DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator September 1999

Youth Out of the

Education Mainstream:

A North Carolina Profile

Pam Riley and Joanne McDaniel

This Bulletin is one of a series of OJJDP

Bulletins focusing on both promising and

effective programs and innovative strategies to reach Youth Out of the Education

Mainstream (YOEM). YOEM is a joint program initiative of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, and the Safe and

Drug-Free Schools Program, U.S. Department of Education. The YOEM initiative

focuses on at-risk youth who are truant,

dropouts, fearful of attending school, suspended or expelled, or in need of help reintegrating into mainstream schools from juvenile detention and correctional settings.

Each Bulletin in this series highlights one

or more of these five separate but often

related categories of problems that cause

youth to forsake their education and thus

place themselves at risk of delinquency.

Young people live in a world that is

fast paced and full of stress. Much of

what they perceive as real in their lives

is defined by the mass media. Negative

role models abound. Many of the communities they live in offer temptations

and distractions that have the potential

to divert them from completing their

education in mainstream schools. Efforts

must be made to prevent them from leaving or to return them to these settings so

that they can ultimately complete their

education and become contributing

members of society. The YOEM initiative

was implemented by the Center for the

Prevention of School Violence (the

Center) in North Carolina to achieve

these goals.

The Center, located in Raleigh, NC,

is committed to the philosophy that all

young people deserve the opportunity

to receive an education that will provide

them with the skills they need to become

positive contributors to society. The

Center’s implementation of the YOEM

initiative in early 1997 grew out of increasing concern regarding safety and

security issues within North Carolina

schools.1

 The Center’s activities and the

direction these efforts are taking show

how youth who are in danger of leaving

or have already left the education mainstream can be helped through a focused

commitment to their success by collaborative efforts that involve schools and

communities. Additionally, lessons

learned along the way provide a critical

knowledge base from which future Center efforts will be pursued.

The Origin of the

Center’s YOEM

Initiative

The Center was created in 1993 as

the result of a recommendation made

by a statewide task force composed of

representatives in North Carolina from

the education, law enforcement, and legal

From the Administrator

In 1993, concerns about increasing

crime and violence in North Carolina’s schools led to the establishment of the Center for the Prevention of School Violence. More than

6,600 incidents of school violence

were reported to the North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction in

1994 alone. Subsequent years saw

that figure rise to 8,100, with possession of a controlled substance,

possession of a nonfirearm weapon, and assault on a school employee the predominant reporting

categories.

In 1997, the Center began to implement its Youth Out of the Education

Mainstream (YOEM) program. This

YOEM Bulletin, one of a series published by OJJDP, summarizes North

Carolina’s implementation of the

initiative at 10 sites across the State.

The Bulletin describes YOEM’s

impact on five targeted categories:

fear of going to school, suspension

or expulsion, truancy, dropping out,

and reintegration from juvenile justice settings. The lessons learned

from North Carolina’s experiences

with YOEM are worth studying, and I

share the authors’ hope that they will

contribute to the successful implementation of this important initiative

in other States.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator
2

What is “The Center” and What Does It Do?

“The Center” refers to the Center for the Prevention of School Violence. The Center

is a primary point of contact for information, programs, and research about preventing school violence. The Center’s vision is that “Every student will attend a school

that is safe and secure, one that is free of fear and conducive to learning.” This

means that much of the Center’s work is directed at making schools more orderly,

safer, and more secure. Increasing concern about disruptions of school order as well

as the occurrence of criminal and violent incidents on school property serve as the

reasons for the Center’s existence.

The Center is an interinstitutional service center of the Board of Governors of The

University of North Carolina system. It was established in 1993 as an affiliate of

the Governor’s Crime Commission in the Department of Crime Control and Public

Safety. Now based at the College of Education and Psychology at North Carolina

State University, the Center has become an invaluable source of assistance for anyone interested in getting violence out of our schools. Few States have such a center.

The Center is organized into three areas: information, programs, and research.

With reference to information, the Center serves as a clearinghouse for information about the problem of school violence as well as solutions to it. It houses

a resource library of this information and responds to numerous information

requests. It maintains a toll-free information line and a nationally recognized,

information-rich Web site.

The programs area enables the Center to help communities and schools develop

strategies that address their particular needs. The strategies focused upon are

those contained in the Center’s Safe Schools Pyramid: School Resource Officers;

law-related education, including Teens, Crime, and the Community; conflict management and peer mediation; Students Against Violence Everywhere (S.A.V.E.); teen

court and student court; and physical design and technology. In addition to helping

with the development of strategies, the programs area provides technical assistance

to interested schools and communities.

Research at the Center focuses upon trying to understand the problem of school

violence and determining what strategies are effective in solving it. Key to the

Center’s research approach is recognition that each school has its own problems

that need to be identified so that information generated from research about what

is effective in addressing school violence can be implemented successfully. The

research area strives to generate research that is of use to practitioners.

In addition to information, programs, and research, the Center is working on a number of special projects that are designed to make schools more orderly, safer, and

more secure. These projects involve character education, safe school planning, atrisk youth/alternative education programs, and the training of teachers, principals,

law enforcement officers, and court officials.

The Center works closely with those who are concerned about getting violence out

of our schools. Center staff participate in presentations, workshops, seminars, and

special events in efforts designed to get the message out that schools need to be

safe and secure so that learning can take place. All of the Center’s efforts are directed at making its vision that every student will attend a school that is free of fear

and conducive to learning a reality.

communities.2 The Task Force on School

Violence was created to follow up on findings from a nonscientific survey of school

districts by North Carolina’s Department

of Public Instruction (DPI), which revealed increases in weapons and violent

behavior in schools over the previous 5

years. At Task Force hearings held across

the State during spring 1993, students,

parents, teachers, school administrators,

law enforcement officers, juvenile court

officials, and other community members

voiced concerns about increasing levels

of disruption, crime, and violence in the

schools.

The Center, acting as the State’s primary point of contact for addressing the

problem of school violence, pursued the

opportunity to implement the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) YOEM initiative

as a mechanism to educate “students

and practitioners who work with young

people on better ways to resolve problems without violence.”3

 Violence in mainstream education settings was viewed as

a primary component of situations in

which students were either in danger of

leaving or already outside the education

mainstream.

The annual reports on school violence

in North Carolina for the years leading

up to the Center’s YOEM initiative supported the view that unacceptable levels

of crime and violence were occurring on

school property. More than 6,600 incidents of school violence were reported

to the North Carolina DPI in 1994, the

baseline year for such reporting in the

State.4

 Schools reported 8,100 violent

acts in 1994–95, 8,173 in 1995–96, and

8,141 in 1996–97. Throughout these

years, the dominant reporting categories

in North Carolina’s Annual Report on

School Violence were possession of a

controlled substance (included in North

Carolina’s school violence categories),

possession of a weapon other than a

firearm, and assault on school employees. These categories accounted for 85

percent of all violent acts reported over

these school years.5

In 1996, the Center proposed to conduct a program that would link efforts to

prevent school violence with those directed at addressing the needs of young

people who are at risk of leaving the education mainstream. The Center’s effort

was specifically designed to address the

fact that many “young people are influenced by environmental risk factors such

as negative role models exemplified by

friends who are chronically truant/absent

from school, lack family support and

motivation for education, and [see]

violence in or near their homes and/or

schools. In addition, school-related

risk factors such as lack of motivation

in academic performance [and] low 

Source: Center for the Prevention of School Violence.
3

self-esteem . . . influence many young

people to turn away from school.”6

The Center proposed to target five categories of youth in its YOEM initiative:

youth afraid to go to school because of

violence or fear of violence, youth who

had been suspended or expelled, truant

youth, youth who had dropped out, and

youth who needed to be reintegrated into

school settings from juvenile justice settings. These are the same categories of

youth targeted by the U.S. Departments

of Justice and Education’s YOEM initiative, under a grant to the National School

Safety Center at Pepperdine University in

Westlake, CA.7

OJJDP funding enabled the Center to

begin its YOEM initiative in early 1997.

Because the philosophy of the Center’s

design was to use the funds in a way that

would have the greatest potential to impact the targeted youth, funds were

awarded to schools or programs that

were already serving youth in the targeted

categories. Additionally, the project was

structured so that these schools or programs would receive technical support

atmosphere where students learn the

skills necessary to redirect their lives.”8

The Center’s YOEM sites were located

throughout North Carolina. Some were in

rural areas such as Wentworth and Kings

Mountain, and some were in urban areas

such as Raleigh and Charlotte (see figure

1 on page 4). In the first year, eight high

schools, one middle school, and one elementary school participated. Each sent

a team of school and community personnel to a Center training program at the

beginning of the project. The training was

designed to assist the teams in developing their YOEM projects and to teach

them approaches for problem solving in

the areas of preventing school violence

and helping students who are outside the

education mainstream.

In the second year, three schools (the

elementary school, the middle school,

and a countywide high school) continued

to receive funding, and a new high school

was added to the initiative. The new

from the Center. This support was seen as

crucial because it provided organization,

direction, and the potential for both shortand long-term outcomes.

The Center’s

YOEM Sites

Ten schools or programs in North

Carolina were funded during the first year

of the Center’s YOEM initiative. All of the

sites can be classified as alternative learning environments (settings outside the

education mainstream), with student

populations that are characterized by

one or more of the YOEM targeted youth

categories. In North Carolina, the term

“alternative” as applied to learning environments refers to a school or program

that “serves students at any level, serves

suspended or expelled students, serves

students whose learning styles are better

served in an alternative program, or

provides individualized programs outside of a standard classroom in a caring

A North Carolina Profile: Jamie

Jamie is a 19-year-old junior who is attending one of the YOEM project high

schools. The staff had said that Jamie has the greatest potential of anyone in his

class if he is guided to use his energy and abilities to attend school, complete assignments, earn credits, and graduate. He is one of a few students who asked to

be sent to the YOEM school because of the violence at his mainstream school.

Regardless of his good intentions, Jamie continually had run-ins with former gang

members. Jamie would come close to fighting every day at school because he

was trying to get out of a gang he joined earlier in the school year. He decided

to attend the alternative school because he realized that he would not be able to

graduate in this environment. Jamie is making steady progress toward his general

equivalency diploma.

Reported Categories

of School Violence

(North Carolina)

◆ Assault involving the use of a

weapon.

◆ Assault resulting in serious

personal injury.

◆ Assault on school personnel.

◆ Homicide.

◆ Kidnaping.

◆ Possession of a controlled

substance.

◆ Possession of a firearm.

◆ Possession of a weapon (other

than a firearm).

◆ Rape.

◆ Robbery.

◆ Robbery with a dangerous

weapon.

◆ Sexual assault.

◆ Sexual offense.

◆ Taking indecent liberties with

a minor.
4

school, Independence High School in

Winston-Salem, NC, is the longest running

alternative high school in North Carolina

and provides the Center with a YOEM

setting that can enhance understanding

of providing learning environments for

youth out of the education mainstream.

YOEM Targeted

Youth Categories

Fear of Going to School

Events throughout the United States

during the 1997–98 school year heightened interest in and concern about safety

and security within schools. National

studies in recent years provide evidence

that students everywhere have concerns

about disorder, crime, and violence in

their schools.9 Recent reports provide the

following evidence from nationwide data:

◆ Ten percent of all public schools experienced one or more serious violent

crimes (murder, rape or an other type

of sexual battery, suicide, a physical

attack or fight with a weapon, or

robbery) that were reported to law

enforcement officials during the 1996

school year.10

◆ Four percent of students reported that

they were victims of school-related

violence in 1995.11

◆ Twenty-nine percent of elementary,

34 percent of middle, and 20 percent

of high school students say they worry

about being victims of crime at

school.12

◆ Twenty-eight percent of students reported the presence of street gangs at

school.13

◆ Thirty-seven percent of students acknowledged that they were afraid of

gang attacks at school and 29 percent

said they feared such attacks when

traveling to and from school.14

Although North Carolina students have

not been formally surveyed about their

fears, the Task Force on School Violence

heard their concerns at public hearings

that were held in spring 1993. More recently, 37 percent of adults who responded to a survey in North Carolina

indicated that school violence in their

communities was a “very serious” or

“serious” problem.15 In response, North

Carolina lawmakers passed legislation

that requires all school districts and

schools to design and implement a safe

schools plan. Some 20 States have or are

currently considering such legislation.

North Carolina’s legislation requires

that efforts to create and maintain safe

schools must involve all components

(physical, social, curricular, and parental)

of the school and community. These

components align with the Center’s Safe

Schools Pyramid approach, which emphasizes the “three p’s” of school safety:

place (physical environment), people

(school climate), and purpose (education). The strategies that make up the

pyramid reflect the different “p’s” and

provide approaches for schools to consider in addressing all dimensions of

safety (see figure 2). The pyramid rests on

the community; schools are reflections of

both the good and bad found in the communities they serve.

Two YOEM project sites (a middle

school and a high school) addressed students’ fears about going to school by

making one of the strategies in the Safe

Richard Milburn 

 High School

Raleigh Dolly Tate Parent Services 

 (grades 6–12)

Charlotte

Lakeside High School

Wilmington

Parker Street School 

 (grades 6–12)

Kings Mountain

E.B. Aycock Middle School

Greenville

Robeson County Evening 

 High School Program

Lumberton

Currituck County Alternative 

 Learning Program 

 (grades 7–12)

Barco

Independence High

 School

Winston-Salem

Rockingham County

 Alternative Learning Program

Wentworth

Mary E. Phillips

 High School

Raleigh

Spring Hope

 Elementary School

Spring Hope

Figure 1: The Center’s YOEM Sites
5

were suspended out of school at least

once during the 1995–96 school year.”21

The reasons for these suspensions included class disruptions, rule violations, substance abuse, fighting, and

other unacceptable behavior. North

Carolina’s DPI maintains a record of

unacceptable behavior and its consequences, which can be found in its

Annual Report on School Violence. For

the 14 categories of reported incidents

in 1995–96, 5,836 students received up

to 10 days of out-of-school suspension,

1,614 received suspensions from 10

to 365 days, and 209 were expelled.22

Often, when students receive long-term

suspensions, they are recommended for

assignment to alternative schools or programs. Many of the students at YOEM

project sites had been suspended from

their mainstream schools for offenses

ranging from class disruption to possession of a weapon or controlled substance.

One of the sites, the countywide high

school, exclusively handles students on

long-term suspension for possession of

weapons or controlled substances. The

mission of the program is to “enable longterm suspended students not only to return to their base schools with new tools

for academic success, but to return with

a new attitude and changed behavior for

all-around success in a traditional school

environment.”23

attention provided to these students

by the SRO, who worked with them in a

school club, the Distinguished Gentlemen,

helped them feel safer about attending

school.

Throughout North Carolina, SRO’s like

the ones described above are being assigned to middle and high schools. There

has been an 85-percent increase in the

number of SRO’s in the past 2 years because of State funding and the success

stories in local communities about the

work of SRO’s in schools.

Suspension or Expulsion

Like many other States, North Carolina

recently has seen increased implementation of “zero tolerance” policies in its

schools. A current study of district safe

school plans revealed that many schools

are using zero tolerance as a standard for

behavior. These school or district policies

“mandate predetermined consequences or

punishments for specific offenses.”19 Often

these consequences or punishments include suspension for extensive periods of

time or, in extreme situations, expulsion.

North Carolina’s Department of

Public Instruction conducted a study

of out-of-school suspensions during the

1995–96 school year and found that

nearly 82,000 students had been suspended.20 This means that “approximately 5.9% of the State’s students

Schools Pyramid—School Resource Officers (SRO’s)—the mechanism through

which YOEM was conducted. SRO’s are

law enforcement officers who apply a

community policing philosophy within a

school environment. Schools are their

permanent beats, and they are present

to address safety and security issues

proactively. SRO’s are trained to perform

three roles: law enforcement, legal counseling, and legal teaching.

In both schools, SRO’s were involved

with small groups of students. In the

middle school, the SRO was responsible

for supervising workgroups that carried

out a campus beautification project. The

logic behind this project involved a combination of the “broken window”16 theory

of crime and more recent research that

emphasizes the importance of “school

connectedness.”17 The “broken window”

theory proposes that crime is more likely

to occur at locations that are unattended.

If a window is broken and remains unrepaired, another window is likely to be

broken and then another. The lack of attention to what needs repair sends a message that the location is “fair game” for

vandalism and other types of crime. In

contrast, attending to an area—repairing

the window—discourages vandalism and

crime. The SRO worked with students

who were part of the school’s program

for exceptional children18 and who, for

that reason, sometimes did not feel safe

in the school setting. The SRO was able

to build relationships with the students

and help them feel safer and more connected to school.

The SRO at the high school worked

with male students, some of whom had

been involved in neighborhood gangs.

The SRO’s presence and the individual

Figure 2: Safe Schools Pyramid

Physical

Design and

Technology

Teen Student Court

S.A.V.E.

Conflict Management

and Peer Mediation

 Law-Related Education

School Resource Officer

The Community

A North Carolina Profile: Officer Dennison

Officer Dennison has been a School Resource Officer for 2 years. He works at a local

middle school and is an advocate for children, especially at-risk youth. He recognizes

the problems and severity of these students’ situations and wants to be an integral part

of their journey to success.

Officer Dennison loves children and is ready to accept the challenge of helping these

students work through the problems in their lives. He recognizes that he is a positive

role model and uses it to his advantage by becoming actively involved with students.

He visits their homes and meets their families. The children come to him with their

problems and also with information on crimes being committed. Officer Dennison gains

their trust by building strong relationships. He also stresses the importance of giving

them attention and a chance to express themselves. This is very important in trying to

make these youth resilient to risks that include poor family settings, use of drugs in

their neighborhoods, and lack of proper guidance.

Officer Dennison believes that a key factor in building resiliency in youth is giving them

a nurturing atmosphere and helping them set high expectations. Letting them know

that they can do whatever they want in life by setting goals and working hard to achieve

them has given them greater control over their lives. Their self-esteem has grown as

goals are achieved as a result of their efforts. He wants every student to have an opportunity to receive an education, especially those who have the greatest number of

risk factors in their lives.
6

in the learning process by students with

irregular attendance who try to “make

up” for missed classes and homework

assignments. Because of this impact, approaches are being used that make getting to school easier and more appealing.

Several of the YOEM projects helped students get to school by providing access

to transportation. Extended hours of operation also were pursued at several sites

because the work schedules of some students interfered with their attendance

during regular hours.

In an effort to make school more appealing, systems of positive reinforcement were established at two of the

YOEM sites. At one site, students were

paid with vouchers from local businesses for work in a “school factory”

that produced items with holiday

themes. At a second site, students were

rewarded with trophies and certificates

for improved attendance and academic

performance. A yearend banquet was

also held to honor graduates who had

successfully participated in YOEM

activities.

The Center’s overall approach to creating safe schools focuses on maintaining

educational environments that appeal to

young people. Student-initiated school

clubs, called Students Against Violence

Everywhere (S.A.V.E.), focus on the enthusiasm and energy students can bring to

creating safe environments for learning.

Approaches such as S.A.V.E. decrease the

likelihood of truancy because they allow

students to develop a connection to school

and to feel safe about being at school.

Dropping Out

“A dropout is a student who leaves

school before graduation or completion

of a program of study for any reason

except death or transfer to another

school.”27 National statistics concerning

dropouts are staggering in terms of numbers and implications:

◆ Twenty percent of adults in the

United States over the age of 25

have not completed high school.28

◆ Twenty-five percent of all urban high

schools in poor neighborhoods have

dropout rates of 50 percent or more.29

◆ Eighty-two percent of prisoners are

high school dropouts.30

Reasons given by students across the

Nation for dropping out of school are:

(1) school related (e.g., did not like school,

could not get along with others, did not

One of the approaches used by this

program was teaching legal education,

a strategy on the Center’s Safe Schools

Pyramid. Teens, Crime, and the Community (TCC), funded by OJJDP, includes a

curriculum developed by Street Law, Inc.,

a user-friendly textbook, the involvement

of community resource people, and service learning projects. TCC was implemented as a major component of the

program’s YOEM effort. The students

involved in the TCC project developed

a coloring book about traffic safety for

neighborhood elementary school children. At the end of the project, one student wrote: “This really helped me a lot.

It helped me learn how to respect and be

nice to other people. I learned if you work

hard toward your goals, you will make it.

You’ve got to want it yourself.” Another

wrote: “I feel that the project has changed

my life because it helped me get caught

up. I’m not a troublemaker [any]more and

I have respect for my elders.”

Students on long-term suspension, in

situations such as a student assault on

a teacher, are increasingly being recommended for placement in alternative settings in school systems throughout North

Carolina. The new State legislation, described above, prompts such recommendations if alternative options are available. An ongoing study of alternative

settings in the State reveals that even

though many exist, there are not enough

to handle the number of students who

would potentially benefit from them.24

North Carolina policymakers are currently examining how these options can

be expanded to meet their needs.

Truancy

Students who have difficulty attending

school every day are headed for trouble.

The Manual to Combat Truancy, a joint

effort of the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, states: “Truancy is the

first sign of trouble; the first indicator

that a young person is giving up and losing his or her way.”25 OJJDP’s Bulletin entitled Truancy: First Step to a Lifetime of

Problems shows that truancy is “a stepping stone to delinquent and criminal activity” by explaining how frequently missing school negatively impacts school

performance and can even lead to delinquent behavior.26

In North Carolina, truants are counted

as part of the tally of “undisciplined juveniles” in the State. In addition to students

who are regularly absent from school, this

tally includes youth who run away from

home or who are considered ungovernable by parents. In 1997, more than 3,600

youth were counted as undisciplined juveniles in North Carolina.

Truancy has a tremendous impact on

the learning environment of a school—

on the student who regularly misses

classes and on the teachers and classmates who must deal with interruptions

A North Carolina Profile:

Educator Teresa Price

Teresa Price is the program director of

an alternative learning program that

serves an entire county. Throughout her

career in education, Price has recognized the need to focus on students with

multiple risk factors in their lives. Her

first encounters with at-risk students

were as a teacher in both middle school

and high school. When she saw that

some students were living in poverty or

had unstable families and communities,

she wanted to give them a chance to

succeed academically and in other areas of their lives.

Price believes that in order to make students resilient to risk factors such as a

weak family structure, a lack of social

competency, substance abuse, and the

lack of a positive self-image, schools

must be more willing to change their

internal structure and the way they interact with each student. She advocates

reducing the size of classes, individualized teaching, and nurturing relationships between teachers and students.

She sees these factors as steps leading

to the success of at-risk youth in the

education setting.
7

feel safe, could not keep up with schoolwork, was failing); (2) job related (e.g., had

to work, had to find a job); and (3) family

related (e.g., had to support a family, was

pregnant, became a parent, got married).31

Over the past 3 years, North Carolina

has seen more than 19,000 students drop

out each year.32 According to the North

Carolina Department of Public Instruction,

reasons for dropping out include academic

failure, discipline problems, employment,

illness, marriage, family instability, and/or

dislike of school.33 OJJDP’s Bulletin entitled

Keeping Young People in School: Community Programs That Work also cites these

reasons and further explains that dropping

out is a problem not confined to the high

school level.34

Several of the Center’s YOEM project

sites approached this problem with the

reasons for dropping out clearly in mind.

One of the projects targeted pregnant

girls and teen mothers who probably

would have dropped out if there had not

been a YOEM project. The urban high

school where this project took place enhanced its program goal of reducing the

number of teen mothers who drop out of

school by creating an extended-day program. The program allowed students to

make up failed courses to earn credits

for graduation.

The elementary school also approached the issue of dropping out

through its YOEM effort. It is important

to understand that “by third grade, students who eventually drop out of high

school are significantly different in behavior, grades, retentions, and achievement scores from those who eventually

graduate.”35 Through its YOEM project,

the elementary school addressed early

lack of achievement by targeting end-ofgrade test scores. Students with low

scores were seen as reaching a turning

point in their education. In helping

these students raise their scores to

grade level, the intent was to prevent all

of the problems—from poor grades to

poor discipline to potentially dropping

out—that can result when students fall

behind academically.

Reintegrating From Juvenile

Justice Settings

We as teachers have to remember that

the students’ pasts are not their

futures.

—Teacher, 1997 YOEM training

The last YOEM targeted youth category involves the difficult process of

reintegrating youth who have been in juvenile detention or correctional settings

into mainstream school environments.

As more and younger juveniles committed

crimes and were arrested between 1985

and 1994, this process needed to occur

more frequently.

Studies indicate that while juvenile

crime peaked in 1994 and has declined

since then, it is still a concern.36 North

Carolina’s concern was triggered by the

fact that from 1979 to 1996 the juvenile

arrest rate for violent crimes surged 172

percent.37 According to a recent study

by the North Carolina Governor’s Crime

Commission, “Juveniles in North Carolina

are committing more serious violent

crimes, more robberies, more crimes

against strangers, and more crimes involving drugs and weapons. Figures show

that juveniles appear to be starting to

commit those crimes at younger ages.”38

These data suggest that there is a

growing need in North Carolina for services that address the reintegration of

juveniles from detention and correctional

settings into mainstream schools. Until

recently, the services that students received largely came from the Division

of Youth Services, which was responsible

for juvenile detention centers and training schools in the State. The Division of

Youth Services and the Administrative

Office of the Courts, Juvenile Services

Division, provide aftercare assistance to

youth who have been in juvenile justice

settings. However, there was no State

agency in North Carolina that collected

data on the number of juveniles who attempt to return to mainstream settings.

Existing data are school district specific,

but it is difficult to obtain these statistics

because of the confidentiality of the information involved. Steps are being taken

A North Carolina

Profile: Laura

Laura is a 19-year-old single parent who

lives in a low-income housing complex.

She had dropped out of school in the

past but started attending the alternative

school before her daughter was born.

Laura plans on staying in school until

she graduates, largely because of the

supportive staff and the individualized

attention she is receiving.

Laura left her family in West Virginia and

moved to North Carolina at the age of

14. Laura says, “Nobody gave me anything, especially my family. . . . I worked

hard for everything I got.” The lost love

and attention of her family were replaced by the staff at the alternative

school program.

The only thing that Laura does not like

about the alternative school program is

how the community perceives it. The

negative connotations associated with

the program motivate her to prove that

the community is wrong. She recently

got a job so that she could move out of

her apartment and get off welfare. Laura

does not like receiving handouts, but

she realizes that she cannot make it

alone; she cherishes the daycare services and moral support that the program offers. After graduation, Laura

plans to become a nurse.

A North Carolina Profile: Bryan

Bryan is a senior at an alternative high school. Because he chronically missed

classes at his mainstream school, he began to fail and was sent to the alternative

school. A contributing factor to Bryan’s missing classes is that his mother works a late

shift; her schedule puts the household on a daily routine that is quite different from a

typical one.

Bryan likes attending this school and participates in many activities. In particular, he appreciates the individualized attention and small class sizes. “This kind of attention is the

reason why I don’t return to my other school,” Bryan stated.

Bryan is considered to be at risk because of his single-parent home and a community

setting that is lacking in educational motivation. Although his family is not economically deprived, Bryan works after school and is taking on more responsibility.

After graduation, Bryan will enter the Marine Corps; after that, he plans on going to

college to pursue a degree in biochemistry. Bryan has a bright future, and he attributes a lot of his progress to his nurturing alternative high school.
8

to address the issue of confidentiality by

providing training sessions to help professional staff adhere to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),

a Federal law that governs the disclosure

of information from educational records.

The training sessions will use a joint publication of OJJDP and the Family Policy

Compliance Office, U.S. Department of

Education, on FERPA.39

In North Carolina and in the Center’s

YOEM sites, many youth who have been

in the juvenile justice system are attempting to reenter mainstream settings. Several of the YOEM sites reported that some

of their students had been in correctional

facilities. Staff at these sites recognize the

difficulties associated with reintegration.

“Institutional resistance and barriers between the educational and justice systems often result in a lack of advanced

planning and coordination that further

exacerbates the problem.”40 One YOEM

alternative school held an open house for

the faculties of the mainstream schools in

an effort to overcome some of the misunderstanding and fear that might arise

when the students return to their mainstream schools. At other sites, school

social workers, SRO’s, and other school

staff worked more closely with the students to assist them in overcoming the

difficulties of reintegration.

The Center also participated in training

juvenile court counselors in an effort to

bridge the gap between the education and

justice systems. The training focused on

the Center’s experiences with the YOEM

initiative and addressed the lessons

learned from its ongoing YOEM effort.

These lessons provide the foundation for

the Center’s knowledge about the categories of targeted youth and offer direction

to the Center’s future efforts.

Lessons Learned

The Center’s YOEM initiative offers the

following 10 lessons from the first year of

implementation. They are intended for

projects that target youth who are in

danger of leaving or have already left the

education mainstream. Many of these lessons can be applied to all types of educational environments. The Center hopes

that the lessons learned will contribute

to the successful implementation of other

projects and help educators meet the

needs of students to enable them to

take full advantage of their educational

opportunities.

economic factors that make it difficult

for some students to attend mainstream

schools.

◆ Lesson 2: Those involved in initiatives like YOEM should not lose

sight of the “people” component in

their projects. School personnel are

needed who are dedicated, motivated,

knowledgeable about their students’

needs, and undeterred in their efforts

to help youth. Often, a great deal of

time is spent considering project components such as resources, goals, objectives, and schedules. However,

projects are not likely to be successful

without dedicated people to carry out

necessary tasks, and it is important to

design a variety of activities that demonstrate commitment to these youth.

◆ Lesson 3: Project planning provides

direction to those who have only good

intentions driving their efforts. A

structured plan that is designed by all

the YOEM stakeholders (education, law

enforcement, social services, parents,

students, and other interested parties)

provides a framework in which a project

can be implemented. Without such a

plan, the details of how, when, and by

whom tasks will be accomplished can

become obstacles to project success.

A combination of planning, good intentions, information sharing, and dedicated staff will enable a project to focus

on accomplishing its goals.

◆ Lesson 4: Setting goals is an essential

step in project development, but

modifications to goals and to corresponding project activities should be

anticipated. A few YOEM sites had to

modify planned goals and activities

because of timeframe considerations

and other concerns. At one site, staff

recognized that some goals would

have to be met in the long term.

◆ Lesson 5: Freedom to choose how

to apply project resources is important to site personnel. It is important

to allow school personnel, those

closest to the students targeted by

the YOEM initiative, the freedom to

spend grant funds in ways they feel

would benefit students the most.

This freedom will sustain motivation

for the project and enable sites to

use the knowledge of those who

work with the students every day

to enhance project efforts.

◆ Lesson 6: Project “customers” (students) should be asked how certain

◆ Lesson 1: The enormity of the problems

of youth who are in danger of leaving

or have already left the education

mainstream should not preclude efforts

to help them. The Center realizes that

lack of family support and motivation for

education, negative role models, and

socioeconomic pressures place many

youth at risk.41 Several YOEM sites addressed the issue of involving parents in

their children’s education in the following ways: by helping parents to write and

sign contracts that enroll students in the

alternative school, by encouraging parents to volunteer at school and for field

trips, by helping to plan and by attending parents’ day and open house events

at the school, and by recognizing parents’ contributions to the school at the

annual school awards banquet. Each site

tried to provide positive role models to

balance young people’s exposure to

negative influences in their homes,

neighborhoods, and the larger society.

A few sites, using services such as daycare, transportation, and extended-day

classes, targeted some of the socio-
9

aspects of projects are to be conducted. Projects that allowed students

to participate in planning appeared to

be more successful because students

“buy into” those projects more. It is

important for these youth to have an

opportunity to express their opinions

and feel a sense of control over this

aspect of their lives.

◆ Lesson 7: Grant projects can benefit

greatly from the technical assistance

offered by the Center to the sites.

Projects conducted in school settings

often do not have a technical assistance component. YOEM site personnel repeatedly expressed the view

that technical assistance played an

important role in keeping them focused and providing help when it

was needed.

◆ Lesson 8: Although an evaluation

component can offer knowledge

about project performance, it can

also bolster project performance.

This lesson involves site evaluations

that were conducted during the first

year of the Center’s YOEM initiative.

In addition to providing programmatic

technical assistance throughout the

projects, the Center provided each site

with an evaluator who conducted process evaluations and tried to determine

the project’s short- and long-term outcomes. The evaluators determined

that their most important role was to

motivate sites to maintain their focus

on goals and strategies.

◆ Lesson 9: It is difficult for evaluations

to isolate project impacts, especially

when projects are blended with ongoing efforts at YOEM sites. This lesson

involves the difficulty of differentiating

between the impact of the YOEM initiative projects and the impact of other

efforts being put forth at the YOEM

sites. This can be a particular concern

when site visits and data collection

opportunities are limited. This difficulty reveals that most of the YOEM

projects were extensions of existing

programs and that site personnel successfully blended the YOEM projects

into their overall efforts.

◆ Lesson 10: Safe and stable learning

environments, small classes, oneon-one instruction, caring teachers

and administrators, and access to

resources are the keys to success

in education today. Successful approaches encompass some or all of

these characteristics. These factors

are seen as especially important for

at-risk youth who are involved in

YOEM projects.

The Future of the

Center’s YOEM

Initiative

The second year of the Center’s YOEM

initiative focused on how to work successfully with the youth themselves to

build resiliency. To date, the following

factors have been identified and will be

studied further:

◆ Involving communities in educational

efforts by establishing connections

and implementing service learning

projects.

◆ Providing nurturing learning

environments.

◆ Building personal relationships.

◆ Providing mentors and opportunities for

interaction with positive role models.

◆ Encouraging academic success by

setting expectations that are consistent and high.

The Center views these new lessons as

opportunities to link its YOEM initiative

with efforts directed at building resiliency

in all youth.

Conclusion

The Center for the Prevention of

School Violence is a mechanism through

which recent efforts to address the problems of youth out of the education mainstream in North Carolina are being pursued. As a result of these efforts, lessons

that lend themselves to the best programmatic practices have been developed and

lessons that will directly enhance work

with youth are being developed.

The lessons learned to date have provided the Center with a critical knowledge

base for implementing future efforts. By

bringing together schools and communities to address the needs of youth, these

ongoing efforts will be comprehensive and

student focused and will strengthen their

resiliency to risk factors in their lives.

The lessons learned from the Center’s

YOEM initiative illustrate what can be

gained when efforts are focused through

places such as the Center that are committed to a goal. In this case, the goal is

for all young people to have the opportunity to receive an education that will enable them to become successful, contributing members of society.

A North Carolina Profile: Two Worlds

Helping today’s youth become more resilient is a very difficult task. All educators are

faced with the challenge of teaching their students skills to overcome the many risk

factors they face, but they may not understand the extent to which risks define the lives

of the young people they teach. A major factor that many youth confront on a daily basis is the community setting in which they live. The sad fact is that many of our young

people live in communities that do not promote the same societal and educational values as the schools. In reality, many of today’s young people are living in two completely

different worlds—one defined by school and one defined by the streets.

The conflict between the school and the street is one I experienced firsthand. Throughout my childhood, I would sit in front of my house waiting for the schoolbus to arrive;

across the street, some of my friends were gambling, selling drugs, and cutting school.

Their world was my world, but I still made it out successfully. How did I do it? What

were the motivating factors that propelled me to go far in life, even though I faced many

of the same risk factors as my friends who did not make it? My stability and advantage

came from two nurturing parents who maintained high educational expectations for me.

Most of my friends did not have this kind of support, and they became vulnerable to

outside influences.

From where I am today, as the YOEM coordinator for the Center for the Prevention of

School Violence, I can see how the protective factors of family and education outweighed the risks presented by the streets. There is a definite division between the

school and the community for many young people. To build resiliency in youth, cooperation among the family, school, and community is necessary. With such resiliency,

the likelihood that the two worlds will collide can be greatly diminished, and the world

that results will be a better place for all.
10

For Further

Information

For further information on the Center’s

YOEM initiative, contact:

Center for the Prevention

of School Violence

20 Enterprise Street, Suite 2

Raleigh, NC 27607

800–299–6054; 919–515–9397

919–515–9561 (fax)

Internet: www.ncsu.edu/cpsv/

Endnotes

1. Center for the Prevention of School Violence, “Youth Out of the Education Mainstream Grant Proposal,” 1996, p. 1.

2. Task Force on School Violence, The Executive Summary Report of the Task Force

on School Violence, 1993, p. 19. Report

produced by the North Carolina Attorney

General’s Office, the State Superintendent

of Public Instruction, and the Secretary of

Crime Control and Public Safety.

3. Center for the Prevention of School

Violence, 1996, p. 1.

4. North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, Annual Report on School Violence, internal publication, 1994, p. 2.

5. The North Carolina General Assembly

requires that 10 categories of school violence be reported to law enforcement:

assault resulting in serious injury, assault

involving the use of a weapon, possession

of a firearm, possession of a weapon

other than a firearm, sexual assault,

sexual offense, rape, kidnaping, taking

indecent liberties with a minor, and possession of a controlled substance. The

North Carolina State Board of Education

added four categories to those required

by legislation: assault on school officials,

homicide, robbery, and armed robbery.

An annual report on school violence is

produced by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.

6. Center for the Prevention of School

Violence, 1996, p. 1.

7. S. Ingersoll and D. LeBoeuf, Reaching

Out to Youth Out of the Education Mainstream, Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, February 1997.

8. North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, Alternative Learning Programs

Evaluation: 1996–1997, internal publication, 1997, p. 1.

9. J. Arnette and M. Walsleben, Combating

Fear and Restoring Safety in Schools, Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, April 1998.

10. S. Heaviside, C. Rowland, C. Williams,

E. Farris, S. Burns, and E. McArthur, Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996–97, Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1998,

p. iv.

11. K. Chandler, C. Chapman, M. Rand,

and B. Taylor, Students’ Reports of School

Crime: 1989 and 1995, Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Statistics

and Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998, p. 1.

12. M.J. Nolin and E. Davies, Student Victimization at School, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,

1995.

13. Chandler et al., 1998, p. 1.

14. E. Silvia and J. Thorne, School-Based

Drug Prevention Programs: A Longitudinal

Study of Selected School Districts, Research

Triangle Park: Research Triangle Institute,

1997, p. 15. This study involved surveys

of more than 10,000 students in school

years 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, and

1994–95 in paired school districts from

across the country.

15. Institute for Research in Social Science, Carolina Poll: Fall 1997, Chapel Hill,

NC: University of North Carolina, 1998.

16. J. Wilson and G. Kelling, “Broken windows: The police and neighborhood

safety,” Atlantic Monthly (March) 249(3):

29–38, 1982.

17. M.D. Resnick, P.S. Bearman, R.W. Blum,

K.E. Bauman, K.M. Harris, J. Jones, J. Tabor, T. Beuhring, R.E. Sieving, M. Shew, M.

Ireland, L.H. Bearinger, and J.R. Udry,

“Protecting adolescents from harm,” Journal of the American Medical Association

(September) 278(10):823–832, 1997.

18. North Carolina’s Department of Public

Instruction includes the following categories of exceptional children: autistic,

behaviorally-emotionally disabled, deafblind, hearing impaired, mentally disabled, multihandicapped, orthopedically

impaired, other health impaired, pregnant

students, preschool delayed/atypical,

specific learning disabled, speech language impaired, traumatic brain injured,

and visually impaired.

19. Heaviside et al., 1998, p. 18.

20. North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, Report on Out-of-School Suspensions in North Carolina Schools,

internal publication, 1997, p. 6.

21. North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 1997, p. 6.

22. North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, Annual Report on School Violence, internal publication, 1996, p. 6.

23. Rockingham County, “Youth Out of the

Education Mainstream Application,” 1997.

24. North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 1997, p. iv.

25. U.S. Department of Education and U.S.

Department of Justice, Manual to Combat

Truancy, Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education, 1996.

26. E.M. Garry, Truancy: First Step to a Lifetime of Problems, Bulletin, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, 1997, p. 1.

27. North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, Statistical Profile: 97, Raleigh,

NC: State Board of Education, 1998, p. 3.

28. Bureau of the Census, Educational Attainment in the United States: March 1993

and 1992, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, 1994.

29. J.H. Braddock and J.M. McPartland,

“Education of early adolescents,” Review

of Research in Education 19:135–170, 1993.

30. National Dropout Prevention Center,

Dropout Statistics, 1997.

31. National Dropout Prevention Center,

Dropout Reasons, 1997.

32. North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, Dropout Rates for 94–95

Through 96–97, internal publication, 1997.

33. North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction, 1998, p. 3.

34. S. Cantelon and D. LeBoeuf, Keeping

Young People in School: Community Programs That Work, Bulletin, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, 1997, p. 1.

35. J.D. Finn, “Withdrawing from school,”

Review of Educational Research 59(2):117–

142, 1989.

36. H. Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 1997, Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998, p. 1.
11

This Bulletin was prepared under grant

number 94–JS–CX–0009 from the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

37. Governor’s Commission on Juvenile

Crime, Final Report, internal publication,

1998, p. 1.

38. North Carolina Governor’s Crime

Commission—Criminal Justice Analysis

Center, SystemStats: Understanding Juvenile Crime Trends and What Can and Cannot Be Done About Them, internal publication, 1997, p. 1.

39. M.L. Medaris, E. Campbell, and B.

James, Sharing Information: A Guide to the

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

and Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs, Program Report, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, and U.S. Department of Education, Family Policy

Compliance Office, December 1997.

40. Ingersoll and LeBoeuf, 1997, p. 6.

41. Center for the Prevention of School

Violence, 1996, p. 1.

Acknowledgments

Pam Riley, Ed.D., is the Executive Director and Joanne McDaniel is the Assistant Director of the Center for the Prevention of School Violence (CPSV), an

interinstitutional service center of The University of North Carolina system. The

Center’s YOEM initiative is supported by OJJDP under grant 94–JS–CX–0009.

All sidebars describing “A North Carolina Profile” were written by Danya

Perry, YOEM coordinator for CPSV.

All photographs are from Coming Up Taller: Arts and Humanities Programs

for Children and Youth At Risk, Washington, DC: President’s Committee on

the Arts and the Humanities with the National Assembly of Local Arts

Agencies, 1996.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org
Bulletin NCJ 176343

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300