Under the "disproportionate minority confinement" requirement in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, States must determine whether the proportion of minorities in confinement exceeds their proportion in the population. If such overrepresentation is found, States must demonstrate efforts to reduce it.

Overrepresentation, disparity, and discrimination have different meanings

Overrepresentation refers to a situation in which a larger proportion of a particular group is present at various stages within the juvenile justice system (such as intake, detention, adjudication, and disposition) than would be expected based on their proportion in the general population.

Disparity means that the probability of receiving a particular outcome (for example, being detained in a short-term facility vs. not being detained) differs for different groups. Disparity may in turn lead to overrepresentation.

Discrimination occurs if and when juvenile justice system decisionmakers treat one group of juveniles differently from another group of juveniles based wholly, or in part, on their gender, racial, and/or ethnic status.

Neither overrepresentation nor disparity necessarily implies discrimination

One possible explanation for disparity and overrepresentation is, of course, discrimination. This line of reasoning suggests that because of discrimination on the part of justice system decisionmakers, minority youth face higher probabilities of being arrested by the police, referred to court intake, held in short-term detention, petitioned for formal processing, adjudicated delinquent, and confined in a secure juvenile facility. Thus, differential actions throughout the justice system may account for minority overrepresentation.

Disparity and overrepresentation, however, can result from factors other than discrimination. Factors relating to the nature and volume of crime committed by minority youth may explain disproportionate minority confinement. This line of reasoning suggests that if minority youth commit proportionately more crime than white youth, are involved in more serious incidents, and have more extensive criminal histories, they will be overrepresented in secure facilities, even if no discrimination by system decisionmakers occurred. Thus, minority youth may be overrepresented within the juvenile justice system because of behavioral and legal factors.

In any given jurisdiction, either or both of these causes of disparity may be operating. Detailed data analysis is necessary to build a strong case for one or the other causal scenario. On a national level, such detailed analysis is not possible with the data that are available. For example, national data use broad offense categories—such as robbery, which includes both felony and nonfelony robberies. More severe outcomes would be expected for juveniles charged with felony robbery. Disparity in decisions regarding transfer to criminal court would result if one group of offenders had a higher proportion of felony robberies than another group (since transfer provisions are often limited to felony offenses). The national data, however, do not support analysis that controls for offense at the felony/nonfelony level of detail. Similarly, although prior criminal record is the basis for many justice system decisions, criminal history data are not available nationally.

Thus, at the national level, questions regarding the causes of observed disparity and overrepresentation remain unanswered.

There is substantial evidence of widespread disparity in juvenile case processing

While research findings are not completely consistent, data available for most jurisdictions across the country show that minority (especially black) youth are overrepresented within the juvenile justice system, particularly in secure facilities. These data further suggest that minority youth are more likely to be placed in public secure facilities, while white youth are more likely to be housed in private facilities or diverted from the juvenile justice system. Some research also suggests that differences in the offending rates of white and minority youth cannot explain the minority overrepresentation in arrest, conviction, and incarceration counts.

Further, there is substantial evidence that minority youth are often treated differently from majority youth within the juvenile justice system. In a review by Pope and Feyerherm of existing research literature, approximately two-thirds of the studies examined showed that racial and/or ethnic status did influence decisionmaking within the juvenile justice system. Since that review, a rather large body of research has accumulated across numerous geographic regions that reinforces these earlier findings. Thus, existing research suggests that race/ethnicity does make a difference in juvenile justice decisions in some jurisdictions at least some of the time.

Because juvenile justice systems are fragmented and administered at the local level, racial/ethnic differences exist in some jurisdictions but not in others. One would not expect research findings to be consistent, given variation across timeframes and regions.

Racial/ethnic differences occur at various decision points within the juvenile justice system

Pope and Feyerherm found that when racial/ethnic effects do occur, they can be found at any stage of processing within the juvenile justice system. Across numerous jurisdictions, however, a substantial body of research suggests that disparity is most pronounced at the beginning stages. The greatest disparity between majority and minority youth court processing outcomes occurs at intake and detention decision points. Existing research also suggests that when racial/ethnic differences are found, they tend to accumulate as youth are processed through the justice system.

Pope and Feyerherm found that research reveals substantial variation across rural, suburban, and urban areas. Correspondingly, the concept of "justice by geography" introduced by Feld suggests that there are marked differences in outcome depending on the jurisdiction in which the youth is processed. For example, cases in urban jurisdictions are more likely to receive severe outcomes at various stages of processing than are cases in nonurban areas. Because minority populations are concentrated in urban areas, this effect may work to the disadvantage of minority youth and result in greater overrepresentation.

1999 National Report Series, Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System	December 1999