Meeting the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Mandate: Lessons from State Assessments of Minority Overrepresentation and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Juvenile Justice Systems

IF 1.4 4区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Ellen A. Donnelly, Christen O. Asiedu
{"title":"Meeting the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Mandate: Lessons from State Assessments of Minority Overrepresentation and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Juvenile Justice Systems","authors":"Ellen A. Donnelly, Christen O. Asiedu","doi":"10.1080/0735648X.2021.1952102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Effective as of October 2019, the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Mandate requires states to address racial/ethnic disparities in their juvenile justice systems without reference to any numerical standards or a definition of disparity in empirical terms. Standards for assessing disproportionate minority contact have also gotten looser, as the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) announced that states should evaluate DMC problems and interventions based on their own metrics of success. Understanding how states have examined minority overrepresentation and disparities in their systems in the past helps to structure what states might do in terms of DMC assessment in the near future. This study analyzes 39 state assessments on behalf of the DMC mandate from 1992 to 2019. A content analysis locates patterns in methods, racial/ethnic categories, decision-making stages, geographic coverage, and recommendations for future reform efforts. Frequent use of multivariate methods and qualitative techniques, such as surveys, focus groups, and interviews, suggests that assessments are empirically rich. Most assessments likewise contain directions for reform initiatives and analysis in subsequent DMC reports. Lessons are drawn for designing robust DMC assessments for states and illuminating racial/ethnic disparities in juvenile processing ahead.","PeriodicalId":46770,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Crime & Justice","volume":"45 1","pages":"363 - 380"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Crime & Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2021.1952102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Effective as of October 2019, the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Mandate requires states to address racial/ethnic disparities in their juvenile justice systems without reference to any numerical standards or a definition of disparity in empirical terms. Standards for assessing disproportionate minority contact have also gotten looser, as the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) announced that states should evaluate DMC problems and interventions based on their own metrics of success. Understanding how states have examined minority overrepresentation and disparities in their systems in the past helps to structure what states might do in terms of DMC assessment in the near future. This study analyzes 39 state assessments on behalf of the DMC mandate from 1992 to 2019. A content analysis locates patterns in methods, racial/ethnic categories, decision-making stages, geographic coverage, and recommendations for future reform efforts. Frequent use of multivariate methods and qualitative techniques, such as surveys, focus groups, and interviews, suggests that assessments are empirically rich. Most assessments likewise contain directions for reform initiatives and analysis in subsequent DMC reports. Lessons are drawn for designing robust DMC assessments for states and illuminating racial/ethnic disparities in juvenile processing ahead.
满足不成比例的少数群体接触任务:国家对青少年司法系统中少数群体比例过高和种族/民族差异评估的经验教训
摘要自2019年10月起生效的《不成比例的少数群体接触(DMC)授权》要求各州解决其青少年司法系统中的种族/族裔差异,而无需参考任何数字标准或经验术语中的差异定义。评估不成比例的少数群体接触的标准也变得更加宽松,因为青少年司法和犯罪预防办公室(OJJDP)宣布,各州应根据自己的成功指标评估DMC问题和干预措施。了解各州过去如何审查少数族裔在其系统中的代表性过高和差异,有助于构建各州在不久的将来可能会在DMC评估方面做些什么。本研究分析了1992年至2019年代表DMC授权的39项州评估。内容分析定位了方法、种族/民族类别、决策阶段、地理覆盖范围和未来改革建议方面的模式。频繁使用多元方法和定性技术,如调查、焦点小组和访谈,表明评估具有丰富的经验。大多数评估同样包含改革举措的方向,并在随后的DMC报告中进行分析。为各州设计强有力的DMC评估以及阐明未来青少年处理中的种族/民族差异提供了经验教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Crime & Justice
Journal of Crime & Justice CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信