NCJ Number
161564
Date Published
1996
Length
136 pages
Annotation
The disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) mandate of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 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 sponsored demonstration projects in five pilot States; this is the final evaluation report for the Arizona project.
Abstract
Arizona's DMC Initiative focused on the development and implementation of small, community-based programs and lent itself to a process evaluation design. The evaluation consisted of qualitative analysis of State-level project documents and interviews with key State-level DMC participants, as well as intensive investigation of local pilot project activities and interviews with project representatives. The major finding from Phase I research was that the nature and extent of differential treatment of youth varied between Anglo and minority youth, among minority youth, and from point to point in the juvenile justice system. The research also identified several potential sources of DMC, including systemwide discrimination, barriers to effective parental advocacy, inadequate cultural knowledge and skills among system administrators, and limited resources. Phase II activities included efforts to reduce DMC by modifying State legislation and local policies, as well as the development of a statewide advocacy program; the latter failed, primarily due to political indifference. Ultimately, the Phase II intervention strategy focused on the development of community-based pilot projects. Each of the seven funded projects addressed both systemic and socioeconomic causes of DMC. The local pilot project experiences showed the value of involving agency and community representatives, particularly minority community representatives, in the total DMC definition, identification, and intervention process. Phase II further showed the importance of ensuring unbiased political support at the State level, so that the State can adequately support local design and implementation efforts. Future plans are outlined. Extensive exhibits and appended evaluation forms
Date Published: January 1, 1996