Unbalanced Youth Justice

The Burns Institute is in pursuit of an equitable and excellent youth justice system. A system used sparingly and appropriately.  We know that our current youth justice system is not equitable, excellent, or used sparingly and appropriately. More than 47,000 youth were incarcerated on any given night in 2015, most (73 percent) for non-violent offenses. The majority (69 percent) of those incarcerated were youth of color.  Learn more »

Use the tools below to explore this issue »

One-day count

Data in this section show how many youth are detained, committed, or otherwise sleeping somewhere other than their homes per orders of the court on "any given day" in select years. Data is available for the nation and on a state-by-state basis, and are based upon one-day counts of youth in residential placement facilities conducted in 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015. Learn more »

Show table and download this data

Click column headers to sort Download

Year White Black Latino Native American Asian Other All youth of color All youth

Annual decision points

This section includes data at nine key juvenile justice annual decision points. Data are available at the county and state-level, but only for counties that report. This section allows you to view the data from many different angles and all of the data is broken down by race and ethnicity. Learn more »

Year

Data not available for every year. (Why?)

Available years are those for which states have submitted data to OJJDP. States do not submit data on an annual basis.

Case flow diagram

Click on a decision-making point to see the data for that point. Click additional decision-making points to the graph to compare.

  1. Youth population

  • 1Comparison of arrest to population is rate per 1,000 youth. All other annual decision points are rate per 100 youth at the prior decision-making point.
  • 2Due to differences in how states define arrests and referrals to court, some states may have more referrals to court than arrests.
Show table and download this data

Click column headers to sort Download

Decision White Black Latino American Indian or Alaskan Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Asian Other All youth of color All youth

115 of 115 counties (Why?)

Originally, states were only required to examine three counties: those with the greatest proportions of minority youth within their juvenile population, as well as those that contained the greatest numbers of minority youth. Only recently has OJJDP required that states track DMC data for all potential DMC reduction sites on a regular basis (at least every 3 years). If a county is not a DMC reduction site, data may not be available.

Detention statute

Juvenile courts may hold delinquents in a secure detention facility if the court believes it is in the best interest of the community or the child. After arrest a youth is often brought to the local juvenile detention facility by law enforcement. Juvenile probation officers or detention workers review the case and decide if the juvenile should be held pending a hearing by a judge.

Jurisdiction ages

  • 0–17
  • Extended Age of Delinquency Jurisdiction: 20

Age of Detention

0–17

Standard for detention

V.A.M.S. 211.061

3. When the juvenile court is informed that a child is in detention it shall examine the reasons therefor and shall immediately:

(1) Order the child released; or

(2) Order the child continued in detention until a detention hearing is held. An order to continue the child in detention shall only be entered upon the filing of a petition or motion to modify and a determination by the court that probable cause exists to believe that the child has committed acts specified in the petition or motion that bring the child within the jurisdiction of the court under subdivision (2) or (3) of subsection 1 of section 211.031.

V.A.M.S. 211.063

1. A child accused of violating the provisions of subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of section 211.031 shall not be held in a secure detention placement for a period greater than twenty-four hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, unless the court finds pursuant to a probable cause hearing held within that twenty-four-hour period, that the child has violated the conditions of a valid court order and that:

(1) The child has a record of willful failure to appear at juvenile court proceedings; or

(2) The child has a record of violent conduct resulting in physical injury to self or others; or

(3) The child has a record of leaving a court-ordered placement, other than secure detention, without permission.

Detention hearing timeline

Chapter 211 Juvenile Courts Section 211.061

Within 3 days of detention, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.

Contact

Please email Anna Wong with any updates to contact information for your DMC coordinator, JJS coordinator, or DMC subcommittee chair.

DMC coordinator

Carolyn Kampeter
MO Juvenile Justice Association
P.O. Box 1332
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573-636-6101
Fax: 573-635-5159
carolyn@mjja.org

Website

JJS coordinator

Bruce Clemonds
Program Manager
Missouri Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 749
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: 573-522-6125
bruce.clemonds@dps.mo.gov

DMC subcommittee chair

There is currently no DMC subcommittee chair

Reform efforts

States that wish to post their most recent three-year plans or share other relevant publications about their reform work should contact Anna Wong. We would be happy to link to relevant documents and information.

DMC reform efforts

  1. Teen Court of peers in school - As an alternative to a referral to the Juvenile Office, a parent is offered the option of sending their child to a trial by peers in school. School children have been selected and trained to be prosecuting and defense attorneys, and jury members. The offending child must agree to abide by the sentence handed down by the jury of his peers. Sentences often include community service, apology letters and possibly future jury duty. Referrals to the Juvenile Office in one Middle School have gone from 78 to 1 from the first semester of 2009 to the first semester of 2012 as a result of the implementation of Teen Court. Fighting is a typical minor offense that is eligible for Teen Court.
  2. School Referral Memorandum of Understanding - A memorandum of understanding between a school district, local law enforcement and the county juvenile office is being implemented in some counties to eliminate minor offenses from being referred. The purpose is to handle minor offenses in school rather than creating a referral to the juvenile office. This is allowed by the Safe Schools Act for minor offenses, such as fighting, which are typically referred as Assault 3rd Degree. Research shows that contact with the juvenile office has negative consequences for youth.
  3. Mentor Assignment in school for at-risk kids - Several counties have implemented mentoring programs in schools for at-risk kids. One county selected and trained African American males specifically, to meet with the youth. Another county implemented a school district-wide mentoring program, so that mentors could follow their child from kindergarten through high school.
  4. De-escalation training for teachers - A school district held de-escalation training for Special Education teachers, who typically handle children with behavioral issues. Teachers who have a larger percentage of minority referrals were also required to attend the training, to enhance their skills in the classroom. The training

State Plan

There is no link available to the current State Plan

Focus Areas for 2012-2014 State Plan:

  1. Alternatives to Detention - Focus on expanding JDAI statewide
  2. Compliance Monitoring - Core Requirement - $70,000 for each year
  3. Delinquency Prevention - Community must tie to JDAI or Gender Services
  4. Disproportionate Minority Contact - Focus on expanding the development of Local DMC Groups to identify and assess the degree of DMC that exists; and on providing the statistical data necessary for local groups to make such assessments, develop strategies to address issue(s) identified, evaluate and monitor progress, and, ultimately, reduce and/or eliminate DMC.
  5. Gender Specific Services - Focus on expanding services for girls in the JJ System
  6. Planning and Administration - $48,703 for FFY 2012
  7. State Advisory Group Allocation - $20,000 for FFY 2012

State Advisory Group (SAG)

To provide leadership and education to the people of Missouri in this area.

SAG chair

Edwin F. Morris
Chairman
307 West Route F
Clark, MO 65243
morrisef@missouri.edu
Website

Organizational structure

One-fifth of members must be youth that are under age 24 at the time of appointment. Three members must have been or are currently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system; a majority are not to be full-time employees of the federal, state, or local government. Members are to have training, experience, or special knowledge concerning the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency or the administration of juvenile justice.

Committees

  • DMC
  • JDAI
  • Grant review committees as needed

Membership

  1. William Heberle, Over age 24 at time of appointment 1, Jefferson City
  2. Suzanne Kissock, Over age 24 at time of appointment 2, St. Joseph
  3. The Honorable Harold Lowenstein, Over age 24 at time of appointment 3, Kansas City
  4. David E. Nelson (R), Over age 24 at time of appointment 4, Cameron
  5. Robin R. Shaw (D), Over age 24 at time of appointment 5, Florissant
  6. The Honorable John Parrish, Over age 24 at time of appointment 7, Springfield
  7. Mr. James Braun, Over age 24 at time of appointment 8, Ballwin
  8. Dr. Margaret Harlan, Over age 24 at time of appointment 9, Sedalia
  9. Colly Durley, Over age 24 at time of appointment 10, Columbia
  10. Keith Wood, Over age 24 at time of appointment 11, Maryville
  11. Connie J. Douglas (D), Over age 24 at time of appointment 12, Rocheport
  12. Edwin Morris (D), Over age 24 at time of appointment 13, Clark
  13. Pili Robinson, Over age 24 at time of appointment 14, Florissant
  14. Rev. Larry G. Maddox (D), Over age 24 at time of appointment 15, Springfield
  15. Donald Lee, Over age 24 at time of appointment 16, Kansas City
  16. The Honorable Rita Days, Local Government Official 1, Jefferson City
  17. Lindsay Ponce, Under age 24 at time of appointment 1, Kirksville
  18. Erin Lear, Under age 24 at time of appointment 2, Kearney
  19. Gabrielle Stocke, Under age 24 at time of appointment 3, Saint Louis
  20. Tyler Page (D), Under age 24 at time of appointment 4, Independence
  21. Vacant Slot, Under age 24 at time of appointment 5
  22. Vacant Slot, Over age 24 at time of appointment 6

About the data

Our website is populated by data provided to us by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Continue reading for details about the One-day count and Annual decision points data.

Download

Complete downloads of the data are available in several formats:

Download the data »

Each table of data is also available for download. Click Show table below any table to download just the data shown.