INTRODUCTION - Home | SCDPS



Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in South Carolina: From Assessment to Strategic ActionSubmitted byPatricia Stone MotesJulie NurseRobin Kimbrough-MeltonJames McDonellTracy WatersInstitute on Family and Neighborhood LifeClemson UniversitySubmitted toDisproportionate Minority CommitteeGovernor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory CommitteeState of South CarolinaMay 2012______________________________________________________________________________________This report was supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)Formula Grant Program, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justicethrough the South Carolina Department of Public Safety. INTRODUCTIONThe publication, A Delicate Balance issued 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; andMonitoring – 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 system as 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 (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).In South Carolina, African American youth make up 38% of the state’s population. However, they account for 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 - nearly a 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. The DMC mandate 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 CAROLINAUsing 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 ***MinorityBlackMinorityBlackArrest rate1.72.22.452.50Referral Rate1.21.20.960.96Diversion Rate0.70.71.021.02Detention Rate1.41.41.391.38Petitioned Rate1.11.11.071.06Adjudicated Rate0.90.90.900.90Probation Rate0.90.91.031.03Placement Rate1.21.21.221.23Waiver Rate1.31.3no datano 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 Blacks was 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 that county and statewide RRIs are the primary measures used to 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 Justice Programs Sub-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. 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 specific minority 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 to Blacks and Hispanics, 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 STUDYMethodsDataThree 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.AnalysesAcross 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 PointsAs 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 or?a hearing to transfer the case to adult court or other jurisdiction.?Detention occurs when a youth held in secure detention following?a family court hearing while?awaiting transfer to and from juvenile secure evaluation or another juvenile jurisdiction, transfer to adult court and or awaiting other?placement following a family court disposition.Solicitor DecisionDiversion. 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 delinquent act 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 DispositionEvaluation (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 determining the 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 mitment.?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, 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 StudyThere are significant strengths and limitations of this study. The availability of data to conduct this study serves as both a strength 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 the multivariate 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: SLED Arrest data/calendar year 2009. These data included an abstracted file consisting of demographic data (age, gender, race, ethnicity), offense data (e.g., date of arrest, weapons; drugs) and data related to the handling of arrest (informal or formal referral). The SLED data system is incident based, thus it is not designed to provide information on criminal history. The abstracted file contained de-identified information (i.e., no names, no birthdates), thus matching of SLED files with the SCDJJ was necessarily limited. Because of this limitation, case by case matching was the only strategy available to the research team for linking the arrest database with the SCDJJ database. Seven indicators were used to determine matches, including the county in which the offense occurred, the day and month of the offense, the sex, age, and race of the offender, and the offense code. In a number of instances, six of the seven indicators were in agreement while the seventh was not in agreement. Most often this involved the offense code but may have been age, gender, race, or date of offense. If there was agreement on six of the seven indicators and no other case that also matched on the indicators in question, the case was treated as a match. This process resulted in a matched data file of 1,168 cases, or 33% of DJJ cases and 54% of SLED cases for the three counties of interest. Because of the small number of matched files, the statistical analyses were limited.Statewide SCDJJ referral data /calendar year 2009. These data included demographic data at referral to DJJ (age, gender, race); current offense data associated with the referral (e.g., detention associated with current offense, severity of charge), prior legal history (e.g., prior referrals, prior detentions, prior R & E, prior adjudications, prior commitments) information at the stage of solicitor decision (e.g., diversion, prosecution) and at the judicial disposition stage (e.g., R &E, probation, commitment).In consultation with staff at SCDJJ, the research team learned that the detention data received from SCDJJ did not include all data related to current juvenile offenses. Due to recent changes in the information management system at SCDJJ, detention data are not linked specifically with the offense in terms of pre-trial detention, pick up orders or family court orders to remain in detention while awaiting transfer to another jurisdiction or adult court. Thus the information contained in the detention file may represent different aspects of detention. Upon review of online data at SCDJJ (Annual Statistical Report, 2010-2011) we learned that in FY 2009-2010, there were 3887 detention cases; in FY 2010-2011, there were 3179. In the data files provided for our study only 998 detention records are associated with the current offense for the calendar year 2009. Thus the data available to the research team is about a 75% undercount of the actual detention data. In the 2010-2011 report, SCDJJ notes that Black males accounted for 47% of all detentions (n=1494). Detention is a form of secure confinement and is a factor of major consequence for the processing of youth in the juvenile justice system and in understanding disproportionate minority contact. The inability to gain access to reliable detention data associated with the current charge is a major issue for the state of South Carolina and thus a major limitation of this study. Historically, SCDJJ produces a statistical report on an annual basis that presents detailed information on the processing of juvenile offenders through the varied decision points. In this published report, a section entitled, African-American Overrepresentation, provided summary statistics on the percentages of African American youth at the various stages of the state's juvenile justice system. These data provide invaluable information on racial disparity in the state. Unfortunately, the last time these data were made publicly available through the annual statistical reports was in 2005. The lack of these data precludes comparative findings over time.This research study does not include any analyses of background and social characteristics of the juvenile and the family (e.g. school status, socio-economic status). These data were not available to the research team and is a limitation in presenting a fuller analysis of factors related to DMC.Relative Rate Indices. The 2009 Relative Rate Indices provided by SCDPS define the population of risk as youth from age 10 through age17. Prior RRI reports have consistently used the age range of 10 through 16. In South Carolina, the oldest age for original court jurisdiction in delinquency matters is age 16. Thus data through age 17 would capture youth not eligible for the juvenile justice population of risk. The research team requested, without success, that SCPS provide RRIs for the 10 through 16 age range. The research team does not have access to the OJJDP Web-Based DMC Data Entry System which allows local and state juvenile justice entities to generate RRIs. Thus, the research team did not use the 2009 RRIs within this reportHistorical data on RRIs are not publically available in South Carolina and were not made available to the research team in response to request for such data. The lack of historical RRIs, along with concerns regarding the 2009 RRIs, limited the ability of the research team to compare state level RRIs across time periods. Summary of Quantitative FindingsSummary quantitative findings are presented below. These summary findings are based on frequency cross tabulations and odds ratios generated by hierarchical logistic regression. In term, findings from each of the three datasets are more fully presented and discussed. Appendix B contains additional discussion on the hierarchical logistic regression method and provides tables summarizing odds ratio outcomes for all three datasets. Across all analyses, the following significant findings are noted.Statewide Arrest Fifty-eight percent of those arrested were Black youth compared to a population rate of 33%. White and Hispanic youth were arrested at much lower rates than would be expected given their population rate (White youth: 38% arrested vs. 59.3 % population; Hispanic youth 3.6% vs. 5.8%).Males (68.8%) and older youth (79.1%) were more often arrested.Black youth were overrepresented in those arrested compared to their rate in the population at risk for (65.2%), property (56.3%), and public order (57.7%) offenses. Within those charged with public order offenses, White youth were overrepresented for alcohol and (75.4%) and drug-related charges (56.8%). Hispanic youth were also overrepresented in alcohol (5.9%) and drug related changes (5%).Males (22%) and youth age 14 and older (20%) had greater odds of being formally referred to other authorities.The odds for being arrested “on view” for Black (35%) and Hispanic youth (23%) were greater than those for White youth.The odds for Black youth being referred to formal authorities at arrest were less than the odds for White youth. Being Hispanic was not a significant predictor of the odds of referral to other authorities.Youth involved in drug-related offenses have greater odds (41%) of having their cases referred to authorities.Statewide Solicitor DecisionDiversion The odds for males to receive diversion were less than the odds for females. The odds for youth with at least one prior contact with DJJ to receive diversion were less than those with no history.The odds for receiving diversion were greater for youth involved in weapons-related offenses (52%) and drug-related offenses (23%) than for those not involved in such offenses.The odds of being diverted were 2.89 times greater for persons committing misdemeanors than for those committing felonies.Black youth and Hispanic youth were less likely to have their cases diverted than White youth.Prosecution The odds for males being prosecuted were 47% greater than for females.The odds for youth aged 14 and older being prosecuted were 24% greater than for younger youth.Having a prior history with DJJ increased the odds of being prosecuted by 24%.Youth committing status offenses had greater odds of prosecution (62%) than those committing felonies; youth committing misdemeanors were less likely to be prosecuted than those committing felonies.The odds for Hispanic youth receiving prosecution were 29% greater than those for White youth. There was no significant relationship between being Black and being prosecuted.Statewide Judicial DecisionReception and Evaluation (secure setting) Males had greater odds of being sent to a secure setting for evaluation.Youth age 14 and older had 74% greater odds to be confined for evaluation.Youth with at least one prior contact with DJJ had 30 % greater odds of being sent to a secure setting for evaluation.Drug related offenses were not significant predictors for being sent to R & E.Race was not a significant predictor of referrals to a secure setting for evaluation.ProbationMales had less likely odds of getting probation.Having a prior DJJ history decreased one’s odds of receiving probation.Youth with a misdemeanor offense had 30% greater odds of receiving probation than youth charged with a felony.Youth with status offenses were less likely to receive probation.Drug-related and weapons-related offenses were not significant predictors of probation.Race was not a significant predictor of mitmentMales had 58% greater odds of being committed than females.Youth age 14 and older were more than two and a half times more likely to be committed than younger offenders.The odds for youth with a DJJ history were almost five times greater for confinement than those with no prior history.The odds for youth committing status and misdemeanor offenses being committed were less than the odds for those committing felonies.Weapons-related offenses were not significant predictors of confinement.Race was not a significant predictor of being committed.Waived to Adult Court. The small number of youth waived to adult court could not be reliably examined using the logistic regression. As noted earlier, the solicitor has discretion to transfer 16-year-olds charged with certain felonies to adult court without a judicial hearing. This process may reduce the number of cases presented to the family court for waiver to adult court. This process may have a disproportionate impact on Black and Hispanic youth.The three-county aggregate findings reveal that more than 70 percent of the youth referrals to family court from the selected counties were Black, about 27% were White, and 2.0% of persons were of Hispanic origin. Compared to the aggregate youth population for the three counties, Blacks were greatly overrepresented in referrals (70.4% vs. 37.5%), while Whites and Hispanics were underrepresented (27.1% vs. 55.3%; 2.0 vs. 5.7%). At the arrest stage, the odds for Black youth being arrested on view were 70% greater than those for White youth. Youth who committed misdemeanors had reduced odds of being referred to formal authorities than those who committed felonies. At the solicitor decision point, the odds for diversion were significantly reduced for youth with a DJJ history. Black youth were significantly less likely to be diverted than White youth. The odds of youth with a juvenile justice history being prosecuted were six times greater than those of youth with no history. Race was not a predictor of prosecution. The overall regression models for judicial dispositions were not found to be significant and are not reported.As summarized above in the statewide data, Black youth were arrested at a rate 33% greater than what would be expected given their population rate (57.9% vs. 38%). At the time of arrest, Black youth are more likely to be handled informally than White youth, but despite this finding, Black youth are referred disproportionately to family court via the DJJ system (57.5% vs. 38%). Hispanic youth are arrested at lower rate (3.6% vs. 5.8%) and referred to family court at a lower rate (2.6% vs. 5.8%) than what might be expected given their population; however, once involved in the system Hispanic youth have similar outcomes as Black youth. Black and Hispanic youth are less likely to be diverted by the solicitor’s office to programs that could result in a dismissal of their charges. At the decision point of prosecution, despite the legal history variables, Hispanic youth had nearly 30 percent greater odds for being prosecuted. As Black and Hispanic youth progress through the system, prior DJJ contact, gender, age, and types of offense are the driving forces for what happens. At the decision point of commitment, the odds for confinement for older youth were more than two and half times greater than those for youth less than age 14, while the odds for commitment for those with a DJJ history were more than five times greater than those with no DJJ history. Being neither Black nor Hispanic was a predictor of commitment. The quantitative analyses cannot offer “reasons” for the findings presented above. However, the statewide and aggregate county findings do point to the need to aggressively address the disparities evident in South Carolina’s juvenile justice system at the earliest points of contact. Given the overall outcomes for Black and Hispanic youth, it may be easy to conclude that outcomes for minority youth are related to characteristics other than race. Differential offending is certainly one possible explanation or reason for the above finding. However, racial and/or systemic bias in the processing of minority youth cannot be excluded as a causal factor or reason for these findings. For example, data revealed that Black and Hispanic have greater odds of being arrested on view. Is it possible that law enforcement officers patrol more heavily Hispanic and Black communities and thus are more available to arrest minority youth “on view” than White youth. The finding that Black youth are less likely to be formally referred after arrest is an unexpected given the disproportionate number of Black youth referred to the family courts for delinquent acts. One, among many possibilities, is that many Black youth are arrested and released without formal charges because the original arrests were for very minor offenses; perhaps offenses not requiring arrest. Would structured decision-making processes (e.g., use of risk assessment instruments) reduce the numbers of Black youth arrested and then released without formal charges? What is clear from the findings is that more DJJ involvement leads to more serious outcomes. What is also clear is that efforts must be placed at the early stages (e.g. arrest, detention—not analyzed in this study per limitations of data, and diversion) to meet the mandate to reduce DMC. Whether causal facts relate to systemic bias, differential offending, or both, the above findings indicate that South Carolina must develop, implement, and assess strategies that can make a difference at the earliest stages of involvement or risk for involvement to reduce DMC. Such strategies should include attention to behavior of youth and their families, to conditions in neighborhoods and communities, and attention should also focus on improving the system to ensure equity in the processing all youth in the juvenile justice system (Leiber & Rodriquez, 2011). (Further discussion on strategies to reduce DMC in the state is presented in the section on Conclusions and Recommendations.)Data Set #1 - SLED: 2009 Year Statewide Juvenile ArrestsTable 2 provides a general description of the SLED juvenile arrest data for South Carolina during the 2009 calendar year. Table 3 includes a breakdown by race/ethnicity. The SLED data set consists of a total of 14,334 cases (individuals may have had multiple contacts.)Table 2. SLED: 2009 Juvenile Arrests in South Carolina VariablePercentageRace/Ethnicity Black57.9% Hispanic3.6% White38% Others.5%Gender Female31.2% Male68.8%Age at Arrest 10 or younger1.1% 11-1319.7% 14 or older79.1%Type of Arrest On View61.8% Summoned/Cited17.6% Taken into Custody20.6%Handled by Police Within Department/Released to Parents41.8% Referred to Other Authorities58.2%Type of Offense Person28.8%Unarmed97.1%Firearm1.1%Other weapon1.8% Property30.9% Public Order29.2%Drug-related10% (of all offenses)34.2% (of P.O. offenses)Alcohol-related1.9% (of all offenses)6.5% (of all P.O. offenses) Status5.4% Other5.5%Table 3. SLED: 2009 Juvenile Arrests in South Carolina by Race and EthnicityVariablePercentageRace/Ethnicity BlackHispanicWhiteOtherGender Male58.33.837.5.4 Female57.13.239.1.6Type of Arrest On View60.63.635.4.3 Summoned/Cited48.84.446.3.6 Taken into Custody57.62.938.7.8Handled by Police Within Dept./Released to Parents58.83.736.9.6 Referred to Other Authorities57.33.638.8.4Type of offense Person65.23.331.1.3 Unarmed57.83.638.1.5Firearm78.11.918.81.3 Other weapon52.5542.50 Property56.3439.3.4 Public order52.73.143.6.7Drug-related38.6556.8.8Alcohol-related17.65.975.41.1Other64.62.432.4.6 Status offense54.74.739.8.8 Other criminal acts59.54.535.8.2Demographics. Fifty-eight percent of youth arrested in South Carolina in 2009 were Black, 38% were White, and 3.6% were of Hispanic origin. Compared to the 2010 census data for South Carolina (see Appendix C), Black youth were arrested at a much higher rate than would be expected given their percentage in the 10 through 16 year old statewide population (57.9% vs. 33%), while White and Hispanic youth were arrested at a much lower rate than would be expected (38% vs. 59.3%; 3.6% vs. 5.8%). Nearly 70% of the arrests involved males (58.3% Black; 37.5 % White; 3.8% Hispanic). Older youth were significantly more represented among those arrested. Seventy-nine percent were 14 years old or older; about 20% were between 11-13 years old; only 1% was age 10 or younger.Process. In South Carolina juvenile arrests are recorded in three ways: “on view” (without warrant or previous incident report; officer usually arrives during or very shortly after the commission of the crime.); summoned/cited (released at the scene using a SC Uniform Traffic Ticket or County/Municipal Summons); or taken into custody (based on warrant or previously submitted incident report, the department has developed this person as a suspect and is seeking him/her.) Almost 62% of the juvenile arrests in 2009 were “on view” arrests; slightly more than 20% of those arrested were taken into custody in response to being considered a suspect in a crime. Black youth were more often arrested “on view” than White youth (60.6% vs. 38.7%). Compared to the overall arrest percentages by race and ethnicity, Black youth were arrested slightly more often “on view” than would be expected given their overall percentage in the arrest data (60.6% vs. 57.9%); while White youth arrested “on view” was about as might be expected (38% vs. 38.7%). “On view” arrests for Hispanic youth mirrored the overall percentage of juvenile arrests for Hispanic youth at 3.6%.Crimes against person, property, and public order were each about 30 % of the total type of offenses contained in the SLED database. Black youth made up the majority of those arrested for person (65.2%), property (56.3%), and public order (52.7%) offenses. Less than 3% of the crimes against persons involved a weapon (firearm 1.1%; other weapon 1.8%), with Black youth making up 78% of the juvenile arrests with a firearm.About a third of the public order offenses were drug-related; 6.5% were alcohol-related. Within the public order arrests, White youth made up the majority of arrests for drug related and alcohol related charges. Compared to the overall arrest rate of 38% for White youth, the rate for alcohol related charges was twice the expected rate (75.4% vs. 38%) and rate for drug-related charges was 50% (56.8% vs. 38%) greater than what would be expected. Hispanic youth involvement in drug related arrests at 5% and alcohol related arrests at 5.9% is higher than expected for the overall arrest percentage of 3.6%. Black youth were underrepresented in comparison to arrest percentages in both categories (38.6% vs. 57.9%; 17.6% vs. 57.9%).In many instances, law enforcement officers have the discretion to handle cases informally (e.g., warning, diversion programs, release to parents). In 2009, officers handled a little more than 40% of the juvenile arrests informally within the department/released to parents. Almost 60% of the cases were referred to other authorities such as the juvenile justice, court, or another police agency. Black, White, and Hispanic youth were all handled formally and/informally fairly consistently compared to the overall juvenile arrest rates. Almost 59% of those handled informally by the police were Black youth; 36.9% were White youth, and 3.7% were Hispanic youth.Summary Results of Logistic Regression on Statewide SLED DataThis section provides a summary of the results for the logistic regression on the statewide SLED arrest data. A more detailed presentation of the results along with summary tables are included in Appendix B-1. Hierarchical Logistical Regression models were conducted, involving three blocks, primarily designed to examine the odds of a particular outcome, given various demographic factors and characteristics of the offense. The independent variables used for three Blocks are outlined below:Block 1: age and gender Block 2: type of offense, armed offense, and drug-related offenseBlock 3: race.The following are the main outcomes that were examined for the SLED arrest data.Type of arrest, examining how the juvenile was arrested:arrested on viewsummoned or citedtaken into custodyPolice action, examining how the police managed the case, given that the offender was a juvenile. Was the case handled in a formal manner, that is, referred to other authorities, or was it handled informally within the department and the juvenile released to his/her parents?The summary results presented here refer to the odds for the particular outcome, when all of the factors are considered. Type of ArrestsOn view arrestsIn general juvenile offenders were 4% more likely to be arrested on view than otherwise. Males were less likely to be arrested on view than females.Persons committing status offenses were less likely to be arrested on view than those committing crimes against persons.Persons involved in drug-related offenses were more likely to be arrested on view than those not involved in drug-related offenses.Black juvenile offenders were 35% more likely to be arrested on view than White offenders.Hispanic youth were 23% more likely to be arrested on view than Whites.Arrests by summonsIn general juvenile offenders were 6% more likely to be arrested by summons than otherwise. Youth 14 and older were less likely to be arrested by summons than youth under 13 years old. Juveniles committing crimes against property and crimes against the public order were more likely to be arrested by summons than juveniles committing crimes against persons.Black offenders were less likely to be arrested by summons than White offenders.Being Hispanic was not a significant predictor of being arrested by summons. Arrests by warrantsIn general juvenile offenders were 6% more likely to be arrested on view than otherwise. Males are 41% more likely to be taken into custody with a warrant than females.Older juveniles were 20% more likely to be arrested by warrant than younger juveniles. Juveniles involved in drug-related offenses had lower odds of being arrested by warrant than those involved in other types of crimes.Persons committing status offenses and crimes against property were more likely to be arrested by warrant than those committing crimes against persons. Being Black did not significantly predict the odds for arrests by warrants.Hispanics were less likely to be arrested by warrant than Whites. Police ActionReferred to other authoritiesMales were 22% more likely to be referred to other authorities than females. Older youth were 20% more likely to be referred to other authorities than those below age 14. Persons involved in drug-related offenses were 41% more likely to have their cases referred to other authorities. Blacks were less likely to be referred to other authorities than Whites. Being Hispanic was not a significant predictor of the odds of referral to other authorities.Data Set #2 - SCDJJ: 2009 Juvenile Referrals to Family CourtTables 4 and 5 below provide a general description of the youth referred to family court in the 2009 calendar year. The data set consists of a total of 21, 011 cases (individuals may have had multiple contacts.)Table 4. SCDJJ: 2009 Family Court Referrals in South Carolina General Descriptionn= 21, 011VariableCategoryCountPercentageRace/EthnicityBlack12,05957.4%Hispanic5552.6%White8,12538.7%Others2721.3%GenderFemale6,89232.8%Male14,11967.2%Age at Referral10 and younger2521.2%11-131,6127.7%14 and older19,14791.1%Referral SourceSchool1,8008.6%Non-School19, 21191.4%Detention Associated with Current Offense DetentionNone20,01395.3%At least one9984.7%Legal HistoryPrior ReferralsNone9,91947.2%At least one11,09252.8%Prior DetentionsNone18,03085.8%At least one2,98114.2%Prior Reception and EvaluationsNone19, 42792.5%At least one1,5847.5%Prior AdjudicationsNone15,84875.4%At least one5,16324.6%Prior CommitmentsNone19,42792.5%At least one1,5847.5%Severity weight of offense1-820, 32596.7%9-14n/an/a15-256863.3%Table 5. SCDJJ: 2009 Family Court Referrals in SC by Race and EthnicityVariableCategoryPercentage by Race/EthnicityBlackHispanicWhite OtherGender Male57.9%2.8%38.2%1.1%Female56.4%2.4%39.7%1.6%Referral SourceSchool43.6%4.1%50.7%1.6%Not School58.7%?2.5%37.5%1.3%Pre-Trial DetentionNone57.3%?2.6%38.8%1.3%At least one?59%3%?35.9%2.1%Prior ReferralsNone51.2%?3%44.6%1.2%At least one62.9%2.3%33.4%1.4%Prior DetentionsNone55.8%2.7%40.4%1.1%At least one66.8%2.5%28.2%2.4%Prior Reception and EvaluationsNone?56.2%2.7%39.9%1.2%At least one?66.8%2.1%28.8%2.4%Prior CommitmentsNone56.5%?2.7%39.7%1.2%At least one?68.8%2.5%26.3%2.3%Prior AdjudicationsNone?55.5%2.8%40.6%1.1%At least one63.3%?2.3%32.7%1.7%Severity1-8?56.9%2.7%39.1%1.3%9-12n/an/an/an/a13-25?71.6%2.3%25.1%.9%Table 6. Distribution of school-related offenses and Other offenses by race?Race of offenderBlackHispanicOtherWhiteTotalDisturbing schoolsCount1,2513693691,665% of Disturbing schools75.1%2.2%0.5%22.2%100.0%% of race 10.4%6.5%3.3%4.5%7.9%TruancyCount34646226791093% within of Truancy31.7%4.2%2.0%62.1%100.0%% of race 2.9%8.3%8.1%8.4%5.2%OtherCount10,4624732417,07718,253% of Other offenses57.3%2.6%1.3%38.8%100.0%% of race 86.8%85.2%88.6%87.1%86.9%TotalCount12,0595552728,12521,011Overall %57.4%2.6%1.3%38.7%100.0%Demographics. About 58% of the youth referred to family court for delinquent acts were Black; about 39% were White; and 2.6% of persons were of Hispanic origin. Just over 67 percent of the youth referred were males (57.9% Black; 38.2 % White; 2.8% Hispanic). Compared to percentages for arrest (see earlier section on SLED juvenile arrests), the referral percentages for Black youth (57.9% vs. 57.4%) and White youth (38% vs. 38.7%) almost mirror the percentages for arrest). Hispanic youth made up 3.6% of those arrested, but only 2.6% of those referred to the family court for delinquent acts. As discussed in the earlier section on juvenile arrests, the referral percentages for Black youth (57.4% vs. 33%), in South Carolina are much higher than would be expected given their percentage in the state’s youth population. For White and Hispanic youth, the referral percentages are much lower rate than would be expected given the state’s youth population (38.7% vs. 59.3%; 2.6% vs. 5.8%). The overwhelming majority of referrals (91.4%) came from non-school sources; however, school-related offenses are important in the make-up of the offenses referred to SCDJJ. Historically school related offenses, namely truancy and disturbing schools, have been among the top ranked offenses referred to SCDJJ. Disturbing Schools and Truancy were ranked 1st and 2nd for referrals to family court in both fiscal year 2001-2002 and fiscal year 2002-2003. From 2003-2004 to 2009-2010 Disturbing Schools continued to be ranked first, while Truancy continued to rank among the top ten offenses. The most recent statistical report by SCDJJ (2011) ranks Disturbing Schools as 4th and Truancy as 9th among the top offenses. According to the agency report, the decline in the ranking of truancy offenses is related to efforts by SCDJJ and the Department of Education to treat Truancy as a school related issue rather than a juvenile justice issue. The agency report does not offer an explanation for the drop in ranking from 1st to 4th for Disturbing Schools. Within the SCDJJ dataset (calendar year 2009) for our DMC study, Disturbing Schools accounted for 1665 cases (7.9% of all offenses) referred to SCDJJ, while Truancy accounted for 1093 cases (5.2%). Black youth accounted for about 75% of all Disturbing Schools offenses, while only accounting for about 32% of all Truancy offenses. Historically Black youth in South Carolina have been overrepresented in Disturbing Schools offenses but not overrepresented in Truancy offenses (Motes & Rivers, 2006). This continues to be the case with the most recent statistics (SCDJJ, 2011) on school related offenses. It is important to note that in South Carolina, Disturbing Schools is a criminal offense, while Truancy is a status offense.Prior Legal History. Across all the prior legal history variables, Black youth made up the largest percentage experiencing the described decision points (e.g., 62.9% of at least one prior referrals, 66.8% of detentions; 66.8% of prior commitments to Reception and Evaluation Centers; 63.3% of prior adjudications; and 68.8% of the youth with long-term commitments to SCDJJ institutions. Black youth were more likely to have been charged with offenses rated as more severe (72% of offenses were in the 15-25 range of severity). Summary Results of Logistic Regression on Statewide DJJ DataThis section provides a summary of the results for the logistic regression on the DJJ statewide data. A more detailed presentation of the results as well as the summary tables are presented in Appendix B-2. The main outcomes that were examined are based on two key stages in the juvenile justice system, namely the solicitor’s decision and the result of disposition or adjudication. For the solicitor’s decision two possible outcomes were examined: diversion and prosecution. Once the solicitor decides to prosecute the juvenile, the juvenile goes before the family court and faces one of several outcomes. Three dispositional outcomes will be presented: secure reception and evaluation, probation, and commitment/confinement. It must be noted Reception and Evaluation (R&E) is an interim disposition, during which time the juvenile is evaluated to gather additional information and recommendations as to the final disposition of the juvenile’s delinquent case. As a result, R&E is usually followed by another outcome such as probation or commitment. It may be seen as a stage in itself but not all juveniles who are prosecuted are assigned to R&E. A regression analysis was not conducted to determine the odds of being waived to adult court at adjudication. This was because less than one percent of the cases were waived to adult court. It is important to note that per statutes in South Carolina, 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. The summary results presented here refer to the odds for the particular outcome, when all of the factors are considered, including race. Solicitor DecisionsDivertionMales were less likely to have their case diverted than females. Juvenile with at least one prior contact with DJJ were much less likely to be diverted than those with no history. Persons involved in weapons-related offenses were more likely to be diverted than those not involved in weapons-related crimes. Youths involved in drug-related offenses were 23% more likely to be diverted than those not involved in drug-related offenses.Status offenders were much less likely to have their case diverted than persons committing felonies.The odds of being diverted were 2.89 times greater for persons committing misdemeanors than for those committing felonies.Blacks were less likely than White youths to have their cases diverted. Hispanics were less likely to be diverted than Whites.Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds ratio for being diverted was 3.10 (95% CI = 3.10, 3.11) that of not being diverted. ProsecutionMales were 47% more likely be prosecuted than females. Juveniles aged 14 and older were 33% more likely to be prosecuted than younger persons.Having a prior history with the DJJ increased the odds of being prosecuted by 24%. Persons committing status offenses were 62% more likely to be prosecuted than those committing felonies. Weapons, age and drug-related offenses did not significantly predict the odds of prosecution.Persons committing misdemeanors were less likely to be prosecuted than those committing felonies. Hispanics were 29% more likely to be prosecuted than Whites. There was no significant relationship between being Black and being prosecuted. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds ratio for being prosecuted was 2.02 (95% CI = 2.01, 2.02) times greater than not being prosecuted. Judicial DispositionSecure Reception and Evaluation (R&E)Males were more likely to be sent to R&E than females.Older juveniles were 74% more likely to be sentenced to a secure facility for reception and evaluation than juveniles below age 14.Youths with at least one prior DJJ contact were 30% more likely to be sent to secure R&E. Those with a status offense were less likely to be sent to R&E than persons with felonies. Persons with misdemeanors were less likely than those with felonies to be sent to R&E.Race and drug-related offenses were not significant predictors of secure R&E and were thus excluded from the model. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of being sent to R&E was 1.10 (95% CI = 1.09 1.11). This means that the odds of being sent to R&E were slightly greater than not being sent to R&E. ProbationMales were less likely to be sent on probation than females.Having a prior DJJ history decreased one’s odds of receiving probation.Youths with a misdemeanor offense were 30% more likely to receive probation, than those with a felony.Youths with status offenses were less likely to be sent on probation. Age, drug-related offenses, race, and weapons-related offenses were not significant predictors of probation. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds for receiving probation was 1.08 (95% CI = 1.08, 1.09) that of not receiving probation. This means that offenders had slightly greater odds for receiving probation. CommitmentMales were 58% more likely to be committed than females.Offenders who were 14 and older were more than two and a half times more likely to be committed than younger offenders.Youth with a DJJ history were almost five times more likely to be confined than those with no prior history. Youths involved in drug-related offenses were less likely to be committed than those without non-drug-related offenses. Having a misdemeanor charge decreased the odds of commitment by 23%.Persons committing status offenses were less likely to be committed than those committing felonies.Race and weapons-related offenses were not significant predicators of confinement.Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds for commitment was 1.47(95% CI = 1.46, 1.47). This means that offenders had almost 50% greater odds of being committed than not being committed. Data Set #3 - SCDJJ/SLED Juvenile Arrests/Family Court Referrals General Description of Dataset. The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) data files were matched on a case by case basis for the three counties of focus for this study. Seven indicators were used to determine matches, including the county in which the offense occurred, the day and month of the offense, the sex, age, and race of the offender, and the offense code. In a number of instances, six of the seven indicators were in agreement while the seventh was not in agreement. Most often this involved the offense code but may have been age, gender, race, or date of offense. If there was agreement on six of the seven indicators and no other case that also matched on the indicators in question, the case was treated as a match. This process resulted in a matched data file of 1,168 cases, or 33% of DJJ cases and 54% of SLED.The three counties selected for this study represent a diverse look at South Carolina. Aiken County is a medium sized, suburban county located in the middle of the state. Charleston is a very large urban county located on the southern coast of the state. Marion County is rural county and located in the eastern part of the state known as the Pee Dee. According to 2010 census data, Charleston County has a majority White youth population of 54.6% with a total youth population of 25,784. Nearly 6 percent (5.7%) of the youth in Charleston County indicate that they are of Hispanic origin. Aiken County is also majority White (62.8% White) with a total youth population of 14,419. Slightly more than six percent of the youth population is Hispanic (6.2%). Marion County is a majority Black county, with a total youth population of 3169. More than sixty-three percent of Marion’s youth population is Black; 3.5% of the population is of Hispanic origin. As an aggregate, the three counties have a total youth population of 43,372, with 55.3% White, 37.5% Black; with 7.2% indicating other races or multiple races. Nearly six percent of the youth in the aggregate counties (5.7%) are of Hispanic origin. Compared to the 2010 census data for South Carolina (see Appendix C), Black youth are slightly more represented in the aggregate county data (37.5 vs. 33% ), while White youth are less represented in the aggregate county data (55.3% vs. 59.3%). The Hispanic population is almost the same in the aggregate data set when compared to the statewide youth population (5.7% vs. 5.8%). This aggregate data will be discussed in this section. Aggregate data summaries are presented in Tables 7 and 8 below. These data give a general description of the youth arrested (SLED database) where a matching referral to family court (SCDJJ database) was found. Table 7: SCDJJ/SLED: 2009 Juvenile Arrests/Family Court Referrals—3 Selected CountiesGeneral Descriptionn= 1168VariableCategoryCountPercentageRace/EthnicityBlack82270.4%Hispanic232.0%White31627.1%Others759.9%GenderMale74463.7%Female42436.3%Age at Referral10 and younger201.7%11-1325421.7%14 and older89476.5%Detention Associated with Current OffenseNone1,10394.4%At least one655.6%Legal HistoryPrior ReferralsNone57249.0%At least one59651.0%Prior DetentionsNone1,00686.1%At least one16213.9%Prior Reception and EvaluationsNone1,08793.1%At least one816.9%Prior AdjudicationsNone96682.7%At least one20217.3%Prior CommitmentsNone1,13597.2%At least one332.8%Severity/Weight of offense1-81,14598.0%9-12n/an/a13-25232.0%Legal HistoryArrest TypeOn view arrest91878.6%Summoned/ Cited837.1%Taken into custody16714.3%Table 8: SCDJJ/SLED: 2009 Juvenile Arrests/Family Court Referrals by Race and Ethnicty—3 Selected CountiesVariableCategoryPercentage by Race/EthnicityBlackHispanicWhite OtherTotalGender Male71.92.824.60.7744Female67.70.531.40.5424Type of ArrestOn View72.51.725.20.5918Summoned/Cited57.87.234.9083Taken into Custody64.70.633.51.2167Handled by PoliceWithin Department/ Released to Parents67.41.530.30.8385Referred to Other Authorities81.23.815.10783Type of OffensePerson81.90.816.80.5386 Unarmed70227.40.61128Firearm77.34.518.2022Other weapon83.3016.7018Property66.72.230.80.2454Public order60.43.135.51293Drug-related?????Alcohol-related?????Other Public Order?????Status offense-----Other criminal acts86.23.46.93.429Pre-Trial DetentionNone69.61.927.80.61103At least one83.13.113.8065Prior ReferralsNone62.61.934.60.9572At least one77.9219.80.3596Prior DetentionsNone68.5228.80.71006At least one82.11.9160162Prior Reception and EvaluationsNone69.41.928.10.61087At least one842.513.6081Prior CommitmentsNone3.600.901135At least one90.909.1033Prior AdjudicationsNone681.929.40.7966At least one81.72.515.80202Severity1-1270227.40.6114513-2591.308.7023Like the statewide data summaries, youth referrals to family court from Aiken, Charleston and Marion Counties were typically male and older than age 14. Nearly 64 percent of the youth referred were males (71.9% Black; 24.6 % White; 2.8% Hispanic). More than 70 percent of the youth referrals to family court from the selected three counties were Black, about 27% were White, and 2.0% of persons were of Hispanic origin. Compared to the aggregate county youth population, Blacks were overrepresented in referrals (70.4% vs. 37.5%), while Whites and Hispanics were underrepresented (27.1 vs. 55.3%; 2.0 vs. 5.7%). At the time of arrest, the aggregate data reveal that Black youth were more often arrested "on view" (72.5%); more likely to have committed a crime against person (81.9%); and more often to have had a detention associated with the current offense (83.1%). Of those youth referred on to authorities for formal processing, Black youth made up 81.2%. On each of the prior legal history variables, Black youth made up the largest percentage (e.g., 77.9 % of at least one prior referrals, 82.1% of prior detentions; 84% of prior commitments to R & E; 81.7% of prior adjudications; and 90.9% of the youth with prior commitments to SCDJJ institutions. Black youth were also more likely to have been charged with offenses rated as more severe (91.3% of offenses were in the 15-25 range of severity). Whether at the time of arrest or at the time of referral to family court, in each of the instances above, the percentages for Black youth were greater than what would be expected given the overall aggregate referral percentage for Black youth of 70.4%, and far greater than what would be expected given that Black youth are only 37.5% of the youth population across the three selected counties.Summary Results of Logistic Regression for Matched DJJ and SLED DataThis section provides a summary of the results for the logistic regression on the matched DJJ/SLED data files for Aiken, Charleston and Marion Counties. Detailed results and summary tables are presented in Appendix B-3.Solicitor decisionsProsecutionPersons committing misdemeanors were less likely to be prosecuted than those committing felonies. Persons with a juvenile justice history were six times more likely to be prosecuted than persons with no history. Race was not a predictor of prosecution.Given the predictors in the model, the odds ratio for being prosecuted was 2.42 (95% CI = 2.41, 2.43). This means that offenders were nearly two and a half times more likely to be prosecuted than not prosecuted.DiversionPersons who committed misdemeanors were more than four times more likely to be diverted than those who committed felonies. The odds for diversion were significantly reduced for persons with a DJJ history. Blacks were significantly less likely to be diverted than Whites.Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds for being diverted was 2.58 (95% CI = 2.58, 2.59). Judicial DispositionThe overall regression models for judicial dispositions were not found to be significant and are not reported.QUALITATIVE STUDY MethodsThe qualitative study consisted of focus groups and key informant interviews. Four focus group were held; one in each of the three counties of interest (Aiken, Charleston, Marion) and one with members of the DMC Committee of the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (GJJAC). Key informant interviews were held with stakeholders in the three counties of interest and with key leaders in the Latino community who resided in different communities across the state. The research team enlisted the support of the local DJJ director in the counties of interest to provide names of potential participants for the qualitative study. Identified participants were asked to offer names of other potential participants. The research team also used their own professional networks to identify participants for the study. Efforts were made to include participants from the following areas in the study: school systems, law enforcement, juvenile justice system, human services, social services, community-based programs, non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, and others with knowledge of community and/or youth issues. All persons who agreed to participate in the study were provided information on the study, the semi-structured outline of questions and DMC factsheets (Appendix D) specific to their county, as appropriate. Four researchers conducted the qualitative study (2 White females; 2 Black females). The same Black female served as the lead discussant for all four focus groups. At least one team member served as the official notetaker for each focus group. At the end of each focus group, the facilitator and the note taker/s independently summarized the session. Three members of the qualitative research team conducted key informant interviews (1 Black female; 2 White females). Each researcher conducting the key informant interviews provided written summaries for each interview to other members of the qualitative research team. The four members of the qualitative team reviewed the summaries of the key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The summary of themes and findings presented below is a collaborative effort of the qualitative research team.Strengths and Limitations of the Qualitative StudyKey informant interviews, focus groups, and interview observations as qualitative assessment methods have a long and successful history in assessing community needs. Although, the three communities selected by SCDPS for this study represent diversity in the state and in issues relative to DMC, the generalizability of the study is necessarily limited. The use of an opportunity sample from within the three communities may have resulted in participants with inherent biases (e.g., strong interest in reducing DMC; strong interest in not working on the issue DMC) that limit the validity and reliability of the qualitative study.The overall intent of the qualitative study was to gather information in understanding the climate in communities in South Carolina to advance efforts to reduce DMC, to get a community perspective on the causes of the disparities in the juvenile justice system, and to gather recommendations at the community level for reducing DMC.?Across the three diverse communities, there was consistency in findings. While the findings from the qualitative study have limitations in generalizablity to the entire state, they provide an excellent launching pad for further efforts in the identified communities and for DMC reduction efforts across the state.? Summary information from the three community sites provide a picture of key issues related to readiness to support DMC reduction efforts for South Carolina. Summary of Qualitative FindingsParticipants in Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group DiscussionsAcross the qualitative study, efforts were made to interview community members with direct knowledge of schools, law enforcement, juvenile justice system, human services, social services, community-based programs, non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, and others with knowledge of community and/or youth issues. In many instances, the participants represented multiple sectors (e.g., minister, volunteer position with diversion program, paid position with community-based youth program). A total of 27 key informant interviews (Aiken-7; Charleston-8; Marion-6; Latino leaders-6) were conducted. Four focus group discussions were held with a total of 39 participants (Aiken-10; Charleston-9; Marion-8; DMC-GJJAC Committee-12). The same semi-structured interview questions were used for both the key informant interviews and the focus groups (see Appendix D for questions). Across both groups, the core questions of interest were the following:What is the climate in the community to focus efforts on DMC? What accounts for the disparities in the juvenile justice system? What are the solutions and recommendations for reducing DMC? The qualitative findings are summarized across all focus groups and key informant interviews unless specifically noted otherwise in the narrative that follows.What is the Climate in the Community to Focus Efforts on DMC? While participants offered perspectives specific to their community of interest (e.g., small town with poor economic base, Latino, state DMC leaders), they also offered general perspectives on community climate and DMC that can contribute to a statewide understanding on the capacities of SC communities to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. The themes that emerged regarding community climate are discussed below.Lack of Awareness/Understanding of DMCWhile all participants had an awareness of the large numbers of minority youth in the juvenile justice system, many of the participants did not fully understand the issue of DMC. Overall, the participants felt that the typical community member needed more knowledge of the issue of DMC. Typical comments included the following:“The general public needs to know that DMC is a problem.”“People get concerned only when their home gets robbed.”“Got to educate the public." “It’s bigger than just locking up the kids. It impacts the tax base; jobs coming to state.”“Just because [juvenile] crime is going down doesn’t mean that DMC is going down. Crime reduction may make it harder to address DMC.”They don’t know the term “DMC,” but they know that more minority kids are locked up.”“People are unaware of how deep rooted and complex this issue is.”“Black community is not knowledgeable of the specifics, but has a general understanding. The Black community feels that they are treated unfairly.”“If it does not affect you personally, you don’t think about it; not important to you.”“White community doesn’t recognize this is a problem.”Race/Ethnic RelationsParticipants acknowledged that addressing race relations is an important step to reducing DMC. As one participant described, “there are strong divisions between the races…need to build bridges.” Another participant noted that the larger community views ‘Blacks in a negative light…see Black community as troubled.” A Latino participant described the climate this way, “if you look, sound Latino—you are suspect.” For many participants, the DMC issue was couched within a “race” and “economics” discussion, noting that more crime occurs in the poor communities and that more Blacks are poor. One participant lamented, “Racism is tangled up in all of this. At some point…we have to focus on the future.”Resources and Leadership Participants from different communities were able to offer input on community assets (i.e., programs, services, resources, leaders). Even when discussing a community with a poor or limited economic base, participants were able to offer examples of resources or potential resources (e.g., military, community colleges). Issues regarding lack of knowledge of and access to the available resources by both professionals and the families in need of support were typical of all discussions.Across the communities, resources to address DMC exist. In most instances, these resources are available for all youth, while having the potential to address DMC. Most participants felt that additional programs were needed to meet the needs of youth and their families, more outreach efforts were needed to engage families with the existing resources, and more collaboration was needed across private, non-profit, and county/state agencies to address availability and access. Some examples of program/services types in the different communities follow: Crime reduction efforts by law enforcementDiversion programs After school programsAlternative school programsParenting training/support programsMentoring programsRecreation programsSummer campsCultural competence programs for law enforcement officersMental health servicesSocial servicesFaith-based servicesHealth servicesYouth summits/ralliesFamily resource centersScouting programsParticipants were able to offer input to questions regarding leadership to address DMC. As with programs and services, leaders were specific to each community. However, across all communities, leadership is available to address DMC. The leadership mentioned included: elected leaders (mayor, city/county council members, state legislators, solicitor, family court judges); civic leaders (e.g., NAACP, ACLU, Friends of Juvenile Justice); faith leaders (pastors, church ministries); non-profit leaders; law enforcement leaders (chief of police, sheriff); agency leaders (county juvenile justice directors, school superintendents); and college/university professors. Some expressed the need to bring in business leaders to support efforts to reduce DMC.While some participants discussed the potential availability of local funding to address DMC, most participants stated a need for funding to begin work specific to DMC. In general, communities felt that volunteers could be engaged and that programming space could be made available to address DMC. Participants noted the importance of engaging and involving parents, families, and youth in efforts to reduce DMC.Action is Needed NowA common refrain in key informant interviews and in focus group meetings was a desire to stop talking and begin action. Participants shared that people are tired of meetings that provide opportunities for venting, but lead to no action. As one focus group participant stated, “We need to stop talking about DMC and do something about DMC!”What Accounts for the Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System? Participants offered a range of responses as factors that account for the racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. Although the preponderance of contributing responses was related to families, participants were clear that the issue of DMC is multi-layered across the many interconnected influences on children and their families. The findings are summarized below through an ecological framework that fits the responses offered by the participants.IndividualParticipants noted that the disproportionate involvement of minority youth in the juvenile justice system reflects negative attitudes (e.g., “lack of respect” and “distrust” for authorities), lack of self esteem (e.g., “lack of early success experiences”) and the inappropriate/delinquent behaviors of the youth. However, youth attitudes and behaviors were largely seen as the product of the many persons, networks, and systems that surround them. The influences of family, peers, school, and neighborhood were seen as significant factors leading to DMC. These influencing factors are discussed in the sections that follow.At the individual level, the issue of “trauma” was a major theme expressed. Participants noted that many minority youth are affected by poverty, have witnessed violent events, have experienced physical abuse and sexual abuse, and other traumatic events. They note that such personal histories are often expressed in acting-out behaviors. The intersection of emotional and behavioral health needs and juvenile justice involvement was highlighted by participants. While looking at individual needs of youth, participants also emphasized the need to “focus on strengths and protective factors.”Parent/FamilyThe home environment of youth was seen as significant contributor to DMC. As one participant described it, “Home environments need structure so kids can learn how to behave.” Many participants feel that parents, caregivers, families are not taking the needed responsibility for the behavior of their children (e.g., “how can you explain that a 3 yr old has out-of-control behavior?”). Participants expressed concerns that many parents do not have priorities in order (e.g., “more interested in getting kid out of trouble rather than helping change his behavior;” “buying huge TV sets instead of food;” encouraging children to be in gangs or sell drugs; not making education a priority). Many participants feel that parents need to be held accountable by having consequences leveled against them for not effectively handling their parental responsibilities. Other participants pointed out that many families/parents are struggling with their own needs that affect how well they are able to parent their children (e.g., “babies are having babies;” criminal histories and active criminal behaviors of parents and families--“families are in gangs”; substance abuse and mental health needs, especially depression; low educational attainment; language barriers; poverty; “serving generations of same family—had momma, now have her children.” Participants shared that many parents need help in knowing how to best support their children (e.g., advocacy skills, and providing academic supports). The “breakdown of the family”/ “the failure of the family, especially in the Black community” is seen as a significant contributor to DMC. The lack of fathers in the homes was linked to the presence of DMC by study participants. They noted that children are failing to learn respect for authority, that moms are focusing on nurturance and not on the needed discipline. One participant described it this way, “Until we deal with fatherlessness, the problem will persist.” Participants pointed out that extended family support networks (“the village”) are no longer available to many families, leaving parents “overstretched and overwhelmed.”One participant offered the following, “Sometimes, we, the community, must step in for parents, when the parents can’t or won’t do what needs to be done.”PeersPeers are a major influence in the lives of youth. Participants pointed out that many youth see juvenile justice involvement as a “rite of passage;” a way to earn “street cred.” One juvenile justice participant described how youth leaving DJJ institutions want to hold on to wrist bands and t-shirts to showcase that they have spent time in confinement. One participant noted that families throw parties for youth returning from confinement. These examples were linked to the idea of a change in value systems, what was once seen as negative is now valued and rewarded among sections of the community. The negative impact of media on peer relations was linked to DMC. Participants report that Black and Hispanic youth appear to be adopting “negative” images portrayed in the news, television shows, music videos/music and sports.Participants pointed out that youth from all races and ethnicities are involved in gangs. A law enforcement officer described gang involvement as a major factor in DMC—citing an example where the “young man, baby momma, and baby all were wearing colors.” One participant expressed that Latino youth are “vulnerable to gangs where it is easy to “belong” and have “identity.” “They have no identity with a home country...; don’t identify with America.” They have a deeper need to belong.” Another participant described the formula for gang involvement as follows: “if you want gangs, put kids in the streets: expel them.”While most participants described how children have changed (e.g., less respect for authority), one participant stated, “Kids haven’t changed; kids are still trying to get away with whatever they can.” He argued that our focus must be on changing the behavior of the adults who surround and influence their lives.SchoolMost participants saw the achievement gap as a major contributor to DMC. In addition to academics, participants highlighted the response of schools to inappropriate behavior as a factor in DMC, noting that more kids are being expelled and suspended; more kids are dropping out. The lack of academic success was linked to DMC. Some participants also highlighted that many of the children in the juvenile justice system are in fact youth with learning and other disabilities, and this is primarily due to the limited resources and capacity in the schools to adequately detect and address their specific needs. The role of school resource officers (SROs) was discussed as a factor in DMC. Many participants feel that minor school infractions are resulting in arrests. However, others note, especially law enforcement officers, that schools “push” SROs to take students into custody. In general, participants agree that the presence and availability of SROs in schools increase the likelihood of arrest and the likelihood of increases in DMC. Participants also saw schools as important community institutions that should help support parents (e.g., classes, programs, home visits) in moving their children to success. As one participated stated, “Parents want the best for their kids, but don’t understand how the system works.” If parents were not successful in school or had negative experiences in school, they are less likely to reach out to schools for support. Thus, schools need to reach out and engage parents/families (e.g., attention to diverse learning styles of students; helping parents learn how to be advocates for their children; assist in assessing links between personal issues/trauma and inappropriate behavior). Participants feel that schools should offer more after school/extended day programs and supports; that schools must work to engage youth and their parents.NeighborhoodMany neighborhood influences emerged as participants discussed factors that account for DMC. Participants noted that there is a greater presence of police in minority communities; that more arrests occur in minority communities and/or poor communities. One participant described the sentiment expressed by many participants, “Where you live impacts the quality of life—educational opportunities; the likelihood of being targeted/profiled by police.” Some participants pointed out that drug violations are treated differently based on neighborhoods (“Drugs in Black neighborhoods. Drugs in richer homes. Police don’t go to those neighborhoods.”)If you live in a high crime, impoverished neighborhood, your odds for contact with law enforcement are increased. Participants pointed to specific features of Black and minority communities that serve to increase the likelihood of contact with law enforcement. If you wear dreadlocks, wear certain types of clothing, drive certain types of cars, your odds for contact with law enforcement are increased; if you live in a neighborhood characterized by high unemployment, low academic achievement, and high adult incarceration, your odds for contact with law enforcement are increased.Participants noted that some neighborhoods are known for gangs and gang activity, with recognition that such neighborhood descriptions logically invite more police surveillance and thus greater likelihood of arrests. They indicated that many neighborhoods have little to no resources to support youth. “Kids have nothing to do;” “An idle mind is devil’s workshop.” Participants note that there is a lack of positive role models, especially Black males, to offer support, supervision and models of success. A further issue presented by participants was the link between family, neighborhood, and recidivism. They noted that many youth are removed from the home and community and have the benefit of rehabilitative services, only to return to an un-rehabilitated home and community setting. They pointed out that it is unsurprising that the recidivism rate is so high due the source or a key part of the problem having not been addressed. Community/CultureWhile the majority of the participants in the focus groups and key informant interviews were speaking primarily about DMC as it affects Black youth, there was a dedicated effort to gather feedback from leaders in the Latino community who could offer culturally-informed perspectives on Latino youth. Cultural issues were major points of emphasis shared by these key informants. One state level leader for Latino issues expressed the following:There seems to be a climate in the state that is trying to pit minority groups against each other … suggesting that Latinos are taking jobs from African Americans. No studies to show this! It is a negative climate affecting all minority populations. Latino key informants linked DMC with “punitive” immigration laws in South Carolina and across the nation. All expressed the need for the country to pass the Dream Act, which would offer hope for undocumented youth and, thus hope for all youth.Other comments offered regarding the Latino community include the following:“Documented and undocumented Latinos are best friends. One can go to college or get a job--- the other cannot. Will both hang out and do nothing? Will both join gangs?” “A child who came here at age 3 is unable to do anything after high school completion. This generation will be more at risk for delinquency; for involvement in criminal actions. They are at high risk for involvement in the juvenile justice system.”“There are many barriers for Hispanic/Latino youth/family. Language barrier is a large one.” “Identity issues—integration, acculturation, etc… ““Children and families need advocacy. Youth need to be able to “see a future.”For Black youth, the issue of culture is also a concern. One comment from a focus group participant summarizes much of the discussion by participants, “Police officers don’t have an appreciation for the culture of the community.” “Community leaders don’t know the kids-don’t want to know them---don’t want to work with “hoodlums.” Formal Systems/Public PolicyParticipants shared the need for public policy to shape efforts to create equitable juvenile justice and ensure that the policy is grounded in the community needs and reality. Participants described several community issues that appeared to be linked to public policy and formal systems. These issues included the following:economic disenfranchisement,relationships between colleges and universities,funding to support community building,common policies and procedures across agencies,cultural competence/diversity training for law enforcement officers,consequences for irresponsible parents, andfunding for juvenile justice/youth and family assessment centers. Of significant note were comments that suggested that well intended policy efforts may have unintended negative outcomes for reducing DMC — Efforts to address crime/make neighborhoods safer may increase DMC/”mixed blessings;” “Tough on crime efforts have unintentional effect of increasing DMC.” One participant reminded us that some things are working; “the numbers of youth confined at DJJ are down—only 125 kids at the Broad River Road site. While recognizing that the youth at DJJ continue to be disproportionately minority, the reduction in numbers was lauded. Others discussed the wide discretion available to police officers that can result in behaviors such as “Black youth being stopped for minor infractions (e.g., no light on bike)” while similar behavior by White youth in a different neighborhood may be disregarded or provided as a positive safety tip.Participants noted that most youth in South Carolina’s juvenile justice system are there because of disturbing school charges. The importance of addressing school district policies and procedures, the roles of SROs, and state level legislation on disturbing schools were discussed. This concern is directly linked to ideas expressed by some participants regarding the importance of a sound educational experience as a means of keeping the youth out of the juvenile justice system. As such, participants insisted that public policy designed to correct delinquent behavior should not rob the youth of their valuable education. Others noted the importance of having policies and procedures that allow equal access to community programs (e.g., diversion programs such as drug court, arbitration).There was a strong call for programs to put in place prevention and early intervention efforts. As one focus group participant noted, “Why does a child have to end up in DJJ to have access to resources (e.g., scouting programs, spiritual guidance, service learning opportunities.” Another stated, “We need to intervene early. Let’s not wait until the child commits a crime to become responsive to their needs.” What are the Solutions and Recommendations for Reducing DMC? Participants suggested diverse strategies and recommendations for reducing DMC. The strategies offered are consistent with OJJDP’s database of best practices in DMC reduction. Thus responses are organized as follows: (1) direct services—designed to support at-risk or system-involved youth, their families, and communities; (2) training and technical assistance—designed for juvenile justice system, judges, law enforcement, schools, and other related agency personnel; and (3) system change efforts—designed to modify aspects of the juvenile justice system, policy, and other system-entities that may contribute to DMC. Table 9: Participant Recommendations for Reducing DMCDirect ServicesTraining and Technical AssistanceSystem ChangePositive youth development programs/ services-mentoring, afterschool programs, recreation, diversion programs, etc Diversity training; cultural competence trainingSchool discipline policies and proceduresPublic education campaign on how DMC affects everyone---not a Black issue/not a minority issue---a community munity policing;Disturbing schools legislationTown hall meetings/ youth summits Understanding DMCLegal consequences for irresponsible parentingParental/family support programs/servicesIntersection between trauma and juvenile justice involvementBuild partnerships btw public and private/business sectors/faith communityFatherhood/Men’s programs/servicesBuilding parental leadership/advocacy skills; how to engage parentsDMC advocates need to build alliances with politicians and state leadershipCommunity assessment center for children and families (behavioral health assessment) Supporting youth with diverse learning stylesEnsure equitable access to diversion programs/servicesCollaboration across programs/services Hire more minorities in leadership rolesResource directoriesBuilding neighborhood/ community capacity (e.g., transportation)Many participants offered that it may be more effective and/or efficient to call DMC reduction efforts by another name. Study participants point out that communities are interested in facilitating positive outcomes for all children, not just reducing the involvement of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. Others thought that a public campaign to explain that DMC is really about improving the community for everyone, not just minorities is the better strategy. Policymakers were advised to strategically invest resources in selected places, perhaps one community at a time. Participants offered that such efforts need to target specific local community needs as well as community assets. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe findings from both our qualitative and quantitative studies, along with a large literature base on reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system, make it clear that DMC is a multi-layered and complex issue that requires multiple strategies across multiple fronts in a coordinated effort to make needed reductions. The findings from both our qualitative and quantitative studies, along with a large literature base on reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system, make it clear that DMC is a multi-layered and complex issue that requires multiple strategies across multiple fronts in a coordinated effort to make needed reductions. The overall statewide quantitative findings reveal that black youth are arrested at a far greater rate than what would be expected given their population rate. At the time of arrest, black youth are more likely to be handled informally than white youth, but despite this finding, black youth are referred disproportionately to family court via the DJJ system. Hispanic youth are arrested at lower rate and referred to family court at lower rate than what might be expected given their population rate, however, once involved in the system Hispanic youth are processed through the juvenile justice system very similar to black youth. For example, Black and Hispanic youth are less likely to be diverted to programs that could result in a dismissal of their charges. Once in the juvenile justice system, the legal variables shape the processing. To meet the DMC mandate, efforts must be put in place efforts to prevent early and repeated contact with the juvenile justice system.In the qualitative section of this report, key informants and focus group participants offer directions to advance efforts to prevent and/or reduce early and repeated contact by minority youth with the juvenile justice system. From tackling racial and ethnic relations to understanding the ecological context that influences DMC to specific strategies for intervention, the study participants provide pathways to understanding DMC and to moving forward to reduce disparities in the juvenile justice system. There is tremendous support in the juvenile justice field and the research literature for the information and direction suggested by our study participants. Notably, Kakar (2006) offered a very similar list as our study participants as the core factors that account for the causes of DMC. Kakar lists the following factors:Systemic bias against minorities Differential offending patternsLack of adequate resources in the juvenile justice systemEducation and educational resourcesCommunity risk factorsSocioeconomic status, family structure and minority statusComplex interaction of factors As a part of OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide, located on the OJJDP website (2009), the federal government offers a collection of programs and strategies that have been documented as having been successful in reducing DMC through the DMC Reduction Best Practices Database. The database provides guidelines for choosing strategies and developing an intervention plan and presents an ecological framework for choosing efforts across a mixture of programs, services, and activities to determine the most appropriate strategy for targeting specifically identified DMC contributing mechanism(s). The database is organized across three programmatic categories: direct services, training and technical assistance, and system change efforts, the same structure used to present the many recommendations from the key informants and focus group participants in this study. Further through the National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC), the DMC Virtual Resource Center offers a forum for state and local leaders to network and to take advantage of a numerous tools and resources designed to reduce DMC ). Cabaniss, Frabutt, Kendrick and Arbuckle (2007) provide a review of best practices in reducing DMC that mirrors many of the recommendations offered by the study participants. Cabaniss and colleagues list the following strategies as ways to reduce DMC:Data review and decision-point mappingCultural competency training among juvenile justice decision makersIncreasing community-based detention alternativesRemoving decision-making subjectivityReducing barriers to family involvement, and Cultivating state leadership to legislate system-level change.Cabaniss and colleagues (2007, p. 394) point out that “DMC is resistant to change.” They state, as did the participants in our key informant interviews and focus groups, that in order to address DMC, we must have open and honest discussions about race and ethnic relations, acknowledging that inequities exist. Clearly there are numerous ready resources available to local and state leaders to enhance efforts to reduce DMC. So how can South Carolina take advantage of the wealth of resources available to advance its action to reduce DMC?A member of the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Council (GJJAC)/DMC Committee offered the following statement during the focus group discussion, “We need to create a statement that we passionately believe in ---to address DMC.” Other participants in this DMC Committee focus group offered that SC needs to strategically invest in communities (perhaps one at a time) to address DMC reduction.Rather than offering a litany of recommendations for programs and practices to reduce DMC, this report will start with an overarching recommendation that builds upon the ideas generated in the DMC Committee focus group. As the body in SC to advise policy makers on juvenile justice issues, the GJJAC is encouraged to create a vision statement that defines its commitment to DMC reduction in South Carolina and let that vision set the stage for a strategic investment through grantmaking (i.e., Formula Funding) and other supportive efforts to aggressively advance action to reduce DMC. As discussed in the background section of this report, South Carolina has invested millions of dollars in recent years in efforts to reduce DMC. While these investments have been monitored and program outcomes have been documented, it appears that there has not been a strategy linking funded programs with overall benchmarks that can be tracked in ways to evaluate how well the state is moving towards reducing and/or eliminating DMC. South Carolina is not alone in this regard. Referring to past efforts across the nation to address DMC, Cabaniss et al. (2007) state “What is not reflected in the literature is a systematic assessment of the impact of these efforts on the level of DMC within the affected communities…” (p. 394). A review of published reports on South Carolina’s DMC efforts (i.e., the January 2009 Juvenile Justice Programs Sub-grant Updates; 2009-2011 South Carolina Plan) reveal that reporting program outcomes by race and ethnicity is not the norm. Without race and ethnicity data, it is not possible to associate program outcomes with DMC reduction. Further without a defined grantmaking strategy that is linked directly to DMC reduction benchmarks, the state is unable to monitor how well it is moving towards DMC reduction.When looking at Relative Rate Indices in South Carolina and across the nation (see page 10 of this report), it is clear that despite more than two decades of efforts to reduce DMC, the problem persists. A recent article by Leiber and Rodriquez (2011), explores whether or not the mandate to reduce DMC is a failure. They note, among other things, that states often offer DMC funding that is not linked to comprehensive assessments conducted, that interventions are not funded long enough to evaluate impact on DMC, and that funded interventions often cannot be linked to causative factors associated with DMC. They conclude the article on a hopeful note that DMC reductions do occur and can be sustained when commitment and focused efforts are in place to ensure equity for all youth. Like Leiber and colleagues, this report takes a hopeful stance. South Carolina can make progress in DMC reduction. The recommended starting point is defining a vision about DMC reduction and letting that vision shape grantmaking and other efforts in the state to address DMC.Researchers and practitioners (Motes & Hess, 2007; Trent and Chavis, 2009) offer direction on how to create lasting community change that can inform efforts in South Carolina to reduce DMC. Motes and Hess (pps., xvi-xvii and 30-32) present a framework for community-capacity building that is informed by research, but also reflective of the lived experiences of university faculty and staff working as practitioners supporting community change in communities in South Carolina and North Carolina. They offer supportive direction for the following capacity building tasks:Reaching out to the community;Building leadership; Developing a plan for action;Obtaining needed resources; Building infrastructure;Measuring action; andPromoting sustainability. Trent and Chavis (2009) take a look at comprehensive community initiatives across the nation and summarize factors that relate to achieving the scope and scale necessary to generate community-level outcomes and factors that sustain those positive outcomes over time. They present six cross-cutting factors that fit with the framework of Motes and Hess (2007) for building community capacity. The factors offered by Trent and Chavis are listed below and provide the structure for the presentations of recommendations to the GJJAC that can advance efforts in South Carolina to reduce DMC.According to Trent and Chavis, building lasting community change requires having:A single entity that holds the vision of the change effort,Clearly defined roles and responsibilities,Alignment among interventions, resources, and geography,Meaningful community engagement,Competent leadership and staff, andStrategic connections between the community and the public sector A single entity that holds the vision of the change effort. The Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, along with its DMC Committee, is the defined leadership in South Carolina that is in place to responsively address the DMC reduction mandate. Although, South Carolina has a commitment to DMC reduction, there does not appear to be a clear vision about what success in DMC reduction would look like on the state level, nor what it might look like across counties and communities in South Carolina. It is recommended that the GJJAC clearly define its vision for DMC reduction and use that vision to support local and state efforts to reduce DMC, being attentive to factors related to both systemic bias and differential offending. Once the GJJAC defines what successful DMC reduction means (e.g. what are the benchmarks of success?), it will be in position to establish strategic grant-making efforts as well as address state and local policies and practices that influence DMC.Clearly defined roles and responsibilities. It is recommended that the GJJAC establish a funding framework to accompany its vision for DMC reduction in South Carolina. In doing so, the GJJAC would set clear strategic directions for grantees, defining the GJJAC’s roles and responsibilities as funder and those of the grantee. The intent would be to clearly lay out expectations for meeting DMC reduction, while allowing needed flexibility on the part of grantees to chart their own pathways to meet DMC reduction goals. A pre-proposal meeting with all applicants may ensure that applicants understand the vision and approach for the new funding framework. This pre-proposal meeting would fit with the current practice of SCDPS when they hold the annual Grant Application Workshop. The difference would be a clear focus on the vision and the DMC reduction goals.Alignment among interventions, resources, and geography. South Carolina has consistently selected target or focus communities for addressing the DMC issue. At times there has been dedicated funding to support DMC reduction efforts in the communities of focus. It is recommended that the GJJAC continue a focus on the three communities (i.e., Aiken, Charleston, Marion) that participated in the qualitative study for this report. Each of these communities expressed interest in addressing DMC, was able to list potential leaders and resources to address DMC, and more importantly all three communities have already invested time and energy in thinking about strategies to reduce DMC. As the provider of funding to support DMC reduction efforts in the state, it is recommended that the GJJAC develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) process that sets aside funding specifically for these three communities. Such an approach would build on the work already begun at the local levels as part of this DMC Study and would reflect the vision set forth at the state level, with recommended strategies and approaches to reduce DMC. Focused efforts could encourage the layering of interventions from direct services to training and technical assistance to systems change. A major conclusion in the qualitative study focused on needs to be addressed at the direct service level related to delinquency prevention (e.g., family support programs –babies having babies, absence male role models, relationship with schools etc, trauma assessment, youth activities); while both the qualitative and quantitative findings suggest the need for systems level intervention such as the use of structured decision-making (i.e., risk assessment instruments) to reduce subjectivity at the arrest and detention and or training and technical assistance to bridge cultural divides. Funding targeted communities would not prevent additional funding being made available to other areas of the state. Meaningful community engagement. Kakar (2006) recommends that all sectors of society need to be engaged in order to reduce DMC. When community members assume leadership and ownership of the DMC efforts, they are empowered to create the needed momentum to make community change. As part of the grant solicitation process, it is recommended that the GJJAC define strategies for engaging diverse community members that can generate “momentum” for the vision of DMC reduction. As recommended by study participants, the engagement of business, parents, and system-involved youth and/or at-risk for involvement in the juvenile justice system should be considered in building community involvement and commitment to DMC reduction. These strategies should be discussed in the RFP petent leadership and staff capacity. As the funder, the GJJAC is encouraged to give considered attention to who leads and staffs the DMC reduction effort. As part of the RFP process, it is recommended that GJJAC or its designees meet with the potential grantees to assess their capacity to pull together a team with requisite skills and resources and capacities to support the vision of the GJJAC prior to making funding decisions. Trent and Chavis point out that successful large scale community initiatives had leaders who had background and experience in systems issues. Service delivery experience alone was found to be insufficient to make lasting community change. Having systems leadership skills in place allows an initiative to build needed alliances, leverage resources, and advance other strategies to continue successful efforts once initial demonstration or pilot funding ends. Strategic connections between the community and the public sector. As discussed above, for community change to last beyond initial funding, the leadership of the initiative must have skills to build relationships across diverse entities to secure additional funding and long-term commitment to the vision. Successful grantees need to be able to forge relationships between the community and the public sector (e.g., build partnership with policy makers, government officials, etc.) to improve the likelihood of sustaining community change. In discussing the potential impact of empowered communities, Gilchrist (2000) states that, “[t]he strength of united action may exert sufficient pressure on decision –makers for a community’s interests to be successfully articulated and achieved. It is often useful to cultivate links beyond the immediate community, building alliances with individuals and organizations that enjoy greater access to power and resources (p.270).” It is recommended that the GJJAC assess local capacity for systems level leadership and where help is needed to build the capacity of funded programs to ensure that successful efforts do not fade away when initial funding ends.The vision and the strategic grantmaking process is indeed a process; a process that is beyond the scope of recommendations that can be offered in this report. DMC reduction is a multifaceted problem. Successful DMC efforts can be addressed incrementally toward broad goals or tackled comprehensively toward narrow goals. What is essential is that efforts be strategically focused towards key contact/decision points in the juvenile justice system and that efforts be able to produce measureable change. The quantitative study findings show that Black youth are disproportionally arrested, yet they have greater likelihood of not being formally referred to the juvenile justice system after arrest than White youth. As discussed earlier, there are multiple possibilities for why Black youth have greater odds of not being formally referred than White youth. One possibility is that Black youth are arrested for minor offenses, not warranting arrest. In any instance, the quantitative findings cannot explain the reason for this disparity. A review of narrative data associated with arrest may provide details regarding the circumstances of arrest and the decision to release a youth to family rather than make a formal referral could shed light on the finding. Findings from this type of qualitative review can lead to interventions that focus on the youth’s behavior (attitude, behavior) or perhaps the attitude, behavior of the law enforcement officer. As more data are gathered, interventions could be shaped to be responsive to a range of factors related to this finding (e.g., helping youth and law enforcement officers understand each other’s cultures; using risk assessment instruments to help law enforcement officers reduce subjectivity in arrests; creating sports leagues where police officers coach youth participants).Both the quantitative and the qualitative study suggest the need to look at factors related to the large numbers of youth referred to juvenile justice for disturbing school. A single school district in a county might take on the challenge to reduce disturbing school referrals. The district might start with a review of district and school level data on discipline and referrals for disturbing schools; set a goal for DMC reduction based on data review; offer training and technical assistance to school resource officers and school leadership on DMC reduction; build consensus and commitment to an established district wide DMC reduction; and offer direct supports to teachers and other school staff in handling disruptive students; offer direct support to parents and family members to support positive discipline at home; build a school wide program that creates a positive and caring school climate that focuses on teachers and other school staff, students, parents/family, and the community. Another community might want to focus efforts at a policy level by building the needed alliances to review the legislative statutes that define Disturbing Schools. Another consideration for the GJJAC is ensuring that DMC reduction be linked to an evaluation process. Trent and Chavis state that an iterative evaluation process which allows grantees to make changes or corrections as strategies and programs are implementing was an effective strategy for funders supporting successful comprehensive community initiatives. The goal of the DMC reduction effort is to make needed changes in DMC, not to stay with a strategy or approach that does not yield outputs initially expected. Linking program implementation to DMC reduction benchmarks can help guide needed flexibility to enhance positive program outcomes. Changing county and state level RRIs requires comprehensive community efforts at the county and/or state level. However, measureable and important reductions in DMC can occur without significant change in RRIs. In the first example presented above, measures linking attitude and behaviors to race and ethnicity will be important in measuring interim outcomes related to DMC (e.g., participation in sports league), while tracking the number of youth arrested and later released would be an appropriate measure for evaluating a systems level intervention such as the use of risk assessment instruments by police officers. In the other example presented above, indices of change in disturbing school referrals would be the metric to measure the success of this DMC reduction effort. Comprehensive county wide or state-wide efforts can indeed reduce DMC at the county or state levels. In the current RRI Web-based data Entry System, users can get both RRI data at contact/decision points and “parity” calculations that provide data on the exact numbers needed (e.g., 100 fewer detentions of Black youth) to eliminate DMC at the decision points. Such data can be very helpful in shifting community thinking about DMC, creating data driven policy discussions, and developing comprehensive community-based efforts to effect change.Several studies at both the state and national levels have demonstrated that DMC exists and that it is a problem which threatens family and community stability as well as the future and well-being of youth. At the neighborhood level DMC undermines community through:Distrust and suspicion among and within racial and ethnic groupsLoss of a critical portion of the generation to the juvenile justice system through institutionalizationDisharmony among community members Distrust by community members of the juvenile justice system and law enforcement officers Loss of human resources which equates to loss economic resources (lost education and employment opportunities)DMC also threatens families, family life and individual well-being through:Its effects on interpersonal relationships and the family structureDisruption (loss) of childhood Economic burden on families, particularly those already facing socioeconomic hardships Undermining educational advancementStigma and stereotypes applied to the individual and family membersCommenting on the importance of building community in South Carolina,Ed Sellers, then Chairman and CEO of BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina pointed out in the forward to the 20th Anniversary (and most recent) Edition of the State of Black South Carolina (Columbia Urban League, 2008, page iii) the importance of focusing efforts broadly if South Carolina is to advance a positive life course for youth in the state. Sellers offers that:…the research… shows that for a variety of reasons Blacks are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. It also shows that some of the less that average educational achievement by Black youths is linked to their over-involvement with the juvenile justice system. This finding is an important one as our state continues its pursuit of higher educational achievement relative to the rest of the nation.Sellers further notes in his foreword, “the issues facing our state cannot be resolved with just a stand-alone effort by the Black community nor will they be resolved through some edict from the White community. Effective resolution will require broader and more integrated leadership from both Black and White communities, working hand in hand with business and government infrastructure to affect the kind of change we need in order to thrive in the 21st century (pp., iv-v).Although our study participants were not prompted by the words of Ed Sellers, it seems that most would agree with his thoughts. As discussed in the qualitative section and affirmed in the results presented in the quantitative section, to reduce or eliminate DMC requires attention across an ecological framework that includes attention to the individual, parent/family, peer, school, neighborhood, community/culture, and formal systems/policy level. Such a framework can anchor work that addressing juvenile delinquency as well as systemic bias. It is a task for all in South Carolina.OJJDP, as well as the research literature, offers programmatic strategies to tackle DMC. This report offers a primary recommendation to begin the process of making DMC reduction a priority for South Carolina by creating a vision that can be linked to grantmaking and other supportive action that move South Carolina from assessing DMC to strategic action to reduce DMC. REFERENCESArya, N., Villarruel, F., Villaneva, C., & Augarten, I. (2009). America’s invisible children: Latino youth and the failure of justice. Washington, DC: Campaign for Youth Justice and National Council of La Raza. Retrieved from documents/Latino_Brief.pdfBell, J., Ridolfi, L., Lacey, C., & Finley, M. (2009). The Keeper and the kept: Reflections on local obstacles to juvenile justice systems and a path to change. San Francisco, CA: W. Haywood Burns Institute. Retrieved from BI%20Keeper%20Kept.pdfBell, J., Ridolfi, L. & Rahimi, S., (Eds.). (2008). Adoration of the question: Reflections on the failure to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. W. Haywood Burns Institute. Retrieved from BI%20Adoration%20of%20the%20Question_2.pdfCabaniss, E.R., Frabutt, J.M., Kendrick, M.H., Arbuckle, M.B. (2007). Reducing disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system: Promising practices. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 393-401. Children’s Law Center, University of South Carolina School of Law. (2009). Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC): Community DMC Reduction Initiative. Retrieved from Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (1988). A delicate balance. 1988 annual report. Washington DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. Columbia Urban League, 2008. The State of Black South Carolina 2008: An Action Agenda for South Carolina. Columbia, SC: Author.Devine, P., Coolbaugh, K., & Jenkins, S. (1998). Disproportionate minority confinement: Lessons learned from five states. Office of Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Gilchrist, A. (2000). The well-connected community: Networking to the ‘edge of chaos.’ Community Development Journal, 35(3), 264-275. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. § 5601-5784, (2012). Retrieved from , S. (2006). Understanding the causes of disproportionate minority contact: Results of focus group discussions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 367-381.Leiber, M., Richetelli, D., & Feyerherm, W. (2009, July). Chapter 2: Assessment. In Disproportionate minority contact technical assistance manual, (4th ed.). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. Retrieved from , M., & Rodriguez, N. (2011). The implementation of the disproportionate minority confinement/contact (DMC) mandate: A failure or success? Race and Justice, 1, 103–124.Melton, G. B. (2010). Keeping the doors to the community open. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 451–461.Motes, P.S., Billingsley, A., Smith, C.O., & Rivers, J. (2007). Racial disparities in South Carolina’s juvenile justice system: A look at two school related offenses, truancy and disturbing school. In K. Campbell, (Ed.), State of Black South Carolina 2008. Columbia, SC: Columbia Urban League.Motes, P.S., & Hess, P., (Eds.). (2007). Collaborating with community-based organizations through consultation and technical assistance. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Motes, P.S., Payne, T., Rivers, J., Billingsley, A., McDonald, J., & Smith, C.O. (2003). Minorities in South Carolina’s juvenile justice system: Understanding the disparities andassessing community readiness for change (Technical Report). Columbia, SC: Institute for Families in Society, University of South Carolina.Motes, P.S., & Rivers, J. (2006) Truancy and disturbing schools: A report on disproportionate minority contact in South Carolina (Technical Report). Columbia, SC: Institute for Families in Society, University of South Carolina.Nellis, A. & Richardson, B. 2010. Getting beyond failure: Promising approaches for reducing DMC. Youth, Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(3), 266. Retrieved from of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. (2009). Disproportionate Minority Contact. OJJDP website. Retrieved from , C., & Adams, B. (2011). An interpretation of the national DMC relative rate indices for juvenile justice system processing in 2008. National Center for Juvenile Justice for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from , H.N. & Sickmund, M. (2006) Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. (2005). Annual statistical report 2004-2005. Columbia, SC: Author. Retrieved from Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. (2011).?Annual statistical report 2010-2011. Columbia, SC: Author.? South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs/Online. (2012). Disproportionate minority contact in South Carolina. Retrieved from Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs/Online. (2009, January). Juvenile Justice Programs sub-grant updates, January 2009. Retrieved from Carolina Juvenile Justice Code Act of 1996. Act No. 383, Retrieved from , T., & Chavis, D.M. (2009). Scope, scale, and sustainability: What it takes to create lasting community change. The Foundation Review, 1(1) 96-114.U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). State & county quickfacts: South Carolina. Retrieved January 25, 2011 from A: South Carolina Juvenile Justice Funding 2001-2009Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1J01001University of South CarolinaDisproportionate Minority Confinement Project194,824.00yyy1J02001University of South CarolinaDisproportionate Minority Confinement Projectyyy1J03007University of South CarolinaDisproportionate Minority Confinement Project172,381.00yyy1J01007SC Department of EducationYouth Court46,122.00y1J00009SC Department of EducationYouth Courty1J03006SC Department of EducationYouth Courty1J01006Pickens CountyReSTART49,718.00y1J00008Pickens CountyReSTARTy1J03001Pickens CountyReSTARTy1J03003Florence CountyDMC Diversion and Prevention; Truant Explorers10,369.00yy1J04003Florence CountyDMC Diversion and Prevention; Truant Explorers10,369.00yy1J03004City of SpartanburgSouthside Prevention and Intervention Project53,736.00y1J04009City of SpartanburgSouthside Prevention and Intervention Project53,736.00y1J03010City of SpartanburgSouthside Prevention and Intervention Project53,096.00yGrant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1J03005Urban League of the UpstateGreenville County Right Step Program (DMC)149,833.00yy1J04007Urban League of the UpstateGreenville County Right Step Program (DMC)149,833.00yy1J05009Urban League of the UpstateGreenville County Right Step Program (DMC)149,833.00yy1J03008Greenville Family PartnershipCops and Communities Working Together48,285.00y1J04010Greenville Family PartnershipCops and Communities Working Together48,285.00y1J04013Greenville Family PartnershipCops and Communities Working Together48,285.00y1J04006City of LancasterLancaster Scholars Project54,519.00yy1J05010City of LancasterLancaster Scholars Project54,519.00yy1J04017City of LancasterLancaster Scholars Project54,519.00yy1J04008SC Department of Mental HealthFairfield Status Offender/Diversion Project48,832.00y1J05006SC Department of Mental HealthFairfield Status Offender/Diversion Project48,683.00y1J04015SC Department of Mental HealthFairfield Status Offender/Diversion Project48,683.00y1J02008SC Department of Juvenile JusticeTeen After School Centers (TASC)48,825.00y1J04011SC Department of Juvenile JusticeTeen After School Centers (TASC)48,825.00yGrant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1J04018SC Department of Juvenile JusticeTeen After School Centers (TASC)48,825.00y1J04004Boys and Girls Clubs of the MidlandsProject You Turn65,500.00y1J05012Boys and Girls Clubs of the MidlandsProject You Turn65,500.00y1J05014Boys and Girls Clubs of the MidlandsProject You Turn65,500.00y1J0300910th Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s OfficeEarly Intervention Truancy Program130,777.00yy1J0401610th Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s OfficeEarly Intervention Truancy Program130,777.00yy1J0700210th Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s OfficeEarly Intervention Truancy Program130,777.00yy1J04014Youth Advocate Programs, munity-Based Alternative to Incarceration132,501.00y1J05004Edgefield CountyTri-County DMC Arbitration Coordinator50,632.00yy1L05002Edgefield CountyTri-County DMC Arbitration Coordinator$50,632 y1L05003Edgefield CountyTri-County DMC Arbitration Coordinator$50,632 y1J06006Edgefield CountyTri-County DMC Arbitration CoordinatoryyGrant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1J05013University of South Carolina, Children’s Law OfficeDMC Information Resource123,945.00yyy1J06001University of South Carolina, Children’s Law OfficeDMC Information Resource122,867.00yyy1J06005 - 1J07001University of South Carolina, Children’s Law OfficeDMC Information Resource122,867.00yyy1J06002/ 1J04019City of SpartanburgSpartanburg Alternatives to Detention124,182.00y1J05015/ 1J06003City of SpartanburgSpartanburg Alternatives to Detention119,806.00y1J07005City of SpartanburgSpartanburg Alternatives to Detention92,279.00y1J06004SC Dept. Of Juvenile JusticeDJJ and the Children’s Law Center Detention Reform Initiative131,771.00y1J08002SC Dept. Of Juvenile JusticeDJJ and the Children’s Law Center Detention Reform Initiative131,771.00y1J07003City of ClintonJuvenile Detention Alternatives131,350.00y1J08003City of ClintonJuvenile Detention Alternatives131,350.00y1J07004Boys and Girls Clubs of the MidlandsThe Choices Program66,683.00y1J08004University of South Carolina, Children’s Law OfficeCommunity Programs: Implementing the Reduction of DMC175,191.00yyyGrant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1J08001Spartanburg CountySpartanburg County Juvenile Home Detention Program77,799.00y1Q01002City of SpartanburgAttendance by Choice Program (ABC)$24,483 1Q01004City of SpartanburgAttendance by Choice Program (ABC)1Q03001City of SpartanburgAttendance by Choice Program (ABC)1Q02001Town of St. GeorgeDiscovery Program$45,513 1Q03004Town of St. GeorgeDiscovery Program$45,399 1J04005Town of St. GeorgeDiscovery Program43,399.00y1Q03002SC Department of Mental HealthContempt of Court/Disturbing Schools$42,523 1J04001SC Department of Mental HealthContempt of Court/Disturbing Schools42,523.00y1J05001SC Department of Mental HealthContempt of Court/Disturbing Schools$42,523 1Q03003City of FlorenceAlternatives to Incarceration and Expulsion$30,000 y1J04002City of FlorenceAlternatives to Incarceration and Expulsion30,000.00yy1J04012City of FlorenceAlternatives to Incarceration and Expulsion30,000.00yy1L01008/1L02001Town of Batesburg-LeesvilleTown Action for Prevention$313,275 1L01009/1L02004Town of Batesburg-LeesvilleTown Action for Prevention$277,781 Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1L04001Town of Batesburg-LeesvilleTown Action for Prevention$175,000 1L05001Town of LexingtonLexington Keeping Every Youth Safe (KEYS)$83,195 1L06001/1L07001Town of LexingtonLexington Keeping Every Youth Safe (KEYS)$83,195 1L07002/1L08001Town of LexingtonLexington Keeping Every Youth Safe (KEYS)$90,808 1JS0007/ 1JL0001City of North CharlestonProject Youth Court$64,813 1JL02001City of North CharlestonProject Youth Court$8,776 1JL03001City of North CharlestonProject Youth Court$6,925 1JS0032/ 1JI0103SC Department of EducationHaving Opportunities Present Everyday (HOPE)$119,385 1JS02022SC Department of EducationHaving Opportunities Present Everyday (HOPE)$116,090 1JS0102SC Department of Mental Health/ Richland and Lexington CountiesViolence Prevention Initiative$269,985 1JS02012SC Department of Mental Health/ Richland and Lexington CountiesViolence Prevention Initiative$269,985 1JS03016SC Department of Mental Health/ Richland and Lexington CountiesViolence Prevention Initiative$269,652 Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1JS0103SC Department of Juvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Management System$326,177 1JS02016SC Department of Juvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Management System$326,177 1JS03012SC Department of Juvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Management System$326,177 1JS0104/1JI0105Aiken County Solicitor’s OfficeJuvenile Drug Court$128,156 1JS02019/1JS02020Aiken County Solicitor’s OfficeJuvenile Drug Court$114,399 1JS0309/10Aiken County Solicitor’s OfficeJuvenile Drug Court$114,399 1JS0105Fourteenth Circuit Solicitor’s Office/ Hampton CountyBeaufort Juvenile Drug Court$195,496 1JS02013Fourteenth Circuit Solicitor’s Office/ Hampton CountyBeaufort Juvenile Drug Court$135,851 1JS03005Fourteenth Circuit Solicitor’s Office/ Hampton CountyBeaufort Juvenile Drug Court$132,342 1JS0106University of South CarolinaSC Status Offender Project$190,840 y1JS02017University of South CarolinaSC Status Offender Project$157,482 y1JS03019University of South CarolinaSC Status Offender Project$155,683 y1JS0107SC Department of EducationYouth Court Expansion Initiative$262,877 1JS02018SC Department of EducationYouth Court Expansion Initiative$242,041 Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1JS03012SC Department of EducationYouth Court Expansion Initiative$203,989 1JS0112Allendale CountyAllendale Youth Court$98,671 1JI0106Allendale CountyAllendale Youth Court$81,069 1JS03008Allendale CountyAllendale Youth Court$47,867 1JS0119/1JI0101Richland County Sheriff’s OfficeGang Unit$130,723 1JS02007Richland County Sheriff’s OfficeGang Unit$92,429 1JS03014Richland County Sheriff’s OfficeGang Unit$92,410 1JS0122Darlington County Solicitor’s OfficeJuvenile Prosecutor$51,792 1JS02009Darlington County Solicitor’s OfficeJuvenile Prosecutor$50,025 1JS02031Darlington County Solicitor’s OfficeJuvenile Prosecutor$49,846 1JS0123Richland CountyJCAP Curriculum Development$14,950 1JI0108Richland CountyJCAP Curriculum Development$6,846 1JS03018Richland CountyJCAP Curriculum Development$5,632 1JS0131Aiken CountyJuvenile Services Investigator$56,486 1JS03011Aiken CountyJuvenile Services Investigator$26,486 1JS04002Aiken CountyJuvenile Services Investigator$50,982 Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1JS0134Greenwood CountyYouth Court$29,533 1JS03020Greenwood CountyYouth Court$29,533 1JS04012Greenwood CountyYouth Court$37,727 1JS03011SC Dept. of Mental HealthHorry County Truancy Intervention Program$44,007 1JS04008SC Dept. of Mental HealthHorry County Truancy Intervention Program$44,007 1JS05002SC Dept. of Mental HealthHorry County Truancy Intervention Program1JS0005/1JS0116City of North CharlestonSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$43,854 1JS02001City of North CharlestonSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$47,406 1JS0020/1JS0110Florence CountySchool Resource Officer$73,351 1JS02003Florence CountySchool Resource Officer$44,649 1JS0108Florence CountySchool Resource Officer$79,405 1JS02004Florence CountySchool Resource Officer$44,649 1JS03001Florence CountySchool Resource Officer$44,359 1JS0113Florence CountySchool Resource Officer$79,405 1JS02005Florence CountySchool Resource Officer$44,747 1JS03006Florence CountySchool Resource Officer$44,657 1JS0117City of CharlestonSchool Resource Officer$97,567 1JS02014City of CharlestonSchool Resource Officer$97,567 1JS03013City of CharlestonSchool Resource Officer$83,964 Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1JS0118Georgetown CountySchool Resource Officer$46,254 1JS02021Georgetown CountySchool Resource Officer$28,465 1JS0124Town of New EllentonSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$59,784 1JI0107/1JS0127Town of New EllentonSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$43,894 1JS0125City of North CharlestonSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$141,587 1JS02002City of North CharlestonSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$141,587 1JS03007City of North CharlestonSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$141,333 1JS0126City of Moncks CornerSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$70,709 1JS02025City of Moncks CornerSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$52,565 1JS03022City of Moncks CornerSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$52,565 1JS02008Lexington CountyJuvenile Gang Investigation Unit$172,003 1JS03004Lexington CountyJuvenile Gang Investigation Unit$125,980 1JS04004Lexington CountyJuvenile Gang Investigation Unit$125,978 1JS0211Bamberg CountyYouth Court$48,468 1JS03023Bamberg CountyYouth Court$48,468 1JS02015Anderson CountyJuvenile Drug Intervention Court$61,110 Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1JS03003Anderson CountyJuvenile Drug Intervention Court$61,110 1JS04001Anderson CountyJuvenile Drug Intervention Court$61,110 1JS02023Town of Ridge SpringSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$56,197 1JS03002Town of Ridge SpringSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$33,854 1JS04013Town of Ridge SpringSchool Resource Officer (SRO)$34,133 1JS02028Allendale CountyJuvenile Investigator/ Gang Investigator$60,127 1JS03015Allendale CountyJuvenile Investigator/ Gang Investigator1JS0129Richland CountyRCSD Drug Prevention Project$5,670 1JS0130Town of Moncks CornerRedirection for Success – SRO$59,409 1JS02032Town of Moncks CornerRedirection for Success – SRO$59,432 1JS0128University of South CarolinaGang Database Development and Field Test$27,720 y1JS04003University of South CarolinaGang Database Development and Field Test$27,674 y1JS0132Pickens CountyYouth Court$27,000 1JS02030Pickens CountyYouth Court$27,235 1JS05001Pickens CountyYouth Court$27,235 1JL0101Richland CountyAntiviolence and Crime Prevention Project$18,958 Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1JL02004Richland CountyAntiviolence and Crime Prevention Project$15,564 1JL03002Richland CountyAntiviolence and Crime Prevention Project$11,987 1JS04007Richland CountyAntiviolence and Crime Prevention Project$12,848 1JS05006Richland CountyAntiviolence and Crime Prevention Project$12,848 1JI04001Richland CountyAntiviolence and Crime Prevention Project$12,848 1JL0104City of SpartanburgRisky Business$21,629 1JL02003City of SpartanburgRisky Business$18,265 1JL03003City of SpartanburgRisky Business$9,834 1JL0105Greenville County Solicitor’s OfficeJuvenile Drug Court System Improvement$21,897 1JL02002Greenville County Solicitor’s OfficeJuvenile Drug Court System Improvement$18,820 1JL0106Beaufort County Sheriff’s OfficeJuvenile Crime Coordination$6,970 1JL02006Beaufort County Sheriff’s OfficeJuvenile Crime Coordination$12,771 1JS02029Beaufort County Sheriff’s OfficeJuvenile Crime Coordination$7,838 1JL02005Sumter CountyProject Info$5,222 1JI0109City of Belton Replacement of Temporary Holding Facility$4,988 1JI0110City of LibertyUpgrade and Renovation$10,645 Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1JI02001Greenville CountyJuvenile Detention Facility$750,000 1JI02002Horry CountyInteragency Juvenile Detention Facility$250,000 1JS04005SC Department of Juvenile JusticeDisproportionate Minority Contact and Mental Health$161,760 y1JS05005SC Department of Juvenile JusticeDisproportionate Minority Contact and Mental Health$161,760 y1JS05009SC Department of Juvenile JusticeDisproportionate Minority Contact and Mental Health$161,760 y1JS03027Sixth Circuit Solicitor’s OfficeFamily Court Prosecutor$49,317 1JS05007Sixth Circuit Solicitor’s OfficeFamily Court Prosecutor$49,317 1JS06003Sixth Circuit Solicitor’s OfficeFamily Court Prosecutor$49,317 1JS04009University of South CarolinaJuvenile Detention and Disproportionate Minority Contact Initiative$198,999 yy1JS04014University of South CarolinaJuvenile Detention and Disproportionate Minority Contact Initiative$198,780 yy1JS06004University of South CarolinaJuvenile Detention and Disproportionate Minority Contact Initiative$198,730 yy1JS04010United Way of Kershaw CountyKershaw County Youth Court$23,537 Grant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1JS04016United Way of Kershaw CountyKershaw County Youth Court$23,537 1JS06006United Way of Kershaw CountyKershaw County Youth Court$23,537 1JS03027SC Department of Mental HealthProject Safe Passages at Lexington School District 2$102,928 1JS04015SC Department of Mental HealthProject Safe Passages at Lexington School District 2$101,028 1JS05008SC Department of Mental HealthProject Safe Passages at Lexington School District 2$101,028 1JS06009SC Department of Mental HealthAlternative Academy Retention Team (AART)$50,334 1JS06011/1JI06001SC Department of Mental HealthAlternative Academy Retention Team (AART)$50,334 1JI05001SC Department of Mental HealthDJJ Mental Health Liaison$59,855 1JS06010SC Department of Mental HealthDJJ Mental Health Liaison$59,855 1JS05010SC Department of Juvenile JusticeDetention Alternative through Electronic Monitoring$77,564 1JS07001SC Department of Juvenile JusticeDetention Alternative through Electronic Monitoring$77,564 1JS07002University of South Carolina SCEffective Assistance of Counsel $126,470 yyGrant Funding StreamAgency/ Program LocationProgram TitleAmountFormula FundingDMCUniversity1JS07003Department of Juvenile JusticeDetention Reform in the Pee Dee and Western Piedmont Regions$160,101 Totals: Formula Funding$ 4,164,682.00 Totals: DMC - Formula Funding $ 2,048,832.00 Totals: Formula-DMC-University$ 912,075.00Totals: Juvenile Justice Funding$ 4,496,387.00Percentage DMC Formula Funding49%Percentage of DMC-Formula by University45%Appendix B-1: Summary results of Logistic Regression for Statewide SLED Arrest Data Summary Results of Logistic Regression on Statewide SLED arrest dataHierarchical Logistic Regression models were conducted, involving three blocks, primarily designed to examine the odds of a particular outcome, given various demographic factors and characteristics of the offense. The independent variables used for three Blocks are outlined below:Block 1: age and gender Block 2: type of offense, armed offense, and drug-related offenseBlock 3: race.The main outcomes that were examined for the SLED arrest data are:Type of arrest, examining how the juvenile was arrested:arrested on viewsummoned or citedtaken into custodyPolice action, examining how the police managed the case, given that the offender was a juvenile. Was the case handled in a formal manner, that is, referred to other authorities, or was it handled informally within the department and the juvenile released to his/her parents?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 characteristics of the offense. This block-by-block method allows for an observation of the ways in which the coefficients and odds of the other variables would change, once race was entered into the model. The predictor, type of offense uses the general categories of offenses used by South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, and includes crime against persons, and status offenses. 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. One of the tests conducted as part of the logistic regression is the Hosmer amd 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 the data. Where the Hosmer amd Lemeshow test results in a significant model it suggests that this is not a good fit. This simply means that the variables may not be the best variables to predict the specific outcome, and for this reason the results are to be interpreted with caution. This applies to the following models: summoned, custody, referred to other authorities. In all cases however, the models are significant.Summary of main outcomes for SLED ArrestsOn view arrestsIn general juvenile offenders were 4% more likely to be arrested on view than otherwise. Males were less likely to be arrested on view than females.Persons committing status offenses were less likely to be arrested on view than those committing crimes against persons.Persons involved in drug-related offenses were more likely to be arrested on view than those not involved in drug-related offenses.Black juvenile offenders were 35% more likely to be arrested on view than White offenders.Hispanic youth were 23% more likely to be arrested on view than Whites.Arrests by summonsIn general juvenile offenders were 6% more likely to be arrested by summons than otherwise. Youth 14 and older were less likely to be arrested by summons than youth under 13 years. Juveniles committing crimes against property and crimes against the public order were more likely to be arrested by summons than juveniles committing crimes against persons.Black offenders were less likely to be arrested by summons than White offenders.Being Hispanic was not a significant predicator of being arrested by summons. Arrests by warrantsIn general juvenile offenders were 6% more likely to be arrested on view than otherwise. Males are 41% more likely to be taken into custody with a warrant than females.Older juveniles were 20% more likely to be arrested by warrant than younger juveniles. Juveniles involved in drug-related offenses had lower odds of being arrested by warrant than those involved in other types of crimes.Persons committing status offenses and crimes against property were more likely to be arrested by warrant than those committing crimes against persons. Blacks did not significantly predict the odds for arrests by warrants.Hispanics were less likely to be arrested by warrant than Whites. Referred to other authoritiesMales were 22% more likely to be referred to other authorities than females. Older youth were 20% more likely to be referred to other authorities than those below age 14. Persons involved in drug-related offenses were 41% more likely to have their cases referred to other authorities. Blacks were less likely to be referred to other authorities than Whites. Being Hispanic was not a significant predictor of the odds of referral to other authorities.Types of arrestOn view arrests The results for on view arrests by specific racial category are presented in Table 1. The overall model was significant and the non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test indicates that the model is a good fit. Five factors correctly predicted 61.8% of observations. Table 1. Logistic regression model predicting on-view arrests ?PredictorBSE bWald X?dfpORBlock 1Gender-.24.0436.981.000.79Block 2Gender-.26.0443.741.000.77Type of offense19.603.000 Status offense-.26.0810.051.002.77 Against property-.17.0514.851.000.83 Against public order-.09.0552.831.092.92Drug.18.077.231.0071.20Block 3Gender-.27.0446.261.000.77Type of offense15.123.002 Status offense-.23.088.071.004.80 Against property-.15.0510.961.001.86 Against public order-.07.051.631.202.94Drug.24.0711.981.0011.27Race64.472.000 Black0.300.0464.371.0001.35? Hispanic0.210.104.351.0371.23? Test??X2dfp?Model X2132.137.000?Goodness-of-fit??9.758.283?Males were about 20% less likely to be arrested on view than females. Compared to crimes against persons, the odds of being arrested on view were less for crimes against property, crimes against public order, and status offenses. Persons involved in drug-related offenses were more likely to be arrested on view than those involved in non-drug-related offenses. The effect of drug-related offenses became more pronounced as race was included. Age and weapons-related offenses were not significant predictors of the odds for on view arrests. Being Black significantly increased the odds of a juvenile offender being arrested on view. Black offenders were 35% more likely to be arrested on view than White offenders. The odds of being arrested on view increased by 23% for Hispanic offenders. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of being arrested on view is 1.04 that of not being arrested on view. This means that offenders had about the same odds of being arrested on view as by other means.SummonedThe results for arrests by summons are shown in Table 2. The overall model was significant and the non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test indicates that the model is a good fit. Three factors correctly predicted 82.9% of observations. Three factors correctly predicted 82.4% of observations. All predictors were significant. Table 2. Logistic regression model predicting arrests by summons?PredictorBS.E.Wald X?dfpORBlock 1Age-.16.068.211.004.85Block 2Age-.19.0611.361.001.83Type of offense24.333.000 Status offense-1.13.111.321.251.88 Against property.15.066.311.0121.16 Against public order.25.067.981.0001.28Block 3Age-.21.0614.111.000.81Type of offense18.363.000 Status offense-.17.112.301.130.84 Against property.11.063.711.0541.21 Against public order.20.0611.451.0011.22Race82.742.000 Black-.43.0585.671.000.66? Hispanic.02.110.001.995.99?Test??X?dfp?Model X??115.316.000??Goodness-of-fit??19.666.003?As may be noted seen, the race of the offender had a marked effect on the odds for other predictors. Being an older offender significantly reduced the odds of being arrested by summons or citation, and this effect became more pronounced with the inclusion of race. Persons committing crimes against property and against the public order were more likely to be summoned than those committing crimes against persons. Gender, armed and drug-related offenses were not significant predictors and were thus excluded from the model. Blacks had significantly lower odds of being arrested by summons than did Whites. Being Hispanic did not significantly predict the odds of being summoned.Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of being arrested by summons is 1.06 (95% CI = 1.05, 1.07) that of not being arrested by summons. Taken into custody: arrest by warrantThe results for arrests by warrants are shown in Table 3. As may be seen, the overall model was significant and the non-significant. Five factors correctly predicted 79.0% of observations. Table 3. Logistic regression model predicting arrests by warrants?PredictorBS.E.Wald X2dfpORBlock 1Age.16.059.061.0031.18Gender.29.0537.241.0001.34Block 2Age.19.0611.521.0011.20Gender.34.0550.501.0001.41Drug-.46.0826.861.000.63Type of offense29.363.000 Status offense.42.0921.501.0001.52 Against property.12.054.751.0291.12 Against public order-.05.06.621.431.95Block 3Age.18.0610.851.0011.20Gender.34.0551.431.0001.41Drug-.47.0927.721.000.62Type of offense29.463.000 Status offense.42.0921.271.0001.52 Against property.11.054.511.0341.12 Against public order-.05.06.771.381.95Race6.472.039 Black-.06.041.751.186.94? Hispanic-.30.125.791.016.75?Test??X?dfp?Model X???99.635.000??Goodness-of-fit??9.996.125?The results show that the odds of being arrested by warrant were greater for males than for females. Older offenders were more likely to be arrested by warrant than younger offenders. Persons involved in drug-related offenses had lower odds of being arrested by warrant than those not involved in drug-related offenses. Juveniles committing status offenses were more likely to be arrested by warrant than those committing crimes against persons. Similarly, persons who committed crimes against property had greater odds of arrest by warrant than those persons who committed crimes against persons. Age was not a significant predictor of arrests by warrants.Being Black is not a significant indicator of arrests by warrant. Hispanic offenders had significantly lower odds of arrest by warrant than White offenders. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of being arrested by warrant is 1.06(95% CI = 1.05, 1.07) greater than that of not being arrested by warrant. ReferredTable 4 presents the results for referrals to other authorities such as the DJJ, by specific races. As may be seen, the overall model was significant. Five factors correctly predicted 58.2% of observations. All predictors were significant. Table 4. Logistic regression model predicting referred to other authorities ?PredictorBS.E.Wald X?dfpORBlock 1Age.15.0411.4431.0011.56Gender.21.0431.681.0001.24Block 2Age.19.0417.771.0001.20Gender.19.0425.121.0001.21Type of offense115.513.000 Status offense-.44.0830.811.000.64 Against property-.35.0561.361.000.70 Against public order-.49.0598.081.000.61Drug.37.0730.181.0001.44Block 3Age.18.0416.451.0001.20Gender.20.0426.001.0001.22Type of offense120.193.000 Status person-.46.0832.431.000.63 Against property-.36.0564.811.000.70 Against public order-.50.05101.511.000.60Armed.79.1431.671.0002.21Juvenile justice history.12.055.821.0161.13Drug.34.0726.001.0001.41Race14.882.001Black-.14.0414.601.000.87?Hispanic-.14.101.961.162.87?Test??X?dfp?Model X???180.668.000??Goodness-of-fit??18.088.021?Males were more likely to be referred to other authorities than females, and this effect was only slightly tempered by the inclusion of factors such as the characteristics of the offense and the race of the offender. Older youth had greater odds of being referred than younger youth. Persons involved in drug-related offenses were more likely to have their cases referred to other authorities. Blacks were less likely to be referred to other authorities than Whites. Being Hispanic was not a significant predictor of the odds of referral to other authorities.Given the predictors in the model, the odds ratio for being arrested on view was 1.06 (95% CI = 1.05, 1.06). Generally, offenders were only slightly more likely to be referred than to have their cases handled within the department.Appendix B-2: Summary results of Logistic Regression for Statewide DJJ DataSummary Results of Logistic Regression on Statewide DJJ dataThis section provides a summary of the results for the logistic regression on the DJJ statewide data. The main outcomes that were examined are based on two key stages in the juvenile justice system, namely the solicitor’s decision and the result of disposition or adjudication. For solicitor’s decision two possible outcomes were examined: diversion and prosecution. Once the solicitor decides to prosecute the juvenile, the juvenile goes before the family court and faces one of several outcomes. Three dispositional outcomes will be presented: secure reception and evaluation, probation, and commitment/confinement. It must be noted Reception and Evaluation (R&E) is an interim disposition, during which time the juvenile is evaluated to gather additional information and recommendations as to the final disposition of the juvenile’s delinquent case. As a result, R&E is usually followed by another outcome such as probation or commitment. It may be seen as a stage in itself but not all persons who are prosecuted are assigned to R&E. A regression analysis was not conducted to determine the odds of being waived to adult court at adjudication. This was because less than one percent of the cases were waived to adult court. It is important to note that per statutes in South Carolina, 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. The summary results presented here refer to the odds for the particular outcome, when all of the factors are considered. Solicitor DecisionsDiversionMales were less likely to have their case diverted than females. Juvenile with at least one prior contact with DJJ were much less likely to be diverted than those with no history. Persons involved in weapons-related offenses were more likely to be diverted than those not involved in weapons-related crimes. Youths involved in drug-related offenses were 23% more likely to be diverted than those not involved in drug-related offenses.Status offenders were much less likely to have their case diverted than persons committing felonies.The odds of being diverted were 2.89 times greater for persons committing misdemeanors than for those committing felonies.Blacks were less likely than White youths to have their cases diverted. Hispanics were less likely to be diverted than Whites.Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds ratio for being diverted was 3.10 (95% CI = 3.10, 3.11) that of not being diverted. ProsecutionMales were 47% more likely be prosecuted than females. Juveniles aged 14 and older were 33% more likely to be prosecuted than younger persons.Having a prior history with the DJJ increased the odds of being prosecuted by 24%. Persons committing status offenses were 62% more likely to be prosecuted than those committing felonies. Weapons, age and drug-related offenses did not significantly predict the odds of prosecution.Persons committing misdemeanors were less likely to be prosecuted than those committing felonies. Hispanics were 29% more likely to be prosecuted than Whites. There was no significant relationship between being Black and being prosecuted. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds ratio for being prosecuted was 2.02 (95% CI = 2.01, 2.02) times greater than not being prosecuted. Judicial DispositionSecure Reception and Evaluation (R&E)Males were more likely to be sent to R&E than females.Older juveniles were 74% more likely to be sentenced to a secure facility for reception and evaluation than juveniles below age 14.Youths with at least one prior DJJ contact were 30% more likely to be sent to secure R&E. Those with a status offense were less likely to be sent to R&E than persons with felonies. Persons with misdemeanors were less likely than those with felonies to be sent to R&E.Race and drug-related offenses were not significant predictors of secure R&E and were thus excluded from the model. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of being sent to R&E was 1.10 (95% CI = 1.09 1.11). This means that the odds of being sent to R&E were slightly greater than not being sent to R&E. ProbationMales were less likely to be sent on probation than females.Having a prior DJJ history decreased one’s odds of receiving probation.Youths with a misdemeanor offense were 30% more likely to receive probation, than those with a felony.Youths with status offenses were less likely to be sent on probation. Age, drug-related offenses, race, and weapons-related offenses were not significant predictors of probation. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds for receiving probation was 1.08 (95% CI = 1.08, 1.09) that of not receiving probation. This means that offenders had slightly greater odds for being sent on probation. CommitmentMales were 58% more likely to be committed than females.Offenders who were 14 and older were more than two and a half times more likely to be committed than younger offenders.Youth with a DJJ history were almost five times more likely to be confined than those with no prior history. Youths involved in drug-related offenses were less likely to be committed than those without non-drug-related offenses. Having a misdemeanor charge decreased the odds of commitment by 23%.Persons committing status offenses were less likely to be committed than those committing felonies.Race and weapons-related offenses were not significant predicators of confinement.Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds for commitment was 1.47(95% CI = 1.46, 1.47). This means that offenders had almost 50% greater odds of being committed than not being committed. Solicitor DecisionsDiversionThe results of the hierarchical logistic regression for solicitor decisions resulting in diversion appear in Table 5. While the overall model was significant, a significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test suggests that it was not a good fit model fit; therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. In this model, five factors correctly predicted 76.8% of observations. Table 5. Logistic regression model predicting diversion by solicitorPredictorSE Wald’s X2dfpORBlock 1Gender-.36.03131.751.000.70Block 2Gender-.26.0447.491.000.78DJJ History-1.89.042763.611.000.15Armed offense.42.1018.431.0001.52Drug.277.0618.681.0001.32Offense Type1344.812.000 Status offense-1.34.09243.321.000.26 Misdemeanor1.05.05450.961.0002.86Block 3Gender-.26.0449.181.000.77DJJ History-1.86.04651.672.000.16Armed offense.42.1017.931.0001.52Drug.209.0710.401.0011.23Offense Type1378.612.000 Status offense-1.39.0959.271.000.25 Misdemeanor1.06.05455.631.0002.89RaceBlackHispanic-.29-.23.04.1165.4565.084.57211.000.000.032.81.79 TestX2dfpModel X25567.948.000Goodness-of-fit80.358.000These results indicate that gender was a significant predictor of the solicitors’ decision to divert a case. Males were 30% less likely to have their case diverted than females, and as other predictors were added to the model, the odds of males being diverted decreased only slightly. In addition, having a previous history with DJJ greatly decreased the odds of diversion. Juvenile with at least one prior contact with DJJ were 84% less likely to be diverted than those with no history. Age was excluded because it did not significantly contribute to the model. Further, the type of offense was highly predictive of the likelihood of diversion. Interestingly, youths committing armed offenses were more likely to be diverted than those committing offenses that did not involve weapons. Youths committing drug-related offenses were 32% more likely to be diverted, and the odds for diversions reduced to 23% once race was considered. Youths involved in status offenses were 75% less likely to be diverted than those committing felonies. On the other hand, those with a misdemeanor offense were more than two and a half times likely to be diverted by the solicitor than those committing felonies. Age was excluded because it did not significantly contribute to the model.Race was also a significant predictor influencing the likelihood of diversion. Black were 25% less likely to be diverted than Whites and Hispanic youths were 20% less likely to have their cases result in diversion than White youths. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of being diverted was 3.10 (95% CI = 3.10, 3.11). That is, juveniles were three times more likely to be diverted than not diverted.ProsecutionThe results of the hierarchical logistic regression for solicitor decisions resulting in prosecution appear in Table 6. As shown, the overall model was significant; however, a significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test indicates that this model is not a good fit for the data. For this reason, the following results must be interpreted with caution. In this model, five factors correctly predicted 67.2% of observations. Table 6. Logistic regression model predicting prosecution by solicitorPredictorSE Wald’s X2dfpORBlock 1Gender.38.03148.991.0001.46Age.68.06147.161.0001.96Block 2Gender.28.0462.021.0001.32Age.22.0612.671.0001.24DJJ History1.48.032023.172.0004.43Offense Type966.112.000 Status offense.48.0585.621.0001.61 Misdemeanor-.75.04368.251.000.47Block 3Gender.28.0461.701.0001.33Age.22.0612.062.0001.24DJJ History1.48.031976.321.0004.41Offense Type962.462.000 Status offense.48.0586.091.0001.62 Misdemeanor-.75.04369.451.000.47RaceBlackHispanic.04.25.03.107.451.776.77211.024.184.0091.051.29 TestX2dfpModel X23804.137.000Goodness-of-fit304.797.000These results indicate that gender was highly predictive of the solicitor’s decision to prosecute. Males were more likely to have their case result in prosecution than females. Age was also a significant predictor of prosecution. When controlling for race, older youths were 24% more likely to be prosecuted than those under age fourteen. Persons with a DJJ history were almost four and a half times more likely to be prosecuted than those with no history. The type of offense was also influential in predicting the odds of a prosecution. Those with a status offense were 62% more likely to be prosecuted than those committing felonies; however persons committing misdemeanors were 53% less likely to be prosecuted. Weapons and drug-related offenses did not significantly predict the odds of prosecution.Hispanic youths were almost 30% more likely to be prosecuted than White youths, but being Black did not significantly predict the odds of being prosecuted. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of being prosecuted was 2.02 (95% CI = 2.01, 2.02) greater than that of not being prosecuted. This means that when considering gender, age, types of offense and being Hispanic, juvenile offenders were twice as likely to be prosecuted as to not be prosecuted.Judicial DecisionsSecure Reception and Evaluation (R&E)The results of the hierarchical logistic regression for solicitor decisions resulting in secure reception and evaluation (R&E) appear in Table 7. As shown, the overall model was significant and a non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow test indicates that this model is a good fit. In this model, five factors correctly predicted 77.6% of observations. Table 7. Logistic regression model predicting Secure Reception and EvaluationPredictorSE Wald’s X2dfpORBlock 1Gender.33.0628.591.0001.39Age.62.1321.461.0001.86Block 2Gender.21.0710.801.0011.24Age.55.1416.441.0001.74DJJ History.26.0715.261.0001.30Armed offense.31.0715.631.0001.30Offense Type55.302.000 Status offense-.36.0820.851.000.70 Misdemeanor-.49.0654.931.000.61 TestX2dfpModel X2139.756.000Goodness-of-fit6.927.437These results indicate that gender, age, DJJ history and armed offenses were highly predictive of secure R&E as a disposition result. Males were more likely to have their cases result in R&E than females, and this effect became only slightly less pronounced as other features of the offense were factored into the model. Older youths were 86% more likely to be sentenced to a secure facility for reception and evaluation, and these odds were reduced, but still remained substantial as offense type and history were considered.Having a prior history with DJJ also led to increased odds of R&E. Youths with at least one prior DJJ contact were 30% more likely to be sent to secure R&E. Type of offense was also a significant predictor. Those with a status offense were 30% less likely to be sent to R&E than persons with felonies. Likewise, persons with misdemeanors were 39% less likely than those with felonies to be sent to R&E. Juveniles involved in armed offenses were 30% more likely to be sent to secure R&E. Race and drug-related offenses were not significant predictors of secure R&E and were thus excluded from the model. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of being sent to R&E was 1.10 (95% CI = 1.09 1.11). This means that the odds of being sent to R&E were slightly greater than not being sent to R&E. ProbationThe results of the hierarchical logistic regression for solicitor decisions resulting in dismissal appear in Table 8. Though the overall model was significant, the Hosmer and Lemeshow test was significant, suggesting that there are issues with model fit. For this reason, the following results must be interpreted with caution. In this model, three factors correctly predicted 56.2% of observations. Table 8. Logistic regression model predicting probationPredictorSE Wald’s X2dfpORBlock 1Gender-.18.0513.081.000.84Block 2Gender-.28.0528.681.000.75Offense Type157.811.000 Status offense-.45.0748.241.000.64 Misdemeanor.26.0622.021.0001.30DJJ History-.13.056.291.012.88 TestX2dfpModel X2174.174.000Goodness-of-fit110.696.000Males were 16% less likely to be sent on probation than females, and when considering factors such as offense type and history, the odds for probation for males are 25% less than that of females. In addition, having a prior DJJ history decreased one’s odds of receiving probation by 12%. Youths with a misdemeanor offense were more likely to receive probation, than those with a felony, but youths with status offenses were less likely to be sent on probation. Age, drug-related offenses and weapons-related offenses were not significant predictors of probation. Race was also excluded from this model because it was not a significant predictor. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of receiving probation was 1.08 (95% CI = 1.08, 1.09) that of not receiving probation. This means that offenders had slightly greater odds for being sent on probation. CommitmentThe results of the hierarchical logistic regression for adjudication resulting in commitments or confinements appear in Table 9. As shown, the overall model was significant. Additionally, the model was a good fit for the data, as evidenced by the Hosmer and Lemeshow test. In this model, five factors correctly predicted 76.6% of observations. Table 9. Logistic regression model predicting commitment at dispositionPredictorSE Wald’s X2dfpORBlock 1Gender.62.0693.341.0001.85Age1.34.1762.291.0003.81Block 2Gender.46.0745.141.0001.58Age.98.1731.271.0002.65DJJ History1.59.09302.191.0004.90Drug-.56.1417.301.000.57Offense type44.742.000 Status offense-.54.0843.861.000.59 Misdemeanor-.27.0617.631.000.77 TestX2dfpModel X2673.066.000Goodness-of-fit2.076.913These results indicate that gender, age, type of offense and DJJ history were all significant predictors of commitments. Males were 85% more likely to be committed than females and these odds were reduced to 58% when other characteristics of the offense were considered. Also, youths with any prior DJJ history had much greater odds of being confined or committed than those with no history. Youth with a DJJ history were almost five times more likely to be confined. Older offenders were more than two and a half times more likely to be committed than younger offenders.As seen in previous models, the type of offense remains a significant predictor. Youths involved in drug-related offenses were less likely to be committed than those without non-drug-related offenses. Having a misdemeanor charge also decreased the odds of commitment by 23% and persons committing status offenses were 41% less likely to be committed than those committing felonies. Race and weapons-related offenses were not significant predicators of confinement.Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds of commitment was 1.47(95% CI = 1.46, 1.47). This suggests that offenders had greater odds of being committed than not being committed. Appendix B-3: Summary results of Logistic Regression for Matched Statewide SLED and DJJ DataThis section provides a summary of the results for the logistic regression on the matched DJJ/SLED data files for Aiken, Charleston and Marion Counties. ProsecutionPersons committing misdemeanors were less likely to be prosecuted than those committing felonies. Persons with a juvenile justice history were six times more likely to be prosecuted than persons with no history. Given the predictors in the model, the odds ratio for being prosecuted was 2.42 (95% CI = 2.41, 2.43). This means that offenders were nearly two and a half times more likely to be prosecuted than not prosecuted.DiversionPersons who committed misdemeanors were more than four times more likely to be diverted than those committed felonies. The odds for diversion were significantly reduced for persons with a DJJ history. Blacks were significantly less likely to be diverted than Whites.Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds for being diverted was 2.58 (95% CI = 2.58, 2.59). Solicitor decisionsDiversion The results for persons diverted at disposition appear in Table 10. As shown, the overall model was significant and was a good fit for the data, as supported by the Hosmer and Lemeshow test. Three factors correctly predicted 72.6% of observations. The three significant predictors were history, offense type and race. Table 10. Logistic regression model predicting diversion by the solicitorPredictorSE Wald’s X2dfpORBlock 1Misdemeanor1.47.1960.241.0004.35DJJ History-1.76.14165.431.000.17Block 2Misdemeanor1.45.1958.381.0004.27DJJ History-1.72.14154.881.000.18Black-.38.156.261.012.68 TestX2dfpModel X2280.593.000Goodness-of-fit3.585.611Persons who committed misdemeanors were more than four times more likely to be diverted than those committed felonies. This effect was only slightly tempered when race was included in the model. The odds for diversion were significantly reduced for persons with a DJJ history. Gender, age, armed and drug-related offenses did not significantly predict the odds of diversion. Blacks were 32% less likely to be diverted than Whites. Given all of the predictors in the model, the odds for being diverted was 2.58 (95% CI = 2.58, 2.59). Offenders were more than two and a half times more likely to be diverted than not diverted.Prosecution The results of the hierarchical logistic regression for prosecution appear in at the Table 11. As shown, the overall model was significant. Two factors correctly predicted 69.5% of observations. It is important to note that only two predictors in this model were significant, namely history and offense type. All other predictors such as race and gender were excluded.Table 11. Logistic regression model predicting prosecutionsPredictorSE Wald’s X2dfpORMisdemeanor-1.191.6651.661.000.30History1.80.15152.721.0006.03 TestX2dfpModel X2250.572.000Goodness-of-fit7.632.020These results indicate that the solicitor was less likely to prosecute persons committing misdemeanors than those committing felonies. The presence of a previous history with DJJ greatly increased the odds of being prosecuted. For persons with at least one previous contact with DJJ the odds of being prosecuted were six times that of persons with no history.Given the predictors in the model, the odds of being prosecuted was 2.42 (95% CI = 2.41, 2.43). Other findings. Several other models were examined for the merged dataset but are not all presented here. The reason for this decision was either that the overall models were not found to be significant, or only one factor predicted the outcome. The authors concluded that these results may have been due to the small size of the dataset. The merged dataset included just over 1100 cases for the three counties. In examining the disposition results such as probation and commitment, the pool of cases was further reduced to about 400 cases as these outcomes only pertained to persons who were prosecuted. Efforts were also made to run regressions to examine arrest type and the outcome of the arrest at the level of the police department. In both cases only one factor was significant. Race was the only significant predictor of on view arrests. Black juveniles were 70% more likely to be arrested on view than Whites. The offense type was the only significant predictor of the odds of being referred to another department. Persons who committed misdemeanors had reduced odds of being referred than those who committed felonies.Appendix C: Population Age 10 to 16 by Race for South Carolina Counties-1600200347980 -1466850367030Appendix D: Focus Group and Key Informant Interview Questions and County Fact Sheets Community ClimateDescribe this community.What is the community’s attitude about the DMC issue? How concerned are the community members about DMC?Knowledge About the Issue of DMCHow knowledgeable are community members about the DMC issue?What type of information is available in your community regarding DMC?DMC Findings(Share local/statewide findings). What do you think accounts for these findings?Community Efforts to Address DMC Tell me what kinds of community efforts are occurring to address DMC.How long have these efforts been going on in your community?How helpful have these efforts been? Are they making a difference in reducing DMC?How are these efforts funded?Who do these programs serve?Would there be any segments of the community for which these efforts/services may appear inaccessible?Is there a need to expand these efforts/services? Why?What formal or informal policies, practices, and laws related to DMC are in place in your community, and for how long?Are there segments of the community for which these policies, practices, and laws may not apply?Is there a need to expand these polices, practices, and laws? If yes, are there plans to expand? Please munity Knowledge of EffortsIntroduction: You know more about issues that others in the community may not know. Tell me about the average [insert county name] citizen.Using a scale of 1 to 10, how aware are people in the community of the efforts to address DMC? (1=no awareness; 10=very aware)LeadersWho are the leaders within this community specific to the issue of DMC?Who are the other leaders within your community?Using a scale from 1 to 10, how much concern is the DMC issue to the leadership in your community? (1-no concern; 10=very large concern)How are the “leaders” in your community involved in efforts regarding DMC? Please explain.Resources for Prevention Efforts (Time, Money, People, Space, etc.)Tell me about resources available to address DMC.Whom would an individual affected by DMC turn to first for help and why?On a scale from 1 to 10, what is the level of expertise and training among those working on DMC issues?Do efforts that address DMC have a broad base of volunteers?What is the community’s and/or local business’ attitude about supporting efforts with people volunteering time, making financial donations, and/or providing space?Are you aware of any proposals or action plans that have been submitted for funding to address DMC in your community? If yes, please explain.Concluding QuestionWhat should be done about DMC? What recommendations do you have to address the DMC issue?Clemson UniversityInstitute on Family and Neighborhood Life Assessment of Disproportionate Minority Contact in South CarolinaFact Sheet: Aiken CountyWhat is Disproportionate Minority Contact?Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) occurs when a minority youth group has a rate of contact with the Juvenile Justice System that is significantly different from the rate of contact of White youths. Moreover, it indicates that a minority group’s contact with the System is disproportional to their size in the overall youth population.Background on StudyThis study was commissioned by the Office of Juvenile Justice Programs of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety (SCDPS). It is being conducted by a team of researchers from Clemson University’s Institute for Neighborhood and Family Life, and the team is led by Professor Patricia Stone Motes. The study is designed to assess the nature of DMC in South Carolina and determine the main factors contributing to the over-representation of minorities in the Juvenile Justice System.DMC in South Carolina:The SCDPS reports that in 2007/2008, African American Youth made up 38% of the youth population (10-16) in the state. However, they accounted for 59% of juvenile arrests; 65% of youth in secure detention and 62% of youth in correctional facilities.The Relative Rate Index is a standard measure of DMC that compares the rate of arrest of White youth with that of minorities as a whole or specific minority groups. RRI data from the SCDPS show that African American youth are 2.5 times more likely to be arrested that White youth, and 1.38 times more likely to be held in secure detention. Minority youth as a whole are 2.45 times more likely to be arrested and 1.22 times more likely to be confined in correctional facilities than White youth. An Index of 1.00 would mean that the rate of contact would be about the same for minority and White youths.DMC in Aiken County:In Aiken County, 31% of the youth are African American, but this 31% accounts for 53% of juvenile arrests, 64% of youth in detention and 54% of the youth in juvenile correctional facilities. In general, minority youth in Aiken make up 34% of the youth population but they represent 69% of youth in secure detention.African American youth in Aiken have a relative rate index of 2.47 for juvenile arrests, meaning they are almost two and half times more likely to be arrested than Whites.Contact InformationFor more information about this study, please contact Patricia Stone Motes at Clemson University at 864-430-1623 or email pmotes@clemson.edu.Clemson UniversityInstitute on Family and Neighborhood Life Assessment of Disproportionate Minority Contact in South CarolinaFact Sheet: Charleston CountyWhat is Disproportionate Minority Contact?Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) occurs when a minority youth group has a rate of contact with the Juvenile Justice System that is significantly different from the rate of contact of White youths. Moreover, it indicates that a minority group’s contact with the System is disproportional to their size in the overall youth population.Background on StudyThis study was commissioned by the Office of Juvenile Justice Programs of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety (SCDPS). It is being conducted by a team of researchers from Clemson University’s Institute for Neighborhood and Family Life, and the team is led by Professor Patricia Stone Motes. The study is designed to assess the nature of DMC in South Carolina and determine the main factors contributing to the over-representation of minorities in the Juvenile Justice System.DMC in South CarolinaThe SCDPS reports that in 2007/2008, African American Youth made up 38% of the youth population (10-16) in the state. However, they accounted for 59% of juvenile arrests; 65% of youth in secure detention and 62% of youth in correctional facilities.The Relative Rate Index is a standard measure of DMC that compares the rate of arrest of White youth with that of minorities as a whole or specific minority groups. RRI data from the SCDPS show that African American youth are 2.5 times more likely to be arrested that White youth, and 1.38 times more likely to be held in secure detention. Minority youth as a whole are 2.45 times more likely to be arrested and 1.22 times more likely to be confined in correctional facilities than White youth. An Index of 1.00 would mean that the rate of contact would be about the same for minority and White youths.DMC in Charleston CountyIn Charleston County, 48% of the youth are African American, but this 48% accounts for 71% of juvenile arrests, 65% of youth in detention and 87% of the youth in residential placement/custody. In general, minority youth in Charleston make up 51% of the youth population but they represent 75% of juvenile arrests and 80% of youth in probation placement.African American youth in Charleston have a relative rate index of 2.86 for juvenile arrests, meaning they are nearly three times more likely to be arrested than Whites.Contact InformationFor more information about this study, please contact Patricia Stone Motes at Clemson University at 864-430-1623 or email pmotes@clemson.eduClemson UniversityInstitute on Family and Neighborhood Life Assessment of Disproportionate Minority Contact in South CarolinaFact Sheet: Marion CountyWhat is Disproportionate Minority Contact?Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) occurs when a minority youth group has a rate of contact with the Juvenile Justice System that is significantly different from the rate of contact of White youths. Moreover, it indicates that a minority group’s contact with the System is disproportional to their size in the overall youth population.Background on StudyThis study was commissioned by the Office of Juvenile Justice Programs of the South Carolina Department of Public Safety (SCDPS). It is being conducted by a team of researchers from Clemson University’s Institute for Neighborhood and Family Life, and the team is led by Professor Patricia Stone Motes. The study is designed to assess the nature of DMC in South Carolina and determine the main factors contributing to the over-representation of minorities in the Juvenile Justice System.DMC in South CarolinaThe SCDPS reports that in 2007/2008, African American Youth made up 38% of the youth population (10-16) in the state. However, they accounted for 59% of juvenile arrests; 65% of youth in secure detention and 62% of youth in correctional facilities.The Relative Rate Index is a standard measure of DMC that compares the rate of arrest of White youth with that of minorities as a whole or specific minority groups. RRI data from the SCDPS show that African American youth are 2.5 times more likely to be arrested that White youth, and 1.38 times more likely to be held in secure detention. Minority youth as a whole are 2.45 times more likely to be arrested and 1.22 times more likely to be confined in correctional facilities than White youth. An Index of 1.00 would mean that the rate of contact would be about the same for minority and White youths.DMC in Marion CountyIn Marion County, 67% of the youth are African American, but this 67% accounts for 91% of juvenile arrests, 90% of cases referred to the juvenile court and 83% of the youth in residential placement/custody. In general, minority youth in Marion make up 68% of the youth population but they represent 91% of juvenile arrests.African American youth in Marion have a relative rate index of 5.1 for juvenile arrests, meaning they are five times more likely to be arrested than Whites.Contact InformationFor more information about this study, please contact Patricia Stone Motes at Clemson University at 864-430-1623 or email pmotes@clemson.edu ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download