Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
in South Carolina:

From Assessment toStrategicAction

Submitted by

Patricia Stone Motes

Julie Nurse

Robin Kimbrough-Melton

James McDonell

Tracy Waters

Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life

Clemson University

Submitted to

Disproportionate Minority Committee
Governor’sJuvenileJusticeAdvisory Committee
State of South Carolina

May 2012

______
This report was supportedby the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
Formula Grant Program, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
through the South Carolina Department of Public Safety.

INTRODUCTION

The publication, A Delicate Balanceissued by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (1988) is typically credited for increasing national interest in racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. Within the year of that publication, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act (JJDP) of 1974 was amended to require all states to address the disproportionate confinement of minority youth. The Act provided that all states must assess the level of such confinement and implement strategies to reduce identified disparities (Devine, Coolbaugh, & Jenkins, 1998). In the 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act, DMC (Disproportionate Minority Confinement) was elevated to a core requirement with future funding eligibility tied to state compliance. States participating in the Formula Grants Program were required to address DMC on an ongoing basis by moving through the following phases:

  • Identification –to determine the extent to which DMC exists;
  • Assessment – to evaluate the reasons for DMC, if it exists;
  • Intervention – to develop and implement intervention strategies to address the identified reasons;
  • Evaluation – to determine the effectiveness of the chosen intervention strategies; and
  • Monitoring – to note changes in DMC trends and to adjust intervention strategies as needed.

Each state must report on its progress in a comprehensive three-year plan and subsequent plan updates. Any state that fails to address the overrepresentation of minority youth in confinement stands to forfeit 20% (formerly 25%) of its Formula Grants allocation for the year.In its most recent 2002 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act,Congress requires states to address overrepresentation at all points (i.e., any contact) versus its previous mandate to address disproportionate representation at confinement; thus the disparity is now referred to as disproportionate minority contact (DMC).

South Carolina, like the rest of the nation, continues to struggle with the pervasive issue of racial and ethnic disparities within the juvenile justice systemas it responds to the federal mandate to reduce DMC(Bell,Ridolfi,Rahimi, 2008; Bell, Ridolfi, Lacey, & Finley, 2009;Cabaniss, Frabutt, Kendrick Arbuckle, 2007; Kakar, 2006; Leiber & Rodriquez, 2011;Melton, 2010; Motes, Payne, Rivers, Billingsley, McDonald, & Smith, 2003; Motes & Rivers, 2006; Motes, Billingsley, Rivers & Smith, 2007; Nellis & Richardson, 2010; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).Nationally, the typical finding is that disproportionate minority representation is evident at each stage of the juvenile justice system.While minority youth make up about one-third of the juvenile population in the nation, they account for about two-thirds of the population in secure juvenile facilities (SnyderSickmund, 2006).

In South Carolina, African American youth make up 38% of the state’s population. However, they accountfor 58% of juvenile arrests, 60% of the youth in detention, and 69% of the youth in residential placement/custody according to the most recent data (fiscal year 2004-2005) published by the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice addressing minority overrepresentation(SCDJJ, 2005).

In 2000 the US Census (“QuickFacts”) reported that the Hispanic/Latino population accounted for 2.4% of South Carolina’s population. The most recent US Census data report that the Hispanic/Latino population in South Carolina has increased to 5.1% of the state’s population- nearlya 150% increase. The report, America’s Invisible Children: Latino Youth and the Failure of Justice, released by the Campaign for Youth Justice and the National Council of La Raza (Arya,Villarruel, & Augarten,2009), revealed that on any given day, approximately 18,000 Latino youth are incarcerated in America. Compared to White youth, Latino youth are 4% more likely to be petitioned, 16% more likely to be adjudicated delinquent, 28% more likely to be detained, and 41% more likely to receive an out-of-home placement. The report further states that the overwhelming majority (91%) of Latino children are US citizens. TheDMCmandate requires that South Carolina give attention to the Hispanic/Latino community in efforts to address racial and ethnic minorities in the juvenile justice system.

The mandate to assess DMC is a call to understand what contributes to the racial and ethnic disparities that continue to exist in the juvenile justice system nationwide. Researchers and policymakers continue to struggle with two primary causal factors: racial bias in the processing of minority youth in the juvenile justice system and differential offending by minority groups. Leiber and Rodriquez (2011) argue that it is imperative that both differential offending and system issues be part of the efforts to address the DMC mandate. They note that DMC efforts must, at a minimum, sensitize communities to the fact that “laws in general, legitimate legal and extralegal criteria relied upon by justice officials, and system procedures may disadvantage minority youth and the poor more so than their White and non-poor counterparts”(p. 118). All efforts should not be directed towards differential offending by juveniles; attention must be given to systems issues.

BACKGROUND FOR CURRENT STUDY: SOUTH CAROLINA

Using the Relative Rate Index (RRI), now the standard metric for assessing disproportionate minority contact DMC, Puzzanchera & Adams (2011) offer the most-up-to-date national look at the issue of disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the juvenile justice system’s handling of delinquency cases. Data from the SC Department of Public Safety(2003)allow a comparative look at DMC in South Carolina with national findings.

Table 1: Relative Rate Indices for Delinquent Offenses*

National** / South Carolina***
Minority / Black / Minority / Black
Arrest rate / 1.7 / 2.2 / 2.45 / 2.50
Referral Rate / 1.2 / 1.2 / 0.96 / 0.96
Diversion Rate / 0.7 / 0.7 / 1.02 / 1.02
Detention Rate / 1.4 / 1.4 / 1.39 / 1.38
Petitioned Rate / 1.1 / 1.1 / 1.07 / 1.06
Adjudicated Rate / 0.9 / 0.9 / 0.90 / 0.90
Probation Rate / 0.9 / 0.9 / 1.03 / 1.03
Placement Rate / 1.2 / 1.2 / 1.22 / 1.23
Waiver Rate / 1.3 / 1.3 / no data / no data

* All RRIs are relative to Whites

** Based on 2008 data (Puzzanchera & Adams 2011/Online at

*** Based on FY 2007-2008 report (SC Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs/Online at

Across the nation and in South Carolina, many decisions in the juvenile justice system are racially disparate. As indicated in Table 1, nationally Blacks had an arrest rate more than twice that of Whites; in South Carolina, Blacks had an arrest rate that was two and half times greater than the arrest rate of Whites. The detention rate nationally and in South Carolina was about 40% greater for all minorities and for Blacks specifically. Notably, the adjudication rate for both minorities and Blackswas less than 1.00 (a rating of 1.00 indicates no disparity). Once petitioned, minority and Black youth charged with a delinquent offense were somewhat less likely to be adjudicated delinquent than were White youth. One of the possible reasons for this pattern could be that the screening decision used to petition these cases may have sent a greater proportion of legally weak or less serious cases of minority and Black youth to an adjudication hearing and these cases were screened out at the adjudication decision (Puzzanchera & Adams, 2011). Overall, these RRIs indicate that many decisions are racially disparate nationally and within the state. However the decision point of arrest stands out as a major factor nationally and within South Carolina to be addressed if DMC reduction is to occur.

As discussed in the previous section, the JJDP Act of 2002 requires all states participating in the Formula Grants Program to periodically perform an in-depth analysis of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) and to report on its progress in its comprehensive JJDP 3-year plan and subsequent plan updates (in compliance with Section 223(a)(22). In South Carolina’s plan covering the 2009-2011 period (Children’s Law Center, 2009), there is evidence of ongoing efforts to identify, assess, and intervene to meet the DMC mandate. However, across the reporting of activities and the planning for DMC reduction, less emphasis seems to be placed on evaluation and monitoring.

The state plan seems to indicate thatcounty and statewide RRIs are the primary measures usedto determine progress in addressing DMC. The report does provide evidence of programmatic change measured by means other than the RRI (e.g., improvements in grades, attendance, decision making skills, and behavior by youth participants in a direct service program; increases in DMC knowledge and awareness for professional participants in technical assistance and training). However, there are neither specific data nor discussion on current or planned efforts that outline DMC specific programs and services with programmatic objectives and metrics by race and ethnicity.Without race/ethnicity metrics changes, DMC cannot be assessed.

South Carolina has used its Formula Funding to support diverse programs across the state. According to the January 2009 Juvenile JusticeProgramsSub-grant Updates (SC Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs), South Carolina supported nine programs between October 2001 and September 2009. These programs were both community-based (e.g., diversion programs, truancy prevention/intervention, academic and behavioral skill building, arbitration efforts, parenting support) and university based (e.g., DMC study, DMC information resource coordination). More than 4 million dollars ($4,164,682) of Formula Funding was distributed in South Carolina as sub-grants.[1]Of that total,forty-nine percent ($2,048,832) was invested in programs that were identified as focusing on DMC or on minority youth. Forty-five percent ($912,075) of the Formula Funding for DMC projects went to community-based efforts, while fifty-five percent($1,136,757) went to university-sponsored efforts.(See Appendix A for Formula Funding details).

These sub-grant DMC projects served multiple counties. While this sub-grant report does offer updates on the programmatic efforts to meet established metrics, the summaries offered in the report do not describe outcomes by race and ethnicity, making it difficult to connect program funding and program outcomes to possible DMC reductions.

The last full analysis of DMC completed in South Carolina, Minorities in South Carolina’s Juvenile Justice System: Understanding the Disparities and Assessing Community Readiness for Change conducted by Motes, Payne, Rivers, Billingsley, McDonald, and Smith, was submitted in 2003. The current study discussed in this report extends the previous study with a focus on moving the state from assessment to action.One significant difference in the current study is its attention to specificminority groups. In the earlier study, the report focused on minorities (all collapsed) and Whites (target comparison group). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the current study breaks out findings, where possible, to assess DMC relative toBlacks andHispanics, the two primary racial/ethnic groups within the state.While all decision points in the juvenile justice system are assessed, there is a decided focus on assessing DMC that relates to juvenile arrests.

QUANTITATIVE STUDY

Methods

Data

Three datasets were used for the quantitative study:

  • 2009 calendar year statewide juvenile arrest data from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED);
  • 2009 calendar year family court referral data from the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (SCDJJ); and
  • a merged data file that combines 2009 calendar year SLED juvenile arrests with the accompanying SCDJJ family court referral for the three counties of focus (Aiken, Charleston, Marion) for this study.

Thus, the quantitative analyses provide a statewide look at SLED juvenile arrests and a statewide look at SCDJJ family court referrals. The combined SLED/SCDJJ dataset present aggregate findings for the three counties of focus.

Analyses

Across all three datasets, frequency cross tabulations and hierarchical logistic regression models were used to investigate whether there were differences in the manner in which Black, Hispanic, and White youth were processed by the juvenile justice system. The logistic regressions were designed to examine the odds of a particular outcome, given various demographic and legal variables available within each of the three datasets. In each case the hierarchical logistic regression models were based on data being entered in three blocks: Block 1, age and gender; Block 2, legal variables, and Block 3, race. The variable race was broken down by the specific racial groups, namely Black, Hispanic and White. The small size of the “other” category did not warrant inclusion in the logistic regression.

Through the hierarchical logistic regression method, it was possible to examine the effect of race, the primary variable of interest, by controlling for other factors such as demographics and the legal characteristics. The block-by-block method allows for an observation of the ways in which the coefficients and odds of the other variables change, once race is entered into the model. One of the tests conducted as part of the logistic regression is the Hosmer and Lemeshow test. This test is a measure of the goodness of fit, examining how well the variables in the model represent a good fit for predicting the outcome of interest. In many instances, the variables available for inclusion were not the best variables to predict specific outcomes. It such instances, the reader is cautioned that other variables may have been better predictors for the specific outcomes. Significant findings for the outcomes of interest are presented for all three datasets.

The SLED database contains data only on juvenile arrests, thus the only analyses are related to differences at the decision point of arrest. The SCDJJ database and the merged SCDJJ/SLED database allowed analyses following the decision point of referral to family court. General descriptive frequencies describe each data set. Hierarchical logistical regression models (odds ratios) were conducted to examine racial/ethnic differences per the outcomes/decision points available for analyses within the three datasets.

Decision Points[2]

As appropriate to the dataset and data analyses, the following decision points are explored within this quantitative study:

Arrest. This decision point occurs when a youth is apprehended, stopped, or otherwise contacted for having committed or for being a suspect of having committed a delinquent act.

Referral. This decision point occurs when a potentially delinquent youth is sent forward for legal processing and received by family court.

Detention. Pre-trial detention occurs when a youth is held in secure detention facilities prior to a family court hearing for a juvenile adjudication hearing ora hearing to transfer the case to adult court or other jurisdiction.Detentionoccurs when a youth held in secure detention followinga family court hearing whileawaiting transfer to and from juvenile secure evaluation or another juvenile jurisdiction, transfer to adult court and or awaiting otherplacement following a family court disposition.

Solicitor Decision

Diversion.This decision point occurs when a youth referred for legal processing is handled without the filing of formal charges. Diversion programs in South Carolina typically accept first-time youthful offenders charged with committing nonviolent crimes. If all program requirements are satisfied, the charge(s) against the youth are dismissed.

Prosecution.This decision point occurs when a youth is formally charged (petitioned) with a delinquentact by the solicitor’s office.Following the formal charge, the youth proceeds to an adjudication hearing.If found to be delinquent (adjudicated), the youth proceeds to a dispositional hearing where the family court judge issues sanctions (e.g., probation, commitment).

Judicial Disposition

Evaluation (Reception and Evaluation-R & E).This is an interim decision point.R & E occurs when a family court judge commits a youth to a secure setting following an adjudicatory hearing (and prior to the dispositional hearing) in order to gather additional information and recommendations to assist in determiningthe juvenile’s delinquency case.

Probation.This decision point occurs when a youth is placed on formal or court-ordered supervision within the community as dispositional court order.

Commitment.This decision point occurs when a youth is removed from the community and placed in secure residential facilities following a court disposition.

Waived to Adult Court. This decision point occurs when a youth is transferred to criminal court (adult court) as a result of a judicial finding in family court. It is important to note that per statutes in South Carolina,[3] the solicitor has the discretion to prosecute a 16-year-old charged with certain felonies in circuit court (adult court) instead of family court. Such transfers do not require a judicial waiver.

Strengths and Limitations of the Quantitative Study

There are significant strengths and limitations of this study. The availability of data to conduct this study serves as bothastrength and a weakness. Because the research team was provided with arrest data, juvenile justice processing data, and other supporting data sources, we were able to use logistic regression analyses, along with frequency cross tabulations to offer statistically sound multivariate analyses of the relationships among legal and demographic variables associated with multiple decision points in the juvenile justice system. However, as discussed below, the research team experienced some data challenges that limited this study.
According to Leiber, Richetelli, & Feyerherm (2009), logistic regressions (odds ratios) are themultivariate techniques most likely to be used at the assessment stage to examine decision-making at the various juvenile justice decision points as outcomes can and should be expressed as a dichotomy (e.g., adjudicated delinquent versus not, commitment versus not). Further, the use of techniques such as logistic regressions allows researchers to explore multiple factors other than race that may influence decision-making. The current study used hierarchical logistical regression analyses to accommodate the multiple levels of data available for the study.
A major strength of this study is the inclusion of juvenile arrest data. This is the first time that arrest data have been available for a research team conducting a formal DMC study per a solicitation of the SC Department of Public Safety (SCDPS). Arrest data were matched with juvenile justice referral data for the three counties of focus for this study, allowing a look at outcomes from arrest throughout the decision points for these counties. A statewide look at juvenile arrest data and a statewide look at youth referred to the juvenile justice system are included in this study. Additionally this DMC study incorporates qualitative components in the three selected communities in the overall research design which offer a contextual understanding of the quantitative findings.
Data for this study were provided to the research team through SCDPS as specified in the special research solicitation for the DMC Assessment Study. As such, the research team did not consult with SCDPS regarding the generation of data files for this study.

The limitations associated with the data files received are presented below: