Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

In recent years, increased arrests of minority youth on school property have led juvenile justice policymakers to conclude that specific practices related to federal and state zero tolerance policies have become a significant source of disproportionate minority contact (DMC) and confinement. Originally enacted in the early 1990s to counter the increase in violent tendencies among youth as well as the fear of an increase in firearm-related incidents in schools, zero tolerance policies have become applicable to nearly all rule-breaking behavior that occurs on school grounds. In many cases, children punished in accordance with these policies are deemed by administrators as “stepping out of line.” Public school systems throughout the United States utilize zero tolerance policies, which call for severe punishments for all offenses, even transgressions minor in nature. The ideal behind these policies is deterrence from rule-breaking behavior through equal punishment for all offenders. Thus, schools use zero tolerance policies to reiterate an intolerance of rule breaking, no matter the seriousness of the infraction or its implication, perceived or real, for teachers and students. However, this blanket approach to school discipline has not been implemented without severe consequences for educational systems, the juvenile justice system, and students. Since many students subject to the consequences of these policies are of minority status, discussions of zero tolerance policies have been incorporated into the broader realm of the DMC issue.

Disproportionate Minority Confinement and Contact

In the late 1980s, the problem of disproportionate minority confinement in juvenile justice systems throughout the United States was brought to national attention by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice. In the 1988 Amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Congress required that in order to qualify for federal funding to assist in the development of programming for youth, states must take steps to address DMC. Specifically, each state must assess to what degree DMC exists, as well as develop efforts to reduce the proportion of youth detained or confined in secure juvenile detention facilities, secure juvenile residential correctional facilities, adult jails, and police lockups who are members of minority groups if their representation exceeds the proportion of such groups in the general population. For purposes of this requirement, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has defined minority populations as African Americans, American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 2002 modified the DMC requirement of the original 1974 Act as follows: “addressing juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.” This change broadens the DMC initiative from disproportionate minority “confinement” to disproportionate minority “contact” by requiring the examination of possible disproportionate representation of minority youth at all decision points along the juvenile justice system continuum. The general premise is that racial disproportionality throughout the juvenile justice system is a result of practices that begin with a minority child's first encounter with the police, as disparity tends to be most pronounced at the stages of arrest and referral to court.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading