July 2002

This study is the seventh report published by Building Blocks for Youth, a multi-year initiative to reduce over-representation and disparate treatment that affect youth of color in the justice system and to promote rational and effective juvenile justice policies. The initiative has five major components:

1.  Research on the disparate impact of the justice system on youth of color and related topics such as the effects of adult court transfer legislation in the states, the privatization of juvenile justice facilities by for-profit corporations, and the media’s portrayal of crime, youth and race.
   
2. Site-based work to achieve measurable reductions in over-representation and disparate treatment of youth of color, focusing on (a) decision-making at critical points in the justice system, including arrest, detention, adjudication, and disposition; (b) over-incarceration; (c) prosecution of youth in adult criminal court; (d) zero tolerance policies, (e) Native American youth, and (f) police accountability.
   
3. Direct advocacy on behalf of youth of color in the justice system, particularly on issues that disproportionately affect youth of color, such as conditions of confinement in jails, prisons, juvenile facilities, and access to counsel and adequacy of representation in juvenile court.
   
4. Constituency-building among African-American, Latino, Native American, Asian and other minority organizations, youth organizations, state-based advocacy groups, and organizations in the civil rights, medical, mental health, legal, law enforcement, child welfare, human rights, religious, victim’s rights, and domestic violence areas, at the national, state, and local levels.
   
5. Development of communications strategies to provide timely, accurate, and relevant information to these constituencies, public officials, policymakers, the media, and the public.

The partners in the initiative are the Youth Law Center, American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center/National Juvenile Defender Center, Juvenile Law Center, Justice Policy Institute, Minorities in Law Enforcement, and Pretrial Services Resource Center.

This document was prepared by Francisco A. Villarruel and Nancy E. Walker with Pamela Minifee, Omara Rivera-Vázquez, Susan Peterson, and Kristen Perry of the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families at Michigan State University. The Building Blocks initiative is supported by grants from the Annie E. Casey, Ford, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, William T. Grant, Charles Stewart Mott, and Rockefeller Foundations, the Criminal Justice Initiative of the Open Society Institute, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or of the supporting foundations.

The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals and groups for their able assistance in preparing this report: the core working group for this report from the Building Blocks for Youth initiative (Stephanie Cabrera, Alexis Mazón, Valerie McDowell, Marcia Rincón-Gallardo, Liz Ryan, Marc Schindler, and Mark Soler); report respondents (Martin Ahumada, Angela Arboleda, Jennifer Arroyo, Alejandro Blu Cantagallo, Luis Cardona, Josh Cristianson, Jesus González, Chino Hardin, Sandra Jimenez, Bibi Lobo, Evette Soto Maldonado, Stephanie Mintz, Alex Montaner, José Reyes, Marlene Sánchez, Vincent Schiraldi, Javier Stauring, Gerardo Velázquez, José A. Viloria, Marie Watteau, and Jason Ziedenberg); staff and students of the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families at Michigan State University (Linda Chapel-Jackson, Thomas Judd, Kathleen Lau, Catherine Nachtman, and Jessica Roman); and departments in U.S. states that responded to our survey (Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections; California Department of the Youth Authority Research Division; California Governor’s Office Criminal Justice Planning, J.J.D.P. Branch; Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority; Michigan Bureau of Juvenile Justice; New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission; New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department; New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services; North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center, Governor’s Crime Commission; Ohio Department of Youth Services; and Dallas County (Texas) Juvenile Justice Center).

Latino communities, and their youth in particular, are increasingly singled out by the criminal justice system. Harsh and disparate treatment at all stages of the justice system (including police stop, arrest, detention, waiver to adult criminal court, and sentencing) is a grim reality for many Latinos. Racial and ethnic disparities in the system are compounded by an unprecedented rate of construction of new juvenile facilities, jails and prisons across the country. These facts spell trouble for Latino and Latina youth, who are part of the largest and fastest-growing racial/ethnic group in the United States.

Available research data indicate that Latino/a youth, like other youth of color, receive harsher treatment than White youth charged with the same offenses. Unfortunately, the data available are limited because states do not routinely and systematically collect data that separate Latino/a youth from White youth, or distinguish among Latino/a youth of Mexican, Caribbean, Central American, or South American ancestry.

The absence of comprehensive data makes it impossible to determine the full extent of disparate and punitive treatment of Latino/a youth at key decision points in the justice system, or to fully develop more comprehensive and effective policies to remedy the disparities. The failure to collect separate data on Latino/a youth also inflates the incarceration rate of non-Hispanic White youth, further masking disparities in confinement of all youth of color.

The lack of bilingual staff and services in many agencies and institutions can make the juvenile justice experience incomprehensible-and nightmarish-for youth and their families with limited English proficiency.

Further, lack of cultural competency among justice system personnel can lead to misunderstandings. For example, while avoiding direct eye contact is considered respectful in many Latin nations, it can be and is viewed as a sign of disrespect or deceptiveness by White authority figures such as judges, district attorneys, or probation officers.

Immigrant youth, the majority of whom are Latino/a, face severe hardships if they come to the attention of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Oftentimes they experience psychological trauma and long periods of detention in jails and other facilities, as well as deportation and permanent separation from their families. Further, once Latino/a youth are taken into custody, their parents are afraid to have contact with authorities if the parents are not U.S. citizens and are subject to deportation. Even those Latino/a parents who are U.S. citizens resist invasions of their privacy and having to prove their citizenship. In addition, it is difficult or, in some cases, impossible for youth in migrant families, such as farmworker families, to comply with probation requirements, turning minor misbehaviors into serious violations.

1. To provide a picture of Latino/a youth in the U.S. justice system today, with a particular focus on racial and ethnic disparities,
2. To describe barriers to collection of comprehensive data regarding Latino/a youth in the system, and
3. To initiate a “call to action” for Latino communities, policy makers, service providers, advocates, researchers, parents, and youth to address the problems outlined in this report.

1. A review of the research literature and available data on Latino/a and other youth of color in the justice system.
2. A survey of selected states with significant Latino/a populations (at least 12% of total population) and states with growing Latino/a populations (at least 1-8% growth since 1990).
3. Vignettes from organizations serving Latino/a youth, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, police departments in cities across the United States, and news sources including the Los Angeles Times, Reuters News Service, and the Oakland Tribune.
4. Two meetings in Washington, DC, and discussions with representatives of a variety of Latino/a and youth-serving organizations, including such national and local community organizations as ASPIRA Association, Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center, Catholic Archdiocese Juvenile Detention Ministry, Center for Young Women’s Development, Child Welfare League of America, Latin American Youth Center, Latino Community Development Agency, Make the Road by Walking/Youth Power Project, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Council of La Raza, National Latino Children’s Institute, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Prison Moratorium Project, Sermetro/Youth Opportunity Movement, St. Christopher’s, Inc., and Youth Force Coalition.

While there are serious inadequacies in the availability of data, research that has been conducted demonstrates that Latino youth are over-represented in the justice system. An “index of over-representation” is calculated by dividing the Latino/a proportion of youth at a particular stage of the justice system (e.g., arrest or detention) by the proportion of Latinos/as in the general juvenile population. An index of 1.0 means that the Latino/a proportion of youth at that stage of the system is the same as the proportion of Latinos/as in the general juvenile population. An index greater than 1.0 means that Latino/a youth are over-represented at that stage of the system.

Latino/a youth, as well as African-American youth, are arrested at much higher rates than White youth (see Table 1).

In other words, in Los Angeles County in 1998, Latino/a youth were:

The index of over-representation for Latino/a youth in detention was significant in many states in 1996:

Human Rights Watch reported that Latino/a youth were over-represented in 39 states in 2002; the index of over-representation was 2.0 or greater in 22 states, and greater than 3.0 in 8 states:

Further, between 1983 and 1991, the percentage of Latino/a youth in public detention centers increased by 84%, compared to an 8% increase for White youth and 46% increase for youth overall.

Data compiled by Human Rights Watch (see Table 2) indicate that Latino youth are incarcerated in jails and prisons at rates 2 to 3 times the rates of White youth in nine states, 3 to 6 times the rates of White youth in eight states, and 7 to 17 times the rates of White youth in four states.

Youth prosecuted as adults and confined in adult jails or prisons face particular dangers. Compared to youth in juvenile facilities, youth in adult facilities are:

Moreover, it is important to note that recidivism is higher for youth who have been transferred to adult criminal court compared to youth with similar characteristics and offense records who stay in the juvenile court.

Racial and ethnic disparities for youth occur at several points in the justice system; more importantly, they accumulate over time. Initial disparities at arrest are compounded by disparities that occur later in the process. When added together, these disparities, even if they are relatively small at each stage, can produce large negative effects. Thus, as Figure 1 shows, youth of color have a “cumulative disadvantage” in the justice system compared to White youth.

For example, in Los Angeles in 1996-98, Latino/a youth were:

Thus, a Latino/a youth who committed a violent offense in Los Angeles during the period 1996-1998 was, in total, 12 times as likely as a White youth to be confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA).

Research also demonstrates that Latino/a youth are treated more harshly than White youth, even when they are charged with the same offenses.

As Figure 2 shows, Latino/a youth are admitted to public facilities at much higher rates than White youth, even when charged with the same offenses. Among youth with no prior admissions to state facilities:

Among youth with one or two prior admissions to state facilities:

Data from 1993 (Figure 3) show that, in every offense category, the average length of incarceration was longer for Latino/a youth than for any other racial/ethnic group:

It is particularly important to document disparate treatment of Latino/a youth because the proportion of Latino/a youth confined in California Youth Authority facilities has grown steadily over the past 20 years; in contrast, the percentage of White and Black youth confined has declined.

Current methods for recording and gathering data obstruct attempts to understand the magnitude of the problem of over- representation and disparate treatment of Latino/a youth in the justice system. Critical pieces of information often are missing, variables are not specified in detail, terminology is inconsistently used, and information is not consistently reported across jurisdictions. There is little incentive-and scant resources-for states to provide data to researchers. Yet without research it is not possible to understand the nature or extent of the problem, or to fully develop effective solutions.

In addition, the lack of accurate, consistent Latino/a data inhibits researchers’ ability to separate Latino/a data from the data of other racial/ethnic groups in reports that may critically impact changes in policy and access to funds for services. To the extent a jurisdiction is trying to make an accurate analysis of disproportionate confinement of youth of color, as is required by federal law, counting large numbers of Latino/a youth in the “White” category clearly inflates the White incarceration rate and masks the already substantial rates of disproportionality between White youth and youth of color.

States define Latino/a ethnicity and race in a variety of ways. Because no uniform system exists for defining Latino/a ethnicity, cross-state comparisons of data about Latino/a youth are inaccurate. Until a uniform definition and reporting system exists, it is not possible to determine the true extent of disproportionate representation and disparate treatment of Latinos/as in the justice system.

Persons of Hispanic and Latino heritage can be of any race; they also can choose to identify their race as Hispanic or Latino/a. However, current data gathering systems generally fail to account for these facts.

Many data systems only collect information on race and only offer choices-such as “White,” “African American” and “Other”-that do not consider ethnicity. With only these choices, more than 95% of Latinos/as report their race as White.

Research on prisons demonstrates that failure to include a Latino/a racial category or to separate ethnicity from race often results in a dramatic over-reporting of the percentage of “Whites” incarcerated, and therefore a significant under-reporting of the percentage of Latinos/as incarcerated (or no reporting at all). Table 3 lists the substantial over-reporting of White inmates because Latinos/as were counted as White.

There are limited data available on the number of youth in the justice system who are predominantly Spanish-speaking or have limited English proficiency (LEP). However, data on the public

school system in Los Angeles County, which has the largest Latino/a population in the nation, provide some indicators.

During the past 15 years, the percentage of all public school students in that county who have limited English proficiency has risen from 18% to more than 35%, with more than half of the Latino/a students not being fluent in English. At the same time, only 1 Latino/a teacher is available for every 147 Latino/a students in the county.

As the Spanish-speaking population of the United States increases, the need for bilingual services for youth in the justice system also increases. For individuals who speak little or no English, legal procedures must be explained in Spanish and documents must be translated. Spanish-speaking parents are cut off from communicating with their children and with decision makers in the system if bilingual staff and services are not available.

Moreover, cases that involve medical or mental health emergencies require immediate communication with both youth and parents about what is happening. It is particularly important to communicate with individuals in the language that has the least likelihood of misunderstanding during such emergencies.

Also, interpretation of the results of various types of assessments (e.g., risk, psychological, and educational) may be mistaken because those working in the system do not have the necessary language and/or cultural competency skills.

Finally, without bilingual services, it is difficult, if not impossible, to communicate with youth, their parents or guardians, and their families about treatment, counseling services, and after-care plans.

WHAT SIGNIFIES RESPECT?

Luis, a 15-year-old Latino with no previous record, was arrested for possessing less than ½ ounce of marijuana. During Luis’ disposition hearing, the judge ordered him and his caseworker into chambers. As the judge talked to Luis, he noticed that the youth was not looking directly at him. The judge ordered the youth to look at him, which Luis did. But, as time progressed, Luis looked down again. The loss of eye contact infuriated the judge, whose words and tone of voice became harsher. The caseworker attempted to explain that Luis’ downcast eyes were a sign of respect in his culture-youth who are being reprimanded in Luis’ culture bow their heads to show their embarrassment at their actions. He explained that “staring down” authority figures is considered to be highly disrespectful. The judge, however, took Luis’ downcast eyes as an admission of guilt, and sentenced him to two years in a juvenile facility. Source: Confidential.

Good communication and cultural understanding are pre-requisites to a fair, efficient, and effective justice system. Cultural differences between Latino/a youth and justice system personnel may foster misunderstandings that lead to inappropriate and harsher treatment.

Predominantly Spanish-speaking individuals, particularly those who emigrated recently to the United States from countries with autocratic or corrupt legal and law enforcement systems, often struggle to communicate with justice system personnel and to understand or trust justice system procedures in this country. Lack of training or experience by those within the system can exacerbate miscommunications and misunderstandings.

In addition, assessment tools (e.g., risk, psychological, and educational) may not be culture-neutral and appropriate to the individuals being assessed, and professionals who administer and interpret the results may not be trained in cultural differences.

Moreover, the Latino/a population of the United States is increasingly diverse. In 1970, Latinos/as in this country were primarily second- and third- generation U.S.-born, English-speaking individuals of Mexican ancestry. The Latino/a population now is comprised of many diverse groups, including Mexican, Guatemalan, Salvadoran, Cuban, Nicaraguan, Peruvian, Puerto Rican, Honduran, and Colombian, each with its own ethnic identity and cultural traditions. While Latinos/as may share common language and cultural values-such as the importance of close family and extended family relationships-their histories and experiences in the U.S. are not identical. Differences among Latino/a subgroups cover a wide range of variables, including-but not limited to-immigration status, fertility rates, family structure, socioeconomic status, and education. These factors may significantly impact Latinos/as’ interactions with the justice system.

The juvenile and criminal justice systems have a variety of problems providing culturally competent personnel and services, including:

LIFE IN INS DETENTION The U.S. government locked 16-year-old Alfredo Lopez Sanchez, a Mayan boy from Guatamala, alone in a hotel room for five weeks with nothing to read, no one to talk to, and no change of clothes while the INS worked to deport him. He washed his underwear in the sink with hand soap each night. “Each day the maid comes in and changes the sheets. The bed gets clean clothes, but I don’t,” Alfredo told his lawyer. Alfredo has been held by the INS in at least four locations, including a Florida county jail, a juvenile detention center in Pennsylvania, and the hotel room. Alfredo never has been charged with any crime, but he has been held in jails and shackled and handcuffed to chains around his waist, because he has been labeled a “threat risk.” Although he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, he has been moved eight times without prior notification of his lawyer (including being flown between Miami and Pennsylvania five times). Alfredo said that he ran away from home after seeing his alcoholic father beat his mother so badly that she fell on top of her youngest baby, who died. Alfredo then left home and hitchhiked and walked to the U.S. Alfredo speaks a rare dialect called Southern Low Mam; he understands little Spanish and almost no English. A woman who speaks his language is ready to offer him a home in Miami, as are two other families, but the INS refuses to release him, saying he is a flight risk. A U.S. District Court Judge in Miami disagreed with the INS determination, but noted that the court cannot “dictate to the INS where to place a juvenile alien.” Alfredo was dragged out of court in shackles, weeping. He was transferred to Berks County Youth Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania-1,200 miles from his lawyer (who was informed after the fact) and from the only interpreter currently available for his language in the U.S. Source: Elsner, A. (2002, March 12). U.S. immigration agency a harsh jailer of children. London: Reuters News Service.

The detention and incarceration of Latino/a youth are not limited to the juvenile justice and adult criminal justice systems. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detains nearly 5,000 immigrant youth at more than 90 facilities across the country. The vast majority of the children detained are Latino/a. In most instances, they have not been charged with any crime, so their only violation of the law is being present in the United States without legal documentation. Nevertheless, many of these youth are detained for months, and sometimes years, in secure juvenile detention centers and, in some cases, in adult jails and prisons contracted by the INS, after which they may be deported.

Another approximately 9,000 immigrant youth, a majority of whom are Mexican, are detained at the U.S.-Mexico border annually; most of them are deported within 72 hours.

Latino/a youth taken into the custody of the INS often are denied a hearing, access to legal representation, and contact with relatives. They are provided with little information about their legal rights and about whether, or when, they will be deported. The detention facilities often feature few (if any) bilingual staff, no cultural competency plan and substandard education services. Immigrant youth may be commingled with delinquent youth, even if they have not been charged with a crime themselves.

Some immigrant youth become separated from their parents and families during their journey to the United States and arrive in this country completely unaccompanied. Others are apprehended with their families, but are purposefully transferred by the INS to detention facilities located in different states than those where their parents are detained. Many youth are held in detention even when adult family members are available to take custody of them while their immigration case is pending. In some cases, parents of immigrant children apprehended by the INS are afraid to come forward to take custody for fear that they themselves will be deported-a fear that has been borne out in some instances.

The majority of immigrant youth who are detained never obtain access to a lawyer. Immigrant youth have no right to government-appointed counsel or guardians ad litem. They are nonetheless held to the same standard of proof as adults in their immigration “removal” (deportation) proceedings. Children as young as 6 years old have had no representation in immigration court. Further, the U.S. government makes little or no effort to reunite children with family members when they are deported. In fact, some children from Central and South American countries simply have been dropped off at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Many immigrant youth have lived in the United States virtually their entire lives and no longer have ties to their country of birth. Some are detained many years after having entered the U.S. and no longer speak Spanish. Some youth are the young parents of children born as U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, Latino/a youth who are not citizens of this country may suffer not only prolonged periods of secure detention and discrimination but also permanent separation from their families. If they are deported to their country of birth, many also face poverty, homelessness, further psychological trauma, political persecution and other significant hardships.

Anti-gang laws, such as California’s recent ballot initiative, Proposition 21, have converted a broad range of youth offenses, including misdemeanors, into adult felonies. These highly punitive laws have had a disproportionate impact on youth of color who are most often identified as “gang-affiliated” by law enforcement and other justice system personnel. In practice, anti-gang laws have caused significant numbers of Latino/a youth across the country-many of whom are not actually members of gangs-to receive harsh treatment by police, detention facilities staff, prosecutors and the courts.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF PRESUMED GANG AFFILIATION Alicia Alicia, a 17-year-old Latina, had just graduated from high school and was working two jobs in preparation for her first year of college. She had been a model high school student, never in trouble with the police, and not a gang member. One evening, three neighborhood friends asked Alicia to give them a ride. Unbeknownst to her, they were planning to rob some marijuana buyers. After Alicia dropped them off, she heard gunshots. When they returned to the car, they forced Alicia to drive off. Alicia’s friends were members of a gang. They had shot and killed the drug buyers. During the police investigation, one of the perpetrators cut a deal with the prosecutor, “giving up” Alicia. Considering Alicia to be affiliated with the gang, the prosecutor charged her in adult court with aiding and abetting the killing. The jury convicted her of second degree murder and she was sentenced to 25-50 years in prison. The “friend” who gave her up received a lesser sentence. Later, he recanted his testimony about Alicia’s prior knowledge of the robbery. Since her sentence in 1991, Alicia has been a model prisoner, completing several training courses and receiving recognition for outstanding prisoner program and work assignment efforts. She has obtained an associate’s degree and a bachelor’s degree in business. Currently she is working on a master’s degree in marketing. Alicia’s case is one of a handful that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating in one metropolitan police department-cases of arrest and prosecution under circumstances indicating that racial or ethnic stereotypes were prominent factors. Antonio Antonio, now age 28, was imprisoned at age 17 for participating in a barroom brawl that involved weapons. In prison, staff labeled Antonio a “gang member” based on his Latino ethnicity and his multiple tattoos. Although Antonio had associated with gang members, he never had been a gang member himself. For Antonio to be eligible for parole, prison officials required that he have no contact with gang members. Ironically, prison officials themselves continually placed Antonio with gang members who repeatedly threatened him, including one who stabbed him. Shortly before coming up for parole, Antonio received a letter from a cousin lamenting the fact that the cousin had not followed Antonio’s advice to stay away from gang members. Because of this letter, prison officials labeled Antonio with “Security Threat Group” (STG) status and denied him parole-despite the fact that his cousin later was exonerated of the gang charges. After he was denied parole a second time, out of anger and frustration Antonio threw a chair. He was charged with assault and battery and intent to riot, and is facing 5 to 10 years for the new charges. Sources: Confidential.

Being labeled a “gang member” can have adverse consequences for youth at all the key decision-making points in the justice system. First, stereotypes about which youth are associated with gangs can impact police decisions about who to stop and who to arrest. Alleged gang affiliation can also be the determining factor in whether a youth is held in secure detention after arrest. Police and probation departments in some jurisdictions assign a significant number of “negative points” for alleged gang involvement during the “risk assessment” component of detention decisions. For many Latino/a youth, this practice incorrectly presumes the youth are dangerous and guilty before they are adjudicated.

Gang affiliation is also a basis for transferring a youth to an adult court in some jurisdictions. Under California’s Proposition 21, by merely alleging that an offense is “gang-related,” prosecutors may have the power to file charges directly in adult court against a youth as young as 14 years old, without a hearing before a judge. Under the California Penal Code, “gang-related” offenses are defined as those “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members.” Allegations of gang involvement can also be extremely prejudicial to the outcome of the youth’s case, sometimes serving to validate judges’ decisions to deny bond, to discount the youth’s testimony, or to impose harsh sentencing. Moreover, even allegations that a youth is a “gang member”-which may ultimately be unsubstantiated-may nevertheless instill fear in some jurors and thereby impact the verdict.

The terms gang and gang affiliation are defined differently and quite broadly in many jurisdictions. In some states, the sole testimony of a police officer categorized as a “gang expert” by the police department is enough to establish a youth’s “gang association” at trial. Anti-gang laws have legalized the practice of “gang profiling,” which allows police to stop, question and in some jurisdictions use extremely aggressive tactics, such as involving SWAT teams, against any youth who fits a description of a “gang member.” Latino/a and other youth of color who merely have a tattoo, wear hip-hop clothing or live in low-income, high crime neighborhoods are sometimes presumed to be “gang affiliated” by police and therefore are stopped, questioned and physically threatened or assaulted. These policies are often justified under the auspices of the “war on drugs,” of which the “war on gangs” is a part.

The use of “gang databases” has become more widespread over the last decade. They are currently used in Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, Texas and California, among other states. Such databases contain names of “suspected gang members,” “gang associates,” and individuals convicted of “gang-related” crimes and also include personal information and photographs entered by police. The criteria for being placed on these lists are often vague, including such things as “hangs around with gang members” and “is called a gang member by an untested informant with corroboration.” These lists are off limits to the public in many jurisdictions and there is no judicial review of the decision to place a youth in the database; thus, gang databases often include many youth who have left gangs or who were never actually gang members. In addition, in some jurisdictions there are no means available for youth to have themselves removed from the gang database.

Anti-gang laws also come in the form of “gang enhancements,” which significantly increase the penalties imposed for an offense. Although many gang-related offenses are serious crimes, gang enhancement laws sometimes impose sentences which far exceed what the criminal law would have imposed for the same offense had it not been gang-related. For example, in California, youth can face a life sentence in adult prison for a residential robbery if it is deemed to have been “gang-related.” Presumptions about gang affiliation also have severe consequences under the state’s “three-strikes” law intended for adults. Proposition 21 made any felony committed “on behalf of a gang” a strike. It also created new “juvenile strikes,” or juvenile offenses which count as adult strikes, which can lead to 25-year-to-life sentences for some youth. These new “juvenile strikes” include offenses such as unarmed robbery.

Police work targeting predominantly Latinos/as and Latino/a “suspected gang members” in Los Angeles was the focus of the city’s largest police scandal in history. The Rampart CRASH (“Community Response to Street Hoodlums”) police unit planted evidence on thousands of innocent people, committed perjury in court to gain convictions and physically brutalized innocent youth and adults. The officers also illegally colluded with the INS to deport young Latinos/as. The Los Angeles Public Defender continues to review over 30,000 convictions to identify other young people Rampart police may have framed.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) recommends 10 strategies to counteract the specific problem of disproportionate minority confinement (DMC), including confinement of Latinos/as:

1. Formulate a vision and related policy goals for reducing DMC.

2. Create structures (e.g. task forces) charged with sustaining a focus on DMC.

3. Collect data and conduct research to document where disparities occur.

4. Build coalitions and alliances with communities and people of color.

5. Diversify the composition of the system’s work force.

6. Diversify the service delivery system by contracting with organizations located in communities of color and managed by people of color.

7. Provide cultural and racial sensitivity training for staff at all levels of every agency of the system.

8. Minimize opportunities for discriminatory decisions by creating objective instruments and guidelines free of racial bias.

9. Improve defense representation to increase advocacy for youth of color.

10. Change the policies and practices of other systems (e.g. mental health, child welfare) to prevent “dumping” into secure detention youth who would be better served by those systems.

Counties that have adopted these types of strategies have made progress toward the goal of eliminating disproportionate representation and disparate treatment of youth of color.

Santa Cruz County is a mid-sized county in California with Latinos/as comprising 35.2% of youth ages 10-17. In 1998, prior to the county’s aggressive plan to combat disproportionate minority confinement, Latino/a youth represented nearly 64% of the youth detained in the county’s secure juvenile detention facility. In 1999 that percentage dropped to 53%, to 50% in 2000, and to 49.7% in 2001.

Source: Cox, J. A. (2000, September). Addressing disproportionate minority representation within the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, Inc.

Santa Cruz County’s success resulted from implementation of a comprehensive set of strategies:

1. Embrace the reduction of DMC as a key organizational objective.

The agency administrator must play a significant leadership role in the development and direction of this effort. The administrator must ensure that departmental resources, personnel practices (recruitment, hiring and training), outcome indicators, and service and program strategies all support this effort. The administrator also must develop a cultural competency plan and appoint a cultural competency coordinator.

2. Create a map of key decision points affecting decisions to arrest, book, detain, release and place juveniles.

Determine whether data are available, by ethnicity, for each decision point. If data by ethnicity are not available, create a data development agenda. Keep a trend line for each decision point. Review the trend line regularly to mark progress and to identify problem areas.

3. Develop and monitor objective criteria for the decisions made at each point.

Develop a quantifiable set of risk factors free of criteria that may create racial bias. Include all stakeholders in the development of the objective criteria. Base the assignment to intensive supervision caseloads and removal from these caseloads on clearly stated risk-based criteria.

4. Ensure that staff persons in key positions are culturally competent and bilingual.

Establish guidelines that ensure that staff persons have the skills and abilities to provide services to a diverse client population. Provide ongoing training in cultural sensitivity, cultural competence, the dynamics of disproportionate representation of Latino/a youth, and the disparate treatment of Latino/a youth in the system.

5. Eliminate barriers to family involvement.

Conduct surveys of youth involved in the system and their families to determine what barriers to service and family involvement exist. Encourage family conferencing and parental involvement at all levels.

6. Create two or three tiers of community-based alternatives to detention that involve community-based organizations and parents.

Agree on a continuum of court-approved administrative sanctions that could be imposed prior to arrest for probation violations to prevent unnecessary detention. Establish desired outcomes for these alternatives. Include crisis response plans, strength-based work, and wrap around services. Provide more than one level of supervision for youth. Track outcomes by ethnicity.

7. Develop a full continuum of treatment, supervision and placement options.

Carefully define and develop a local continuum of culturally sensitive services. Ensure that youth of color have equal access to these services at each level. Calculate data on length of stay by ethnicity and adjust programs to reduce disparities.

Santa Cruz County’s success also is attributable to the fact that local Latino community members were actively involved in holding the county accountable for making policy changes to decrease Latino/a youth confinement. Community representatives sat on advisory panels and held town hall meetings to discuss issues.

In 1994, Latinos/as comprised 6% of the youth population and African-Americans represented 10% of the youth population in Multnomah County. However, both groups were twice as likely as White youth to be detained by the Department of Community Justice; overall, youth of color were 31% more likely to be detained than Whites. By 2000, after Multnomah County worked with the Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative to create a more effective juvenile detention system and reduce disproportionate minority confinement, both youth of color and White youth were detained at identical rates (22%).

Source: Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2002). Reducing disproportionate minority confinement: The Multnomah County, Oregon, success story and its implications. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

As part of JDAI, Multnomah County set up a Disproportionate Minority Confinement Committee, whose objectives were to make fair and equitable decisions about detention and to ensure that system resources were culturally relevant, accessible, and appropriately used for all racial and ethnic communities. Multnomah JDAI then established a series of detention alternatives, including:

Multnomah County also developed a risk assessment instrument, which it used to guide its admissions decisions. The county stopped relying on criteria such as “good family structure” and “gang affiliation,” which may be biased against youth of color, and expanded the “school attendance” factor to include “productive activity.”

In addition to these actions, Multnomah County worked with its staff to ensure more equitable processing of youth of color. The probation department diversified its staff so that the staff reflected the demographic diversity of the county. The department also hired 4 half-time trial assistants to help attorneys improve pretrial placement planning for youth. The county then trained community police officers in the goals of JDAI, which resulted in diverting many youth from referral to the juvenile justice system.

Finally, the Department of Community Justice declined to renew its contract with INS in 2001, which resulted in a 31% decline in the proportion of Latino/a youth in pretrial detention.

In summary, the county’s successful strategic plan included the following components:

We recommend that all groups address the issue of racism in the justice system. Specifically, we recommend that groups (1) determine the magnitude of the problem of over-representation and racial/ethnic disparities in the justice system, (2) embrace the reduction of disproportionate representation of Latino/a youth in the system as a key community objective, and (3) implement strategies and accountability systems that eliminate disparate treatment of Latino/a youth in the justice system.

Francisco A. Villarruel is an Associate Professor of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University, and a Research Associate with the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families. Dr. Villarruel is also a faculty affiliate of the Julian Samora Research Institute, the only Hispanic research institute at a major Midwest university that is committed to the generation, transmission, and application of knowledge to serve the needs of Latino communities in the Midwest.

Dr. Villarruel's research focus is generalized into the three areas: developmental contextualism, Latino youth and families, and positive youth development. He is the co-editor two books: Making Invisible Latino Youth Visible: A Critical Approach to Latino Diversity and Community Youth Development, Beacons and Promises, and is working on an edited volume tentatively entitled Community Youth Development: Challenges, Beacons, and Opportunities for Healthier Futures.

Nancy E. Walker, Ph.D., M.L.S., is Associate Director of the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families and Professor of Family and Child Ecology at Michigan State University. She is co-convener of the Michigan Family Impact Seminars and author of two policy-related books, The Child Witness: Legal Issues and Dilemmas (1991) and Children’s Rights in the United States: In Search of a National Policy (1999), both published by Sage. Currently, she is working on a series of projects related to “zero tolerance” education policies in Michigan.

ICYF at Michigan State University is a multidisciplinary institute supporting university-community collaborations in research, policy engagement, and outreach regarding children, youth, and families from diverse communities. ICYF maintains a portfolio of current and emergent projects of state, national and international scope that focus on four core areas: