Do Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Mandate Reforms Change Decision-Making? Decomposing Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System

• Published date: 01 July 2019
• Date: 01 July 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204018790667
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Do Disproportionate Minority

Contact (DMC) Mandate Reforms

Change Decision-Making?

Decomposing Disparities

in the Juvenile Justice System

Ellen A. Donnelly

1

Abstract

To reduce disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in their juvenile justice systems, policy makers

must alter decision-making processes through policy interventions. Effective DMC reforms should

ideally diminish the influence of race on processing outcomes and give more weight to objective

differences in cases such as charge severity or a youth’s prior adjudications. This study evaluates the

impacts of DMC interventions on secure detention and placement decisions. It introduces the

Gelbach decomposition approach to estimate unexplained racial differences in processing out-

comes. The method also illuminates the relative importance of case factors in reducing or aggra-

vating explainable group differences over time. Findings suggest DMC reforms can moderate the

effect of race on processing outcomes. When detailed, decomposition estimates show a greater

emphasis on prior contact for detention and legal factors and prior history for placement following

reform. DMC interventions may then help diminish unwarranted processing distinctions, and

decomposition methods can inform these policy debates.

Keywords

racial disparity, disproportionate minority contact, juvenile justice reform, evaluation, decomposition

Since 1988, the federal government has required states seeking funding to address problems of

minority overrepresentation in their juvenile justice systems. The Disproportionate Minority Contact

(DMC) mandate presently stands as the most extensive federal measure to correct disparities in

justice processing. An extensive body of research shows that non-Whites are disproportionately

arrested, adjudicated, detained, and disposed to out-of-home placement relative to their represen-

tation in the general population (Huizinga et al., 2007; Leiber & Peck, 2015; Piquero, 2008; Pope &

Feyerherm, 1990; Pope, Lovell, & Hsia, 2002). Minority overrepresentation is found over time and

1

Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ellen A. Donnelly, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, 18 Amstel Ave., Smith Hall 322,

Newark, DE 19716, USA.

Email: done@udel.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2019, Vol. 17(3) 288-308

ªThe Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1541204018790667

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

throughout the nation (Ward, 2012). With a few exceptions, states must regularly take action against

issues of DMC (Hanes, 2012).

1

To meet the core requirements of the DMC mandate, policy makers must introduce remedial

efforts that change juvenile justice decision-making processes at numerous stages (Office of Juve-

nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014). Some studies have shown DMC interventions

change the aggregate racial composition or size of processed populations (Davis & Sorensen,

2013; Donnelly, 2017b). The most effective reforms should also change how youths are processed

at the individual level. Successful DMC interventions should diminish the effect of race on decision-

making, after adjusting for differences in youths’ characteristics, juvenile justice histories, legal

circumstances, and other case conditions (Leiber, Bishop, & Chamlin, 2011). Reforms may likewise

encourage policy makers to standardize decision-making in ways that give more weight to the legal

characteristics of a case and prior contact with the juvenile justice system (Maggard, 2015). Under-

standing the relative importance of case characteristics in creating racial differences before and after

reform can further help to determine whether DMC reforms change how decisions are made.

This study evaluates whether intervention on behalf of the DMC mandate reduces disparities in

juvenile processing by transforming decision-making processes. Using juvenile court records from

Pennsylvania, a state known for its commitment to DMC reforms (Donnelly, 2017b; Griffith, Jirard,

& Ricketts, 2012; Kempf, 1992; Kurlychek & Hurst, 1998), this study first estimates the size of

racial disparities in secure detention and placement decisions before and after the introduction of

DMC reforms targeting these stages. Next, the study identifies the contributors to racial disparities in

detention and placement using the Gelbach decomposition. The technique breaks down racial

differences into explained differences due to distinctions across racial groups in average case and

defendant characteristics, such as seriousness of charges, family status, or legal representation, and

unexplained differences due to unmeasured factors, such as racial bias (Blinder, 1973; Oaxaca,

1973). The Gelbach decomposition has the additional benefit of showing how the effect of race

changes with the inclusion of control variables due to its derivation from the omitted variable sample

bias formula (Gelbach, 2016). When d etailed, decompositions show the re lative importance of

specific factors in aggravating or diminishing explainable processing differences across racial

groups. Such detailed decompositions readily show how the roles of current case, social, or demo-

graphic factors shift as a result of DMC reform. This study contributes to a growing literature on the

effectiveness of DMC reforms (Leiber & Rodriguez, 2011; Mallett, 2018; Nellis & Richardson,

2010; Peck, 2016). More importantly, it offers th e Gelbach decomposition as a tool for policy

makers and scholars to estimate disparities and evaluate correctives attempting to amend inequalities

in juvenile justice.

DMC in Juvenile Justice

In the recent decade, overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities has been present at almost

every stage of the U.S. juvenile justice system (Mallett, 2018; Peck, 2016; Piquero, 2008). Of the

13.6 million cases processed between 2005 and 2014, approxi mately 54%of referrals, 57%of

petitions and adjudications, a nd 63%of placements involve non-White s. Blacks are especially

overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, accounting for 16.6%of the general youth population

and over a third of delinquency cases (Puzzanchera, Sladky, & Kang, 2017). DMC is not a new

problem (Mallett, 2018). Minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system predated the

integration of public facilities and steadily grew throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Ward, 2012).

Differential involvement in delinquency has only partially explained racial differences in juvenile

processing (Huizinga et al., 2007; Pope & Feyerherm, 1990; Pope et al., 2002; for exceptions, see

Tracy, 2005). For decades, scholars have shown extralegal factors such as gender (MacDonald &

Chesney-Lind, 2001), geography (Feld, 1991), living arrangements (Mooradian, 2012), and school

Donnelly 289