The Causes and Pervasiveness of DMC: Stakeholder Perceptions of Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System

• Author: Richard Tewksbury,Nadia T. Nelson,Cherie Dawson-Edwards
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Date: 01 April 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/2153368717735365
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Race and Justice
2020, Vol. 10(2) 223-242
The Causes and
ª The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Pervasiveness of DMC:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2153368717735365
Stakeholder Perceptions of
journals.sagepub.com/home/raj
Disproportionate Minority
Contact in the Juvenile
Justice System
Cherie Dawson-Edwards1, Richard Tewksbury1,
and Nadia T. Nelson1
Abstract
This study explores perceptions and awareness of disproportionate minority contact
(DMC) by stakeholders in juvenile justice, youth-serving community organizations,
schools, social services, and the faith community. This study is derived from a state-
wide assessment, which included in-person interviews with individuals that have
personal and professional relationships within the juvenile justice system. Findings
support the contention that individuals are either unaware of the prevalence of DMC,
have already formed prejudices about minority youth within the system, or do not
appreciate the degree of importance DMC has on the development of minority youth.
Keywords
race and juvenile justice, disproportionate minority contact, bias in the criminal justice
system, race and public opinion, youth justice, racial disparities in the juvenile justice
system
Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) refers to the overrepresentation of minority
youth at critical decision points in the juvenile justice system. DMC, as a concept, has
evolved over time. First referred to as disproportionate minority confinement in 1988,
1 Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Cherie Dawson-Edwards, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, 2311 S. 3rd Street,
Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
Email: cherie.dawson@louisville.edu

---

224
Race and Justice 10(2)
efforts to address DMC were codified in 1992 when it became a core requirement of
the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974. In 2002, the
DMC definition expanded beyond confinement to contact and began to include other
stages of the juvenile justice process. The JJDPA DMC amendments ultimately called
for states to intentionally address disproportionality in the juvenile justice process.
More specifically, in 2002, the JJDPA mandated that states not only query the issues
of DMC but also required them to develop and implement plans to reduce the dis-
proportionate representation of youth in the juvenile justice system. Failure of any
state to follow this mandate would result in the inability to participate in the Formula
Grants Program, which directly supports local delinquency prevention and interven-
tion efforts and juvenile justice system improvement (Hsia, 1999).
In an effort to assist states in maintaining compliance with the DMC core
requirement, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]
developed a general set of nine contact points where efforts to reduce or eliminate
DMC should be focused. These points of contact have been defined and are eval-
uated annually. The nine decision points include arrest, referral to court, diversion,
secure detention, petition (charges filed), delinquent findings, probation, confine-
ment in secure correctional facilities, and transfer to criminal/adult jurisdiction
(OJJDP, 2004).
In addition to providing a model, OJJDP outlined DMC contributing mechanisms,
which can be described as experiences that can accumulate throughout a youth’s life
and increase the likelihood of them coming in contact with the juvenile justice system
(see OJJDP, 2009).
There are two prevailing explanations for the cause of DMC: (1) the differential
offending or differential behavior theory, which holds that youth are dis-
proportionately represented because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime;
and (2) the differential treatment theory, which attributes DMC to the unequal
treatment of minorities in the juvenile justice process, whether it be inadvertent or
intentional. Scholarly literature acknowledges that, “the causes of DMC are complex,
interrelated factors from multiple levels of influence involving the individual, family,
communities, and systems of justice” (Kempf-Leonard, 2007, p. 82). The dis-
proportionate representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system is well-
documented in criminal justice, as well as adolescent development literature (Bishop,
2005; Kempf-Leonard, 2007; Pope & Leiber, 2005). Despite this recognition, how-
ever, there has been no clear consensus as to why DMC persists.
Related to addressing this lack of consensus is the OJJDP DMC Reduction Model,
which requires states to isolate, determine why, and intervene where DMC exists in
the juvenile justice process. Where DMC exists is determined by using the relative
rate index (RRI). The RRI was developed as a system of measurement after the 2002
DMC mandate. The system includes three components: a system map, a method for
computing rates of activity by race/ethnicity, and a method to compare rates of contact
for demographic groups at each stage of the justice system (Feyerherm, 2011, p. 37;
Feyerherm, Snyder, & Villamuel, 2009). The key component for states to remain in
compliance is reporting the minority rate of contact divided by the White rate of

---

Dawson-Edwards et al.
225
contact. This formula yields a number that theoretically ranges from zero to infinity
(Feyerherm, 2011). An RRI of 1 represents statistical equality. An RRI of 2 rep-
resents contact at double the volume, and an RRI of 0.5 represents a contact at half
the volume.
Once the decision points are isolated, states move into stage two of the model—
assessment, which serves to delve deeper into the decision points and discover why
DMC exists. The assessment stage is often accomplished by quantitative analysis of
juvenile justice system data. Extant scholarly literature does not show a great deal of
qualitative studies on DMC. The existing qualitative DMC studies are usually con-
ducted at the community level and focus on the attitudes and behaviors of various
stakeholders along the juvenile justice process. These studies are important for pro-
viding context for the quantitative studies that dominate DMC literature. The current
study derives from a statewide assessment of DMC that used a mixed methods
approach. The qualitative component of this state’s assessment is analyzed in hopes to
recommend promising, evidence-based strategies, and priorities for reducing the
contributing mechanisms of DMC across the state.
Literature Review
Extant DMC literature is mostly a mixed bag of quantitative studies examining why
disproportionality exists at the different stages of the juvenile justice process. While
not always clearly identified, DMC studies tend to focus on the impact race has on the
decisions of juvenile justice system actors (see Sullivan, Mueller, Gann, Spiegel, &
McManus, 2016). This type of empirical DMC research and closely related literature
is relatively abundant and is helpful for acknowledging the existence of racial dis-
parities and the need for systems change; however, several authors have called for
expanding DMC-specific literature to include more qualitative approaches (see Peck,
2016). For example, Kakar (2006) advocated and used a qualitative approach to study
the DMC problem under the premise that the issue could not be analyzed from the data
acquired within the juvenile justice system alone. Most available qualitative studies
have utilized focus groups and/or interviews that include system stakeholders such as
schools personnel, the juvenile assessment center, the state attorney’s office, police,
school resources officers, faith-based organizations, mental health service providers,
the Department of Corrections, parents, church ministers, and business representatives
(see Kakar, 2006). Since qualitative DMC studies are scarce, there is no ability to
present them thematically here. As such, they are summarized in terms of how they
correspond with OJJDPs DMC contributing mechanisms. It should be noted that in its
definitions, OJJDP recognizes the interrelated nature of the DMC contributing
mechanisms.
Differential Offending
Sullivan, Mueller, Gann, Spiegel, and McManus (2016) intentionally studied the
differential offending hypotheses by examining how justice practitioners, including

---

226
Race and Justice 10(2)
court personnel and police officers, understand weapon- and drug-related offenses,
and how it impacts their decision-making process (Sullivan et al., 2016). Differential
offending refers to the belief that DMC exists because minority youth dis-
proportionately participate in delinquent behaviors. In their interviews with court
personnel, Sullivan et al. (2016) found evidence that existing policy operated with a
presumption that juveniles with weapon- and drug-related charges are uniquely
dangerous. At least some of the court personnel appeared to adhere to the differential
offending hypothesis expressing that minority youth are more likely to commit
offenses that are serious, violent, and involving firearms or other weapons. Some also
suggested that differential offending was an issue cooccurring with poverty.
The police officers interviewed suggested that minority youth may attempt to
“establish or increase their social status” by having their weapons visible (p. 121).
This behavior may display differential behavior but falls short of actual differential
criminal offending (Sullivan et al., 2016). The study stated “ . . . minority youth are
more likely to be detected, located, and...