GUILFORD COUNTY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: REDUCING DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY · PDF...

iiii

GUILFORD COUNTY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: REDUCING DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT

FINAL REPORT AND SUMMARY, July 2007 – June 2008

Kelly N. Graves, Mary H. Kendrick, Margaret B. Arbuckle, Stephanie M. Horton, Damie T. Jackson-Diop, & Amanda Ireland

Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships The University of North Carolina at Greensboro July 2008

This project was supported by Grant No. 180-1-07-010-AJ-965 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 Kelly N. Graves, Ph.D., UNCG Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships, 330 South Greene St., Suite 200, Greensboro, NC 27401, or [email protected]

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 7 - 2 0 0 8

iiiiiiii

Executive Summary

uilford County continued its efforts, with support from the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission, to address disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in the local juvenile justice and public school systems. During 2007-2008, the DMC Management Team and the DMC Committee entered into its 4th year of funding and moved into an action-oriented

implementation, with a specific focus on helping service systems internalize the importance of examining DMC within their respective systems. This report summarizes Year 4 activities around the key foci of data, expansion of youth and parent voice, training and awareness, policy and procedure modifications, and sustainability efforts. Highlights include:

� Schools remain a critical partner in addressing the linkage between suspension and juvenile justice involvement (i.e., the School-to-Prison Pipeline). This report provides short- and long-term suspension data by race for 2003-2004 through 2007-2008;

� Law enforcement contact with youth is an important decision point for addressing DMC. The

report presents summary data from the Greensboro Police Department and the High Point Police Department regarding juvenile arrests by race and gender from 2003-2004 through 2007;

� The DMC Youth Ambassadors program was expanded to increase youth voice and participation.

Furthermore, to address the need for increased youth voice to mobilize the community, DMC Youth Ambassadors wrote and received a $500 mini-grant to create youth-led study circles with their peers;

� Local training efforts were advanced by providing the Undoing Racism/Anti-Racism workshop to juvenile court counselors, social workers, and youth. Parent advocacy training and two parent education sessions led by an experienced parent advocate also were offered;

� Policy and procedure modifications impacting DMC were discussed with individual institutional

stakeholders, with a particular focus on developing proposed modifications to the North Carolina Juvenile Code;

� Faith communities and local political leaders gave voice and leadership to address continuing concern for minority students suspended from school and involved in the juvenile justice system;

� The DMC Committee has developed a detailed sustainability plan to continue Guilford County’s DMC efforts regardless of level of funding at any one time; and

� Institutional and community partners are planning a re-commitment to the DMC Memorandum of Understanding at a public ceremony in September 2008.

G


iii

Table of Contents

Page

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

CHAPTERS

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 ... 10

III. DMC YOUTH AMBASSADORS ......................................................................................... 15 Structure and Planning ................................................................................................. 15 Recruitment and Training ............................................................................................ 16 Initiatives and Activities ............................................................................................... 18 Suspension Data Research Project ............................................................................. 19 Using Youth Study Circles to Inform DMC ............................................................. 21 IV. SUPPORTING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION EFFORTS ....................... 24 DMC Partners ............................................................................................................... 24 Training Efforts/Presentations .................................................................................. 26 Parent Advocacy ........................................................................................................... 26 Faith Community .......................................................................................................... 27


iv

V. POLICY AND PROCEDURE MODIFICATIONS ......................................................... 28 Juvenile Code ................................................................................................................ 28 Guilford County Department of Social Services ..................................................... 30 Guilford County Schools ............................................................................................. 30 Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ................................ 31 VI. SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................ 32 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX 1. SHORT AND LONG-TERM SUSPENSIONS BY RACE WITH

RELATIVE RATE COMPARISONS FOR 2004-2005 & 2006-2007 ............................. 36

APPENDIX 2. AVERAGE SHORT-TERM RELATIVE RATE INDICES BY SCHOOL

LEVEL, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2006-2007 .......................................................................... 43

APPENDIX 3. AVERAGE LONG-TERM RELATIVE RATE INDICES BY SCHOOL

LEVEL, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2006-2007 .......................................................................... 47

APPENDIX 4. AN EXAMINATION OF 2007 JUVENILE JUSTICE (DJJDP) DATA ...... 50

APPENDIX 5. DRAFT OF PROPOSED REVISION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF

AGREEMENT –SEPTEMBER 2008 ............................................................................................... 61

APPENDIX 6. DMC FACT SHEETS ............................................................................................. 65


v

List of Tables and Figures

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

Table 2. Average Short-Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2006-2007 ..................................................................................... 5

Table 3. Average Long-Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2006-2007 ..................................................................................... 6

Table 4. Greensboro Police Department Total Juvenile Arrests, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 ........................................................................................................ 8

Table 5. High Point Police Department Total Juvenile Arrests,

2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 ........................................................................................................ 9

Table 6. Complaints Received by Offense Class and Race, DJJDP, 2007 ................................... 12 Table 7. RRI for Complaints Received by Offense Class, DJJDP, 2007 ...................................... 12 Table 8. Overall RRIs by Decision Point, DJJDP, 2005, 2006, 2007............................................. 13

Table 9. DMC Youth Ambassador Participants, Age and Race Demographics ......................... 17

Figure 1. Average Short-Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2006-2007 ..................................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Average Long-Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2006-2007 ..................................................................................... 6

Figure 3. Greensboro Police Department Juvenile Charges by Race,

2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 4. High Point Police Department Juvenile Charges by Race,

2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 ........................................................................................................ 10

Figure 5. Overall RRIs by Decision Point, DJJDP, 2005, 2006, 2007 ........................................... 14


1111

C H A P T E R O N E

Overview of the Issue

rom July 2007 through June 2008, a cohesive, representative, and action-oriented Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Committee engaged in implementation activities as part of the fourth and final year of North Carolina’s Governor’s Crime

Commission (NC GCC) funding for the Guilford County DMC Demonstration Project. To provide a structured definition of the issue, DMC typically refers to the overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system compared to their majority (Caucasian) counterparts. However, DMC can occur across multiple systems (e.g., schools, social services, public health, etc.). While the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) and NC GCC definition of minority includes populations other than African American/Black, such as American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics (NC GCC, 2008), Guilford County selected to focus on African American/Black because baseline DMC rates suggested that this population was most impacted by DMC issues in our community. Thus, it is acknowledged that in this report, the use of the term “minority” refers to African American/Black youth. Furthermore, we recognize that there is great diversity within racial/ethnic groups. However, for the remainder of this report, we will refer to African American/Black youth as Black and Caucasian/White youth at White for readability. 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 DMC in Guilford County. Toward that end, this report summarizes project activities and accomplishments for 2007-2008 centered on five main areas: (1) DMC data management and utilization; (2) expansion of youth involvement; (3) supporting prevention and intervention efforts; (4) policy and procedure modifications to impact DMC; and (5) sustainability. A Project Management Team, based at UNCG’s Center for Youth, Family and Community Partnerships, 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 two graduate research assistants (one of which has served as the DMC Youth Coordinator). The team has issued regular reports to the Guilford County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC), convened and coordinated DMC committee and subcommittee meetings, and set overall project direction. Over the past year, while there has been some turnover in DMC Committee memberships, there remains a strong and cohesive group (see Table 1 for a listing of participating agencies and individuals).

F


2222

The chapters in this report align with the major focus areas of this action-phased implementation year: ongoing data collection and analysis, youth involvement, support for innovative prevention/intervention services, and policy/procedure modifications to reduce DMC. A separate final chapter addresses community ownership of the DMC issue and the DMC Project’s efforts to link with other community-driven change organizations to ensure long-term sustainability. Table 1. DMC Committee Members and Agency Affiliations.

Alcohol and Drug Services Jackie Butler

Black Child Development June S. Valdes BOTSO

Hank Wall, Elton Wade Horton, Maria Ortiz, Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships at

UNCG Kelly Graves, Terri Shelton,

Damie Jackson-Diop, Mandy Ireland Department of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Rich Smith, Amie Haith, Maxine Hammonds

Department of Social Services Brenden Hargett, Pamela Watkins, Mary Dowdell

District Court Judges Joesph Turner, Lawrence McSwain, Teresa Vincent

DMC Project Coordinator Mary Kendrick

Elon University School of Law Sharon Gaskin

Family Life Council Spencer Long Faith Leaders

Faithworks Ministries - Kenneth & Sheila Fairbanks New Hope Baptist Church – Rev. W. Sherman Mason

St. Phillips AME Zion Church – Rev. Clarence Shuford, Jr. Rev. Greg Headen

Family Services of the Piedmont Amy Stern

NC Governor’s Crime Commission Kimberly Wilson, Brandy Dolby Greensboro City Council

Dianne Bellamy-Small, Goldie Wells Greensboro Housing Authority Tina Akers Brown, Shirley Foster Greensboro Life Skills Center

Shirley Foster Greensboro Parks and Recreation, Youth First, Hope Project

Darryl Kosciak Greensboro Police Department Tim Bellamy, Ernest Cutherbertson

Greensboro Human Relations Committee Maxine Bateman Guilford Center

Emily Latta Guilford County Department of Court Alternatives

Doug Logan, Thomas Turner, Charles Dingle, Tracey Morettie

Guilford County Manager’s Office Beverly Williams

Guilford County Schools Richard Tuck, Gwendolyn Willis, Connie White, Francine Scott,

Monica Walker Guilford County Sheriff’s Department

Herb Jackson(retired) Guilford Education Alliance

Margaret Arbuckle Guilford Technical Community College

Pat Freeman High Point Chamber of Commerce

Larry Craven High Point Parks and Recreation

Gretta Bush High Point Police Department

Quintin Trent High Point Workforce Alliance

Michael Prioleau Hype 4 Life

Arlicia Campbell Juvenile Crime Prevention Council

Jackie Butler Men-tors

David Moore North Carolina Families United

Gail Cormier, Kelly Nguyen North Carolina Office of the Juvenile Defender

Eric Zogry One Step Further Tommye Gant

Parent Representatives Dianne Walker, Stephanie Horton,

Mildred Poole, Cynthia Davis, Tim Vincent, Len Smith Prayer Network Melvin DuBose

United Piedmont Center Guin White

Win-Win Resolutions, Inc. Debra Vigliano

YMCA of High Point J. Calverna Petty Foster

DMC Youth Ambassadors Mia Conway, Christa Fairbanks, Jamal Glasgow, Arlicia Lindsey,

DiAnte’ Tyler, Austin Smith, Darrell Palmer Youth Focus

Chuck Hodierne YWCA of Greensboro

Rebecca Mann


3333

C H A P T E R T W O

A Data-Driven Approach to Reducing DMC

hapter Two reviews data across multiple systems in Guilford County. The central systems that were the focus of 2007-2008 include Guilford County Public Schools, Greensboro Police Department, High Point Police Department, and Guilford

County Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP). Furthermore, there was a significant focus on data approaches to reduce DMC by the DMC Youth Ambassadors. For readability, these youth-led approaches are reviewed in Chapter Three (the chapter focused on youth). The measure that OJJDP uses to assess DMC within the juvenile justice system is called the Relative Rate Index (RRI). The RRI is preferable to other measures that are affected by, 1) the relative size of minority youth populations, and 2) the number of different minority populations you want to compare. The RRI method reduces statistical bias, allows accurate comparisons, and can compare multiple racial and ethnic groups. For those reasons, we chose to use this method to analyze potential disproportionality across systems.

Review of School Suspension Data

Numerous researchers have documented the link between school suspensions and subsequent involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, a phenomenon that has been labeled the School-to-Prison Pipeline (NAACP 2005; Wald & Losen, 2003). One of the goals of the Guilford County DMC initiative is to measure the extent of disproportionality among Black suspensions versus White suspensions in Guilford County Schools. The DMC Committee believes that understanding where, why and to what extent disproportion exists is the key to finding methods of reduction. One way to measure disproportion in school suspensions is to compare Black student suspensions with White student suspensions. Suspension rates and RRIs were calculated for every school in Guilford County, comparing 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. Thus, if the RRI is 3.4, that means for every White student suspended, there are 3.4 Black students suspended.

C


4444

To provide operational definitions, a short-term suspension is defined by Guilford County Schools as an out-of-school suspension for a period of 10 days or less. The authority to suspend a student short-term is given solely to the principal. Long-term suspension is defined by an out-of-school suspension for a period of more than 10 days, but not in excess of the maximum time allowed by law, being 365 days. The recommendation for a long-term suspension comes from the principal following an investigation into the alleged activity. At the request of the student or parent, a long-term suspension hearing involving the principal, parent(s)/guardians(s), and student then takes place before a Hearing officer, appointed by the Superintendent. At the completion of the hearing, the Hearing officer determines whether the long-term suspension recommendation should be upheld or whether, as an alternative, the student should be reassigned. The parent/student may appeal the decision of the Hearing officer to the Board of Education. Reassignment consists of the student being transferred to School/Community Alternative Learning Environments (SCALE) for a period of time to meet the goal of re-entry into the regular school community. The SCALE program operates off school campuses at sites in the community and includes regular and special education classroom teachers, social workers, counselors and a school resource officer. As a requirement of reassignment, the student must meet the terms of a personalized Behavior Modification Contract (BMC) while at SCALE in order to be readmitted to their school of origin. Beginning in school year 2006-2007, students who were long-term reassigned to SCALE were no longer recorded as long-term suspended if they complied with the elements within their Behavioral Modification Contract. Instead, they were returned to their original school with the incident being counted as a “school transfer” rather than a long-term suspension. This fact should be kept in mind when noticing drastic decreases in long-term suspension rates for the 2006-2007 school year as compared to previous years. Short and long-term suspension data compiled by Central Administration at Guilford County Schools were provided to the DMC Management Team. Data were organized by school, 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 for the examination of discrepancies in Black and White suspension rates for each school. Average RRIs, for both short and long-term suspensions, are represented by school level below. Appendices 1-3 present findings in several tables arranged by school level. School names and total student membership are listed on the left (with the percentage of Black and White students in each school) and short and long-term suspension rates are broken down by race followed by the RRIs for short and long-term suspensions organized by school level,


5555

comparing the 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2006-07 school years. Furthermore, all school suspension information can be found at the Guilford County Schools website, www.gcsnc.com. Average Relative Rate Indices (RRIs)

Table 2. Average Short-Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07

Figure 1. Average Short-Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level,

2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07

Average Short Term RRIs by School Level 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07

0 1 2 3 4 5

All Levels

High

Middle

Elementary

Scho

ol L

evel

RRI

2006-07

2004-05

2003-04

• Overall, short-term suspension RRIs decreased in all school levels from 2003-04 to 2006-07.

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

School Level Short-Term RRI

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

Elementary 3.6 3.0 2.5 Middle 3.3 3.2 2.5 High 3.9 4.4 2.8 All Levels1 3.6 3.5 2.6


6666

• About half (52%) of the schools experienced very little change (less than one point) in short-term suspension RRIs from 2004-05 to 2006-07. Of the remainder, 33% had decreases while 15% had increases.

Table 3. Average Long-Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level,

2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07

School Level Long-Term RRI

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

Middle 4.9 4.0 0.3 High 8.2 7.6 0.5

All Levels2 4.4 3.9 0.3 Note. There are no long-term suspensions at the elementary school level.

Figure 2. Average Long-Term Relative Rate Indices by School Level, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07

Average Long Term RRIs by School Level 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07

0 2 4 6 8 10

All Levels

High

Middle

Elementary

Scho

ol L

evel

RRI

2006-07

2004-05

2003-04

• Overall, long-term suspension RRIs decreased across middle and high school levels from 2003-04 to 2006-07.

• A majority (79%) of thirty-three middle and high schools experienced a decrease in their long-term suspension RRIs since 2004-05. However, only one school (3%) had an increase in long-term RRIs and 18% had less than a point change.

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


7777

• Beginning in school year 2006-2007, students who were long-term reassigned to SCALE were no longer recorded as long-term suspensions when they satisfied the requirements of their behavior contract. This should be considered when examining the significant drop in the 2006-2007 school year.

Findings by School Level Elementary Schools

• The average short-term suspension RRI for elementary schools decreased from 3.0 in 2004-05 to 2.5 in 2006-07.

• 34% (22) experienced decreases of at least one point in short-term RRIs.

• 17% (11) experienced increases of at least one point in short-term RRIs.

• There were no long-term suspensions in elementary schools. Middle Schools

• The average short-term suspension RRI for middle schools decreased from 3.2 in 2004-05 to 2.5 in 2006-07.


• 16% (3) experienced increases of at least one point in short-term RRIs.

• The average long-term suspension RRI for middle school decreased from 4.0 in 2004-05 to 0.3 in 2006-07.

• 84% (16) experienced decreases of at least one point in long-term RRIs.

• 0% (0) experienced an increase of at least one point in long-term RRIs. High Schools

• The average short-term suspension RRI for high schools decreased from 4.4 in 2004-05 to 2.8 in 2006-07.


• 7% (1) experienced an increase of at least one point in short-term RRIs.

• The average long-term suspension RRI for high schools decreased from 7.6 in 2004-05 to 0.5 in 2006-07.

• 71% (10) experienced decreases of at least one point in long-term RRIs.

• 7% (1) experienced an increase of at least one point in long-term RRIs.

While noting changes, it remains important to our work that schools with higher rates of disproportionality determine the issues that contribute to their outcomes and develop collaborative strategies and actions for eliminating the problem.


8888

Disproportionality is a long-standing national problem to which no other school district has found answers. Solving it is a collective responsibility. Schools, families, churches, businesses, government and others must work together.

Review of Law Enforcement Data

As a continuation of the School-to-Prison pipeline, involvement with law enforcement (including decisions made within law enforcement) is a crucial point in the pathway to the juvenile justice system. Since the beginning of the project, the local DMC committee has worked collaboratively with the Greensboro Police Department and the High Point Police Department to collect and examine locally relevant decision point information. Specifically, the DMC management committee requested that each law enforcement agency provide juvenile (ages 6-15) charge information for calendar year 2007. The data contained age, sex, race, date of charge, address and type of charge. In the figures and tables that follow, 2007 data are compared with the same information from calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006. In 2007, the most common charge across all agencies was simple assault or affray. RRIs are not presented for law enforcement data because, unlike school suspensions and DJJDP data, charges are not unduplicated (i.e., the same youth may be charged with multiple offenses). Thus, RRIs would not be appropriate or accurate to report. In terms of numbers of Black youth versus White youth, recent statistics estimate that there are 18,251 Black youth and 27,704 White youth in Guilford County. 3 Table 4: Greensboro Police Department Total Juvenile Charges, 2004, 2005, 2006, & 2007

2004 Data 2005 Data 2006 Data 2007 Data

Total Juvenile Charges (1,834) Total Juvenile Charges (1,432) Total Juvenile Charges (1,230) Total Juvenile Charges(1,317)

Black (1,509) 82.28% Black (1,142) 79.75% Black (1,004) 81.63% Black (1,029) 78.10%

White (253) 13.79% White (241) 16.83% White (223) 18.13% White (267) 20.30%

Other (72) 3.93% Other (72) 3.42% Other (3) 0.24% Other (21) 1.60%

Total Charges by Race & Gender Total Charges by Race & Gender Total Charges by Race & Gender Total Charges by Race &

Gender

Black Male (1,088) 58.72% Black Male (809) 56.49% Black Male (706) 57.40% Black Male (791) 60.10%

Black Female (421) 22.72% Black Female (333) 23.25% Black Female (298) 24.23% Black Female (238) 18.10%

White Male (133) 7.21% White Male (136) 9.50% White Male (145) 11.79% White Male (185) 14.00%

White Female (120) 6.48% White Female (105) 7.33% White Female (78) 6.34% White Female (82) 6.20%

Other Male (53) 2.86% Other Male (28) 1.96% Other Male (2) 0.16% Other Male (15) 1.10%

Other Female (19) 1.03% Other Female (21) 1.47% Other Female (1) 0.08% Other Female (6) 0.60%

3 Population figures obtained from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Easy Access to Juvenile Populations Website:

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/


9999

Table 4 indicates that 1,317 juvenile charges were recorded by the Greensboro Police Department (GPD) in 2007, with Black youth representing almost 80% of all youth charged. Table 4 also displays GPD’s juvenile charges by race and gender, highlighting that 60% of charges involved Black males and 18% of charges involved Black females. Figure 3 illustrates that while the number of total juvenile charges in Greensboro has dropped since 2004, the pattern of involved Black youth being most represented has remained consistent.

Figure 3: Greensboro Juvenile Charges, 2004, 2005, & 2007

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

2004 2005 2006 2007

Greensboro Police Department Juvenile Charges by Race

Black

White

Other

Table 5: High Point Police Department Total Juvenile Charges, 2004, 2005, 2006, & 2007

2004 Data 2005 Data 2006 Data 2007 Data

Total Juvenile Charges (741) Total Juvenile Charges (587) Total Juvenile Charges (485) Total Juvenile Charges (466)

Black (596) 80.40% Black (489) 83.30% Black (405) 83.51% Black (384) 82.40%

White (137) 18.50% White (88) 15.00% White (72) 14.85% White (80) 17.20%

Other (8) 1.10% Other (10) 1.70% Other (8) 1.65% Other (2) 0.40%

Total Charges by Race & Gender Total Charges by Race &

Gender Total Charges by Race &

Gender Total Charges by Race & Gender

Black Male (422) 57.00% Black Male (352) 60.00% Black Male (290) 60.00% Black Male (280) 60.10%

Black Female (174) 23.50% Black Female (137) 23.34% Black Female (115) 24.00% Black Female (104) 22.30%

White Male (85) 11.50% White Male (64) 10.90% White Male (50) 10.00% White Male (60) 12.90%

White Female (52) 7.00% White Female (24) 4.10% White Female (22) 5.00% White Female (20) 4.30%

Other Male (7) 1.00% Other Male (5) 0.85% Other Male (5) 1.00% Other Male (2) 0.40%

Other Female (1) 0.10% Other Female (5) 0.85% Other Female (3) 0.60% Other Female (0) 0.00%

Table 5 indicates that 466 juvenile charges were recorded by the High Point Police Department (HPD) in 2007, with Black youth representing 82% of all youth charged. In


10101010

addition, Table 5 displays HPD’s juvenile charges by race and gender, highlighting that Black males account for 60% of all juvenile charges while Black females account for 22%. Similar to the pattern from Greensboro, Figure 4 illustrates that while High Point’s total juvenile charges have dropped since 2004, Black youth have remained the most represented.

Figure 4: High Point Juvenile Charges, 2004, 2005 & 2007

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

2004 2005 2006 2007

High Point Police Department Juvenile Charges by Race

Black

White

Other

As noted, the rate at which Black youth are charged by law enforcement agents remains consistently higher than other populations of youth. As we move forward, we must collaboratively confront the causes. Further analysis and examination of the reasons for the charges is needed to aid us in determining effective intervention and prevention methods that are culturally competent, build on community assets, and provide an understanding of community needs. To create a reduction in these statistics we must ask these important fundamental questions and take intentional actions based on what we learn.

Review of Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (DJJDP) Data

The purpose of this component of our data gathering efforts was to measure the extent of DMC in Guilford County’s juvenile justice system. As with school data, this is best compared using RRIs (see previous section for a full description of RRIs). Data were provided by the NC DJJDP data analyst and organized by race and offense severity for key decision points in Guilford County’s juvenile court system for calendar year 2007. Among the data reviewed were total complaints received, complaints approved,


11111111

complaints not approved, complaints adjudicated, and complaints disposed. Operational definitions of each of these terms are provided in Appendix 4. 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 by the total county 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. According to NC’s DJJDP4, when a youth is suspected of committing a crime, a complaint can be filed against him or her. At that time, a youth goes through an intake process with a juvenile court counselor, and complaints and evidence are screened and evaluated. See Appendix 4 for a description of procedures for each decision point. Complaints can be categorized as violent (felony A-E), serious (felony F-1, Al 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, injury to personal property, resisting a public officer, 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 a juvenile.

� Infractions generally involve traffic and local ordinance citations. For each race, Table 6 reports simple frequencies for each category offense. For example, 26 complaints were received for Asian youth in 2007, 1 violent, 2 serious, 21 minor, 2 status, and 0 infraction. Of note in Table 6 is the observation that of 3,156 total complaints received in 2006, 2,370 (75%) involved Black youth and 566 (18%) involved White youth.

4Juvenile justice processing procedures and definitions are drawn from the Youth Rights and Responsibilities Handbook under the Court Services section of the NC DJJDP website, www.ncdjjdp.org


12121212

Table 6. Complaints Received by Offense Class and Race, DJJDP 2007.

Race Class A - E (Violent)

Class F - I, A1 (Serious)

Class 1 - 3 (Minor) Status Infraction

Total Complaints

Asian 1 2 21 2 0 26

Black 93 652 1476 107 2 2330

White 15 130 513 50 2 710

Latino 0 19 63 9 2 93

Multi-racial 0 7 16 2 0 25

Native American 0 0 5 1 0 6

Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 2 6 0 0 8

Not Reported 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unknown 0 0 1 0 0 1

Total: 109 812 2101 171 6 3199

Table 7. RRIs for Complaints Received by Offense Class, DJJDP 2007.

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)5 27,704 18,251

Complaints Received Minor 513 1.85 1476 8.09 4.37 Complaints Received Serious 130 0.47 652 3.57 7.61 Complaints Received Violent 15 0.05 93 0.51 9.41

Overall 658 2.38 2,221 12.17 5.12

Table 7 provides an example of incidence rates and RRIs at the point of complaints received for Black and White youth in 2007. For example, in the minor offenses category, the incidence rate for White youth was 1.85, while for Black youth it was 8.09. Stated another way, out of all the White youth in Guilford County (27,704), 1.85% of those youth received a minor complaint in 2007. In contrast, of all the Black youth in Guilford County (18,251),




13131313

8.09% of those youth received a minor complaint during the same time period. The incidence rate is higher for Black youth compared to White youth at each level of severity. Further, to calculate the RRI, the incidence rate of 8.09 for minor complaints received for Black youth is divided by the incidence rate of 1.85 for White youth to equal an RRI of 4.37. This means that for every minor complaint involving one White youth, 4.37 minor complaints involved Black youth. It is noteworthy that the majority of charges for youth are minor offenses. Related, fighting (whether the aggressor or the person defending themselves) ranks among the top three reasons for school suspensions. Sometimes added to this charge is a charge of resisting a public officer and/or disorderly conduct. In the words of a parent, “Students are being punished by the school system and also receiving a charge for these incidents.” An important next step is to determine where and how to direct appropriate actions to resolve this issue. Table 8 provides RRIs by decision point over the years 2005, 2006 & 2007. The overall RRIs presented here have been calculated for minor, serious and violent offenses. Generally, the RRIs for each decision point have decreased since 2005, meaning that while the rates are still disproportionate, that disproportion has decreased slightly over the past 3 years.

Table 8: Overall RRIs by Decision Point, 2005, 2006, & 2007

2005 2006 2007

Complaints Received 7.12 6.55 5.12

Complaints Approved 7.20 7.31 5.52

Complaints Not Approved 5.80 4.91 3.79

Complaints Adjudicated 6.60 6.04 4.49

Complaints Disposed 6.30 6.36 4.78

Complaints Dismissed 9.20 7.92 7.09

*Overall RRIs from minor, serious, and violent offenses only.


14141414

Figure 5: Overall RRIs by Decision Point, 2005, 2006, & 2007

Overall RRIs by Decision Point

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

Complaints Received

Complaints Approved

Complaints NotApproved

Complaints Adjudicated

Complaints Disposed

Complaints Dismissed

Dec

isio

n P

oin

t

Relative Rate Index

2007

2006

2005


15151515

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

DMC Youth Ambassadors: Integrating Youth

Led Strategies to Reduce DMC

ne of the focal areas of the fourth year of the DMC initiative centered on increasing the involvement of youth. During the months of August 2007 and September 2007, the Guilford County DMC Management Team engaged in a countywide search for

four high school students to serve as both consultants to the larger DMC Committee as well as ambassadors to Guilford County youth. The overall goal was to organize, develop and implement youth-oriented strategies to reduce DMC. This occurred by challenging these Youth Ambassadors to organize their peers and involve them in the process of finding reasonable solutions to the problems that result in disproportionate suspension rates of Black youth in Guilford County Schools. The mobilization of high school youth to become constructively engaged in DMC related activities required structural support from adults, youth-led activities, and sound approaches that would serve as a mechanism for youth-led reduction strategies. Structure & Planning In an effort to mobilize our youth, Damie Jackson-Diop (a member of the DMC Management Team) took the lead as the DMC Youth Coordinator. Since we anticipated that our youth would benefit from adult support, one of the first actions taken by the management team was to form a Youth Ambassador Advisory Board made up of DMC Committee Members. The vision was to have Advisory Board members function as a selection committee, as mentors to the youth, as support to the Youth Coordinator, and as

O


16161616

support to youth work sessions and youth-related activities. The Advisory Board Members included: a parent representative/advocate (Lakisha N. Mebane), Executive Directors of non-profit agencies (Micheal Prioleau and Hank Wall), Community Support Coordinators (Rayvone Poole and Tathia Cheeley) and DMC Management Team Members (Margaret Arbuckle, Kelly Graves, Stephanie Horton, Mandy Ireland, Mary Kendrick, and Terri Shelton). Recruitment & Training Recruitment Initially, the Guilford DMC Youth Ambassador Program was a paid position ($10/hour) with a 9-month commitment (September-June) between the student and the Guilford County DMC Committee. The information contained in the recruitment packet was geared toward attracting youth to the program that have exhibited traditional and non traditional leadership skills. Outlined in the packet were the qualifications, job duties, responsibilities, and process for applying to the position. To be considered for the position, the applicant needed to be:

� A rising sophomore, junior, or senior attending a school in Guilford County; � Academically sound or show considerable academic improvement with the (2006-07)

school year; � Current or past experience serving in a leadership role such as student government,

school club, athletics, and/or church organization; � Demonstrate the ability to speak in front of large groups, writing skills and working

knowledge of Microsoft programs; � Committed to outcomes, able to collaborate, and serve as a dependable member of a

working group/team; and � Must be available to work 20-25 hours per month or 4-8 hours per week (Saturdays

included).

The job duties and responsibilities outlined in the packet asked youth to:

� Provide consultation to the DMC Management team to assist with DMC awareness-raising through developing presentations and leadership activities with youth;

� Serve as a liaison between community members, families, and youth advocacy groups so that information can be efficiently funneled into the DMC process; and

� Contribute to the ultimate sustainability of the initiative by building community capacity.

Additionally, as part of the application process, interested applicants were asked to write a statement of interest (250 word minimum), including examples of any activities that demonstrated leadership skills such as a leadership role in their family, church, or school.


17171717

Additionally, youth were asked why they think the DMC Youth Advisory Board Members should select them to participate in the Youth Ambassador Program.

Four interview sessions were held at the Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships at UNCG and the Macedonia Family Resource Center in High Point. A total of 23 applications were received and 20 applicants were interviewed. All interviewees were Black (8 males; 12 females). Seven youth were from High Point; 13 were from Greensboro. The DMC Advisory Board selected four youth: Christa Fairbanks (Eastern Guilford High School), James Lamar Gibson (North Carolina A& T Middle College), Jamal Glasgow (High Point Central High School), and Mia Conway (Grimsley High School). Originally, funding constraints allowed for only four youth to be hired. However, after careful review of the applications, essays, and reflection on the enthusiasm and desire of the interviewees, the selection committee (DMC Advisory Board Members) sensed that it would be in the best interest of the youth in our communities to seek funding that would increase the youth workforce, leadership, talent and energy. The initial financial support received by the Greensboro Chapter of 100 Black Men of America provided for the hiring of two additional Youth Ambassadors. The Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships received an additional grant to fund youth leaders and collaborated with North Carolina Families United (the statewide youth and family advocacy organization). These additional funds made it possible to hire eight additional youth, expanding the group to twelve youth through August 2008. Demographics and school locations of the youth are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Demographics & School Locations of 2007-2008 Youth Ambassadors.

Student Name School Grade Level Maria Ahmed Smith High School 11th grade

Taknequa Alston Dudley High School 12th grade Mia O. Conway Grimsley High School 10th grade

Christa A. Fairbanks Eastern Guilford High School 11th grade James (Lamar) Gibson NC A & T Middle College 11th grade Jamal R. Glasgow High Point Central High School 12th grade Arlicia D. Lindsey Andrews High School 12th grade Darrell Palmer Dudley High School 11th grade Tim Rosenburg High Point Central High School 11th grade DeAnte’ R. Tyler Grimsley High School 11th grade Austin R. Smith Dudley High School 12th grade Ambrose Wallace Page High School 9th grade


18181818

Training The DMC Youth Ambassadors engaged in a variety of training activities to both prepare them as well as foster their desire to reduce suspensions in their schools. These training activities included:

� A review of the national and local perspective of the problem, including a review of data and a verbal and written response to an article entitled, “School to Prison Pipeline”;

� Attendance at a UNCG Speaking Center Public Speaking Workshop in which consultants worked with youth to create an outline/presentation for the Teen Summit related to the school to prison pipeline (clip from youtube.com available under Book Em: Over Under-Educated, Over-Incarcerated);

� Participation in teleconferences related to DMC; and

� Receipt of facilitation training in preparation for the Study Circle Process to be fully

youth-led (training provided by the DMC Project Coordinator). Initiatives & Activities The work that the DMC Youth Ambassadors conducted during 2007-2008 is truly inspiring. These initiatives varied in their scope, purpose, and audience, and included:

� Presentations to youth groups (High Point, New Voices);

� Youth-led workshop presented at the Guilford County Teen Summit (October 2007), which provided an opportunity for our youth to engage over 100 of their peers in discussion regarding the School to Prison Pipeline;

� Attendance at a grant writing workshop that was sponsored and held at the Fund 4

Democratic Communities, who offered assistance for youth to learn how to build a website by offering volunteer website trainers from throughout the community;

� Attendance at cultural diversity training, which was delivered in partnership with the

African American Atelier, in preparation to be effective leaders;

� Writing, and receipt, of a $500.00 mini-grant to the Teen Grantmaking Council at the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro;

� Development and publication of a DMC Youth Fact Sheet (see Appendix 6);


19191919

� Completion of a Suspension Data Report (SDRP) Project, with a poster version of this project being accepted and presented at the Annual DMC Conference at Virginia State University (because of the focus and scope of this project, it is fully described below); and

� Facilitation of a Youth-Led, Study Circles process entitled, “Youth Impact:

Our Generation, Our Responsibility” (because of the focus and scope of this project, it is fully described below).

Suspension Data Research Project (SDRP)Suspension Data Research Project (SDRP)Suspension Data Research Project (SDRP)Suspension Data Research Project (SDRP) The purpose of the SDRP was to familiarize the Youth Ambassadors with DMC issues using qualitative data. Once background data were presented, the youth were challenged to develop the SDRP by gathering youth perspectives on the state of student suspensions in the school(s) that each Youth Ambassador attended. Data included both quantitative and qualitative methods. In terms of quantitative data, short- and long-term school suspension rates were used to calculate RRIs across three academic years (2003-04, 2004-05 and 2006-07). Youth reviewed the suspension data to examine change (increase/decrease) in suspensions over time. Data were disaggregated by school level (elementary, middle, high school) and by race (Black and White). Youth Ambassadors reviewed the data with the support of adult supervisors and focused on the suspension rates at their respective schools. To augment the quantitative data, Youth Ambassadors randomly interviewed three students from their school to obtain qualitative peer perspectives on the suspension rates at their school. They were asked to determine whether the data reflected the lived experiences of the students interviewed, what their peers believed contributed to suspensions, and how youth can help reduce DMC. The information gathered from their peers was used to share their thoughts, feelings, and experiences regarding DMC and to develop a list of recommendations to reduce suspensions. Examples of Student Responses/Quotes

• “We knew that African-Americans were suspended at a rate higher than that of Whites [but] unaware of the alarming rate.”

• In response to the significant reduction in the rates of suspension, one senior emphatically states, “That’s a lie man. Show me that sh%@ again.”

• One student was skeptical about the significant decrease in suspension data “because [she] thinks that some incidents don’t get officially reported due to the school wanting to keep a certain reputation”.


20202020

• As contributing factors to DMC one student said, “Kids are becoming weaker, but wiser” resulting in suspensions.

• “White students get more warnings than Black students ever would. If I had my cell phone out in the hallway, right next to a White student that also had their cell out, chances are I’m the student getting wrote up, while the other student is told to just put it up.”

• “I am always looked at like I am going to cause trouble because I’m a big Black guy. Whether I’m in school, or walking down the streets, it’s the same thing.”

The following represents the recommendations provided by high school students to positively affect disproportionate suspension rates:

• Constant Youth Voice: youth need to be involved in planning and implementation efforts around DMC initiatives

• Mentoring: youth believe that more opportunities for mentoring should be available

• Cultural Awareness Training for Teachers/Staff: youth believe that schools would benefit from a greater sensitivity and awareness of cultural differences and similarities among teachers and staff members

• Raising Awareness: youth believe that more attention needs to be given to DMC in Guilford County

• Better Communication: youth believe that there needs to be better communication across the racial and cultural groups that make up Guilford County

• Alternative Disciplinary Practices: youth believe that a series of alternate disciplinary

practices should be instituted rather than automatic suspension

• Unity Within Schools: youth believe that there is a lack of unity within schools and that increasing unity could help to address DMC

• Speak Out About and Against DMC: youth believe that youth can take a greater stance in speaking out and about DMC

• Hallway Cameras: youth believe that cameras should be installed in school hallways

• Mixed Reaction to Standard Mode of Dress (SMOD): youth have mixed reactions to SMOD reducing DMC


21212121

Using Youth Study Circles to Inform the DMC Project

The Youth Ambassadors used an approach called “Study Circles” to engage their peers in discussions about the environments in which they function and address DMC or the “School to Prison Pipeline.” Their plan was to engage approximately 45 youth from 12-18 years of age that attended a school in Guilford County.

Youth participants were recruited from previous youth interactions at the Guilford County Teen Summit, community-based youth organizations, advertisements and announcements at schools and their individual network of peers. Funding was received as result of a grant request made by the Youth Ambassadors to the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro Teen-Grantmaking Council. In addition, the youth (with assistance from adult advisors) solicited support from local vendors in the form of contributions used for “door-prizes”, and vendors such as “Out Da Box” provided a reduction in cost for tee-shirts for participants, which displayed the message “Youth Impact-Our Generation, Our Responsibility.” Facilities and meeting space for planning the event were provided by UNCG and “The Hive” at the Fund4Democratic Communities while meeting space for the actual event was provided by Bennett College for Women as the host site. Finally, a group of community adult representatives volunteered their time as note takers on the day of the event to facilitate capturing the rich information shared by the youth. Approximately 28 youth (17 male, 11 female) between the ages 12-18 years of age attended the event. Four youth were from High Point; 24 youth were from Greensboro. Many youth were brought by their parents who were required to sign a consent form. Youth then gathered to study the issues of disproportionality and to develop recommendations based on their personal experiences. Enthusiasm was present from the opening plenary to the closing. All of the students were richly engaged. As assignments and topics for small group discussion were presented, the participating youth voiced their desire to have an opportunity to participate in dialogue about each of the topics. Therefore, thinking on their feet, the Youth Ambassadors created a process where the Youth Ambassador Facilitators would rotate between the groups bringing with them their topic and connections to what had been discussed in previous groups. This approach work very well.

Original topics for discussion included: Gangs; Student Police Relations; Better Neighborhoods; Race; Youth Culture; Education; School Climate; and Adult Support. However, three central topics were chosen as final focus areas, namely Gangs, Youth Culture, and Race. Youth worked in small groups and rotated topics approximately every 45 minutes so that each group had the opportunity to discuss each topic. In general, feedback from the groups indicated that youth felt positive about this experience because they were being listened to and believed that their input mattered. A young man who self-identified as a “gang member” said that if this had been a part of his experience earlier, perhaps he would have not made the choice to be gang involved. Furthermore, comments and


22222222

recommendations obtained from their peers in the Study Circle sessions were recorded by note takers. Youth participants also challenged their peers to take the information back into their schools and develop youth-led strategic activities that address the issues.

On the topic of….Gangs- youth said:

• Youth spoke to proper identification versus stereotyping of youth. It was felt that Greensboro police officers don’t know the difference between regular people and gang members.

• It was felt that youth are gang affiliated because they feel a sense of belonging, they get respect, don’t get love at home, believe that gangs care about you and some join so that they don’t get messed with. They also indicated that gang support does not happen if you get arrested.

• Increase in gang activity is attributed to: o Youth who are bored – nothing to do o Parents not around o Respect o Want to be cool o Finding love in all the wrong places o Protection

Youth Recommendations About Gangs:

• Listen to youth

• Teach about gangs and know it’s more than about colors

• Learn what other communities have done

• Support youth empowerment

• Host speakers – people who have been through gangs and out

• Provider more extra-curricular activities (where grades not an initial factor) On the Topic of…Youth Culture – youth said:

• Black culture is a stereotype, with too many negative portrayals in music, and other forms of media

• Stereotypes come from people being ignorant about others and this goes back to slavery

• A youth’s environment impacts how s/he acts in school

• African American culture is very broad; some rich kids can be “ghetto” – trying to fit in and end up being one (ghetto). Ghetto is a state of mind

• Students felt they did not get enough education about other cultures and other countries. Self education was mentioned as an option.

Youth Recommendations About Youth Culture:

• Work to curb negative media by actively advocating positive messages

• Increase awareness: community debate about race


23232323

• Individual involvement: become more aware of the world around you; open minded

• Speak-up about what bothers you.

• Stop buying the music On the Topic of…Race- youth said:

• Race drives me (African American male)

• Being African American pushes you to work hard. Not everyone has the same drive

• Going to a predominately black school empowers youth, but stunts racial relations

• Feel left out (sometimes) when you go to a predominately white school

• Don’t know how to act among not only Caucasians, but among other minorities.

• We need to go outside our comfort zone

• Stereotypes exists

• Racism still exists

Youth Recommendations About Race:

• Students cited several instances of disparity in treatment by the police based on media coverage about the death of a white person versus a black person, different treatment in the mall when there with friends, feel that some “...are waiting for Blacks to do something.”

• Group of Black kids treated worse than a group of Caucasian kids.

• Police don’t differentiate between groups within a community. Wrong place at the wrong time leads to black youth wrongly accused.

• Believe – longer sentences for Blacks, regardless of guilt

• Blacks have to go the extra mile for attention

• Black people react more emotionally to every day events

• Harder on Black students; let white students get away with stuff

• Police converse with White people standing around, never conversations with Blacks.


24242424

C H A P T E R F O U R

Supporting Prevention and Intervention

Efforts

ver the past year, we have built bridges, developed strategic partnerships and collaborated with other organizations in Guilford County in our effort to end disproportionality for our Black youth. These organizations and actions include:

• Greensboro Human Relations Commission, the High Point Human Relations Department, and Guilford County Schools:

o Parent Advocates Initiative: Parental involvement was a key dynamic identified. To that end, it was determined that some parents will benefit from having support as they interface with the school system when their children face difficult situations. The need for parents to have trained advocates who can support them in their interface with schools was identified as an intervention/ prevention effort that could be undertaken by this partnership. A plan was developed, parent advocates were recruited, strategic alignment with the schools was created, training was developed and implemented, and advocates are now in place, resulting in a sustainable Parent Advocates structure.

o 22 Churches – 22 Meetings: Black youth are underrepresented at School Board Meetings. Thus, in consultation with school board members this initiative was established in which 22 churches signed up to actively participate and represent Black Youth concerns at 22 consecutive School Board Meetings. As a result of this involvement some of the churches have implemented DMC-related topics in their Sunday School teachings and mentorship programs.

o Infusion of Black History and culture into the Guilford County School Education Process: The energy for this initiative is based on the belief that self-esteem is fed by knowledge, understanding and pride. A curriculum infusion model incorporated in the Philadelphia schools is being explored. Led by the Education Committee of the Greensboro Human Relations Commission and in partnership with the Guilford County School Diversity Office and the Guilford County DMC, a consultant named Dr. Edward Robinson was brought to the community to explain the work and success in the Philadelphia community. Based on the work done by Dr. Robinson, this model has shown reductions in school suspensions and dropout rates and an increase in academic achievement in the Philadelphia District. All K-8th grade textbooks have been re-written to infuse African-American contributions into the Standard Curriculum in Math, Science, and Language Arts, and are in the process of being printed. The Guilford County School System Curriculum

O


25252525

Department has decided to have Dr. Robinson return for more in-depth dialogue and to determine steps of action. This intervention/prevention work is in progress.

• NAACP: Guilford County DMC data have been utilized by the Greensboro Chapter of the NAACP to examine suspension, dropout rates, and charges. Strategic actions are being developed for community support to intervene and change the current patterns, including:

o Sub-committees have been formed to determine prevention and intervention methods that can be taken by the organization and the community;

o Meetings have been conducted with the Guilford County School

Superintendent, and with principals of schools with high suspension rates to determine alternatives to suspension and methods for greater support of the students;

o The Youth Division of the NAACP has conducted focus groups to further

understand the perspectives of youth in the education, family and community environments as related to the disproportionality of their experience; and

o Programming has been developed to affirmatively support the youth members

of this chapter, with youth leadership and self-esteem building being factored into the information gained through the DMC initiative and focus groups.

• Black/Multicultural Caucasus and Joint Caucasus: Caucasus members included School Resource Officers, Staff and Educators; Department of Social Services managers; College/University Professors and Administrators; Parents, Community Activists, Entrepreneurs, Sorority/Fraternity members, Youth Behavioral Therapists and, Community Trainers. Members of this group use DMC data to inform their approach to develop programming, interface with their agency, and plan community action. This group has adopted Wiley Elementary School to support the children and parents who are challenged in their interface with the systems that they encounter (schools, department of social services, law enforcement, community environment, etc).

• Merchants of Hope: This countywide organization was developed as a result of learning about the disproportionality through DMC Data to provide programming, development/training, and mentorships for youth, law enforcement, and courts. Membership is comprised predominately of Black leaders determined to intervene in the current patterns of DMC. A successful forum was conducted to inform, listen and learn about the issues. Actions for implementation were developed, including updating the Community Resource Listing and distributing it to churches and community groups as well as public agencies; recognition of students successful completion of first semester through a community-based event and exploring ways to expand the mentoring programs housed in faith communities, sororities/fraternities


26262626

so that more youth are paired with a caring adult. We continue our collaboration as this organization continues their focus in striving to make a difference in the lives of our youth.

• LYFE (Love, Youth, Faith, Empowerment): LYFE is a Gang Intervention Organization led by city council members, the City of Greensboro, the faith community, and organizations focused on youth (e.g. DMC.) “The mission of this organization is to empower youth to develop and maintain positive life choices. We will assist youth and their families in overcoming life difficulties through love, faith, and community.” The DMC Initiative has built a bridge with the LYFE through active collaboration. This organization is in the developmental stages and is conducting information gathering through parent, youth and community surveys to determine training, programming and support needs. DMC data also will provide support to help create the foundation for the work of this organization.

A variety of Community Based Training Efforts also occurred, including: Undoing Racism/Anti-Racism Training Because race is a lens through which we examine disproportionality, individuals benefit from a common learning experience for those involved in this process of preventing and intervening. We have chosen to support and provide Undoing Racism/Anti-Racism training across the county. During this year:

• We sponsored training experiences for our DMC Youth Ambassadors and additional youth from our various schools across the county in July 2007, and Cultural Competency Training was provided for our current Youth Ambassadors in partnership with North Carolina Families United and UNCG Youth Leadership students; and

• We supported ongoing training experiences delivered by the Guilford County Department of Social Service that included teachers and administrators, social workers, juvenile court counselors, judges, and school support officers as participants.

Parental Support & Parent Advocacy Training Training processes and curriculum contents were developed by the DMC coordinator, the Guilford County School Diversity Officer, the High Point Human Relations Department Director and the Greensboro Human Relations Administrator. Advocates to support parents of youth in the Guilford County Schools were trained over several sessions to understand the school system’s policies, practices, procedures, protocol and organizational structure. The development included conflict resolution, intervention, roles of an advocate, standards, student/parents rights, parameters, alignment, parenting challenges, DMC data, etc. For example, during a significant conflict among youth from multiple neighbors that


27272727

“exploded” on the campus of one local high schools, Parent Advocates were invited by Guilford County School Administrators to participate in dialogues and negotiations between parents and the school system to determine fair actions and consequences for students. Meetings were conducted at St. Phillips AME Zion Church. This was viewed as a successful engagement of Parent Advocates. There also have been other individual cases in which Parent Advocates have been involved in working with parents to engage the school administrators as actions around suspensions, individual learning plans, grades, classroom actions and interpersonal dynamics between educators and students have needed to be negotiated by parents. Faith Community Because we believe the faith community is critical in community change, it was imperative that we conduct workshops and deliver presentations to facilitate their understanding of the disproportionality issues in our community.

• Five sessions were delivered by the DMC staff to church congregations;

• An opportunity to interface with School representatives, on suspensions, appeal processes, and children diagnosed with “behavioral” issues that affect the education process, was hosted by a church in our community with approximately 75 people in attendance;

• A DMC presentation was made by the Guilford County School Diversity Officer and the DMC Coordinator at the Rowan Baptist Regional Conference. In attendance were faith leaders from across this county and conference representatives, including parents, GCS principals and educators;

• DMC statistics and concerns were included in a presentation by the Mayor of Greensboro at a community forum hosted by St. James Presbyterian Church attended by several hundred people;

• A PowerPoint presentation of DMC data was forwarded to youth ministers and senior ministers to incorporate in their sermons, training and outreach programs; and

• DMC statistics were quoted in a presentation made by the Pulpit Forum at the Martin Luther King, Jr., celebration attended by an estimated 1,500 attendees.


28282828

C H A P T E R F I V E

Policy and Procedure Modifications

he Guilford County DMC Initiative has included key public agencies and many non-profit organizations whose work influences the lives of youth in our county community. The Committee members, and in particular the Management Team of

the Initiative, have provided leadership and/or interface with community based efforts to address the concerns initially acknowledged by releasing the data on DMC to the larger community.

Among those collaborations, the DMC committee has been involved with the community gang awareness/identification/suppression efforts led primarily by the HOPE project, the Greensboro and High Point Violent Crime Task Forces, and members of the Greensboro City Council. Although disparate in many of the efforts, the increasing community concern about youth gang activity has been a part of the DMC impact on the community. Publication of a gang education piece for parents and professionals was distributed by the City of Greensboro. One continuing concern from our DMC work is the stereotypic response by some community members when groups of Black youth are gathered, with many assuming that these youth must be in a gang and engaging in gang-related activity. There must be continuing education of law enforcement personnel about appropriate gang identification so as to avoid stereotyping of our youth as gang members because they are in groups in public places. Continually addressing DMC concerns within law enforcement policies is important so that there is appropriate response to youth behavior.

Juvenile Code There is increasing attention to the North Carolina Juvenile Code definition of youth as those young people below age 16. Once becoming 16 years of age, youth are automatically moved into the adult judicial system. With recent research on adolescent brain development and the increasing advocacy to adjust the juvenile age in our state to be in compliance with more than forty-five of the other states, changing the juvenile age is a topic of great discussion within the DJJDP and within the General Assembly of North Carolina. The Juvenile Code has not been revised in almost ten years, representing an auspicious time to add DMC issues to the discussion of the Juvenile Code revisions. Thus, the Guilford County DMC Initiative convened a DMC Juvenile Code Task Force to examine sections of the Code through a DMC lens. Invited to participate were a District Judge appointed by the Chief District Court Judge, the Public Defender Juvenile attorney, the District Attorney, the

T


29292929

Chief Juvenile Court Counselor, a parent whose children have been involved in the juvenile justice system and the leaders of the DMC Management Team. With the consultation of Eric Zogry, the North Carolina Juvenile Public Defender, sections of the Code identified to review included:

• Purpose: 7B-1500

• Definitions: 7B-1501

• Intake and Diversion: 7B-1701, -1702, -1703

• Notice: 7B-1807

• Secure Custody: 7B-1903, -1906

• Interrogation: 7B-2101

• Admissions: 7B-2407

• Disposition: 7B-2500, -2501, -2506, -2508

• Probation: 7B-2510

• Commitment: 7B-2513 Monthly meetings of the Task Force have occurred to discuss the sections in question, the statements of the code, the implications of the law as understood by the legal professionals on the task force, and the experience of the Juvenile Justice Office and the parent participating. Students at Elon University Law School and at UNC School of Law assisted in taking notes and writing up the concerns raised in the meetings. Specifically, the Task Force reviewed these sections and raised the following concerns:

• How might this statute affect children from different socio-economic backgrounds?

• How might this statute affect children who reside in different areas of the jurisdiction?

• How might this statute affect children where one or both parents/guardians must work?

• How might this statute affect children with less access to mental health or educational services or resources?

• How might this statute otherwise adversely affect minority youth in the delinquency system?

• Do I as a court actor consider how this law might affect minority youth when I am acting under the law?

The DMC Management Team also participated in the statewide Governor’s Crime Commission DMC Committee. This statewide committee has been kept abreast of the progress of the Task Force review of the Juvenile Code. It is anticipated that the work will be completed by the fall of 2008, and a final report submitted at that time to the GCC DMC Committee, members of the General Assembly, DJJDP leadership, and the Guilford DMC committee.


30303030

Guilford County Department of Social Services (DSS) Department leadership at Guilford County DSS participated from the beginning in the Guilford County DMC Initiative. Through the Undoing Racism/Anti-Racism training the leadership’s knowledge of institutional racism was heightened leading to an in depth examination of the policies and procedures on child welfare within DSS. At the same time, Guilford DSS received a grant from the Annie E. Casey foundation to address disproportionality in child welfare which supported an in depth examination of all policies and procedures. It is now accepted practice for a racially diverse team of social workers to review decisions for removal of a child from his/her parents in order to ensure that the decisions are not disproportionate. Additionally, there are efforts to connect families with culturally appropriate/sensitive community services. Both of these efforts have resulted in a decrease in the number of Black children removed from their homes. Furthermore, Guilford County DSS initiatives have been recognized at the national level by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Guilford County Schools Guilford County Schools has addressed reducing the numbers of short-term and long-term suspensions since before the DMC Initiative began. Having the relative rate indexes for each school heightened the public’s awareness of DMC related to the school to prison pipeline and, as a result, increased attention has been brought to the suspension issue from the community, particularly led by Black faith communities, and the DMC committee and leadership. Additionally, there are efforts to connect families with culturally appropriate/sensitive community services. Both of these efforts have resulted in a decrease in the number of Black children removed from their homes. It is important to continue to collect these data. Increasingly, there is conversation among members of the Board of Education and the public of alternative ways to address issues of student behavior that leads to suspensions and providing alternatives to suspension as a consequence of behavior. This has resulted in a change in procedure for students receiving “long-term” suspensions. They now are awarded a behavior contract that can be implemented at SCALE and if fully met results in the student returning to his home school without a record of a long-term suspension. Instead, the incident is recorded as a “school transfer.” During the 2007-2008 School Year, the Board of Education appointed a School Climate Task Force with the specific directives to:

1. Review the district’s handling of student misbehavior; 2. Review the Guilford County Disproportionate Minority Contact Report; 3. Meet with teachers, parents, students and community stakeholders; and 4. Make a report by consensus back to the Board of Education.


31313131

In February, the Task Force made its presentation to the Board of Education in a public meeting. Recommendations included more social workers, reducing class size, incorporating a standard mode of dress for all students, restructuring of in-school suspension, establishment of mediation programs within schools, professional development in behavior management and cultural competence, increasing reading instruction in middle and high schools, and increasing school-community collaborations. These recommendations have been discussed at the Board of Education and among education advocacy organizations including the Guilford Education Alliance board of directors. In its budget request to the Board of County Commissioners for School Year 2008-2009, the Board of Education is requesting additional funding for social workers, reading teachers, and increasing the number of schools participating in Positive Behavior Management programs. There also was a request to add staff in the Guilford County Schools Diversity Office.

Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) The leadership of DJJDP has increased its emphasis on DMC within its agency. Staff are committed to the development of procedures addressing DMC, including a focus on their staff internal evaluation system.


32323232

C H A P T E R S I X

Sustaining Guilford County’s DMC Efforts

Review of Sustainability Plan

uring the third quarter of the 2007-2008 DMC grant funding, Guilford County applied for a fifth year of funding to support DMC activities. This funding was not awarded. Consequently, Guilford County DMC activities have been focused on

creating a sustainable work plan that can continue without major funding. Sustainability efforts are organized around each major component of Guilford County DMC’s activities, including finding an ongoing, community-based home for DMC coordination (website, listserve, etc.), ongoing data collection and reporting of RRIs, training and awareness regarding DMC across the community, continued examination of policies and procedures to address potential DMC issues, and continued expansion of youth and parent involvement as key change agents for DMC efforts.

Finding a Home for DMC Coordination

The Center for Youth, Family, and Community Partnerships at UNCG will work in concert with the Guilford County DMC Committee to achieve a suitable home for DMC that is community-based and community-driven. UNCG committs to:

� Continued compilation of data provided by stakeholder agencies;

� Continued partnership with stakeholder agencies as part of the DMC committee;

� Continued supplemental support of the DMC website (as currently hosted at the UNCG website) until such time as a community-owned DMC website is established; and

� Continued commitment to search for funding to expand DMC efforts in Guilford County.

Ongoing Data Collection and Reporting of RRIs

Since 2002, significant improvements in the collection and reporting of RRIs have occurred both within and across agencies in Guilford County. The majority of service agencies now collect and analyze RRI data in-house, resulting in increased sustainability of DMC efforts related to data analysis. However, despite these advancements, work remains. Specifically, we will work to:

D


33333333

• Encourage each agency to collect data by race and gender at each decision point (or other relevant point within its agency) and provide ongoing feedback within the agency;

• Re-committ each internal point person or liaison for each stakeholder agency who can monitor their internal data and share with other stakeholders; will direct, plan, and execute DMC training activities within their organization; and will take the lead role in identifying what recommendations can truly be put in place within the agency;

• Participate in an annual report out to other community agencies to encourage cross-system collaboration;

• Provide representation from each agency at the meetings of the Guilford County DMC Committee and participate fully in the discussion at the meetings and/or its activities; and

• Establish communication within the agency so that the representative has opportunity to provide feedback to the agency leadership on the issues illuminated by the data and bring this discussion to the DMC Committee.

Training and Awareness

Although there are no scheduled trainings related to DMC at this time, the DMC Management Team and DMC Youth Ambassadors prepared a series of DMC-related fact sheets (see Appendix 6) that will continue to be distributed across Guilford County. These fact sheets will help to raise awareness of DMC issues. Furthermore, DMC Youth Ambassadors continue to raise awareness of DMC among their peers and within their respective schools. Youth Ambassadors also will attend the National Conference for Community and Justice youth human relations program Anytown in the summer of 2008, providing further opportunity for training around social justice issues. Finally, there are discussions underway for a DMC subcommittee on the Greensboro Violent Crime Task Force.

Examination of Policies and Procedures

The DMC Committee has committed to continued efforts to revise the Juvenile Code as outlined in Chapter 5. It is anticipated the work will be completed by the fall of 2008, and a final report submitted to the GCC DMC Committee, members of the General Assembly, DJJDP leadership, and the Guilford DMC committee. Furthermore, institutional and community partners are planning a re-commitment to the DMC Memorandum of Understanding at a public ceremony in September 2008.


34343434

Expansion of Youth and Parent Involvement as Change Agents

As of June 2008, the DMC Youth Ambassadors and Parent Advocates have a strong momentum and have conducted important work throughout Guilford County. We have seen the impact of their work as major change agents, offering youth-led solutions to the DMC problems that plague our community. Still, continued expansion of this work is warranted. Several sustainabily efforts are currently being explored, including:

� Identifying opportunities for synergy with other local youth initiatives;

� Fostering linkages among other mini-grants that can support youth and parent efforts, and draw upon the resources of youth and parent participants;

� Developing youth and parent leadership/ownership of the issue;

� Identifying alternative funding sources; and

� Exploring potential homes for the DMC Youth Ambassadors, with the Fund 4 Democratic Communities being one possible source. Specifically, the Fund 4 Democratic Communitites and the DMC Management Team are under negotiations for how the Fund 4 Democratic Communitites can “adopt” the youth, providing ongoing support for their efforts.


35353535

References

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (2005). Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline. Retrieved on June 4, 2008, from http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/pipeline/Dismantling_the_School_to_Prison_Pipeline.pdf.

NC DMC (2008). Disproportionate Minority Contact. Retrieved on April 14, 2008, from

http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/index2.cfm?a=000003,000011,000601,001289,001305.

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. Kelly N. Graves, DMC Project Director, [email protected]

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

Mrs. Damie Jackson-Diop, DMC Youth Coordinator, [email protected]


36363636

A P P E N D I X 1

Short and Short and Short and Short and LongLongLongLong----termtermtermterm Suspensions by Suspensions by Suspensions by Suspensions by

Race with Relative Rate Comparisons Race with Relative Rate Comparisons Race with Relative Rate Comparisons Race with Relative Rate Comparisons

for for for for 2004200420042004----2005 versus 20062005 versus 20062005 versus 20062005 versus 2006----2007200720072007


37373737

Guilford County Elementary Schools 2006-2007 Short Term and Long Term Suspension Rates by Race White Students Black Students Relative Rate Index

Schools (Membership: %White, % Black)

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate

Short Term Long Term

2006-07

2004-05

2004-2007

Alamance (841: 56W, 30B)

1.5 -- 3.6 -- 2.4 29.4 -- --

Alderman (357: 20W, 34B)

1.4 -- 3.3 -- 2.3 2.0 -- --

Allen Jay ((464: 32W, 25B)

0.7 -- 2.6 -- 3.9 4.8 -- --

Archer (393: 3W, 51B)

7.7 -- 2.5 -- 0.3 0.7* -- --

Bessemer (446: 3W, 84B)

7.7 -- 8.5 -- 1.1 0.4 -- --

Bluford (386: 2W, 95B)

16.7 -- 3.0 -- 0.2 1.4 -- --

Brightwood (827: 15W, 72B)

2.5 -- 3.7 -- 1.5 6.4* -- --

Brooks Global (392: 43W, 49B)

0.6 -- 1.5 -- 2.6 0.1 -- --

Claxton (619: 63W, 21B)

0.3 -- 0.8 -- 3.0 4.3 -- --

Colfax (1028: 78W, 8B)

0.5 -- 1.2 -- 2.4 4.3 -- --

Cone (485: 4W, 85B) 5.6 -- 8.0 -- 1.4 0.8 -- --

Erwin Open (256: 45W, 50B)

0.9 -- 0.8 -- 0.9 2.6 -- --

Fairview (634: 7W, 73B)

2.4 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.9 -- --

Falkener (578: 2W, 81B)

11.1 -- 1.7 -- 0.2 0.1 -- --

Florence (741: 57W, 21B)

0.9 -- 3.3 -- 3.5 4.1 -- --

Foust (355: 4W, 57B) 7.1 -- 3.0 -- 0.4 0.1 -- --

Frazier (353: 5W, 67B)

5.9 -- 3.4 -- 0.6 0.7 -- --

General Greene (451: 61W, 30B)

1.1 -- 1.5 -- 1.3 2.7 -- --

Gisbsonville (431: 70W, 16B)

0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 -- --

Gillespie Park (256: 2W, 90B)

20.0 -- 3.0 -- 0.2 0.7 -- --

Guilford Prim (358: 23W, 50B)

1.2 -- 0.6 -- 0.5 2.3 -- --


38383838

Hampton (334: 1W, 87B)

50.0 -- 5.8 -- 0.1 0.2 -- --

Hunter (440: 8W, 42B)

2.7 -- 4.8 -- 1.8 2.0 -- --

Irving Park (686: 44W, 35B)

0.7 -- 4.6 -- 6.9 0.9 -- --

Jamestown (533: 32W, 53B)

1.2 -- 2.5 -- 2.1 3.3 -- --

Jefferson (775: 44W, 27B)

1.2 -- 2.4 -- 2.0 5.3 -- --

Jesse Wharton (969: 56W, 24B)

0.4 -- 3.0 -- 8.2 3.4 -- --

Johnson St (367: 34W, 47B)

0.8 -- 3.5 -- 4.4 7.7 -- --

Jones (697: 26W, 61B)

0.5 -- 4.5 -- 8.2 3.7 -- --

Joyner (407: 41W, 38B)

1.8 -- 1.3 -- 0.7 5.9* -- --

Kirkman Park (177: 10W, 73B)

5.9 -- 7.8 -- 1.3 1.7* -- --

Laughlin Prim (356: 85W, 4B)

0.3 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 -- --

Lindley (355: 42W, 34B)

0.7 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 8.9 -- --

Madison (583: 48W, 25B)

0.4 -- 0.7 -- 1.9 1.6 -- --

Millis Road (456: 59W, 21B)

1.5 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 11.4 -- --

Monticello-BS (741: 73W, 12B)

0.6 -- 1.1 -- 2.0 2.8 -- --

Montlieu Ave (442: 5W, 77B)

33.3 -- 11.7 -- 0.4 2.0 -- --

Morehead (450: 37W, 41B)

0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 -- --

Murphey (373: 8W, 72B)

3.4 -- 2.2 -- 0.0 0.0 -- --

Nat Greene (400: 91W, 3B)

0.3 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 -- --

Northwood (522: 25W, 39B)

3.8 -- 8.0 -- 2.1 6.6 -- --

Oak Hill (370: 14W, 32B)

1.9 -- 1.7 -- 0.9 1.5 -- --

Oak Ridge (779: 87W, 3B)

0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 -- --

Oak View (634: 36W, 45B)

2.2 -- 6.3 -- 2.9 3.8 -- --

Parkview (445: 5W, 84B)

4.3 -- 7.2 -- 1.7 1.0 -- --

Peck (356: 6W, 58B) 9.5 -- 2.4 -- 0.3 0.4 -- --


39393939

Peeler Open (356: 29W, 61B)

1.0 -- 4.6 -- 4.8 0.9 -- --

Pilot (927: 52W, 25B) 0.2 -- 1.7 -- 8.4 2.7 -- --

Pleasant Garden (574: 78W, 15B)

0.9 -- 4.7 -- 5.3 2.7 -- --

Rankin (622: 9W, 56B)

19.0 -- 25.1 -- 1.3 1.4 -- --

Sedalia (361: 52W, 32B)

1.6 -- 1.7 -- 1.1 2.5 -- --

Sedgefield (437: 10W, 40B)

2.3 -- 2.9 -- 1.2 3.5 -- --

Shadybrook (624: 49W, 30B)

0.7 -- 0.5 -- 0.8 8.3 -- --

Southern (261: 82W, 5B)

0.0 -- 0.0. -- 0.0 0.0 -- --

Southwest Guil (853: 62W, 14B)

0.4 -- 0.8 -- 2.2 0.0 -- --

Sternberger (422: 63W, 28B)

0.4 -- 5.9 -- 15.8 13.1 -- --

Stokesdale (519: 88W, 4B)

0.2 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 -- --

Summerfield (763: 86W, 4B)

0.3 -- 10.0 -- 32.7 0.0 -- --

Sumner (575: 13W, 57B)

1.3 -- 6.5 -- 5.0 1.9 -- --

Triangle Lake (395: 41W, 45B)

1.9 -- 7.8 -- 4.2 6.1 -- --

Union Hill (410: 8W, 55B)

6.1 -- 7.1 -- 1.2 1.6 -- --

Vandalia (217: 3W, 92B)

33.3 -- 1.0 -- 0.0 0.1 -- --

Washington (162: 1W, 88B)

100.0 -- 7.7 -- 0.1 0.05* -- --

Wiley (250: 1W, 94B) 33.3 -- 6.0 -- 0.2 7.0* -- --

Note: There were no long-term suspensions of elementary school students in 2004-2005 or 2006-2007.

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


40404040

Guilford County Middle Schools 2006-2007 Short Term and Long Term Suspension Rates by Race White Students Black Students Relative Rate Index


Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate


2006-07

2004-05

2006-07

2004-05

Allen Jay (710: 38W, 40B)

19.8 0.4 39.2 0.0 2.0 1.7 0.0 2.0

Allen (792: 3W, 79B) 30.4 4.3 42.7 0.0 1.1 2.0 0.0 0.7

Aycock (669: 14W, 68B)

18.6 1.0 24.9 0.0 1.3 4.4 0.0 4.0*

Brown Summit (208: 44W, 49B)

5.5 1.1 14.9 0.0 2.7 1.7 0.0 1.2

Eastern Guil (903: 40W, 40B)

22.3 0.3 39.4 0.3 1.8 1.8 0.0 9.1

Ferndale (596: 19W, 48B)

32.8 0.9 58.5 0.3 1.8 4.3 0.4 4.8

Griffin (507: 27W, 55B)

18.1 0.7 53.6 0.7 3.0 5.5 1.0 10.7

Guilford (915: 36W, 36B)

8.7 0.3 18.5 0.3 2.1 2.3 1.0 2.8

Hairston (656: 0W, 88B)

50.0 50.0 33.8 0.2 0.7 2.8 0.0 0.3*

Jackson (524: 5W, 70B)

26.9 3.8 56.0 0.3 2.1 0.9 0.1 1.6*

Jamestown (1192: 43W, 38B)

7.3 0.2 26.9 0.0 3.7 4.0 0.0 4.1

Kernodle (968: 68W, 16B)

6.0 0.2 19.0 0.0 3.1 3.6 0.0 0.0

Kiser (880: 37W, 53B)

14.6 0.3 58.3 0.0 4.0 4.8 0.0 7.1

Mendenhall (955: 47W, 37B)

12.7 0.2 46.8 0.3 3.7 3.0 1.3 5.2

NE Guilford (969: 43W, 41B)

30.0 0.2 56.1 0.0 19. 2.5 0.0 5.8

NW Guilford (1108: 86W, 6B)

9.7 0.1 15.9 0.0 1.6 4.2 0.0 5.7

SE Guilford (1043:68W, 22B)

15.4 0.1 28.2 0.0 1.8 2.3 0.0 1.2

SW Guilford (1107: 41W, 40B)

6.6 0.2 47.5 0.0 7.2 6.0 0.0 4.3*

Welborn (558: 24W, 59B)

29.4 0.7 59.1 0.3 2.0 3.2 0.4 5.8*



41414141

Guilford County High Schools 2006-2007 Short Term and Long Term Suspension Rates by Race White Students Black Students Relative Rate Index


Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate


2006-07

2004-05

2006-07

2004-05

Andrews (956: 18W, 69B)

21.2 0.6 43.4 0.0 2.1 2.9 0.0 10.1*

Dudley (1427: 1W, 93B)

5.9 5.9 17.5 0.1 3.0 2.2* 0.0 0.2*

Eastern (997: 41W, 43B)

17.7 0.2 35.2 0.2 2.0 2.7 1.0 0.9

Grimsley (1748: 56W, 34B)

7.4 0.1 32.8 0.0 4.4 22.1 0.0 41.4

HP Central (1185: 37W, 43B)

7.8 0.2 41.3 0.0 5.3 5.0 0.0 9.1

Northeast (1183: 46W, 44B)

41.5 0.2 56.8 0.4 1.4 1.8 2.1 0.7

Northwest (2375: 86W, 6B)

14.4 0.0 26.1 0.0 1.8 3.4 0.0 15.4

Page (1712: 42W, 44B)

7.1 0.1 31.4 0.1 4.4 2.8 0.9 5.7

Ragsdale (1461: 50W, 33B)

19.0 0.1 40.7 0.0 2.1 3.5 0.0 7.8*

Smith (1302: 8W, 74B)

28.3 0.9 49.4 0.0 1.7 1.6 0.0 2.8

Southeast (1278: 71W, 21B)

27.1 0.1 53.1 0.0 1.9 2.4 0.0 2.5

Southern (953: 47W, 37B)

20.1 0.2 44.4 0.0 2.2 1.8 0.0 1.6

Southwest (1336: 49W, 36B)

2.6 0.2 13.1 0.2 5.1 4.7 1.4 5.4

Western (1457: 56W, 26B)

13.9 0.1 31.8 0.3 2.3 4.4 2.2 2.8



42424242

Guilford County Other Schools 2006-2007 Short Term and Long Term Suspension Rates by Race White Students Black Students Relative Rate Index


Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate

Short Term Rate

Long Term Rate


2006-07

2004-05 2006-07

2004-05

A&T Mid College (76: 3W, 95B)

50.0 50.0 8.3 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.1*

Bennett Mid College (76: 5W, 89B)

25.0 25.0 7.4 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0*

GC Mid College (107: 61W, 37B)

1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

GTCC Mid College (132: 71W, 23B)

1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Guilford Early College (187: 67W, 9B)

0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Weaver Ed Center (258: 80W, 12B)

8.7 0.0 25.8 0.0 3.0 4.1 0.0 0.0

Scale (195: 12W, 98B)

21.7 4.3 67.2 0.0 3.1 3.1 0.0 1.2*


43434343

A P P E N D I X 2

Relative Rate Indices for ShortRelative Rate Indices for ShortRelative Rate Indices for ShortRelative Rate Indices for Short----Term Term Term Term

Suspensions by School Level, 2003Suspensions by School Level, 2003Suspensions by School Level, 2003Suspensions by School Level, 2003----

2004, 20042004, 20042004, 20042004, 2004----2005, 20062005, 20062005, 20062005, 2006----2007200720072007


44444444

RRIs for Short-term Suspensions in Guilford County Schools, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07

Guilford County Elementary Schools

School Name

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

ALAMANCE ELEMENTARY 4.1 29.4 2.4

ALDERMAN ELEMENTARY 2 2.0 2.3

ALLEN JAY ELEMENTARY 1.6 4.8 3.9

ARCHER ELEMENTARY 0.7 0.3 0.3

BESSEMER ELEMENTARY 1 0.4 1.1

BLUFORD ELEMENTARY 1.1 1.4 0.2

BRIGHTWOOD ELEMENTARY 1.5 6.4 1.5

BROOKS GLOBAL ELEMENTARY 0 0.1 2.6

CLAXTON ELEMENTARY 4 4.3 3

COLFAX ELEMENTARY 22.8 4.3 2.4

CONE ELEMENTARY 1.3 0.8 1.4

ERWIN OPEN ELEMENTARY 2 2.6 0.9

FAIRVIEW ELEMENTARY 1.7 0.9 0

FALKENER ELEMENTARY 0.8 0.1 0.2

FLORENCE ELEMENTARY 3.5 4.1 3.5

FOUST ELEMENTARY 0.7 0.1 0.4

FRAZIER ELEMENTARY 0.7 0.7 0.6

GENERAL GREENE ELEMENTARY 2.2 2.7 1.3

GIBSONVILLE ELEMENTARY 3.1 0.0 0

GILLESPIE PARK ELEMENTARY 0.7 0.7 0.2

GUILFORD PRIMARY 0.7 2.3 0.5

HAMPTON ELEMENTARY 0.1 0.2 0.1

HUNTER ELEMENTARY 1.3 2.0 1.8

IRVING PARK ELEMENTARY 3.6 0.9 6.9

JAMESTOWN ELEMENTARY 1.9 3.3 2.1

JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY 1.6 5.3 2

JESSE WHARTON ELEMENTARY 19.5 3.4 8.2

JOHNSON STREET ELEMENTARY 2.1 7.7 4.4

JONES ELEMENTARY 11.5 3.7 8.2

JOYNER ELEMENTARY 4.8 5.9 0.7

KIRKMAN PARK ELEMENTARY 3.8 1.7 1.3

LAUGHLIN PRIMARY 41.7 0.0 0

LINDLEY ELEMENTARY 2.5 8.9 0

MADISON ELEMENTARY 1.3 1.6 1.9

MILLIS ROAD ELEMENTARY 3 11.4 0

MONTICELLO-BROWN SUMMIT ELEM 0 2.8 2


45454545

MONTLIEU AVENUE ELEMENTARY 1.1 2.0 0.4

MOREHEAD ELEMENTARY 0 0.0 0

MURPHEY TRADITIONAL ACADEMY 0.2 0.0 0

NATHANAEL GREENE ELEMENTARY 0 0.0 0

NORTHWOOD ELEMENTARY 4.5 6.6 2.1

OAK HILL ELEMENTARY 1.1 1.5 0.9

OAK RIDGE ELEMENTARY 0 0.0 0

OAK VIEW ELEMENTARY 3 3.8 2.9

PARKVIEW VILLAGE ELEMENTARY 2 1.0 1.7

PECK ELEMENTARY 2.1 0.4 0.3

PEELER OPEN ELEMENTARY 3.5 0.9 4.8

PILOT ELEMENTARY 10.5 2.7 8.4

PLEASANT GARDEN ELEMENTARY 2.4 2.7 5.3

RANKIN ELEMENTARY 1.4 1.4 1.3

SEDALIA ELEMENTARY 1.2 2.5 1.1

SEDGEFIELD ELEMENTARY 1.9 3.5 1.2

SHADYBROOK ELEMENTARY 4.7 8.3 0.8

SOUTHERN ELEMENTARY 3.1 0.0 0

SOUTHWEST GUILFORD ELEMENTARY 4.5 0.0 2.2

STERNBERGER ELEMENTARY 0 13.1 15.8

STOKESDALE ELEMENTARY 0 0.0 0

SUMMERFIELD ELEMENTARY 2.4 0.0 32.7

SUMNER ELEMENTARY 5.5 1.9 5

TRIANGLE LAKE MONTESSORI 13.1 6.1 4.2

UNION HILL ELEMENTARY 1.3 1.6 1.2

VANDALIA ELEMENTARY 0.2 0.1 0

WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY 0.7 0.0 0.1

WILEY ELEMENTARY 4.8 7.0 0.2

Averages 3.6 3.0 2.5

Guilford County Middle Schools School Name

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

ALLEN JAY MIDDLE 1.7 1.7 2.0

ALLEN MIDDLE 1.5 2 1.4

AYCOCK MIDDLE 5.7 4.4 1.3

BROWN SUMMIT MIDDLE* * 1.7 2.7

EASTERN GUILFORD MIDDLE 2.5 1.8 1.8

FERNDALE MIDDLE 4.1 4.3 1.8

GRIFFIN MIDDLE 2.7 5.5 3.0

GUILFORD MIDDLE 2.5 2.3 2.1

HAIRSTON MIDDLE 0.5 2.8 0.7


46464646

JACKSON MIDDLE 1.2 0.9 2.1

JAMESTOWN MIDDLE 5.2 4 3.7

KERNODLE MIDDLE 3.3 3.6 3.1

KISER MIDDLE 6 4.8 4.0

MENDENHALL MIDDLE 2.9 3 3.7

NORTHEAST GUILFORD MIDDLE 2.4 2.5 1.9

NORTHWEST GUILFORD MIDDLE 6.8 4.2 1.6

SOUTHEAST GUILFORD MIDDLE 2.7 2.3 1.8

SOUTHWEST GUILFORD MIDDLE 3.7 6 7.2

WELBORN MIDDLE 4.6 3.2 2.0


Guilford County High Schools

School Name

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

ANDREWS HIGH 5.2 2.9 2.1

DUDLEY HIGH 0.9 2.2 3

EASTERN GUILFORD HIGH 1.7 2.7 2

GRIMSLEY HIGH 18.2 22.1 4.4

HIGH POINT CENTRAL HIGH 4.3 5 5.3

NORTHEAST GUILFORD HIGH 1.8 1.8 1.4

NORTHWEST GUILFORD HIGH 2.5 3.4 1.8

PAGE HIGH 4.2 2.8 4.4

RAGSDALE HIGH 4.5 3.5 2.1

SMITH HIGH 1.4 1.6 1.7

SOUTHEAST GUILFORD HIGH 1.6 2.4 1.9

SOUTHERN GUILFORD HIGH 2 1.8 2.2

SOUTHWEST GUILFORD HIGH 3.6 4.7 5.1

WESTERN GUILFORD HIGH 2.9 4.4 2.3


Guilford County Other Schools

School Name

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

MIDDLE COLLEGE at A&T 0.5 0.7 0.2

MIDDLE COLLEGE at BENNETT 0.3 1 0.3

GC MIDDLE COLLEGE HIGH 0 0 0.0

GTCC MIDDLE COLLEGE HIGH 3.8 0 0.0

EARLY COLLEGE AT GUILFORD 0 0 0.0

WEAVER EDUCATION CENTER 9.3 4.1 3.0

SCALE 3.2 3.1 3.1



47474747

A P P E N D I X 3

Relative Rate Indices for LongRelative Rate Indices for LongRelative Rate Indices for LongRelative Rate Indices for Long----Term Term Term Term

Suspensions by School Level, 2003Suspensions by School Level, 2003Suspensions by School Level, 2003Suspensions by School Level, 2003----

2004, 20042004, 20042004, 20042004, 2004----2005, 20062005, 20062005, 20062005, 2006----2007200720072007


48

RRIs for Long-term Suspensions in Guilford County Schools, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 Guilford County Middle Schools

School Name

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

ALLEN JAY MIDDLE 1.8 2 0.0

ALLEN MIDDLE 0.4 0.7 0.0

AYCOCK MIDDLE 8.6 4 0.0

BROWN SUMMIT MIDDLE* * 1.2 0.0

EASTERN GUILFORD MIDDLE 3.9 9.1 1.0

FERNDALE MIDDLE 6.8 4.8 0.4

GRIFFIN MIDDLE 2.6 10.7 1.0

GUILFORD MIDDLE 1.8 2.8 1.0

HAIRSTON MIDDLE 0.3 0.3 0.0

JACKSON MIDDLE 2.3 1.6 0.1

JAMESTOWN MIDDLE 9.8 4.1 0.0

KERNODLE MIDDLE 0 0 0.0

KISER MIDDLE 22.8 7.1 0.0

MENDENHALL MIDDLE 5 5.2 1.3

NORTHEAST GUILFORD MIDDLE 4.5 5.8 0.0

NORTHWEST GUILFORD MIDDLE 0 5.7 0.0

SOUTHEAST GUILFORD MIDDLE 10 1.2 0.0

SOUTHWEST GUILFORD MIDDLE 4 4.3 0.0

WELBORN MIDDLE 2.8 5.8 0.4


*School not in system yet Guilford County High Schools

School Name

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

ANDREWS HIGH 5.8 10.1 0

DUDLEY HIGH 0.4 0.2 0

EASTERN GUILFORD HIGH 1.8 0.9 1

GRIMSLEY HIGH 44 41.4 0

HIGH POINT CENTRAL HIGH 4.1 9.1 0

NORTHEAST GUILFORD HIGH 3.1 0.7 2.1

NORTHWEST GUILFORD HIGH 0 15.4 0

PAGE HIGH 5.8 5.7 0.9

RAGSDALE HIGH 21 7.8 0

SMITH HIGH 1.8 2.8 0

SOUTHEAST GUILFORD HIGH 3.1 2.5 0

SOUTHERN GUILFORD HIGH 6.3 1.6 0


49

SOUTHWEST GUILFORD HIGH 11 5.4 1.4

WESTERN GUILFORD HIGH 6.8 2.8 2.2


Guilford County Other Schools

School Name

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

MIDDLE COLLEGE at A&T 0 0.1 0.0

MIDDLE COLLEGE at BENNETT 0.1 0 0.0

GC MIDDLE COLLEGE HIGH 0 0 0.0

GTCC MIDDLE COLLEGE HIGH 0 0 0.0

EARLY COLLEGE AT GUILFORD 0 0 0.0

WEAVER EDUCATION CENTER 7.3 0 0.0

SCALE 1.9 1.2 0.0


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

50505050

A P P E N D I X 4

An Examination of 2007 Juvenile

Justice (DJJDP) Data

51515151

“RECEIVING” COMPLAINTS According to North Carolina’s Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP)1, 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 process2 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. COMPLAINTS RECEIVED, DJJDP 2007

Race Class A - E Class F - I, A1 Class 1 - 3 Infraction Status Complaints

Asian 1 2 21 0 2 26

Black 93 652 1476 2 107 2330

Latino 0 19 63 2 9 93




Other 0 2 6 0 0 8


Unknown 0 0 1 0 0 1

White 15 130 513 2 50 710

Total: 109 812 2101 6 171 3199

1 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

2 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

52525252

“APPROVING” COMPLAINTS

After receiving a complaint, court counselors have two weeks (extendable to four 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, DJJDP 2007


Asian 1 2 12 0 2 17

Black 90 614 1092 2 107 1905

Latino 0 18 47 1 10 76




Other 0 1 5 0 0 6


Unknown 0 0 1 0 0 1

White 14 127 353 2 48 544

Total: 105 768 1526 5 170 2574

“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, DJJDP 2007


Asian 0 0 8 0 0 8

Black 0 26 424 0 3 453

Latino 0 0 18 1 0 19




Other 0 1 1 0 0 2


Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0

White 1 8 171 0 1 181

Total: 1 36 628 1 4 670

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

53535353

“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, DJJDP 2007


Asian 0 0 3 0 1 4

Black 36 219 599 0 34 888

Latino 0 2 21 1 5 29




Other 0 0 0 0 0 0


Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0

White 5 55 229 2 19 310

Total: 41 278 866 3 59 1247

“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, DJJDP 2007


Asian 1 1 4 0 1 7

Black 16 327 685 1 57 1086

Latino 0 7 17 0 4 28




Other 0 1 3 0 0 4


Unknown 0 0 1 0 0 1

White 3 52 165 1 17 238

Total: 20 389 878 2 81 1370

54545454

“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;

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

55555555

COMPLAINTS DISPOSED, DJJDP 2007


Asian 0 0 3 0 1 4

Black 33 198 537 2 30 800

Latino 0 2 19 1 5 27




Other 0 0 0 0 0 0


Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0

White 3 48 193 2 19 265

Total: 36 250 765 5 55 1111

56565656

Procedural Descriptions by Decision Point3

Receiving Complaints According to North Carolina’s Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP), when a youth is suspected of committing a crime, a complaint can be filed against him or her. At his time, a youth goes through an intake process with a juvenile court counselor, and complaints and evidence are screened and evaluated. RRIs FOR COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY OFFENSE CLASS, DJJDP 2007

Number of

White Youth


Number of

Black Youth

Rate of Occurrence: Black Youth Relative Rate Index

Population at Risk (ages 10-17)4 27704 18251

Complaints Received Minor 513 1.85 1476 8.09 4.37 Complaints Received Serious 130 0.47 652 3.57 7.61 Complaints Received Violent 15 0.05 93 0.51 9.41

Overall 658 2.38 2221 12.17 5.12

Approving Complaints After receiving a complaint, court counselors have two weeks (extendable to four 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.

3 Juvenile justice processing procedures and definitions are drawn from the You and the Juvenile Justice System: A Guide for Youths, Parents and Victims located under the Court Services section of the NC DJJDP website, www.ncdjjdp.org



57575757

RRI FOR COMPLAINTS APPROVED BY OFFENSE CLASS, DJJDP 2007



Number of Black Youth

Rate of Occurrence: Black Youth

Relative Rate Index

Population at Risk (ages 10-17) 27704 18251

Complaints Approved Minor 353 1.27 1092 5.98 4.70

Complaints Approved Serious 127 0.46 614 3.36 7.34

Complaints Approved Violent 14 0.05 90 0.49 9.76

Overall 494 1.78 1796 9.84 5.52

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. RRIs FOR COMPLAINTS NOT APPROVEDY BY OFFENSE CLASS, DJJDP 2007





Relative Rate Index


Complaints Not Approved Minor 171 0.62 424 2.32 3.76

Complaints Not Approved Serious 8 0.03 26 0.14 4.93

Complaints Not Approved Violent 1 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

Overall 180 0.65 450 2.47 3.79

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.

58585858

RRIs FOR COMPLAINTS ADJUDICATED BY OFFENSE CLASS, DJJDP 2007





Relative Rate Index


Complaints Adjudicated Minor 229 0.83 599 3.28 3.97

Complaints Adjudicated Serious 55 0.20 219 1.20 6.04

Complaints Adjudicated Violent 5 0.02 36 0.20 10.93

Overall 289 1.04 854 4.68 4.49

Dismissing Complaints At the adjudicatory hearing, a judge may decide to dismiss a case rather than adjudicate a youth as delinquent or undisciplined. RRI FOR COMPLAINTS DISMISSED BY OFFENSE CLASS, DJJDP 2007





Relative Rate Index


Complaints Dismissed Minor 165 0.60 685 3.75 6.30

Complaints Dismissed Serious 52 0.19 327 1.79 9.55

Complaints Dismissed Violent 3 0.01 16 0.09 8.10

Overall 220 0.79 1028 5.63 7.09

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 the youth and/or parents of the youth to get counseling or other recommended treatment; • Excusing him/her from mandatory school attendance or approving alternative education plans; • Placing a youth in the custody of a parent, guardian, relative, private agency, or some other suitable person; • 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

59595959

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

RRI FOR COMPLAINTS DISPOSED BY OFFENSE CLASS, DJJDP 2007





Relative Rate Index


Complaints Disposed Minor 193 0.70 537 2.94 4.22

Complaints Disposed Serious 48 0.17 198 1.08 6.26

Complaints Disposed Violent 3 0.01 33 0.18 16.70

Overall 244 0.88 768 4.21 4.78

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. Any one or more of the following may be ordered:

� Custody - A juvenile may be placed in another’s custody if the court decides that

is best. � Probation - This means a juvenile must report to a court counselor at regular

times and do other things including going to school regularly, showing good behavior, and not breaking the law. One year is the longest probation term a juvenile can get. If a juvenile breaks the rules of probation, he/she must go to court. The judge can add more time to probation, add more rules to probation or possibly send a juvenile to training school.

� Restitution - This means working to pay back, in some way, the person or group injured. There are two kinds of restitution, community service and monetary. Community service means doing a supervised and scheduled activity like washing police cars, sweeping floors, or raking leaves. Monetary restitution means earning money to pay back the victim.

� Counseling and Other Community Programs - The judge can order a juvenile to get counseling, tutoring or to be part of a volunteer program in the community.

� Group Homes and Other Kinds of Care - A judge may order that a juvenile be placed in a group home. At these homes, there are strict rules to follow, along with mandatory counseling. A juvenile will attend school in the community. Other kinds of care, which also have strict rules and counseling, are special foster homes and wilderness camps.

� Delayed Driver’s License - The judge can decide that the juvenile cannot get a

60606060

driver’s license for as long as the court has jurisdiction over him/her or for a shorter period of time as determined by the judge.

� Training School - A juvenile may be committed to a training school if a judge finds that he/she committed a violent offense or if he/she committed a serious offense and/or has a history of delinquent behavior. A juvenile who is committed to training school must stay at least six months and may stay until his/her 18th birthday if continued treatment is needed. Juveniles committed for violent offenses may stay until either their 19th or 21st birthday, depending on the offense. North Carolina has five training schools designed to educate and train juveniles so they may function in society. While in training school a juvenile must attend classes and counseling sessions.

� Other Decisions - A judge may also order substance abuse treatment, intensive probation, house arrest, fines, curfew, that the juvenile not associate with specified people or be in specified places, confinement in detention facility for five-day periods, and any other condition(s) determined appropriate by the court.

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

61616161

A P P E N D I X 5

Draft of the Revised Memorandum

of Agreement – Proposed

September 2008

62626262

NORTH CAROLINA ) MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT GUILFORD COUNTY ) 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, 2008 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 that reduce disproportionality.

WHEREAS in 2008 the DMC Committee, leaders in Guilford County, and community residents commit to examine both federal and state laws pertaining to disproportionate minority contact, and continue to examine policies and procedures locally in an effort to reduce dispropotionality in respective agencies and communities, ultimately leading to better outcomes for all youth.

NOW THEREFORE the following community residents and/or agencies that have been participants of the DMC committee and/or its activities include the National Conference for Community Justice (NCCJ); the Guilford County Department of Public Health; 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.; High Point Chamber of Commerce; High Point Human Relations Commission; Greensboro Human Relations Commission; HP Workforce Development; Family Life Council; Greensboro Housing Authority; High Point Housing Authority; the United Way of Greensboro; Youth Focus, Inc.; the YWCA of Greensboro; the YWCA of High Point; MEN-TOR; One Step Further, Inc.; Greensboro Life Skills Center; Guilford County PTA Council; Win-Win Resolutions, Inc.; Brothers Organized to Save Others (BOTSO); Communities in Schools; Black Child Development; Faithworks Ministries; Guilford Education Alliance; Guilford Technical Community College; Merchants of Hope;

63636363

100 Black Men; Project HOPE; Greensboro Parks and Recreation; High Point Parks and Recreation; Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN); and NC A&T University.

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 District Courts; the Public Defender; the District Attorney; the Greensboro Police Department; the High Point Police Department; the Guilford County Sheriff’s Department; Parents of Guilford County Youth; the DMC Youth Ambassadors; and the Pulpit Forum represent signing agencies and organizations making a formal commitment as described below:

1. These agencies and organizations hereby agree as of September 2008 to:

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

B. Desire to decrease the number of African American/Black 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/Black 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 and Review the 2007-2008 Report of the DMC Project; and, E. Agree to participate at a level within the respective agency and take appropriate action

steps developed within the agency to reduce and/or eradicate DMC within Guilford County and your agency.

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 Caucasians 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. Collect data by race and gender at each decision point (or other relevant point within your agency) and provide ongoing feedback within your agency;

B. Participate in an annual report out to other community agencies to encourage

cross-system collaboration;

64646464

C. Provide representation from your agency at the meetings of the Guilford County DMC Committee and participate fully in the discussion at the meetings and/or its activities; and

D. Establish communication within your 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.

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.

5. The term of this agreement will be reviewed every two years (or as needed) as initiated by the Guilford County DMC committee.

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.

65656565

A P P E N D I X 6

DMC Fact Sheets

66

Disproportionate Minority Contact: What’s Happening With

School Suspensions? Guilford County

Defining minority:

� Minority populations are

defined as non-white and

grouped as: American

Indian or Alaska Native;

Asian; Black or African

American; Hispanic or

Latino; Native Hawaiian

or Other Pacific Islander.1

� Based on the

disproportionate rates,

Guilford County chose to

focus on the

Black/African American

minority subgroup

because they are most

affected by

disproportionality in this

area.

What is disproportion?

� Any ratio above 1:1 is

disproportion.

Definition of Short Term

Suspension: Out-of-school

suspension for any

designated period of less

than 10 days.

Definition of Long Term

Suspension: Out-of-school

suspension for any

designated period of more

than 10 days, but not in

excess of the maximum time

allowed by law.

What is Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)?

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) refers to the overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system.

How Do Suspensions Affect DMC?

Research shows that school suspensions are often the starting point of contact with the juvenile justice system for minority youth. This trend is often referred to as the “school-to-prison pipeline”. Therefore, attempting to lessen the disproportionality in long and short-term suspensions could result in lessening the disproportionate rates in the juvenile justice system.

What is the Relative Rate Index (RRI)? Relative Rate Index (RRI) is what the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) uses to assess DMC. It is calculated by

dividing black student suspensions by white suspensions. It tells the rate

at which black students are suspended as compared to white students.

For example, in 2006-07, the average short term RRI was 2.6, meaning

that for every 1 white student that was suspended, there were 2.6 black

students that were suspended.

How Do We Know DMC Exists? Note. During 2006-07, Guilford County School system changed the way they reported suspensions. Contact us for a full explanation. Elementary schools did not report long-term suspensions.

Average Short Term RRIs by School Level, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07

Average Long Term RRIs by School Level, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07

1 NC DMC (2008). Disproportionate Minority Contact. Retrieved on April 14, 2008, from http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/index2.cfm?a=000003,000011,000601,001289,001305 .

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

RR

Is

ElementaryMiddleHighAll Levels

0

2

4

6

8

2003-04 2004-05 2006-07

RR

Is

Middle

High

All Levels

67

School-Related Reports

For more school-related reports, please visit the Guilford Education

Alliance website:

www.guilfordeducationalliance.org

DMC Management Team:

Margaret Arbuckle

Mary Kendrick

Stephanie Horton

Kelly Graves

Damie Jackson-Diop

Mandy Ireland

WE NEED YOU!!!

PLEASE JOIN US FOR OUR MONTHLY DMC

MEETINGS!!!

For more information Contact Us:

[email protected]

OR 336-217-9740

This project was supported

by funding from the North

Carolina Governor’s Crime

Commission, Juvenile Justice

Planning Committee (grant

number 180-1-07-010-AJ-

965).

DMC Website: http://www.uncg.edu/csr/pubreducingcontact.htm

What types of initiatives are addressing

disproportionate suspensions in Guilford County?

There have been many DMC partners and related initiatives throughout the past several years. Here are a few examples:

Parent and Youth Involvement

� DMC Youth Ambassadors: The DMC Youth Ambassadors are a group of six Guilford County high school students challenged to provide a youth perspective on contributing factors to disproportionate suspension and juvenile justice involvement of minority youth. The youth ambassadors have made presentations to various youth groups in Greensboro and High Point regarding the issue of disproportionate suspensions. They will also be holding a Study Circle forum for youth to discuss issues surrounding DMC.

� Parent Advocates: Parent Advocacy Training – “Not Grown Yet” curriculum developed by Diane Bellamy-Smalls was delivered to parents to increase parental advocacy. Furthermore, in collaboration with the Human Relations Departments in High Point and Greensboro and the Guilford County Schools, parent advocates were trained to provide support for parents in their efforts to ensure fair treatment for their children.

Guilford County School Involvement

� Guilford County Schools: The school system has made a commitment to review suspension data internally.

� School Climate Task Force: Presentations of DMC to the Guilford County School Board prompted a meeting of the school board and SRO’s, and contributed to the development of the School Climate Task Force, which made recommendations to the Board of Education on ways to address student behavior with the aim of reducing school suspensions.

� Anti-Racism/Undoing Racism Training: Communities, youth, agencies, court counselors, district court judges, school principals and administrators, teachers, and student resource officers (SRO’s) received this training.

� Diversity Officer Placement: Diversity officer position created by the Guilford County School System.

Faith and Community Involvement

� 22 Churches – 22 Meetings: Active participation from 22 churches at 22 consecutive Guilford County School Board meetings to continually bring DMC to the forefront.

� Parent advocates: Were trained to work collaboratively with parents within a subset of churches to support parents and families.

� 100 Black Men: Sponsored and supported two of the Youth Ambassadors.

70

YYoouutt hh II mmppaacc tt

Disproportionate Minority Contact

DMC refers to the over representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system. The problems leading the youth into the court system often begin with school suspensions, so we need to start with school to have any impact on DMC. We can make a difference. Today, our schools are suspending too many students. Our schools need to continue to examine the numbers of school suspensions, but they also need to find the causes of the suspensions and try to fix those. Our goal is for youth and adults to work together to reduce DMC.

This is our Generation. Our Responsibility.

Contact us to get involved ! Phone: (336) 271-9740 Email: [email protected]

71

Don’t Suspend the Problem

Solve It. Problems:

� Zero-tolerance policies contribute to suspending the problem instead of exploring the nature of the problem

� Lack of adult support. � Lack of activities/resources in Guilford County

geared to youth leadership and development. � Stereotyping of youth in everyday life � Assumptions made by adults about why youth are

suspended

Solutions: � Getting youth involved in raising awareness and

accountability among their peers. � Increasing youth involvement in neighborhood

projects that promote a sense of community. � Helping to establish peer-to-peer mentoring

programs to address issues facing youth. � Increasing interaction with youth of different

cultures.

GUILFORD COUNTY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: REDUCING DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY · PDF...

Documents

Transcript of GUILFORD COUNTY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: REDUCING DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY · PDF...