EVALUATION OF THE

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT (DMC) INITIATIVE

North Carolina Final Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

May 8, 1996
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... iv

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................. I-1

1. BACKGROUND ............................................... I-1

1.1 Summary of DMC Literature ................................. I-1

1.2 OJJDP's DMC Initiative ..................................... I-2

2. NORTH CAROLINA DMC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT .............. I-3

2.1 Phase I Research (1991-1993) .............................. I-3

2.2 Phase II Activities (1993-1994) .............................. I-4

3. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION REPORT ........ I-6

II. METHODOLOGY ................................................ II-1

1. EVALUATION DESIGN ......................................... II-1

2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES .................... II-4

2.1 State-level Data Collection .................................. II-4

2.2 Pilot County Data Collection ................................. II-8

3. DATA ANALYSIS ............................................. II-9

III. NORTH CAROLINA DMC INITIATIVE—STATE LEVEL 

PARTICIPATION ................................................ III-1

1. NORTH CAROLINA'S DMC INITIATIVE ........................... III-1

2. PHASE I RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS ................. III-4

2.1 1990/91 Research Study ................................... III-4

2.2 1993/94 Research Study ................................... III-6

3. STATE LEVEL PHASE II PLANS AND ACTIVITIES .................. III-7

3.1 Obtain Community-Based Input ............................. III-8

3.2 Assist Pilot Counties to Understand and Address DMC .......... III-11

3.3 Develop State-Level Commitment ........................... III-15
ii
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

3.4 Develop Program Operation Manuals ........................ III-17

3.5 Develop a State-wide Information System .................... III-17

4. FUTURE PLANS TO ADDRESS DMC IN NORTH CAROLINA ........ III-18

IV. PILOT COUNTY COMMUNITY PLANNING ........................... IV-1

1. ESTABLISHING COUNTY STAKEHOLDERS ...................... IV-1

1.1 Stakeholder Identification .................................. IV-2

1.2 Stakeholder Representation ................................ IV-4

1.3 Stakeholder Participation .................................. IV-4

2. GARNERING AGREEMENT AS TO THE DMC PROBLEM ............ IV-5

2.1 Public Hearings .......................................... IV-6

2.2 Ten Sites Conference: Greensboro, North Carolina ............. IV-6

2.3 Pilot County Initiatives to Determine and Agree Upon the Extent

of DMC ................................................ IV-8

3. IDENTIFYING FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO DMC ............ IV-8

3.1 Factors Seen As Contributing to DMC ........................ IV-8

3.2 County-level Agreement on DMC Contributing Factors .......... IV-12

4. ADDRESSING PROBLEMS OF DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT ............................................ IV-13

4.1 County Planning Processes ............................... IV-14

4.2 County Action Plans ..................................... IV-16

4.3 Assessment of the Planning Process ........................ IV-21

4.4 Summary .............................................. IV-22

V. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA DMC INITIATIVE ... V-1

1. OVERVIEW ................................................. V-1

2. SPECIFICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED ........................ V-2

2.1 Lessons Associated with Organizational Issues ................. V-2

2.2 Lessons Associated with DMC Definition and Intervention Planning . V-4
iv
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

3. STATE AND COUNTY-LEVEL BENEFITS ......................... V-6

3.1 State-Level Benefits ...................................... V-6

3.2 County-Level Benefits ..................................... V-7

APPENDIX A ...................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B ...................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C ...................................................... C-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) mandate of the mandate of the

Juvenile Justice an Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act requires states to develop and

implement strategies to address an reduce the overrepresentation of minority youth in

secure facilities. In an effort to facilitate compliance with the mandate, the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored demonstration

projects in five pilot states. In Phase I of OJJDP’s DMC Initiative, each pilot state

assessed the extent of DMC in its juvenile justice system. In Phase II, each state

designed and implemented strategies to address the disproportionate representation

identified in Phase I. The Initiative also included a National Evaluation to document the

lessons learned, identify key factors in the success of state and local efforts, and

determine the efficacy of different interventions in reducing DMC. At the request of

OJJDP, Caliber Associates, in conjunction with state representatives and Portland

State University, conducted the National Evaluation, consisting of separate evaluations

of each pilot state and one non-pilot state. This report presents findings from the

evaluation of the North Carolina DMC demonstration project that began in February

1992 and concluded in the fall of 1994.

METHODOLOGY

The North Carolina DMC Initiative focused on gaining understanding and

acknowledgment at the state, county, and community levels of the DMC problem as

well as a commitment to multilevel DMC interventions. A formative, or process,

evaluation design was selected to document and analyze the process used by the DMC

project team and the state and local stakeholders. Data were collected through

document reviews, on-site observations, and during interviews with key DMC

informants.

NORTH CAROLINA’S DMC INITIATIVE

Given the state’s current conservative political climate together with the

historical civil rights struggles, the North Carolina DMC Initiative determined that DMC

problems should be addressed through a process of information dissemination,

community education and planning and consensus-building among community leaders,

county officials and state legislators. Therefore, the North Carolina DMC Initiative had,

as a primary emphasis, local- and county-level planning and problem solving. While

the focus was on the counties, the participating state agencies and staff provided the

context and the support for DMC problem identification and intervention development.
v

Phase I Research Findings

The major findings of the Phase I research were that minority youth were more

likely than Caucasian youth to be arrested and presented to a juvenile intake facility as

well as more likely to be committed to training school. While the research

demonstrated that minority youth were more likely to be over-represented in the

juvenile justice system Statewide and in a majority of the counties, the DMC initiative

focused on 10 counties, which were designated the “Pilot Counties.”

State Level Phase II Plans and Activities

During Phase II, the North Carolina DMC Initiative developed five major

objectives, which guided state-level activities. These objectives and associated

activities were to: (1) obtain community-based input on the DMC issues to inform and

direct both phases of the DMC initiative; (2) assist pilot counties to understand the

nature of their own DMC problems and plan interventions to reduce DMC; (3) develop

state-level commitment by involving agencies that deal with juveniles as stakeholders

that in a comprehensive statewide DMC effort; (4) develop program operation manuals

to assist juvenile justice officials throughout the state to monitor and address DMC; and

(5) develop a statewide, automated information system to obtain aggregate or caselevel data to be used to monitor and address the extent of DMC at major points within

North Carolina’s juvenile justice system.

County Level Phase II Activities

A major goal of the North Carolina DMC Initiative was to facilitate for DMC

resolution through the development of DMC County Action Plans—detailed plans for

corrective actions within local juvenile justice and other service delivery systems. To

this end, the North Carolina initiative (1) identified potential leadership at the county

level; (2) provided formal and informal information gathering and sharing forums

including disseminating the Phase I research findings; (3) provided on-site technical

assistance to develop County Action Plans; and (4) offered DMC planning grants to

support the process.

In the conclusion of the DMC initiative, all 10 counties had developed County

Action Plans, which included a range of interventions such as: (1) juvenile justice

agency interventions such as cultural awareness training, increased minority staff; (2)

creating new programs for minority youths; (3) school-based interventions to reduce
vi

minority youth exclusion; and (4) providing support to minority families through church

outreach or parent resource centers.

The pilot counties had differing levels of success in implementing communitybased interventions. Although several counties made some changes to either their

juvenile justice or other community service delivery systems, almost all of the counties

reported that the community planning had increased awareness of the DMC issue and

its related problem and identified service delivery gaps within minority communities. 

The DMC initiative also brought many county stakeholders together and fostered some

new working relationships, which may have future benefits for these communities.

LESSONS LEARNED

A primary objective of the state demonstration projects is to provide

opportunities for other states and locales to learn from the pilot state experiences. To

this end, the evaluation of the North Carolina DMC Initiative identified several lessons

learned from the state and local efforts. First, the North Carolina initiative

demonstrated that resistance to DMC recognition and acknowledgment can be deeply

entrenched at the state, county, and local levels stressing the importance of the DMC

research and problem definition process. The need for state-level leadership within

state’s juvenile justice organization together with adequate resources and

organizational support was also demonstrated. Finally, the North Carolina initiative

reinforced the recognition that community involvement and “buy-in” are essential to

DMC planning. Further, strong county-level leadership is a critical factor in the success

of the DMC problem identification and planning process.

FUTURE PLANS

North Carolina’s plans for addressing DMC in the future are uncertain and

unrefined, primarily because of the limited support being provided by State-level DMC

stakeholders. In the near-term, the North Carolina Division of Youth Services (DYS)

will work toward accomplishing several DMC objectives at both the state and county

levels. These objectives include: (1) to develop a statewide, annual report on DMC; (2)

to continue to support the development of the statewide information system; (3) provide

technical assistance to two counties that requested help in developing their own DMC

initiatives and (4) to continue to work with state government leadership to make DMC a

high priority for intrastate and interstate agency planning, policy formulation, program

development, and staff training.
I. INTRODUCTION
I-1

I. INTRODUCTION

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored,

in five states, demonstration projects that were designed to address problems of DMC

within the juvenile justice system. This report presents findings from the evaluation of

the North Carolina DMC project. This chapter presents relevant background

information, an overview of the North Carolina demonstration project, and the purpose

and organization of the report.

1. BACKGROUND

 Findings from a large body of literature suggest that disproportionate minority

confinement occurs within many juvenile justice systems across the nation. Recent

congressional legislation requires states to assess the extent of DMC in their juvenile

justice systems and to develop and implement strategies to address DMC problems

that are found. OJJDP's DMC initiative seeks to assist states to comply with the

mandate. The initiative includes support for the development and implementation of

DMC projects in five pilot states, including North Carolina. The DMC initiative also

calls for evaluation of pilot state projects to help OJJDP determine the best methods for

assisting states to comply with the mandate as well as to suggest strategies and

provide useful lessons to non-pilot states that are developing and implementing DMC

projects of their own. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the DMC

literature followed by a more detailed description of the OJJDP DMC initiative.

1.1 Summary of DMC Literature

Disproportionate minority confinement is defined by OJJDP as a ratio of "the

share of the juvenile justice population that is minority relative to the share of the at-risk

population that is minority." Since the late 1960s, scores of researchers have

published studies assessing the extent to which DMC exists within the juvenile justice

system. Approximately two thirds of all published studies found evidence of DMC

(Pope and Feyerherm, 1992). One third of the studies, however, did not find evidence

of DMC. Researchers note that inherent methodological difficulties contributed to the

inconsistent findings. Another factor contributing to the inconsistent findings may be

that most DMC studies were restricted to one stage in system processing (Bishop and

Frazier, 1988). Such an approach, several authors contend, fails to measure the

"cumulative disadvantage" to minority youth within a juvenile justice system. Although

race may have a small, statistically insignificant effect on decision making at particular
I-2

stages, race may still have a significant, cumulative effect on the juvenile justice system

outcomes overall (Zatz, 1987).

Approximately one third of all DMC studies found an overall pattern of DMC,

while an equal proportion of studies found DMC only at particular points within the

juvenile justice system (Pope and Feyerherm, 1992). Many researchers believe that

DMC is most pronounced at the "front end" of the juvenile justice system, yet few DMC

studies have focused on the front end (Conley, 1994). Measuring the racial bias that

occurs when police officers decide which juveniles to question—or when citizens, social

workers, and school officials decide to alert authorities to delinquent behavior—is

fraught with methodological challenges (Sampson, 1986). 

Studies finding evidence of DMC typically ascribed its causes to either:

(1) systematic racial bias against minority youth within the juvenile justice system, or

(2) more serious and/or more frequent offenses being committed by minority youth. 

Both explanations were considered legitimate in the Federal DMC legislation, which

was developed, in large part, to answer the research findings, summarized above. 

1.2 OJJDP's DMC Initiative

The 1988 amendments to the OJJDP Act included a requirement to states

participating in the OJJDP Formula Grants Program to address the growing problem of

the disproportionate confinement of minority youth in secure facilities. The 1992

amendments to the JJDP Act included a mandate requiring the states to assess the

level of minority youth confinement in their juvenile justice system and to implement

strategies to reduce disproportionate representation. To facilitate the states' ability to

comply with the mandate of the JJDP Act, OJJDP established the Disproportionate

Minority Confinement Initiative. Through a competitive process, OJJDP selected five

states—Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Oregon, and North Carolina—to receive training,

technical, and financial assistance. 

The DMC initiative was designed to include two 18-month phases. During

Phase I, each of the five pilot states assessed the extent of disproportionate

representation in its juvenile justice system and reported the findings to OJJDP. During

Phase II, the pilot states designed strategies to address the disproportionate

representation problems identified during their Phase I assessments. 
Church, V.T. Embracing Diversity, Expanding Common Ground. North Carolina Department of 1

Human Resources, Division of Youth Services. 1993.

I-3

Phase II includes a National Evaluation of the DMC Initiative. OJJDP has

requested that Caliber Associates design and conduct the evaluation in collaboration

with pilot state representatives and with the national technical assistance providers

from Portland State University. The National Evaluation will include separate

evaluation reports on each pilot state and one non-pilot state. To complement the pilot

states, the National Evaluation will include the State of Michigan, which developed and

implemented a DMC plan without OJJDP support. The inclusion of Michigan will

provide a more robust picture of state efforts to reduce minority overrepresentation.

The objectives for the National Evaluation are to document the lessons learned

and factors key to the success of state and local efforts, as well as to determine the

efficacy of different types of interventions in reducing the degree of disproportionate

representation. The evaluation findings will be incorporated into training and technical

assistance manuals that OJJDP will disseminate to all states as a resource that will

assist their planning and implementing approaches to reduce disproportionate

representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system.

2. NORTH CAROLINA DMC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

The North Carolina DMC activities, conducted under the OJJDP Special

Emphasis Grant, began in February 1992, with the hiring of the program director, and

concluded in Fall 1994. During this time period, North Carolina DMC project

participants completed the Phase I research, designed an intervention plan in response

to the Phase I research findings, and completed the Phase II activities in accordance

with the plan. To provide a context for the evaluation, the North Carolina Phase I and

Phase II activities are summarized below.

2.1 Phase I Research (1991 -1993) 1

The North Carolina Department of Human Resources' (DHR) Division of Youth

Services (DYS), with assistance from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte,

conducted the Phase I research effort. This included conducting a statewide

assessment of minority youth overrepresentation and a more extensive analysis of data

in 10 pilot counties. Although the JJDP Act emphasizes overrepresentation in

confinement, the North Carolina research team expanded its scope by examining
During the Phase II demonstration time period, additional state resources were secured by the 2

DMC project team and additional data collection and analyses were conducted. This second

research effort is described in Chapter III.

I-4

decision points throughout North Carolina's juvenile justice system. The research had

the following three general objectives:

• Assess the extent of minority youth overrepresentation statewide and in

10 pilot counties

• Identify the decision points in North Carolina's juvenile justice system at

which overrepresentation most often occurs

• Explore the implications of current research findings for future research

on the reasons why overrepresentation occurs.

To address these objectives, North Carolina's research team employed three

primary data collection methods:

• Arrest, detention, and commitment data from 1990 were collected from all

100 North Carolina counties to assess the extent of disproportionate

representation of minority juveniles throughout the state

• Detailed 1990 law enforcement and juvenile court case processing data

were collected in 10 pilot counties representing a cross-section of North

Carolina's geographic regions and ethnic populations

• DYS sponsored and conducted two forums and five public hearings to

solicit input from researchers, practitioners, and community residents in

developing hypotheses about factors that contribute to the

overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system.

Findings from the juvenile justice data analysis indicated that disproportionate

minority confinement exists but county differences were notable. In fact, the variations

observed across the 100 counties in arrest, detention, and confinement rates for

minority youth indicated the need for more intensive analysis to identify factors 2

contributing to overrepresentation at the community level.

2.2 Phase II Activities (1993-1994) 

In response to the Phase I research findings, the North Carolina DMC project

focused on county-level, community-based planning. Primary project objectives were
I-5

to inform, assist, and support the development of County Action Plans to address the

disproportionate minority confinement.

The community planning effort had three major goals:

• Assess community reaction to, and obtain community involvement with,

the decision-making and problem-solving process

• Establish a process for program development at the state and local levels

• In addition to program development, assess and address other

implications of DMC at the state and local levels.

The community planning goals were addressed through three major activities:

• Present the results of the analysis of the county’s data with guidance,

from the research team, on how to interpret the meaning of the statistical

information

• Invite participation by representatives from the 10 pilot counties in a

conference to discuss issues, policies, and legislation; to review 

additional analysis of the county data provided by the North Carolina 

research team; and to begin developing tailored County Action Plans

• Provide ongoing technical support to each of the 10 pilot counties in

developing County Action Plans to reduce overrepresentation in their

communities and to award to each county a $1,000 grant to support the

planning process.

The purpose of the community action plans is to support individual communities' efforts

to pursue their unique approaches to reduce the disproportionate representation in

local juvenile justice systems.

In addition to community planning, the North Carolina DMC project provided the

following:

• A statewide conference for the purpose of developing programmatic,

policy, and legislative recommendations to reduce disproportionate

minority confinement within North Carolina's juvenile justice system
 The information system, at the time of the evaluation, was “in process”; a state legislative 3

 committee was studying the proposal. The information system was the subject of a major ($8.8

 million) Price Waterhouse study; the study sought to ensure that the system design and

 development was comprehensive, accurate, appropriate—“right.”

I-6

• A statewide information system that will enable all 100 counties and 3

appropriate state agencies to obtain ongoing reporting of juvenile court

information. The system will be used to obtain case processing reports,

which can be used to monitor the number of minority youth involved in the

juvenile justice system and the nature and extent of disproportionate

representation of minority youth

• A procedural manual that provides procedures for monitoring the

involvement of minority youth in the juvenile justice system and a

resource manual that describes model programs, potential funding

sources, and technical assistance providers for reducing DMC.

The specific county-level planning activities and state-level efforts, their implementation

status, and factors that contributed to or inhibited the DMC project's success were the

subject of the evaluation and are described in the body of this report. 

3. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE EVALUATION REPORT

The purpose of this document is to present Caliber Associates' evaluation

findings on the DMC initiative in North Carolina. Chapter I provides an overview of the

DMC literature, OJJDP's DMC initiative, and North Carolina's approach to addressing

the DMC problem. Chapter II describes Caliber's objectives and methodology for

conducting the evaluation. Chapter III presents evaluation findings on the state-level

component of North Carolina's DMC initiative, and Chapter IV presents findings on

county components. Finally, Chapter V summarizes key lessons learned from North

Carolina's experience which may be applicable to states that are developing their own

DMC initiatives. Throughout the report, specific agencies or organizations are

introduced by name and (in parenthesis) by acronym; thereafter, they are referred to

only by acronym. To assist the reader, Appendix A provides an alphabetical list of

organizations and their acronyms.
I-7

REFERENCES

Bishop, D.M. and C. Frazier. "The Influence of Race in Juvenile Justice Processing" 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25(3). 1988.

Church, V.T. Embracing Diversity, Expanding Common Ground. North Carolina

Department of Human Resources, Division of Youth Services. 1994.

Church, V.T. Embracing Diversity, Expanding Common Ground: Commencement.

North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Youth Services. 

1994.

Conley, D.J. "Adding Color to a Black and White Picture: Using Qualitative Data to 

Explain Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System ." Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency 31(2). 1994.

Division of Youth Services. A Closer Look: Overrepresentation of Minority Children in 

the North Carolina Juvenile Justice System. 1991.

Feyerherm, W. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons Learned from the Pilot

State Experiences. Prepared for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. Portland State University. 1995. 

Pope, C. and W. Feyerherm. Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System. U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. 1992.

Zatz, M.S. "The Changing Forms of Racial/Ethnic Biases in Sentencing." Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency 24(1). 1987.
II. METHODOLOGY
II-1

II. METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the overall approach to conducting the evaluation of the

North Carolina DMC Initiative. The approach was collaboratively developed by the

North Carolina DYS Program Director for Minority Issues, Portland State University,

and Caliber Associates. The following sections describe the evaluation design, data

collection methods, and analyses.

1. EVALUATION DESIGN

OJJDP requested an evaluation of the North Carolina DMC Initiative that would

support the National Evaluation objectives—to document lessons learned, to identify

factors facilitating or hindering success, and to determine the efficacy of different types

of interventions—via an approach tailored to North Carolina's DMC strategy. North

Carolina differed from the other pilot states in that the North Carolina DMC team

focused its Phase II efforts and resources on gaining understanding and

acknowledgment of the problem definition at the state, county, and local levels before

facilitating the development of local plans for intervening and ultimately resolving the

problem of disproportionate confinement of minority youth within the juvenile justice

system. 

The potential for resistance to understanding and accepting a DMC problem

definition within a state's juvenile justice system as well as the broader community is

not unique to North Carolina. Therefore, North Carolina's demonstration project, which

focused DMC resources on the process of community problem solving, offered an

invaluable learning opportunity to other states, political systems, and localities. 

The primary goal of the North Carolina evaluation, therefore, was to develop a

comprehensive, in-depth picture of what happened in North Carolina—at the state,

county, and local levels—and why. Attaining this goal required a descriptive,

qualitative methodology. A classic "process evaluation" design was selected,

specifically to:

• Document the process used by the State's DMC project team to assist

local acceptance and understanding of the DMC problem

• Document and assess the planning process used at the county level
II-2

• Document, where possible, the appropriateness of the plans that emerged

from this process

• Identify any system or outcome changes related to the DMC initiative

• Assess the extent to which each of North Carolina's DMC objectives were

achieved (see Exhibit II-I below).

EXHIBIT II-1

OBJECTIVES OF NORTH CAROLINA'S DMC INITIATIVE

Phase I Phase II 

• Assess the extent of minority youth • Support the 10 pilot counties in developing

overrepresentation statewide and in 10 pilot County Action Plans to address DMC

counties

• Identify the decision points in North Carolina's stakeholders in DMC

juvenile justice system at which

overrepresentation most often occurs • Implement uniform data collection protocols to

• Explore the implications of current research Act, and begin development of ongoing reporting

findings for future research on the reasons why of juvenile court information

overrepresentation occurs.

• Involve agencies that deal with juveniles as

monitor the state's compliance with the JJDP

• Develop a procedural manual and a DMC

resource manual to assist North Carolina

counties.

The evaluation design for North Carolina focused on documenting the process

used by the DMC project team to assist local acceptance and understanding of the

DMC problem. The evaluation also aimed to document and assess the planning

process used at the county-level and, where possible, the appropriateness of the plans

that emerged from this process. Exhibit II-2 provides a schematic diagram of the

proposed evaluation framework.

The evaluation design was strengthened by inclusion of a research strategy

termed "triangulation." This strategy incorporates multiple measures of a given

concept, activity, or occurrence. Thus, in North Carolina, the DMC initiative was

investigated using multiple data sources including document reviews, interviews, and

researcher observations.
EXHIBIT II-2

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR NORTH CAROLINA DMC PROJECT

Analysis of

JJS Data

ID

Disproportionality

ID

Sources/Causes

Plan

Interventions

Implement

Interventions

Monitor JJS

Data

Phase I data collection and analysis

Data dissemination to state, 

county, local levels

DMC Program Director works with state,

counties to:

• Agree on problem definition

• Assess causes/ contributing factors

DMC Program Director facilitates

development of intervention plans at state

and county levels

Counties implement interventions

State, counties monitor program effects

NORTH CAROLINA DMC PROCESS EVALUATION FOCUS

Data sources, types of data collected, data

definitions, assumptions, analyses

Process used to disseminate information:

• Key stakeholders

• Strengths and limitations of process

• Factors contributing to DMC at state,

county, and local levels

• Levels of agreement on contribution factors

throughout JJ system

Process used to develop state and county

intervention plans:

• Key actors

• Strengths and limitations

Types of interventions developed and bases for

development

Implementation schedule and status

MODEL PROCESS

II-3
II-4

2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES

The evaluation design pursued two distinct levels of inquiry: the state level and

the county/local level. Given that the problem solving and interventions must occur at

the local level, an intensive investigation of county-level environments, activities,

perceptions and plans was essential. The state-level inquiries were equally important,

however, given that (1) the DMC initiative was initiated by Raleigh and (2) change must

occur at both the state and local levels to be truly effective. 

The foundation of the evaluation design was the set of specific research

questions to be addressed by the evaluation. The evaluation questions assisted in

identifying the data elements required, the data sources from which to obtain the data

elements, and the most appropriate data collection methods.

A summary list of evaluation questions, which guided the North Carolina DMC

evaluation, is presented in Exhibit II-3, following this page. These evaluation questions

amplify the key process questions identified for the National Evaluation, including:

• What was the extent of disproportionate representation of minority youth

within the North Carolina juvenile justice system

• What were the major factors contributing to disproportionality

• What strategies were developed for responding to disproportionality

• What lessons were learned about how to create change?

These broad evaluation questions, together with the more detailed listing provided in 

Exhibit II-3, represent the critical issues addressed by the North Carolina evaluation

effort. Methods for obtaining information to answer these questions on the state-level

component of the DMC initiative are described below followed by a description of how

county-level information was collected.

2.1 State-level Data Collection

For the state-level component, data sources included project documents,

interviews with key DMC participants representing the state government, and on-site

observations. Documentation on project-related planning activities and events were

obtained from the DYS Program Director for Minority Issues. The documents included:
II-5

EXHIBIT II-3

SUMMARY LISTING OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS, INFORMATION SOURCES,

AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS

EVALUATION QUESTIONS INFORMATION SOURCES DATA COLLECTION METHODS

• What was the extent of disproportionate representation of minority youth within Phase I data, researchers, Document review

North Carolina? Within individual counties? Program Director Interviews

• How was the North Carolina DMC project determined? How was Phase I data, researchers, Document review

disproportionality defined? How were the counties selected? Program Director, DYS Director Interviews

• What factors were identified as contributing to disproportionality? What Program Director, DYS Document review

assumptions were made about causality? Director, researchers, initial Interviews

planning meetings

• Who were/are the major "stakeholders" related to DMC at the state level? Program Director, DYS Document review

County level? Local level? Director, other state and local Interviews

staff

• What were the initial efforts used to engage these stakeholders in problem Program Director, other state Interviews

identification and definition? In the assessment of root causes/contributing and local staff

factors?

• What/who was perceived as the most critical event, activity, individual for DYS Director, Program Interviews

engaging the key stakeholders in the problem identification and problem Director, other state and local

clarification process? staff

• What were the perceived universal, state, and local system factors that might Initial state and county Document review

foster overrepresentation of incarcerated youth discussion groups

• What were the premises and assumptions underlying the approach to Program Director Interviews

engaging the project counties? Document review

• What activities were planned and used to further the DMC project? Which Program Director, DYS Interviews

activities seem to have been the most useful? Least useful? Director, other state and local

staff
II-6

EXHIBIT II-3 (Continued)

 SUMMARY LISTING OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS, INFORMATION SOURCES,

AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS

EVALUATION QUESTIONS INFORMATION SOURCES DATA COLLECTION METHODS

• What state and/or county mechanisms were used to guide the process? How Program Director, county staff Interviews

were these mechanisms/efforts developed or identified? How effective were Participant observation

these efforts?

• What was the process used for statewide planning? Who were the key DYS Director, Program Interviews

personnel? What types of events were planned and held? What were the Director, researchers, other Document review

advantages,and advantages of the planning events? What were the state staff, county staff, Participant observation

outcomes of the planning events? Follow-up to the events? planning documents and

records

• Once the counties received the data, how were the data used? Program Director, county staff Interviews

Document review

• What were the planning processes used by each county? What were the Program Director, county staff Interviews

strengths and what were the limitations of the planning processes used? Document review

• What county resources were available for the planning process? How were Program Director, county staff Interviews

county resources made available to the DMC analysis and planning Document review

processes at the county level?

• What program strategies were identified as interventions for the DMC? On Program Director, county staff Interviews

what basis were the program strategies adopted? Document review

• What were the planned interventions within each county? How were the Program Director, county staff Interviews

interventions designed; on what basis? What were the type, amount, and Document review

source of funding and other resources for the intervention(s)?

• What were the outcomes from the North Carolina DMC initiative? What DYS Director, Program Interviews

changes occurred to the system(s), decision-making processes, and/or Director, researchers, other Document review

dispositions? state staff, county staff
II-6

EXHIBIT II-3 (Continued)

 SUMMARY LISTING OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS, INFORMATION 

AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS

EVALUATION QUESTIONS INFORMATION SOURCES DATA 

II-7

• If there were changes in the system(s), decision-making processes, or in the DYS Director, Program Interview

proportion, of minority youth who were confined, what factors contributed to Director, researchers, other Docum

the changes? state staff, county staff

• Embracing Diversity, Expanding Common Ground: The Disproportionate

Incarceration of North Carolina's Minority Children (Preliminary Report)

• Embracing Diversity, Expanding Common Ground: The Disproportionate

Incarceration of North Carolina's Minority Children (Resource Manual)

• The Effect of Minority Group Membership on Juvenile Case Dispositions: An

Assessment of the Evidence from Ten North Carolina Counties

• 1993 North Carolina Juvenile Justice System Minority Overrepresentation

Analysis : Summary of Findings.

These documents were reviewed by the evaluation team to enhance its understanding

of North Carolina's DMC initiative, to develop chronologies of events, and to assist in

refining the evaluation design and data collection instruments.

In August 1994, a two-person evaluation team conducted an on-site visit to

Raleigh where in-depth interviews were conducted with key state-level leaders of the

DMC initiative. Individual interviews were conducted with the North Carolina DYS

Program Director for Minority Issues, the DYS Director, and researchers from the

University of North Carolina at Charlotte. This set of interviews explored each of the

four North Carolina state DMC components: community planning, investiture of

stakeholders, development of a management information system, and development of

procedural and resource manuals. All interviews were conducted with semi-structured

interview guides that were tailored to each individual situation as appropriate. A copy

of this interview guide is presented in Appendix B.

Finally, the evaluation team observed two North Carolina DMC-related events.

The first event, held in November 1993, was the Ten Site Conference. This conference

provided to representatives of the pilot counties an opportunity to examine and discuss

the findings of the Phase I data analyses and to begin developing County Action Plans

to address DMC. A second event, Embracing Diversity, Expanding Common Ground:
II-8

The Disproportionate Incarceration of North Carolina's Minority Children, was held in

July 1994. This statewide planning conference featured a presentation of findings from

the state research team's follow-up study on the extent of DMC in the 10 pilot counties. 

The conference also featured workshops, conducted by county-level DMC leaders, and

updates on Federal and State DMC initiatives.

2.2 Pilot County Data Collection 

For each of the pilot counties, most data were collected during on-site visits. 

The evaluation team conducted on-site visits to the 10 pilot counties between August

and September 1994. In preparation for the on-site visits, the DYS Program Director

for Minority Issues provided the evaluation team with the names and telephone

numbers of "county stakeholders" in each county who had participated in Phase I or

Phase II DMC activities. While contacting the county stakeholders to request one-onone interviews, the evaluation team employed a technique termed "chain sampling" to

ensure that the final set of interviews to be conducted in each county would yield

comprehensive data. Each county stakeholder was asked, during an introductory

telephone call, such questions as "Who would know about the root causes of DMC in

your community?" or "Who else was involved in implementing the county's DMC action

plan?" Individuals and agencies that were identified and repeatedly mentioned in

response to such questions were contacted as potential interviewees. In each of the

counties, requests for interviews were granted by the great majority of DMC

participants.

Interviews were conducted with individuals representing an expansive range of

organizations that regularly engage with youth or serve their needs. Exhibit II-4, below,

presents the types of DMC county stakeholders interviewed by the evaluation team. 

EXHIBIT II-4

TYPES OF DMC PILOT COUNTY INTERVIEWEES

Law Enforcement Juvenile Services

• Police Officer • Detention Center Director

• Sheriff • Intake Supervisor

• Sheriff's Deputy • Staff Psychologist

• Juvenile Diversion Program Director • Chief Court Counselor

• Drug Prevention Program Supervisor • Court Counselor

• Training School Specialist

City/County Government Courts
II-9

• City Councilperson • Assistant District Attorney

• County Commissioner • Clerk of Courts

• Administrative Assistant, County Manager

Schools Social Services

• School Board Member • Mental Health Services Supervisor

• High School Student Counselor • Therapeutic Foster Care Supervisor

• Upward Bound Director • CBA Program Director

• Youth Services Program Director

Pilot county interviews, like state-level interviews, were conducted using a semistructured data collection instrument with primarily open-ended questions. A copy of

the instrument is presented in Appendix B. Interviews focused on problem

identification, understanding of the DMC initiative, and county planning efforts. Data

elements were selected based on their ability to describe:

• Perceptions on the extent of DMC in the county

• Assumptions about the root causes of DMC

• DMC problem identification and definition methods

• Processes for identifying stakeholders

• DMC planning components, including key players, processes, and outcomes

• Lessons learned from DMC efforts

• Future DMC plans.

Thirty-six interviews were conducted in the 10 pilot counties. One additional

respondent submitted written responses on a copy of the instrument.

The evaluation team attempted to schedule site visits to coincide with DMC

planning meetings in the pilot counties. One such meeting was observed by the

evaluation team in Guildford County.

In addition to pilot county data collected on-site, the evaluation team reviewed

County Action Plans, obtained from the state DMC team. County Action Plans were

developed by nine of the ten pilot counties to guide their DMC planning and

implementation efforts. The evaluation team reviewed the plans, which described
II-10

county goals and objectives, identified agencies or groups responsible for completing

specific objectives and tasks, and imposed timetables for their completion. Copies of

the County Action Plans are presented in Appendix C.

3. DATA ANALYSIS

The types of analyses conducted were driven by the evaluation objectives. For

both the state-level and pilot county components, project documents were analyzed

primarily for background and context information. To ensure a systematic,

comprehensive, and accurate summary of interview data and observation notes, the

evaluation team applied content and consistency analysis techniques. These

techniques involve recording and tabulating responses from individual interviews and

observation notes in a series of matrices. In the matrices, the substance of, or

keywords from, responses from each data source are recorded. Data were tabulated

by each specific question or topic, from each individual source, in order to aggregate

the data and make comparisons. The aggregation of data was a structured process

that yielded an affordable means for providing a reasonably complete and accurate

picture of what happened and why.

For all analyses, the content of individual responses to a specific question or

topic was compared to determine the diversity as well as the commonalities of findings

or experiences reported. One set of data analyses focused on state-level DMC

activities; findings are presented in the next chapter. Another set of analyses focused

on what happened within each of the 10 pilot counties. A comparative analysis of the

10 pilot sites was the basis for the county-level findings presented in Chapter IV. 

Combined, the three sets of analyses revealed the key lessons and formed the

foundation for the recommendations presented in Chapter V.
III. NORTH CAROLINA DMC INITIATIVE—STATE LEVEL

PARTICIPATION
Church, V.T. Embracing Diversity, Expanding Common Ground Commencement: North Carolina 4

Department of Human Resources, Division of Youth Services. 1994.

III-1

III. NORTH CAROLINA DMC INITIATIVE—STATE LEVEL PARTICIPATION

The North Carolina Disproportionate Minority Confinement Initiative had, as a

primary emphasis, local and county level planning and problem solving. While the

focus was on the counties, the participating state agencies and staff provided the

context and the support for DMC problem identification and intervention development.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the DMC activities that were initiated

and directed by the state DMC team. The chapter begins with a description of the DMC

project initiation and organization. The Phase I research activities and findings are

summarized to provide the context for the description of the Phase II activities at the

state level. The chapter concludes with a description of North Carolina's future plans

for addressing DMC.

1. NORTH CAROLINA'S DMC INITIATIVE

The North Carolina Division of Youth Services (DYS) resides within the

Department of Human Resources. The juvenile justice functions of DYS include the

operations of the detention centers and training schools and the community-based

alternative programs. The Governor's Crime Commission within the Department of

Crime Control and Public Safety operates the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention

Committee which is the North Carolina State Advisory Group (SAG).

During the Fall of 1991 , the Governor's Crime Commission, in partnership with 4

the DYS and the Criminal Justice Department of the University of North Carolina at

Charlotte, conducted a comprehensive assessment of the disproportionate minority

confinement issue in North Carolina. North Carolina then applied for an OJJDP

Special Emphasis Grant to become a pilot state in addressing the disproportionate

confinement of minorities.

DYS was awarded an OJJDP Special Emphasis Grant to address the problem of

disproportionate minority confinement in October 1991. In February 1992, the DYS

Director hired a Program Director for Minority Issues. This full-time position was

devoted entirely to North Carolina's DMC initiative.
III-2

The North Carolina DMC project was organized functionally. OJJDP, as the

funding agency, was organizationally at the top, with a direct line relationship with DYS. 

DYS had program operational responsibility for the North Carolina DMC. Providing

technical assistance and evaluation services to DYS and funded directly by OJJDP

were Portland State University, Community Research Associates, and Caliber

Associates, respectively.

Working directly with DYS on this project was the University of North Carolina at

Charlotte; staff contributed to the North Carolina DMC grant proposal and had

responsibility for data analysis and the development of a DYS statewide information

system. The Governor's Crime Commission worked collaboratively with the DYS-based

DMC project staff. Operating under the guidance of DYS were the 10 DMC pilot

counties. They had responsibility for DMC planning in their respective counties and

currently have direct program implementation responsibility. An unofficial organization

chart is presented in Exhibit III-1.

The organizational location of the DMC project within DYS is considered less

than optimal by the DMC project staff. The current location subjects the project staff

and activities to a level of political scrutiny which might be minimized if the DMC project

were operated outside of a governmental organization.

Overall, the North Carolina DMC initiative had, as its mission, the promulgation

of knowledge, understanding and acknowledgment of the DMC problem definition at

the state, county and local levels. Once the DMC problem is understood, the primary

North Carolina DMC project goal was to facilitate the development of local plans for

intervening and ultimately resolving the problem of disproportionate confinement of

minority youth within the juvenile justice system.

The North Carolina DMC team recognized that a strong potential for resistance

to understanding and accepting the DMC problem existed within juvenile justice

systems and communities throughout the state. The major objectives therefore were to

assist key decision makers and community leaders at the state and county levels to:

• Determine the extent of the DMC problem on a state-wide and county basis

• Garner agreement on the extent of the DMC problem and factors which

contribute to the problem
III-3
EXHIBIT III-1

NORTH CAROLINA DMC PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART

Governor's Crime

Commission

Office of JJDP

North Carolina Division

of Youth Services

Community Research

Associates

Portland State

University 

Caliber Associates

Brunswick

County

Buncombe 

County

Caldwell

County

Cumberland

County

Forsyth

County

Guilford

County

Haywood

County

Johnston

County

Robeson

County

Wilkes

County

University of North

Carolina at Charlotte

III-3
III-5

• Develop a plan or approach to solving the DMC problem.

Although another objective of North Carolina's DMC initiative was to support the

implementation of plans to reduce DMC, few implementation efforts were expected to

be initiated during the pilot project period.

2. PHASE I RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS

During Phase I of the state's initiative, DYS, with assistance from the University

of North Carolina at Charlotte, twice conducted data analysis to assess the extent of

minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system of North Carolina. The first

analysis activities were conducted in 1991-92 using 1990 data, the second in 1994

using 1993 data. Both the 1992 and 1994 research projects are summarized below as

well as in Exhibit III-2 on the following page.

2.1 1990/91 Research Study

Beginning in 1991, the state research team conducted analyses on two separate

data sources: (1) arrest, detention, and commitment data from calendar year 1990,

collected from all 100 North Carolina counties; and (2) law enforcement and juvenile

court case processing data from calendar year 1990, collected from ten pilot counties,

representing a cross-section of North Carolina.

This study found that minority youth were over-represented at each stage of the

juvenile justice process. Although much of this overrepresentation was accounted for

by offender characteristics that were not race-based, analyses suggested that some

minority overrepresentation persisted even after accounting for offender characteristics. 

Analyses of statewide juvenile justice data also found considerable variations in the

extent of the disproportionality among North Carolina's 100 counties. In a majority of

counties, however, minority youth were more likely to have been arrested, detained,

and committed to a training school.

Findings from the state-wide analyses guided the selection of ten counties for

more intensive analysis. The ten counties included five (Buncombe, Caldwell,

Cumberland, Forsyth, and Johnston) in which minorities were over-represented in their

arrest, detention and commitment rates. These five were paired with five neighboring

counties (Brunswick, Guilford, Haywood, Robeson, and Wilkes) in which minorities

were not over-represented or only slightly over-represented. Together, the ten 
III-5

EXHIBIT III-2

NORTH CAROLINA PHASE I RESEARCH

Phase I Study - 1990/91 Phase I Update - 1993/94

Data Sources: Data Sources:

All counties: Pilot counties:

Population data on arrest, detention and commitment for the 1993 population data for juvenile court intake decisions for

calendar year 1990 all pilot counties

Pilot counties: 1993 population data for juvenile court adjudication

1990 population data for juvenile court intake decisions from nine

pilot counties

1990 population data for adjudication and commitment

decisions from seven non-urban counties; 25% random

sample data from three urban counties

decisions for seven pilot counties; data from three

counties were incomplete

Types of Analyses: Types of Analyses:

All counties: Pilot counties:

DMC indices (number of minority youth arrested, detained and Probit regression on juvenile justice data from the 10 pilot

committed divided by the number of minority youth in the county) counties

for all 100 North Carolina counties

Pilot counties:

Multiple logistic regression (sample data were weighted)

Major Findings: Major Findings :

All counties: Pilot counties:

A majority of North Carolina counties showed evidence of DMC; Levels of DMC did not significantly vary across pilot counties

these findings were the basis for selecting five DMC pilot counties

and five non-DMC pilot counties for further study Minority youth were more likely to be arrested and

Pilot counties:

Minority youth were more likely to be arrested and presented to

intake in all counties

Minority youth were most likely to be referred to juvenile court

than Anglo youth in DMC pilot counties and more likely to be

committed to training school in all counties

presented to intake

All youth were equally likely to be referred to juvenile

court

Minority youth were more likely to be committed to

training school than Anglo youth
Church, V.T. Embracing Diversity, Expanding Common Ground. Department of Human 5

Resources, Division of Youth Services. 1993.

III-7

Methodological Concerns: Application of sampling weights Methodological Concerns: Specification of r

counties represented the geographic and demographic diversity of the state. Two

represented the mountainous region, two represented the urban piedmont, two

represented the rural piedmont, two represented the coastal plains region and two

counties had significant Native American populations. 5

Multivariate analyses of the case processing data from the ten pilot counties

indicated that prior involvement with community-based alternatives and home instability

were generally the strongest determinants affecting the decision to refer youth to court

and to commit. Race also influenced decision-making; however, the effect of race

varied by the stage of the process and between high and low overrepresentation

counties. The following indicates the findings with regard to race:

• African American youth were more likely than other youth to be referred to

court in high overrepresentation counties while Native American youth were

more likely to be referred in low overrepresentation counties

• In counties with low overrepresentation, African American youth were more

likely to be committed to a training school, whereas Native Americans were

more likely to be committed in high overrepresentation counties

• Across all counties, being African American and Native American was a

significant factor in being referred to court; however, the effect of race was

less pronounced in predicting commitment.

Although multivariate analyses indicated that minorities were over-represented and that

race was a significant factor, the most significant factor affecting decision-making was

prior involvement in community-based alternatives. In this state, prior to commitment,

community resources must be exhausted or deemed inappropriate and the juvenile

must be a threat to person(s) or property. Juveniles who had previously participated in

a community-based alternative program were significantly more likely to be referred to

court and then be committed to the Division of Youth Services.
III-8

2.2 1993/94 Research Study

Upon completion of the 1990/91 research project, the state research team raised

concerns about the validity of some of its own findings. At the behest of the North

Carolina General Assembly Subcommittee on the Minority Male, the research team

completed a follow-up DMC study in 1994. Concerns about the 1990/91 research

findings had focused on issues of sampling within the three urban pilot counties

(populations, rather than samples of populations, had been studied in the seven other

pilot counties). Therefore, the 1993/94 study was based on population data from each

county. In seven of the ten pilot counties, state researchers collected and analyzed

official record data on all cases at intake and at adjudication for the calendar year

1993. Three counties—Guilford, Robeson, and Johnston—were unable to provide

complete data on adjudication decisions and were not included in all analyses.

In important ways, the 1993/94 research findings differed from the 1990/91

research findings. Most significantly, the 1993/94 analyses concluded that:

• Differences in minority overrepresentation did not vary much from county to

county

• Upon being presented to a juvenile intake facility, African American, Native

American, and Anglo youth were referred to juvenile courts at the same rates.

Like the 1990/91 findings, however, minority youth were more likely than Anglo youth to

be arrested and presented to a juvenile intake facility.

The 1993/94 research findings also reflected the 1990/91 findings concerning

what happened to minority youth within the court system. African American youth in all

counties were significantly more likely than Caucasian youth to be committed to a

secure juvenile facility. Native American youth were also more likely than Anglo youth

to be securely committed (but because most of the study's Native American population

resides in a single pilot county, Robeson County, this finding should not be generalized

to the entire state).

The state research team regarded the 1993/94 findings as "suggestive"

evidence that race affects how youth are treated by the juvenile justice system in North

Carolina. If DMC exists, the research team concluded, it most likely exists in every

county at the arrest and confinement stages of the juvenile justice system.
III-9

3. STATE-LEVEL PHASE II PLANS AND ACTIVITIES

Once the Phase I background research on overrepresentation was completed,

the North Carolina DMC project team developed five major objectives to guide statelevel activities during Phase II of the DMC demonstration. The Phase II objectives

were to:

• Obtain community-based input on the DMC issue to inform and direct both

phases of the DMC initiative

• Assist pilot counties to understand the nature of their own DMC problems

and plan interventions to reduce DMC

• Develop state-level commitment by involving agencies which deal with

juveniles as stakeholders in a comprehensive statewide DMC effort

• Develop program operation manuals to assist juvenile justice officials

throughout the state to monitor and address DMC

• Develop a statewide, automated information system to obtain aggregate or

case-level data to be used to monitor and address the extent of DMC at

major points within North Carolina's juvenile justice system.

Each of the objectives are respectively described in the next five sections, followed by

a description of North Carolina's future plans for addressing DMC.

3.1 Obtain Community-Based Input

The first major DMC state-level objective was to obtain community-based input

to inform both phases of North Carolina's DMC initiative. The DMC team believed that

the primary impetus for change would have to be provided by localities if the DMC

initiative was ever to truly impact North Carolina's minority youth population. By

incorporating community viewpoints into Phase I and Phase II strategies, the DMC

team sought to increase the efficacy of the initiative and the likelihood that communities

would embrace the initiative and ultimately commit to planning and implementing

strategies to address DMC. Therefore, a series of events were conducted which were

designed to obtain a broad base of input from minority community leaders,

academicians, service providers, and law enforcement officials from throughout the

state. These events included two forums and several public hearings. Findings from

these events were ultimately incorporated into both phases of North Carolina's DMC

initiative. Participants of these events generated hypotheses that were explored during 
III-10

the Phase I research project. Participants also made recommendations that were later

developed into major components of North Carolina's Phase II strategy. Proceedings

and major findings of the two forums are summarized below, followed by a similar

summary of the public hearings.
DYS. A Closer Look: Overrepresentation of Minority Children in the North Carolina Juvenile 6

Justice System. 1991.

Ibid. 7

III-11

Community Forums

There were two major forums: (1) the Academicians' Forum and (2) the

Practitioners' Forum. The forums were held in September and October 1991,

respectively. 

The Academicians' Forum included representatives selected by chancellors and

presidents of all four year institutions of higher learning, presidents of community

colleges with justice-related curricula, and researchers known to be studying either

juvenile justice or racial minority issues. The forum included three small group 

discussions which examined the legal and demographic aspects of DMC and

programming implications.6

The Practitioners' Forum was designed to elicit information from persons who

worked within the field of juvenile justice. Invitees included representatives from

training schools, detention centers, law enforcement programs, juvenile court

counseling services, and judges. Again, three small group dicussions were held to

identify factors contributing to DMC and programming implication. 7

Participants from both forums reached a consensus on the most important

factors which contribute to the overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile

justice system. These factors may be classified into the following types:

• Family related factors. Cited factors included a disproportionate percentage

of minority youth from impoverished families and single-parent homes as well

as a disproportionate percentage of minority youth who lacked parental

supervision or who had experienced abandonment

• Education related factors. Cited factors included a lack of social skills and

training in mediation among minority populations, a lack of effective literacy

and trade programs for minorities, a lack of cultural sensitivity/awareness

(e.g., textbooks that include minority achievements) among minority and

majority populations; and a lack of programs to address the needs of at-risk

children who are disproportionately minority children
III-12

• Juvenile justice system factors. Cited factors included a lack of culturally

competent service providers and minority service providers, a shortage of

minority youth advocates, a shortage of effective prevention programs,

inadequate legal representation for minority youth and families, and a lack of

communication between minority communities and police and other system

decision makers.

In addition, participants cited community factors such as a dearth of early intervention

programs, after-school programs, and African American role model programs.

Forum participants made a large number of procedural and programmatic

recommendations to address DMC. The most popular recommendations were to:

• Develop an automated statewide information system for juvenile court

records

• Provide cultural awareness training to juvenile justice professionals and other

agencies that provide services to youth and families

• Encourage effective programming for at-risk youth and youth involved in the

juvenile justice system

• Encourage ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of programs targeted at

juveniles

• Conduct a study of the juvenile justice system to learn more about how

decisions are being made at various stages.

The first recommendation, listed above, was developed into a major component of

North Carolina's DMC initiative. The DMC project team later promulgated the other

recommendations to pilot counties to help them plan DMC interventions.

Public Hearings

The public hearings on DMC were held during late 1991 in Asheville, Charlotte,

Elizabeth City, Durham and Pembroke. Each event was well attended by minority

community leaders as well as representatives of many agencies within the juvenile

justice system. The proceedings at each of the public hearings included a presentation

of information on the DMC issue.
III-13

The consensus among participants of the public hearings was that minority

youth were being treated differently than Anglo youth throughout the North Carolina

juvenile justice system. Public hearing participants generally concurred with the

sources of DMC identified by forum participants yet identified additional sources.

Many public hearing participants cited school problems as a major contributing

factor. These participants believed that minority youth were more likely than Anglo

youth to experience feelings of alienation toward school. Minority youth therefore were

more likely to drop out of school as well as engage in delinquent behaviors within the

community. In addition, public hearing participants asserted that minority youth were

more likely than Anglo youth to be subjected to peer pressure to commit delinquent

acts. 

Finally, many public hearing participants asserted that minority youth faced

greater difficulty in obtaining employment which increased their chances of becoming

involved in the juvenile justice system for several reasons. First, joblessness hinders

the ability of youth to acquire several desirable traits, including self-discipline and selfreliance. Second, joblessness leaves youth with more unstructured leisure time which,

in turn, increases the opportunity for minority youth to become involved in delinquent

activities. Third, joblessness increases the likelihood that minority youth will feel

alienated toward society and acquire a nihilistic outlook which licenses acts of

delinquency.

3.2 Assist Pilot Counties to Understand and Address DMC

The primary focus of the DMC project during Phase II was to inform, assist, and

support each of the ten counties in developing county action plans to address the

disproportionate representation of minorities. The DMC project team's community

planning effort included three major activities:

• Explaining the results of the statistical analysis of each county's data to

representatives from the localities

• Conducting a conference, involving representatives from all ten pilot

counties, to review additional analysis of the county data; to discuss issues,

policies and legislation; and to begin developing tailored county action plans

• Providing technical support to each of the ten pilot counties in developing

county action plans to reduce overrepresentation.
III-14

Based on the evaluation interview data, each of these activities is described below.

Explaining Statistical Results

Primarily to increase community awareness of DMC and educate pilot county

stakeholders on the extent to their own DMC problem, the state DMC team conducted

pilot site meetings in each of the pilot counties. Overall, the purpose of these meetings

was to (1) get local clarification on data needs and (2) begin formulation of state and

local DMC plans. During the meeting, the DMC Project Director distributed relevant

sections from the Phase I report. The project director then reviewed the county DMC

data through a slide presentation which included graphics and tables. A copy of the

slide presentation was also provided to a key county representative perceived to be a

"sparkplug" for the DMC initiative.

Following the slide presentation, attendees participated in small group

discussions. The discussions were designed to reinforce and make palpable the

message of county-level DMC. The project director attempted to address

disagreements with the data and provided additional analyses, as requested.

Conducting County Conferences

In November 1993, the DMC team sponsored a conference, entitled the Ten

Sites Conference, of the ten pilot counties to discuss issues and factors which

contribute to disproportionate representation of minorities. The conference provided

representatives of the pilot counties an opportunity to examine and discuss the findings

of the data analyses and begin developing community action plans to address

overrepresentation in their communities.

Specific conference objectives included:

• To convene a working conference of ten pilot counties

• To provide county representatives with opportunity to discuss issues and

factors which contribute to overrepresentation

• To generate input and suggestions from participants about causes of and

interventions for disproportionate representation

• To assist pilot counties in developing community action plans.
III-15

To meet the objectives, the conference agenda included (1) a presentation of

updated Phase I data and the distribution of county data reports (2) small group

working sessions which identified DMC contributing factors and potential interventions

at the county level and (3) small group discussions and a report-out of ideas for

development of a state plan to address DMC.

To facilitate the development of County Action Plans, a worksheet was provided

to all participants for completion. A sample worksheet is provided in Exhibit III-3. The

results of the County Action Plan development process, which was started during the

Ten Sites Conference, are discussed in Chapter IV.

The Ten Sites Conference participants provided over 50 suggestions for the

development of a state-level plan. A review of the suggestions reveals that the

perceived needs for state interventions relate to one of four major categories; the

categories and examples of the suggestions include:

• Juvenile justice system-related: specific suggestions were numerous and

varied. Examples include:

-Revise laws and codes to more adequately meet minority needs

-Promote communications among all levels of government and between

 racial and ethnic groups

-Create a state central registry for information gathering

-Develop more alternatives to confinement.

• Socio-economic-related: the majority of the suggestions related to socioeconomic conditions of society as a whole, and the racial and ethnic minority

communities. Specific suggestions primarily focused on the creation of new,

or re-enforcement of existing, community-based resources, services and

agencies

• Education-related factors that were identified were few but important;

examples include: culturally sensitizing the system through diverse staffing;

provision of screening and additional services to at-risk youth; provision of

financial aid to college-bound minority students

• Family-related factors: implicit in a few suggestions was the view that

minority families need "strengthening" so as to prevent DMC.
III-16

Suggestions for the state plan were used by the DMC Project Director in subsequent

discussions with state-level stakeholders and in planning the July 1994 state-level

stakeholders' conference (see Section 3.3).
III-14

EXHIBIT III-3

COUNTY ACTION PLAN—WORK SHEET

Action Needed Action Steps Agent Timetable
III-18

Providing Technical Assistance

Beginning with the presentation of county data at the pilot site meetings, the

DMC Project Director provided technical assistance to each county. The focus of the

technical assistance was two-fold:

• Provide DMC data and information, interpret the information and facilitate

broad-based understanding and acceptance of the DMC definitions

• Provide training in and support for the county-level planning process and the

ultimate development of the county plans.

Technical assistance was provided both in person and via the telephone. The DMC

project team, however, recognizing that face-to-face contacts were more effective in

eliciting understanding, made every effort to visit the pilot counties.

3.3 Develop State-Level Commitment

A third major project objective was to develop a broad base of state-level support

for the DMC initiative. By developing a network of state-level DMC stakeholders who

agreed on the nature of the problem and actively supported its resolution, the DMC

project team sought to garner additional resources, reduce apathy and opposition,

increase levels of collaboration and cooperation, and sustain focus on the DMC issue. 

The DMC project team's efforts to develop state-level stakeholder commitment were

conducted concurrently with the county-level activities, described above.

To garner the support of state-level stakeholders, the DMC project team

provided a series of formally and informally organized information meetings. Beginning

in 1991, two multi-purpose forums were provided which helped to elicit support for the

DMC initiative from potential state-level stakeholders. These forums, which targeted

academicians and practitioners, were described previously.

Later, in 1993-94, the DMC project team invited state-level DMC stakeholders to

participate in two state-wide conferences. The first, the Ten Sites Conference, was

specifically designed to facilitate county-level commitment and was described in the

preceding section (see Section 3.2).
III-19

The second conference, Embracing Diversity: Expanding Common Ground, was

held in Raleigh in July 1994. This conference ultimately aimed to encourage a lasting

commitment to resolving DMC problems among key state elected officials and agency

personnel. During the conference, the state DMC team presented an update of the

Phase I research findings on DMC within the pilot counties. The conference then

allowed state-level and county-level DMC stakeholders to share information on their

DMC experiences and activities. One particular conference goal was to provide the ten

pilot counties with an opportunity to share lessons learned from their planning

experiences. This opportunity was not fully realized because representatives from just

three pilot counties—Caldwell, Forsyth, and Guilford—attended the Raleigh

conference. Representatives from two pilot counties, however, did present a

description of their planning experiences and summarized the lessons they had

learned.

In approaching DMC stakeholders at the state level—and later, at the county

level—the DMC team provided objective data about DMC so that stakeholders were

able to draw their own conclusions. On one occasion, the DMC team also identified the

economic implications of DMC. 

The DMC presentation pointed out that reducing DMC within the juvenile justice

system would reduce future state costs by lowering the total number of youth who

would be arrested, adjudicated, and confined. Similarly, state costs would be reduced

by DMC interventions to prevent minority youth from committing delinquent offenses. 

Finally, the DMC initiative would increase the percentage of youth who become

contributing members of society and thus give North Carolina a competitive edge in

attracting new businesses to the state and retaining existing ones.

Several state-level stakeholders ultimately supported the DMC initiative. These

stakeholders included academicians from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte;

the State Advisory Group (SAG); the Governor's Crime Commission; the Administrative

Office of the Courts (AOC); state legislators; and leaders of several government

agencies. Examples of state-level stakeholder contributions are summarized below:

• The Juvenile Justice Committee of the Governor's Crime Commission

conducted content analyses of data collected at a series of DYS-sponsored

DMC forums

• State legislators from the North Carolina General Assembly Subcommittee on

the Minority Male called for a follow-up research study on DMC
III-20

• The Department of Human Resources, [see Phase I update report] provided

funds for the follow-up research study

• District Court Judges voluntarily cooperated with the Phase I data collection

effort by authorizing review of juvenile records.

The DMC team's efforts to develop state-level DMC stakeholders were hindered

by two major factors. First, many DMC stakeholders expressed reservations about

participating because they doubted that the DMC initiative would receive adequate

support from the state government. These doubts were primarily based on the recent

election of a Governor who had run for office on a platform that advocated "tough on

crime" policies. Second, DMC stakeholders expressed reservations about supporting

the initiative because juvenile justice data were suggesting an increase in the

frequency of "Black on Black" crime across the state. Some DMC stakeholders feared

that the DMC initiative might exacerbate the trend. Others feared that the trend might

hinder widespread community-based support for the DMC initiative.

3.4 Develop Program Operation Manuals

A DMC planned Phase II activity was the development of a procedural manual

and a resource manual for use by juvenile justice professionals and county task forces. 

The procedural manual would profile procedures for monitoring the involvement of

minority youth in the juvenile justice system. The resource manual would profile model

programs for reducing the disproportionate representation of minority youth in the

juvenile justice system, and identify potential funding sources and technical assistance

providers.

The procedural manual and the resource manual described in the grant

application were combined into one document. The manual has three sections. The

first section describes a process for planning and implementing a DMC monitoring

system at the local level. The second section includes a copy of the state DMC

research team's data collection protocols which lists the data elements to be collected

and how they should be coded for analyses. The third section contains program

descriptions of community programs for minority youth.

3.5 Develop a Statewide Information System

North Carolina lacks an automated information system to obtain aggregate or

case-level data on juvenile justice involved youth. Therefore, DYS, in conjunction with
III-21

the Juvenile Services Division of AOC and other state agencies which provide services

to youth, planned to establish a workgroup to develop a statewide information system

to enable all counties and appropriate state agencies to obtain ongoing reporting of

juvenile court information.

During Phase II, DYS formed a project working group composed of the

representatives from each of the agencies which collect juvenile data. Since its

formation, the group has elected to reduce the scope of the objective. The information

generated by this system will be available to all 100 counties in North Carolina and

appropriate state agencies.

The goals of the state-wide information system are (1) to monitor DMC and (2) to

provide information to assist children in need. Data needed to support these goals

include: age, race, gender, current charge and severity, and past charges and

severity, as well as data on needs and services that are available to address those

needs.

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte has a contract through the

Governor's Crime Commission to help develop a model system as well as a grant to

work on the DYS system. At the time of the evaluation, system development work was

underway. The detention centers, training schools and community-based agency

programs are in the process of being computerized. Automation of the state-wide

juvenile justice system records has been postponed, due to insufficient "buy-in." 

During the evaluation interviews, DYS reported that system-related recommendations

would be made to the state legislature in early 1995.

4. FUTURE PLANS TO ADDRESS DMC IN NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina's plans for addressing DMC in the future are uncertain and

unrefined primarily because of the limited support being provided by state-level DMC

stakeholders and because DYS will no longer lead the initiative in the near future. DYS

believes that DMC leadership should be provided by an organization outside state

government so as to minimize the political pressures and enable the sponsoring

agency to advocate on behalf of DMC. At the time of the evaluation interviews, DYS

was responding to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a non-profit foundation to take

over leadership of North Carolina's DMC initiative. As long as DYS is in the lead, the

agency will work toward accomplishing several DMC objectives at both the state and

county levels.
III-22

First, DYS plans to develop a state-wide annual report on DMC, modeled after

the Anne B. Casey Foundation's "Kids Count Report." Second, DYS plans to contribute

to refinement of the state's DMC information system and oversee the ongoing collection

of DMC-related information. Third, DYS will provide technical assistance to two North

Carolina counties that requested assistance in developing their own local DMC

initiatives. Fourth, the North Carolina legislature sponsored a study of youth which

investigated (1) appropriateness of youth in training schools, (2) effectiveness of

probation, and (3) effectiveness of community-based alternatives. The study resulted

in AOC “buy-in” and may lead to a follow-up study.

DYS will also advocate to state government leaders that they should implement

a set of recommendations which hundreds of DMC stakeholders generated over the

course of the DMC initiative. These recommendations are to:

1. Understand that if the State wants children to adopt positive societal values,

the State must positively value all her children

2. Create a uniform information system for children in the juvenile justice system

3. Promote collaboration and cooperation of youth serving agencies to alleviate

fragmented services and create a common agenda

4. Ensure cultural competence in all juvenile justice agencies, schools and

human services

5. Provide more effective programming for at-risk and juvenile justice involved

children

6. Examine State and federal laws and policies that may have negative impact

on the disproportionate incarceration of minority children

7. Require the certification and specialization in juvenile procedures of judges,

district attorneys, court officers and lawyers involved in juvenile cases.

These recommendations are described in detail in Embracing Diversity, Expanding

Common Ground: Commencement, which represents North Carolina's Final Report to

OJJDP.
IV. PILOT COUNTY COMMUNITY PLANNING
IV-1

IV. PILOT COUNTY COMMUNITY PLANNING

Because the Phase I data analysis demonstrated that minority youth were overrepresented in the juvenile justice system statewide and in a majority of the state's

counties, DYS decided that community-based approaches would have the most

significant impact in reducing the overrepresentation of minority youth in North

Carolina's juvenile justice system. The primary focus of the North Carolina DMC

project therefore was to inform, assist, and support each of the ten counties in

developing county action plans to address the disproportionate representation of

minorities.

With support from the state-level DMC leaders, each pilot county conducted

community-wide efforts to understand the extent of the local DMC problem, determine

its sources, and develop and implement interventions to reduce DMC. The evaluation

found that community planning in each of the pilot counties involved four steps:

• Establishing county DMC stakeholders—individuals who actively supported

or participated in the community planning process

• Garnering agreement as to the local DMC problem

• Identifying factors which contribute to DMC

• Addressing DMC through the development and implementation of County

Action Plans—interventions to reduce disproportionate minority confinement

in the juvenile justice system.

These four steps provide the framework for presentation of findings on community

planning in the pilot counties.

1. ESTABLISHING COUNTY STAKEHOLDERS

The North Carolina DMC demonstration project is, in large part, dependent on

voluntary support for the project's missions. This demonstration project did not provide

an infusion of new money for the development of local programs and/or DMC

interventions. Rather, the DMC demonstration project provided information and

support for county-level DMC problem definition and for community-based development

of solutions to the DMC problem.
IV-2

Therefore, the success of the North Carolina DMC demonstration project is

predicated on the DMC team's ability to instill within the community leadership a sense

of ownership for the DMC problem. Further, the commitment of resources by and

cooperation of local agencies which provided services to youth are deemed critical to

North Carolina's efforts to address the disparate treatment of minority youth by the

juvenile justice system.

Community leadership, including political, civic and professional (i.e., official

organizations and agencies) comprise the DMC "stakeholders." For purposes of this

report, stakeholders are defined as individuals who are positioned, through their

professional activities or civic/political activities, to influence the community's adoption

of the DMC issue. County-level stakeholders include district court judges, law

enforcement, court counselors, detention and training facility staff, community service

providers, elected officials and community leadership (e.g., a local minister, president

of the PTA, community volunteers). Each of the stakeholders either plays a role in the

processing of juveniles in the justice system or is positioned to influence policies

governing youth and community perceptions of youth. Obtaining stakeholder input,

cooperation and commitment therefore was seen, by the DMC team, as essential to

address the disproportionate representation of minority youth in a comprehensive

manner.

Overall, the evaluation found, that within each of the pilot counties, a large and

diverse group of individuals were identified as DMC stakeholders. The evaluation also

found, however, that within and across pilot counties, the commitment and participation

levels of county stakeholders varied greatly.

Given that the short and long term success of North Carolina's efforts to reduce

overrepresentation is closely tied to stakeholder commitment and activities, the

evaluation focused on these county-level individuals and processes. Specifically, the

evaluation assessed methods through which stakeholders were identified, the specific

agencies represented by local stakeholders and the levels of commitment and activity

among these county-level DMC representatives. The following paragraphs present

these findings.

1.1 Stakeholder Identification

County DMC stakeholders were identified in similar fashion across pilot counties

through a combination of state and local efforts. Four junctures in North Carolina's
IV-3

DMC initiative provided specific opportunities to encourage county-level participation in

the DMC activities and county-level responsibility for planning DMC interventions. 

These junctures, in chronological order, were:

• Phase I data collection activities in the pilot counties

• State-sponsored public hearings on DMC in the pilot counties

• State-sponsored DMC community planning conference for all pilot counties

• Pilot county DMC planning activities.

Brief descriptions of how county DMC stakeholders were identified during each of these

four junctures are presented below.

During Phase I of the project, DYS made a concerted effort to solicit the input,

participation and commitment of the various stakeholders in the initiative through the

practitioners' and academic forums, and efforts to collect statewide and county level

data. These early "recruits" were primarily from the juvenile court system because

implementation of the data collection plan required permission of district court judges

and the collaboration of pilot county court counselors to obtain juvenile records.

During this time, 11 county meetings were held; at least one meeting was

conducted in each of the 10 counties. During these meetings, DYS (1) presented the

Phase I data, (2) assessed county reaction to the data (“Do the data make sense?”),

and (3) encouraged county representatives to provide ideas for a local and state

response to the data.

Following completion of the Phase I statewide data assessment and the indepth

analysis of the ten pilot counties' data, DYS provided each of the pilot counties with the

results of county data analysis for their review and comment. DYS presented the

county data at county forums (3 counties), through ad hoc committees (3 counties)

and/or to individual representatives of the courts, juvenile justice councils and related

agencies. These data presentations were a vehicle to enhance community awareness

of the DMC issue and encourage recognition and ownership of this public issue.

Early in Phase II, DYS sponsored a working conference for the ten pilot counties

to examine additional data provided by DYS, discuss issues and factors which

contribute to disproportionate representation of juvenile minorities that occur
IV-4

throughout the state and the pilot counties, and to begin developing community action

plans. This Ten Sites Conference was attended by representatives from each of the

ten counties; the number of attendees ranged from one to ten per county. Conference

attendees functioned as stakeholders during the conference working sessions and

many continued in this role for the duration of the DMC project.

Finally, individuals became DMC stakeholders shortly following the planning

conference by agreeing to participate on interagency community planning teams. 

Nearly all pilot counties formed teams of stakeholders to plan and implement strategies

to reduce DMC.

1.2 Stakeholder Representation

In all counties, DMC stakeholders were from racially and professionally diverse

backgrounds. In fact, the ethnicity of active DMC stakeholders reflected—in a few

counties, mirrored—the racial diversity of the county population. In all counties, DMC

stakeholders represented an expansive range of agencies, and held vastly different

professional positions in private, public and non-profit organizations. In one county, for

example, DMC stakeholders included a county commissioner; the chief court counselor

of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC); the district attorney; a sheriff's deputy;

a college administrator; school social workers; and public and non-profit agency chief

executive officers, mid-level managers, and line staff.

Among all pilot counties, AOC produced the highest number of DMC

stakeholders. In nearly all pilot counties, DMC stakeholders included at least two—and

frequently several more—AOC employees. DMC stakeholders from AOC were often

chief court counselors, court counselor supervisors, or court counselors. In

Cumberland County, an AOC staff psychologist was identified as an active DMC

stakeholder.

1.3 Stakeholder Participation

Across pilot counties, the total number of DMC stakeholders ranged from

approximately 10-40 individuals. In each county, however, interviewees distinguished

between different types of DMC stakeholders based on style or frequency of

participation as well as level of contribution to the DMC county planning process. Most

interviewees distinguished between "active" and "inactive" DMC stakeholders. 

According to interviewees, active stakeholders were frequently:
IV-5

• Middle managers and line staff who participated regularly in community

planning activities

• Agency CEOs who did not regularly participate in community planning

activities but who supported DMC planning through vocal exhortation,

provision of in-kind support, or commitment to provide funds for DMC

interventions.

The number of active DMC stakeholders ranged, across pilot counties, from

approximately 7-20 individuals, per county. Analyses of interview data revealed that,

across pilot counties, active stakeholders represented a wide variety of organizations

including AOC, Department of Social Services, public schools, community mental

health agencies, Juvenile Detention Center, County Sheriff's Department, County

Juvenile Justice Council, District Attorney's Office, local law enforcement and

community leadership.

Most interviewees characterized DMC stakeholders as inactive if their

participation in community planning activities had been infrequent or reluctant. 

Analyses of interview data revealed that, across pilot counties, inactive stakeholders

were not likely to represent any particular type of organization.

Within each county, according to the DMC stakeholder interviews, there were

several agencies or organizations which were perceived as important to the DMC

initiative but which failed to participate in the planning activities. The non-participating

agencies varied across the ten counties. For example, local law enforcement was not

represented in the planning activities in several counties but was represented in other

counties.

2. GARNERING AGREEMENT AS TO THE DMC PROBLEM

Problem solving within a public policy context involves four critical steps

including: (1) identifying the problem, (2) garnering agreement of the problem

definition among key decision makers and/or community leaders, (3) developing a plan

or approach to solving the problem and (4) implementing that plan or approach. Within

North Carolina, the DMC problem identification was accomplished during the Phase I

research. The state DMC leadership recognized, early in Phase II, that the second

step, garnering agreement as to the DMC problem definition at the local level, was

absolutely essential to the county-level planning and problem solving process.
IV-6

Despite the enormous effort from the state DMC team as well as individual DMC

stakeholders within some pilot counties, most pilot counties experienced difficulty

understanding the extent of DMC in their own communities. Moreover, DMC

stakeholders within only two pilot counties came to an agreement on the extent of the

local DMC problem. In eight counties, the extent of the DMC problem remains a

subject of contention.

The state DMC team assisted all pilot counties to understand the extent of DMC

during public hearings, held in each pilot county in 1993, and later, during statesponsored conferences for all pilot counties in 1993/94. In addition, the ten pilot

counties attempted to determine and agree upon the extent of the local DMC problem

during their own community planning meetings. The next three subsections describe

the state DMC team's three major efforts to assist pilot counties to determine and agree

upon the extent of the DMC problem. The last subsection describes individual pilot

county initiatives.

2.1 Public Hearings

Primarily to increase community awareness of DMC and to educate pilot county

stakeholders on the extent of their own DMC problem, the state DMC team conducted

public hearings, forums or meetings in each of the pilot counties.

During hearings in some counties, the statistical data on the extent of DMC

sparked mild disagreement. Interviewees who had attended a public hearing, however,

generally agreed that the event enhanced community awareness of the DMC issue. 

Some interviewees reported that the public hearings in their area had attracted media

publicity, primarily local newspaper coverage. Public hearings also benefitted the

North Carolina DMC initiative by providing the DYS Program Director for Minority

Issues with a personal opportunity to encourage county DMC stakeholders to form an

interagency planning team to send to the upcoming Ten Sites Conference.

2.2 Ten Sites Conference: Greensboro, North Carolina

The Ten Sites Conference was described earlier as a forum for identifying DMC

stakeholders and reinforcing their roles and functions. The conference, however, had a

much broader agenda and included the following objectives:

• Provide county representatives with the opportunity to discuss issues and

factors which contribute to DMC
IV-7

• Generate input and suggestions from participants about causes of and

interventions for disproportionate representation

• Assist pilot counties in developing community action plans.

In meeting these objectives, the conference provided several opportunities for

county representatives to understand the DMC issue and reach agreement amongst

themselves as to the problem definition.

The first opportunity was provided by North Carolina's DMC research team who

presented additional findings from the Phase I research during early sessions of the

Ten Sites Conference. Presenters described their research methodology and statewide DMC findings as well as findings for individual pilot counties. In addition, the

researchers discussed their own methodological concerns with the findings. Any

additional research findings were given in response to requests.

The research presentation achieved mixed results, according to information

collected during the evaluation. Representatives from five counties praised the data

presentation for helping them to understand the issue of DMC and the extent of the

problem in their own county. Some interviewees stated that the research findings

confirmed their personal observations that minority youth were treated differently than

Anglo youth within the juvenile justice system.

The remaining five counties' representatives were more critical of the Ten Sites

Conference presentation of research findings. Common criticisms were that the

analyses of county data were based on so few juvenile cases that the results were

likely spurious. One conference attendee reported that a large majority of pilot county

attendees found the presentation "hard to follow" and suggested the reason: most

attendees lacked a social science research background. A few attendees who worked

within the juvenile justice system reported feelings of resentment during the

presentation, believing that the findings represented an oblique accusation of racial

bigotry.

The conference also included two work group sessions which were designed to

encourage county teams' working together. The assignments for these working

sessions were to (1) discuss and seek concurrence on the DMC problem definitions,

(2) develop ideas and proposals for the county-level action plans and (3) develop ideas

for future state-level interventions.
IV-8

In hindsight, according to the evaluation data sources, the work group sessions

were not totally successful in building consensus as to the DMC problem definition. 

The sessions were highly successful, however, in generating (1) interest in and

commitment to the DMC planning process, (2) ideas for county-level interventions and

(3) suggestions for state-level activities. These positive results were reported by

representatives from nine of the ten counties.

2.3 Pilot County Initiatives to Determine and Agree Upon the Extent of DMC

Following the Greensboro planning conference in 1993, all pilot counties

continued attempts to determine and agree upon the extent of their own local DMC

problem. In most counties, the attempt consisted of discussions between interagency

teams of DMC stakeholders during a few early pilot county planning meetings. In a few

counties, one or two early meetings were devoted to the topic. During discussions

within many pilot counties, DMC stakeholders referred to the Phase I data analyses

with mistrust or confusion. A few county representatives reported conducting their own

"informal" study of local DMC data to inform the discussions. Yet, attempts to

determine and agree upon the extent of the local DMC problem were seldom easy,

long-lasting or fruitful. Based on analyses of interview data, DMC stakeholders within

only two pilot counties came to an agreement on the extent of their local DMC problem. 

The extent of the problem within the other eight counties remains a subject of

contention.

3. IDENTIFYING FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO DMC

Devising appropriate, community-based intervention strategies to address DMC

first requires accurate identification of factors which contribute to DMC as well as

widespread agreement on those factors. During the North Carolina DMC

demonstration project, opportunities for identifying and agreeing on the factors which

contribute to DMC occurred during: (1) the Phase I forums and public hearings, (2) the

Ten Sites Conference and (3) less formally, during local committee and/or task force

meetings.

The purpose of this section is to present a summary of factors perceived as

contributing to the DMC problems. This summary provides both a description of the

factors and an assessment of county-level agreement—the prerequisite to developing

appropriate interventions.
IV-9

3.1 Factors Seen As Contributing to DMC

The primary sources of information on the factors which are believed to

contribute to DMC are the evaluation interviews with county-level stakeholders. For the

analysis, this information has been supplemented by the written record of public

hearings and the evaluators' notes from their observations of the Ten Sites Conference.

Information collected during the evaluation interviews was analyzed and the

analysis is summarized in Exhibit IV-1. As shown, factors which are perceived by

county representatives cover the gamut from systemic racism to perceived

characteristics of the minority youth. In other words, the county representatives'

perceptions range from "blaming the system" to "blaming the individual" or, as some

would argue, "blaming the victim." Understanding these distinctions is theoretically

important since presumably the perceived causes of or factors which contribute to DMC

determine the appropriateness of the intervention.

While perceptions of factors which contribute to DMC are wide-ranging, the

majority of perceptions relate to the individual minority youths, his or her family and/or

his or her economic, social or educational failings. The following paragraphs present a

description of the types of factors perceived as contributing to DMC and examples of

each type.

Juvenile Justice System

At least one representative from nine of the ten pilot counties identified problems

with the juvenile justice system as contributing to DMC. Systemic racism was identified

as a frequent problem. Comments included: "prejudice among law enforcement

personnel"; "prejudice in the judiciary"; "racism in the system"; and "juvenile justice

system-related laws and attitudes are discriminatory." Other factors related to the

juvenile justice system, which were identified by the interviewees, included: insufficient

alternatives to confinement, "misuse" of the training schools, the perception that

minority parents lacked sufficient information on their children's legal rights, and lack of

cultural awareness among juvenile justice system staff.
Feyerherm, W. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: Lessons Learned from the Pilot State 8

Experiences. Prepared for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Portland

State University. 1995. 

As described in the literature, the DMC issue must be seen from a systemic 8

perspective rather than from a legal, sociological, service delivery or individual

perspective. At least one and occasionally two representatives from a large majority of

North Carolina pilot counties were in apparent agreement with this national

perspective.

Socio-Economic Factors

The majority of representatives from nine of the ten counties identified economic

and/or social factors as contributing to DMC. The perception of poverty, low incomes, 
IV-11

IV-10

EXHIBIT IV-1

PILOT COUNTY PERCEPTIONS OF FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO DMC

DMC COUNTIES COMPANION COUNTIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Juvenile Justice System

• Systemic racism X X X X X X

• No alternatives/diversions X X

• Misuse of training schools X

• Minority parents lack X

information on youth rights

• Lack of cultural awareness X X

2. Economic

• Low income X X X X

• Lack of opportunities X X

3. Social

• No role models X X

• "Doomed to fail" syndrome X

• Urban congestion X X

• Lack of positive activities X X X

4. Education

• Early school failures X X

• Lack of prevention X

programs
EXHIBIT IV-1 (Continued)

PILOT COUNTY PERCEPTIONS OF FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO DMC

IV-11

• System fails the youth X X X

DMC COUNTIES COMPANION COUNTIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. Family

• Breakdown of values X X

• Inadequate supervision X X

• Single family homes X

6. Youth

• Drug use, trafficking X X X X

• Gangs X

• Criminality X

• Negative peer pressure X

• Lack of ambition X X
IV-13

and lack of economic opportunities among minority youth and their parents were

described by several as contributing to DMC. Social factors identified included: lack of

cultural awareness among the majority society, lack of role models for minority youth,

urban congestion, and a "doomed to fail" syndrome. Several respondents identified a

lack of positive social activities for minority youth as contributing to DMC.

For the most part, individual minority youth and their parents were not perceived

as responsible for their socio-economic conditions. Rather, these factors were seen as

being the responsibility of the wider society.

Education

Several factors related to the educational system were seen by representatives

from five counties as contributing to DMC. These include: early school failures and

drop-outs; lack of vocational education and other programs which would help minority

youth overcome economic adversity and the lack of resources for prevention programs.

Education-related factors appear to hold society and the individual, in

combination, responsible for DMC. According to these perceptions, the educational

system must be strengthened in order to better serve minority youth. Minority youth

must also be more diligent in completing their education.

Family and Youth

The categories of DMC contributing factors entitled Family and Youth are at the

opposite end of the continuum from the juvenile justice system category. Several

respondents from six of the ten pilot counties clearly believed that DMC resulted from

minority youth behaviors and/or their family structures. Examples of perceived Family

factors which contributed to DMC included a breakdown in family values, inadequate

parental supervision, and the fact that minority families frequently have only one

parent.

Youth-related factors perceived as contributing to DMC included juvenile crime,

drug use, and gang membership among minority youth. Other factors that were cited

included "negative peer pressure" and a "lack of ambition" among today's youth.

3.2 County-level Agreement on DMC Contributing Factors
For a fuller discussion of defining the DMC problem, see Feyerherm, W., Disproportionate 9

Minority Confinement: Lessons Learned from the Pilot State Experiences.

IV-14

As previously stated, county-level agreement as to the factors that caused or

contributed to DMC is essential to determining the most appropriate DMC interventions. 

Given this importance, the evaluation included an assessment of the extent to which

counties achieved consensus on DMC contributing factors.

The evaluation found that there was little agreement within or across counties as

to the factors that contributed to DMC. The most frequently cited factor related to

racism or prejudice within the juvenile justice system. At least one representative from

nine of the ten pilot counties identified this as a contributing factor.

There was also intra- and inter-county concurrence on the perceptions that

socio-economic factors contributed to DMC. Again, representatives from nine counties

identified these factors and, within five counties, multiple respondents identified socioeconomic factors.

Education-, family-, and youth-related factors were cited by representatives from

the fewest number of counties. Among these respondents, however, there was at least

some agreement that minority youth and their families are responsible for

disproportionate confinement. These reported perceptions perpetuate the belief that

minority youth are more likely to be involved with delinquent or criminal behavior. As

will be demonstrated in subsequent sections, the perceptions of over involvement in

delinquency lead to specific types of prevention and intervention activities. 9

4. ADDRESSING PROBLEMS OF DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY

CONFINEMENT

Following the process of developing knowledge and commitment among the

stakeholders and laying the groundwork for understanding DMC and its contributing

factors, the North Carolina DMC planning process shifted to the pilot counties. The

state-level DMC team envisioned that their strategies to support community planning

would result in the grassroots creation of planning organizations or other mechanisms

at the local level. What, in fact, resulted was varying levels of involvement and activity

related to developing DMC County Action Plans.

Findings from the evaluation's assessment of the local planning activities are

presented in the following paragraphs. The discussion focuses on (1) county planning
IV-15

processes, (2) county action plans and (3) current status and future plans for the ten

pilot counties.
IV-16

4.1 County Planning Processes

Following the Ten Sites Conference, which laid the groundwork for each county

to create its local response to DMC, technical assistance and a $1,000 planning grant

were available to the pilot counties to support the county planning process. The statelevel DMC team anticipated that each group of county representatives would return to

their home towns and continue working together to develop an Action Plan with an

associated implementation plan. 

The planning activities, in chronological order, included:

• Participate in Ten Sites Conference

• Form a local DMC committee/task force

• Apply for/receive a DYS Planning Grant

• Develop County Action Plans

• Contribute to state-level Stakeholders Conference.

The extent to which the ten pilot counties conducted these planning activities is

summarized in Exhibit IV-2 and described below.

The Ten Sites Conference participation was described previously. In summary,

each of the ten pilot counties were represented at the conference; the number of county

representatives ranged from one to ten.

Three of the originally designated DMC counties and one of the originally

designated "companion" counties formed a DMC committee or task force. A fourth

DMC county did not form a special group because an existing youth task force

absorbed the anticipated functions.

The counties that implemented the DMC task force or committee structure

reported mixed success for this mechanism. Advantages included the fact that the

committee or task force structure enabled the local stakeholders to formalize their

planning discussions and activities. Interviewees noted, however, that these

organizations ultimately faltered due to the absence of strong leadership, poor

attendance, conflicting agendas among the stakeholders, or a general lack of interest.
IV-17

As previously described, DYS offered a $1,000 planning grant to each of the

counties to cover costs of the planning process. Only four counties pursued this 
IV-15

EXHIBIT IV-2

PILOT COUNTY PLANNING PROCESSES

PLANNING ACTIVITIES

DMC COUNTIES COMPANION COUNTIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Participated in the Ten Sites X X X X X X X X X X

Conference

Formed a DMC Committee X X X X X

Received a DYS Planning X X

Grant

Developed a County Action X X X X X X X X X

Plan

Contributed to the State-level X X

Stakeholders Conference
Church, V.T. Embracing Diversity, Expanding Common Ground: Commencement. North 10

Carolina Division of Youth Services. 1995.

IV-19

resource. Explanations for not requesting the grant, offered during the evaluation

interviews, focused on the "cost" of applying versus the "benefit" of the grant. 

According to one respondent "for the small amount of money, the application was too

lengthy and complicated."

The fact that the counties did not seek the planning grants suggests a more

serious issue. Implicitly, the counties lacked sufficient organization and/or commitment

to pursue and make use of the $1,000 resource. One county representative stated that

the county did not apply for the grant because "$1,000 could not get a miracle started."

Despite the lack of formal organization and the reluctance to apply for a planning

grant, each of the ten counties produced a County Action Plan. The content of the

County Action Plans is described in the next section.

Representatives from the county that did not develop a County Action Plan

described feelings of discomfort with the process. These county representatives

expressed interest in what other pilot counties and states are doing to address DMC. 

These respondents also reported that new state and local initiatives which offer

alternatives to secure detention, such as electronic monitoring and group homes, will

have an impact on DMC, despite the lack of a formal plan.

The final, formal planning activity was county participation in the state-level

Stakeholders Conference. (See Chapter III for a description of the conference.) two

of the ten pilot counties were invited to participate in this event and share their

experiences. There were few explanations offered for this low participation rate. 

Implicit, however, is that county representation at the state conference was directly

related to perceived success at the local levels in addressing DMC.

4.2 County Action Plans

Nine of the ten counties, as previously stated, developed a County Action Plan

which contained actions planned, action steps needed to complete the plan,

organizations with lead responsibility, and a timetable. These County Action Plans are

published in one of the North Carolina project reports and are included in Appendix C. 10

 For purposes of the evaluation, the nine County Action Plans have been analyzed in
IV-17

terms of the categories of DMC causes/contributing factors (See Section 3). This analysis is summarized in Exhibit IV-3

and described below.

EXHIBIT IV-3

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

DMC COUNTIES COMPANION COUNTIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

• Develop a • Develop a • Broader • Prioritize — — • Cultural • Juvenile • Long term

committee case reps. on probation sensitivity justice care

to assess manage- community caseloads training forum for facility 

existing JJS ment task force and info. • More

services system for • Cultural intervene sharing and prevention

• Enhance JJS sensitivity with highest conflict programs

relation- and risk youth resolution • Court

ships diversity • Identify high • JJS system to

among training risk advisory review all

agencies • Diversity in geographic group to communand the workforce areas for ensure plan ity

minority • Early intervention is realized resources

community intervention • Develop

• Develop alternatives

awareness for repeat

of cultural offenders

diversity

needs
IV-18

EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

DMC COUNTIES COMPANION COUNTIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

• Promote • Develop • Home- • Assess • Provide add'l • Create • Create a • Community • Create a

minority community based and needs and recreational interven- commun- youth interagency

involve- based school- services to opportunities tions for at- ity center center and community

ment in programs based meet the for youth risk youth for youth community group to

community that target programs needs • Provide • Assess • Create sites consult on

based at-risk to provide youth trans- needs and better job "hard core"

resources youth counseling portation services to opportun- cases

services meet needs ities for

• Positive for minorities

role models minorities

• Promote a

positive

community

attitude to

youth
IV-19

EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

DMC COUNTIES COMPANION COUNTIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

EDUCATION

• Develop — • Provide — • Target high — • Stop — —

black educational risk students violence in

parenting ex- for schools

education periences prevention

programs for in- • Establish

• Investigate carcerated alternative

multi- youths school,

cultural grades 6-9

develop- • Provide

ment for alternative to

curriculum out-ofschool

suspension

FAMILY

— — • Build — • Establish — — — • Improve

stronger community family

families parenting preservnetwork ation/ home

remedy

programs
IV-17

terms of the categories of DMC causes/contributing factors (See Section 3). This analysis is summarized in Exhibit IV-3

and described below.

EXHIBIT IV-3

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

DMC COUNTIES COMPANION COUNTIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

• Develop a • Develop a • Broader • Prioritize — — • Cultural • Juvenile • Long term

committee case reps. on probation sensitivity justice care

to assess manage- community caseloads training forum for facility 

existing JJS ment task force and info. • More

services system for • Cultural intervene sharing and prevention

• Enhance JJS sensitivity with highest conflict programs

relation- and risk youth resolution • Court

ships diversity • Identify high • JJS system to

among training risk advisory review all

agencies • Diversity in geographic group to communand the workforce areas for ensure plan ity

minority • Early intervention is realized resources

community intervention • Develop

• Develop alternatives

awareness for repeat

of cultural offenders

diversity

needs
IV-18

EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

DMC COUNTIES COMPANION COUNTIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

• Promote • Develop • Home- • Assess • Provide add'l • Create • Create a • Community • Create a

minority community based and needs and recreational interven- commun- youth interagency

involve- based school- services to opportunities tions for at- ity center center and community

ment in programs based meet the for youth risk youth for youth community group to

community that target programs needs • Provide • Assess • Create sites consult on

based at-risk to provide youth trans- needs and better job "hard core"

resources youth counseling portation services to opportun- cases

services meet needs ities for

• Positive for minorities

role models minorities

• Promote a

positive

community

attitude to

youth
IV-19

EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

DMC COUNTIES COMPANION COUNTIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

EDUCATION

• Develop — • Provide — • Target high — • Stop — —

black educational risk students violence in

parenting ex- for schools

education periences prevention

programs for in- • Establish

• Investigate carcerated alternative

multi- youths school,

cultural grades 6-9

develop- • Provide

ment for alternative to

curriculum out-ofschool

suspension

FAMILY

— — • Build — • Establish — — — • Improve

stronger community family

families parenting preservnetwork ation/ home

remedy

programs
IV-23

Seven of the nine plans proposed activities which would address systemic

problems particularly within the juvenile justice system. Cultural awareness and

sensitivity training are implicit or explicit components of five of the seven plans. Other

proposed activities focus on (1) strengthening relationships between the juvenile justice

system and the minority community, (2) strengthening system performance through

such mechanisms as case management, (3) increasing racial and ethnic diversity

among system staff, and (4) creating diversions and/or other mechanisms to inhibit the

rates of minority confinement.

All nine plans proposed actions that would address socio-economic factors

perceived as contributing to DMC. The vast majority of the proposed actions, in this

category, focus on creating new community-based programs and activities for minority

youth or extending existing resources to the minority communities. 

Four of the nine plans proposed actions related to the educational system. 

These proposed actions include providing additional, culturally sensitized services to

the minority community and/or to incarcerated youth. One plan proposed that the

county "stop the violence in the schools" through higher levels of parental involvement

and stricter law enforcement.

Relatively few (three or one-third of the plans) County Action Plans targeted the

family for services or interventions. The actions proposed in this category included: 

(1) "building stronger families" through church outreach and parent resource centers;

(2) establishing community-based parenting networks; and (3) improving family

preservation/home remedy programs.

To determine the extent to which the County Action Plans were informed by

and/or responsive to the perceived causes of DMC, the proposed actions (Exhibit IV-3)

were compared to the perceived factors that contribute to DMC.

While there was rarely a one-to-one match, the counties, in broad terms,

developed action plans which targeted the perceived DMC causes. For example, all

but one county identified perceived problems with the juvenile justice system and seven

of the counties that developed a plan targeted the justice system for improvements.

Similarly, county-level perceptions that socio-economic factors contribute to DMC

appear to have influenced the county plans. 
IV-24

And, as previously mentioned, while representatives from several counties

appeared to hold minority youth and their families responsible for DMC, this did not

translate to action plans with punitive intentions.

4.3 Assessment of the Planning Process

As demonstrated in the previous sections of this chapter, North Carolina's ten

pilot counties achieved varying levels of success in committing to and solving the

problems of DMC. Several factors contributed to the success, or lack thereof, of the

North Carolina DMC project, at the county level. The following paragraphs present a

description of the strengths and positive attributes of the county-level planning process

following a delineation of the limitations of or barriers to successful county-level DMC

planning. These assessments are based on the perceptions of the county informants;

our overall evaluation assessment is provided in Chapter V, Lessons Learned.

Strengths and Positive Attributes of the Planning Process

The pilot county representatives identified several strengths and positive

attributes of the planning process and the DMC project, in general. First, the project

provided an opportunity for county stakeholders to rethink or re-evaluate county

services and resources. This re-evaluation was conducted for the total county

population and several counties developed County Action Plans with all of their youth

in mind. The planning process raised levels of consciousness sufficiently, that most

counties also re-evaluated the distribution of services and resources among Anglo and

minority youth.

The second advantage of the planning process was that it brought together a

diverse group of stakeholders. The Ten Sites Conference and subsequent

committees/task forces created working groups with representatives from a wide range

of community agencies, the juvenile justice system, and community leadership. 

Representatives from two counties reported that the DMC committees also created

culturally diverse working groups which enhanced overall communication and

understanding.

Thirdly, the planning process provides information which educated the

stakeholders about the DMC issue. The "companion" county stakeholders especially

felt that the DMC planning process was useful for its education and to sensitize county

officials as to the potential problems of DMC within their counties.
IV-25

Weaknesses of the Process/Barriers to Success

The overwhelming barrier to the success of the local level planning efforts was

the fact that representatives in many of the pilot counties did not accept the Phase I

research findings. Representatives from one half of the pilot counties, including four of

the DMC counties, reported skepticism about or disbelief of the Phase I research. For

these individuals, DMC was not a problem in their county and so planning for DMC

interventions was not a priority activity.

The second most influential barrier to the success of the county planning

process, according to the evaluation informants, is the fact that DMC is a difficult issue

to address. DMC is complex and it takes time for the county-level representatives to

understand and begin to plan appropriate interventions. Also, according to several

interviewees, many attribute socio-economic factors as contributing to DMC and solving

economic inequities, for example, far exceeds the sphere of influence of the juvenile

justice system.

Other weaknesses in the planning process or barriers to its success were

identified by several of the pilot counties. For many counties, there was a lack of

strong community leadership and interest in DMC. Another commonly reported barrier

was that not all of the relevant stakeholders were involved in the planning process; for

example, law enforcement and the judiciary were not represented in several county

planning groups. A final barrier, according to the interviewees, was the lack of new

resources with which to create DMC interventions.

4.4 Summary

The pilot counties had differing levels of success in planning and implementing

community-based interventions during Phase II of the DMC initiative. Although several

counties made some changes to either their juvenile justice or other community service

delivery systems, almost all of the counties reported that the community planning

component of the initiative has made them aware of the DMC issue and its related

problems. Several counties said that the process has alerted them to service delivery

gaps within minority communities. Some counties also reported that working on the

DMC initiative has brought many county stakeholders together and fostered some new

working relationships, which may have residual benefits for their communities.
EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

IV-26
V. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
V-1

V. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA 

DMC INITIATIVE

A primary objective of the Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC)

demonstration, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP), is to "test" various approaches to DMC intervention so that other states can

learn from these experiences. To this end, the evaluation of the North Carolina DMC

initiative was structured to support the objective of documenting lessons learned and

factors key to the success of state and local efforts.

The purpose of this chapter is to present the thoughts and ideas of the

evaluators—as well as the North Carolina DMC project staff—as to the strengths and

limitations of the North Carolina DMC approach and processes. The chapter is

organized according to the major steps and activities associated with the North

Carolina DMC demonstration.

1. OVERVIEW

The OJJDP DMC demonstration implicitly required that the participating states

engage in the following problem identification and problem solving process:

• Designate organizational entity (assign organizational responsibility)

[Step 1]

• Define the extent of disproportionate minority confinement using

quantitative data and statistical techniques [Step 2]

• Identify factors that contribute to DMC [Step 3]

• Create interventions that are responsive to the root causes/contributing

factors [Step 4]

• Monitor the impact of the interventions on DMC [Step 5]

• Recognize system effects of the DMC activity [Step 6].

As described in previous chapters, the North Carolina DMC initiative focused on

the first four steps listed above. As with all of the pilot states, North Carolina assigned

to an organizational entity DMC responsibility and completed the Phase I research that

defined the extent of DMC. North Carolina differed from other states, in that once the
V-2

problem of disproportionately was identified (Step 2), the North Carolina DMC team

focused efforts and resources on gaining understanding and acknowledgment of the

problem definition at the state, county and local levels (Step 3) and then facilitating the

development of local plans (Step 4) for intervening and ultimately resolving the problem

of disproportionate confinement of minority youth within the juvenile justice system.

The potential for resistance to understanding and accepting a DMC problem

definition within a state's juvenile justice system as well as the broader community is

not unique to North Carolina. Therefore, the North Carolina demonstration project,

which focused the DMC resources on the process of community problem solving, offers

an invaluable learning opportunity to other states, political systems and localities.

A schematic overview of the DMC process is provided in Exhibit V-1. The

"lessons learned" at each stage in the process are summarized. As previously stated,

the North Carolina DMC project concluded with the development of County Action

Plans (Step 4). Therefore, there was insufficient opportunity to monitor the impact of

the interventions on DMC (Step 5). The DMC project staff, as well as the evaluation,

however, have identified early system effects of the DMC activities (Step 6).

2. SPECIFICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED

The following paragraphs describe the DMC process and corresponding lessons

learned in more detail. The chapter concludes with a description of the state- and

county-level benefits of the DMC project activities.

2.1 Lessons Associated with Organizational Issues

The first step in the OJJDP DMC demonstration was the designation of the

OJJDP grant recipient who assumed responsibility for the DMC project. While the

designation of a grantee organization may be unique to the demonstration project, all

states must assign responsibility for compliance with the DMC federal mandate. 

Therefore, the lessons associated with North Carolina's organizational issues are

relevant to the wider, national community.

Optional Organization Location

North Carolina was unique among the pilot states in that the grantee agency was

the Division of Youth Services (DYS) rather than the Governor's Crime Commission 
Designate organizational entity/

assign responsibility

 [Step1]

Define DMC

 [Step 2]

Identify factors that contribute to

DMC

 [Step 3]

Create interventions that rectify DMC

 [Step 4]

Recognize system effects of the DMC

activity

 [Step 6]

 DMC PROCESS

 Monitor impact of interventions on DMC

 [Step 5]

EXHIBIT I

OVERVIEW OF NORTH CAROLINA DMC PROCESS AND

 CORRESPONDING LESSONS LEARNED

• Optimal organizational location

• Need for organizational support and adequate

resources

• Difficulty of establishing DMC definition

• Addressing racial bias

• Importance of community involvement

• Need for adequate leadership

• Importance of broad-based stakeholder

involvement

• Difficulty of matching interventions and root

causes/contributing factors

• Statewide juvenile justice information system

• Institutionalized DMC

• Development of resource manuals

• Development of new MIS

• Reevaluation of county resources; targeted

minority youth programs

• Improved communication among state and 

county stakeholders

• Increased levels of DMC awareness

LESSONS LEARNED

V-3
V-4

which includes the State Advisory Group (SAG), the recipient of all other OJJDP funds. 

Organizational tensions were created by the fact that the SAG has responsibility for

complying with the federal mandate while DYS planned and operated the

demonstration project.

Meanwhile, the DMC project team reflected that the overall DMC project might

have been better served if it was operated by an organization outside of state

government. Reduced political pressures together with the fact that a non-government

agency would be better able to lobby and advocate on behalf of DMC were cited as

advantages to an alternative organizational location.

Need for Adequate Resources and Organizational Support

While the adequacy of resources is always an issue for publicly funded

initiatives, changes to the North Carolina demonstration design exacerbated this issue

for the DMC project team. The original design for the DMC initiative included only two

pilot counties. To reflect the racial and geographic diversity of the state, however, the

demonstration design was changed to include ten pilot counties. This change occurred

with no associated increase in resources and resulted in increasing the required

amount of data collection. To compensate, the state DMC research team collected a

25 percent sample of the juvenile justice data from the three urban counties and the

complete universe from the other seven counties in the initial Phase I data collection. 

(The 25 percent sample proved controversial later in the project.) The increase in pilot

counties also contributed to the reduced amount of technical assistance provided to the

pilot counties.

The lack of organizational support which would typically be provided by a

steering committee was identified as an operational hinderance by the DMC project

team. The planning process might have progressed further and/or more smoothly if

guided by an advisory body with representatives from government, service providers

and/or the community.

2.2 Lessons Associated with DMC Definition and Intervention Planning

The next steps in the North Carolina DMC process, as previously described,

include defining DMC (Step 2), identifying factors that contribute to DMC (Step 3) and

creating DMC interventions (Step 4). During the North Carolina DMC demonstration,
V-5

these activities were not conducted discretely and sequentially but rather these

activities were overlapping. Therefore, the lessons learned from these activities are

applicable to the whole planning process.

Difficulty of Establishing DMC Definition

One of the major findings from the evaluation is that county level planning for

DMC interventions, in some counties, was stalled due to a lack of acceptance, among

some stakeholders, that a DMC problem existed in those counties. One factor that

contributed to this disbelief was the way Phase I data were presented by the academic

researchers. The academics who conducted Phase I concluded that their results

should not be the basis for planning interventions. When the academics were asked to

assist the practitioners to plan interventions based on the Phase I findings, the

academics presented so many caveats that the practitioners had difficulty utilizing the

Phase I findings to plan interventions.

Also, it is well understood from the ever growing body of DMC research

literature, that DMC is a difficult phenomenon to measure. Researchers have

expressed concerns about the validity and usefulness of their analyses due to

difficulties conceptualizing the issue, obtaining adequately specified data and the

limitations of the statistical models. This issue underscores a broader concern. Since

states are responsible for assessing their own DMC problem, reluctant state leaders

might capitalize on the fact that the measurement of DMC is fraught with difficulty and

complexity and thus affords an easy opportunity to minimize the extent of the problem.

Addressing Racial Bias

During the evaluation, representatives from the African American communities

reported their perceptions that the DMC project team avoided focusing on racial bias as

a potential source of DMC to avoid alienating DMC stakeholders. This perception

resulted in alienating representatives from the African American communities. It is

possible that, by avoiding an examination of systemic racial bias, the juvenile justice

system was let off the hook. The evaluation raises the concern that many county

stakeholders never examined DMC from a systemic perspective but rather identified

socio-economic or family-based causes of DMC.
V-6

Importance of Community Involvement

The entire North Carolina demonstration was based on the recognition that

community involvement and "buy in" are essential to DMC planning. This is not,

therefore, offered as a new lesson learned. Rather, through their experiences of

garnering community involvement, the DMC project team learned the importance of

broad-based stakeholder involvement.

For example, North Carolina's updated DMC research findings suggest that

DMC does not exist at the court referral stage, however, county DMC stakeholders

were best represented by AOC employees. More effort might have fruitfully been

placed on developing county-level stakeholders who work at points where DMC was

documented. DMC research—in North Carolina and in general—suggests that DMC is

most likely to exist at the front and back ends of the system. In North Carolina,

therefore, representatives from all agencies who make the training school

decisions—such as the police, judiciary, and training school administrators—should

have been better represented.

Need for Adequate County Leadership

County-level stakeholders identified strong leadership, or the lack thereof, as a

critical factor in the success of the problem identification and planning process. One of

the DMC project team's reported regrets was that there was insufficient time to devote

to each county to develop the local leadership for the initiative.

3. STATE- AND COUNTY-LEVEL BENEFITS

The North Carolina demonstration project concluded prior to major

implementation activities of the County Action Plans. Therefore, monitoring the impact

of the interventions on DMC (Step 5 in the DMC process) was not possible, during the

demonstration period.

Despite the fact that DMC interventions had not yet been implemented, the DMC

activities have had recognizable effects on the state and county juvenile justice

systems. These effects are described below, in terms of state- and county-level

benefits.
V-7

3.1 State-Level Benefits

Many benefits have resulted for the State of North Carolina as a result of their

participation in this pilot project. A statewide juvenile justice information system is in

the process of being developed and funded because of the valuable data collection and

analyses that were conducted during Phase I. Also, the themes of the DMC initiative

have become instituted statewide in the juvenile justice system. A DMC resource

manual has been developed and widely desservinated among North Carolina counties.

In addition, DYS has made a lasting commitment to the on-going resolution of

DMC problems. The conclusion of the OJJDP group will result in DYS abdicating DMC

leadership responsibility. Until DYS abdicates its lead role, however, the agency will

work toward accomplishing several DMC objectives including: (1) develop a statewide,

annual report on DMC; (2) continue to support the development of the statewide

information system; (3) provide technical assistance to two counties that requested

help in developing their own DMC initiatives and (4) continue to work with state

government leadership to make DMC a high priority for intra- and inter-state agency

planning, policy formulation, program development and staff training.

3.2 County-Level Benefits

The county stakeholders identified three main benefits of their participation in

the DMC initiative. One benefit of pilot county participation is that it gave county

stakeholders a chance to rethink county services and resources for youth. Almost all of

the counties placed previously planned or developed actions in their DMC County

Action Plans. Involvement in this process may have allowed them to reevaluate the

value or placement of resources in their community to optimally benefit minority youth.

Another frequently mentioned benefit was that the DMC initiative brought

together a diverse group of county-level government officials, agency representatives

and community leaders. Several of these stakeholders said that their participation has

allowed them to form new professional contacts. Also, DMC committees in two

counties had both juvenile justice system and African American community leaders as

active members. In counties where the minority populations are isolated, stakeholders

said that this initiative allowed the minority community to be involved in a communitywide planning effort.
EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

V-8

Finally, participation in the DMC initiative educated the stakeholders about the

DMC issue. The companion county stakeholders especially felt that the DMC planning

process was useful in educating them about the issue and alerting them about potential

problems within their counties. One county representative said "the value of this data

is that it turned on a lot of people's light bulbs." DMC has been talked about in many

forums as a result of this process.
APPENDIX A - 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
A-1

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

AOC - Administrative Office of the Courts

CBA - Community-based agencies

CBO - Community-based organizations

DHR - North Carolina Department of Human Resources

DMC - Disproportionate Minority Confinement

DYS - North Carolina Division of Youth Services

JJS - Juvenile Justice System

OJJDP - Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

SAG - The State Advisory Group 
APPENDIX BCOUNTY INTERVIEW GUIDE
B-1

APPENDIX B

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT (DMC) INITIATIVE 

NORTH CAROLINA

 COUNTY INTERVIEW GUIDE

NAME: POSITION/TITLE: 

SITE: PROGRAM: 

GENDER: ETHNICITY: 

OVERREPRESENTATION

COUNTY: 

INTERVIEWER DATE 

Introduction:

Good morning/afternoon.

Caliber Associates is a consulting firm located near Washington, DC, specializing in

the evaluation of social service programs. Caliber is currently under contract with the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to provide evaluation

services for the North Carolina Minority Overrepresentation (MO) activities. 

In 1988, the JJDP Act was amended to require that OJJDP address the problem of the

disproportionately high, and growing rate of minority youth within the juvenile justice

system. As part of this initiative, the North Carolina Department of Human Resources,

Division of Youth Services was awarded a grant in 1991 from OJJDP for training,

technical and financial assistance to facilitate North Carolina's ability to comply with the

requirements of the JJDP Act.

Based on the data required for an evaluation of the North Carolina MO initiative, oneon-one interviews are being conducted with key staff, personnel and community

representatives at the state, county and local levels. We are here today to document

the process used for the MO initiative from the county perspective. We will also assess

the effectiveness of the planning and implementation of North Carolina MO approach.

Do you have any questions before we begin?
B-2

I would like to begin this interview by asking a few background questions.

I. BACKGROUND

1. Please briefly describe your agency's responsibilities.

2. Please briefly describe the role and responsibilities associated with your job

position. [Ask for a job description.] How long have you held this position?

3. Please describe the role played by your agency in the minority representation

initiative.
B-3

4. Please describe your role with respect to the minority overrepresentation

project.

I would now like to discuss North Carolina's involvement with the DMC initiative.

II. ASSESSMENT OF THE EXTENT OF DMC

1. What was the extent of disproportionate representation of minority youth

within your county?

2. How was disproportionality defined?
B-4
EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

B-5

3. What factors were identified as contributing to disproportionality?

4. What assumptions were made about the causes of overrepresentation of

minority youth?

5. How did you identify/assess root causes or contributing factors to minority

overrepresentation?

6. What factors do you think foster/encourage/perpetuate overrepresentation of

incarcerated youth? [Let interviewee answer freely; use the following to

organize your responses]

• Political factors
B-6

• JJ system factors

• Other system factors (e.g., schools)

• Other

I would now like to discuss the efforts undertaken to promote understanding and to

enlist the support of key decision-makers and community leaders for the MO project.
EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

B-7
B-8

III. GARNERING AGREEMENT OF THE PROBLEM DEFINITION AMONG

KEY DECISION-MAKERS AND/OR COMMUNITY LEADERS

1. Did you have special permission to participate in this process?

2. Who are the major "stake-holders" (key decision-makers and community

leaders) related to overrepresentation at the state level?

• Who are the county level stakeholders?

• Are there other stake holders? If so, who are they and where are they

from?

3. How were these stakeholders engaged in problem identification and

definition?
B-9

4. What/who is perceived as the most critical event, activity, individual for engaging

the key stakeholders in the problem identification and problem clarification

process?

5. What factors may have contributed to successfully obtaining

stakeholders' understanding of and support for DMC?

6. What factors blocked/discouraged/interfered with stakeholders understanding

and support for DMC?

Next, I would like to discuss the plans and approaches developed to address

disproportionate minority confinement.
B-10

IV. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DMC

APPROACH

1. What plans has this county developed to address the DMC issues, problems?

2. How was this plan(s) developed? Please describe the process?

• When did the planning begin?

• How were the overrepresentation data used in the planning process?

• Who were the key personnel involved in the planning process?
B-11

• For each person involved, what was his/her role, was he/she from the

County or local level, and what were the advantages/disadvantages of the

involvement?

Personnel Role Local Level Advantages Disadvantages

County or

• What activities were used as part of the planning process? (E.g., town

meetings, other meetings, informal interactions).

[Interviewer: probe -- no detail is too small; particularly look for examples of

informal processes.]

• What county resources were available for the planning process?
B-12

• Did your organization apply for and receive a planning grant from the

North Carolina Department of Youth Services?

• Were resources from other sources acquired? If so, what were the

sources and amount/type of resources?

• If you did not apply for the grant, why not?
B-13

3. What were the products of the planning process? (e.g., a written plan, a

program design, etc.) [Obtain copies.]

4. What program strategies were identified for minority overrepresentation 

development?

5. What were the strengths of the planning process?
B-14

6. What were the limitations of the planning process?

7. In retrospect, what other resources could have assisted in the planning process?

V. PROGRAMS, INTERVENTIONS, OTHER DMC RESPONSES

The next set of questions ask about the plans and/or programs designed to correct

minority overrepresentation problems in this county.

1. Describe the planned interventions for your county.

[If required, define intervention]
EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

B-15
B-16

2. On what basis were the interventions designed?

3. What is the status of these interventions? (e.g., still being designed, being

implemented, fully implemented, etc.)

4. Now I would like to ask you some questions about the overall implementation of

the programs and activities listed in the county's Action Plan. What have been

the strengths and weaknesses of the overall implementation process?

• Strengths
EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

B-17
B-18

• Limitations, problems

5. What additional activities, events, do you think could/could have improve(d) the

implementation process?

6. What changes are expected/have been realized from the Action Plan programs?

Expected Realized

• Arrests

• Intake
EXHIBIT IV-3 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF COUNTY ACTION PLANS

B-19
B-20

• Prosecutorial

• Detention

• Confinement

• Please list any other changes that are expected/have taken place that you

attribute to the minority overrepresentation project.

7. Have any future plans for the minority overrepresentation in your county been

formulated? If so, please discuss them with us. [ask if they have been

documented, if so request a copy]
B-21

8. If plans for the future of the minority overrepresentation issue in your county

have not been formulated, will they in the near future? [if the answer is yes, try

to get a date for their formulation]

9. If plans for the future of the minority overrepresentation in your county have not

been formulated or addressed, why?

10. Do you have any questions or final comments?

This interview is now completed. Thank you very much for your time and assistance,

they both are greatly appreciated.
APPENDIX C -

 COUNTY ACTION PLANS
C-1

BRUNSWICK COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

Target high risk students at primary level to Screen and identify high risk students. Health Dept., DSS, Judicial System, 94-95

provide prevention services. Mental Health, Public Schools

Conduct parenting preventative, supportive

workshops.

Establish three alternative schooling sites within Obtain community, local, and financial support.

county for grades six through nine.

State, site locations, staffing, and equipping. S/A/A 94-95

Establish community parenting network. Solicit and train community volunteers. S/A/A 94-95

Establish telephone networks. Centers, Local Community Services,

Advertise and promote through media.

VIC Brunswick Buddies, Senior

Media

Provide additional recreational opportunities for Coordinate and expand existing programs. Parks and Recreations, County 94-95

youth. Commissioners, Local Business

Expand financial support.

Provide a structure and alternative to out-of- Gain financial, community, and public services Community Services Organizations, 94-95

school suspension. agency support. Board of Education, County

Train staff to organize and implement alternative

program.

Student tutor and participating in a structured

community service program.

Commission

Provide transportation system for youth. Expand existing services. County Commissioners, Local 94-95

Industries
C-2

BUNCOMBE COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE
C-3

CALDWELL COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

Develop a committee to compile Request a copy of goals and mission statements Committee 60 days

information regarding existing services. from each organization.

Evaluate information and edit for duplication and HRS 30 days

gaps.

Make sure information distributed and

implemented in program.

Enhance liaison between agencies and ties Support leadership development in minority FCDC On Going

with minority participants and agencies communities.

needing services.

Develop awareness in community of Have more workshops in the community similar to Chamber of Commerce On Going

cultural diversity needs. previously organized one. FCDC

Develop a black parenting educational Implement existing curriculum. FCDC, BRCA On Going

program.

Promote minority involvement in Follow up with leadership development. FCDC, County Commissioners, All On Going

community-based resources. Youth Serving Agencies

Promote active participation and follow up. FCDC On Going

Investigate change in curriculum and Obtain a new school superintendent. School Board On Going

multicultural development.

Encourage open curriculum for teachers. Committee On Going

Provide examples of information to teachers. Committee On Going
C-4

CUMBERLAND COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

Develop community-based programs located in Pilot Site: Notify and recruit area churches, School Board, Church, Parks and 6-12 Months

neighborhood schools, administered by community leaders; conduct peer nomination Recreation (City and County), Law

neighborhood partnerships (churches, community surveys and door-to-door canvassing of Enforcement (resource officers),

watch, minority organizations) that conduct needs community leaders. Community Policy (No lead agency. 

analyses, plan and court involved middle-school Look at partnership level of

aged minority youth. Offer incentives for participation (i.e., participation).

survey/query participants and develop plan to

offer. Federal Agencies (OJJDP),

Develop integrated funding plan to

implement. 

University Staff and Students

Develop appropriate identification and linkages Construct database of resources and referral Juvenile Court Staff, Law 6-12 Months

(case management) system for youth already services. Match potential opportunities to Enforcement,

involved in the juvenile court system. youth. Extend planning and linkages Community/Neighborhood

services to neighborhood Partnerships and/or Partnerships, Public Agency Staff

other public agencies. Philosophy: Make (MH, DSS, PH, CCAP, Businesses)

neighborhood responsible for raising youth,

distributing consequences, and monitoring

progress.

Recruit/hire staff to plan, implement, and

evaluate success of system.

Institute philosophy/goal of 24 hour, wraparound accessibility of resources to minority

families. 

Provide technical and capital resources for

computerization and resource/referral

mechanisms. 
C-5

FORSYTH COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

Broader representation on community task JJC Community Meeting. This Group

force (males/minorities).

Grant Writers for Monies.

Cultural Sensitivity Training and Cultural Target human service providers, juvenile law Urban League

Diversity Training. enforcement, assistant principals, guidance OFF

counselors, social workers, and home-school

coordinators.

Diversity in the workforce in agencies. Recruit for vacancies. John Jessup (?)

Increase network.

Promote careers for guidance counselors,

teachers, social workers, and law enforcement.

Explore incentives for minorities.

Computerized data-based system. Identify key personnel/agency heads.

Seek funding source.

Expand current Emergency Assistance Network.

Home-based and school-based programs to Provide culturally trained counselors. Bob Bridges

provide counseling services.

Reexamine need for true pupil personnel service

delivery model in the school.
FORSYTH COUNTY ACTION PLAN (Continued)

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

C-6

Provide positive role models. Mentors - publicity.

BB/BS Business Partner.

National volunteer week/court volunteers.

100 black men/fraternities.

Highlight volunteer in school setting. K-12

Magazine that list opportunities.

Build stronger families. Acceptance of family diversity.

Look for common strengths and focus.

Church outreach.

Parent resource centers.

Structured use of the four hours parents can

now take from work.

Personnel. Filling vacant positions in juvenile division.

Allowing continuity in assignments.

Services of undisciplined children.

Early intervention. Information to uniformed officers regarding

counseling.
FORSYTH COUNTY ACTION PLAN (Continued)

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

C-7

Youth involvement. Juvenile law class. Wake Forest law students 12/8/93

Summer Academy.

Conflict resolution/mediation.

STAR implementation. College Students from Salem, WSSU,

WF

Better utilization of the time children spend in Training conflict resolution, respect for self and

secure custody. others, planning for improvement.

Transition plan for re-entry into school.

Alternative program.

Service Audit.

County Task Force review existing efforts and Community Support Task Force.

determine where we overlap and how to

coordinate. Mayor's Task Force on Violence.
C-8

GUILFORD COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

Convene a Task Force To Address The Reconvene the area participates and identify

Disproportionate Incarcerations Of Minorities In others to become involved.

Guilford County (Juveniles & Adults)

Develop short term (corrective) and long

term (preventive) interventions for youth

at risk.

Promote collaborative efforts within the

Guilford County community.

Conduct a review to identify services,

policies, and procedures to minorities

that exist that are positive and negative

and identify additional needed services,

policies and procedures.

Create a positive individual and

community attitude towards all its youth.

Ask Guilford County to provide supportive

services to start task force process.
C-9

HAYWOOD COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

Community Center for youth and senior Secure the funds needed to construct the State, County, City Governments ASAP

citizens. center.

Cultural training to stop racial slurs. Teach minority cultures about their importance Superintendents ASAP

and contributions to society.

Better job opportunities. Afford qualified minorities the opportunities for Town Managers and Commissioners ASAP

county and city jobs.

Stop violence in schools. Get parents more involved. Parents, Judges ASAP

Hold parents accountable.

Stricter law enforcement.
C-10

JOHNSTON COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

Assessment of the needs of juveniles in the Have a public forum where community agencies, Johnston County Youth Task Force Present idea of

community which could include the services, civic groups, law enforcement, and forum at the

gathering of accurate data to define the interested individuals are invited to provide input meeting on

problems and an assessment of services and data. The purpose of the forum would be to 12/16/93

available to prevent and resolve problems provide public awareness and create opportunity

and meet needs. The outcome would for an Interdisciplinary Team to be formed.

hopefully be the formation of an

Interdisciplinary Team which could prioritize

needs and develop a plan of action.

Identify current minority juveniles on Probation officers could immediately prioritize Juvenile Services Immediately

probation and determine factors which may caseloads.

influence the juveniles and that may

increase the potential for training schools

commitment. Intensify efforts to prevent and

intervene with those who are most at risk;

prioritize probation caseloads.

Identify geographical areas that have Juvenile Services and law enforcement can Johnston County Youth Task Force, Task Force

potential for having high risk juveniles. provide data for a forum and/or an Interdisciplinary Juvenile Services, Law Enforcement meeting on

Team, 12/16/93

Postpone disposition for 30 days on cases of Juvenile Intake Counselor can recommend Juvenile Services Immediately

repeat offenders or probation violation in disposition be postponed for 30 days after

order for a Review Committee to meet and adjudication

plan interventions to help prevent and make

recommendations to the court for

disposition.
C-11

ROBESON COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

Each County/State Agency needs to be first and Each agency should submit goals an objectives

foremost goal and objective (measurable) as a county.

directed. Must be focused.

Written commitment from each department

head.

Establish a juvenile justice forum for information

sharing and conflict resolution.

Establish a Robeson County Juvenile Justice MOR - Task Force will address a letter to County Commissioners

Advisory Group that would review a grant request County Agents - C.M. to establish/appoint 1

for juvenile funds to ensure collaboration and year appointments.

meeting of goals established by a plan.

1. MOR - Task Force can make

recommendations.

County Youth Center and community sites Needs assessment of each community.

Research models.
C-12

WILKES COUNTY ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLANNED ACTION STEPS AGENT TIMETABLE

Long term care facility/program for children. Develop a local residential program placement for Community, Board of Directors 2-3 years

youth age 14-16 years. (Long term being 2-4

years of placement.) Joint funding by local and

state monies.

More preventive programs. Identify high risk youth at a younger age and School system (Need experienced 1-2 years

develop program program for individual needs. coordinator)

(i.e., tutoring, short term out-of home placement,

parenting classes).

Job placement for younger teens 14-18 years old

in combination with school study program. (Who

would hire other than fast food?).

More group homes for younger youth 9-11.

Improve upon family preservation/home Expand by hiring additional counselors. Mental Health Within 1 year

remedy programs.

Court system needs to review all community All court personnel (judges, DA's, public attorneys) Program Directors, Juvenile Court 6 months

resources. visit community resources, become active

members of community programs and become

active in developing new programs.

Need an interagency community group Identify agencies and groups working with youth. Experienced coordinator from 6 months

committee for staffing and consultation of Develop one large group consisting of a member juvenile justice system.

"hard core" or "difficult" cases. of each agency or group. Identification and

publicity of interagency group.