Burns Institute How Do We Get There? Successful Strategies to Reduce Racial/Ethnic Disparities

Burns Institute How Do We Get There?

Successful Strategies to Reduce Racial/Ethnic Disparities

Common Barriers

Growing Numbers/”Gang” Problems Availability/Effectiveness of CBO’s YOC Persistence Unclear Goals re: Disparities Social Problem Lack of Transparency/Power Sharing Lack of Sense of Urgency

Failure to Admit Issue

How Has Your Jurisdiction Defined Success?

Reducing Numbers of Youth of Color in Detention?

Reducing Percentage of Youth of Color in Detention?

Reducing the Inappropriate Detention of Youth of Color? “Majority/Minority” Jurisdictions

Demographics

Youth population within County Total Youth Population Detention Eligible Youth Population Disaggregate By

Race Ethnicity Gender Geography Offense

Data Informed Conversation

African American youth represent 3% of the general youth population, but 11% of youth in detention. Latino youth represent 24% of the general youth population but 59% of youth in detention.

Youth in General Population

44%

3%24%

29%

White African American Latino API/Other

Youth Detained at Juvenile Hall

21%

11%

9%

59%

White African American Latino API/Other

Percent of Youth in General Pop. vs. Referred to and Detained at JH

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

AfAmYouth

API/OtherYouth

LatinoYouth

WhiteYouth

Ethnicity

Pe

rce

nt General Pop.

Referred to JH

Detained at JH

African American and Latino Youth are over-represented.

Data Informed Conversation

San Francisco:

Percentage of Admissions that are African-American Youth

56%56%57%55%

0%

50%

100%

2001 2002 2003 2004

San Francisco:

African-American Admissions to Detention

1219

1273

1147

1053

1000

1100

1200

1300

2001 2002 2003 2004

Percentage

Actual Numbers

Year Afr Amer Asi Amer Caucas Hispan Nat Amer Unk Total

200217

(10.3%)1

(1%)53

(32.1%)79

(47.9%)15

(9.1%)1

(1%) 165

200317

(9.7%)1

(1%)54

(30.7%)84

(47.7%)19

(10.8%)1

(1%) 176

200417

(9.8%)1

(1%)53

(30.6%)82

(47.4%)18

(10.4%)1

(1%) 173

200515

(11%1

(1%)41

(30.1%)64

(47.1%)14

(10.3%)1

(1%) 136

200614

(11%)1

(1%)31

(24.4%)69

(54.3%)11

(8.7%)1

(1%) 127

200713

(11%)1

(1%)32

(27.1%)62

(52.5%)10

(8.5%)1

(1%) 118

Yearly Avg. Detention Count By Ethnicity

Has Your Jurisdiction Reached Consensus on Purpose for Detention?

Statutory Risk of Flight/Reoffense

Policy v. Discretionary Holds Stabilization/No Other Alternative Provision of Services Punishment How Do We Measure

Purpose of Detention Statement

Recognizing that even under the best of circumstances detention can have a significant negative impact on a juvenile; the Executive Committee adopts a statement that supports the use of detention for juveniles charged with a crime only under narrowly prescribed circumstances while simultaneously developing less restrictive alternatives in the community.

Is Your Governance Structure Geared for Success re: Disparities

Structure of Governing Collaborative Level of cohesion among stakeholders

Involvement of Supervisors/Line Staff Involvement of Community

Dynamics of the Governing Collaborative Capacity and ability to access and analyze data

strategically Meeting Structure and Dynamics

Level of political will within jurisdiction to address the problem

“Yeah, but” Culture

Is Your Governance Structure Geared for Success re: Disparities Is There Numerical Disparity? What Accounts for the Disparity?

Offense Driven DV, Robbery, Assaults

Structural Administrative Decisions Warrants, FTA’s & Placement Failures Policy or Discretionary Holds

Economic, Social & Educational

Does County X Need to Engage the Issue of Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Identifying: Is There Numerical Disparity? “Snapshot” vs. Trend Tracking

Digging Deeper: What Accounts for the Disparity? Disparities by offense Structural System Based Decisions

Policy v. Discretionary Holds Inefficiency with Current Practices

Establishing an Institutional Response

Digging Deeper : Disparities by Offense

Admissions targeted with ATD. Need to track progress

Additional offenses identified to dig deeper into and to track.

Digging Deeper into Disparities by Offense:Probation Violations

1. Prior analyses reveal PV’s have contributed significantly to detention over time.

2. Admissions for PV’s are even more disproportionate than overall admissions to detention

3. Policy/Practice change to target PVs has been implemented and we want to track whether the change may have impacted admissions.


You’ve got data…You know where disparities exist…You know where policy/practice change

could impact the numbers…

Now What?


What is your local vehicle to: Dig Deeper into factors contributing to

disproportionality

Strategize about policy and practice change to reduce racial and ethnic disparities

Adopt Strategy

Indicator to Monitor effectiveness of each strategy in reducing racial disparities

Document Changes in reducing racial disparities

Digging Deeper by Offense: Probation Violations (PV) Tracking Progress

Probation Violation Admission Trends

44 47 44 39 51 46 41 39

20 13 17 2622 19 16 14

9378 72

102107

9580 77

68 11

68

11

5 6

0

50

100

150

200

Q1 2006 Q2 2006 Q3 2006 Q4 2006 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2007

White African American Latino Native American Other

7/1/07: Graduated Sanctions implemented

11/6/06: ATD for JIPS PV’s implemented

•How are PV admissions increasing or decreasing over time?

•How are YOC admissions increasing or decreasing?

•Have policy/practice interventions had an impact?

Court Notification Calls Attempted (723 youth*)

118 86

264

238

10

7

0

100

200

300

400

Yes No

White Black Other

Of the total youth called regarding their Court Appearances, 55% appeared.

Court Notification Calls Not Attempted** (109 youth)

614

37

511

0

0

25

50

75

Yes No

white Black Other

Of the total youth not called regarding their Court Appearances, 40% appeared.

Digging Deeper: Current PracticeBaltimore Court Notification

Does contact with youth/family and type of contact (Person, message) impact their attendance at Court?

• Will the % of attendees be greater than 55% when contact is made?

• Will the % of attendees be less than 55% when contact is not made?


Contact Made and Court Appearance (720 Youth)

7531 26 21 17 32

189

44 6430

111

63

0

100

200

300

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Person Voicemail/Message No Contact Made

White Black

Of all 358 youth/families contacted in person, 74% appeared in Court.

Of all 252 Black youth/Families contacted in person, 75% appeared in Court.

Of all 190 youth/families not contacted at all, 25% appeared in court.

Of all 141 Black youth/families not contacted, 21% appeared in court.


2004 Youth Released Within 40 HoursAggravated Battery Charge

*Source – 2004 Peoria County JDC YTD Report 11/04

64

41

26

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

School

Ag. Battery General

Police

(49%)

78% A/A Boys

SURVEY RESULTS470 STUDENTS Survey conducted 9/03

5th & 8th GRADE(Concerns included)

Fear of KidnappingFear of RapeFear of Shooting /Killing

FRESHMAN(Concerns included)

GangsDrugsFear of Shooting /Killing

COMMON THEME: FIGHTING

Nearly half (45.8%) of the students reported they would use violence as an approach to deal with anger toward someone.

SOLUTION

Alternative Discipline Options for Schools

BARJ

35% Reduction56

6

1

32

9

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

AA C H

2004/05

2005/06

89%

78%

10%22%

1%

Phone: 415.321-4100 x 111 Website:

www.burnsinstitute.org

Documents

Burns Institute How Do We Get There? Successful Strategies to Reduce Racial/Ethnic Disparities