Disproportionate Minority Contact Policy Essay Example

Disproportionate minority contact is a term which denotes the imbalanced way in which a section of the community is treated. This biased treatment manifests through ethnic, racial, and linguistic interactions. In a diverse society such as the United States of America, the youth who interact with the juvenile justice system encounter the brunt of such unfairness. According to the current situation, generally, youth of color are more prone to incarceration and to serve longer terms in comparison to their white counterparts. In addition, the Latin white youth also face discrimination compared to the white youths (Feinstein, 2015). For instance, in a situation arises whereby white and black youths are involved in a crime, the black youths are more likely to face arrest and detention, followed by a series of court processes, as their white colleagues find it easy to manoeuvre their ways out of the corrective institutions. Youths of color are considered as the most inferior followed by the Latin whites.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Moreover, judicial systems are more likely to reign black youths in court, followed by the Latins, with the white youths getting the best treatment. There exists a preferential treatment when black and white youths face situations in which they require to face justice (Feinstein, 2015). Two theories try to explain the reason behind the treatments every youth from different background face; the labelling or social reaction theory, and the social disorganization theory. Between the two theories, the social disorganization theory has a better explanation of why disproportionate minority contact exists and is widespread among American societies.

Social disorganization theory explains the variation that occurs in crime and delinquency among societies. The theory points out that poverty, residential mobility, and ethnic heterogeneity are the main forces behind social disorganization. Additionally, the theory observes that considering different communities across the United States, each community committed similar crimes despite their locations, economic, and social structure. For instance, regardless of the economic status of a community, there still exists a class that assumes social superiority against others. Living in the same social environment, children from socially lower class face the same societal values of what the society considers right, and who the society considers successful in life (Feinstein, 2015). As the youths from the low-income families have no adequate resources to match the standards set by the community, such youths, therefore, tend to resort to crime and illegitimate means as a way to achieve the societal norms of a successful person. They, for instance, resort to robbery to get what they lack to meet their desired standards. Usually, such societies rarely get concerned by the means by which people acquire their property.

Social disorganization theory also suggests that urban set up are more likely to breed crime than rural areas. In the urban areas, there is less social control since with a large number of members of the society; people rarely get to encounter those with whom they are familiar. But in a small town and rural areas, almost everyone knows one another, and that solely acts as a watch enough to tame how one behaves - neighbors help to keep watch of the conduct of every member (Feinstein, 2015). On the other hand, people in urban areas often remain anonymous and are less likely to face societal analysis. Youths, therefore, use the opportunity to engage in crime.

Youths in urban areas that experience low income also face exposure to social values and customs that encourage crime. Low-income societies promote the development of crime in three primary ways. First, such a social order presents limited opportunities for realizing success, with a non-proportional pressure to achieve material wealth. Secondly, there is also a wide range of traditions and cultural morals, due to the different backgrounds of the residents of a place (Feinstein, 2015). Lastly, there subsists an instability in the population as a result of residential mobility. Interaction with adults and peers who participate in criminal activities makes crime something usual to the innocent youths, who later embrace offence, considering it as a regular activity and a way to realize success and achieve status in the society. Ideally, the theory emphasizes a notion that friendship networks have a direct relation with social organization.

Interventions to curb disproportionate minority contact include some guidelines, among which an approach that comprises of a design that is multimodal and comprehensive. The multimodal approach works best in the most feasible context. Ideally, this approach works with the assumption that a timely intervention yields the best results (Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2015). Another method is a prioritizing strategy, which focuses on key decision points. Prioritizing strategy focuses on evaluating the most urgent matter to handle before the others. Third, choice of an intervention that a community is willing to implement proves to be more successful. Ideally, when a proposal faces a positive reception, its applicability gets less opposed. An additional scheme is the use of an evidence-based strategy and successful experiences of the disproportionate minority contact programs. Fifth, one also needs to evaluate the effectiveness of an approach before and during its application. The evaluation also helps to gauge the degree of success of an intervention measure.

The above five strategies to control disproportionate minority contact falls into three main categories; direct services, training and technical assistance, and system change. Under direct services, the focus is risks and everyday needs of the youth. Direct services address differential felonious acts of the youth, thereby providing prevention and intervention to accumulate dangers of crime (Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2015). These services include prevention and timely intervention programs, advocating for youths who take part in the system activities, and also presenting alternatives to confinement and detentions.

Another category is training and technical assistance, which helps to address building cultural competency, inadvertent racial bias, and also promoting relations between personnel serving youths and the juvenile justice systems. Capacity building from training and technical assistance on, for example, instruments of risk assessment is also crucial in controlling disproportionate minority contact (Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2015). The last category, system change strategy, seeks to align procedures, rules, and policies, which define the operations of the services of juvenile justice. Appropriate and practical application, the three strategies have higher chances to reduce disproportionate minority contact.

Conclusion

Disproportionate minority contact policies have been successful in some parts of America. For example, Strong African American Families (SAAF) has successfully ensured that it runs parental training and family therapy plans, programs that have strengthened social bonding and control theories. SAAF works to improve the bond between parents and children, with an aim to reduce probabilities of youth engagement in problematic behavior like alcohol and substance abuse (Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2015). As of 2006, Strong African American Families had successfully and effectively reduced alcohol and other drug abuse cases. SAAF had also enhanced drug resistance skills, alongside inculcating future-oriented goals among youths of age ranging between 10 and 14 in the African-America descendants.

References

Feinstein, R. (2015). A Qualitative Analysis of Police Interactions and Disproportionate Minority Contact. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 13(2), 159-178.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., & Kang, W. (2015). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Drugs, 62(55), 52.