• Focus on the problem, not the symptoms
• Involve key players in total DMC definition process
• Insure local planning
• Clearly specify a role for the state
• Choose interventions strategies that respond to system needs
• Take a comprehensive view when planning and funding the interventions
• Develop alternative resources to offset deficits • Recognize information needs and create new
information systems as needed
• Institutionalize mechanisms for examining DMC issues.
3
initial stages of DMC problem definition. Under OJJDP auspices, sophisticated analysis tools and techniques have been developed which would greatly assist state and/or local policy-makers to "cut to the chase" of the DMC issue.3
Involve Key Players in Total DMC Definition Process
Local pilot project experiences in Arizona clearly demonstrated the value of involving the agency and community representatives in the total process of defining DMC, designing the interventions, and correcting the design during implementation. For example, the Pima Prevention Partnership project demonstrated the clearest understanding of DMC, its root causes, and the need for systematic change. Staff credited their full and active participation in the Phase I data gathering as contributing to their understanding and their interventions design. Similarly, the Pinal Hispanic Council was involved in Phase I and developed a responsive intervention in Phase II.
2.2 Designing and Implementing the DMC Intervention
The Arizona DMC demonstration project provided several opportunities to learn from the experiences of the local projects or to substantiate lessons learned from the other pilot states. Lessons associated with the DMC interventions design and
implementation are described below.
Insure Local Planning
The Arizona demonstration was based on the recognition that community involvement and "buy-in" are essential to DMC interventions planning. The nature of the DMC problem and its magnitude and causes varies across local jurisdictions. Therefore, the planning and interventions design and implementation must occur at the local level.
The experiences of the Arizona local pilot projects substantiate this
understanding. The breadth of the interventions, themselves, and the extent to which the interventions were designed to respond to local conditions, is persuasive evidence of the wisdom of local involvement.
Ibid, p. 11. 4 Ibid, p. 9. 5 Ibid, p. 12. 6
Clearly Specify a Role for the State
It is recommended that the state play a significant role in supporting local design and implementation efforts. For example, state staff could usefully provide analytic4 and assessment support, review and revise related state policies and procedures, and monitor resources.
Based on the comments of Arizona pilot project staff, the state role during Phase II was inadequately defined and, therefore, unsatisfactorily carried out. According to the local perspective, the state primarily monitored the local grants. It would have been more helpful if the state had been able to overcome changes in staff, political climate, and committee membership to provide more proactive support to local pilot projects.
Choose Intervention Strategies That Respond to System Needs
When other youth-serving systems provide alternatives to juvenile justice system decisions, they may have a substantial impact on the operation of the juvenile justice system and the correction of DMC. Several of the Arizona local pilot projects were5 designed based on this premise. The EMPACT-SPC, Pinal Hispanic Council and Westside Social Services diversion programs all functioned to provide alternatives to the juvenile justice system.
The effectiveness of the diversion approach cannot, yet, be clearly measured; however, locally collected data suggest that youth are indeed being diverted. The impact of these alternative services is likely to influence either the input of cases into the juvenile justice system or the fate of cases at an early stage in the justice system.
Take a Comprehensive View When Planning and Funding the Interventions Overall, OJJDP’s DMC demonstration has shown the importance of involving more persons and service systems than just the juvenile justice system. In sites where new programming was developed only in response to new OJJDP money, the results have been far less extensive and effective than when the planning extended to other resource and programming streams. The importance of adopting a comprehensive6 view when planning and funding DMC interventions was clearly demonstrated by the
7
Arizona local pilot sites. Organizations which had multiple resource streams, such as the Prima Prevention Partnership and the Panel Hispanic Council, were better able to: (1) plan a more comprehensive approach; (2) identify substantial matching funds; (3) provide organizational back-up to the DMC intervention; and (4) plan to continue the interventions once the OJJDP "new" money was completed.
Develop Alternative Resources to Offset Deficits
Community-based organizations (CBOs) generally, and the Arizona pilot project sites in particular, are experts at creatively meeting resource deficits. Methods used by the Arizona projects included recruiting and training volunteer "labor" and aggressively seeking other funding sources. In these efforts, the Arizona pilot projects generated an enormous interest in problems of disproportionate minority confinement.
2.3 Monitoring and Institutionalizing The DMC Solution
DMC must be monitored to assess the effectiveness of the DMC interventions and ensure that the problems of DMC are not being further aggregated. Moreover, it is incumbent upon the five pilot states, as well as other states, to institutionalize
mechanisms to monitor and correct problems of DMC. Lessons associated with these requirements are described below.
Recognize Information Needs and Create New Information Systems as Needed The OJJDP DMC project demonstrated information gaps within each of the five pilot states. None of the five states had an information system which was adequate for DMC assessment. Arizona has, however, developed a plan to address their DMC-7 related information needs. A new, on-line, statewide juvenile justice information system will soon be implemented. Arizona's DMC leaders are assisting the implementation of the Juvenile On-line Tracking System (JOLTS). This system should ensure uniform data collection and the adequate capture of DMC-related information.
Institutionalize Mechanisms for Examining DMC Issues
At the time of the evaluation site visit (February 1995), and in contrast to the other four DMC pilot states, Arizona had not institutionalized mechanisms to continue
the assessment of DMC issues and develop responses. In fact, all state-level
GOCstaff who had knowledge of and experience with the DMC initiative and the OJJDP DMC mandate were no longer associated with the Office. Further, the Juvenile Justice Specialist, with whom DMC responsibilities rest, was new to the position.
As described in Chapter III, however, state-level DMC planning and activities have since accelerated. The Arizona Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (AJJAC) recently (May 1995) reconstituted the Minority Youth Issues Committee (MYIC) and regular meetings have resumed. MYIC now contains six AJJAC members as well as several community representatives—grass-roots DMC leaders from minority
communities. Plans to establish a systemic approach to addressing DMC are being developed. Plans to institutionalize mechanisms for monitoring DMC are being
implemented. As discussed previously, JOLTS should ensure the adequate capture of DMC-related information on a state-wide routine basis.