reducing disproportionate minority contact in the … · executive summary uilford county continued...

i

REDUCING DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, GUILFORD COUNTY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FINAL REPORT AND SUMMARY, July 2005 – June 2006

James M. Frabutt, Mary H. Kendrick, Margaret B. Arbuckle, Emily R. Cabaniss, Stephanie M. Horton, & Damie T. Jackson

Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships The University of North Carolina at Greensboro September 2006

This project was supported by Grant No. 180-1-03-010-AJ-712 awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice through the North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety, Governor’s Crime Commission. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice. Address correspondence to James M. Frabutt, Ph.D., UNCG Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships, 330 South Greene St., Suite 200, Greensboro, NC 27401, or [email protected]

ii

Executive Summary uilford County continued its efforts—with support from the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission—to address disproportionate minority contact in the local juvenile justice system. During 2005-2006, the DMC Management Team and the DMC Committee transitioned from a planning phase into an action-oriented implementation phase. This report summarizes the

Year 2 activities and efforts that focus on data, training, policy, and resource provision. Highlights include:

§ Schools remain a critical partner in addressing the linkage between suspension and juvenile justice involvement. The report provides short and long-term suspension data by race for 2003 through 2005.

§ Law enforcement contact with youth is an important decision point for addressing DMC. The report presents summary data from the Greensboro Police Department, High Point Police Department, and Guilford County Sheriff’s Department regarding juvenile arrests and field contacts.

§ Three focus groups directly informed the DMC Project, providing a qualitative perspective to contextualize the numerical data. Focus groups were held with educators and student support staff from Guilford County Schools; officers from Greensboro Police Department’s Juvenile Services Division; and High Point Police Department School Resource Officers.

§ To address the need for innovative prevention and intervention programming, three $10,000 mini-grants were awarded through the DMC Project to address parent education, conflict resolution, and youth mentoring.

§ The DMC Project advanced local training efforts on two fronts: by providing the Undoing Racism workshop to juvenile court counselors and by offering two parent education sessions through an experienced parent advocate.

§ Policy and procedure modifications that could impact DMC were discussed with individual institutional stakeholders over the course of the year. Moreover, the institutional partners re- committed to the DMC Memorandum of Understanding at a public ceremony in January 2006.

§ As DMC efforts move forward and continue to take hold in Guilford County, the Governor’s Crime Commission granted a third year of support for DMC reduction efforts. In Year 3, the DMC Project is organized around two central themes: deepening community commitment to DMC reduction and establishing project sustainability.

G

G U I L F O R D D M C I M P L E M E N T A T I O N G R A N T S U M M A R Y , 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6

iii

Table of Contents

Page

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

CHAPTER

I. OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. A DATA-DRIVEN APPROACH TO REDUCING DMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Review of School Suspension Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Review of Law Enforcement Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Review of Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Data . . . 12

Using Focus Groups to Inform the DMC Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

Focus Group with Educators and Student Support Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Focus Group with Greensboro Police Department Juvenile Services Division Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Focus Group with High Point Police Department School Resource Officers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

III. SUPPORTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

IV. COMMUNITY-BASED TRAINING EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

V. POLICY AND PROCEDURE MODIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

VI. INCREASING COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND LINKING WITH COMMUNITY INITIATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

VII. GUILFORD DMC REDUCTION PLAN FOR 2006-2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49


iv

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

APPENDIX 1. SUSPENSION DATA: MOST COMMON REASONS

FOR SUSPENSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……... 52

APPENDIX 2. SHORT AND LONG TERM SUSPENSIONS BY RACE WITH

RELATIVE RATE COMPARISONS FOR 2003-2004 AND 2004-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

APPENDIX 3. MAPPING OF JUVENILE ARRESTS AND FIELD CONTACTS . . . . . . . . 63

APPENDIX 4. AN EXAMINATION OF 2005 JUVENILE JUSTICE (DJJDP) DATA . . . . 68

APPENDIX 5. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80


v

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. DMC Committee Members and Agency Affiliations . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 2. Average Short Term Suspension Rates by School Level, 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 3. Average Short Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 4. Average Long Term Suspension Rates by School Level, 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 5. Average Long Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 6. Greensboro Police Department Total Juvenile Arrests, 2004 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 7. High Point Police Department Total Juvenile Arrests, 2004 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 8. Guilford County Sheriff’s Department Total Juvenile Arrests, 2004 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 9. Greensboro Police Department Juvenile Field Contacts, 2005 . . . . . . . . …………... 11

Table 10. High Point Police Department Total Juvenile Field Contacts, 2004 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 11. Complaints Received by Offense Class, DJJDP, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 12. RRI for Complaints Received by Offense Class, DJJDP, 2005 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 14

Table 13. Hype 4 Life Program Participants, Age and Race Demographics…………………....31

1

C H A P T E R O N E

Overview of the Issue

rom July 2004 through June 2005, a cohesive, representative, and action-oriented DMC Committee completed the Planning Grant phase of the Guilford County DMC Demonstration Project. This

work continued over the last 12 months (July 2005 through June 2006), as the project moved into the Implementation Phase.

The goal of the Guilford County DMC Project is to mobilize government and community agencies to take strategic actions that will contribute to a reduction of disproportionate minority contact in Guilford County. Toward that end, this report summarizes project activities and accomplishments for 2005-2006 centered on four main areas: (a) DMC data management and utilization; (b) training; (c) utilization of targeted preventive services; and (d) agency policy, procedure, and practice modifications to impact DMC.

A Project Management Team based at UNCG’s Center for Youth, Family and Community Partnerships (including a half-time Project Coordinator) has served as the central convening, organizing, and planning arm for the project. This team is comprised of a parent representative/advocate, project coordinator, university faculty member, executive director of a non- profit agency, and a graduate research assistant. The team has issued monthly reports to the Guilford County JCPC on DMC Committee activities, coordinated DMC subcommittees, and set overall project direction. Over the past year, while there has been some turnover in DMC Committee memberships, there has been an overall net membership increase (see Table 1 for a listing of participating agencies and individuals).

The chapters in this report are aligned with the major focus areas of the implementation year: ongoing data collection and analysis, training, support for innovative prevention/intervention services, and policy/procedure modifications to reduce DMC. A separate chapter addresses community ownership of the DMC issue and the DMC Project’s efforts to link with other community-driven change organizations. The final chapter closes with the DMC plan for the sustainability year grant (July 2006 through June 2007).

F

G U I L F O R D D M C I M P L E M E N T A T I O N G R A N T S U M M A R Y

2

Table 1. DMC Committee Members and Agency Affiliations.

Alcohol and Drug Services Jackie Butler

Black Child Development June S. Valdes

BOTSO (Brothers Organized To Save Others)

Hank Wall, Marjorie Rorie Center for Youth, Family, and

Community Partnerships Jim Frabutt, Mary Kendrick, Emily

Cabaniss, Terri Shelton, Damie Jackson Department of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Rich Smith, Sandra Reid, Amie Haith,

Maxine Hammonds Department of Social Services

Pamela Watkins District Court Judges

Joe Turner, Lawrence McSwain Family Life Council

Spencer Long Faithworks Ministries

Kenneth & Sheila Fairbanks Family Services of the Piedmont

Erv Henry, Rayvone Poole Governor’s Crime Commission

Kimberly Wilson, Claudette Burroughs- White

Greensboro City Council Dianne Bellamy-Small

Greensboro Education and Development Council

Michael Prioleau Greensboro Housing Authority

Tina Akers Brown Greensboro Lifeskills Center

Shirley Foster Greensboro Parks and Recreation,

YouthFirst Darryl Kosciak, Connie White

Greensboro Police Department Tim Bellamy, Mike Loy

Guilford Center Emily Latta

Guilford County Manager’s Office Beverly Williams

Guilford County Department of Court Alternatives

Doug Logan, Thomas Turner Guilford County Schools

Richard Tuck, Gwendolyn Willis Guilford County Sheriff’s Department

Herb Jackson Guilford Education Alliance

Margaret Arbuckle Guilford Technical Community College

Pat Freeman High Point Parks and Recreation

Gretta Bush High Point Police Department

Beth Workman, Jim Tate, Quintin Trent Hype 4 Life

Arlicia Campbell Juvenile Crime Prevention Council

Owen Lewis Mentors

David Moore North Carolina Office of the

Juvenile Defender Eric Zogry

One Step Further Tommye Gant, Susan Ayers

Parent Representatives Dianne Walker, Stephanie Horton,

Mildred Poole, Cynthia Davis Prayer Network Melvin DuBose

United Piedmont Center Guin White United Way

Anthony Ward (now at Guilford Center) Win-Win Resolutions

Kathy Grumblatt, Debra Vigliano, Lenora Billings-Harris

YWCA of Greensboro Carolyn Flowers Youth Focus

Chuck Hodierne


3

C H A P T E R T W O

A DataDriven Approach to Reducing DMC

Review of School Suspension Data

Numerous investigations have documented the link between school suspensions and subsequent entry into the juvenile and criminal justice systems (e.g., Mendez, 2003; Wald & Losen, 2003). Therefore, one of the DMC Committee’s goals was to measure the extent of disproportionate black suspensions in Guilford County Schools. One way to do that is to compare black student suspensions with white student suspensions.

Such comparisons can be done in various ways. The measure that the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention uses to assess disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile justice system is called a Relative Rate Index (RRI). The RRI is preferable to other measures that are affected by the relative size of minority youth populations and the number of different minority populations you want to compare. The RRI method reduces statistical bias, allows accurate comparisons, and can be used to compare multiple racial and ethnic groups. For these reasons, we chose to use this method to analyze suspensions in the Guilford County School system.

Short and long-term suspension data compiled by the Data Warehouse for Guilford County Schools were provided to the DMC Management Team. Data were organized by school and by race and ethnicity. For each school, data reviewed included total student body membership, total number of students of each race or ethnicity (categorized as American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Multi-ethnic, and White), total number of short and long- term suspensions for the school, and total number for each racial or ethnic group within the school. Data were unduplicated, which means every count represented a different student rather than multiple suspensions for individual students. These data allowed us to examine discrepancies in black and white suspension rates for each school.


4

Suspension rates and relative rate indices were calculated for every school in Guilford County, comparing the short and long-term suspension rates of black students to those of white students. Suspension rates for each race were calculated by dividing the number of short or long-term suspensions for each race by the total number of students of that race and multiplying by 100. Next, the RRI for each school was calculated by dividing black short and long-term suspension rates by white short and long-term suspension rates.

Average RRIs, for both short and long term suspensions, are presented by school level below. Appendix 2 presents findings in several tables, arranged by school level, beginning with data for elementary schools, then middle schools, high schools, and other schools like middle colleges and multi-level schools. School names and total student membership are listed on the left (with the percentage of White and Black students in each school) and short and long-term suspension rates are broken down for white and black students in the cells of the tables. RRI for short and long-term suspensions are provided for each school in the far right columns, comparing the 2003- 2004 and 2004-2005 school years.

Average Relative Rate Indices

Table 2. Average Short Term Suspension Rates by School Level, 2003-2004 to 2004-2005.

White Short Term Rate

Black Short Term Rate

School Level 03-04 04-05 03-04 04-05

Elementary 3.4 5.5 5.6 4.7

Middle 13.6 12.1 32.9 30.3

High 9.3 8.6 22.0 25.1

All Levels 1 6.2 8.7 20.1 20.0

1 Averages for all school levels were calculated by combining the elementary, middle, and high school averages and dividing by three.


5

Table 3. Average Short Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-2004 to 2004-2005.

Short Term RRI

School Level 03-04 04-05

Elementary 3.6 3.0

Middle 3.3 3.2

High 3.9 4.4

All Levels 3.6 3.5

§ Overall, differences between short-term suspension rates of African American youth and White youth became smaller at the elementary and middle school levels from 2003-04 to 2004-05. In contrast, the differences became greater at the high school level.

§ Average short-term suspension RRIs decreased in elementary schools from 3.6 to 3.0 and in middle schools from 3.3 to 3.2, but increased in high schools from 3.9 to 4.4.

§ About half (51%) of schools experienced very little change (less than one point) in their short-term suspension RRIs. However, 21% had decreases, and 28% had increases. A greater percentage of middle schools showed decreases compared to other school levels, while a greater percentage of high schools showed increases.

Table 4. Average Long Term Suspension Rates by School Level, 2003-2004 to 2004-2005.

White Long Term Rate

Black Long Term Rate

School Level 03-04 04-05 03-04 04-05

Elementary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Middle 1.0 1.3 2.7 2.9

High 1.2 1.2 2.7 2.3

All Levels .7 .8 1.8 1.7


6

Table 5. Average Long Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-2004 to 2004-2005.

Long Term RRI

School Level 03-04 04-05

Elementary 0.0 0.0

Middle 4.9 4.0

High 8.2 7.6

All Levels 4.4 3.9

§ Racial disparities in long-term suspension decreased at all school levels from 2003-04 to 2004-05.

§ There were no long-term suspensions in elementary schools during either school year, and average long-term suspension RRIs decreased in middle schools from 4.9 to 4.0 and in high schools from 8.2 to 7.6.

§ One-third (33%) of middle and high schools experienced less than one point change in their long-term suspension RRIs. However, 27% had decreases, and 39% had increases.

§ A similar percentage of middle (26%) and high schools (29%) showed decreases, but a greater percentage of high schools (50%) saw increases than middle schools (32%).

Findings by School Level

Elementary Schools

§ The average short-term suspension RRI for elementary schools decreased from 3.6 in 2003-04 to 3.0 in 2004-2005.

§ 27% (17) experienced increases of at least one point in short-term RRI.

§ 22% (14) experienced decreases of at least one point in short-term RRI.

§ There were no long-term suspensions in elementary schools in either school year.


7

Middle Schools

§ The average short-term suspension RRI for middle schools decreased from 3.3 in 2003-04 to 3.2 in 2004-05.



§ The average long-term suspension RRI for middle schools decreased from 4.9 in 2003-04 to 4.0 in 2004-05.

§ 32% (6) experienced increases of at least one point in long-term RRI.

§ 26% (5) experienced decreases of at least one point in long-term RRI.

High Schools

§ The average short-term suspension RRI for high schools increased from 3.9 in 2003-04 to 4.4 in 2004-05.



§ The average long-term suspension RRI for high schools decreased from 8.2 in 2003-04 to 7.6 in 2004-05.

§ 50% (7) experienced increases of at least one point in long-term RRI.

§ 29% (4) experienced decreases of at least one point in long-term RRI.


8

Reviewof Law Enforcement Data

Review of law enforcement decision points is a critical step in identifying those pathways into the juvenile justice system that most impact DMC (Cox & Bell, 2001). Thus, since the inception of the project, our local DMC Committee has worked collaboratively with the Greensboro Police Department, High Point Police Department, and the Guilford County Sheriff’s Department to examine locally relevant decision point information. In particular, the DMC Committee requested that each law enforcement agency provide juvenile (ages 6-15) arrest and juvenile field contact information for calendar year 2005. In the tables that follow, 2005 data are compared with the same information from calendar year 2004. In both years, youth were most often charged with misdemeanor offenses; and in 2005 the most common charge across all agencies was for simple assault or affray.

Juvenile Arrests

Table 6. Greensboro Police Department Total Juvenile Arrests, 2004 and 2005.

2004 Data

Total Juvenile Arrests by Race (1,853)

Blacks (1,509): 81.44% Whites (253): 13.65% Other (72): 3.89%

Total Juvenile Arrests by Race and Gender

Black Males (1,088): 58.72% Black Females (421): 22.72% White Males (133): 7.18% White Females (120): 6.48% Other Males (53): 2.86% Other Females (19): 1.03%

2005 Data

Total Juvenile Arrests by Race (1,432)

Blacks (1,142) 79.75% Whites (241) 16.83% Other (49) 3.42%


Black Males (809) 56.49% Black Females (333) 23.25% White Males (136) 9.50% White Females (105) 7.33% Other Males (28) 1.96% Other Females (21) 1.47%


9

Table 6 indicates that 1,432 juvenile arrests were recorded by Greensboro Police Department (GPD) in 2005, with African American youth representing 80% of all youth arrested. Table 6 also displays GPD’s juvenile arrests by race and gender, highlighting that 56% of all juvenile arrests involved African American males, and 23% of all arrests involved African American females. A city map plotting GPD’s juvenile charges by quarter is available in Appendix 3 (p. 64).

A nearly identical pattern emerged in the analysis of High Point Police Department’s juvenile arrest data for the same time period. As Table 7 indicates, 80% of 987 juveniles arrested were African American. Similarly, Table 7 also illustrates that African American males (59%) and African American females (21%) were most represented among all arrested juveniles. Total juvenile arrests in High Point are plotted on a city map in Appendix 3 (p. 59).

Table 7. High Point Police Department Total Juvenile Arrests, 2004 and 2005.

2004 Data

Total Juvenile Arrests by Race (742)

Blacks (596): 80.32% Whites (138): 18.60% Other (8): 1.08%


Black Males (423): 57.01% Black Females (173): 23.32% White Males (85): 11.46% White Females (53): 7.14% Other Males (7): .94% Other Females (1): .13%

2005 Data


Blacks (785) 79.53% Whites (185) 18.74% Other (17) 1.72%


Black Males (582) 58.97% Black Females (203) 20.57% White Males (132) 13.37% White Females (53) 5.37% Other Males (5) .51% Other Females (12) 1.22%

African American youth accounted for approximately 59% of total juvenile arrests reported by the Guilford County Sheriff’s Department in 2005 (see Table 8). African American males (37%) and African American females (22%) were the most represented race and gender groups (see Table 6).


10

Table 8. Guilford County Sheriff’s Department Total Juvenile Arrests, 2004 and 2005.

2004 Data




Black Males (58): 35.15% Black Females (44): 26.67% White Males (33): 20.00% White Females (23): 13.94% Other Males (6): 3.64% Other Females (1): .61%

2005 Data


Blacks (87) 59.18% Whites (56) 38.10% Other (3) 2.04% Undesignated (1) .68%


Black Males (55) 37.41% Black Females (32) 21.77% White Males (37) 25.17% White Females (19) 12.93% Other Males (3) 2.04% Undesignated Males (1) .68%

Juvenile Field Contacts

A field contact is any law enforcement officer’s contact with a person or vehicle. Field contacts are an important statistic to track relative to DMC because it often represents the first encounter between youth and law enforcement. Juvenile field contact information is presented in the following two tables. Data were not available for 2004 from GPD and were not available for either year from the Sheriff’s Department. Table 9 indicates that of 73 field contacts in 2005, 56 (77%) of those were with African American youth. Table 10 presents two years of data from the High Point Police Department. In line with the arrest data reviewed earlier, of 108 field contacts, 88 of those involved African American youth. For both Greensboro and High Point, African American males were involved in the highest percentage of field contacts, 74% and 77% respectively.


11

Table 9. Greensboro Police Department Juvenile Field Contacts, 2005.

2005 Data

Total Juvenile Field Contacts by Race (73)

Blacks (56) 76.71% Whites (10) 13.70% Other (2) 2.74% Undesignated (5) 6.85%

Total Juvenile Field Contacts by Race and Gender

Black Males (54) 73.97% Black Females (2) 2.74% White Males (9) 12.33% White Females (1) 1.37% Other Males (2) 2.74% Undesignated Females (2) 2.74% Undesignated Males (1) 1.37% Undesignated race or gender (2) 2.74%

Table 10. High Point Police Department Total Juvenile Field Contacts, 2004 and 2005.

2004 Data



Total Field Contacts by Race and Gender

Black Males (44): 62.86% Black Females (4): 5.71% White Males (14): 20.00% White Females (7): 10.00% Other Males (1): 1.43%

2005 Data


Blacks (88) 81.48% Whites (19) 17.59% Other (1) .93%

Total Field Contacts by Race and Gender

Black Males (83) 76.85% Black Females (5) 4.63% White Males (14) 12.96% White Females (5) 4.63% Other Males (1) .93%


12

Review of Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Data

The purpose of this component of our data gathering efforts was to measure the extent of disproportionate minority contact in Guilford County’s juvenile court system. One way to do that is to compare White youth contacts in the system with African American youth contacts. Such comparisons can be done in various ways. The measure that the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention uses to assess disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile justice system is the Relative Rate Index (RRI).

The RRI is preferable to other measures that are affected by the relative size of minority youth populations and the number of different minority populations under comparison. The RRI method reduces statistical bias, allows accurate comparisons, and can be used to compare multiple racial and ethnic groups. For these reasons, and to produce analyses consistent with those conducted at the state and federal level, we chose to use this method to analyze minority contacts in Guilford County’s juvenile court system.

Using NC-JOIN, an online data system maintained by North Carolina’s Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Mr. Stan Clarkson, the department’s data analyst, provided data by age, race, and gender for key decision points in Guilford County’s juvenile court system for calendar year 2005. Among the data reviewed were total complaints received, complaints approved, complaints not approved, complaints adjudicated, complaints dismissed, and complaints disposed. These data were organized by race and by offense severity.

Incidence rates and RRIs were calculated for each decision point in Guilford County’s juvenile court system, comparing rates of occurrence for black youth with those of white youth. First, incidence rates for each race were calculated by dividing the number of incidents for each race by the total county youth population for that race and multiplying by 100. Next, an RRI for each decision point was calculated by dividing black incident rates by white incident rates. Finally, overall RRIs were calculated by dividing overall black incidence rates by overall white incidence rates.


13

Table 11 provides an example (complaints received) of the type of descriptive information that was reviewed for each juvenile justice decision point (see Appendix 4 for all other decision point tables). According to North Carolina’s Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) 2 , when a youth is suspected of committing a crime, a complaint can be filed against him or her. At this time, a youth goes through an intake process 3 with a juvenile court counselor, and complaints and evidence are screened and evaluated.

Complaints can be categorized as violent (felony A-E), serious (felony F-1, A1 misdemeanor), minor (misdemeanor 1-3), status (undisciplined), or infractions (traffic and local ordinance citations).

§ Violent offenses include murder, rape, kidnapping, and arson.

§ Serious offenses include felony breaking and entering, assault on a government official or school employee, assault by pointing a gun, and burning an unoccupied building.

§ Minor offenses include simple assault or affray, property damage, resisting arrest, possession of a controlled substance, trespassing, disorderly conduct, unauthorized use of motor vehicle, and carrying a concealed weapon.

§ Status offenses include ungovernability, truancy, running away, and being found in places unlawful for juvenile.

§ Infractions generally involve traffic and local ordinance citations.

For each race, the table reports simple frequencies for each category offense (grouped according to severity). For example, 53 complaints were received for Asian youth in 2005, 0 violent, 19 serious, 28 minor, and 6 status. Of note in Table 11 is the observation that of 2,648 total complaints received in 2005, 2,031 (77%) involved Black youth and 455 (17%) involved white youth. No other racial category exceeded two percent of the total.

2 Key provisions of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998 from which basic justice processing procedures are extracted are outlined on the DJJDP website: http://www.ncdjjdp.org/about/reform.html

3 Juvenile justice processing procedures and definitions are drawn from the above indicated DJJDP website and its Court Services Policy and Procedures document: http://www.ncdjjdp.org/about/policy/ip/InterventionPreventionPolicies.pdf

http://www.ncdjjdp.org/about/reform.html


14

Table 11. Complaints Received by Offense Class, DJJDP, 2005.

Incidence rates and RRIs were calculated for each decision point in Guilford County’s juvenile court system, comparing rates of occurrence for black youth with those of white youth. First, incidence rates for each race were calculated by dividing the number of incidents for each race by the total county youth population for that race and multiplying by 100. Next, an RRI for each decision point was calculated by dividing black incident rates by white incident rates.

Table 12. RRI for Complaints Received by Offense Class, DJJDP, 2005.

RACE A-E

(violent) F-I, A1

(serious) 1-3 (m) (minor)

Infract- ion Status

Grand Total

Asian 0 19 28 0 6 53 Black 78 561 1246 13 133 2031 Latino 1 18 31 2 6 58 Multi-racial 2 7 20 0 3 32 Native American 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 4 6 0 1 11 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 4 4 0 0 8 White 17 97 296 0 45 455 Total: 98 710 1631 15 194 2648

Table 12 provides an example of incidence rates and relative rates at the point of complaints received (see Appendix 4 for all other RRI tables). For example, in the minor complaint category, the incidence rate for white

Number of White Youth

Rate of Occurrence: White Youth

Number of Black Youth

Rate of Occurrence: Black Youth

Relative Rate Index

Population at risk (ages 10-17) 27,688 17,885

Complaints Received Minor 296 1.1 1246 7.0 6.5

Complaints Received Serious 97 0.4 561 3.1 9.0

Complaints Received Violent 17 0.1 78 0.4 7.1

Overall 410 1.5 1885 10.5 7.0


15

youth was 1.1, while for Black youth, it was 7.0. Stated another way, out of all the white youth in Guilford County (27,688), 1.1% of those youth received a minor complaint in 2005. In contrast, of all the Black youth in Guilford County (17,885), 7% of those youth received a minor complaint during the same time period. The incidence rate is higher for Black youth at each level of severity.

Continuing the above example, to calculate the RRI, the incidence rate of 7.0 for minor complaints received for black youth is divided by the incidence rate of 1.1 for white youth to arrive at an RRI of 6.5. This means minor complaints were reported against black youth at 6.5 times the rate of white youth; or for every minor complaint involving a white youth, 6.5 minor complaints involved black youth.

UsingFocus Groupsto Inform the DMC Project

There was a commitment among the DMC Committee to seek the voices and experiences of several groups directly involved with DMC issues. Therefore, during 2005-2006 four focus group sessions were conducted with educators and student support services staff, officers of Greensboro Police Department’s Juvenile Services Division, and High Point Police Department School Resource Officers. The focus groups were convened to explore participants’ personal experiences and provide their insights into ways the juvenile justice system could address the issues around DMC in Guilford County. Each session was audio-recorded and transcribed. Findings and interpretations represent major themes and perspectives of the sessions as summarized by multiple observers and readers.

Focus Group withEducators and Student Support Services Staff In the Spring of 2006, a focus group session was conducted with 8 representatives from the Guilford County School System. This group included a social worker, teachers, and administrators working in the county’s elementary, middle, and high schools. The goal of this session was to gain insight into the issues contributing to the over-representation of African American youth in short and long term suspensions.


16

Inexperienced Teachers and Administrators

Many schools have a large percentage of teachers and administrators with very little experience in their jobs. In some cases, individuals have taken lateral entry teaching positions and are assuming full classroom responsibilities while working on their teaching certification. Other schools are led by principals who have been recently promoted from brief tenures as assistant principals.

Those who are just beginning careers in the school system often do not know how to effectively manage student behavior. To minimize conflict with potentially threatening students they may fear, teachers frequently overlook offenses (often first appearing in elementary school) which may grow into larger problems over time. For instance, some teachers allow students to wear do-rags or sunglasses although it violates some school dress codes.

In other cases, teachers may attempt to discipline disruptive students by sending them to the office, only to have them promptly returned by the principal or assistant principal. As one teacher explained, “What you tolerate, you accept.” When students experience few consequences for inappropriate or disrespectful behavior, schools become, in the words of one educator, “a breeding ground for bad behavior and violence.”

Often new teachers and administrators lack the skills to lessen confrontations and redirect problem behaviors. One teacher recounted being pushed, cursed at, and being the target of things thrown at her by students. Another teacher humbly admitted, “We need more training about how to handle difficult situations.”

Lack of Administrative Support

Educators frequently believe that what is in the best overall interest of students is at odds with the school administrators’ focus on academic achievement. As well, educators feel that their voices are rarely heard when administrative decisions are made. Too often, they believe that administrators overlook the importance of character education. Frequently, innovative and holistic teaching programs are abandoned by administrators when student tests scores do not immediately improve. Educators believe that such practices are short-sighted and that lasting improvements in academics will emerge from a child’s overall moral development.


17

In other cases, decisions made in individual schools are over-ruled by administrators in the Central Office. For instance, one school chose a different learning model for students, electing to replace block scheduling with traditional schedules. This decision was reversed by administrators who said there was insufficient funding for books under this type of schedule. In another case, a school wanted to assign students to the same homeroom teacher throughout high school in order to build relationships with other students and provide a level of stability. Unfortunately, this plan was abandoned shortly after it began.

Parents

Educators believe that many parents are intimidated by the school system and feel unequipped to help their children succeed. Additionally, parents feel out of place and unwelcome in their child’s school. In some cases, parents are not even aware of their parental rights. One educator recounted that a parent whose child was having trouble in school asked to observe a class. Although she is legally entitled to do so, she was discouraged from observing by the teacher who did not want her in the classroom. Educators believe parents (as well as students) need advocates and mentors in order to understand the school system and to help their children maneuver through it.

Other times, educators are frustrated by parents who do not always take an active interest in their child’s education and at times do not model responsible behavior at home. They believe programs that offer support and guidance for parents raising school age children may help them develop more effective parenting skills. Educators are still not sure how to combat the apathy they sometimes perceive in parents and students. One educator asked, “Is there some program about teaching parents and children to care?”

Despite the challenges that parents sometimes present to educators, in addition to those that the school system creates for parents, teachers do not want to be seen as a force to contend with. Rather, their passion for teaching and compassion for youth make them important partners who are trying to make a difference in the lives of young people.


18

Focus Group withGreensboro Police Department Juvenile Services Division Officers In the winter of 2006, a focus group session was conducted with four law enforcement officers and a lieutenant assigned to the Delinquency and Undisciplined unit of Greensboro Police Department’s Juvenile Services Division. When the police receive complaints about youth, patrol officers actually respond to the call, gather suspect information, and write the report. This report is then forwarded to the Juvenile Services Division to conduct appropriate follow-up investigations. In 2005, this unit handled approximately 2,000 cases, and officers estimate that 80% of these cases involved African American youth. The goal of this session was to gain insight into the issues confronting law enforcement officers working with youth offenders, as well as seek officers’ perspectives on what contributes to minority over-representation in the juvenile justice system in Guilford County.

Family Dynamics

Some delinquency problems may stem from the teen pregnancy epidemics of the 1980s and 1990s. Today’s parents may have been raised by parents who were very young and inexperienced themselves and did not know how to care for or advise their own children.

Officers rarely encounter parents who are genuinely interested in helping address the problem behaviors of their children. Often, they have difficulty even locating parents, and they estimate that less than 1% of parents respond to their calls. Those that do are nearly always mothers, and they often want the officers to take their unmanageable children to detention. Fathers are not often in the home or in the child’s life. There are some cases, however, in which parents involve police because they are in dire need of help and do not know where else to turn.

In other cases, youth have been taught criminal behavior from their families and are surprised when they are sanctioned for something they learned to do from their parents. Some youth may even view “jail” as a normal part of the family culture. White females, in particular, do not appear to view shoplifting as a crime. In other cases, youth may be committing crimes to support a family member’s drug addictions. Still others may be enabled by parents who ignore their behavior. In one case, an officer was working with a ten-year-old involved in a robbery committed between 11:00pm and


19

midnight. In another case, an underage youth was allowed to drive the family car. In some cases, officers directly fault parents. A father actually gave his fourteen-year-old son a shot gun, “for protection,” and the son accidentally killed his sister with it. Officers believe that the only way to get through to many disengaged parents is to charge them with neglect or with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

System Issues

Officers believe that the juvenile justice system itself is failing today’s youth. Designed in the 1940s or 1950s to manage minor offenses, the system is inadequate for addressing the very serious offenses committed today. Currently, it is not unusual for youth in their early teens to be charged with violent felonies, such as armed robberies or drug offenses. But, in the words of one officer, “The system has stayed virtually the same—hasn’t kept up.”

Legal consequences are both inadequate and ineffective. Youth often know what type of sanction to expect for various offenses, and do not always view short stays in detention or other moderate penalties as deterrents. Some even learn habits from one another that will keep them in the system. Moreover, many youth do not foresee the serious consequences of committing similar offenses when they turn 16 and can be tried as adults. Officers report high rates of recidivism, and they rarely encounter first-time offenders anymore. In fact, they commonly work with youth who have already had 15 to 30 prior charges. Some youth have been in the juvenile justice system for ten years.

Recommendations

§ Laws must change so that there are real consequences for behaviors. Youth who commit their first violent felony may be deterred in the future if they expect the consequences to be severe and immediate.

§ Discipline and responsibility should also be taught in schools, beginning in kindergarten. Youth must be reached early and often and need to see consistent consequences at home, at school, and in the legal system.

§ Parents need help raising their children and parent training so that they can model love, respect, and discipline at home.


20

§ Students should be required to wear school uniforms to reduce social segregation.

§ Gang colors and paraphernalia should be banned on all school campuses.

§ Drug awareness and prevention programs, such as D.A.R.E., should be reinstated in the schools.

Focus Group withHigh Point Police Department School Resource Officers In July 2006, a focus group session was conducted with School Resource Officers (SROs) from the High Point Police Department. Five SROs, their supervising Captain, and a Child Abuse Reduction Education officer were in attendance. The purpose of the meeting was to gain a better understanding of issues surrounding DMC by hearing from law enforcement officers who have daily contact with children in Guilford County schools. The following is a summary of their reflections and recommendations.

The meeting commenced with the Captain demonstrating the volatile atmosphere that exists in some schools. He conveyed this by sharing a surveillance tape of a fight that occurred at High Point Central earlier in the school year. Throughout the meeting, the officers expressed their personal reasons for getting into law enforcement, the challenges they face, and the daily role they play in steering young people away from crime. The session concluded with their recommendations for reducing suspension rates, especially those of black youth in High Point schools.

What They’re Up Against

The atmosphere in High Point City Schools was best described by officers as ‘uneasy.’ In addition to fighting, they noted the presence of gangs shifting from the community into the schools. The reluctance of staff to be involved in resolving tensions between students, as well as school administrators’ apparent inability to enforce rules, contributes to a volatile environment. For instance, cell phones are often used by students to inform one another about a potential fight. One student can text message another with, “Fight in the cafeteria.” In fact, one officer mentioned that if


21

there is a fight or possible fight, “You’ll see cell phones light up immediately.”

Officers believe that the use of cell phones is the consequence of schools not enforcing their own rules. In their view, lack of vigilance only exacerbates conflict. As examples, the SROs listed an incident involving a pipe bomb in which the bomb squad was called. They also listed another incident when students possessed razor blades on school campuses. Officers also expressed concern that conflicts between students can arise even before students arrive at school or after they leave for the day. For instance, there have been fights between students dropped off at a ‘bus-hub’ used by area schools.

While the officers recognize that, in many cases, repeat offenders are responsible for most incidents; these repeat offenders nonetheless threaten school safety, at times even requiring schools to be on ‘lock down’. They “shudder to think what the problems would be if [there] were no SRO’s in the middle schools.” In spite of the uneasy environment, the officers wanted to acknowledge that every SRO requested his or her current assignment. One African American SRO stated that “I used to work in predominantly black neighborhoods. I used to arrest folk that look like me for eleven years. I felt if I got into the school system, I could prevent some students from going…that route. Now I work in the schools, and the calls I respond to are mostly for black youth.”

The Captain asserted that SROs are role models in their schools and often take on extra responsibilities. For instance, some offer to speak with students about the court system, juvenile and criminal law, as well as drug issues. They also reach out to gang members.

Each year, several middle school students are referred by the Department of Social Services and Guilford County Schools to the High Point Police Department’s Youth Academy. The purpose of the academy is to build leadership skills and to give children the opportunity to interact positively with law enforcement. When handling conflicts involving students, the officers deal with them on a case-by-case basis. They maintain that their “goal is to help kids….Arrest is far down on the list.” They further explained that “We look for any alternatives that we can use to solve the needs of the children.” Teen court, Youth Focus, school counselors, and support from school administrators were identified as resources used to discourage bad behavior and to divert youth from the juvenile justice


22

system. One SRO stated, “I don’t charge every child that fights.” In fact, 70-80% of the fights do not result in charges, but in suspensions. The same officer indicated that SROs typically try numerous other ways of managing behavior problems. He continued, “We refer them to an agency to help them think about their actions before they get into a fight…We pull them in, to council…[and] let them know about the consequences.…If they still fight, we have to follow through [with suspension] to uphold our credibility with the other students.”

In general, SROs believe their responsibilities are to discourage not only criminal behavior, but also behavior that leads to suspensions. Officers in this meeting also tended to focus more on events and circumstances that increase the likelihood of suspension than on factors contributing to arrests. Moreover, they want people to understand that although the difficulty for SROs to do their jobs is increasing, they are not making rash or unsound decisions. In fact, the officers in the session reminded the DMC management team that they were veteran officers. They are using all their skills and training as experienced law enforcement officers when making decisions.

Generally, the officers did not see race as a factor contributing to racial disparities in suspensions. One SRO remarked, “I don’t think High Point has the racial issues that other communities have. I think we are fairly color blind here. We treat people fairly regardless of color.”

Parental Involvement

On the whole, the officers identified family dynamics as a primary reason for non-compliance during school. “Their home life is broken down and they are not prepared to do anything when they get to class” one officer remarked. Another stated, “It all starts at home…but a lot of these kids don’t have parental involvement….When they leave for school they’re on their own. There is no parenting.”

The problems of inadequate parental involvement are also evident when officers are unable to contact parents. One officer stated, “When you call parents you can’t find them. The child doesn’t know where they are.” The officers asserted that this situation not only prevents them from using alternative resources, but can also endanger children, who, for instance, may not even be treated at a hospital without parental consent.


23

The lack of parental concern regarding a child’s academic progress is of chief concern. One SRO gave an example of a father that came to school and disputed whether or not his daughter could wear ‘fronts’ (teeth). Essentially, he could not care less that his daughter received failing grades in her classes. More surprisingly, a statement was made that in some cases SROs have arrested children of criminally-involved parents, indicating inter- generational problems.

Generally, children are more likely to listen to figures from their own community. Therefore, the officers strongly recommended that faith-based organizations partner with schools and parents. They also suggested identifying ways retirees can become more involved in the community. Another officer put out a call for parents to become more proactive, stating that “[When] you look at the numbers and [complain,] you’re causing more harm than good.” He suggested that one way parents can become more effective advocates for their children is by voting in local elections.

Accountability

According to the officers, the lack of accountability by children for their behavior and continual disrespect for those in authority contribute to high suspension rates. For instance, when asked to follow instructions, it has become the norm for students to respond to those in authority (such as teachers) with, “You ain’t my daddy! You can’t tell me what to do.” When students are not held accountable for their behavior, they often act-out, are removed from class, and are routinely returned to the mainstream environment to repeat the cycle all over. One officer suggested that “Continued defiance turns into assaulting a teacher.” Another remarked, “We need to hold these kids accountable. To do anything else would be a disservice to them.”

Pushing Kids Through

One ineffective response to disruptive behavior, from the SROs’ standpoint, is the practice of pushing kids through the system. This practice only frustrates youth who may continue to act out and eventually be suspended. A comment was made that “Lots of these kids have been pushed through the system. They can’t read or write. To avoid looking the fool in class, they act out and misbehave to compensate for their inability to perform in the classroom.” According to one officer, “If we don’t equip


24

them with the tools that they need for life in middle school, then it’s over. They won’t make it to the next level.”

Even though the SCALES program does not have a physical location available in High Point, the officers suggested that a school within a school, similar to ISS, may be helpful. ISS can be used to address behavioral accountability and the academic needs of children that are removed for disrupting class. However, as one officer stated, “ISS should not function as a ‘holding cell’ for students to do nothing.” He believes ISS should be a structured environment, where students earn their way out by completing their assignments.

The officers praised the structured environment maintained in ISS at one particular school. At this school, the ISS teacher provided students with the attention needed to improve their academic performance in class. When ISS is managed well, the benefits can be two-fold: youth are held accountable for their actions because they have to complete their work before being allowed to leave, and they receive additional help with their studies.

The officers view ISS as an effective solution to the challenges teachers face when a few students are disrupting entire classes. One officer asked, “Why should emphasis be placed on a small group of problem students?” In his view “We should focus on the majority that does not interfere with the learning environment.” ISS offers a way of addressing the educational and behavioral needs of students who may benefit from a more structured learning environment. In support of the use of ISS, one SRO emphatically stated, “ISS can be successful! Everyone has to be on board, there has to be structure and it has to be closely supervised.”

Consistency

SROs believe that frequent staff changes and inconsistency by central administration (i.e., principal, teachers) only exacerbate the situation for youth who also experience a lack of stability in their homes. This dynamic increases the likelihood that children will be non-compliant. For example, constant change in administration and/or school leadership often creates inconsistency in the execution of school procedures. One officer said, “At one school, twenty new teachers put in to transfer. So you’re starting the school year with twenty brand new teachers, some probably inexperienced.”


25

Furthermore, officers believe that some principals are more receptive to having SROs than others. They believe that perhaps some principals are receiving pressure from the Central Office to control their schools. If SROs are not in the schools, principals may be able to cover up a lot of things in order to keep the number of incidents low. The officers also predict that redistricting will create a new set of problems because of the shift in student demographics.

While the officers identify the need for consistency in school administration and recommend mentoring and training for new teachers, some believe that the school board does not really understand the magnitude of the problems in the schools. Therefore, they recommend that School Board Members visit individual schools or even offer to substitute teach and see what the issues are for themselves.


26

C H A P T E R T H R E E

Supporting Prevention and Intervention Efforts

Since differential opportunities for prevention and treatment (e.g., access, implementation, and effectiveness) contribute to DMC, in Year 1, the DMC Committee established the Resources and Needs Subcommittee to identify youth services offered in the county, as well as potential service “gaps.” Based on that effort, in Year 2, the DMC Project allocated $30,000 of its Implementation Grant to support local, targeted community programming.

The Mini-Grant Process

Early in Year 2, the Resources and Needs Subcommittee developed and distributed a call for proposals for “mini-grant” funding to local service providers. Press releases were issued to several local newspapers announcing the call for proposals. Only programs which addressed one of four identified service gaps would be considered for funding:

1. Aftercare – support for youths after suspension or incarceration 2. Mentoring – one-on-one mentoring for at least two hours each week 3. Mediation – school-based conflict resolution/peer mediation 4. Parenting Support – guidance from parent/youth advocates

All mini-grant applicants were required to attend a Grant Submission Workshop presented by the Resources and Needs Subcommittee. In this workshop, the grant application, submission, review, and selection processes were explained. Because DMC cannot be fully addressed and progress sustained without far-reaching community involvement, the committee sought to minimize funding obstacles for all applicants (not just those selected as mini-grant recipients). For that reason, the mini-grant application was purposefully modeled after the form used by Guilford County’s Juvenile Crime Prevention Council, with the goal of facilitating future or alternate community funding for applicants.


27

In order to be considered for funding, all proposals were expected to address a wide range of considerations. First, applicants were asked to identify the particular aspect of DMC their projects would address and to explain why it was important. Next, applicants were asked to describe their recruitment strategies and to state their overall project goal(s), as well as particular objectives that must be met to reach these goals.

More specifically, for each objective, applicants were asked to identify performance measures, or indicators of success, and to explain how they would measure success (their evaluation method). They were also asked to place their project activities on a timeline, to relate them to their stated objectives, and to indicate what steps they would take to sustain their service beyond the grant period.

Applicants were also expected to provide a detailed outline their budgets, ensuring that expenses did not exceed $10,000. Non-allowable costs included indirect costs (maintenance of facilities; administrative salaries or costs not assigned to a particular project); purchase of vehicles, buildings, or land; and construction costs.

As well, applicants were expected to discuss their organizational capacity. This included previous experience with target populations. They were also asked to list the agencies with which they must effectively collaborate to carry out their proposals. A letter from each partner agency describing the collaborative arrangement was required from each mini-grant applicant.

When all proposals (total of 9) were received in early October 2005, the Resources and Needs Subcommittee met to review applications according to a list of pre-established criteria:

§ Experience – does the applicant have specific experience providing the types of services listing in the grant request?

§ Collaboration Plan – how does the applicant plan to collaborate with partners to accomplish the goals of the project

§ Number of people effectively served by the project

§ Project Description – primary focus for the raters – methodologies to accomplish the outcomes

§ Plan for Evaluation of Objectives – are objectives measurable and are there clear ways to determine whether they have been achieved


28

§ Supportive Services – does the proposed project include additional services, perhaps funded by other sources, that will enhance the project

§ Budget – does the budget reflect a good utilization of the financial resources that are being devoted to this project

As a first step, each reviewer independently read all proposals and selected the three strongest applications. Then, all reviewers reconvened to re- examine these applications. Each proposal was assigned a cumulative score from 0 to 100, based on how well it met each criterion; and the three proposals receiving the highest scores were selected as potential funding candidates.

At the October 2005 DMC Committee meeting, the Resources and Needs Subcommittee presented its funding recommendations. At that time, the DMC Committee endorsed the selections and authorized award notifications to be sent. Three mini-grants of $10,000 each were made available on a reimbursement basis to the following programs:

§ Hype 4 Life - a life skills training program focused on self-esteem, attitudes and personal responsibility, offered at four schools.

§ ParentTalk - a program implemented by One Step Further, Inc. to provide a forum for parents of undisciplined and delinquent youths to share juvenile justice experiences and explore successful alternative parenting techniques.

§ Brothers Organized to Save Others (BOTSO) - a program designed to empower African American youth through mentoring, support for academic achievement, and character education.

Each mini-grant recipient then signed an individual subcontract (using a standard form issued by the Governor’s Crime Commission) with the Center for Youth, Family, and Community partnerships which was then sent to the Governor’s Crime Commission for approval. By entering into this contract, grant recipients agreed to submit regular reports on their activities, the number of youth served, and any challenges. These were submitted monthly with their invoices.

In November 2005, funded programs officially began their activities. From that point forward, representatives from each funded program reported on


29

their work at each monthly meeting of the full DMC Committee. As agreed, they also submitted formal progress reports to Jim Frabutt at the Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships with their monthly reimbursement requests.

Formal program monitoring site visits by members of the Resources and Needs Subcommittee began in April 2006. In these visits, subcommittee members assessed each program according to criteria put forth by the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council in their monitoring reports. Such criteria included compliance with program agreement, program operation and staffing, financial accounting, and number of referrals from law enforcement, juvenile court, or other sources. Other DMC Committee members also visited program sites throughout the funding period on a more informal basis.

Throughout the mini-grant process, the DMC Committee encountered challenges, recognized opportunities, and learned valuable lessons. The following represents reflections and observations made by committee members:

§ Extending the geographic location and/or population of interest of some programs was a clear benefit.

§ The DMC mini-grants served as seed funding for growing programs and helped to attract new funding.

§ Strengths of the process included an abbreviated funding application and a quick turn-around time; concise instructions and procedures for completing reimbursement reports and receiving payment for services.

§ The compressed timeline (7 months) for delivering services and assessing impact was a challenge.

§ An unintended consequence of the mini-grant process was that some partners that served on the DMC Committee had submitted applications for funding and were not selected. The Resource and Needs Subcommittee’s commitment to transparency in the selection process helped to reduce tensions that could have impacted our overall efforts.

§ Monitoring team site visits were difficult to coordinate and schedule.


30

§ Increasing familiarity with the funder’s application (Governor’s Crime Commission) may benefit applicants during the next funding cycle.

Additionally, mini-grant recipients helped the committee understand the “insider” experience with this process by sharing their perspectives as funding recipients:

§ A Bridge for Program Development/Expansion: “As a result of the success of the program we have modified it to include serving parents of youth gang members, youth exhibiting gang-like behavior, and youth at-risk of joining a gang.”

§ Reaching More Participants: “DMC mini-grant funding provided us with funding to continue operation as well as expand the program to serve not only parents of school enrolled youth but also parents residing in public housing, involved in community agencies, or self-referrals.”

§ Building Partnerships: “The main strength of the mini-grant includes new-found partnerships formed through and by the process. Quite refreshing to be part of a committee that is actually hands on.”

§ Leverage for Other Support: “The mini-grant did open the door for us to apply for other grants to reach more youth (we have received a gang grant as a result of this mini-grant).”

Program-Level Outcomes

BOTSO

Over the course of the grant period, the BOTSO program engaged 15 new adults to serve as mentors and served 88 African American youth (20 were aged 8 and under; 26 were 9-12; 33 were 13-15; and 9 were 16-18). The approach and presence of African American males had a tremendous positive impact in attitudes and performance levels of the participants. The students responded with an increased interest in school and school-related activities. The project exposed the youth, through school-based and evening programs, to the following: “Thankful Heritage: A Traveling


31

African American Museum,” semi-professional basketball games, community service through Super Saturday Clean-ups, a “Scared Straight” program at Polk Correctional Center, conflict resolution skills through Win- Win Resolutions, and a six-week character-building program call “A Hero Factor.” One of the project goals of BOTSO over the grant duration was to recruit African American men as mentors. A presentation during Sunday school at High Point Christian Center allowed the project to address 20 men. Twelve of those men agreed to register as mentors for the program and have dedicated themselves to the process.

Hype For Life

Hype 4 Life’s life skills training program, with a focus on self-esteem, attitudes, and personal responsibility, was successfully offered at four school sites throughout the grant period: Kirkman Park Elementary, Cone Elementary, Welborn Middle, and High Point Central High School. Table 13 displays the demographic characteristics of the program participants.

Table 13. Program Participants, Age and Race Demographics.

Male Female ≤ 8 9-12 13-15 16-18 ≤ 8 9-12 13-15 16-18 Total

African American

21 7 8 23 7 9 3 6 84

Asian 1 1 1 3

White 1 1 2 2 6

Other 1 2 3

One particular participant was a seventh grade black female who was always in trouble. She was constantly in danger of long-term suspensions due to fighting. In fact, some administrators regarded her as the ‘holy terror’. This particular student began the program in December and immediately the Hype for Life program began to nurture her. For example, we just singled her out and did one-on-ones with her” a facilitator mentioned. However, it was a home visitation and daily communicating by phone and e-mail that provided insight to help explain “why she was acting out fighting and in trouble everyday.” At home, “her dad was not in the picture and her mom was on drugs.” Her family life was best described as “on her own…raising herself and feeding herself.” The Hype 4 Life Project Director told her “I love you [and] I want you to do better.” Therefore, once the Director


32

began to take a personal interest in her at both home and school, and in 30 days changes were evident. For instance, she came to workshops and eventually got directly involved, while both her attitude and attendance improved. She was more talkative, cooperative, and interactive not only with Hype 4 Life staff, but in her school classroom. In addition to the behavioral changes at school, she transformed personally; she was becoming more confident and began to dress better and fix her hair and was even getting along better with her mother.

Although she got into a fight with another girl during the last week of school, Hype program staff still considered her a successful model because the girl did not get suspended for nearly six months. The Hype 4 Life plan also helped her see that “what happens at school affects not only her day- to-day reality but her future.”

ParentTalk

The ParentTalk program served 75 adults during the grant duration (18 men and 57 women. Participants were White (36%) and African American (64%). Martha Thompson, a widow, worked two jobs to support her 14- year-old son Jared and her three other children ages 12, 9, and 7. During the past two years, Jared had become increasingly “out of control.” He talked constantly in classes, fought with other students, screamed obscenities at his teachers, etc. His behavior at home was similar, and he was damaging property around his neighborhood. He was ordered to the SCALE school, and juvenile professionals warned Ms. Thompson that he was headed for juvenile detention and possibly a youth development center. His mother was desperate for help.

In ParentTalk sessions, after viewing examples in DVDs and participating in several role plays, Ms. Thompson realized that she was not listening to Jared. “It’s hard to work two jobs, cook and clean at home with four children, and take time to listen to my children,” she said. Talking with other parents showed her that she, in part, had contributed to Jared’s anger and to his antisocial behavior. Another parent recommended an anger management program (with a sliding fee scale). Jared and Ms Thompson attended. She also returned to ParentTalk to practice communicating positively with all of her children.

ParentTalk staff learned in follow-up contacts with Ms. Thompson that Jared’s behavior at home and in school had “improved a lot.” He had


33

“quieted down” and was actually talking to his mother. She learned how other parents dealt with disruptive kids, that being a dictatorial parent was ineffective with Jared, and that she did have the ability to really listen to her son. As she added, the next step is “to bring that boy’s grades up.”


34

C H A P T E R F O U R

CommunityBased Training Efforts

Undoing Racism™with Court Counselors

Because the decisions juvenile court counselors make can either minimize or deepen a youth’s involvement in the court system, the DMC Committee chose to sponsor an Undoing Racism™ workshop for all Guilford County court counselors during Year 2 of the DMC Project. This training was provided by the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond, based in New Orleans, and uses dialogue, reflection, role-playing, strategic planning and presentations. The intensive process challenges participants to analyze the structures of power and privilege that hinder social equity and prepares them to be effective organizers for justice. The two-day workshop was held on October 20 th and 21 st , and over 30 court counselors were in attendance.

Parent Voice

The DMC Management Team was committed to ensuring that the voice of parents was infused into DMC agenda-setting, planning, and project implementation. After interviewing several potential candidates, Ms. Stephanie Horton of Greensboro began to serve as a paid consultant to the DMC Project as a parent advocate. Below, Stephanie provides some reflection on her involvement in the DMC Project.

“Being a parent has been my major contribution to the Guilford County DMC Project. In 2002, I went to the court counselors’ office seeking direction for my sons, who were 13 and 14 at the time. After speaking with Mrs. Dianne Blanton (then Chief Court Counselor) with my boys present, I decided to charge them as undisciplined. The major reason for my decision was that their home schools’ disciplinary action was a short-term suspension, usually for very minor incidents. They quickly fell behind in school. Once they became court-involved, they were enrolled at the


35

Guilford County Juvenile Structured Day Program, where they received counseling (and discipline if needed). They were focused and maturing greatly. After 9 months, they returned their home school and did well.”

“One reason I became involved with the DMC Project is to help other parents with children involved with the court system. I had attended a parent meeting that made me more aware of how the juvenile justice system was working (or not working) for our youth. My youngest son, Bilal, was charged with simple affray by a School Resource Officer causing him to go before a judge. He was placed on probation, which was not effective because neither counseling nor resources were made available to seek understanding of the charge and the reason behind his behavior. By the grace and mercy of God I was asked to represent the parents of court- involved youth at a DMC monthly meeting. Then my eyes were opened wide on how minority youth were being charged and detained for things that could have been handled much differently. It seemed that parents were not being made aware of alternative means to discipline their youth and improve their parenting skills. I knew I had to be a part of the effort to make others aware of what had been forgotten and seemed to be getting even worse.”

“I see two issues that concern me. One, it seems to me as though after SROs were placed in schools all hell broke loose. Minority youth are being charged more and more. It seems as if minority youth are not in school, then it’s not the schools’ problem. Frequent suspension causes high drop- outs, which leads to arrests at age 16. Second, I feel like I have never been to a ‘real’ PTA meeting—one where parents are asking questions and becoming aware of what happens in schools. It seems that no real issues involving major problems are being discussed at PTA meetings; the only thing really is ‘fund-raising.’ My involvement in the DMC committee has brought real life to the issues at hand and made me more knowledgeable to other parents and youth in my church and my community. Also, I have been a voice for other parents and youth when trying to find solutions when speaking of my experiences with the juvenile justice system. This work has been a long and slow process; but we are making progress.”

Parent Support

In Year 2, the DMC Management Team sought to create a formal relationship (i.e., paid consultant position) with a parent advocate/trainer. Qualitative focus group research and the anecdotal evidence collected in


36

Year 1 indicated that those who are most impacted by the issues related to DMC—the youth and parents—oftentimes do not understand how to maneuver through the institutional elements of the criminal justice systems.

During the first quarter of the Year 3, the DMC Management Team solicited applications, conducted interviews, and eventually contracted with Ms. T. Dianne Bellamy-Small to assist with parent training aspects of the grant. Ms. Bellamy-Smell has been a police officer, secretary/bookkeeper, recreation center director, GYC and Senior Citizen Program Coordinator, teacher, home/school coordinator, drug elimination coordinator for Greensboro Housing Authority, Manager of Juvenile Detention Center for the State of North Carolina, trainer, writer for all 5 black newspapers in NC, business owner, community organizer of city-wide Juneteenth and Kwanzaa Celebration, owner of Ujamaa Market and an advocate for human rights and cultural awareness for children and adults. She is a Parent Educator for NC Parent Partners/ECAC in Davidson and founder of the Sankofa Heritage Foundation. She has developed and provided training for schools, churches, statewide organizations and Upward Bound programs and has presented at national and state conferences.

Ms. Bellamy Small provided an overview of her parent/youth program Not Grown Yet! – Life Skills Development for Teens for the full DMC Committee and worked with the Training Subcommittee throughout the grant period to develop a local dissemination strategy. The curriculum has two major foci and is designed to assist participants with a variety of ways to address adolescent maturity issues. The first function is as a programmatic piece that can be used with youth. The second part is designed as a parent training guide to explore and empower teens to focus on what it takes to become an adult. Not Grown Yet! addresses 16 issues around growth and maturity for teens and is designed for parents and those who work with teens, as well as teens themselves. Two parent training sessions were delivered, one in March and the other in June. In total, 13 parents attended.

Not Grown Yet! Curriculum Objectives

§ To provide an effective, comprehensive skills development program for adolescent youth

§ To provide youth an opportunity to learn and understand the process of positive self-empowerment through the use of basic life skills; the


37

program provides basic tools to work with and to strengthen leadership skills

§ To provide participants with a unique guide about what it takes to have a successful adult life for teens and their family

§ To expose participants to resources recommended for working with teens and teen maturity development

§ To guide the student in developing an individualized plan of action for maturity growth and development

§ To provide a parent involvement tool to be used by schools, churches and other groups working with teens

Outcome Objectives

§ Participants will be able to identify 16 critical areas of maturity development for adolescents

§ Participants will have and use resources such as book and planning tools to develop and measure progress in the 16 critical areas

§ Participants will use problem-solving techniques identified in this curriculum to help with growth and development

§ Adult participation will have more resources and techniques to use when working with teens

§ Teens will develop an action plan for reaching maturity goals and have a growth chart to review their progress and measure their success

§ Parents will have concrete areas to focus on helping their teen develop and mature


38

C H A P T E R F I V E

Policy and Procedure Modifications

Outcomes of Partnerships with Community Stakeholders DMC Stakeholder Visits

The Guilford DMC Initiative has focused this year on continuing to collect quantitative and qualitative data and presenting this information to leadership stakeholders in law enforcement, schools, and juvenile justice. Using this as a backdrop, the DMC Management Team has held discussions with agency leadership. Following is a synopsis of these meetings and discussions.

In January, members of the community reconvened for a re-signing of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Leadership in each participating agency agreed to continue its involvement in addressing DMC by providing data for further analysis, participating on the DMC Committee, reviewing recommendations made during Year 1 of the DMC process, and identifying ways to modify policies and practices within their individual agencies to reduce DMC. Representatives from the Governor’s Crime Commission spoke at the meeting. A Call to Action was presented by the Chief District Court Judge, a representative of law enforcement, the Chief Juvenile Court Counselor and the Superintendent of Schools. The event was covered by the local print and television media.

In addition to ongoing DMC Committee meetings, in Year 2, meetings with local community leaders were also arranged and are summarized below.

Law Enforcement

An ongoing concern expressed by DMC Committee members is that law enforcement’s policy of “only going where the calls are” perpetuates racial disparities in arrests, especially when calls are predominately from minority communities. Law enforcement reports that many of the calls are from parents who are requesting help in managing their children’s behavior. Committee members believe that law enforcement’s response is sometimes


39

disproportionate to the incident reported and that alternatives to arresting youth are not often sought. However, law enforcement officers contend that their response is appropriate but confirm that their inability to contact parents often leads to higher rates of arrest. They explain that this is because they need parental cooperation to proceed with referrals to community agencies. To better understand the dynamics involved in law enforcement work with juveniles, several meetings were arranged with representatives from each agency.

High Point Police Department

In early 2006, members of the DMC Management Team met with the High Point Police chief. In this meeting, the chief shared his view and concern that law enforcement is sometimes treated as a scapegoat (and sometimes as the sole cause) for DMC issues. His candid comments helped explain the tendency of law enforcement representatives to remain quiet during DMC Committee meetings. He also indicated that all law enforcement officers are state-mandated to receive annual training on juvenile minority issues. He has agreed to provide the DMC Management Team with a copy of training curricula used in recent years. At the close of this meeting, the Chief agreed to convene a cross-agency meeting with himself, Greensboro’s police chief, and the Sheriff to discuss their shared roles and responsibilities in reducing DMC. This meeting was held in the spring of 2006, and a focus group with police officers and SROs was scheduled for early July.

Greensboro Police Department

Throughout this grant year, the Greensboro Police Department has contended with internal staffing and departmental issues, including a transition in leadership. However, participation in DMC has continued with the involvement of the Interim Police Chief. Early in 2006, he helped coordinate a focus group session for officers in the juvenile division who shared their perspectives on ways law enforcement policies contribute to DMC, as well as proposed solutions. There was outspoken concern that many of the youth who interact with law enforcement do not have sufficient parental guidance.

Guilford County Sheriff’s Department

Members of the DMC Management Team also met with the Sheriff during this grant year. He maintained his commitment to communicating clearly


40

with school administrators and with parents the criteria that his SROs use in making arrest decisions. At the beginning of the school year, his office distributes a letter to parents in his jurisdiction advising them of the juvenile code violations that can result in an arrest. This letter was shared with the DMC Committee.

Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

A meeting was held with the DMC Management Team, the chief juvenile court counselor, and the department’s regional director. The issues that concerned these leaders most were: high employment turn-over rate among court counselors and inadequate training, especially for court counselors with little previous experience in human services. There was agreement that training and policy concerns should be addressed as follows:

Training Issues

§ Rallying community support for training court counselors

§ Helping the department identify resources

§ Improving mental health awareness at DJJDP

§ Training court counselors to recognize socio-emotional cues that signal possible mental health, social, emotional needs and equip them with better screening questions so that they can select more appropriate interventions (“Court Counselor 101”).

§ Specifically, develop training modules about the rights of students with EC and their most appropriate placement.

§ Coordinate services whenever youth already have mental health case managers.

§ Encourage establishment of state-level unit within DJJDP focused on links between socioeconomic, emotional, and mental health needs of youth.

§ Ongoing DMC awareness training for court counselors


41

§ Return to court counselors who have participated in Undoing Racism and have seen DMC data – engage them in the process of change and ask for their help in developing training topics.

§ Present DMC data and convene focus groups annually.

§ Cross-Agency awareness training

§ Dispel myth that sending youth to court solves the problem. Courts play a very limited role as enforcers, and youth need a community investment that supports rehabilitation.

§ Cultivate cross-agency partnerships rather than be used so often as a first-resort for community agencies who don’t know what to do with troubled youth.

Policy Issues

§ DJJDP is represented in state-level meetings with the Sentencing Commission regarding the age parameters for juvenile status and is debating whether or not to take legislative action to change them. The DMC Committee asked if it should assume an advocacy role.

§ Flexible schedules (including home visits, intake assessments, and office hours) are currently in place to accommodate working caregivers.

§ More effective ways of communicating this to caregivers are being discussed and may involve developing informational handouts (including community support resources) for caregivers.

§ All children whose parents or legal guardians do not come in for an intake appointment are automatically sent into the system. There is ongoing discussion about identifying alternative means to communicate with parents so that there is better response from parents and thereby more youth diverted from entering the court system through the intake process screening.

§ Detention screening tool – some hesitation about relying solely on this to make decisions about youth. Prefer to provide more training so that court counselors can use existing tools and their own skills to develop more effective, individualized plans for youth.


42

Following this meeting, another meeting was arranged with all juvenile court counselors to present the DMC data. The DMC Management Team perceived “denial” on the part of many court counselors that their decisions actually impact outcomes for youth. To date, none of the training or policy recommendations have been implemented and there has been staff turnover at the area director level.

Guilford County Public Defender’s Office

A meeting was held with the Public Defender and a juvenile lawyer to discuss their perceptions of factors contributing to DMC. Both voiced frustration that parents often fail to contact their office for a pre-court appointment even after being notified by mail of their right and responsibility to do so. They also mentioned that youth may be confused over the seating arrangement of court counselors during their hearing - court counselors sit with both the defense and the prosecuting attorneys at different times in the hearing. As well, they expressed frustration that court counselors frequently consult with the District Attorney’s office prior to the court hearing but rarely contact the Defense Attorney’s office.

The State Public Defender for Juvenile Justice has also participated on the DMC Committee and has provided valuable insights into the roles and responsibilities of public defenders working with juveniles.

District Attorney

A meeting was held with the District Attorney to present the DMC data and Year 1 Report. Newly-elected to this office, he assured the Management Team of his willingness to participate in our DMC efforts.

District Court Judges

The DMC Management Team has also met with the District Court judges to present the DMC data. The discussion centered on concerns about parenting and issues arising in the schools. They expressed concern that neither parents nor school personnel are providing appropriate guidance to youth; and, as a result, too many young people are appearing in court when other actions may have been more appropriate.

All judges have participated in diversity training, and two have participated in Undoing Racism™ training.


43

Meeting of Judicial and Court Officials

The DMC Management Team learned of a local court order issued several years ago that outlines the procedures for entry into the court system. The decision points are identified as the ones examined in the DMC process. It was decided to convene the District Court judges, the Public Defenders, the District Attorney, and the Chief Juvenile Court Counselor to discuss this local order and to share cross-agency perspectives on DMC (which, until this meeting, had only been discussed individually with each agency). It is hoped that this meeting will facilitate better collaboration across justice departments in addressing procedural concerns that could reduce DMC.

Guilford County Schools

During the summer of 2005, a meeting was convened with Guilford County School leadership and law enforcement leaders who have SROs in Guilford the middle and high schools to share the DMC report on school suspensions and juvenile arrests. At that meeting there was agreement that all school principals and SROs would participate in Undoing Racism™ training before the 05-06 school year and this occurred in August 2005.

A meeting was held with the School Superintendent to present the two year school suspension data with the Relative Rate analysis. He shared this with the Board of Education and there was discussion about hosting a work session with the Board to review the data. This has not occurred.

However, over the past two school years, the school administration has presented school suspension data categorized by race to the Board of Education on a monthly basis. The school administration has encouraged school principals to find alternatives to suspension. Moreover, suspension is a topic of concern when discussing school and principal performance. However, the recommendation to include suspension data on School Report Cards has not been adopted to date.

There is increasing Board of Education and school administration focus on developing strategies to increase student performance in highly-impacted schools. The Board of Education has adopted an incentive (bonus pay) strategy to attract highly qualified teachers to these schools. As part of the preparatory training for next school year, all teachers and principals will be


44

required to attend Undoing Racism™ training if they have not previously participated in it.

A community grassroots committee led by the Greensboro Pulpit Forum, the Community Education Organization (CEO), has developed over recent months. This group has hosted many community meetings to hear parent and student concerns about their treatment in schools. There is increasing concern over the high rate of African American suspensions. This group has met with the superintendent and has requested meetings with specific principals identified through this process. Representatives of the DMC Committee are participating on the CEO and providing leadership in the advocacy and suspension sub-committees.

Meetings have been held with the Chief of Staff and leadership of Student Support Services to discuss concerns over school suspensions and to learn more about internal strategies to address them. One model for changing school climate and reducing suspensions currently under consideration is Positive Behavior Management. Training in this technique and in other classroom management techniques are included in the school budget proposal before the Board of Commissioners.

The school system has provided data on school-based arrests by violation and a request to have this data by race has been made to the Chief of Staff.


45

C H A P T E R S I X

Increasing Community Awareness and Linking with Community Initiatives

An essential component in the reduction of DMC in Guilford County is community passion, commitment, involvement and action. The intention of the DMC committee is to increase the awareness of the Guilford County community of the extent to which disproportionality exists for African American youth in our county.

The Guilford County DMC efforts captured the attention of the local news media with the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement. A news reporter has been assigned to stay in touch with the work of the committee and as a result the statistics and follow-up stories have been released in the Greensboro News & Record newspaper, which has a significant readership throughout the county. The local television network news organizations have also followed the initiative and have broadcast related stories. This coverage has helped us in expanding the awareness to the readership and viewers in the county.

Members of the management team also presented the institutional data (i.e., schools, law enforcement, DJJDP) to the Human Relations Commission of the City of Greensboro. This report was broadcast several times on the City Cable network. As a result, there have been follow-up conversations with members of the community who viewed the broadcast and wanted to share their stories and gain insight into how the work of the DMC Committee might benefit their circumstance. In addition, some members of the Commission have stepped forward and are participating in community meetings that are focused on the DMC issues in our county. They have also been added to the DMC Committee.


46

As a facilitator at the first North Carolina Black Elected Officials’ Conference held during spring 2006 in Raleigh, the DMC Project Coordinator was able to share with state and local officials from across North Carolina the data, strategies, and approaches being used by the Guilford County DMC Committee. This opportunity was useful to solicit broader input and ideas for additional strategies. At the conference, members of focus groups on the criminal justice system took on the challenge of identifying actionable items for legislators, both state and local, along with community initiatives and resources that will contribution to a reduction of African American juveniles entering the system. Approximately 75 officials were engaged in the dialogues and brainstorming sessions during the two day conference.

Communicating the Issues in the African American and Guilford County Community

A group composed of formal and informal leaders from High Point, Greensboro and the County was convened to hear and understand the issues of minority overrepresentation in Guilford County’s juvenile justice system. This group consisted of Human Relations Managers and Commissioners, educators (Guilford County Schools and university representatives), parents, a marketing/production specialist, leaders of youth-focused community organizations, ministers, law enforcement, Job Corps, parks and recreation, church-based family life centers, family services, the Department of Social Services, and the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. These leaders met weekly for several weeks, in subcommittees and full committee to map out a direction for “Calling to Action the African American Leadership” across the county.

The purpose was to get the leadership involved and committed to community actions that would reduce disproportionality. Many hours went into the formation of the strategy and collecting contact information for people in the community who are leaders of organizations. Leaders of sororities, fraternities, churches, Black professional organizations (e.g., government workers, attorneys, judges, law enforcement, 100 Black Men, Black Professional Women, Black Accountants), and non-profit organizations, were included in the “Call to Action.” This committee laid the foundation for the meetings which are currently underway in the county. This committee has also been instrumental in developing plans for future actions to mobilize the community in a collaborative effort to benefit the youth, their families, and our community.


47

Growing out of these efforts are the series of meetings bringing the statistics and the circumstances, as we have learned them from our anecdotal focus groups with involved youth, parents, and members of the systems, to the attention of the African American leaders. This work has been labeled this work “CREATING A NEW VILLAGE – Supporting Our Youth and Families.” The purpose of this work is guided by five themes: § INFORM – INSPIRE; § INVOLVE community organizations, individual community

representatives, and youth in the DMC effort; § INTERVENE to reduce negative influences and Disproportionate

Minority Contact in the systems; § INVEST in our future; § Gain commitment from community leaders to work collaboratively

to identify, address, and reduce DMC in Guilford County.

The awareness/outreach strategy included presentations to individual organizational memberships. As a result of a presentation to the members of the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, their Community Out-Reach Committee stepped forward to coordinate the subsequent sessions for the “African American Leadership Call to Action.” Their support and commitment to scheduling, site identification, personal invitations, and meeting notification has been central to bringing into the room members of the “African American Community” and bringing to fruition one of the goals of the original “Call to Action Think Tank.”

To date, three leadership meetings have been conducted, reaching approximately 75 leaders in our community. Additional meetings are planned for the 3 rd quarter (calendar year) to inform and engage a larger segment of the community in this work. A meeting was held with the Vice President of the Pan Hellenic Council at North Carolina A&T State University to plan ways of involving the sorority and fraternity members in reducing DMC when students return for the fall semester. The intent is to inform and involve young adults from our university communities in community services, which could include mentoring and tutoring.

Passion and timing have brought together the DMC initiative with a community-based organization lead by the Pulpit Forum focused on Guilford County Schools. The DMC Committee shared school suspension data and analyses with the Community Education Organization, an


48

organization focused on Guilford County Schools’ educational processes (e.g., suspensions, budgets, resources, advocacy for youth and parents). This committee has a particular focus on practices and decisions that lead to suspensions. This forum has served to increase the awareness of and gain the involvement of a larger segment of the community to include parents, educators, youth, religious and spiritual leaders, community organizers, and the media (including the Black Press and other local independent newspapers).

In addition to the Community Education Organization, the DMC efforts are closely aligned and in collaboration with the efforts of the Guilford Education Alliance. The information and data from the DMC process has served to support multiple initiatives, efforts, dialogues, and community forums led by the Guilford Education Alliance. Their partnership with the Guilford County School Administration and the Parent Teacher Organization leadership has been mutually beneficial. This alliance has certainly assisted the DMC efforts focused on increasing community awareness.

In addition, we are collaborating with other community-based organizations and furthering our mission of increasing community awareness of DMC in Guilford County. A particular example is the interface of DMC efforts with the Hope Project, a community strategy led by Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department to address youth gang activity through prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts. The Management Team is aware that several organizations are contributing positively to the lives of the youth in our community. What is needed is an understanding of what additional resources are available to the youth through these organizations. To date our sessions have focused on gaining commitment by increasing the awareness through sharing the data from the DMC process. Our next step in the process is to develop actionable steps for further community involvement in the reduction of DMC.


49

C H A P T E R S E V E N

Guilford DMC Plan for 20062007

During the third quarter of our DMC planning grant, Guilford County was invited to apply for a third year funding to support DMC sustainability activities. Consequently, since July 2006, Guilford County DMC activities have been focused on a 2-point strategic plan:

§ Deepening Community Commitment to DMC Reduction

§ Establishing DMC Project Sustainability

The Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships at UNCG will work in concert with the Guilford County Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee to achieve the major project objectives. Deepening community committment consists of several strategies:

§ Continued data analysis through both quantitative and qualitative analysis (focus groups, statistical data);

§ Continued partnership with stakeholder agencies around policy changes (facilitated conversation among stakeholder agencies);

§ Ongoing training/awareness efforts (training for parents, continue pilot efforts begun with Bellamy-Small; youth trainers that make local presentations; gang forum in collaboration with Hope Project; training/awareness for elected officials and traditionally/historically White community organizations;

§ Building community ownership of DMC (Awareness and action in the local African American community; Faith community outreach; Professional/civic/social organizations and Colleges);

§ Leaders’ Summit/Forum (all stakeholder agencies to further their commitment after the signing, open dialogue among them).


50

Sustainability efforts consists of:

§ Finding a home for DMC coordination (JCPC, non-profit) and long-term management structure;

§ Identifying internal point person or liaison for each stakeholder agency (Point person will receive training and/or discuss how to monitor their internal data and share with other stakeholders; will direct, plan, and execute DMC training activities within their organization; takes lead role in identifying what recommendations can truly be put in place;

§ Linking with GCC s social marketing campaign around DMC and foster a countywide marketing campaign;

§ Identifying opportunities for synergy with other local youth initiatives;

§ Fostering linkages among mini-grant recipients, and draw upon the resources of youth and parent participants;

§ Developing youth leadership/ownership of the issue (Partner with Youth First as a convener of youth to be community-problem solvers);

§ Identifying alternative funding sources (OJJDP, local foundations).


51

References

Cox, J., & Bell, J. (2001). Addressing disproportionate representation of youth of color in

the Juvenile Justice System. Journal of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 3,

31-43.

Mendez, L. M. R. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school outcomes: A longitudinal

investigation. In G. Noam (Series Ed.) and J. Wald & D. Losen (Vol. Eds.), New

directions for youth development: No. 99. Deconstructing the school-to-prison

pipeline (pp. 17 – 33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1999). Minorities in the juvenile justice

system. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice.

Wald, J., & Losen, D. J. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. In

G. Noam (Series Ed.) and J. Wald & D. Losen (Vol. Eds.), New directions for youth

development: No. 99. Deconstructing the school-to-prison pipeline (pp. 9 - 15). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

For more information, please contact:

Ms. Mary Kendrick, DMC Project Coordinator, [email protected]

Dr. Jim Frabutt, DMC Project Director, [email protected]

Dr. Margaret Arbuckle, DMC Management Team, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://email1.uncg.edu/mail/dtjackso.nsf/0/8D65BD9651B35C01852571DB0044E9E0/$File/marbuckle%40guilfordeducationalliance.org


52

A P P E N D I X 1

School Suspension Data: Most Common Reasons for Suspension


53

RULE DESCRIPTION

1. RV06

Other - Non-Compliance with Directives – Students shall comply with the directions of all principals, assistant principals, teachers, substitute teachers, counselors, media specialists, teacher assistants, student teachers, coaches, advisors, bus drivers, bus supervisors, and any other authorized school personnel at all times while a student is at school in any school building and on any school premises, attending school-sponsored activities, on or about any school-owned or operated vehicle, off school property at any school-sponsored or school approved activity or function or during any period of time when students are subject to the authority of school personnel, and at any time when the student’s behavior has a direct and immediate effect on maintaining order and discipline and protecting the safety and welfare of students and staff. Consequences: Elementary – In-school disciplinary action. Repeated or serious violations up to 1 day OSS. Middle School – ISS up to 3 days OSS. Repeated violations may result in long-term suspension. High School – ISS up to 3 days OSS. Repeated violations may result in long-term suspension. Principals of high school on a block schedule must consult their School Support Officers prior to suspending a student out of school for more than five (5) days.

2. RV08

Other – Verbal Abuse/Disrespectful – Students shall respect other students, visitors, school employees, and other persons by utilizing appropriate language and behaviors at all times. Any action which is insulting, abusive, harassing, profane, obscene, bullying, intimidating, or seriously disrespectful and which disrupts the learning process for any student or which demeans or degrades another person based on his/her race, color, sex, religion, creed, political belief, age, national origin, linguistic and language differences, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, socioeconomic status, height, weight, physical characteristics, marital status, parental status, or disability is specifically prohibited. Students who believe they have been subjected to violations of Rule 8 should report the harassment to a teacher, counselor, or school administrator. Consequences: Elementary – In-school disciplinary action. Repeated or serious violation up to 3 days OSS. Middle School – In-school disciplinary action up to 5 days OSS. Repeated or serious violation may result in long-term suspension. High School – In-school disciplinary action up to 5 days OSS. Repeated or serious violations may result in long-term suspension. Principals of high schools on a block schedule must consult their School Support Officers prior to suspending a student out of school for more than (5) days.

3. RV14

Disorderly Conduct – Fighting - Students shall not fight or attempt to cause bodily harm to another student through physical contact. If a student is attempting to involve another student in a fight, the other student should walk away and report it to a teacher, assistant principal or principal. If a student is a victim of a sudden unprovoked attack or fight, he or she may defend himself or herself only long enough to disengage from fighting to report it to an appropriate school official. Students who instigate fights will be subject to the same consequences as those who are actually involved in fighting. Consequences: Elementary – Up to 10 days OSS. Law enforcement may be called. Middle School – 3 days OSS up to and including long-term suspension. Law enforcement may be called. High School – 5 days OSS up to and including long-term suspension. Law enforcement may be called. Principals of high schools on a block schedule must consult their School Support Officers prior to suspending a student out of school for more than five (5) days.


54

RULE DESCRIPTION

4. RV18

Assault – Aggressive Physical Action-Simple Assault – Students shall not engage in minor incidents of hitting, biting, shoving, kicking, spitting, throwing objects, or other similar offenses towards a student or an adult for the purpose of harassment. Consequences: Elementary – Up to 3 days of OSS. Middle School – Up to 3 days of OSS. OSS up to and including long-term suspension for repeated incidents. High School – Up to 3 days of OSS. OSS up to and including long-term suspension for repeated incidents. Principals of high schools on a block schedule must consult their School Support Officers prior to suspending a student out of school for more than five (5) days.

5. RV2B

Attendance – Skipping once present – Students shall come to school, remain at school once they have arrived and be present in their designated homeroom and/or their assigned classroom unless they have been authorized to do otherwise by the principal or his/her designee. Consequences: Elementary – In-school disciplinary action. Middle School – ISS, other in-school disciplinary action, or up to 1 day OSS. High School – ISS, other in-school disciplinary action or up to 2 day OSS.

6. RV16

Other – Theft/ Destruction of School or Personal Property – Students shall not steal or attempt to steal, knowingly be in possession of stolen property, or intentionally damage or attempt to damage any school or private property while under school jurisdiction. Students shall not vandalize, damage, or attempt to damage property belonging to others. Consequences: Elementary – Up to 10 days OSS. Law enforcement may be called. Restitution may be required. Middle School – OSS up to and including long-term suspension. Law enforcement may be called. Restitution may be required. High School – OSS up to and including long-term suspension. Law enforcement may be called. Restitution may be required. Principals of high schools on a block schedule must consult their School Support Officers prior to suspending a student out of school for more than five (5) days.

7. V2A

Attendance – Skipping – Students shall come to school and be present in their designated homeroom and/or their assigned classroom unless they have been authorized to be absent by the principal or his/her designee or they have an absence that is excused pursuant to State guidelines and Board policy for attendance. Consequences: Elementary – In-school disciplinary action. Middle School – ISS or other in-school disciplinary action, including Saturday or before/after- school detention. High School – ISS or other in-school disciplinary action, including Saturday or before/after- school detention.


55

RULE DESCRIPTION

8. RV22

Weapon – Possession of a Weapon – Students shall not possess or conceal or transport any weapon or other instrument that could cause or that is intended to cause bodily injury or other harm to another or misuse otherwise acceptable objects in a manner intended to cause harm to others at any time while a student is at school in any school building and on any school premises, attending school-sponsored activities, on or about any school-owned or operated vehicle, off school property at any school-sponsored or school approved activity or function or during any period of time when students are subject to the authority of school personnel, and at ant time when the student’s behavior has a direct and immediate effect on maintaining order and discipline and protecting safety and welfare of students and staff. N.C.G.S. 11C-391(d1) mandates a 365-day suspension for students in possession of dynamite cartridges, bombs, grenades, mines, or powerful explosives. Fireworks are excluded from these provisions. Consequences: Elementary – Up to 10 days OSS. Confiscate weapon. Law enforcement will be called. Repeated offenses may result in long-term suspension. Middle School – Long-term suspension up to 365 days. Confiscate weapon. Law enforcement will be called. High School – Long-term suspension up to 365 days. Confiscate weapon. Law enforcement will be called. Principals of high schools on a block schedule must consult their School Support Officers prior to suspending a student out of school for more than five (5) days.

9. R24

Drugs/Alcohol – Possession of controlled substance – Students shall not possess, use, sell, transmit, deliver, or distribute marijuana, narcotics, stimulants, alcoholic beverages or any other controlled or unauthorized or illegal substances or drug paraphernalia at any time while a student is at school in any school building and on any school premises, attending school-sponsored activities, on or about any school-owned or operated vehicle, off school property at any school- sponsored or school approved activity or function or during any period of time when students are subject to the authority of school personnel, and at any time when the student’s behavior has a direct and immediate effect on maintaining order and discipline and protecting safety and welfare of students and staff. In all cases the substance will be confiscated and police will be notified. Consequences: Elementary – Up to 10 days OSS. Confiscate substance. Law enforcement will be called. Treatment program may be required for re-entry. Middle School – OSS up to and including long-term suspension. Confiscate substance. Law enforcement will be called. Treatment program may be required for re-entry. High School – OSS up to and including long-term suspension. Confiscate substance. Law enforcement will be called. Treatment program may be required for re-entry. Principals of high schools on a block schedule must consult their School Support Officers prior to suspending a student out of school for more than five (5) days.

10. RV04

Other – Inappropriate behavior – Students shall conduct their personal and social relationships according to acceptable community standards. Inappropriate public displays of affection as determined by the principal will not be allowed. Lewd, illegal or sexual gestures or acts, even if consensual, will result in serious consequences. Consequences: Elementary – ISS up to long-term suspension. Middle School – ISS up to long term suspension. High School – ISS up to long-term suspension. Principals of high schools on a block schedule must consult their School Support Officers prior to suspending a student out of school for more than five (5) days.


56

A P P E N D I X 2

Short and Long Term Suspensions by Race with Relative Rate Comparisons for 20032004 and 20042005

57

Guilford County Elementary Schools 20042005 Short Term and Long Term Suspension Rates by Race

White Students Black Students Relative Rate Index Short Term Long Term 4 Schools

(Membership: % White, % Black) Short Term

Rate Long Term Rate

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate 200405 200304 20032005

Alamance (895: 61W, 27B) 0.2 5.4 29.4 4.1 Alderman (345: 23W, 34B) 1.3 2.5 2.0 2.0 Allen Jay (495: 45W, 23B) 1.8 8.8 4.8 1.6 Archer (396: 5W, 52B) 5.6 1.9 .3 .7* Bessemer (411: 5W, 89B) 22.7 8.2 .4 1.0 Bluford (401: 4W, 93B) 6.7 9.6 1.4 1.1 Brightwood (704: 18W, 70B) 0.8 5.0 6.4* 1.5 Brooks Global (422: 41W, 52B) 6.3 0.5 .1 0.0 Claxton (536: 66W, 19B) 1.1 4.8 4.3 4.0 Colfax (921: 81W; 6B) 0.4 1.7 4.3 22.8 Cone (483: 4W, 81B) 10.0 7.7 .8 1.3 Erwin Open (207: 44W, 52B) 2.2 5.6 2.6 2.0 Fairview (467: 6W, 68B) 6.9 6.0 .9 1.7 Falkener (568: 2W, 80B) 33.3 3.3 .1 .8* Florence (689: 57W, 21B) 1.5 6.3 4.1 3.5 Foust (328: 5W, 75B) 31.3 2.9 .1 .7* Frazier (453: 8W, 63B) 11.8 7.7 .7 .7 General Greene (473: 60W, 33B) 1.4 3.9 2.7 2.2 Gibsonville (444: 75W, 13B) 1.8 5.6 0.0 3.1

4 Note: There were no longterm suspensions of elementary school students in 20032004, or 20042005.


*Asterisk = Approximate RRI, calculated by substituting 1 for 0 white students suspended in schools where black students were suspended. 58

White Students Black Students Relative Rate Index Short Term Long Term 4 Schools


Rate Long Term Rate

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate 200405 200304 20032005

Gillespie Park (290: 3W, 88B) 12.5 9.0 .7 .7* Guilford Prim (352: 29W, 26B) 1.0 2.2 2.3 .7 Hampton (339: 2W, 86B) 16.7 3.8 .2 .1* Hunter (440: 10W, 45B) 2.3 4.6 2.0 1.3 Irving Park (570: 54W, 30B) 0.7 0.6 .9 3.6 Jamestown (529: 35W, 52B) 0.5 1.8 3.3 1.9 Jefferson (774: 53W, 24B) 0.7 3.8 5.3 1.6 Jesse Wharton (946: 55W, 25B) 0.8 2.6 3.4 19.5 Johnson St (293: 36W, 57B) 1.9 14.5 7.7 2.1 Jones (671: 27W, 59B) 1.1 4.1 3.7 11.5 Joyner (383: 44W, 45B) 0.6 3.5 5.9* 4.8 Kirkman Park (303: 5W, 80B) 6.3 10.7 1.7* 3.8* Laughlin Prim (340: 88W, 2B) 0.3 0.0 0 41.7 Lindley (294: 37W, 34B) 0.9 8.1 8.9 2.5 Madison (472: 53W, 25B) 1.6 2.5 1.6 1.3 Millis Road (440: 60W, 21B) 0.4 4.3 11.4 3.0 MonticelloBS (718: 74W, 16B) 0.9 2.6 2.8 0.0 Montlieu Ave (518: 7W, 78B) 2.7 5.5 2.0 1.1 Morehead (421: 37W, 40B) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Murphey (382: 8W, 77B) 0.0 0.0 0 .2* Nat Greene (380: 92W, 2B) 3.2 0.0 0 .0 0.0 Northwood (575: 27W, 44B) 2.6 16.9 6.6 4.5



Oak Hill (361: 21W, 33B) 3.9 5.8 1.5 1.1 Oak Ridge (549: 87W, 4B) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oak View (510: 45W, 36B) 0.9 3.3 3.8 3.0 Parkview (415: 7W, 81B) 6.7 6.9 1.0 2.0* Peck (335: 7W, 60B) 8.0 3.0 .4 2.1* Peeler Open (334: 34W, 58B) 3.5 3.1 .9 3.5 Pilot (921: 60W, 22B) 1.1 3.0 2.7 10.5 Pleasant Garden (592: 78W, 12B) 1.1 2.9 2.7 2.4 Rankin (671: 12W, 63B) 4.9 6.9 1.4 1.4 Sedalia (476: 63W, 18B) 1.3 3.4 2.5 1.2 Sedgefield (457: 11W, 44B) 2.0 6.9 3.5 1.9 Shadybrook (566: 51W, 31B) 0.3 2.9 8.3 4.7 Southern (290: 84W, 6B) 1.6 5.0 0.0 3.1 Southwest Guil (708: 72W, 9B) 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.5 Sternberger (344: 69W, 26B) 0.4 5.6 13.1 4.5 Stokesdale (455: 87W, 5B) 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Summerfield (757: 88W, 3B) 0.2 0.0 0 .0 0.0 Sumner (481: 16W, 61B) 3.8 7.2 1.9 2.4 Triangle Lake (395: 36W, 54B) 2.8 17.4 6.1 13.1 Union Hill (388: 10W, 64B) 5.4 8.9 1.6 1.3 Vandalia (233: 2W, 92B) 50.0 4.7 .1 .2* Washington (252: 1W, 87B) 50.0 2.3 .05* .7 Wiley (307: 20W, 70B) 1.6 11.2 7.0* 4.8*



Guilford County Middle Schools 20042005 Short Term and Long Term Suspension Rates by Race

White Students Black Students Relative Rate Index Short Term Long Term Schools


Rate Long Term Rate

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate 200405 200403 200405 200403

Allen Jay (704: 42W, 42B) 5.4 0.7 9.5 1.4 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.8 Allen Middle (868: 5W, 72B) 16.7 2.4 33.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 .7 .4 Aycock (650: 30W, 53B) 9.2 0.5 40.8 2.0 4.4 5.7 4.0* 8.6* Brown Summit (158: 49W, 42B) 16.9 1.3 28.8 1.5 1.7 N/A 1.2 N/A Eastern Guilford (860: 43W, 42B) 17.3 0.3 31.0 2.5 1.8 2.5 9.1 3.9 Ferndale (589: 25W, 51B) 10.7 1.3 46.6 6.4 4.3 4.1 4.8 6.8* Griffin (690: 24W, 63B) 7.3 0.6 39.7 6.5 5.5 2.7 10.7 2.6 Guilford (957: 42W, 35B) 10.4 0.7 24.3 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.8 1.8 Hairston (812: 1W, 87B) 9.1 9.1 25.1 2.5 2.8 .5 .3* .3 Jackson (622: 6W, 73B) 55.3 2.6 47.7 4.2 .9 1.2 1.6* 2.3* Jamestown (1207: 51W, 34B) 7.1 0.6 28.4 2.7 4.0 5.2 4.1 9.8 Kernodle (973: 71W, 16B) 5.0 0.1 18.1 0.0 3.6 3.3 0.0 0.0 Kiser (778: 43W, 48B) 10.5 1.2 50.7 8.5 4.8 6.0 7.1 22.8 Mendenhall (899: 51W, 36B) 10.8 0.7 32.3 3.4 3.0 2.9 5.2 5.0 NE Guilford (937: 48W, 41B) 8.7 0.2 21.3 1.3 2.5 2.4 5.8 4.5* NW Guilford (1166: 91W, 3B) 5.9 0.5 24.3 2.7 4.2 6.8 5.7 0.0 SE Guilford (1016: 71W, 20B) 6.9 0.4 16.0 0.5 2.3 2.7 1.2 10.0* SW Guilford (1019: 57W, 27B) 1.9 0.2 11.4 0.7 6.0 3.7 4.3* 4.0 Welborn (754: 21W, 66B) 14.3 0.6 45.5 3.6 3.2 4.6 5.8* 2.8



Guilford County High Schools 20042005 Short Term and Long Term Suspension Rates by Race



Rate Long Term Rate

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate 200405 200304 200405 200304

Andrews (1085: 25W, 68B) 9.7 0.4 28.5 3.8 2.9 5.2 10.1* 5.8 Dudley (1327: 1W, 95B) 8.3 8.3 18.0 1.9 2.2* .9 .2* .4* Eastern (900: 50W, 38B) 10.8 1.5 29.4 1.5 2.7 1.7 .9 1.8 Grimsley (1661: 61W, 32B) 1.2 0.1 26.4 4.1 22.1 18.2 41.4 44.0* HP Central (1246: 38W, 46B) 8.4 0.4 42.1 3.8 5.0 4.3 9.1 4.1 Northeast (1065: 55W, 41B) 14.1 1.4 25.6 0.9 1.8 1.8 .7 3.1 Northwest (2048: 88W, 6B) 4.8 0.1 16.2 0.9 3.4 2.5 15.4 0.0 Page (1570: 48W, 44B) 8.3 0.7 23.3 3.8 2.8 4.2 5.7 5.8 Ragsdale (1331: 58W, 30B) 5.6 0.1 19.4 1.0 3.5 4.5 7.8* 21.0 Smith (1453: 7W, 76B) 14.2 0.9 22.2 2.6 1.6 1.4 2.8 1.8* Southeast (1290: 77W, 18B) 13.0 0.5 30.8 1.3 2.4 1.6 2.5 3.1 Southern (873: 55W, 33B) 11.0 1.0 19.9 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.6 6.3 Southwest (1188: 61W, 26B) 4.7 0.4 22.2 2.3 4.7 3.6 5.4 11.0* Western (1406: 63W, 22B) 6.3 1.0 27.7 2.9 4.4 2.9 2.8 6.8



Guilford County Other Schools 20042005 Short Term and Long Term Suspension Rates by Race



Rate Long Term Rate

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate 200405 200304 200405 200304

A&T Mid College (80: 5W, 91B) 75.0 25.0 54.8 1.4 .7 .5* .1* 0.0* Bennett Mid College (88: 5W, 100B) 25.0 25.0 26.1 1.1 1.0 .3 0.0* .1* GC Mid College (99: 72W, 26B) 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GTCC Mid College (123: 76W, 24B) 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8* 0.0 0.0 Early College Guil (171: 70W, 10B) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Weaver Ed Center (200: 78W, 17B) 5.2 0.0 21.2 0.0 4.1 9.3 0.0 7.3* Scale (195: 12W, 98B) 21.7 4.3 67.2 5.2 3.1 3.2 1.2* 1.9*



A P P E N D I X 3

Mapping of Juvenile Arrests and Field Contacts


64

Greensboro Police Department Total Juvenile Charges, 2005.


65

High Point Police Department Total Juvenile Arrests, 2005.


66

Greensboro Police Department Total Juvenile Field Contacts, 2005.


67

High Point Police Department Total Juvenile Field Contacts, 2005.

68

A P P E N D I X 4

An Examination of 2005 Juvenile Justice (DJJDP) Data

69

“RECEIVING” COMPLAINTS

According to North Carolina’s Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) 5 , when a youth is suspected of committing a crime, a complaint can be filed against him or her. At this time, a youth goes through an intake process 6 with a juvenile court counselor, and complaints and evidence are then screened and evaluated.

Complaints can be categorized as violent (felony A-E), serious (felony F-1, A1 misdemeanor), minor (misdemeanor 1-3), status (undisciplined), or infractions (traffic and local ordinance citations).

• Violent offenses include murder, rape, kidnapping, and arson.

• Serious offenses include felony breaking and entering, assault on a government official or school employee, assault by pointing a gun, and burning an unoccupied building.

• Minor offenses include simple assault or affray, property damage, resisting arrest, possession of a controlled substance, trespassing, disorderly conduct, unauthorized use of motor vehicle, and carrying a concealed weapon.

• Status offenses include ungovernability, truancy, running away, and being found in places unlawful for juvenile.

• Infractions generally involve traffic and local ordinance citations.

5 Key provisions of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1998 from which basic justice processing procedures are extracted are outlined on the DJJDP website: http://www.ncdjjdp.org/about/reform.html

6 Juvenile justice processing procedures and definitions are drawn from the above indicated DJJDP website and its Court Services Policy and Procedures document: http://www.ncdjjdp.org/about/policy/ip/InterventionPreventionPolicies.pdf

http://www.ncdjjdp.org/about/reform.html

70

COMPLAINTS RECEIVED, CY 2005

RACE A-E

(violent) F-I, A1

(serious) 1-3 (m) (minor) Infraction Status

Grand Total


2648 Total Complaints were received • 77% involved Black youth • 17% involved White youth • 2% involved Latino youth • 2% involved Asian youth • <2% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

98 Violent Complaints were received • 80% involved Black youth • 17% involved White youth • 2% involved Multi-racial youth • 1% involved Latino youth

710 Serious Complaints were received • 79% involved Black youth • 14% involved White youth • 3% involved Asian youth • 3% involved Latino youth • 1% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

1631 Minor Complaints were received • 76% involved Black youth • 18% involved White youth • <2% involved Latino youth • <2% involved Asian youth • <2% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

71

“APPROVING” COMPLAINTS

After receiving a complaint, court counselors have 2 weeks (extendable to 4 weeks, under certain circumstances) to file a petition approving it for court action, divert youth to a diversion plan or contract, or close a case with no action recommended. Only serious felonies, such as murder, arson, burglary must be approved for court action. Filing a petition begins court action.

COMPLAINTS APPROVED, CY 2005

RACE A-E

(violent) F-I, A1


Grand Total


2156 Total Complaints were approved • 77% involved Black youth • 17% involved White youth • 2% involved Latino youth • 2% involved Asian youth • <2% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

97 Violent Complaints were approved • 79% involved Black youth • 18% involved White youth • 2% involved Multi-racial youth • 1% involved Latino youth

676 Serious Complaints were approved • 79% involved Black youth • 14% involved White youth • 3% involved Asian youth • 3% involved Latino youth • 1% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

1193 Minor Complaints were approved • 77% involved Black youth • 18% involved White youth • <2% involved Latino youth • <2% involved Asian youth • <2% Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

72

“NOT APPROVING” COMPLAINTS

If a court counselor determines that a complaint is not serious enough to warrant either court action or referral to a community resource, a juvenile’s case may be closed.

COMPLAINTS NOT APPROVED, CY 2005

RACE A-E

(violent) F-I, A1


Grand Total


Note: absence of Not Approvals for Class A-E. This is due to the majority of those offenses being violent and non-divertible by Statute

561 Total Complaints were not approved • 75% involved Black youth • 19% involved White youth • 2% involved Latino youth • <2% involved Asian youth • <1% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

35 Serious Complaints were not approved • 83% involved Black youth • 11% involved White youth • 6% Unknown

506 Minor Complaints were not approved • 75% involved Black youth • 20% involved White youth • 2% involved Latino youth • <2% involved Asian youth • 1% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

73

“ADJUDICATION” If a juvenile court counselor has filed a petition approving a complaint for court, a hearing is held before a judge. At this time, a complaint may be dismissed or a juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent or undisciplined, meaning the allegations presented in a petition have been proven. If a youth is adjudicated “delinquent,” a judge has found that the youth (who is at least 6 years old but not yet 16) committed a crime or infraction under state or local law, including violation of motor vehicle laws. A youth may be adjudicated “undisciplined” if the judge determines that he or she missed school unlawfully (and is at least 6 years old, but not yet 16); was found in places unlawful for youth to be; ran away from home for more than 24 hours; or is 16 or 17 years old and is regularly disobedient and beyond the disciplinary control of parents or guardians.

COMPLAINTS ADJUDICATED, CY 2005

RACE A-E

(violent) F-I, A1


Grand Total


1161 Total Complaints were adjudicated • 76% involved Black youth • 18% involved White youth • 2% involved Latino youth • <2% involved Asian youth • <2% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% involved Native American youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

41 Violent Complaints were adjudicated • 73% involved Black youth • 20% involved White youth • 5% involved Multi-racial youth • 2% involved Asian youth

278 Serious Complaints were adjudicated • 81% involved Black youth • 16% involved White youth • <2% involved Latino youth • <1% involved Asian youth • <1% involved Multi-racial youth

765 Minor Complaints were adjudicated • 75% involved Black youth • 19% involved White youth • 3% Latino youth • <2% involved Multi-racial youth • <2% involved Asian youth • <1% Other

74

“DISMISSING” COMPLAINTS

At the adjudicatory hearing, a judge may decide to dismiss a case rather than adjudicate a youth as delinquent or undisciplined.

COMPLAINTS DISMISSED, CY 2005

RACE A-E

(violent) F-I, A1


Grand Total

Asian 0 19 19 0 2 40 Black 34 269 528 11 73 915 Latino 0 14 12 1 3 30 Multi-racial 0 1 2 0 2 5 Native American 0 0 0 0 1 1 Other 0 4 3 0 1 8 Unknown 0 4 2 0 0 6 White 10 32 100 0 21 163 Total: 44 343 666 12 103 1168

1168 Total Complaints were dismissed • 78% involved Black youth • 14% involved White youth • 3% involved Asian youth • 3% involved Latino youth • <1% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% involved Native American youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

44 Violent Complaints were dismissed • 77% involved Black youth • 23% involved White youth

343 Serious Complaints were dismissed • 78% involved Black youth • 9% involved White youth • 6% involved Asian youth • 4% involved Latino youth • <2% Unknown • <2% Other • <1% involved Multi-racial youth

666 Minor Complaints were dismissed • 79% involved Black youth • 15% involved White youth • 3% involved Asian youth • <2% involved Latino youth • <1% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

75

“ DISPOSITION” If a juvenile has been adjudicated undisciplined or delinquent, a judge orders a disposition (specific sanctions, consequences, or conditions of supervision), based on North Carolina General Statute. If a youth is adjudicated undisciplined, dispositional alternatives may include any of the following:

• Requiring a juvenile to be supervised in his/her home;

• Excusing him/her from mandatory school attendance;

• Placing a youth in the custody of a parent, guardian, relative, private agency, or some other suitable person;

• Placing him/her in the custody of the Department of Social Services;

• Placing a youth under the protective supervision of a court counselor for a maximum of three months, extendable up to six months (at the court's discretion).

• Sending a youth who fails to comply with a court order to detention for 1 to 5 days.

If a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent, legal statutes require that a disposition be designed that is in the best interests of the youth, but also which considers public safety. The level of supervision (community, intermediate, and commitment) corresponding to dispositions is based primarily on offense severity and delinquency history. Other considerations include:

• Need for accountability;

• Importance of protecting the public;

• Degree of culpability based on the circumstances of the case;

• Treatment and service needs indicated by risk and needs assessment (instrument used to assess a youth’s likelihood of re-offending and to identify unmet needs);

• Availability of appropriate community resources, except in cases requiring commitment to youth development centers.

In addition, judges may also sanction parents of a youth who has been adjudicated undisciplined or delinquent. They may be ordered to:

• Assist youth in complying with the terms of probation or other court orders;

• Attend parental responsibility training;

76

• Provide transportation (to the extent possible) to assist a juvenile in keeping appointments with court counselors or in complying with other court orders.

COMPLAINTS DISPOSED, CY 2005

RACE A-E

(violent) F-I, A1


Grand Total


976 Total Complaints were disposed • 75% involved Black youth • 19% involved White youth • <2% involved Latino youth • <2% involved Asian youth • <2% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% involved Native American youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

36 Violent Complaints were disposed • 75% involved Black youth • 17% involved White youth • 6% involved Multi-racial youth • 3% involved Asian youth

244 Serious Complaints were disposed • 79% involved Black youth • 18% involved White youth • <2% involved Latino youth • <2% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% involved Asian youth

623 Minor Complaints were disposed • 75% involved Black youth • 19% involved White youth • <2% involved Latino youth • <2% involved Asian youth • <2% involved Multi-racial youth • <1% Other • <1% Unknown

77

RRI FOR COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY OFFENSE CLASS

Total Number of White Youth


Total Number of Black Youth


Relative Rate Index

Population at risk (age 10 through 17) 7 27,688 17,885

Complaints Received Minor 296 1.1 1246 7.0 6.5

Complaints Received Serious 97 0.4 561 3.1 9.0

Complaints Received Violent 17 0.1 78 0.4 7.1

Overall Figures 410 1.5 1885 10.5 7.0

RRI FOR COMPLAINTS APPROVED BY OFFENSE CLASS





Relative Rate Index

Population at risk (age 10 through 17) 27,688 17,885

Complaints Approved Minor 211 0.8 919 5.1 6.7

Complaints Approved Serious 92 0.3 534 3.0 9.0

Complaints Approved Violent 17 0.1 77 0.4 7.0

Overall Figures 320 1.2 1530 8.6 7.2

7 Population figures extracted from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Easy Access to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2004 website: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezapop

78

RRI FOR COMPLAINTS NOT APPROVED BY OFFENSE CLASS





Relative Rate Index


Complaints Not Approved Minor 100 0.4 379 2.1 5.9

Complaints Not Approved Serious 4 0.0 29 0.2 11.2

Complaints Not Approved Violent 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

Overall Figures 104 .4 408 2.3 5.8

RRI FOR COMPLAINTS ADJUDICATED BY OFFENSE CLASS





Relative Rate Index


Complaints Adjudicated Minor 144 0.5 573 3.2 6.2

Complaints Adjudicated Serious 45 0.2 225 1.3 7.7

Complaints Adjudicated Violent 8 0.0 30 0.2 5.8


79

RRI FOR COMPLAINTS DISMISSED BY OFFENSE CLASS





Relative Rate Index


Complaints Dismissed Minor 100 0.4 528 3.0 8.2

Complaints Dismissed Serious 32 0.1 269 1.5 13.0

Complaints Dismissed Violent 10 0.0 34 0.2 5.3


RRI FOR COMPLAINTS DISPOSED BY OFFENSE CLASS





Relative Rate Index


Complaints Disposed Minor 119 0.4 469 2.6 6.1

Complaints Disposed Serious 43 0.2 192 1.1 6.9

Complaints Disposed Violent 6 0.0 27 0.2 7.0


80

A P P E N D I X 5

Memorandum of Agreement

81

NORTH CAROLINA ) GUILFORD COUNTY ) CONTRACT NO.

GUILFORD COUNTY )

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG COMMUNITY AGENCIES TO ADDRESS DISPORPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT WITHIN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

W I T N E S S E T H :

WHEREAS the 1988 amendments to the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Act of 1974 required states participating in the OJJDP Formula Grants Program to address the growing problem of Disproportionate Minority Confinement (now referred to as Disproportionate Minority Contact) (DMC) within the Juvenile Justice System; and,

WHEREAS the 1992 Amendments to the OJJDP Act mandate that states assess the level of minority youth confinement and to implement strategies to address DMC, and North Carolina was one of five states and Guilford County was one of ten counties that participated in the national study of DMC and Action Plan development; and,

WHEREAS in 2004 the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission (GCC) identified DMC as one of its target priorities and selected Guilford County as one of four sites to collaborate in a locally directed project from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2006 to result in recommendations both in policy change and program interventions to be made to the GCC and to the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the following agencies and organizations agree to cooperate together to implement the goals of those Federal and State legislative initiatives.

NOW THEREFORE The North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission; the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; the North Carolina Office of the Juvenile Offender; the Center for Youth, Family and Community Partnerships at UNCG; the Guilford County Schools Administrative Unit; the Guilford County Department of Social Services; the Guilford Center; the Guilford County Department of Public Health; the Guilford County District Courts; the Public Defender; the District Attorney; the Greensboro Police Department; the High Point Police Department; the Guilford County Sheriff’s Department; the Guilford County Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Council; the Guilford County Department of Court Alternatives; Alcohol and Drug Services of Guilford, Inc.; Family Services of the Piedmont, Inc.; Greensboro Education and Development Council; Family Life Council; Greensboro Housing Authority; High Point Housing Authority; the United Way of Greensboro; Youth Focus, Inc.; the YWCA of Greensboro; One Step Further, Inc.; Greensboro Life Skills Center; Guilford County PTA Council; SUCCESS; Win-Win Resolutions; Hype 4 Life; United Piedmont Center for Educational Excellence; BOTSO; Communities in Schools of High Point, Inc.; Black Child Development; Faithworks Ministries; Greensboro City Council; Guilford Education Alliance; Guilford Technical Community College; Greensboro Parks and Recreation; High Point Parks and Recreation; Parents of Guilford County Youth; NC A&T University; and the Pulpit Forum agree as set out below.

82

1. These agencies and organizations hereby agree as of July 1, 2005 to:

A. Recognize the seriousness of the issue of over-representation of African American and other minority youth in the Juvenile Justice system;

B. Desire to decrease the number of African American and other minority Guilford County youth arrested and incarcerated, to decrease the number of such youth suspended and expelled from Guilford County Schools, to decrease the number of such Guilford County children and youth residing in the foster care system, and to address ways that our county community can change the life outcomes for African American and minority youth growing up in Guilford County;

C. Collectively address the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) of youth in the Juvenile Justice System in Guilford County;

D. Receive the Final Report of the DMC Project; and, E. Agree to participate at a level within the respective agency so that recommendations

that result from this project are considered and appropriate action steps developed within the agency to reduce and/or eradicate DMC within Guilford County.

2. Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) is defined as the rate of contact with the juvenile justice system among juveniles of a specific minority group that is significantly greater than the rate of contact for whites or other minority groups. Contact is defined as initial encounter with law enforcement (i.e. arrest), ongoing juvenile justice contacts (e.g., diversion, referral, hold in detention, secure placement, transfer to adult court), and other points where sufficient data exist (e.g., pre-arrest diversion, aftercare).

3. In participating in this collaborative effort, the agencies listed will:

A. Provide access to data collected within the agency to the DMC Project Management Team. The specific aggregate data will be negotiated with the staff of the project from the Center for Youth, Family and Community Partnerships upon guidance from the Governor’s Crime Commission;

B. Provide representation from the agency in the meetings of the Guilford County DMC Committee and participate fully in the discussion at the meetings; and,

C. Establish communication within the agency so that the representative has opportunity to provide feedback to the agency leadership on the issues discussed and bring this discussion to the DMC Committee.

D. Receive and review recommendations from year one work of DMC Committee and identify ones for first implementation within this agency.

4. It is understood there is no financial obligation from the participating agencies other than the support of staff members’ participation in the work of the Committee and in the provision of aggregate data for the project. There will be no programmatic financial obligations expected during the project period which will end June 30, 2006.

5. The term of this agreement is July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2006.

83

6. The purpose of the DMC Committee is

A. To facilitate the development and signing of the Memorandum of Agreement among the participating agencies within Guilford County and the State of North Carolina

whose work and interest impacts DMC; B. To advise the members of the Committee on the decision points within the

participating agencies that potentially are points of “discretionary decision” that could impact and/or increase the likelihood that a youth would enter the Juvenile Justice System;

C. To gather and share aggregate data from community agencies and institutions; D. To advise in the analysis of the data; E. To participate in the development of recommendations determined from the data; F. To educate the larger community on the issue of DMC and its ramifications for

the youth in Guilford County; and, G. To advocate for the implementation of the recommendations resulting from the

project.

7. This agreement is subject to applicable law, particularly as to confidentiality.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the agencies listed have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as set forth below.

reducing disproportionate minority contact in the … · executive summary uilford county continued...

Documents