UNDERSTANDING DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT IN FORSYTH COUNTY

ByOkori Uneke, Ph.D.

Department of Social Sciences, Winston-Salem State University &

Alvin AtkinsonKristen Di Luca

Center for Community SafetyWinston-Salem State UniversityWinston-Salem, North Carolina

November 2006

This project was supported by Grant No. 034-1-05-010-AJ-037 awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice through the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Governor’s Crime Commission. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed do not necessarily reflect views of the Department of Justice or Governor’s Crime Commission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageI. Introduction 1

II. Systems Data and Analysis 3(2004 and 2005 comparison analysis)

A. School Discipline OptionsB. Juvenile Arrests (Custody) C. DJJDP Aggregate Data

III. Forsyth County Sample Data and Analysis 13

A. DJJDP AdjudicationB. Education (School Absences and Dropout Data)C. DSS Child Protection Data and ObservationsD. Mental Health

IV. DMC across North Carolina and the Country 22

V. Recommendations/Next Steps for Forsyth County 24

-2-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Forsyth County DMC Committee:

Sharon Singletary, DMC Chair, Forsyth County Youth Detention CenterVanessa Keesee, DMC Vice-Chair, Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Alvin Atkinson, Winston-Salem State University Center for Community SafetyYolanda Eley, Youth Opportunities Juvenile Day ReportingEric Glenn, YWCA Youth Intervention Services Dr. Timothy Monroe, Forsyth County Department of Public Health Marilyn Odom, Smart Start of Forsyth County Kenneth Pruett, Forsyth County Department of Social Services Eleanor Phillips-Phipps, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Truancy Court Sandra Reid, Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Piedmont Area OfficeFran Sandridge, CenterPoint Human ServicesDamon Sanders-Pratt, Forsyth County GovernmentAsst. Chief Louis Saunders, Winston-Salem Police DepartmentDr. Kenneth Simington, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Rich Smith, Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Piedmont Area OfficeEd Toole, YMCA Community Outreach Services

Forsyth County DMC Project Program Partners:

Robert Beasley, Youth Opportunities Dewey Haley, Catholic Social Services Host HomesTerence Hunt, Youth Opportunities Opportunity HouseCourtney Saunders, YWCA Empowering Family CenterJohn Siskind, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Alternative EducationSabrina Slade, YWCA Youth Intervention ServicesLarry Thornton, Partnership for Children and Families P.A.C.T. Program

Forsyth County DMC Staff and Intern:

Tonya Atkins, Project Director, Forsyth FuturesTennille Pratt, Project Coordinator, Forsyth FuturesJamica Jefferson, Intern Winston-Salem State University Center for Community Safety

Data Sources:

CenterPoint Human ServicesForsyth County Department of Social ServicesNC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention U. S. Census 2000 Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools

-3-

Winston-Salem Police Department

-4-

Resources:

Building Blocks for Youth. No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Affecting Youth of Color in the Justice System. A Project of the Building Blocks for Youth initiative. October 2005. Accessed May 2006 www. buildingblocks for youth .org .

NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: You and the Juvenile Justice System: A Guide for Youths, Parents, and Victims . Fall 2000. www.doa.state.nc.us/yaio/documents/justice.pdf. Accessed June 2006

NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Policy Glossary. www.ncdjjdp.org/jcpc/Policy/Current%20Policy/Glossary.pdf. Accessed June 2006

-5-

List of Tables

Table 1: 2003-2004 WSFC School Discipline Data

Table 1a: 2003-2004 Relative Rate Index (RRI)

Table 2: 2004-2005 WSFC School Discipline Data

Table 2a: 2004-2005 Relative Rate Index (RRI)

Table 3: 2004 and 2005 Relative Rate Index Comparisons

Table 4a: 2003-2004 OSS for Elementary Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Table 4b: 2004-2005 OSS for Elementary Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Table 5a: 2003-2004 OSS for Middle Schools by Ethnicity and Gender Table 5b: 2004-2005 OSS for Middle Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Table 6a: 2003-2004 OSS for High Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Table 6b: 2004-2005 OSS for High Schools by Ethnicity and GenderFigure 1: 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 WSFC Schools OSS

Table 7: Relative Rate Index Suspensions Comparison 2003-2004 v. 2004-2005

Table 8: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity Relative Rate Index ComparisonsJuly 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005

Graph 2a: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005

Table 9: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (% of Arrests)July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005

Figure 2: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (Arrest Patterns)July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005

Table 10: Forsyth County DJJDP Complaints Data by Race2004 v. 2005

Table 11: 2004 v. 2005 Relative Rate Index Comparisons

Table 12: Sample Design

Table 13: Juvenile Justice Contact and Adjudication, 2005

-6-

Total of 1,404 SuspensionsTotal of 23, 561 Students

Delinquency, Undisciplined, Dismissal

Figure 4: Juvenile Justice Contact and Adjudication, 2005Delinquency, Undisciplined, Dismissal

Table 14: Juvenile Justice Adjudication, 2005Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, Probation Supervision

Figure 5: Juvenile Justice Adjudication, 2005Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, Probation Supervision

Table 15: Juvenile Justice Adjudication, 2005Protective Supervision, Transferred for Disposition, Dismissed

Table 16: 2004-2005 School Absences and Drop-Out (Sample youth)

Table 17: Relative Rate Index Comparison: Truancy, Not Enrolled, Drop Out

Table 18: Sample Youth and Social Assistance

Table 19: Relative Rate Index Comparison: Social Services Assistance

Table 20: Mental Health Diagnoses by Ethnicity

-7-

Understanding Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in Forsyth County

I. Introduction

The federal Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 defined disproportionate minority contact as “the disproportionate number of juvenile members of ethnic minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.” Across the United States, minority youth tend to be over represented in the juvenile justice system. Thus understanding why ethnic minority youth are over represented in the juvenile justice system has become a critical area of focus to address. As a starting point and foundation for further inquiry, we present in this report an overview of disproportionate minority representation in Forsyth County in various systems for the time periods indicated as well as a closer look at 100 adjudicated youth and their interactions with the systems of education, child welfare, juvenile justice and mental health.

Because it is the objective of the Forsyth DMC Committee to best understand where to invest resources for a positive future for youth, the project was undertaken on two levels.

While the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) definition of minority includes populations of African Americans, American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Hispanics, the makeup of minority youth in Forsyth County is primarily African American, 11,591 (or 36%) and there is an increasing number of Hispanic youth, 2,873, or 8% of total youth between the ages of 10 to 17. Consequently, as a picture of DMC is presented with respect to Forsyth County youth, it is acknowledged that in this report, the use of the term “minority” includes African American and Hispanic youth unless indicated otherwise.

To begin, the objective of this report is restated: to access and analyze data of Forsyth County youth serving systems (education, child welfare, juvenile justice and mental health) as a whole, looking for the trends and indicators that present themes for further attention and investigation.

To be truthful to the committee’s intent of addressing Disproportionate Minority Contact, it is acknowledged and honored that each unit of analysis is a child in this community. We work to address the network of community that must provide support and promise when other systems cannot.

To this end, we have also chosen to investigate a random sample of 100 adjudicated youth in Forsyth County to understand their interaction with other systems of impact: specifically the education system (Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School System), child welfare system (Forsyth County Department of Social Services) and the mental health system (CenterPoint Human Services). The intent of this focused study is to identify potential trends and “decision points” where strategic prevention and intervention programming may be most effective.

Given the historical and statistically validated overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system, one universally accepted approach to understand disproportionate minority contact is to compare white youth contacts in the system with minority youth contacts. Two statistics, Incidence Rate and Relative Rate Index are employed for this analysis.

-8-

What is Incidence Rate (IR)?The Incidence Rate (displayed as a percentage) is calculated as the number of incidents for each ethnic category divided by the total number of youths for that ethnic category, multiplied by 100. The incidence rates are then used for calculating the relative rate index.

What is Relative Rate Index (RRI)?The RRI is a ratio of the incidence rate for an ethnic minority group to the incidence rate for whites. A RRI value of 1.00 would indicate that the comparative incidence rates are the same. The further away from a RRI value of 1.00 (generally, beginning at a difference of .05) the more unlikely the result occurred as a random process and thus further study is warranted. For example, a RRI of 2.5 for school suspensions suggests that, for every white student suspended, 2.5 minority students were suspended (or put differently, minority students were suspended at 2.5 times the rate of suspension for white students).

-9-

Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Discipline Definitions:

Terms of In-school suspension Bus suspension/Detention Reprimand Community or School Service

Short Term Suspension Up to 5 days Grades K-5 0-5 days suspension Grades 6-12 1-5 days suspension (7 period day) Grades 9-12 1-3 days suspension (4 period day)

Short Term Suspension Up to 10 days Grades K-5 up to 10 days Grades 6-12 5 to 10 days

Long Term Suspension Minimum Grades K-5 3 to 10 days Grades 6-12 10 days, unless a 4 period day high school then 5 days

365 Day Suspension Alternative School Assignment up to 18 months

-10-

II. Systems Data and Analysis

A comparison analysis of 2003- 2004 and 2004-2005 records of school discipline options, and juvenile arrests, and 2004-2005 juvenile complaints provides a record of disproportionate minority contact within these systems and creates a benchmark from which to measure subsequent DMC occurrences and the impact of targeted intervention strategies.

A. Schools

Traditionally, the educational system is relied upon as a right of all Americans and an opportunity to explore their horizons and attain their potential. Although it is acknowledged that educational systems across the nation are strained, this system interacts with nearly all American youth and is a formative foundation for them. Because of the breadth of children this system reaches, it is promising ground for staff education, parent education, and student intervention. The DMC revealed in the following tables is proposed as neither cause nor outcome; however, it is as follows:

Table 1: 2003-2004 WSFC School Discipline Data

Options *Total #

Minority White

In-School Suspension (ISS) 12,980 72.6% 27.4%Out of School Suspension (OSS) 13,013 79.9% 20.1%Long Term Suspension (LTS) 40 62.5% 37.5%Total All Categories 26,033

*Numbers include multiple decisions

-11-

Table 1a: Relative Rate Index

Data Items Total Number of

White Youth

Incidence Rate

AmongWhite Youth

Total Number

of Minority Youth*

Incidence Rate

AmongMinority Youth*

Relative Rate Index

StatisticallySignificant?

(p<.05)

1. Total Student Population

22,851 21,918

2. In-School Suspension

3,559 15.57% 9,421 42.98% 2.76 Yes

3.Out of School Suspension

2,621 11.46% 10,392 47.41% 4.13 Yes

4. Long Term Suspension

15 .07% 25 .11% 1.57 Yes

Table 2: 2004-2005 WSFC School Discipline Data

Category *Total # Minority WhiteIn-School Suspension (ISS) 6,518 76.9% 23.1%Out of School Suspension (OSS) 8,323 82.7% 17.3%Long Term Suspension (LTS) 41 90.2% 9.8%Total All Categories 14,882

*Numbers include multiple decisions

Table 2a: Relative Rate Index

Data Items Total Number of

White Youth

Incidence Rate

AmongWhite Youth

Total Number

of Minority Youth*

Incidence Rate

AmongMinority Youth*

Relative Rate Index

StatisticallySignificant?

(p<.05)

1. Total Student Population

23,630 24,345

2. In-School Suspension

1,507 6.38% 5,011 20.59% 3.23 Yes

3. Out of School Suspension

1,437 6.08% 6,886 28.29% 4.65 Yes

4. Long Term Suspension

4 .02% 37 .15% 7.5 Yes

* For purposes of this analysis Minority includes Black and Latino

Note: Total numbers for data items 2, 3, and 4 include multiple decisions

-12-

In comparing these two years, one can see that there were a total of 14,882 school discipline incidents in 2004-05 compared to 26,033 incidents in 2003-04. This is a difference of 11,151 incidents and equates to a staggering 63% decrease. This raises an obvious question as to what factors contributed to the decrease. At this point, the research does not provide answers and differences in data collection and reporting may be one contributing factor. Future conversations with school officials may provide insights on this development.

The comparison also shows that even with the decrease in discipline incidents, minority youth still accounted for over 76% to 90% of the discipline incidents. These were higher concentrations in all categories compared to 2003-04. The 2004-05 discipline option with the highest percentage increase was long term suspensions where 37 of the 41 youth receiving long term suspensions were minority, representing over 90% for this category.

A RRI comparison of these two years follows in Table 3.

Table 3: Relative Rate Index Comparisons2003-2004 v. 2004-2005

Category 2003-4 2004-51. In School Suspensions (ISS) 2.76 3.232. Out of School Suspensions (OSS) 4.14 4.653. Long Term Suspensions (LTS) 1.57 7.5

As seen in Table 3, all RRI values are greater than 1.00 for both years and for 2004-05, RRI values were higher in all categories compared to 2003-04. The long-term suspensions category reflected the highest increase of nearly 6 points. This school discipline data support the need for further analysis to determine appropriate intervention strategies to negate this increasing, undesirable trend.

An example of the deeper analysis that is possible and appropriate for understanding DMC in Winston-Salem/Forsyth County schools is provided. What follows is a closer review and analysis of Out of School Suspensions (OSS) by gender and ethnicity for the past two years.

Table 4a: 2003-2004 OSS for Elementary Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Ethnicity Total # ofSuspensions

Total # ofStudents

Suspension Incidence Rates

Relative RateIndex

White Female 31 5,019 0.62 %White Male 235 5,518 4.26 %Minority Female 278 5,710 4.87 % 7.9Minority Male 1,268 5,988 21.18 % 5TOTAL 1,812 22,335

Table 4a shows that there were a total of 1,812 suspensions, out of a population of 22,335 students for elementary schools in 2003-04. The RRI indicates that for every white female student suspended, 7.9 minority female students were suspended. Similarly, for every white male student suspended, 5 minority male students were suspended.

-13-

Table 4b: 2004-2005 OSS for Elementary Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Ethnicity Total # ofSuspensions

Total # ofStudents

Suspension Incidence Rates

Relative RateIndex

White Female 25 5,232 .48 %White Male 209 5,679 3.68 %Minority Female 233 6,504 3.58 % 7.5Minority Male 937 6,146 15.25 % 4.1TOTAL 1,404 23,561

Table 4b (above) shows that in 2004-05, there were 1,404 suspensions (down from 1,812 in 2003-04), out of a population of 23,561 students for elementary schools. The 2004-05 RRI values were also slightly less than 2003-04 but still indicated that for every white female student suspended, 7.5 minority female students were suspended and for every white male student suspended, 4.1 minority male students were suspended.

Table 5a: 2003-2004 OSS for Middle Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Ethnicity Total # ofSuspensions

Total # ofStudents

Suspension Incidence Rates

Relative RateIndex

White Female 238 2,820 8.44 %White Male 879 2,983 29.47 %Minority Female 1,431 2,727 52.48 % 6.2Minority Male 3,060 3,017 101.43 % 3.4TOTAL 5,608 11,547

For middle schools, Table 5a shows that there were 5,608 suspensions in 2003-04, out of a total student population of 11,547. The RRI values indicate that minority female and male students were suspended 6.2 and 3.4 times, respectively, the rate of white female and male students.

Table 5b: 2004-2005 OSS for Middle Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Ethnicity Total # ofSuspensions

Total # ofStudents

Suspension Incidence Rates

Relative RateIndex

White Female 121 2,586 4.68 %White Male 580 2,772 20.92 %Minority Female 996 3,094 32.19 % 6.9Minority Male 2,345 2,093 112.0 % 5.4TOTAL 4,042 10,545

Table 5b reflects 4,042 suspensions, out of a total student population of 10,545. This is again a smaller number of suspensions than the previous year, but higher RRI values indicate that minority female and male students were being suspended 6.9 and 5.4 times, respectively, the rate of white female and male students.

-14-

Total of 1,404 SuspensionsTotal of 23, 561 Students

Table 6a: 2003-2004 OSS for High Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Ethnicity Total # ofSuspensions

Total # ofStudents

Suspension Incidence Rates

Relative RateIndex

White Female 327 3,604 9.07 %White Male 898 3,760 23.89 %Minority Female 1,415 3,048 46.42 % 5.1Minority Male 2,650 3,123 84.85 % 3.6TOTAL 5,290 13,535

Table 6a (above) reflects 5,290 suspensions, out of a population of 13,535 high school students. Again, high RRI values indicate disproportionate OSS incidence rate for minority female and male students.

Table 6b: 2004-2005 OSS for High Schools by Ethnicity and Gender

Ethnicity Total # ofSuspensions

Total # ofStudents

Suspension Incidence Rates

Relative RateIndex

White Female 174 3,575 4.87 %White Male 328 3,786 8.66 %Minority Female 977 3,329 29.35 % 6Minority Male 1,398 3,179 43.98 % 5.1TOTAL 2,877 13,869

Table 6b (above) shows that there were 2,877 suspensions out of a population of 13,869 high school students. This was nearly 2,500 suspensions less than the previous year and again raises the question, “What caused such a significant decrease?” The resulting RRI values consistently indicate disproportionate results for OSS incidents.

-15-

Figure 1: WS/FC Schools OSS 2003-04 and 2004-05

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

WhiteElementary

WhiteMiddle

White HighSchool

MinorityElementary

MinorityMiddle

MinorityHigh School

2003-04

2004-05

Table 7: 2003-04 v. 2004-05 RRI-OSS Comparisons

Elementary Middle High Male Female Male Female Male Female2003-2004 5.0 7.9 3.4 6.2 3.6 5.12004-2005 4.1 7.5 5.4 6.9 5.1 6.0

Figure 1 and Table 7 (above) provide different observations about DMC for OSS. First, in Figure 1, it can be pointed out that OSS decreased for all students at all school levels in 2004-05 compared to 2003-04. In actual numbers, there were 13,013 OSS in 2003-04, compared to 8,323 in 2004-05. This was a decrease of 4,690 suspensions, or 36%.

Table 7, on the other hand, reflects the fact that for both years minority youth were significantly more likely to receive OSS than white youth. In 2004-05, this ranged from a low of 4.1 times for minority males verses white males in elementary schools and a high of 7.5 times for minority females versus white females in elementary school. Additionally, in 2004-05, the RRI values for middle and high school were higher than in 2003-04. Consequently, while there were 4,690 less OSS in 2004-05, minority youth disproportionate contact was greater. This fact increases the need and desire for greater scrutiny of school discipline data to determine what issues are driving this outcome. Further, a review of gender comparisons indicate an increasing need to understand the dynamics impacting discipline outcomes for minority females, who in 2004-05, were 6 to 7.5 times more likely to be suspended from school than white females.

Are interventions to mitigate DMC in OSS or in other school discipline options ready for recommendation? Not yet. There are many more questions to be answered by data collection and analysis to help quantify and amplify DMC as an important community issue.

-16-

B. Law Enforcement

Winston-Salem Police Department - Juvenile ArrestsThe analysis of juvenile arrests made between July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 indicates similar disparities among white and minority juveniles as were found in school discipline data.

Table 8 and Figure 2 below show that for the period between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004, minority juveniles were 6 times more likely to be arrested than white juveniles. The disparity decreased a small amount during the period of time between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005, however, the RRI for this period remained high at 5.08.

Table 8: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (Ages 6-15) RRI Comparisons July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005

  2003 - 04       2004 - 05      Ethnicity Total # Total Incidence RRI Total # Total Incidence RRI

 of arrests Population Rate

 of arrests Population Rate

 White 81 23,418 0.35% 77 19,979 0.39%Minority 271 13,079 2.10% 6 287 14,464 1.98% 5.08Total 352 364

Figure 2: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (Ages 6-15) July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005

*(Data are from city of Winston-Salem only. Countywide data not yet available)

In Table 9 below, one can see how there has been virtually no change in the percentage that African American youth comprise of total arrests, 64.2% in 2003-04 and 64% in 2004-05. However, although currently not significantly large numbers, there was a two- point increase in the percentage of arrest for Hispanic youth, from 12.5% in 2004 and 14.6% in 2005. Also, as seen in Figure 3 below, the pattern of arrest for minority youth is also similar for each year.

-17-

Table 9: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (% of Arrests)

  7/1/2003 - 6/30/2004  7/1/2004 - 6/30/2005 

Ethnicity

Total #of youth arrested

Percent of Totalarrests

Total # youth

arrestedPercent of Totalarrests

White 81 23 % 77 21.2 %African American 226 64.20 % 233 64 %Asian 1 0.30 % 1 0.30 %Hispanic 44 12.50 % 53 14.60 %Total 352 364

Figure 3: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (Arrest Pattern)

Winston-Salem Police Department - Juvenile Arrest Charges

Arrest charges for these time periods were also reviewed. The most frequent arrest charge was that of runaway. Of all arrest charges made between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004, 75.6% were of runaways (436 out of 577 arrests). Of all arrest charges made during this same period for 2004 - 2005, 78.6% were for runaways (507 out of 645 arrests). Combined, 943 out of a total of 1,222 arrest charges for both years were for this same charge (77.2%).

Furthermore, for this combined period, 66% of runaway arrest charges made were for African American juveniles (622 out of 943). By comparison, the next largest percentage of runaway charges (23%) was among white juveniles (220 out of 943).

There are many unanswered questions with respect to juvenile arrests that should be explored. A few of them are:

What can we learn about runaway arrest that can aid us in confronting DMC in juvenile arrests?

Where and what time of day are most arrests occurring? What patterns of youth arrests can be identified? How can GIS spatial analysis better depict the community assets and areas of need?

-18-

Obtaining answers to these and other probing questions is an important next step to understanding juvenile arrests and how and where to direct appropriate interventions.

C. Juvenile Justice

Juvenile justice aggregate data were provided by DJJDP through NC-JOIN and allows for direct comparisons of results in 2004 and 2005 with respect to DMC. The comparative data is provided in the following table.

Table 10: Forsyth County DJJDP Complaints Data by Race (Youth ages 10-17)2004 v. 2005

Category 2004 2005 % /\Total # / % of

TotalTotal # / % of

TotalJuvenile Referrals 1,430 1,359 -5%Black 879 / 61% 918 918 / 68% +4%Latino 103 / 7% 107 107 / 8% +4%White 410 / 29% 319 / 23% -22%Juveniles w/ Complaints 915 870 -5%Black 586 / 64% 576 / 66% -2%Latino 58 / 6% 68 / 8% +17%White 253 / 28% 213 / 24% -16%Total Approved Complaints 860 823 -4%Black 507 / 59% 561 / 68% +11%Latino 65/ 7.5% 52 / 6% -20%White 255 / 30% 201 / 24% -20%Complaints Not Approved 563 540 -4%Black 376 / 67% 372 / 69% -1%Latino 33 / 6% 41 / 8% +24%White 148 / 26% 123 / 23% -17%

As seen in Table 10, in 2004 and 2005, Black or Latino juveniles account for 68% - 76% of the total number of juvenile referrals and 70% - 74% of the juveniles with complaints. For each year, this represents more than 1.75 times their percentage population in the county (42% - 44%) and clearly indicates disproportionate contact. This is further substantiated by a 2005 RRI value of 4.2, a slight decrease from 4.55 in 2004 and in juveniles with complaints, a RRI value of 4.37, up from 4.29 in 2004 (see Table 11 next page). These two results reaffirm the decision by Forsyth County DMC Committee to explore factors outside of the DJJDP that result in disproportionate minority complaints being initiated.

-19-

Table 11: Relative Rate Index Comparisons2004 v. 2005

Category 2004 20051. Juvenile Referrals 4.55 4.202. Juvenile Complaints 4.29 4.373. Approved Complaints .94 .964. Complaints Not Approved 1.15 1.06

RRI comparisons of decision points within DJJDP (after complaints are received) continue to suggest application of equitable standards across race. This is seen in Table 11 (above) where RRI values of .96 for approved complaints and 1.06 RRI for complaints not approved are reported. Interestingly, less than ¾ of minority cases are adjudicated for every one white adjudicated case.

One other category to note for future DMC consideration is that of secured detention. In 2005, 201 juveniles received secured detention. 131 (65%) were black youth and 15 (7.5%) were Latino youth. The development of community-based intervention strategies could have an immediate impact on DMC in this area.

-20-

III. Forsyth County Sample Data and Analysis

With the understanding of the present disproportionate minority contact in Forsyth County and the limited resources available for address, where can intervention and prevention efforts most effectively be introduced to reduce DMC? This is the question that guided the Forsyth County DMC Committee to look at a random sample of 100 adjudicated youth in Forsyth County,

In an attempt to explore the stories of the individuals, this report looks at the systems with which they have interacted and in some cases the degree of interaction to better understand where to best invest intervention resources.

Following are the selection criteria for a 100- youth random sample along with the data to better understand these youths’ interaction with the systems of education, social services, and the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Each youth has a name and a face, each is on a challenging path, and each one has promise and hope.

It is the commitment of the Forsyth DMC Committee to follow through with these findings and to continue to dig deeper and to explore how best to foster the success of the young citizens of Forsyth County.

-21-

How Was the Sample Selected?

To understand the continuum of contact the community has had with youth, the research started with an end: the Forsyth County Juvenile Justice System. The intent of this report is not to place blame but to seek, in times of limited resources, an understanding of where to best invest energies to prevent the disproportionate minority representation identified above in the Forsyth County community.

Sample Selection: Forsyth County Juvenile Justice System

The data for the Forsyth County juvenile justice system are based on a proportional stratified sample. A sample is a subset of a population whose characteristics are intended to represent the characteristics of the population under study. For the sample findings to be extrapolated to the target population, the study sample must be selected in a random fashion. To draw a proportional sample, the members of each stratum in the target population are identified and then a random sample is selected for each one. The data below are from a sample drawn from a sampling frame of Forsyth County Juvenile Justice System Case Records (see Table 12 below).

Table 12: Sample Design

Ethnicity Population(Case Files)

Percentage ofPopulation

Sample Size

African American 561 68.00% 68Asian American 1 0.12% -Hispanic/Latino 52 6.30% 6Multi-Racial 4 0.49% 1Native American 2 0.24% 1Pacific Islander 0 - -White American 201 24.4% 24Other 2 0.24% -TOTAL 823 100 100

To begin the sample analysis, it may be helpful to review the adjudication disposition definitions pertaining to the sample youth. The court has a number of “dispositional” alternatives.  The court can dismiss the case, transfer to jurisdiction of residence, make the youth a ward of the court, place him/her on informal probation or voluntary probation, etc. Below are the adjudication disposition definitions from the NC DJJDP Guidebook for Youth and Parents and the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Policy Glossary.

-22-

Juvenile Justice Definitions:

Delinquent - the juvenile has been found to have committed an offense that would be a crime under state law or ordinance of local government, including violation of motor vehicle laws (equivalent of being found guilty of a criminal offense) by a judge. The juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent or the court may withhold adjudication.

Dismissed - the juvenile was not found guilty at the adjudicatory hearing. These are petitions that may be dismissed for reasons such as ‘lack of prosecution’ or ‘lack of evidence’. A prior finding may keep the juvenile on active status.

Probation Supervision - guidance, treatment, or regulation by a probation agency of the behavior of a juvenile delinquent for up to one year resulting from a formal court order. The juvenile must report to a court counselor at regular times and do other things such as go to school regularly, show good behavior, and not break the law.

Protective Supervision - a court counselor is assigned and counseling is provided for up to six months, which may include helping the juvenile get treatment, if needed, and family supervisions, such as setting curfews or study times are established.

Restitution - the juvenile must work to pay back, in some way, the person or group injured. Restitution can be community service or monetary.

Transferred for Disposition - following a hearing, the juvenile court may transfer the case to another court, often in the case of a youth whose legal residence is in another court’s jurisdiction.

Transferred to Superior Court - the case is transferred to superior court for disposition.

Undisciplined - the juvenile is one who is unlawfully absent from school; or regularly disobedient to or beyond the disciplinary control of the parent, guardian, or custodian; or is regularly found in places where it is unlawful for a juvenile to be; or has run away from home for more than 24 hours.

-23-

A. Forsyth County Juvenile Justice Contact and Adjudication

For Tables 13-14, the Forsyth County juvenile justice contact and adjudication incidence rates and the corresponding relative rate indexes are shown for African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, and Multi-Racial categories. The incidence rate is shown in parenthesis beside the number of indents with the relative rate index appearing in the next column.

Table 13: 2005 Delinquency, Undisciplined, Dismissal

Ethnicity Sample Delinquent# (IR)

RRI Undisciplined# (IR)

RRI Dismissed# (IR)

RRI

White 24 10 (41.7%) 5 (20.8%) 7 (29.2%)African American

68 31 (45.6%) 1.1 9 (13.2%) .6 26 (38.2%) 1.3

Hispanic/Latino 6 3 (50%) 1.2 0 (0%) n/a 3(50%) 1.71Native American

1 1 (100%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a

Multi-Racial 1 1 (100%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/aTOTAL 100 46 14 36

Figure 4: 2005 Delinquency, Undisciplined, Dismissal

Table 13 and Figure 4 above show that 42 percent of white youth had records of delinquent behavior, 21 percent for undisciplined, and 29 percent were dismissed. For African Americans, 46 percent were delinquent, 13 percent were undisciplined, and 38 percent were dismissed. The rate of delinquency for African Americans was just slightly higher (RRI = 1.1) than the rate for whites. The rate of undisciplined was less (RRI = 0.6) than that of whites, while the rate of dismissal for African American youths (RRI = 1.3) was slightly higher than that of white youth. Hispanic youth were delinquent at rates (RRI = 1.2) slightly higher than that of white youth, and were dismissed at rates (RRI = 1.7) almost twice that of white youth. These are not surprising results given the RRI values seen on the aggregate level in Table 11 for approved complaints and for complaints not approved.

-24-

Table 14: 2005 Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, Probation Supervision

Ethnicity Sample Restitution# (IR)

RRI Transfer toSuperior

Court# (IR)

RRI Probation Supervision

# (IR)

RRI

White 24 1 (4.7%) 1 (4.7%) 8 (33.3%)African American

68 1 (1.5%) .32 1 (1.5%) .32 14 (20.6%) .62

Hispanic/Latino 6 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 3 (50%) 1.5Native American

1 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 1 (100%) n/a

Multi-Racial 1 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/aTOTAL 100 2 2 26

Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, and Probation Supervision

Of restitution (Table 14), the rate for African Americans is less (RRI= 0.32) than that of whites. Similarly, in terms of transfer of cases to Superior Court, the rate for African American youth is less (RRI = 0.32) than that of white youth, while the rate of probation supervision for African Americans is about half (RRI = 0.62) the rate for white youth.

Figure 5: 2005 Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, and Probation Supervision

For these sample youth, the probationary and supervisory entities provide the greatest opportunity for DMC youth intervention impact.

-25-

Table 15: 2005 Protective Supervision, Transferred for Disposition and Dismissed

Ethnicity Sample ProtectiveSupervision

# (IR)

RRI Transferredfor Disposition

# (IR)

RRI Dismissed# (IR)

RRI

White 24 5 (20.8%) 2 (8.3%) 7 (29.2%)African American 68 10 (14.7%) .71 5 (7.4%) .89 28 (41.2%) 1.4Hispanic/Latino 6 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 4 (66.7%) 2.3Native American 1 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/aMulti-Racial 1 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/aTOTAL 100 15 7 39

Protective Supervision, Transferred for Disposition, and Dismissal

Data in Table 15 (above) show that, comparatively, African American youth had protective supervision at a rate (RRI = 0.71) less than that of whites, while their cases were transferred for disposition at a rate (RRI = 0.89) less than that of whites, but they were dismissed at rates (RRI = 1.4) higher than that of white youth.

Similarly, Hispanic youth were dismissed at rates (RRI = 2.3) more than twice that of whites. Multi-racial and Native American youth had no records of protective supervision, disposition transfers, and dismissal.

B. School Absences and Drop Outs 2004-2005

Table 16 below presents a breakdown of the school attendance (truant) and dropouts for the school year, 2004-2005.

Table 16: School Absences and Drop Outs (Sample youth)

CategoryRace Black White Hispanic OtherNumber of Youth 68 24 6 2Truant 30 12 1 0Not Enrolled 26 11 5 2Dropped Out 7 0 0 0No Record (In School) 5 1 0 0

Of the African American youth sampled, 44% were truant, with more than 20 unexcused absences, 38% were not enrolled, and 10% had dropped out. In fact, all of the youth in the sample that dropped out were African American.

Of the white youth sampled, 50% were truant and 46% were not enrolled. None of the white youth had dropped out.

-26-

Of the Hispanic youth in our sample, one youth had been truant (16%) and 5 were not enrolled (83%). Among the other ethnicities, neither of the two youth in the sample was enrolled in school.

Overall, 42% of the youth in the sample had been truant, 44% were not enrolled, and 7% had dropped out.

Table 17: Relative Rate Index Comparison: Truancy, Not Enrolled, Dropped Out

Ethnicity Truancy Rate

RRI Rate - Not Enrolled

RRI Drop OutRate

RRI

White 50.0% 45.8% 0Minority 40.8 .82 43.4 .95 9.2% n/a

In Table 17, the comparison of white youth and minority youth in the sample indicates that minority youth were slightly less likely to be truant or to not be enrolled than white youth.

Overall, it seems that prevention and intervention programming for school age delinquent youth will require strategic attention due to the fact that these youth who most need assistance are not attending school. This is derived from our sample wherein only 6 out of 100 youth (6%) attended school without any indication of problems. This is true with respect to both white and minority youth.

C. Child Protection - Youth and Social Assistance

For various reasons, minority families often struggle and require systemic support from agencies of social service. Are these systems a place for intervention?

How many of these youth interact with Social Service in the course of their lifetime?

Table 18 (below) presents a breakdown of the number of the sample youth by ethnicity and gender, who have interacted with the Department of Social Service for various support that includes:

Food Stamps/Public Assistance (Work-First, Medicaid, Day Care, Emergency Assistance in the form of financial aid for rent/housing, and heating).

Child Welfare Services (a report of abuse or neglect was investigated in the home).

-27-

Table 18: Sample Youth and Social Assistance

CategoryRace Black White Hispanic OtherTotal Number of Youth by Ethnicity 68 24 6 2Food Stamps/Public Assistance (FS/PA) 48 10 4 2Child Welfare Services (CWS) 28 10 4 1Both Public Assistance and Child Welfare Services 27 7 4 1No Assistance 20 12 2 -

Table 19: Relative Rate Index Comparison: Social Services Assistance

Ethnicity FS/PA Rate

RRI CWSRate

RRI Both RRI

White 41.6% 41.6% 29.0%Minority 71.1% 1.71 43.4% 1.04 42.1% 1.45

Of all sample youth, 64% received some type of social assistance. This is an indication that poverty and other social factors are major contributors to juvenile delinquency regardless of ethnicity. That being said, African American youth still most frequently received public assistance (71% of those sampled) compared to 42% of white youth. Roughly the same percentage of white and African American youth sampled had received child welfare services, 42% and 41% respectively.

Of the Hispanic youth in the sample, 66% had received both public assistance and child welfare services while the other 34% had not received either. 41% of African American youth and 29% of white youth had received both public assistance and child welfare services. 20% of African American youth and 50% of white youth had received neither of these services.

In Table 19, the RRI reflects the fact that minority youth were 1.71 times as likely to have received food stamps or public assistance; 1.04 times as likely to have received child welfare services, and 1.45 times as likely to have received both as were white youth. These RRI values do suggest the need for additional analysis.

D. Mental Health

A cross-reference review of the sample youth indicated that 23 of the 100 youth had active case files with mental health services. As seen in Table 20 below, 15 of the 68 African American youth (22.1%), 6 of the 24 white youth (25%) and each of the Native American and Multi Race youth had active case files for mental health services. The resulting RRI of 1.14 for African American youth suggest only slight disproportional disparity with respect to mental health diagnosis in the sample youth. Deeper analysis of the individual case files would result in determining whether treatment services were received beyond the time of diagnosis and could provide meaningful decision points within mental health that could be reviewed. This seems a natural next step assessing disproportionate minority contact in the delivery of mental health treatment services to minority youth.

-28-

Table 20: Mental Health Diagnoses by Ethnicity

Ethnicity and Gender # of youth Percentage ofPopulation

RRI

White 6 25%African American 15 22.1% 1.14Native American 1 100% 4.00Multi Race 1 100% 4.00

TOTAL 23 23%

-29-

IV. DMC Across North Carolina and the Country

Forsyth County is one of four North Carolina counties selected to partner with the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission in the development and implementation of plans to address minority overrepresentation in addition to Guilford, Union, and New Hanover counties. Throughout each county the process involves identification of the extent of the local DMC problem, assessment of the contributing factors to this problem, development and implementation of strategic interventions to reduce DMC, and evaluation of the effectiveness of these strategies.

Through collaborative planning and partnering the Forsyth County DMC Committee is working to increase the coordination of dedicated efforts, the consistency of data reporting for these assessments, and the awareness of communities and policy makers about the issue of DMC and its prevalence in this county. It has been a general consensus among the DMC Committee members that in order to effectively reduce disproportionate minority contact, the intervention points must be identified and understood to effectively intervene in the paths of youth on a consistent basis.

Understanding that many of the systemic barriers in Forsyth County are similarly prevalent across the nation, a review of No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Affecting Youth of Color in the Justice System was identified as a resource for possible strategies and suggestions for next steps in Forsyth County. A product of Building Blocks for Youth, the No Turning Back report documents nationwide efforts to reduce DMC and provides best practices that can serve as models for Forsyth County.

It is important, before elaborating further, to note the distinction of meanings for DMC between Disproportionate Minority Contact and Disproportionate Minority Confinement. The current DMC initiative began as a confinement issue, Disproportionate Minority Confinement, and in some locales maintains that focus on the overrepresentation of minority youth in confinement. In many areas nationwide however, including North Carolina, DMC has come to mean “Disproportionate Minority Contact” which includes confinement. This understanding of DMC seems to best recognize the processes and systems preceding confinement that may also impact the disproportionate minority representation of youth in the justice system.

Several strategies have been identified as national models for elevating the awareness of DMC issues and determining the intervention points for focused programming. They include the following:

1. Forming successful collaboratives comprised of committed policy makers and effective collaborative management to commit to the DMC Committees;

2. Routine, uniform data collection;3. Agency commitment of personnel toward DMC Committee participation and related

issues;4. Effective evaluation of intervention programming.

While elements of each of these is present in Forsyth County’s DMC initiative, the reflective “lessons learned” compiled from the national efforts and models allow the following observation to be made about reducing DMC in Forsyth County.

-30-

First and foremost, DMC cannot be effectively reduced if it is not made a priority. In order to affect policy and systemic change, policy makers must be willing to focus on the issues of racial and ethnic disparity in the face of discomfort and to elevate DMC as a priority with intentional dedication of time, effort, and staff to the work of reducing disparities. DMC reduction efforts must have guidance from the top down and support from the community up in order for collaborative change to be reinforced. Sustained, systemic change will be the result of multiple efforts of many people. Change will involve dedicated, focused efforts and a holistic paradigm shift. What happens in one system must be complemented by others in order to be effective.

Second, to further institutionalize DMC assessment, data collection and reporting must be routine and systematic so that patterns and trends can be identified to inform effective programmatic strategies. The reporting of data must be shared throughout the community and given thoughtful, focused attention to understand the areas that can be addressed for effective DMC reduction. Looking at all of the systems that youth interact with that impact DMC also helps to understand where to most efficiently invest resources for prevention, intervention, and education.

-31-

V. Recommendations/Next Steps

Understandably, more research and analysis of systems data is an appropriate next step for the Forsyth County DMC Committee. Increasing the community’s understanding of DMC and determining effective intervention strategies in school discipline options and juvenile arrests could have a major impact on DMC in Forsyth County. Additionally, further research and analysis of the school, social service, and mental health experiences of the sample youth should assist with discovering decision points within these systems that are susceptible to being influenced by DMC mitigating strategies. Progress in each of these areas will result in more knowledge and awareness about DMC and increase the likelihood of appropriate strategies to reduce the occurrence of DMC in Forsyth County.

Specific recommendations identified by the DMC Committee to achieve this end include the following:

Elevating the priority of DMC within agencies by educating each agency about the initiative and institutionalizing agency participation so that new staff hired is also educated and at least one or two staff members are routinely and actively engaged in the DMC Committee activities.

Raising community awareness through educational activities that can be folded into community events and through the development of educational tools.

Systematically and routinely collecting data from community partners. This will require a process of developing templates for the data to be collected to simplify data collection processes and increase the institutionalization of DMC monitoring.

With regard to implementing the strategies above, success in reducing DMC will be driven by effective leadership; focused on institutionalizing awareness within community agencies; and diverse in representation by policy makers and community leaders that expand cultural awareness, advocate for, and implement effective policy change.

-32-