The Importance of Evaluation and Monitoring Within the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Mandate

• Author: Jennifer H. Peck
• DOI: 10.1177/2153368716675923
• Published date: 01 October 2018
• Date: 01 October 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Importance of Evaluation

and Monitoring Within the

Disproportionate Minority

Contact (DMC) Mandate:

Future Directions in Juvenile

Justice Research

Jennifer H. Peck

1

Abstract

In 2002, the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of

1974 required that states participating in the Formula Grants Program must put forth

a good faith effort at addressing juvenile delinquency and the presence of minority

youth at all decision-making points of the juvenile justice system without the use of

numerical quotas. The last decade has brought about increases in states’ efforts at

identifying and assessing the extent of disproportionate minority contact (DMC)

across juvenile court contacts. Many states have already implemented or are currently

implementing intervention and prevention efforts at reducing DMC. However, the

segments of identification, assessment, and intervention are only three of the five

phases of the DMC mandate. In light of the progression of the DMC mandate since its

original implementation in 1988, the purpose of this essay is to spark discussion on the

future of examining DMC in the juvenile justice system through a researcher’s per-

spective. Various topics that relate to DMC are presented as ideas for readers to

consider, as they progress with their research agendas.

Keywords

race, ethnicity, disproportionate minority contact, juvenile justice system, police,

school

1

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jennifer H. Peck, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, 12805 Pegasus Drive,

Building 80, Suite 311, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.

Email: jennifer.peck@ucf.edu

Race and Justice

2018, Vol. 8(4) 305-329

ªThe Author(s) 2016

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/2153368716675923

journals.sagepub.com/home/raj

The presence of minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system has been a

significant issue for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers for decades. In 1988,

the Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) mandate (now known as the

Disproportionate Contact Mandate) was implemented as a result of the reauthorization

of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 (Bishop, 2005;

Leiber, Bishop, & Chamlin, 2011; Leiber & Rodriguez, 2011). In 1992, the identi-

fication of DMC became a core requirement of states receiving federal funding from

the Title II Formula Grants Program. In 2002, modifications from the JJDP Act

broadened the emphasis of minority overrepresentation not just in terms of confine-

ment but throughout all contact stages of the juvenile justice system. Almost 30 years

after its initial implementation, the goal of the DMC mandate continues to aim for the

equitable treatment of all youth regardless of race and ethnicity (Feyerherm, Snyder,

& Villarruel, 2006). Five ongoing phases of the DMC mandate attempt to examine

racial/ethnic disparities throughout each stage of the juvenile justice system. These

phases include (1) identification (identifying DMC), (2) assessment/diagnosis

(assessing the potential causes of DMC), (3) intervention (implementing DMC

intervention and delinquency prevention strategies), (4) evaluation (evaluating DMC

intervention and prevention initiatives), and (5) monitoring (continuously examining

DMC rates, trends, and reduction strategies).

Even though over 25 years have passed since the implementation of the DMC

mandate, its effectiveness is still up for debate (Leiber & Rodriguez, 2011; Nellis &

Richardson, 2010). In fact, the JJDP Act has not been reauthorized since 2002, and

advocates have advised U.S. Congress over the past 10 years that improvements should

be made to the Act (Nellis, 2011). Regardless of this issue, many states have put forth a

charitable effort in addressing racial/ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system in

regard to identification, assessment, and intervention to stay in compliance with the

mandate’s requirements. Still though, innovative research is greatly needed to under-

stand the extent to which there has been movement into the later phases of the mandate.

Even though the intervention and monitoring phases are significant components of

the DMC mandate, there are also understudied subtopics that are pertinent to the

continued mission of reducing minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice

system. These subtopics present unique opportunities for readers to consider regarding

the current state of the research on DMC, and what next steps ought to be taken in

moving forward with DMC inquiries. The arguments presented below accentuate the

need to understand decision makers’ views of the juvenile justice system, identify and

attenuate implicit biases in juvenile court personnel, comprehend the role of the police

in DMC, examine the influence of schools in contributing to DMC, address the risks

and need of juveniles from various racial/ethnic backgrounds, incorporate additional

data sources and types of juvenile court outcomes, and recognize the important

intersection of academia and juvenile justice agencies.

Stated differently, this essay is considered a melting pot of various research topics

that should be addressed in future studies of DMC. The text provides ideas on ‘‘what is

missing’’ in the literature surrounding DMC, ‘‘where do go from here’’ in tackling

issues with DMC, and fruitful areas for readers to consider and integrate into their own

306 Race and Justice 8(4)