Essay question
Youth Justice 13(3) 207 –217 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1473225413505383 yjj.sagepub.com Limited Disproportionate Minority Contact Discourse may Explain Limited Progress in Reducing Minority Over-representation in the US Juvenile Justice System Dorothy Dillard Abstract This article provides a review of the development of the US federal government disproportionate minority contact (DMC) mandate for the juvenile justice system. Research assess\ ing the reduction of disproportionate minority contact and demonstrating an overall lack of progress is examin\ ed. The connection between the lack of progress in reducing disproportionate minority contact and the lack of focus on the front end of the system is established. The impact on the juvenile justice system and\ , more importantly, on minority youth are discussed and recommendations in terms of expanding the discou\ rse, policy and practice to more fully include police are made. Finally, the US experience and limitation\ s are put into a global perspective, underscoring commonality across nations in addressing race, ethnic and a\ ge discrimination among police.
Keywords arrest, disproportionate minority contact, juvenile offenders, over-representation, police Introduction Despite 25 years of attention, significant progress to reduce disproport\ ionate minority contact (DMC) in the juvenile justice system remains questionable. The most recent juve- nile justice system statistics continue to show minority over-representation at a concern- ing level, particularly for African American males. African American male youth represent 15 per cent of the general population; yet, they account for 26 per cent of juvenile arrests, 32 per cent of juvenile court adjudications, 40 per cent of out of home \ placements and 46 per cent of the juvenile cases transferred to adult courts (Mooradian, \ 2012). Since 1988 when the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) DMC mandat\ e Corresponding author:
Dr Dorothy Dillard, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Delaware State University, 1200 N. DuPont Hwy, DH 122, Dover DE 19901, USA.
Email: [email protected] 505383 YJJ 13 3 10.1177/1473225413505383Youth JusticeDillard 2013 Article 208 Youth Justice 13(3) was introduced, states have been required to address minority over-representation.
Researchers have traced and assessed the developments at the state and f\ ederal levels, raising questions about efficacy in reducing DMC. A review of the DMC requirements, efforts and research, clearly shows a lack of attention to the role of pol\ ice in the juvenile justice system as well as limited assessment of disproportionate minorit\ y contact at arrest.
The paucity of attention to the entry point into the juvenile justice sy\ stem may be a key to better understanding the lack of clear progress in reducing DMC across t\ he system.
This article provides a review of the development of the US federal government dispro- portionate minority contact mandate for the juvenile justice system. The historical presen- tation focuses on the lack of attention to the entry point into the juve\ nile justice system, arrest. Research assessing the reduction of disproportionate minority contact and demon- strating an overall lack of progress is examined. The connection between the lack of progress in reducing disproportionate minority contact and the lack of f\ ocus on the role of police is established. The impact on the juvenile justice system and, more importantly, on minority youth resulting from the limited DMC discourse is discussed. Re\ commendations in terms of expanding the discourse, policy and practice to more fully i\ nclude police are made. Finally, the US experience and limitations are put into a global perspective, under - scoring commonality across nations in addressing race, ethnic and age di\ scrimination among police.
Historical Overview of DMC The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is the federal govern- ment agency housed in the US Department of Justice responsible for provi\ ding ‘national leadership, coordination and resources to prevent and respond to juvenil\ e delinquency and victimization’ (OJJDP, 2012: i). OJJDP was established in 1974 and in 2010 was awarded approximately $520 million in grants and other support to fulfill its mi\ ssion (OJJDP, 2012). It oversees a number of programs; two – Formula Grants Progra\ m and Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program – provide funding directly to sta\ tes to address juve- nile delinquency and to improve the juvenile justice system (OJJDP, 2011). Through these programs, OJJDP sets the standard for addressing juvenile delinquency as well as sets t\ he expectations for the juvenile justice systems operating at the state lev\ el. These standards and expectations are communicated through policy, practice and research. In 1988, OJJDP introduced a new expectation: to address the over-representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system. The attention was, in part, the response to two concerns emerging in the literature. One was the increasing violence among juveniles (Leiber, 2002). In the decade from 1980 to 1990, the number of juveniles arres\ ted for vio- lent crimes had increased by over 75 per cent (Bilchik, 1999). The other concern was the apparent over-representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system (Leiber, 2002). Krisberg and his colleagues (1987) were instrumental in clarifying the issue. Their study showed that while juvenile arrest rates were decreasing the number of minority youth adjudicated and held in public facilities w\ as increasing.
Numerous other studies followed, all confirming the differential outcome for minorities in the juvenile justice system (Leiber, 2002). Dillard 209 In response to these concerns, the OJJDP Act of 1988 included an amendment to address disproportionate minority confinement, referred to as DMC, in th\ e juvenile jus- tice system. Initially, five states were funded to examine disproportionate minority con- tact at the state level. The first efforts at the state and local levels focused on determining whether DMC existed. Over the next five years a body of literature speci\ fically examining DMC emerged, clearly showing its existence at all stages of the juvenile justice\ system (Pope and Feyerherm, 1990; Pope et al., 2001). Despite the federal level attention to the issue, many states resisted addressing minority over-representation. In its 1992 reauthori- zation, OJJDP raised DMC to a core requirement. States risked losing 20 per cent of b\ lock grant funding if DMC was not addressed. OJJDP suggested a five phase process for states to undertake examination of the minority over-representation: 1) Identify the extent to which DMC exists; 2) Assess the reasons for DMC if it exists: 3) Identify an intervention plan to address these identified reasons; 4) Evaluate the effectiveness for strategies to address DMC: and 5) Monitor DMC trends over time (Pope et al., 2001). In 2002, OJJDP refined its DMC efforts. The mandate was renamed Disproportionate Minority Contact, expanding the focus from confinement (detention and i\ ncarceration) to the entire juvenile justice system. A three year reporting cycle was established where states must report progress addressing DMC. Failure to report became the justification of reduced funding established in 1992. OJJDP also introduced a standardized way to calculate repre- sentation, the Relative Rate Index (RRI). The RRI indicates the proportion of minorities at a specific point in the juvenile justice system (arrest, detention, inc\ arceration, etc.) com- pared to whites. The RRI advanced DMC assessment and research by establishing a mea- sure to track trends and assess progress (OJJDP, 2009). Adoption of the RRI also provided states with a means to look at DMC from a multi-stage system perspective\ . Separating the juvenile justice system into parts (nine points of contact from arrest \ to incarceration) helped states to better assess DMC (Leiber and Rodriquez, 2011). In 2009, OJJDP launched an effort to further encourage and assist states in considering the minority \ over-representation from a system-wide perspective and to take comprehensive steps to addres\ s the issue.
OJJDP suggested states understand public opinion and the role of the media as\ part of the DMC assessment and reduction planning process. OJJDP also recommended that states identify and engage a wide range of stakeholders to develop a strategic \ system based DMC effort rather than the more typical disjointed efforts (Solar and Garry, 2009). Clearly, OJJDP has given the issue of minority over-representation a central place in its efforts. Significant funding is dedicated to the issue (OJJDP, 2012). The consequences (in terms of loss of funding) for states not addressing it are also significant. With the possibil- ity of losing one fifth of funding, compliance with the federal mandate \ would be expected and with compliance progress in terms of reducing minority over-representation. However, DMC research shows mixed results in the implementation of the OJJDP DMC mandate. DMC Research The large majority of the DMC research focuses on determining if minority over- representation exists (Nellis and Richardson, 2010). Pope and Feyerherm’s 1990 review of 46 social science research studies concluded that race effected juvenile 210 Youth Justice 13(3) justice personnel decisions. Pope et al.’s (2001) updated literature review confirmed that race continued to affect decisions. In most (74%) of the 34 studies reviewed, race had at least a mixed effect, and in eight of the studies, a direct or indirect effect was found. The most recent DMC literature review disseminated by OJJDP (2009) shows that over 25 years of research has established that minorities are over-represented at all stages of the juvenile justice system.
Despite the consensus that DMC exists across the juvenile justice system\ , limited atten- tion has been given to the frontend of the system, specifically the poli\ ce. As Kempf- Leonard (2007) notes, the focus on the backend of the system has stron\ g historical roots.
Sellin (1935) and his compatriots advocated for an autonomous juvenile\ court system operating separately from the adult system but failed to consider the ro\ le police played in treating juveniles fairly and age appropriately. This myopic attention to the backend of the system is evident in the original focus of the DMC efforts. OJJDP’s seminal examination of minority over-representation focused solely on case processing in the system (Pope a\ nd Feyerherm, 1990). Feyerherm acknowledged in 1990 that this emphasis ski\ rted the issue of differential criminality but it also excluded the entry point into the syst\ em where poten- tial for selection bias is greatest (Leiber, 2002). Paralleling this neglect in addressing the role of the police, there has\ been a call to include the police in defining and examining the juvenile justice system\ . In 1987, Huizinga and Elliot found that African American youth were arrested more frequently than whites for the same criminal behavior and were charged with more serious crimes for similar offending. They suggested that to understand differential rates of incarceration, the effects of race on arrest decisions must be examined in greater detail (Huizing\ a and Elliott, 1987).
In fact, OJJDP recognized the importance of the frontend of the system. Timothy Johnson stated in a 1994 publication ‘disputes involving allegation of discri\ minatory practices are most effectively addressed at the earliest stage and at the lowest levels’ (Rhoden, 1994:
12). This clearly suggests focusing on police and arrest. Policy, practice and research have been slow to respond to this call to place greater emphasis on the frontend of the system. Until recently, both policy and practice failed to prioritize the police. The original 1988 DMC amendment did not include police or men- tion arrest. Rather, the focus was on detention and incarceration. In fact, the original mandate’s name, disproportionate minority confinement, focused attention on the back- end of the system, specifically ‘secure detention or correctional fac\ ilities, jails and lock- ups’ (Rhoden, 1994: 9). At the time, policy makers insisted on focusing on differential processing with a concern that two juvenile justice systems were emerging, one for non- minority youth and another for minority youth. In an effort to create a fair system, the focus was on avoiding a systemic selection bias where minority youth wer\ e more likely to be selected into and retained in the juvenile justice system (Leiber, 2002). In reviewing the literature describing and explaining the original mandate, it is int\ eresting to note that the point of the system with the greatest potential for selection bias, \ the initial gateway into the juvenile justice system, arrest, was not even mentioned (Rhode\ n, 1994). It took a decade and a half to change the name and scope of the DMC policy. In 2002, the DMC mandate was renamed disproportionate minority contact. Although arrest is not mentioned Dillard 211 in the mandate itself, it is one of the nine points of contact discussed\ in the Identification Phase developed to guide states in addressing DMC (OJJDP, 2009).
Research shows practice has been slow to embrace the frontend of the system as well.
In 1988, of the five states initially funded to examine DMC only one (O\ regon) addressed the police (Rhoden, 1994). The 2002 policy change had little impact on practice and OJJDP continued to focus on the backend of the system. For instance, six stat\ es did not report RRI at arrest and 17 states examined DMC at arrest simply by repo\ rting RRI with no further assessment (Leiber, 2002). More telling, though, is the fact that neither of the two programs highlighted by OJJDP as models for reducing minority over-representation, The Burns Institute Process and Juvenile Detention Alternatives, addressed DMC at arrest (Solar and Garry, 2009). The DMC research has also placed less emphasis on arrest and the role of police in minority over-representation than the backend of the system, specifically detention, \ out of home placement and transfer to the adult court system. The first study commissioned by OJJDP focused on case processing without any attention given to arrest (Pope\ and Feyerherm, 1990). The effect of research on policy is evident here. This study provided the foundation for the original DMC mandate, which excluded the frontend\ of the system.
This limited view of the system was adopted despite existing research em\ phasizing the need to understand the effect of race on arrest in order to understand race differences in incarceration (Huizinga and Elliott, 1987). More recent research does not sufficiently examine arrest and the role of police in assessing DMC (Leiber, 2002). A 2001review of the DMC research literature indicated that only six of the 36 studies reviewed examined police decisions (Pop\ e et al., 2001). A presentation of 2002 DMC data does not even include arrest (Kempf-Leona\ rd, 2007).
Leiber and Rodriquez (2011) note that the most typical data source for studying DMC is juvenile court records; yet, the most appropriate data source is arrest.\ The lack of attention to the frontend of the juvenile justice system may\ explain the lack of significant and clear progress in reducing DMC. In fact, this lack of\ attention may explain the increased disproportionate minority contact at the point of \ arrest. An analysis of RRI using 1990 to 1996 data showed that the average arrest RRI across\ all states was 1.38, the lowest for any point in the juvenile justice system (Leiber, 2002). By 2008, arrest RRI was 2.2 and highest by almost double than any other point in the juvenile justice system (Puzzanchera and Adams, 2011). In a decade, the minority over-representation at the point of arrest increased by one and a half. This trend underscores the need to expand the DMC discourse and response. As discussed previously, little state level information about DMC at arrest is available in the research literature. One state level example shows the same trend\ s as the OJJDP findings. In 2010, Delaware’s Criminal Justice Council (CJC) undertook the second phase of the OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) mandate and addressed Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). Delaware completed \ the first phase, identification and monitoring in 2007 (Keen, 2007). The CJC 2007 study, Disproportionate Minority Contact in Delaware, found that the RRI statewide was notably highest at the point of arrest. The arrest RRI was 2.91 compared to 1.24 for diversion, 1.8 212 Youth Justice 13(3) for secured detention, 0.88 for probation, 1.87 for secure confinement a\ nd 1.67 for trans- fer to adult court. These findings were consistent, with some variation, across Delaware’s three counties.
OJJDP’s focus on differential processing has certainly diverted attention away from examining DMC at the point of arrest. In addition, a distorted perceptio\ n of minority youth criminal activity has confused the picture. Both the media and res\ earch has dispro- portionately focused on violent crimes, particularly among minority yout\ h. In a 2009 publication, OJJDP recognized the power of the media in shaping opinion. Unfortunately, the media’s tendency to disproportionately focus on violence and youth, in part, h\ as resulted in an inaccurate depiction (and public opinion) of violent of\ fenders as primarily minorities and frequently young (Solar and Garry, 2009). As discussed above, this public opinion is a powerful source of information shaping policy and research.\ The alarming increase in juveniles arrested for violent crimes in the late 1980s shifted the attention of researchers almost exclusively to violent juvenile offenders. Violent offenses committed by juveniles hit its peak in 1994. Except for a slight increase between 2004 and 2006 the juvenile violent offense rate has been on a steady decline (Puzzanchera, 2009). Despite the decrease in violent offenses the focus remains on the violent end of the juvenile crime continuum. For instance, a brief literature search re\ vealed over 2000 articles written about juvenile offenders over the past five years. The large majority (over 85% of the articles) of that body of research focuses on violent offenders. Little of the research (about 10%) examines property offenses. Only 3 per cent of the studies address nuisance or public disorder offenses. Yet, the nuisance crimes comprise 43 per cent of all juvenile arrests in 2008. Violent crime arrests account for only 5 per cent of all arrests, property offenses 21 per cent and drug offenses 16 per cent. The less serious nuisance and public disorder offenses place the greatest burden on the system in terms of arrest and police resources (Puzzanchera, 2009) but receive virtually no attention in the research literature. Similarly, the DMC specific research has either examined only violent offenders or examined all youth offenders without differentiating by type of crimes committed.
Krisberg’s seminal study did not differentiate disproportionate confinement by type of offense (Krisberg et al., 1987). The DMC research during the late 1980s and forward mir - rored the media attention to violent crimes. This focus is evident in the thorough reviews of this literature conducted by Leiber (2002), Kempf-Leonard (2007) \ and Leiber and Rodriguez (2011). Interestingly, however, DMC researchers have highlighted the need to more specifi- cally define minority, and, thus, improve accuracy in examining and understanding dis- proportionate representation (OJJDP, 2009). In the same vein, there is a need to assess DMC according to crime category. Preliminary research findings suggest that when the arrest RRI is computed by crime category a bimodal distribution emerges, with the high- est arrest RRI at opposite ends of the crime severity continuum. The official statistics reported by OJJDP show a higher RRI at the point of arrest for minorities, particularly black youth, across all crime categories. For offenses against a person or violent offenses the RRI is 2.8 for all minorities and 3.6 for black youth. Although the disparity is greatest Dillard 213 for violent offenses it is evident across all crime categories including public order \ or nui- sance crimes. The RRI for public order crimes is 1.4 for all minority youth and 1.8 for black youth. Even for the public order crimes disproportionate minority \ contact is evident.
Black youth are arrested for these nuisance crimes at a rate almost twic\ e that of white youth (Puzzanchera, 2009).
Similarly, the Delaware case study found a bimodal distribution. Examining 2007 juve- nile arrest data, Dillard and colleagues (2010) found that nuisance cr\ imes (criminal mis- chief, curfew loitering, disorderly conduct, trespassing) burden the sy\ stem as much as violent crimes and more than drug, property or weapon crimes. In addition, the RRI for nuisance crimes is comparable to that of violent crimes, 3.88 and 3.87 r\ espectively. The federal and state level statistics show that minority over-representation is greatest at arrest and for less serious crimes. The lack of attention to arrest and less serious crimes has had an impact of the type of juvenile justice system that has developed.
Discussion The emphasis on violent juvenile offenders almost to the exclusion of other types of offenders has resulted in a more punitive juvenile justice system. Kempf-L\ eonard (2007) in her review of the DMC efforts over the last 20 years underscored just this point. She highlighted the difficulty in examining disproportionate minority contact, pointing out that even defining and measuring minority status is fraught with difficulties. But she also concluded that disproportionate minority contact is cumulative across th\ e juvenile justice system that is affected, in part, by the very system itself. One primary contributing fac\ tor is reliance on punishment in the system over the past 20 years. In respo\ nse to the empha- sis on violent juvenile offenders, the juvenile justice system has moved away from its historical roots of intervention. The result is the tendency to confine rather than intervene, particularl\ y for juveniles who do not have support systems in the community. This approach may be widening the net, particularly for minority youth since they tend to come from commun\ ities without the resources to provide the protective interventions. A study of disproportionate minority contact in Connecticut showed just this widening effect (Chapman et al., 2006). Using a structured assessment, 757 juveniles admitted to detention centers were \ examined. The study found that despite the fact that minority youth lived in violent a\ nd disorganized communities they had a lower risk of violence than the white detainees a\ nd they had stronger protective factors. These findings suggest that a less punitive response to these youth may be more appropriate, more effective and help to reduce DMC. Recently, the role of the juvenile justice system has resurfaced as a central di\ scussion point. Specifically, juvenile justice advocates are emphasizing the need to return to the bifurcated system where the juvenile justice system plays a dual role: m\ eeting the needs of underserved and disadvantaged youth and protecting communities from v\ iolent youth.
The police play a key role in creating a more responsive juvenile justice system. Cahn’s (2006) suggestions underscored both the need to expand the role of the\ juvenile justice system and the critical role police serve in this effort. He recommended diverting most 214 Youth Justice 13(3) youthful offenders out of the system by making contact with police an intervention.\ As such, law enforcement takes on a social service role that, in Cahn’s words, ‘avoids stig- matization, provides needed assistance, advances youth development, and \ rewards pro- social use of each youth’s strengths ….’ (Cahn, 2006: vii).
Rubin (2011) echoed this call to rethink the role of police. He pointed out that \ both practice and research demonstrate that juveniles are treated better and \ ultimately the public is better protected when detention and incarceration are avoided.\ He also noted that the public supports the juvenile justice system prioritizing meeting juv\ eniles’ needs. This is difficult to achieve when the police are expected to and, in many cases, ar\ e rewarded for making arrests. Any basic law enforcement text book clearly demonstrates that police officers are the justice system (adult and juvenile alike) gate keepers. The system is designed to promote police privileges and discretion, and, in turn, relies on responses that remove youth from their communities and families (Mooradian, 2012). Po\ lice officers’ views of youth coupled with their discretionary power define the level o\ f criminality. How police interpret behavior in terms of criminal activity as well as inter\ action with the police is effected by race and age (Novak et al., 2002). Police officers’ middle class values and perceptions of minority youth define how they interpret and respond to b\ ehavior (Rubin 2011; Leiber and Stairs, 1999). African American youth are twice as likely to be stopped by police and are charged with more serious crimes than whites committing similar acts (Feld, 1999; Huizinga and Elliott, 1987; Rosenfeld et al., 2012; Rubin, 2011). This dif- ferential treatment has a potent cumulative impact on minority over-representation across the juvenile justice system (Kempf-Leonard, 2007). Feld (1999) discu\ ssed how juvenile justice decisions differ based on individualized need. Due to the markedly fewer resources for most minority youth, they are consistently at a disadvantage and, th\ erefore, retained in the system. Kempf-Leonard (2007) extended this point to underscore the\ impact differen- tial police processing has. She reasons that ‘If the outcomes of earl\ y-stage decisions create an inequity, then that result can influence decisions at subsequent stages in ways \ that create additional risks of differential processing or exacerbate difference that already exist’ (Kempf-Leonard, 2007: 80). A few recent efforts are aimed at affecting the police perception of youth as well as their interaction with youth. For instance, in Portland, Oregon police t\ raining was revised to include two weeks’ training on juvenile justice. The training includes direct interaction with youth in a range of situations, including assisting homeless youth \ and reverse round- table discussions with high school students (Rubin, 2011). One of the more publicized efforts has occurred in Connecticut where the Police Interactions with Youth effort is showing promising results. Connecticut took the initiative to shift its \ DMC focus to the frontend and acknowledged the critical role of police in reducing DMC. A 5.5 hour train- ing program was designed to increase police officer knowledge of DMC as well as change police attitude and behavior toward juveniles in effort to achieve more positive outcomes for the youth, including reducing reliance on arrest and increasing othe\ r interventions. A thorough evaluation of the program shows that it is effective in increasing police knowl- edge of DMC. Police participating in the program also shifted their atti\ tudes about juve- niles to a more positive perspective (LaMotte et al., 2010). Dillard 215 This discussion is certainly not intended to suggest youth should not be\ accountable for their behaviors. Clearly, the public and policy makers expect youth to be accountable but they also expect the system to be fair (Solar and Garry, 2009). Sustained disproportionate minority contact at the current level indicates an unfair system. To begin to move the juvenile justice system toward a fair and equitable one, the frontend of the system, spe- cifically the police, must be the focus. To shift the focus, it is clear that the DMC discourse must expand so that policy, practice and research follow. Discourse, the language used to converse about a topic, indicates emphas\ is and priori- ties (Mooradian, 2012). The current DMC discourse is limited and de-emphasizes the role of police in effecting a fair and equitable juvenile justice system. The discourse must expand in content as well as perspective. In regards to content, police and arrest must be emphasized to the same degree as, if not more than, court processing, de\ tention and incar - ceration. Significantly reducing DMC across the juvenile justice system \ is dependent on shifting emphasis to the frontend. Police decisions determine, almost si\ ngularly, whether youth continue further into the juvenile justice system. Thus, impacting the cumulative effect of DMC across the juvenile justice system is contingent on changing police responses to minority youth. Expanding the DMC discourse to differentiate between types of criminal activity is one way to expand police options and responses. Assessing DMC in terms of crime categories will better indicate intervention and, in turn, guide police decisions a\ nd the development of options for the police. For instance, a higher DMC at arrest for nuis\ ance crimes indi- cates a different police response than does a higher DMC at arrest for violent crim\ es.
Better understanding DMC by crime category is key to providing police wi\ th the array of options necessary to most effectively respond to all youth but particularly for minority youth who disproportionately live in under-resourced communities. This puts the police in a position to direct youth to the most appropriate system: social ser\ vice or juvenile justice. And that repositioning requires a change in perspective from punitive to\ human rights. A human rights perspective is critical in changing the justice discourse \ in general and the DMC discourse specifically. A human rights approach prioritizes limiting differential use of social control mechanisms, such as detention and incarceration, and emphasizes interventions aimed at strengthening individuals, families and communiti\ es (Mooradian, 2012). Addressing the continuing disproportionate minority contact issue from a\ human rights perspective allows the juvenile justice system to develop varying responses. It will result in greater accountability not only for the system but for youth a\ s well (Kempf- Leonard, 2007). As long as the police respond to youth as they currently do, minority youth will be marginalized, families disenfranchised and communities deprived (Kempf- Leonard 2007; Mooradian, 2012). In other words, minority youth will con\ tinue to be dehumanized. When police use their discretionary power and choose a punitive response\ , removing minority youth from their families and communities, the communi\ ties suffer in terms of vital resources being undeveloped and removed (Mooridia, 2012)\ . Expanding the DMC discourse is clearly a matter of social justice. Conti\ nuing to neglect the frontend of the juvenile justice system, whether inadvertent\ ly or intentionally, 216 Youth Justice 13(3) becomes a means of perpetuating racially discriminatory social control. \ Emphasizing the frontend, on the other hand, at a minimum will increase police options and resources. It also has the potential to initiate fundamental changes in the system tha\ t will result in a more humane response to youth in need.
Improving the current US juvenile justice system by strengthening police\ understand- ing of youth, particularly minority youth, and expanding police options \ in addressing youth, particularly those involved in nuisance crimes, is not simply a m\ atter of improving the US system but is relevant internationally. Many nations struggle with the relationship and interactions between the police and youth. Studies of Flemish youth \ reveal that minor - ity youth feel that they are targeted by police because of their race and youth consistently report that police treat minority youth worse than non-minority youth (Dirikx et al., 2012).
A case study in Great Britain showed how efforts to address antisocial behavior, including nuisance crimes, impacted an entire community and worsened the relations\ hip between police and youth (Sadler, 2008). That study underscored how youth are targeted based on race and class. Research from Scotland (McAra and McVie, 2005) suggests that class plays a greater role in police attention to youth than does minority sta\ tus. The lack of trust, the reliance on arrest as a means of social control o\ ver youth and the demands youth place on the criminal justice system is common globally. The US, histori- cally, has been at the forefront of juvenile justice developments. It continu\ es to have a significant role in seeking to improve conditions and treatment of the disadvantaged.
Within this global context, it becomes even more imperative that the US r\ econsider its efforts to reduce disproportionate minority contact and to place a greater\ emphasis on the role and options of the police. However, Kautt (2011) warns against relying solely on the US experience. The extreme and enduring race differences in the US are not evident, par - ticularly to the same extent, in other nations. Relying solely on the US\ experience is ill advised. Thus, as important as it is for the US to continue to address the shortc\ omings of its efforts to reduce disproportionate minority contact it is critical to rais\ e the discussion on how to treat youth in a more humane manner to an international level.\ References Bilchik S (1999) Minorities in the juvenile justice system. In: 1999 National Report Series Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Cahn ES (2006) How the Juvenile Justice System Reduces Life Options of Minority Youth. Washington DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Health Policy Institute.\ Chapman JF, Desai RA, Falzer PR and Borum R (2006) Violence risk and r\ ace in a sample of youth in juvenile detention: The potential to reduce disproportionate minority co\ nfinement. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4(2): 170–184.
Dillard D, Bernard F, Galloway S. James A and Khan R (2010) Reducing D\ isproportionate Minority Contact in Delaware’s Juvenile Justice System. Available at: http://cjc.delaw\ are.gov.
Dirikx A, Gelders D and Parmentier S (2012) Police–youth relationsh\ ips: A qualitative analysis of Flemish adolescents’ attitudes toward police. European Journal of Criminology 9(2): 191–205.
Feld BC (1999) Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York: Oxford University Press.
Huizinga D and Elliot D (1987) Juvenile offenders: Prevalence, offende\ r incidence, and arrest rates by race. Crime & Delinquency 33: 206–223. Dillard 217 Kautt P (2011) Public confidence in the British police: Negotiating th\ e signals from Anglo-American research.
International Criminal Justice Review 21(4): 353–382.
Keen RT (2007) Disproportionate minority contact in Delaware. Availabl\ e at: http://cjc.delaware.gov.
Kempf-Leonard K (2007) Minority youths and juvenile justice: Dispropor\ tionate minority contact after nearly 20 years of reform efforts. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 5(1): 71–87.
Krisberg B, Schwartz I, Fishman G, Eisikovits Z, Guttman E and Joe K (1\ 987) The incarceration of minority youth. Crime & Delinquency, 33: 173–205.
LaMotte V, Ouellette K, Sanderson J, Anderson S, Kosutic I, Griggs J and\ Garcia M (2010) Effective police interactions with youth: A program evaluation. Police Quarterly 13: 161–179.
Leiber M (2002) Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) of youth: An\ analysis of state and federal efforts to address the issue. Crime & Delinquency 48: 3–45.
Leiber M and Rodriquez N (2011) The implementation of the Disproportio\ nate Minority Confinement/ Contact (DMC) mandate: A failure or success? Race and Justice 1(1): 103–124.
Leiber M and Stairs J (1999) Race, contexts, and the use of intake div\ ersion. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36: 56–86.
McAra L and McVie S (2005) The usual suspects? Street-life, young peop\ le and the police. Criminal Justice 5(1): 5–36.
Mooradian JK (2012) Breaking the lock: Addressing ‘disproportionate\ minority confinement’ in the United States using a human rights approach. Journal of Social Work 12: 37–50.
Nellis A and Richardson B (2010) Getting beyond failure: Promising approaches for reducing DMC. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8: 266–276.
Novak KJ, Frank J, Smith BW and Engel RS (2002) Revisiting the decision to arrest: Comparing beat and community officers. Crime & Delinquency 48: 70–98.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2009) Dispropor\ tionate Minority Contact (NCJ 228306). Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2011) OJJDP: An\ overview (NCJ 234073). Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2012) Dispropor\ tionate Minority Contact (NCJ 239457). Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
Pope C and Feyerherm W (1990) Minority status and juvenile justice pro\ cessing: An assessment of the research literature (Part I). Criminal Justice Abstracts 22: 327–385.
Pope C, Lovell R and Hsia H (2001) Synthesis of disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) literature (\ 1989– 1999). Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice & \ Delinquency Prevention.
Puzzanchera C (2009) Juvenile arrests 2008. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (NCJ 228479). Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
Puzzanchera C and Adams B (2011) Juvenile arrests 2009. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report Series Bulletin (NCJ 236477). Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
Rhoden E (1994) Disproportionate minority contact: First steps to a solution. Juvenile Justice Spring/Summer: 9–14.
Rosenfeld R, Rojek J and Decker S (2012) Age matters: Race differences\ in police searches of young and older male drivers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49: 31–55.
Rubin HT (2011) Police and juvenile justice: Contracting the net. Juvenile Justice Update 5(1): 1–4.
Sadler J (2008) Implementing the youth ‘anti-social behaviour’ a\ genda: Policing the Ashton Estate. Youth Justice 8: 57–73.
Sellin T (1935) Race prejudice in the administration of justice. American Journal of Sociology 41: 212–217.
Solar M and Garry LM (2009) Reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact\ : Preparation at the Local Level (NCJ 218861). Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
Author biography Dr Dorothy Dillard is an associate professor with the Department of Sociology and Criminal\ Justice at Delaware State University, USA.
