1

Directions: For each question circle the number in the right-hand column that most accurately describes

your organization. After you complete this questionnaire share information and complete one as a

group/organization. Where possible, work with a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic team of people that includes

board, staff, volunteers, and clients. Pay special attention to areas in which the team does not reach

consensus.

Staff Attitude:

1. Do staff members use language Never Sometimes Mostly Always

that is free from racial, ethnic, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

sexual slurs?

2. Is it acceptable for staff to talk about Never Sometimes Mostly Always

the use of exclusive language, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

stereotypic attitudes, or ethnocentric

assumptions and how it affects

others?

3. Do staff members communicate Never Sometimes Mostly Always

with colleagues and community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

members who are of different

gender, racial, and ethnic

backgrounds?

4. Are professional contacts with those Never Sometimes Mostly Always

of different gender, racial, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ethnic backgrounds mutually

comfortable? (i.e. can they be

initiated by either person?)

5. Can staff accurately name the major None Some Most All

demographic groups in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

community?

6. Can staff identify traditional modes None Some Most All

for processing information that are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

valued within each of these groups?

Policy

7. Does your program/organization Never Sometimes Mostly Always

have a policy that explicitly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

condemns racially, sexually, and

ethnically biased behavior?
III-19

EXHIBIT III-3 (Continued)

THE CULTURAL CHECKLIST

HOW EQUITABLE IS YOUR ORGANIZATION CULTURE?

8. Does that policy have clear complaint reporting, None Some Most All

fact finding, and appeal procedures? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Are consequences clearly stated and regularly Never Sometimes Mostly Always

publicized? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Is the policy enforced consistently? Never Sometimes Mostly Always

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Organizational Framework

11. Does an ombudsperson hear complaints and Never Sometimes Mostly Always

respond to problems before they get out of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

hand?

12. Is the staff make-up integrated? Never Sometimes Mostly Always

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Do committees include the active participation Never Sometimes Mostly Always

of staff from all racial, gender and ethnic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

groups?

14. Does the board represent the diversity of the Never Sometimes Mostly Always

entire community? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Is the board used as a forum for creating dialog Never Sometimes Mostly Always

and consensus with different groups in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

community?

Data Collection and Monitoring

16. Does your organization routinely collect data on Never Sometimes Mostly Always

incidents of cross-cultural friction such as bias 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

comments, bias decisons, harassment, and

slurs?

17. Is this data analyzed by race, gender or ethnicity Never Sometimes Mostly Always

in order to identify specific cultural tensions and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

to develop equitable organization strategies to

help resolve them?

18 . Have special programs or policies been put in Never Sometimes Mostly Always

place as the result of such data analysis? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. Have clients and community members from all Never Sometimes Mostly Always

groups been involved in the development and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

implementation of corrective programs and

policies?
III-20

EXHIBIT III-3 (Continued)

THE CULTURAL CHECKLIST

HOW EQUITABLE IS YOUR ORGANIZATION CULTURE?

Events and Symbols

20. Does the planning for organizational events and Never Sometimes Mostly Always

awards reflect the diversity of people in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

organization by race, gender, and ethnicity?

21. Are symbols, team names, awards and Never Sometimes Mostly Always

souvenirs free from racial, gender, and ethnic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

bias? (i.e. do all staff feel these symbols belong

to them?)

22. Are there important events and celebrations in Never Sometimes Mostly Always

the organization that emphasize human unity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

and diversity? (e.g. Earth Day and World Peace

Day)

23. Do important events and celebrations reflect the None Some Most All

heritage of people other than male European 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Americans? (e.g. Martin Luther King Day,

Women’s History Month, Hispanic Heritage

Month, Asian Pacific Heritage Month and Indian

Law Day)

24. Do pictures, decorations, and ornaments in your Never Sometimes Mostly Always

organization reflect the diversity of your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

community and emphasize the message of

unity and diversity?

Skill and Information

25. Do all staff and volunteers understand the None Some Most All

meaning of the term culture? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. Do all staff and volunteers know that all people None Some Most All

ae unique individuals and members of cultural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

groups?

27. Can staff identify key elements of the Never Sometimes Mostly Always

organiztion culture? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. Is there culturally sensitive and inclusive planned Never Sometimes Mostly Always

staff development about diverse cultural norms, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

communication and learning styles?

29. Does the staff training program include specific Never Sometimes Mostly Always

trainings on cultural diversity, cross-cultural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

communication, and conflict resolution at all

levels of the organization?
III-21

EXHIBIT III-3 (Continued)

THE CULTURAL CHECKLIST

HOW EQUITABLE IS YOUR ORGANIZATION CULTURE?

Organization Plan

30. Does your organization have a plan for No Yes

improving intergroup relations? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31. Is there a multi-cultural/multi-ethnic advisory No Yes

committee to oversee this plan? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32. Does the committee have clearly stated goals Never Sometimes Mostly Always

and realistic timetables? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33. Is there adequate funding and administrative Never Sometimes Mostly Always

support to carry out a successful plan? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34. Does the plan include provisions for both long- Never Sometimes Mostly Always

term change and short-term crisis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

managment?

35. Is there recognition and support for the formal Never Sometimes Mostly Always

and informal leaders of the organization who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

promote positive intergroup relations?

Self Awareness/Self-assessment (to do by yourself for yourself)

1. Have you thought about your own gender, Never Sometimes Mostly Always

racial, ethnic and social class identity and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

various ways in which you are similar to, yet

different from, the demographic groups to

which you belong?

2. Have you thought about how your own Never Sometimes Mostly Always

gender, race, ethnicity and social class have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

influenced how you process information and

how you work?

3. Have you talked about how culture influences Never Sometimes Mostly Always

the way we process information with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

colleagues who are of a differenct race,

gender, and/or ethnicity?

4. Have you thought about how your own culture Never Sometimes Mostly Always

influenced the way that you disseminate or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

process information and how your style is

perceived by colleagues and peers who are

from a different gender, racial or ethnic

groups?

5. Do you honestly believe that all staff-peers are Never Sometimes Mostly Always

capable of succeeding regardless of their racial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

or ethnic group, and gender?
III-22

EXHIBIT III-3 (Continued)

THE CULTURAL CHECKLIST

HOW EQUITABLE IS YOUR ORGANIZATION CULTURE?

6. Are you honestly willing to change your Never Sometimes Mostly Always

behavior/style from ways that are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

comforatble to you, to ways that may be

more helpful to staff-peers who are

different from you?

Scoring the Checklist

› Organization Culture Score: Sum the numbers you circled in response to questions 1-35.

176-245 points

Your organization has many of the components that contribute to a positive pluralistic culture. Recognize your

successes and identify those areas that still need work. It’s likely that you need better coordination and

institutionalization of your efforts.

106-175 points.

You have some of the elements that are needed to create a positive pluralistic organization culture, but you still have a

way to go. Focus specifically on any area in which you scored your organization below three. Work with a diverse

group, identify the barriers you will need to overcome and set priorities.

35-105 points

You have a great deal of work to do. Focus first on staff attitudes, organization policy, and the development of a multicultural plan for your organization.

› Self Awareness Score: Sum the numbers you circled in response to questions 1-6.

31-42 points.

You have thought a good deal about this issue and are actively involved in talking to others about it too.

19-30 points.

Your honesty with yourself is an asset. Think about the areas that you have not thought about before. What insights do

they help you discover? Now try talking about these insights with people who are different from you.

6-18 points.

Give yourself some time for introspection. You may find that it’s easier to first talk this over with someone whose

background is similar to yours. Without meaning to harm others, you may be unconsciously perpetuating some

culturally biased behaviors.

Code Number: This number will not be used to identify you, but to help match this survey with one you may take at a

later time.

Please write the last four digits of your social security number: 
IV. MULTNOMAH COUNTY
2 Heuser, J.P., p. 13.

IV-1

IV. MULTNOMAH COUNTY

The Multnomah County DMC initiative funded the evaluation of the African

American Male Connection Program (AAMCP). The purpose of this chapter is to

provide a description of the Multnomah County African American Male Connection

Program and to present the evaluation methods and findings. This program was

designed to provide a multi-service, community-based approach for at-risk African

American youth offering services, such as individual/group counseling, mentoring, gang

prevention intervention, tutoring, and substance abuse counseling. 

1. BACKGROUND

Multnomah County includes the City of Portland, the most densely populated

area within the state. According to the 1990 Census, there were over 135,000 juveniles

(0-17 years) residing in Multnomah County of which 18 percent or approximately

30,000 were of a racial or ethnic minority group. This large number of youth enabled

the most detailed and sophisticated analyses of disproportionate representation within

the juvenile justice system.

The statewide Phase I analysis showed strong patterns of overrepresentation for

African American youth with arrest, juvenile court referral, and detention index values of

approximately 2.5, and commitment and closed custody index values between 4 and 5. 

(Recall that indices over 1.0 indicate overrepresentation.) Native American and

Hispanic youth were also shown to be overrepresented; however, the index values

were less pronounced.2

In response to the statewide Phase I data analysis, the OCCYSC team selected

the African American Male Connection Program as its focus for the minority initiative. 

This project was established prior to the DMC national initiative based on the

realization that minority youth were disproportionately committed to the state training

schools. During the evaluation planning process, the African American Male

Connection Program had been operating for over two years and, given its program

structure and available data, appeared a strong candidate for an evaluation of project

outcomes and impacts. However, during the Summer 1993, the African American Male

Connection Program was notified of the loss of its major funding. As a result, the

program ceased operations. The Oregon DMC team together with Caliber decided to
A detailed description of the process evaluation of the Parole Transition Coordinator project 3

can be found in a report by the independent evaluator: Brown-Kline, J. (September 1994). 

Process Evaluation of Programs for Lane, Marion and Multnomah Counties.

IV-2

proceed with the outcome evaluation because of the opportunity to conduct

retrospective impact analyses. Meanwhile, the Oregon DMC initiative substituted a

new project, the Parole Transition Coordinator project, for the African American Male

Connection Program. Therefore, due to the timing of events, the process evaluation for

Multnomah County focused on the Parole Transition Coordinator project while the 3

outcome evaluation focused on the African American Male Connection Program.

2. AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE CONNECTION PROGRAM

The African American Male Connection Program (AAMCP) began December 9,

1990 and continued until funding was no longer available on June 30, 1993. The

budget for the 1990-1991 fiscal year was $155,000 and for the 1991-1992 and 1992-

1993 fiscal years was $209,000. The AAMCP was an intervention program designed

specifically for African American male youth between the ages of 11 and 19 years who

were, for example, known to have gang affiliation (or live in gang affected

neighborhoods), to have dropped out of school, and/or to have had at least five juvenile

referrals.

The AAMCP had four major objectives including:

• Aid African American male youth to gain control of their lives by improving

their ability to make rational, longstanding decisions as well as improving

relationships with their families and their communities

• End recidivism among justice system-involved African American male youth

in Multnomah County

• Reduce the confinement of African American male youth in state training

facilities

• Address issues facing African American youth such as dropping out of

school, poverty and criminality.

To meet these objectives, the AAMCP provided a multi-service, communitybased approach that used a variety of service providers, resources and disciplines to

develop a comprehensive treatment plan and deliver services, accordingly. The

AAMCP provided services which included tutoring, substance abuse counseling, gang
IV-3

prevention intervention, recreation/outdoor adventure training, and individual/group

counseling and mentoring.

The AAMCP was composed of eight community-based organizations, under the

auspices of The Urban League of Portland. Agencies involved in the coalition, in

addition to The Urban League of Portland, were Mercy Corp International, Minority

Youth Concerns Action Program (MYCAP), North/Inner Northeast YMCA (YMCA),

Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center (POIC), Portland Youth Redirection

(PYR), The Private Industry Council (TPIC), and The Coalition of Black Men. The

purpose of this coalition, situated in the North/Northeast Portland area, was to assist

young African American males in redirecting their lives (i.e., engendering a sense of

responsibility; developing their ability to make rational decisions; and improving their

individual, familial, and societal interrelationships). Exhibit IV-1, following this page,

indicates the various programs and treatment services provided by each of the county

agencies.

The AAMCP served approximately 70 youth during the three years of program

operation. Specifically, the AAMCP targeted those youth who:

• Lived in a gang-affected community in Multnomah County

• Lived in a family at or below the poverty level

• Were known to traffic drugs or have a documented alcohol or drug problem

• Had gang- or criminally-involved family member(s)

• Had been suspended from school for gang activity, violent behavior, drugs

or did not attend school, or who attended school irregularly

• Had at least five (5) delinquency referrals to Juvenile Court, and/or

• Were on suspended commitment to a state training school.

Youth participation in the program was voluntary. African American youth typically

entered the program by referral from the Juvenile Justice Division (JJD). In some

cases, the AAMCP Coordinator met with the probation officer and youth to discuss the

program and determine the youth's interest in participating. In other cases, youth

visited The Urban League of Portland to meet with a mentor, or The Urban League

mentor and AAMCP Coordinator went to the JJD detention center to meet with the

youth.
IV-4

EXHIBIT IV-1

SERVICE PROVIDERS TO THE AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE CONNECTION PROGRAM (AAMCP)

AGENCY SERVICES PURPOSE STAFFING ROLE

Mallory Avenue • Provide setting for Midnight Basketball League Provide healthy recreational activities NA

Christian Church

Mercy Corp • Outdoor adventure recreation Develop a wholesome lifestyle through the life changing Recreational coordination

International experience in outdoor adventure with outward-bound assists in developing treatment

intensity plans

Minority Youth • Comprehensive program serving gang-related Deter youth from gang-related and all juvenile justice- Staff add insights to all providers

Concerns Action and at-risk teen males and their families related behaviors based on experiences with

Program (MYCAP) gang-involved youth

• Case management of several youth and their

families

North/Inner Northeast • Midnight Basketball League Keeping participants occupied in a positive setting AAMCP Coordinator meets with

YMCA during the 9-12pm hours on Fri and Sat nights (when YMCA Directors for weekly

crimes are most likely to be committed) progress checks

Portland Opportunities • Basic and alternative education, counseling Provide services to assist with educational and NA

Industrialization Center and psychological assessments psychological development

(POIC)

Portland Youth • Assist at-risk males to deal with crisis and Provide counseling and support to at-risk youth Staff provide additional

Redirection (PYR) adversity information about youth and

• Provide mentoring, guidance, and goal setting outreach efforts

challenges for the youth and his family

families due to extensive

The Private Industry • Full range of employment services Provide job training and placement Staff provide consistent, high

Council (TPIC) level support

• Comprehensive GED program (w/stipend)

The Urban League of • Coordinating services for the AAMCP • Provide leadership to the AAMCP NA

Portland (UL/AAMCP)

• Operate the Male Responsibility Program • Assist adolescent African American males to

improve their decision-making abilities for life

management and career planning
IV-5

At the initial intake interview, the AAMCP coordinator completed a household

dynamics chart which indicated the client's primary and secondary caregivers, their

relationship to the client, the client's siblings, and any other relatives or friends living in

the home. The background information collected at this interview was supplemented

with case histories provided by the Gang Resource Intervention Team (G.R.I.T.), a

county program, whenever one of their participants was admitted.

The coalition of providers for the AAMCP met on a monthly basis to develop and

review 30-day treatment plans for each youth participant. The providers discussed

each case to determine the combination of services which would best meet the youth's

needs. An individualized treatment plan included a calendar of program activities for a

given month, indicating the programs in which the youth was to participate. The youth

received a copy of their own calendar each month; activities were scheduled to provide

as much structured time as possible and to allow daily contact with the youth by

program staff. At the conclusion of the month, the case was reviewed to determine if

the treatment plan was being followed and, if so, to determine if it was actually helping

the youth to become more socially responsible. Adjustments were made to the

treatment plan, as necessary, and a new treatment plan was issued or the youth was

graduated from the program. To provide background about how cases were processed

into the AAMCP, a flow chart is depicted in Appendix C.

3. EVALUATION DESIGN

Although the AAMCP was defunded in 1993, the OCCYSC project team viewed

the AAMCP as an appropriate intervention to address the problems of juvenile justice

system disproportionality among African American male youth. Since the program was

not in operation during the evaluation, the results were dependent on existing historical

data contained in The Urban League of Portland files and within the TJIS data sets. 

The evaluation was, of necessity, limited in its scope and objectives focusing primarily

on the measurement of AAMCP participant impacts.

The objective of this outcome evaluation was to determine if participation in the

AAMCP impacted upon criminal offenses and recidivism of the African American males

between the ages of 11 and 19 within the North/Northeast Portland area. 

Consequently, this evaluation focuses on the differences between juveniles who

received the services and those who did not receive the services, and whether these

differences were statistically significant.
IV-6

Several research questions were posed for the current study. For example,

compared to juvenile offenders who did not participate in the program, to what extent

were participants in the AAMCP:

• Less likely to receive a delinquency violation referral

Less likely to receive a probation violation referral

Less likely to receive a status offense referral.

In the following paragraphs we provide a description of data sources, the sample, and

the methodology used in attempting to provide answers to the above-mentioned

research questions. Following this background, we provide a discussion of the

findings.

3.1 Data Sources

This evaluation effort used data collected by The Urban League and the TriCounty Juvenile Information System (TJIS). The Youth Programs Office (YPO)

provided The Urban League and the various lead agencies with two different data

recording forms for participants in the AAMCP. These recording forms were used to

record initial and concluding assessments, service times, and various counselor

information. Specific information about program participants included: 

sociodemographics, living arrangements, family constellation, and school attendance. 

The Urban League provided Caliber with copies of these AAMCP records.

The TJIS data tape, which is maintained by the Multnomah County Information

Systems Division, contains records about individual juveniles and their referrals and

allegations. The records received from The Urban League for the AAMCP participants

were matched with their corresponding records from TJIS using an unique case

identification variable from the TJIS database for the years 1990 to 1993. These

combined data sets represent the data used for the present analyses.

3.2 Results

In this section, we describe the characteristics of the experimental and

comparison groups. Following this, we present the results of the statistical analyses

used for the outcome evaluation.
IV-7

Sample

The Urban League of Portland provided Caliber with copies of the accessible

records of juveniles who had received services under the sponsorship of the AAMCP

between 1991 and 1993. There were approximately 60 usable records for the AAMCP

participants. Of these possible 60 AAMCP participants, we were able to match 47

cases to the TJIS database. It was determined that the most accurate control group for

the evaluation would be a matched comparison group. Therefore, the sample for the

following analyses (unless otherwise noted) included 47 AAMCP participants and 47

matched comparison group cases. The matched comparison group was selected to be

as similar as possible to the AAMCP participants on several relevant variables. First,

the matched sample had to have been adjudicated delinquent and appeared on the

TJIS files. Next, the comparison group was selected to match AAMCP participants on

sex, ethnicity, age, and living arrangements.

To ensure that the resulting selected comparison sample was similar to the

AAMCP participants, it was important to compare the two groups prior to the start of the

program. To make these baseline comparisons it was necessary to calculate the age

and determine the living arrangements of both groups as of January 1, 1990 (prior to

the start of the AAMCP). Note that the sample size for the AAMCP group was 38 and

the sample size for the comparison group was 31 because the comparability analysis

was conducted using the 1990 data. This decrease in the number of cases for both

groups necessarily indicates that not all of the original 47 in both groups received a

referral of any nature and, therefore, would not have appeared in the TJIS database. 

Exhibit IV-2 provides relevant information about the two groups.

Because all participants in the AAMCP were African-American males, it is

evident from the comparability analysis that all of those individuals selected as part of

the comparison group were also African-American males. An independent groups t-test

was conducted to test for statistical significance of the difference between AAMCP

participants and the comparison group in terms of age. Results indicated that AAMCP

participants were not significantly different than the matched comparison individuals

(t= 1.14, ns). On the other hand, the analysis indicated that the AAMCP and the

comparison groups varied with respect to their living arrangements. (A chi-square test

of significance for the living arrangement variable was not conducted due to the small

sample sizes within a majority of the cells of the contingency table.) AAMCP

participants were more likely than the comparison group to live with their mothers only

and relatives. Conversely, the comparison group was more likely than the AAMCP
Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., & Brewer, D.D. (1995). Preventing serious, violent, and chronic 4

juvenile offending. In Implementation Manual for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

IV-8

participants to live with a both natural parents and to live under "other" living

arrangements, such as in institutions, treatment centers, and foster homes. Overall, it

was determined that the matched comparison group was similar enough to the AAMCP

group to warrant further analysis (while being aware of any differences that may be

attributable to living arrangements).

EXHIBIT IV-2

AAMCP and Comparison Group Demographics

(1990 Baseline Data)

Demographics (n=38) (n=31)

AAMCP Participants Comparison Group

Average Age 14.23 14.76

 (standard deviation) (1.73) (2.12)

Sex (%) 100% Male 100% Male

Ethnicity (%) 100% African American 100% African American

Living Arrangements (%)

Both natural parents 10.5 19.4

Two parents, one step- 7.9 6.5

parent

Mother only 55.3 32.3

Father only 5.3 0.0

Relative 10.5 6.5

Other 10.5 35.5 1

This category includes living arrangements, such as treatment centers, foster homes, shelters, and 1

Child Services.

Statistical Analyses

Using available TJIS data, the evaluation design assessed the effect of AAMCP

participation on receiving delinquency violation referrals, status offense referrals, and

parole/probation violation referrals. These variables served as the dependent

variables in the evaluation regression models. Because research has indicated that 4

the following types of factors may affect the risk of juvenile recidivism, they were to be

included as independent variables in the evaluation regression models: age at first
IV-9

adjudication, prior criminal behavior, drug and/or alcohol abuse, parental control, peer

relationships, school disciplinary problems, and/or whether or not a juvenile has had an

institutional commitment or placement. Each of these independent variables is a

categorical variable due to their coding (e.g., age at first adjudication is coded into

three categories).

Before computing the regression models, chi-square tests and t-tests were

conducted of the 1990 baseline data to determine if the two groups (i.e., experimental

and comparison) differed significantly on any of the independent variables prior to the

experimental group's participation in the AAMCP. Descriptive statistics of the two

continuous independent variables and the results of the t-tests are displayed in Exhibit

IV-3. Descriptive statistics of the remaining categorical independent variables and the

results of the chi-square tests are displayed in Exhibit IV-4. Results indicated that the

AAMCP participants were not significantly different from the comparison group on any

of the independent variables except for the number of referrals. The findings indicated

that the comparison group had a significantly higher number of referrals, in general,

than had the AAMCP participants. This latter finding was somewhat surprising given

the fact that one of the targeting criteria for AAMCP participation was having at least

five delinquency referrals and the fact that this was not one of the selection criteria for

the matched comparison group.

EXHIBIT IV-3

Descriptive Statistics and Results of T-tests for the

Continuous Independent Variables

(1990 Baseline Data)

Variable deviation) Range deviation) Range T-Test

AAMCP Participants Comparison Group

(n=38) (n=31)

Mean Mean

(standard (standard

Age 14.23 9.9 - 16.6 14.76 9.4 - 17.5 1.14

(1.73) (2.12)

Number of referrals 7.95 2 - 38 12.48 1 - 20 2.34*

(5.57) (9.54)

* Results are statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

The dependent variables in this study (received a delinquency violation referral,

received a status offense violation referral, and received a probation violation referral)
IV-10

were regarded as discrete variables. That is, individuals were coded based on whether

they received one of these particular types of referrals to the juvenile justice system

(e.g., the code=1 when a referral was received and the code=0 when no referral was

received). The independent variable of most interest for this study was whether the

juvenile received the services of the AAMCP.

EXHIBIT IV-4

Descriptive Statistics and Results of Chi-Square Tests for the

Categorical Independent Variables

(1990 Baseline Data)

Variable (n=29) (n=20) Test

AAMCP Comparison

Participants Group

2

Percentage Percentage

Age at first adjudication

0 = 16 or older 41.4 30.0 3.07

3 = 14 or 15 44.8 35.0

5 = 13 or younger 13.8 35.0

Prior criminal behavior

0 = No prior arrests 13.8 15.0 3.67

2 = Prior arrests, no formal sanctions 58.6 35.0

3 = Prior delinquency sustained, no assaults 10.3 10.0

4 = Prior delinquency sustained, 1 or more assaults 17.2 40.0

Institutional commitment or placement

0 = None 65.5 70.0 5.70

2 = One 20.7 0.0

4 = Two or more 13.8 30.0

Drug/Chemical abuse

0 = No known abuse 65.5 65.0 0.01

2 = Some disruptive functioning 24.1 25.0

3 = Chronic abuse or dependency 10.3 10.0

Alcohol abuse

0 = None 51.7 40.0 2.41

1 = Occasional 24.1 45.0

3 = Chronic abuse 24.1 15.0

Parental control

0=General effective 17.2 20.0 1.22

2=Concerned, but inconsistent/ineffective 48.3 60.0

4=Little or no control 34.5 20.0

School delinquency problems

0 = Attending, graduated, GED 6.9 20.0 1.81

1 = Problems handled at school 27.6 25.0

3 = Severe truancy, behavior problems 34.5 25.0

5 = Not attending, expelled 31.0 30.0
Variable (n=29) (n=20) Test

AAMCP Comparison

Participants Group

2

Percentage Percentage

IV-11

Peer relationships 1.81

0 = Good support/influence, or loner 6.9 10.0

2 = Negative influences, delinquent companions 24.1 40.0

4 = Gang member 69.0 50.0

NOTE: None of the -tests were statistically significant (p > .05). 2

Prior to conducting the regression analyses, it was necessary to build upon the

TJIS data. Specifically, individuals only appeared in the TJIS data base if they had

received a referral for any given year. For example, Individual A may have received a

referral in 1990 and 1992 which indicated that this individual had two records: one for

1990 and one for 1992. Because we were interested in predicting whether or not an

individual received a referral within a particular year, it was necessary to generate a

new record for Individual A for 1991 which indicated this individual did not receive a

referral for 1991 (i.e., code = 0).

Because there were no group differences on any of the independent variables

except for referral number and there was no way of creating a value for the referral

number variable for those cases requiring generation of new records for the data base,

simplified regression analyses were computed using the AAMCP variable as the only

independent variable. This was done to test for the effect of AAMCP participation on

each of the three dependent variables.

Separate logistic regression analyses were conducted for each of the three

dependent variables for each of the years of analysis: 1990, 1991, and 1992. The

1990 data represented the baseline, the 1991 data represented the first full year of the

program and 1992 represented the second full year of the program. The 1993 data

were not included in the analyses due to the fact that the program were defunded as of

June 1993; therefore, the data only represented one half of the third year of the

program. The results are displayed in Exhibit IV-5.

Findings and Discussion

Overall, the results indicate that the AAMCP program had no significant impact

on the reduction of recidivism when measured in terms of the number of delinquency,

probation, and status offense referrals. The regression models for each year and for

each type of referral revealed that the AAMCP participants were significantly more

likely to have received a referral than the comparison group. The findings ranged from
IV-12

the AAMCP participants being twice as likely as the comparison group to have received

a delinquency referral in 1992 to the AAMCP participants being twenty times as likely

as the comparison group to have received a probation violation referral in 1992. An

interesting finding from the regression analyses is the amount of variance that the

program participation variable accounted for in each of the regression models (as

evidenced by the Pseudo R 2 values in Exhibit IV-5). For example, the program

participant variable accounted for 13% of the variance in status offense referrals in

1992 and it accounted for 41% of the variance in delinquency violation referrals in

1990. 
IV-12

EXHIBIT IV-5

Logistic Regression Coefficients (and Antilogs)a

 For the Effect of AAMCP Participation on Recidivism

Independent

Variable

Dependent Variable

Delinquency Referrals Probation Violation Referrals Status Offense Referrals

1990 1991 1992 1990 1991 1992 1990 1991 1992

(n=47) (n=47) (n=47) (n=47) (n=47) (n=47) (n=47) (n=47) (n=47)

AAMCP 1.42** 2.65** 1.23** 1.62** 2.59** 3.07** 1.47** 2.21** 1.52**

(3.13) (13.22) (2.44) (4.94) (12.31) (20.54) (3.34) (8.10) (3.56)

Model ChiSquare 11.12** 33.34** 8.59** 8.40** 25.75** 17.23** 7.72** 14.99** 7.20**

Pseudo R .19 .41 .15 .15 .35 .27 .14 .24 .13 2

a The antilog of the logistic regression coefficient combined with the sign of the regression coefficient allow for interpretation of the results. For

example, taking the 1990 results for delinquency referrals, the regression coefficient is positive and the antilog is 3.13. This indicates that

AAMCP participants are approximately three times (or 300%) more likely than the matched comparison group to have received a delinquency

referral during the baseline year. A regression coefficient with a negative sign should be interpreted as "the AAMCP participants are [antilog

interpreted as a percentage] less likely than the comparison group..."

** Finding is statistically significant at p < .01.
IV-14

Having one independent variable accounting for so much of the variance in each of the

dependent variables is a significant finding in itself.

In general, these results are not supportive of the effectiveness of the AAMCP in

terms of reducing recidivism. Because a process evaluation was not conducted for the

AAMCP, it is difficult to provide possible explanations for the present findings. 

However, a finding by the independent evaluator for the Lane County process

evaluation (discussed in Chapter II) may provide some insight for the AAMCP findings. 

One recommendation by the independent evaluator derived from the Lane County

process evaluation was that the demonstration project service providers should limit the

variety of services they offered; that is, to focus their efforts on a more limited number

of services to ensure success with their clients. Because the AAMCP was somewhat

similar to the Lane County project (i.e., the Multicultural Advocate Program) in terms of

the wide variety of services offered, it may be that the AAMCP was not successful in

terms of reducing recidivism due to its resources being spread across the number of

services offered.
V. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE OREGON DMC INITIATIVE
Feyerherm, W. Lessons Learned from the Pilot Experiences. Prepared for the Office of 5

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (April 1995.)

V-1

V. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE OREGON DMC INITIATIVE

A primary objective of the Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)

initiative, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP), is to "test" various approaches to correcting DMC. These demonstrations or

tests, by design, are to provide opportunities for other states and locales to learn from

pilot state experiences.

The purpose of this chapter is to present the Caliber evaluation team's analysis

of lessons learned from the Oregon DMC demonstration. The structure of this chapter

has been influenced by the global analyses of the five pilot states' DMC demonstrations

presented in the companion document, Lessons Learned from the Pilot State

Experiences.

5

1. OVERVIEW

The process evaluation conducted by Brown-Kline & Company culminated with

the final report: Process Evaluation of Programs for Lane, Marion and Multnomah

Counties (September 1994). This report provides detailed findings, conclusions,

recommendations and "lessons learned" for each of the Oregon county DMC

interventions. 

Rather than focusing on individual county experiences, therefore, this chapter

presents conclusions drawn from state and county interactions and from the county

experiences, as a whole. By combining the empirical Oregon evidence with our

understanding gained from the other pilot states and Dr. Feyerherm's DMC paradigms,

lessons learned from the Oregon DMC demonstration are offered for the following

topics:

• Defining the DMC problem

• Designing and implementing DMC interventions.

Each of these topics are discussed in the following section.
Feyerherm, p. 1. 6

V-2

2. SPECIFICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED

The following paragraphs present reflections on the Oregon DMC experiences,

organized as follows: (1) defining the DMC problem and (2) designing and

implementing the intervention.

2.1 Defining the DMC Problem

The process of defining the extent of disproportionate confinement of minority

youth involves both the collection and analysis of statistical data and the identification

of factors which contribute to DMC. These activities were conducted by the Oregon

DMC Phase I research team. It was not a "top down" process, however, since the

counties also engaged in and supported the investigation. The Oregon experiences in

defining the DMC problem support the following lessons.

Focus on the problem, not the symptoms

There is a growing recognition that the DMC issue must be seen from a systemic

perspective rather than independently as a legal, sociological or service delivery

perspective. "In essence, the DMC problem is a system design issue in that the

juvenile justice system is a collection of decisions and treatments which does not

operate equally for youth from all racial and cultural backgrounds."6

The Oregon DMC demonstration recognized the juvenile justice system

perspective as evidenced by the fact that the county interventions wholly or partially

targeted system interventions as their primary focus. In fact, the Oregon approach to

DMC intervention strategies suggests a continuum of DMC program approaches which

impact various aspects of the juvenile justice system and supports the following

theorem.

Within the framework of community-based approaches to reducing DMC, there

are many strategies that an initiative can choose to support. These approaches can be

thought of as lying along a continuum in which the community-based strategies adopt

different attitudes towards the traditional juvenile justice system. Each of the

approaches outlined below can stand alone as a useful method to reduce DMC, and all
The Multnomah County intervention referred to here is the African American Male Connection 7

Program since Caliber had only had experience with this intervention.

V-3

are complementary. Approaching DMC reduction from several of these perspectives

simultaneously is likely to multiply the impact of the effort.

• Advocacy strategies involve the community (community organization)

assuming an adversarial position relative to the juvenile justice system,

examples of these strategies include:

- Support and empower minority youth, families, and communities with

respect to the historically inequitable juvenile justice system

- Influence the system to change policies and practices that lead to DMC

(revising decision making guidelines, adjusting existing services to better

serve minority youth)

• Collaboration stresses cooperation between the community-based initiative

and the juvenile justice system

- Address cultural sensitivity and personal change for professionals within

the system

- Create synergy between juvenile justice agencies (law enforcement, case

management, courts, treatment, detention), other public agencies

(schools, libraries, recreation, income support, housing), and community

non-profit organizations (churches, national organizations, grass-roots

organizations) to address factors leading to DMC and minority

delinquency

• Alternative resources—the development of alternative resources, as the

label implies, is typically done outside the traditional juvenile justice system. 

Examples of DMC activities include:

- Develop culturally sensitive versions of traditional delinquency treatment

- Develop prevention program components within the minority community.

Schematic diagrams of these concepts and their interrelationships are presented in 

Exhibit V-1.

The three Oregon DMC counties developed DMC interventions which are 7

representative of the approaches described above. All three counties focused on
V-4

EXHIBIT V-1

SCHEMATIC OF CONTINUUM OF DMC INITIATIVES

 CONTINUUM OF DMC INITIATIVE APPROACHES 

Advocacy Collaboration Alternative Resources

Adversarial to the System Cooperative with the System Separate from the System

Support youth Influence the Address Create Develop Develop

and families as system to personal synergy for community- prevention

they deal with change change of change by based program

the juvenile practices and professionals combining versions of components

justice system policies that within the abilities of traditional within the

lead to DMC system traditional and services minority

non-traditional community

providers
V-5

providing for systems change as opposed to targeting the minority youth and their

families. A summary of the three counties' DMC approaches and the way in which the

approach targets the juvenile justice system, is presented in Exhibit V-2.

EXHIBIT V-2

COUNTY DMC APPROACHES TO IMPACT 

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

COUNTY LANE MARION MULTNOMAH

DMC Approach Advocates represent Collaborative approach New alternative

youth interests in the to improving cultural treatment resources

system; serve as role sensitivity of system developed and provided

models. providers. in the minority

community.

Goal Improve youth access Improve Prevent youth from

to the system, empower responsiveness of coming into further

youth to control their system providers to contact with the system.

own destiny. minority clients.

Juvenile Justice System Influence the system Direct impact on the Create or limited

Impact from the perspective of system from within separate system; work

the juvenile using using grant awards as with the system to

sanctioned advocates. leverage. receive referrals,

otherwise little

interaction.

The evaluation is inconclusive as to which approach had the greatest impact on

the juvenile justice system. The important point is that each county attempted to impact

the system rather than the individual minority youth. The effectiveness of these

approaches will ultimately be determined by the extent to which disproportionate

minority representation, within the juvenile justice system, is reduced or eliminated.

Involve key players in total DMC definition process

The importance of involving key decision makers, policy analysts, program

planners and community representatives in the DMC definition process cannot be

overemphasized. "Buy-in" to a social problem's definition is critical to the acceptance

that there is a problem and a community's ability to move forward to develop solutions.

The Oregon State government planning structure provides an easy level

opportunity for collaboration on the DMC problem definition. The Oregon Community

Children and Youth Services Commission (OCCYSC), the lead agency for the DMC
Feyerherm, p.11. 8

V-6

demonstration, has local counterparts within each county. Program funding flows from

the state level to the country level and is distributed locally through the counties'

Children and Youth Services Commissions. This structure provided the Oregon DMC

team with a natural mechanism to involve counties, and, in turn, encourage counties to

involve local communities in the DMC problem definition process.

Meanwhile, the counties themselves were in the vanguard of foregoing

community collaboration for the DMC problem definition. This is evidenced by the fact

that, in Marion and Multnomah Counties, the state DMC team nominated existing

county efforts as the DMC demonstration projects rather than having to request that

new initiatives be developed.

2.2 Designing and Implementing the DMC Intervention

The Oregon DMC experiences with designing and implementing interventions

provided several opportunities to substantiate lessons learned from the other pilot

states.

Clearly specify a role for the state

It is recommended that the state play a significant role in supporting local design

and implementation efforts. Based on the Caliber evaluation team observations, the 8

Oregon experiences could serve as a model for defining a clear and appropriate role

for the state. Although the state-county Children and Youth Services Commission

structure implicitly defines the state's role, the state DMC coordinator's and the DMC

team's involvement enabled the state role to be carried out effectively.

Specifically, the state DMC team:

• Provided the Phase I research expertise but involved county representatives

in the research process

• Introduced the DMC findings and promoted the idea of community-based

interventions

• Identified and supported DMC-related interventions which had already

emerged in two counties rather than imposing requirements for new efforts
V-7

• Provided non-intrusive monitoring throughout the project

• Served as a repository of information on additional resources and technical

assistance; facilitated county efforts to seek additional funds.

The approach adopted by the state DMC coordinator and staff was based on

collaboration and encouragement of community-inspired interventions rather than 

"top-down" directives and control.

Insure local planning

The nature of the DMC problem, its magnitude and causes, varies across local

jurisdictions. It is clearly imperative that DMC planning and the implementation of the

interventions must occur at the local level.

The experiences of the Oregon DMC demonstration substantiate this

understanding. The role of the state DMC coordinator (see above), the function of the

state and county commissions to support and encourage local planning and

programming involvement, and the uniqueness of each county's approach to DMC

provide persuasive evidence of the value of local planning on the design and

implementation of the DMC interventions.
APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
A-1

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

AAMCP - African American Male Connection Program (Multnomah County)

CCC - Cultural Competency Criteria (Marion County)

CFC - Children and Families Commission (Marion County)

CSD - Children's Services Division (State office)

DMC - Disproportionate Minority Confinement

DRI - Disproportionate Representation Index

DYS - Department of Youth Services (Lane County)

GED - General Educational Development program

G.R.I.T. - Gang Resource Intervention Team (Multnomah County)

JJAC - Juvenile Justice Advisory Council

JJD - Juvenile Justice Division (Multnomah County)

JJDP - Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

MYCAP - Minority Youth Concerns Action Program (Multnomah County)

OCCYSC - Oregon Community Children and Youth Services Commission

OJJDP - The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

POIC - Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center (Multnomah County)

PSU - Portland State University

PYDP - Positive Youth Development Project

PYR - Portland Youth Redirection (Multnomah County)

SAC - Juvenile Justice Service Area Committee (Lane County)

TJIS - Tri-County Juvenile Information System (Multnomah County)

TPIC - The Private Industry Council (Multnomah County)

YDC - Youth Development Commission (Lane County)

YMCA - Young Men's Christian Association

YPO - Youth Programs Office (Multnomah County)

YWCA - Young Women's Christian Association
APPENDIX B - 

ON-SITE MONITORING REVIEW GUIDE
B-1

Marion County

Children and Youth Services Commission

On-Site Monitoring Review

Agency 

Project Title 

Period of Funding to 

Funding Level 

Project Director 

Site-visit Address 

Site Phone 

Date of Visit 

Scoring Table

Monitoring Team Members: 1 = Needs Assistance

 3 = Adequate

 5 = Excels

 

 

1. Is the project meeting the objectives 1 2 3 4 5

stated in the grant?

COMMENTS:

2. Are additional resources being leveraged 1 2 3 4 5

in this project? (volunteers, fund, etc)

COMMENTS:
B-2

3. Is the project coordinating services with 1 2 3 4 5

other resources?

COMMENTS:

4. Is the project addressing 1 2 3 4 5

the cultural competency criteria?

COMMENTS:

5. Has the project participated in cultural diversity 1 2 3 4 5

training?

COMMENTS:

6. Are the services accessible? (Transportation, hours, language) 1 2 3 4 5

COMMENTS:

7. Do the services involve the family? 1 2 3 4 5

COMMENTS:

8. Do the services enhance social/life skills such as communication, conflict 1 2 3 4 5

resolution, etc. for both staff and families?

COMMENTS:
B-3

9. Does the project involve customers in the decision making and 1 2 3 4 5

planning process?

COMMENTS:

10. Does the project have a clear method of record keeping and tracking client 1 2 3 4 5

service?

COMMENTS:

11. Does the project use any ongoing evaluation processes or tools, for 1 2 3 4 5

example client surveys, focus groups, etc?

COMMENTS:

12. Does the project have a clear method of tracking and accounting for grant 1 2 3 4 5

expenditures?

COMMENTS:

13. Are grant funds being used for the purposes described in the grant budget? 1 2 3 4 5

COMMENTS:

14. Do the line staff members and/or volunteers have a good understanding 1 2 3 4 5

of the project?

COMMENTS:
B-4

15. Significant accomplishments of project to date: 1 2 3 4 5

16. Issues or changes in the project that have been identified and/or implemented since funded:

17. Additional Comments/Suggestions:

Project Staff/Volunteers Who Participated In This Review:

Does the project need to be further reviewed by CYSC staff?

Clearly describe concern.

Meeting Time to Develop Corrective Action Plan: 

Signatures of Project Reviewers:

 

 

 
APPENDIX C - 

AAMCP PROCESSING FLOW CHART
Juvenile Justice Division

Youth Service Center

(Youth Enters System)

Urban League

Intake

(Youth Enters Program)

Joint Staffing

Urban League Providers; Case Workers;

Probation Officers 

Treatment Plan

The Urban League

of Portland Mercy Corp. International Portland Youth Redirection

Program (PYR)

Minority Youth

Concerns Action

Program (MYCAP)

North/Inner

Northeast YMCA

Portland Opportunities

Industrialzation Center

(POIC)

The Private

Industry Council

(TPIC)

Technical Assistance

Multromah County

AAMCP

Advisory Committee

(Youth Exits Program)

30 Day Assessment

Urban League Providers

(Evaluation)

FLOW CHART

AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE CONNECTION PROGRAM

(APPENDIX B)
B-7

C-1