Minority Youth and Disproportionate Minority Contact

Okori Uneke
Winston-Salem State University

Background
     Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC), initially known as Disproportionate Minority Confinement refers to a condition that exists when a racial/ethnic group’s confinement exceeds their representation in the general population. Since 1988, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act has required states that receive funding under the Act to determine whether the proportion of juvenile minorities in confinement exceeds their proportion in the general population. The Act was amended by Congress in 1992 to make it a core requirement that states demonstrate they are making efforts to reduced DMC (Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1999).
     Again, in 2002, the federal Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act defined disproportionate minority contact as “the disproportionate number of juvenile members of ethnic minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.”  Thus the current DMC initiative began as a confinement issue (Disproportionate Minority Confinement), and in some locales maintains that focus on the overrepresentation of minority youth in confinement.  In many areas nationwide however, including North Carolina, DMC has come to mean “Disproportionate Minority Contact” which includes confinement.  This understanding of DMC seems to best recognize the processes and systems preceding confinement that may also impact the disproportionate minority representation of youth in the justice system.  
     Recent research by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the Building Blocks for Youth (2000) initiative documented the scale at which minority youth are affected by policies that have expanded the use of juvenile detention. For example, in 1997, of the 105,790 youths in juvenile detention facilities prior to adjudication or committed to state juvenile correctional facilities following adjudication, minority youth represented 63 percent, even though they only represent 34 percent of the total youth population in the United States. In contrast, white youth represented 71 percent of the youth arrested for crimes nationwide but only 37 percent of youths committed to detention. Furthermore, in 1997-98, African American youth represented 15 percent of the total youth population, but 26 percent of the youth arrested, 31 percent of the youth referred to juvenile court, and 44 percent of the youth detained (Jones and Poe-Yamagata, 2000).
     According to Hoytt, Schiraldi, Smith, and Ziedenbeg (2002), by 1997, in 30 out of 50 states, which contain 83 percent of U.S. population, minority youth represented the majority of youth in detention. Even in states with tiny ethnic minority populations like Minnesota and Pennsylvania, which are 90 percent and 85 percent white, respectively, more than half of the detention population are minority youth. The OJJDP showed that in every state in the Union, with the exception of Vermont, the minority population of detained youth exceeded their proportion in the general population (Snyder et al., 1999).
Given that detention is a key entry point from which youth further penetrate the juvenile justice system, decisions made at detention can have a profound impact on disproportionality throughout the system. Both aggregate national and individual state data show that racial disparities increase at every stage of the juvenile justice process. For example, when white and ethnic minority first-time youth offenders were charged with the same offenses, African American  youth and Latino youth were six times and three times, respectively more likely than white youth to be incarcerated. In 1997, minority youth comprised 46 percent of the cases transferred by the judicial system to adult criminal court and 58 percent of the youth admitted to state prisons (Hoytt et al., 2002). Data across the country indicate that minority youth bear the brunt of policies that lead to the arrest, processing, detaining, adjudication, and imprisonment of young people. Nonetheless, it is believed that, if disparities in detention could be reduced, subsequent disparities in adult correctional facilities should also decline.
     There are many factors, though, beyond the scope of the juvenile justice system that influence the disparate detention of minority youth. Socioeconomic status, family status, and neighborhood are related to juvenile justice outcomes (Byrne and Sampson, 1986; Cohen and Kluegel, 1978; Wolfgang et al., 1972). Neighborhood, in this context, refers to communities of concentrated disadvantage with a number of stark characteristics, including high percentages of families in poverty, high percentages of families receiving public assistance, high percentages of unemployed males, and high percentages of female-headed households (Schuck, 2002, Land, 2000; Hawkins et al., 1998; Elliott, 1994; Peeples and Loeber, 1993).
Disproportionate Minority Contact in North Carolina
     The overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system, or disproportionate minority contact (DMC), is a focus of national attention and action.  Communities across the nation conduct regular research to better understand DMC in their community and to inform corrective policy making and programming. Forsyth County is one of four North Carolina counties selected to partner with the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission in the development and implementation of plans to address minority overrepresentation in addition to Guilford, Union, and New Hanover counties.  Throughout each county, the process involves identification of the extent of the local DMC problem, assessment of the contributing factors to this problem, development and implementation of strategic interventions to reduce DMC, and evaluation of the effectiveness of these strategies. 
     Through collaborative planning and partnering, the Forsyth County DMC Committee is working to increase the coordination of dedicated efforts, the consistency of data reporting for these assessments, and the awareness of communities and policy makers about the issue of DMC and its prevalence in this county.  It has been a general consensus among the DMC Committee members that in order to effectively reduce disproportionate minority contact, the intervention points must be identified and understood to effectively intervene in the paths of youth on a consistent basis. Understanding that many of the systemic barriers in Forsyth County are similarly prevalent across the nation, a review of No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Affecting Youth of Color in the Justice System (2005) was identified as a resource for possible strategies and suggestions for next steps in Forsyth County.  A product of Building Blocks for Youth, the No Turning Back report documents nationwide efforts to reduce DMC and provides best practices that can serve as models for Forsyth County.
     Several strategies have been identified as national models for elevating the awareness of DMC issues and determining the intervention points for focused programming. They include the following:

• Forming successful collaboratives comprised of committed policy makers and effective collaborative management to commit to the DMC Committees
• Routine, uniform data collection
• Agency commitment of personnel toward DMC Committee participation and related issues
• Effective evaluation of intervention programming

     As a starting point and foundation for further inquiry, this report is an overview of disproportionate minority representation in Forsyth County in various systems for the time periods indicated as well as a closer look at 100 adjudicated youth and their interactions with the systems of education, child welfare, juvenile justice and mental health. Because it is the objective of the Forsyth DMC Committee to best understand where to invest resources for a positive future for youth, the project was undertaken on two levels: analysis of secondary aggregate data and a proportional sample data. The objective of this study is to examine youth serving systems (education, child welfare, juvenile justice and mental health) in Forsyth County as a whole, in a bid to identify trends and indicators that present themes for further attention and investigation with respect to disproportionate minority contact. By so doing, it may be possible to identify potential trends and “decision points” where strategic prevention and intervention programming may be most effective.
Data
     Data for this study is derived from the following agencies: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools (discipline [suspension] records), Winston-Salem Police Department (juvenile arrest records), and Forsyth County Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (complaint records). These records were for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.  Data were analyzed to determine the relative rate index (RRI) for minority youth compared to white youth for the incidents reported. A comparison analysis of records of school discipline options, juvenile arrests, and records of juvenile complaints for the two-year period provides an insight into disproportionate  minority contact within these systems, and creates a benchmark from which to measure subsequent DMC occurrences and the impact of targeted intervention strategies.
Further, a proportional random sample of 100 adjudicated youths in Forsyth County was also selected from the Forsyth County DJJDP Case Records for 2004-2005 and was cross referenced with Winston-Salem/ Forsyth County Schools, Forsyth County Department of Social Services, and CenterPoint Mental Health Services to look for trends in adjudicated youth’s interactions within these systems.
     Given the historical and statistically validated overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system, one universally accepted approach to understand disproportionate minority contact is to compare white youth contacts in the system with minority youth contacts.
Two statistics, Incidence Rate and Relative Rate Index are employed for this analysis.
     Incidence Rate (IR), displayed as a percentage, is calculated as the number of incidents for each ethnic category divided by the total number of youths for that ethnic category, multiplied by 100.  The incidence rates are then used for calculating the relative rate index.
     The Relative Rate Index (RRI) is a ratio of the incidence rate for an ethnic minority group to the incidence rate for whites. A RRI value of 1.00 would indicate that the comparative incidence rates are the same.  The further away from a RRI value of 1.00 (generally, beginning at a difference of .05) the more unlikely the result occurred as a random process and thus further study is warranted.  For example, a RRI of 2.5 for school suspensions suggests that, for every white student suspended, 2.5 minority students were suspended. Put differently, minority students were suspended at 2.5 times the rate of suspension for white students. 
Results: School Suspension
     Traditionally, the educational system is relied upon as a right of all Americans and an opportunity to explore their horizons and attain their potential.  Although it is acknowledged that educational systems across the nation are strained, this system interacts with nearly all American youth and is a formative foundation for them. Because of the breadth of children the school system reaches, it is a promising ground for staff and parent education, as well as student intervention.

     Beginning with school suspensions, Table 1 shows that a total of 26,033 suspensions were handed out in 2003-2004; 6,195 incidents for white students compared to 19, 838 incidents for minority students. The incidence rates were 27.1 percent and 90.5 percent for white and minority youth, respectively for the school year under review.  The relative rate index for the various suspension categories were 2.76 (ISS), 4.14 (OSS), and 1.57 (LTS), respectively.

     For 2004-2005, Table 2 shows that there were a total of 14,882 suspensions, 2,948 incidents for white students compared to 11,934 incidents for minority students. The incidence rate among white youth indicates 12.5 percent out of a student enrollment of 23,630 compared to 49 percent among minority youth out of an enrollment of 24,345. The equivalent RRI are 3.23 (ISS), 4.65 (OSS), and 7.5 (LTS), respectively.
     The 2004-2005 data indicate a steep decline in suspension rates over the preceding school year. Data also show that even with the decrease in discipline incidents, minority youth still accounted for a large bulk of the discipline incidents. The 2004-05 discipline option with the highest percentage increase was long term suspensions where 37 of the 41 youth receiving long term suspensions were minority, representing over 90% for this category.

     In comparing suspension rates for the two school years, Table 3 shows that, in all suspension categories, the RRI for 2004-2005 were higher compared to 2003-2004.  The gains in RRI values are 0.47 (ISS), 0.51 (OSS), and 5.93 (LTS). The long-term suspensions category recorded the highest increase of nearly 6 points. 
     To provide further evidence of disparities in youth disciplinary measures, a closer review and analysis of out-of-school suspensions (OSS) by gender and ethnicity for the two school years under review were examined. Table 4a shows that there were a total of 1,812 suspensions, out of
a population of 22,335 students for elementary schools in 2003-2004. The RRI indicates that for every white female student suspended, about 8 minority female students were suspended.

     Similarly, for every white male student suspended, 5 minority male students were suspended.
Table 4b shows that, in 2004-2005, there were 1,404 suspensions (down from 1,812 in 2003-2004), out of a population of 23,561 students for elementary schools. Also, the RRI values were slightly lower than those of 2003-2004, but still indicated that, for every white female student suspended, 7.5 minority female students were suspended. Similarly, for every white male student suspended, about 4 minority male students were suspended.

     For middle schools, in 2003-2004, Table 5a shows that there were 5,608 out-of-school suspensions out of a total student population of 11,547. The RRI values indicate that minority female and male students were suspended 6.2 and 3.4 times, respectively, the rate of white female and male students. For 2004-2005, Table 5b shows that there were 4,042 suspensions out of a total student enrollment of 10,545. Compared to the previous school year, this reflects a slight decline in number of suspensions. Nonetheless, the RRI values indicate that minority female and male students were suspended about 7 and 5.4 times, respectively, the rate of white female and male students.

     For high schools, 2003-2004 recorded a total of 5,290 out-of-school suspensions, out of a population of 13,535 (Table 6a). Following a similar pattern already observed for elementary and middle schools, the RRI values indicate a disproportionate OSS incidence rate for minority female students (5.1 times) and male students (3.6 times).  For 2004-2005, Table 6b shows that there were 2,877 suspensions out of a population of 13,869 high school students, indicating a decline by 2,413 suspensions from the previous year. However, the resulting RRI values consistently indicate disproportionate outcomes for minority students. 
     The suspension records for the two-year period provide different observations with respect to disparities in disciplinary outcomes for minority youth. On the one hand, OSS rates decreased for all students at all school levels in 2004-2005. In fact, there were 13,013 OSS in 2003-2004, compared to 8,323 in 2004-2005, indicating a decrease by 4,690 suspensions, or 36 percent. On the other hand, as Table 7 shows, minority youth significantly received more out-of-school suspensions than white youth for both school years.

     In 2004-2005, the RRI values for middle and high schools were relatively higher than in 2003-2004. Although 2004-2005 school year recorded a substantial decline in overall OSS rates compared to the previous year, minority youth still encountered disproportionate disciplinary outcomes. This fact increases the need and desire for greater scrutiny of school discipline data to determine what issues are driving this outcome.  Further, a review of gender comparisons indicate an increasing need to understand the dynamics impacting discipline outcomes for minority females, who in 2004-2005, were 6 to 7.5 times more likely to be suspended from school than white females.
Juvenile Arrest
     The analysis of juvenile arrests made between July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005 indicates similar disparities among white and minority juveniles as were found in the school discipline data. Table 8 show that, for the period July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004, minority juveniles were 6 times more likely to be arrested than white juveniles (RRI = 6).  The disparity decreased only slightly in the subsequent period, July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005. However, the rate of arrest for minority youth still remained almost at the same level (RRI = 5.8).

     Table 9 shows police arrests by ethnicity. For the two-year period under review, African American youth comprised 64.2 percent and 64 percent, respectively of total arrests. Also, there was a two-percentage increase in Hispanic youth arrests, up 14.6 percent in 2004-2005 from 12.5 percent in 2003-2004.
Juvenile Arrest Charges
     Arrest charges by the Winston-Salem Police Department for the two-year period were also reviewed.  The most frequent arrest charge was that of runaway.  Of all arrest charges made between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004, 75.6% were of runaways (436 out of 577 arrests).  Similarly, of all arrest charges made for the subsequent period, July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, 78.6% were for runaways (507 out of 645 arrests). Combined, 943 out of a total of 1,222 (77.2 percent) arrest charges for both years were for the same offense. Furthermore, African American juveniles comprised 66 percent (622 out of 943) of runaway arrest charges made in the combined two-year period. By comparison, the second largest percentage, 23 percent (220 out of 943) of runaway charges was among white juveniles.
Juvenile Justice Complaints and Referrals
     The data set on juvenile justice complaints and referrals were provided by the Forsyth County DJJDP through NC-JOIN, and relevant information for 2004 and 2005 are presented in Table 10.

     In both years, African American and Hispanic juveniles account for 68 percent and 76 percent, respectively of the total number of juvenile referrals. Similarly, during the same period, both groups comprised 70 percent and 74 percent, respectively of juveniles with complaints. These outcomes clearly indicate a disproportionate contact for minority youth. 
     The RRI values indicate that African American youth, as a single category had referrals, complaints, and compliant approved more twice that rate for white youth. In contrast, Hispanic youth had considerable lower rates than whites in all categories. However, African American youth, compared to white youth, had a higher rate of complaints not approved: 2.5 times and 3 times in 2004 and 2005, respectively. This adjudication outcome (decision after complaint has been received) suggests application of equitable standards across ethnic boundaries.   
Sample of Forsyth County Adjudicated Youth
     In an attempt to better understand the problems of adjudicated youth and best invest intervention resources, the systems with which they have interacted - Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, schools, and social services - were examined. A proportional stratified sample selected from a sampling frame of Forsyth County DJJDP Case Records is shown in Table 11.

Forsyth County Juvenile Justice Contact and Adjudication
     Generally, the juvenile court has a number of dispositional alternatives. For example, it can dismiss the case, transfer a case to juvenile’s jurisdiction of residence, make the youth a ward of the court, or place him/her in informal probation. Table 12 shows the Forsyth County DJJDP record of juvenile delinquency, undisciplined and dismissed cases in 2005.

     The table shows that 42 percent of white youth had records of delinquent behavior, 21 percent for indiscipline, and 29 percent of cases were dismissed. For African Americans, 46 percent were reported delinquent, 13 percent for indiscipline, and 38 percent of cases were dismissed. The rate of delinquency for African Americans was just about the same (RRI = 1.1) as that of whites. While the rate of indiscipline for African American youth was lower (RRI = 0.6) than that of whites, the rate of dismissal for African Americans (RRI = 1.3) was slightly higher than that of white youth. Similarly, Hispanic youth were delinquent at rates (RRI = 1.2) slightly higher than those of white youth, but their cases were dismissed at rates (RRI = 1.7) almost twice those of white youth. 
Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, and Probation Supervision
     Table 13 shows that, for African American youth, the rates of restitution (RRI = 0.32), transfers to Superior Court (RRI = 0.32), and probation supervision (RRI = 0.62) were about half or even less the rates for white youth.  In contrast, the rate of probation supervision for Hispanic youth (RRI = 1.5) was higher than that of white youth. For the youth, the probationary and supervisory entities provide the greatest opportunity for intervention impact.

Protective Supervision, Transferred for Disposition, and Dismissal
     As Table 14 shows, African American youth had protective supervision at a rate (RRI = 0.71) less than that of whites. While their cases were transferred for disposition at a rate (RRI = 0.89) less than that of whites, they were dismissed at rates (RRI = 1.4) higher than that of white youth.

     Similarly, Hispanic youth were dismissed at rates (RRI = 2.3) more than twice that of whites. Multi-racial and Native American youth had no records of protective supervision, disposition transfers, and dismissal.
School Absences and Drop Outs, 2004-2005
     Table 15 presents a breakdown of school absences and dropouts for the school year, 2004-2005. From the youth sample, record shows that 50 percent of white youth in the sample were truant, compared to 44 percent of African American and 17 percent of Hispanic youth, respectively. The juvenile justice records also reveal that 38 percent of African Youth and 83 percent of Hispanic youth were not enrolled in school. African American youth had a dropout rate of 10 percent, while both white and Hispanic youth in the sample had no record of school dropout.

     Interestingly, about 7 percent of African American youth, compared to 4 percent of white youth in the juvenile justice system had no school record associated with them. The striking observation from the sample data is that minority youth were less slightly likely to be truant or to not be enrolled in school than white youth. 
Youth and Social Assistance
     Generally, poor families often struggle and require systemic support from social service agencies. How many youth interact with agencies of Social Service? Social assistance implies use of the following publicly-funded services:

• Food Stamps/Public Assistance (Work-First, Medicaid, Day Care, Emergency Assistance in the form of financial aid for rent/housing, and heating).
• Child Welfare Services (a report of abuse or neglect was investigated in the home).

     Table 16 presents a percentage breakdown of youth in the sample that have interacted with the Department of Social Services for support that includes benefits, such as food stamps or other forms of public assistance, child welfare services, and/or both. The record indicates that 64 percent of youth in the sample data received some type of social assistance.  Of all ethnic groups, African American youth relied most on food stamps/public assistance (71 percent), compared to 67 percent of Hispanics and 42 percent of whites. Roughly the same percentage of white and African American youth sampled had received child welfare services, 42% and 41% respectively, compared to 67 percent of Hispanic youth. Twenty-nine percent of white, 40 percent of African American, and 67 percent of Hispanic youth received both public assistance and child welfare services. However, 50 percent of white, 29 percent of African American, and 33 percent of Hispanic youth had received neither of these services. The RRI values indicate that minority youth were approximately twice as likely to have received food stamps or public assistance; African American and Hispanic youth were 1.4 times and 2.3 times, respectively as likely to have received both public assistance and child welfare services as were white youth. 
Youth and Mental Health
     Data show that 23 percent of the youth in the sample had active case files with mental health services. Table 17 shows that 15 out of 68 African American youth in the sample (22 percent), compared to 6 out of 24 white youth were diagnosed with some form of mental illness.

      Compared to white youth, the RRI value of 1.14 for African American youth suggests only a very slight disproportional disparity with respect to mental health diagnosis.
Discussion
     In comparing school suspensions for the two-year period under review, data show that there were a total of 14,882 school discipline incidents in 2004-2005, compared to 26,033 incidents in 2003-2004.  This is a difference of 11,151 incidents, amounting to a staggering 63% decrease.  This raises an obvious question as to what factors contributed to the decrease.  Further, in all suspension categories, the RRI values for 2004-2005 were higher than those for 2003-2004. This school discipline data support the need for further investigation and analysis to determine appropriate intervention strategies to negate the increasing, undesirable trend. Future inquiry may provide further insights on this development.
     Although 2004-2005 school year recorded a substantial decline in overall out-of-school suspension rates, compared to the previous year, minority youth still encountered disproportionate disciplinary outcomes. This fact increases the need and desire for greater scrutiny of school discipline data to determine what issues are driving this outcome.  Further, a review of gender comparisons indicate an increasing need to understand the dynamics impacting discipline outcomes for minority females, who in 2004-2005, were 6 to 8 times more likely to be suspended from school than white females.
     There are many unanswered questions with respect to juvenile arrests that should be explored.  A few of them are:  First, what can we learn about runaway arrest that can aid us in confronting DMC in juvenile arrests? Second, where and what time of day are most arrests occurring?  Third, what patterns of youth arrests can be identified? Lastly, how can GIS spatial analysis better depict the community assets and areas of need? Obtaining answers to these and other probing questions is an important next step to understanding juvenile arrests and how and where to direct appropriate interventions. With respect to juveniles with complaints and referrals, there is need to further explore the DJJDP processes and procedures in a bid to understanding how complaints and referrals are initiated.
     Regarding school truancy and dropouts, it seems that prevention and intervention programming for school age delinquent youth will require strategic attention due to the fact that these youth who most need assistance are not attending school.  This is an indication that poverty and other social factors are major contributors to juvenile delinquency regardless of ethnicity.  That being said, African American youth still most frequently received public assistance (71% of those sampled) compared to 42% of white youth.  Roughly the same percentage of white and African American youth sampled had received child welfare services, 42% and 41% respectively. Finally, with respect to youth and mental health, current data do not provide information as whether appropriate treatment services were provided beyond diagnoses. Perhaps, an in-depth review of individual case files will probably reveal any disparities in youth mental health services.
Conclusions
     The study permits us to draw the following conclusions with respect to DMC in Forsyth County: First, DMC is most prevalent in school system and within law enforcement juvenile contacts. Second, DMC is less of an issue with juvenile justice decision processes. Third, further inquiry is required in order to draw conclusions about any trends or patterns of DMC in the systems of child welfare and protective services and mental health. Fourth, regardless of ethnicity, education, child welfare, and mental health systemic processes are important to the positive outcomes for adjudicated youth. Lastly, effectively reducing DMC will take committed policy makers, community members and agencies working together in a focused, data-driven process to ensure that appropriate interventions can be implemented and sustained.
Based on the data analyses, the following observations can be made about reducing DMC in Forsyth County: First, DMC cannot be effectively reduced if it is not made a priority.  In order to effect policy and systemic change, policy makers must be willing to focus on the issues of racial and ethnic disparity in the face of discomfort and to elevate DMC as a priority with intentional dedication of time, effort, and staff to the work of reducing disparities.  DMC reduction efforts must have guidance from the top down and support from the community up in order for collaborative change to be reinforced.  Sustained, systemic change will be the result of multiple efforts of many people.  Change will involve dedicated, focused efforts and a holistic paradigm shift.  What happens in one system must be complemented by others in order to be effective. 
     Second, to further institutionalize DMC assessment, data collection and reporting must be routine and systematic so that patterns and trends can be identified to inform effective programmatic strategies.  The reporting of data must be shared throughout the community and given thoughtful, focused attention to understand the areas that can be addressed for effective DMC reduction.  Looking at all of the systems that youth interact with that impact DMC also helps to understand where to most efficiently invest resources for prevention, intervention, and education.
Recommendations
     Understandably, more research and analysis of systems data, in addition to collection of primary data through surveys of juveniles, will be an appropriate next step on the problem of disproportionate minority contact in Forsyth County.  Increasing the community’s understanding of DMC and determining effective intervention strategies in school discipline options and juvenile arrests could have a major impact on DMC in Forsyth County.  Additionally, further research and analysis of the school, social service, and mental health experiences of youth should assist with discovering decision points within these systems that impact disparities in youth contact.  Progress in each of these areas will result in more knowledge and awareness about DMC and increase the likelihood of appropriate strategies to reduce the occurrence of DMC in Forsyth County. 
     Specific recommendations identified to achieve this end include the following: First, elevating the priority of DMC within agencies by educating each agency about the initiative and institutionalizing agency participation so that new staff hired is also educated and at least one or two staff members are routinely and actively engaged in the DMC Committee activities. Second, raising community awareness through educational activities that can be folded into community events. Lastly, effort should be geared toward systematically and routinely collecting data from community partners.  This will require a process of developing templates for the data to be collected to simplify data collection processes and increase the institutionalization of DMC monitoring.
     With regard to implementing the strategies above, success in reducing DMC will be driven by effective leadership; focused on institutionalizing awareness within community agencies; and diverse in representation by policy makers and community leaders that expand cultural awareness, advocate for, and implement effective policy change.
Acknowledgments
     This project was supported by Grant No. 034-1-05-010-AJ-037 awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice through the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, Governor’s Crime Commission. I thank the Forsyth County DMC Committee, Forsyth Futures, and the WSSU Center

References      
Byrne, J. and R. Sampson (1986). The Social Ecology of Crime.  New York: Springer-Verlag.
Building Blocks for Youth Initiative (2005). No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities
       Affecting Youth of Color in the Justice System. Washington, DC: Youth Law Center.
Cohen, L. and J. Kluegel (1972). Determinants of Juvenile Court Dispositions: Ascriptive and Achieved Factors in Two
       Metropolitan Courts. American Sociological Review, 43: 162-176.
Elliott, D. (1994). Serious Violent Offenders: Onset, Developmental Course, and Termination. Criminology, 32(1): 1-21.
Hawkins, D. J. Laub, and J. Lauritsen (1998). Race, Ethnicity, and Serious Juvenile Offending, in R. Loeber and D. Farrington
       (eds), Serious &Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
       Publications.
Hoytt, E. H., V. Schiraldi, B. V. Smith, and J. Ziedenberg (2002).  Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform: Reducing Racial
       Disparities in Juvenile Detention. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Jones, M. and E. Poe-Yamagata (2000). And Justice for Some. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth Initiative.
NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2000).
       You and the Juvenile Justice System: A Guide for Youths, Parents, and Victims. Raleigh, NC: NCDJJDP.
NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2000). Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Policy Glossary.
       Raleigh, NC: NCDJJDP.
Land, K. (2000). Influence of Neighborhood, Peer, and Family Context: Trajectories of Delinquent/Criminal Offending Across
       the Life Course. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Peeples, F. and R. Loeber (1993). Families, Race and Juvenile Delinquency: A Study of Neighborhood Contexts, in D. Huizinga,
       R. Loeber and T. Thornberry (eds), Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
       Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Schuck, A. (2002). Understanding the Role of Neighborhood in the Long Term Criminal Consequences of Childhood.
       Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.
Synder, H. et al. (1999). Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1988-1997. Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile
       Justice.
Wolfgang, M, R. Figlio, and T. Sellin (1972). Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

Appendix A: Definition of Terms

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

Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Discipline Definitions
Terms of In-school suspension
      Bus suspension/Detention
      Reprimand
      Community or School Service

Short Term Suspension (Up to 5 days)
Grades K-5:  0-5 days suspension
Grades 6-12: 1-5 days suspension
Grades 9-12: 1-3 days suspension

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

365 Day Suspension: Alternative School Assignment up to 18 months

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transferred to Superior Court
The case is transferred to superior court for disposition

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

Appendix B: List of Tables

Table 1: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School Suspensions, 2003-2004

Table 2: Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School Suspensions, 2004-2005

Table 3: Relative Rate Index Comparisons, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 7: OSS Relative Rate Index Comparison, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005

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

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

Table 10: Forsyth County DJJDP Complaints Data by Race, 2004 and 2005

Table 11: Forsyth County DJJDP Case Records Sample Design

Table 12: Juvenile Justice Contact and Adjudication, 2005
              Delinquency, Undisciplined, Dismissal

Table 13: Juvenile Justice Adjudication, 2005
              Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, Probation Supervision

Table 14: Juvenile Justice Adjudication, 2005
              Protective Supervision, Transferred for Disposition, Dismissed

Table 15: School Absences and Drop Outs (Youth Sample), 2004-2005

Table 16: Youth and Social Assistance

Table 17: Mental Health Diagnoses by Ethnicity