Download - Burns Institute How Do We Get There? Successful Strategies to Reduce Racial/Ethnic Disparities
Burns Institute How Do We Get There?
Successful Strategies to Reduce Racial/Ethnic Disparities
Common Barriers
Growing Numbers/”Gang” Problems Availability/Effectiveness of CBO’s YOC Persistence Unclear Goals re: Disparities Social Problem Lack of Transparency/Power Sharing Lack of Sense of Urgency
Failure to Admit Issue
How Has Your Jurisdiction Defined Success?
Reducing Numbers of Youth of Color in Detention?
Reducing Percentage of Youth of Color in Detention?
Reducing the Inappropriate Detention of Youth of Color? “Majority/Minority” Jurisdictions
Demographics
Youth population within County Total Youth Population Detention Eligible Youth Population Disaggregate By
Race Ethnicity Gender Geography Offense
Data Informed Conversation
African American youth represent 3% of the general youth population, but 11% of youth in detention. Latino youth represent 24% of the general youth population but 59% of youth in detention.
Youth in General Population
44%
3%24%
29%
White African American Latino API/Other
Youth Detained at Juvenile Hall
21%
11%
9%
59%
White African American Latino API/Other
Percent of Youth in General Pop. vs. Referred to and Detained at JH
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
AfAmYouth
API/OtherYouth
LatinoYouth
WhiteYouth
Ethnicity
Pe
rce
nt General Pop.
Referred to JH
Detained at JH
African American and Latino Youth are over-represented.
Data Informed Conversation
San Francisco:
Percentage of Admissions that are African-American Youth
56%56%57%55%
0%
50%
100%
2001 2002 2003 2004
San Francisco:
African-American Admissions to Detention
1219
1273
1147
1053
1000
1100
1200
1300
2001 2002 2003 2004
Percentage
Actual Numbers
Year Afr Amer Asi Amer Caucas Hispan Nat Amer Unk Total
200217
(10.3%)1
(1%)53
(32.1%)79
(47.9%)15
(9.1%)1
(1%) 165
200317
(9.7%)1
(1%)54
(30.7%)84
(47.7%)19
(10.8%)1
(1%) 176
200417
(9.8%)1
(1%)53
(30.6%)82
(47.4%)18
(10.4%)1
(1%) 173
200515
(11%1
(1%)41
(30.1%)64
(47.1%)14
(10.3%)1
(1%) 136
200614
(11%)1
(1%)31
(24.4%)69
(54.3%)11
(8.7%)1
(1%) 127
200713
(11%)1
(1%)32
(27.1%)62
(52.5%)10
(8.5%)1
(1%) 118
Yearly Avg. Detention Count By Ethnicity
Has Your Jurisdiction Reached Consensus on Purpose for Detention?
Statutory Risk of Flight/Reoffense
Policy v. Discretionary Holds Stabilization/No Other Alternative Provision of Services Punishment How Do We Measure
Purpose of Detention Statement
Recognizing that even under the best of circumstances detention can have a significant negative impact on a juvenile; the Executive Committee adopts a statement that supports the use of detention for juveniles charged with a crime only under narrowly prescribed circumstances while simultaneously developing less restrictive alternatives in the community.
Is Your Governance Structure Geared for Success re: Disparities
Structure of Governing Collaborative Level of cohesion among stakeholders
Involvement of Supervisors/Line Staff Involvement of Community
Dynamics of the Governing Collaborative Capacity and ability to access and analyze data
strategically Meeting Structure and Dynamics
Level of political will within jurisdiction to address the problem
“Yeah, but” Culture
Is Your Governance Structure Geared for Success re: Disparities Is There Numerical Disparity? What Accounts for the Disparity?
Offense Driven DV, Robbery, Assaults
Structural Administrative Decisions Warrants, FTA’s & Placement Failures Policy or Discretionary Holds
Economic, Social & Educational
Does County X Need to Engage the Issue of Racial and Ethnic Disparities
Identifying: Is There Numerical Disparity? “Snapshot” vs. Trend Tracking
Digging Deeper: What Accounts for the Disparity? Disparities by offense Structural System Based Decisions
Policy v. Discretionary Holds Inefficiency with Current Practices
Establishing an Institutional Response
Digging Deeper : Disparities by Offense
Admissions targeted with ATD. Need to track progress
Additional offenses identified to dig deeper into and to track.
Digging Deeper into Disparities by Offense:Probation Violations
1. Prior analyses reveal PV’s have contributed significantly to detention over time.
2. Admissions for PV’s are even more disproportionate than overall admissions to detention
3. Policy/Practice change to target PVs has been implemented and we want to track whether the change may have impacted admissions.
Establishing an Institutional Response
You’ve got data…You know where disparities exist…You know where policy/practice change
could impact the numbers…
Now What?
Establishing an Institutional Response
What is your local vehicle to: Dig Deeper into factors contributing to
disproportionality
Strategize about policy and practice change to reduce racial and ethnic disparities
Adopt Strategy
Indicator to Monitor effectiveness of each strategy in reducing racial disparities
Document Changes in reducing racial disparities
Digging Deeper by Offense: Probation Violations (PV) Tracking Progress
Probation Violation Admission Trends
44 47 44 39 51 46 41 39
20 13 17 2622 19 16 14
9378 72
102107
9580 77
68 11
68
11
5 6
0
50
100
150
200
Q1 2006 Q2 2006 Q3 2006 Q4 2006 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2007
White African American Latino Native American Other
7/1/07: Graduated Sanctions implemented
11/6/06: ATD for JIPS PV’s implemented
•How are PV admissions increasing or decreasing over time?
•How are YOC admissions increasing or decreasing?
•Have policy/practice interventions had an impact?
Court Notification Calls Attempted (723 youth*)
118 86
264
238
10
7
0
100
200
300
400
Yes No
White Black Other
Of the total youth called regarding their Court Appearances, 55% appeared.
Court Notification Calls Not Attempted** (109 youth)
614
37
511
0
0
25
50
75
Yes No
white Black Other
Of the total youth not called regarding their Court Appearances, 40% appeared.
Digging Deeper: Current PracticeBaltimore Court Notification
Does contact with youth/family and type of contact (Person, message) impact their attendance at Court?
• Will the % of attendees be greater than 55% when contact is made?
• Will the % of attendees be less than 55% when contact is not made?
Digging Deeper: Current PracticeBaltimore Court Notification
Contact Made and Court Appearance (720 Youth)
7531 26 21 17 32
189
44 6430
111
63
0
100
200
300
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Person Voicemail/Message No Contact Made
White Black
Of all 358 youth/families contacted in person, 74% appeared in Court.
Of all 252 Black youth/Families contacted in person, 75% appeared in Court.
Of all 190 youth/families not contacted at all, 25% appeared in court.
Of all 141 Black youth/families not contacted, 21% appeared in court.
Digging Deeper: Current PracticeBaltimore Court Notification
2004 Youth Released Within 40 HoursAggravated Battery Charge
*Source – 2004 Peoria County JDC YTD Report 11/04
64
41
26
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
School
Ag. Battery General
Police
(49%)
78% A/A Boys
SURVEY RESULTS470 STUDENTS Survey conducted 9/03
5th & 8th GRADE(Concerns included)
Fear of KidnappingFear of RapeFear of Shooting /Killing
FRESHMAN(Concerns included)
GangsDrugsFear of Shooting /Killing
COMMON THEME: FIGHTING
Nearly half (45.8%) of the students reported they would use violence as an approach to deal with anger toward someone.
SOLUTION
Alternative Discipline Options for Schools
BARJ
35% Reduction56
6
1
32
9
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
AA C H
2004/05
2005/06
89%
78%
10%22%
1%
Phone: 415.321-4100 x 111 Website:
www.burnsinstitute.org