Assessing the Mechanisms That Contribute to Disproportionate Minority Contact in Montana's Juvenile System

• NCJ Number: 247321
• Author(s): Dusten Hollist; Jacob Coolidge; Wes Delano; Ian Greenwood; Mike King; Tyson McLean; Patrick McKay; Chuck Harris; James Burfeind; Dan Doyle
• Date Published: December 2012
• Length: 68 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2011-BJ-CX-K023
• Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
• Corporate Author: Social Science Research Laboratory
• Sale Source: Social Science Research Laboratory
• Publication Format: Document (Online)
• Publication Type: Research (Applied/Empirical); Report (Study/Research); Report (Grant Sponsored)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study identified the extra-legal and social factors that explain disproportionate minority youth involvement in the juvenile justice systems in four Montana counties.

Abstract

The study found that cases involving American-Indian juveniles were more than twice (130.6 percent) as likely to result in a petition forward to adjudication compared with cases of White juveniles. American-Indian juveniles' cases were 50 percent to 80 percent less likely to be resolved through a consent decree after petition for adjudication; and American-Indian juveniles were 72 percent more likely than White juveniles to be found delinquent when a race-only model was specified that did not include social, extra-legal, and criminal history factors. In the full model that included individual, family, and offense factors, cases that involved American-Indian and Hispanic/Latino juveniles were over twice as likely to result in delinquency findings compared with cases of White juveniles. American-Indian juveniles were 53.5 percent more likely to be placed in secure confinement compared to White juveniles. Areas identified as involving mechanisms causing disproportionate minority juvenile justice contact are related to cultural differences between majority and minority juveniles, poverty, family, alcohol and drug abuse, school involvement, mental health, and data concerns. Recommendations pertain to more diversion options at police contact, more alternatives to detention, the development of trained intake officers with carefully crafted criteria for detention, and a listing of State and local programs for preventing disproportionate minority contact with the justice system. Recommendations are also presented regarding the collection and analysis of data that will measure whether juvenile justice mechanisms are responding appropriately and effectively to the distinctive needs of minority youth. The study used data from focus groups and face-to-face interviews with juvenile justice system decisionmakers. Extensive tables and 22 references