Part I

Juvenile Violence and Delinquency Prevention


Introduction

The vast majority of our children, even those who live in the most dire circumstances, never commit crimes, are never picked up by the police, are never taken to court and are never adjudicated delinquent. Even among those juveniles who are arrested, most never come back to court a second time.

The rising wave of juvenile crime that has created a climate of fear in our schools and our communities is the result of increasingly violent acts committed by only a handful of young offenders. For these children who do become involved with the courts, the Governor's Crime Commission is recommending changes to the juvenile justice system that will hold juveniles more accountable for their actions.

No child adjudicated delinquent in North Carolina should ever walk away from juvenile court without seeing consequences for his behavior. Instead, juveniles must receive swift, certain, appropriate, fair and consistent sanctions every time they are adjudicated. Each time they appear in the court system, the sanctions should increase. To accomplish this, the Governor's Crime Commission recommends creating a system of restitution and graduated sanctions that follow a continuum of treatment ranging from community based programs to training schools. And to ensure that both the juvenile and the community are properly served, resources and information about the youthful offender should follow each child.

Many juvenile offenders come to the attention of the courts, social service agencies, and school administrators when they are very young. With effective and innovative family and community based intervention programs, they can be deterred from further delinquent activity. Early intervention can reduce the rate of juvenile delinquency. The policies recommended by the Governor's Crime Commission encourage early identification of those most likely to become serious persistent delinquents, and support and recommend the programs that preserve and reinforce positive community ties.

Implementing these policies will not be easy, but the results will be rewarding. Programs will also not be cost-free, but they can be cost-effective. The Commission recommends policies designed to improve cooperation, coordination and information sharing among agencies serving juveniles. Through these system changes, efficiency and services will improve and the duplication of effort that currently exists will be eliminated.

All Commission recommendations are aimed toward improving the quality of life for every citizen, and more importantly, toward providing a safer and more secure life for every child in North Carolina. We must never forget that almost all the victims of juvenile crime are other juveniles. Reducing juvenile delinquency will provide the greatest benefit to other children. The purpose of the juvenile justice system is to serve our children.


The Strategies and Recommendations

The Governor's Crime Commission has adopted a seven-point program to reduce juvenile violence in North Carolina. Each program contains specific recommendations.

  1. The juvenile justice system should provide swift, certain sanctions for every juvenile who violates the law.

  2. Prevention programs should reinforce and strengthen existing community institutions that help kids stay out of trouble.

  3. Expand intervention programs that target and serve those most at risk of becoming delinquent.

  4. Treatment and other juvenile service dollars should follow children.

  5. The Governor's Crime Commission supports the creation of a family court system to increase the supervision and coordination of services for children coming into the legal system.

  6. The Juvenile Code should be modified to meet the changing problems faced by the juvenile justice system in North Carolina.

  7. North Carolina needs a more integrated juvenile justice system for processing clients and information.


1. The juvenile justice system should provide swift, certain sanctions for every juvenile who violates the law.

Judges in every judicial district need a system of graduated sanctions sentencing options that can be varied and applied so that each new delinquent act is followed by an increased sanction. Juveniles have to learn that actions have consequences

These sanctions should include secure programs in every judicial district for juveniles who need short term confinement. Programs work best when they are local. Training schools should be reserved for those juveniles needing long term confinement.

To accomplish this, the Governor's Crime Commission recommends the following:


Establish a system of graduated sanctions in every judicial district

In the last four years, North Carolina's total arrest rate for juveniles ages fifteen and under has increased 52 percent. The juvenile arrest rate for weapons violations has risen 138 percent in the last four years, and homicide arrest rates have risen 23 percent in the last year. These rates alarm the public, but worse, they strain an already over-burdened juvenile justice system that lacks the capability to effectively intervene early in the career of our juvenile offenders. Graduated sanctions are one approach to more effective intervention.

Few appropriate sanctions are available for first and second time offenders who could benefit from a broader array of flexible intervention strategies. Instead, the juvenile justice system concentrates services on serious youthful offenders, some of whom could also benefit from graduated sanctions. This type of system combines treatment and rehabilitation with fair, reasonable, and appropriate sanctions. It increases the juvenile justice system's responsiveness while increasing juvenile accountability. Although the program should be flexible, it does have certain basic components:

Graduated sanctions are not appropriate for every juvenile offender. To make this system work well, juveniles must first be classified and accurately assessed to determine if this type of sentencing will be effective for them. For those juveniles who are part of this system of sanctions, the benefits can be quickly realized, especially if the juveniles are able to remain part of their community. In addition, the state can realize an immediate substantial economic benefit since graduated sanctions can be far more cost effective than secure care programs: presently, it costs more than $47,000 per year to keep a child in a training school.

A graduated sanction system can work. Texas and Florida have implemented statutory guidelines for deciding proper graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders; they are examples of systems that serve both the child and the community. A similar system can work in our state to the benefit of us all.


Increase the number of intensive juvenile court counselors

More juvenile court counselors are needed so that more court involved juveniles can receive intensive services. To meet this need, the Governor's Crime Commission recommends and supports the expansion budget request of the Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts for more juvenile court counselors.

Court involved juveniles who have intensive counseling while on probation generally have a lower rate of recidivism because intensive counselors normally have smaller caseloads and can devote more time to each child. These counselors are better able to detect a child's problems, offer early intervention and seek the services that each child needs.

Two Pennsylvania programs are examples of intensive counseling that works. First, the Bethesda Day Treatment Center in West Milton provides services to delinquent and dependent juveniles without removing them from their homes. A preliminary study of the program shows these children have a recidivism rate far lower than state or national averages. Second, the Student Assistance Program there develops effective working relationships among educators, juvenile court counselors, law enforcement, school-based probation officers, and families.

By giving the juvenile court system more counselors to provide intensive service, more juveniles can be reached before it is too late for them to turn their lives around.


Expand the Community Based Alternatives (CBA) Program

North Carolina has a system of Community Based Alternatives (CBA) programs in every county; it should be expanded to serve at least 80 percent of juveniles coming to court. The programs are governed by a interagency county board and vary greatly from community to community. The one factor shared by programs is that every dollar spent is money invested in a child's future and the well-being of a community.

CBA programs are designed to meet individual county needs for prevention and intervention projects and to give judges sentencing options for delinquent youths. However, CBA programs serve non-court involved youths, as well as court involved children. At present, only between 65 percent and 70 percent of the children served by CBA programs are court referred. Some juveniles are referred by school systems and other agencies in an attempt to keep the children out of court.

CBA funding totals about $30.1 million per year, only about half of this comes from state funds. The rest comes from federal, local, and private sources. Funds are distributed to each county based upon the 10 to 17 year old population. No county receives less than $6,000.

The average cost to the state for CBA programs is less than $1000 per child per year, but these costs vary widely from less than $500 per child for restitution programs to over $11,000 for a group home placement, which is far less than the cost of training schools which is more than $47,000 per child.

CBA programs appear to be very effective. According to an independent evaluation, youth served by CBA programs were 79 percent less likely to be reported as runaways and 76 percent less likely to be suspended from school. They are 86 percent less likely to be referred to court. Of those who are referred to court, if they are part of a CBA program, only about half will be sent to a training school. This alone represents a significant economic savings for communities. The problem is, at the present, there are only enough CBA programs to serve less than 40 percent of court involved youth.

Because these programs are obvious examples of cost effective, successful intervention and treatment, increasing their availability serves everyone. Ohio has a program, Reclaim Ohio, that gives counties financial incentives to create more CBA programs. So far the new program has decreased training school referrals by over 44 percent without compromising public safety. The Governor's Crime Commission believes the legislature should look into adopting this program in North Carolina.


Expand juvenile and parental accountability programs

Every adjudicated juvenile delinquent should be sanctioned by the juvenile justice system. At present far too many juvenile offenders receive no punishment the first few times they come to court. In many areas of the state there are few alternatives between a slap on the wrist and confinement in a detention center or training school. Juvenile Restitution and other accountability programs offer judges a meaningful cost-effective sanction to impose on nonviolent first time juvenile offenders. For many juveniles, a brief stay in a detention center may be easier than being forced to face their victims and the consequences of their criminal acts.

Under present law, judges are required to explore the "least restrictive program" before sending a child to a training school where space is scarce and expensive, but in many areas of the state there are few other viable options. Where there are few other options, some juveniles escape any form of punishment. Juvenile offenders are not well served by being freed from responsibility for their actions, nor is the community served. This is why judges must have additional sentencing options, including juvenile and parental accountability programs.

The goal of any accountability program is to have offenders take responsibility for their actions and work to repair the harm caused to the victim and the community. Programs force offenders to meet their victims and work out a plan of restitution. All juvenile accountability programs include peer mediation, anger management or conflict resolution. Some programs include being judged by a peer group such as in a teen court, performing community service, or participating in a substance abuse program. Classes to reinforce the parents' responsibility are sometimes part of a program.

The Governor's Crime Commission presently funds several juvenile accountability programs.

Programs that promote juvenile and parental accountability are not only a cost-effective alternative to incarceration, they are also effective in preventing juveniles from becoming repeat offenders.


Establish mandatory juvenile restitution programs in every North Carolina judicial district

Juveniles should be required to make restitution to any person injured as a result of their offense, even if the juveniles plead guilty to lesser offenses. Courts need discretion over the amount, terms, and conditions of restitution including payment plans and a restitution program should be implemented in every county. This is a cost effective sanction for first offenders. Research around the United States indicates that restitution programs lower recidivism rates especially if orders are extended beyond the age of eighteen and remain in effect until restitution is paid in full. Both juveniles and their families need to be held accountable for delinquent acts.

Many delinquents are under age fifteen and do not have jobs that would allow them to pay restitution. So, alternate plans are needed. In the State of Washington, the court has discretion for up to ten years or until the delinquent is twenty-eight, if the juvenile does not have the financial resources to make full restitution in a shorter period. If a juvenile violates an order of restitution, then the court may issue a summons/warrant to compel the offender's appearance. The state must show a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. If the court finds that the juvenile willfully violated the terms of the order, then the court can impose a penalty of up to thirty days of confinement. Statute sets the term of confinement at one day of confinement for each $25.00 or eight hours of community service owed.

In California the legislature wants all pecuniary or intangible loss suffered by a victim to be restored as much as possible. By law, restitution to the victim must be ordered unless the court can find clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. A restitution order is enforceable by the victims as a civil judgement. There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent/guardian who has sole legal and physical custody of a minor is jointly and severally liable for all fines and for the amount of the restitution order.


Establish juvenile day treatment programs in areas with high rates of juvenile crime as part of the continuum of juvenile sanctions

Juvenile day treatment programs have been shown to reduce the demand for institutional bed space while reducing juvenile crime. Day treatment programs usually have the following components:

Day treatment centers can be set up in any community and do not need costly residential facilities. They are proving to be a cost-effective way to place restrictive sanctions on juveniles without removing them from their community and without using expensive residential programs. Juveniles in this kind of program can be given more freedom as a reward for good behavior and have freedoms taken away for rule breaking.

The CITY ( Community Intensive Treatment for Youth) program in Alabama is an example of day treatment that has been evaluated with good results. The CITY program begins with established objectives: to identify each juvenile's strengths and weaknesses, to provide an environment in which each child can develop the skills necessary for successful living, and to alter the previous environment of the child so that newly acquired skills are encouraged and old inappropriate behaviors are discouraged. The program also set goals for itself to show a significant decrease in adjudications of program-involved juveniles and to save the state the cost of providing institutional services to the youths.

One strength of the program that undoubtedly contributes to the success stories is the attention given to individual children: the program allows for flexibility. However, some set practices are followed. Youths entering day treatment are initially assessed during the first three weeks of the program. The assessment includes academic diagnostic testing, a home visit, completion of parent and youth questionnaires, a collection of school data, and an observation of behavior. Also during the assessment period, the youth and the counselor establish personal short and long-term goals that become the foundation of the "success plan" (treatment plan). The total plan consists of academic, behavioral, family, and group goals. Measurable objectives and a means of evaluation are set. The youth, parents, and the probation officer all participate in monthly evaluations during the program. If objectives are not met, the "success plan" is adjusted.

Academic objectives are achieved by remediating students to their age appropriate grade level so that they can return to school. Older youth receive help in preparing for the GED so that they can enter the workforce or go on to additional schooling. Students have individualized study plans based upon their academic strengths or deficits. Goals are set high; a 90 percent minimum score is required for passing each competency exam. For each seven week period, students gain approximately one academic year. Throughout the program, students receive immediate and constant feedback from teachers.

Behavior changes result from first observing and noting negative behavior and then determining the opposite or acceptable behavior. These positive behaviors are reinforced a number ways including social reinforcement (immediate feedback and certificates) and tangible rewards such as the awarding of points that can be exchanged for items in a store or toward recreational trips.

Day treatment is not limited to just this program nor does it end when youth complete the program. Services that cannot be provided through day treatment are provided in collaboration with other agencies in the area, and intensive program follow-up is provided to improve the possibility of a successful transition to the new environment.

The CITY program has had numerous successes. Marcus is one example. At the time he entered the program, everything about him was fairly typical of program involved youth. He was 16 years old and doing poorly in the 8th grade. He slept on the couch in his sister's one-bedroom apartment since he had left his single parent home where alcoholism had disrupted his life. He had appeared in juvenile court two times previously. This third time was for two counts of second degree burglary.

Eight months after entering the CITY program, Marcus passed his GED and enrolled in a state university. He later graduated with a degree in mathematics, earning a 3.8 GPA and has returned to get a second degree in engineering. Equally important, after leaving the CITY program, Marcus had no further encounters with the law.

Other data show that Marcus is not an unusual success story. Of the 231 youths who participated in the program between October 1994 and September 1995, adjudications were reduced 83 percent, about 72 percent had no new adjudications during the following year, and 84 percent were successfully diverted from Department of Youth Services commitment.

In addition, the state saved money. The per day, per person cost for day treatment is $43.83 while per day cost in a juvenile institution is $120.00.


Establish additional local secure facilities for juveniles

There needs to be a secure juvenile facility within a 100-mile radius of every county courthouse. At present juveniles are often transported around the state in order to be placed in a secure facility (Detention centers) prior to adjudication. This puts a tremendous strain on law enforcement, court counselors, the juvenile and the juvenile's family. It often means that juveniles are cut off from counseling and treatment services. Attorneys have problems with properly handling their client's case if they are in a secure facility in another county. If attorneys cannot properly prepare for cases, it is unlikely that the juvenile's best interest will be served.

Court bound juveniles are served best if they can maintain whatever ties they have to family, church, educational, and social institutions. For many juveniles tenuous ties to positive social support are part of the reason they are in trouble. When we sanction juveniles, we need to do it in their communities as much as we can.

Legislative and administrative changes are needed to allow county jails to have holding facilities for juveniles as long as jail personnel receive proper training and appropriate sight and sound regulations are in place keeping juveniles separate and apart from the adult population. It is suggested that all new jails be built to allow short-term juvenile detention. If this cannot be done, the establishment of more secure facilities throughout the state will be necessary.


2. Prevention programs should reinforce and strengthen existing community institutions that help kids stay out of trouble.

Most kids, even those who live under deplorable conditions, do not become delinquents. We need to build on what we have that helps make kids resilient. We need to expand programs in our state that work and start new programs based upon what is working in other states.

To accomplish this, the Governor's Crime Commission recommends the following initiatives:


Expand after school programs (SOS) in neighborhoods with high rates of juvenile crime

Present data reflect that juvenile crime is at its peak after school, between the hours of 2:00 and 7:00 p.m. During this time, juveniles who are not involved in structured activities are more likely to become involved with illegal drugs, weapons, gang activities, and other delinquent acts.

Clearly, programs that promote structured recreation, vocational and life skills, entrepreneurship and education during non-school time have the potential to lower substance abuse, teen pregnancy, school drop-out, and youth violence. Through the governor's Save Our Students (SOS) program, North Carolina has begun establishing after school programs for middle school students. While the program is new, early evaluation data show very positive results. Not only is there a reduction in crime in the areas served by the program, but students served by the program are getting better grades and are less disruptive in school.

These programs have been tried in other states and have been shown to be very successful. The most effective programs include several types of activities. A successful model, INSIDERS (Involving the Neighborhood School in the Delivery of Existing Resources to Students) strives to improve students' self-esteem, builds family support, increases student and family interest in school, empowers youth to resist peer pressure, and improves neighborhood conditions. The budget for operating this program is between $50,000 and $75,000 a year. Another program which uses a different approach is the PIE (Positive Involvement Enterprises) program. This program's goal is to keep the targeted group from entering the juvenile justice system. By coordinating with the existing Cities In Schools program, PIE teaches juveniles how to succeed in school and in the community through volunteerism/ community service and internship/employment opportunities. During its first year, this program operated for $45,000.

Although the benefits of after school programs are obvious, too few of them exist because communities lack sufficient funding. One method of stretching budgets is to use school facilities or portions of them. The cost of leaving a school building open after hours for these programs would be far less than the cost of leasing a separate structure. With the savings realized on space rental, new programs can be implemented and existing programs can expand activities. These same school buildings could be used for summer programs.


Expand parent training programs and make them available to parents with children in Smart Start and other day care programs

Research consistently shows that even before age six, during the preschool years, children at risk of becoming delinquent are identifiable. These children exhibit the precursors of antisocial behavior: stubbornness, hyperactivity, defiance, sense of daring, and lack of empathy. They are the children who are likely to engage in antisocial behavior throughout childhood and adolescence and into early adulthood. They are likely to accumulate a record of delinquent, criminal, and abusive behavior. And, as they age, they are more likely to abuse alcohol and illicit drugs and engage in early promiscuous sexual behavior.

Programs that target the families of these children and provide training that increases and improves their parenting skills can reverse this trend. Targeted parent training can reduce the rate at which children misbehave in school and become delinquent.

The Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC), working with day care centers, has developed a program for training parents to monitor their child's behavior and respond with appropriate rewards and punishments. The program has been in place since the early 1980s and has been the subject of many careful evaluations. Controlled experiments report a reduction of between 40 and 60 percent in juvenile delinquency rates for at-risk children whose parents participate in this kind of program.

With a price tag of $3,000 a person, parent training is cost effective. But the Rand Corporation conservatively estimates that $1.00 spent on targeted parent education will prevent more crime than $5.00 spent on training school beds and $2.50 spent on prison beds.


Increase the number of mentoring programs available to at-risk youth

Mentoring has emerged as a promising approach for reaching at-risk youth through one-on-one contact with positive role models. Mentoring discourages the use of illegal drugs and firearms, gang involvement, and other delinquent acts while encouraging the participation in community and service activities. Mentoring programs have been shown to reduce the chances that children will become delinquent.

Programs such as SOS, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and those in the local churches and schools show that mentored youth are 46 percent less likely to become involved in drug use, are 27 percent less likely to use alcohol, and miss fewer days of school because of truancy. Evaluations show that youths involved in mentoring programs are less likely to be arrested and far less likely to end in training school. Because they can serve a sizeable juvenile population for as little as $35,000 a year, these programs are far more economical than secure confinement.


Increase the number of graduation incentive programs for high risk children

Intervention to reduce school problems or the number of dropouts is widely recognized as a method of reducing juvenile delinquency and drug use. Many interventions, however, are directed toward increasing a student's attachment to school or toward teaching skills for resisting pressure to join in delinquent behavior. Evaluating the effect of these programs has proved to be quite difficult. Targeted graduation incentives, on the other hand, have been demonstrated to produce measurable results.

The Quantum program in Philadelphia was able to significantly reduce juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, and teen pregnancy through a system of graduation incentive and mentoring. Program participants had a significantly lower rate of arrest than non-participating students. In a controlled experiment, the program reduced the arrest rate among a group of high risk teens by more than 66 percent. Students participating in this program were also more likely to do well in school, complete some form of higher education, and find a permanent job.

Because this intervention takes place during the adolescent years, it can be successfully targeted to those most at risk of becoming delinquent. The result is that treatment dollars are spent efficiently. Because the juveniles are older and the program is associated with a completed education and increased job skills, its overall effects including crime deterrence are more lasting.

The program offers assistance to at-risk students to complete high school and enroll in a community college, trade school, or university. Even though the incentives include modest cash rewards and scholarships, they are relatively inexpensive. The cost of current programs is slightly over $3,000 per student for each of the four high school years.

In a national survey of prevention programs, the Rand Corporation judged this to be the most cost effective program. Using very conservative estimates, Rand determined that $1.00 spent on graduation incentives will prevent more crime than $4.25 spent on prison beds.


Expand community policing programs in high crime areas

Community Oriented Policing contributes to the quality of life of North Carolina's juveniles by maintaining order and solving problems close to home--right in the neighborhoods where the children live.

Too often the best efforts of families to provide a safe and healthy environment for their children are negated by street violence in the community. Gangs and drug dealing can glorify the immediate rewards of illegal activities and expose children to extreme violence.

Several years ago, students in an academically gifted eighth grade class at an inner-city school were asked how many of them knew someone who had been killed. Fourteen of the nineteen students raised their hands; each knew someone who had been shot or stabbed, or had died due to drugs. Clearly, a daily dose of this kind of violence can have only detrimental effects on children. A pro-active approach, stopping violence before it happens, is necessary to give children a chance at a safe life.

Community Oriented Policing (COP) can effectively reduce street crime by placing officers directly in the neighborhood and making them part of the community . Where community policing has been successfully implemented, drug related crime has been reduced, fewer violent role models influence children, and neighborhoods are safer. By becoming a recognized part of the community, officers can establish the trust and rapport that leads to improved communication and can help residents find the most effective way to solve crime related problems. As an example, officers have helped residents use zoning laws and building codes to force drug dealers out of business .

COP officers have further improved the lives of our children by turning substations into sites of after-school tutoring, drop-in chats, and training on drug resistance and personal safety. Officers have become sports organizers and coaches. Through association with the School Resource Officer, community officers are better able to identify school and home problems and offer effective early intervention.

The benefits of community oriented policing far out-weigh the estimated cost of placing an officer in a neighborhood-- $37,800 per year.


Increase the number of junior police academies

During the summer of 1996, the Burlington, N.C., Police Department and the Burlington City Schools joined forces to hold their first Junior Police Academy. The idea formed after the Chief of Police, John Glenn, visited and learned of the success of a similar program in Dekalb County, Georgia.

Burlington experienced a rapid increase in undisciplined and delinquent acts committed by juveniles under the age of 16 between 1993 and 1995. During this period, undisciplined acts increased 171 percent and delinquent acts 142 percent.

Law enforcement professionals believe that one of the most effective times to begin intervention is during the middle school years. Since juveniles who commit undisciplined and delinquent acts are frequently also school discipline problems, the principals of the city's middle schools were enlisted to help with the Junior Police Academy.

Each of the two principals nominated 15 at risk students for the academy. The students had demonstrated problems with discipline, violence, and attendance. The DARE and COP officers conducting the academy met with the nominees and their parents and selected a total of twenty-four cadets. These cadets and their parents were required to sign a commitment contract.

The academy ran from July 8th to August 2nd. During this time, cadets learned about goal setting, conflict resolution, and anger management. They studied ways to develop self-esteem and to prevent violence and substance abuse. The program included physical training and field trips to a youthful offender boot camp and the SBI's ropes course. It culminated with a trip to Carowinds.

Twenty of the original twenty-four boys completed the academy, and instructors feel certain that these boys are showing positive changes in their personalities and attitudes. Instructor Greg Turner stated, "When we first brought the boys in, it was obvious that less than a few of them wanted to be there." However, "Each day, you could see them forming relationships and building skills. It didn't take long for many of them to start taking pride in what they were doing."

For their part, academy officers agreed to serve not only as instructors but also as mentors. Each officer was assigned six cadets to follow for a year after the academy graduation. Officers will meet periodically with their cadets and can be contacted if they are needed. Additionally, officers chose two cadets who earned the privilege of returning as assistants for the next academy.

The initial academy budget estimated that expenses associated with the field trips, supplies, uniforms, and meals would total approximately $10,000. Because of strong community support, all the needs of the Junior Police Academy were met with local donations.


Expand the SRO program to middle schools where juveniles first start becoming delinquent

School Resource Officers (SROs) play a foundational role in the creation of safe and secure school settings. They accomplish this by fulfilling three roles in the schools to which they are assigned. They are law enforcement officers, law-related counselors, and law-related education teachers. They intervene when violent incidents occur, and their presence can prevent such incidents from happening.

Legislation passed in 1996 by the General Assembly made funds available to local boards of education to consider placement of SROs in each of their high schools. As we move into the next century, an expansion of this approach into the middle schools is warranted for several reasons. Research to date by the North Carolina Center for the Prevention of School Violence indicates that as many or more incidents of violence are now occurring at the middle school level. These numbers are further supported by anecdotal evidence offered by those most familiar with the schools that points to the need being greatest at the middle school level.

Further, middle school students can benefit greatly by having access to an SRO who represents a positive adult role model. And finally the preventive aspect of the SRO approach can be maximized in the middle school environment because the SRO encounters many students who have not yet gotten into trouble in school or in their communities.


Establish alternative education programs for juveniles suspended or expelled from regular school

All children will eventually have the adult responsibilities of work and family, but without an education, few employment opportunities exist for them. Thus, public policy should demand that all children are provided with an education, whether in a public school, an alternative school, or a state juvenile facility.

Students can now be expelled and suspended from school more easily, as a result of statute changes made during the 1995 session of the General Assembly. This change was instituted even though evidence shows that without a structured environment, children are more likely to become involved in criminal activities and are less likely to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the future.

Expulsions and long-term suspensions occur more often when a school finds out that a student has been adjudicated delinquent for behavior that occurred off school premises. This has been the case in Durham and Mecklenburg counties, where an administrative order requires that juvenile court records are shared with the schools. Students who were on probation and whose terms of probation included mandatory school attendance were expelled or suspended from school based on their juvenile record. At least two cases are pending in the Court of Appeals (1) challenging the gun suspension law and (2) challenging a school suspension based on an adjudication for conduct off school property, as violations of Article IX of the North Carolina Constitution (which guarantees every child in the state a free public school education).

A study group comprised of school officials, law enforcement professionals, juvenile court personnel, and other juvenile service workers should be established to determine ways to provide education for this delinquent juvenile population. School systems should develop and implement a uniform alternative education plan for students suspended or expelled from traditional school.


Increase the ability of law enforcement to detect and prevent the formation of juvenile gangs

North Carolina needs a coordinated effort to combat the activities of youth gangs. The phenomenon of urban street gang involvement in drug trafficking and violent crime has hit North Carolina -- not just in large cities, but in suburban and even rural areas. Because gang activity recognizes no state or municipal border, law enforcement frequently involves several departments, including agencies that have little experience with gangs. If this type of criminal activity is to be curtailed, public and private agencies must share their information and expertise and coordinate their efforts.

Different agencies see different parts of the gang problem, but rarely share their experiences. Even law enforcement departments are unable to communicate their accumulated information. Numerous factors impede communication but one very basic problem is the lack of uniform definitions of "gang" and "gang-related criminal activity" that would help identify case information that should be shared.

The Governor's Crime Commission will develop a statewide system for law enforcement agencies to voluntarily report gang activities. These reports will provide important baseline information about the prevalence and escalation of gangs.

The Governor's Crime Commission will take an active role in forging partnerships between schools and police to establish collaborative prevention and intervention initiatives and to develop an understanding of juvenile behavior that may precede or reflect gang participation. Training programs in gang prevention and intervention will be established for law enforcement statewide.

The Governor's Crime Commission will take an active part in educating the citizens and institutions of North Carolina about gangs and gang activities.


Allow law enforcement officers to function as truancy officers

All North Carolina law enforcement officers should have the power to function as truant officers. In Charleston, South Carolina all police officers who see a school age youth on the street during regular school hours, are instructed to stop and question the youth. If the child appears to be truant, the officer transports the child to school. Within six months of beginning this procedure, both the truancy rates and the juvenile crime rate declined in Charleston.


3. Expand intervention programs that target and serve those most at risk of becoming delinquent.

We have to identify kids early who are likely to get in trouble and work with them in a family and community setting. Every child adjudicated delinquent should be evaluated with a common scientifically validated risk instrument, and if they need treatment services, they should receive those services in addition to (not instead of) whatever punishment the court deems to be appropriate. Where this is done, agencies have reduced juvenile crime and saved money.

In order to accomplish this, the Governor's Crime Commission recommends the following initiatives:


Target intensive juvenile probation for those juveniles identified by risk assessment

Prevention services are more cost effective when they are targeted to those most at risk of becoming delinquent. There are limited funds for parent training, home visiting and other primary prevention services. Other states have developed risk instruments to identify those children who would benefit most from these services. The Oregon Social Learning Center works with day care centers and elementary schools to identify families that need parenting skills training. Others suggest working with homeless and battered woman's shelters to identify families. One of the most successful uses of risk assessment is the early targeting of juveniles needing intensive probation.

Several North Carolina counties have intensive juvenile probation programs. Under this program, juvenile court counselors carry small (fewer than 10 juveniles per counselor) case loads and are able to remain in close contact with the child and the child's family and school. The program also provides limited funds for court counselors to purchase mental health and other services for juveniles. While North Carolina's intensive juvenile probation has not been formally evaluated, the consensus among the state's juvenile justice professionals is that the program is quite effective in reducing recidivism.


Increase the ability of law enforcement agencies to find and prosecute child abuse and neglect

Nationally, the reported incidence of child abuse/neglect has increased dramatically. In North Carolina the number of children who have been reported as abused/neglected has increased by 16 percent in just the last year. Public awareness of this issue has forced law enforcement and social workers to try to alter their investigations of such cases, but these professionals need additional training to cope with a rapidly changing environment.

Investigators of suspected child abuse/neglect must deal with cases of a very sensitive nature. They must balance the protection of the child victims with the rights of the alleged perpetrator all the while obtaining critical evidence. Careful evidence gathering determines the success of the investigation and in turn contributes to a satisfactory resolution of a case and helps to determine the treatment a victim receives. Training investigators in these areas is essential for the protection of everyone involved.

This training should provide professionals with methods, protocols and tools to investigate a case thoroughly and conscientiously and should include background knowledge of the dynamics of child abuse/neglect.

The failure to comprehensively prevent and treat child abuse and neglect not only extracts a huge human toll, but results in a cost to the state of millions of dollars in direct expenditures for health care, social services, and special education. This is why the Governor's Crime Commission has trained more than 600 professionals, including law enforcement officers, social workers, teachers, school resource officers and assistant district attorneys, in working with child abuse cases. All training sessions are provided at no charge to the professionals or their department. Statewide training for professionals in the area of child abuse and/or neglect costs less than $50,000 a year.


Increase the number of services for delinquent females

Girls who become involved with the juvenile justice system present different problems and have different needs than male youthful offenders. Although their problems are no less urgent, programs for delinquent and at risk young females are fewer and less aggressive than programs for male counterparts. Changing this situation should begin with increased diversity training for the professionals who work with young females and with studies of currently available treatment .

The most frequent reasons girls become involved with the juvenile justice systems are because they are chronic run-aways, are promiscuous, or are suicidal. Dysfunctional home life and emotional, physical, and sexual abuse all contribute to the delinquent or at-risk girl's feelings of rejection or failure. Both intervention and treatment must focus on these problems.

Girls needs are complex but begin with an environment that is both physically and emotionally safe. They need programs that focus also on the girl's cultural background and how this culture influences her role in her community. As an example, churches can have an especially strong cultural influence on black and Hispanic girls. This influence should be nurtured and strengthened. Girls benefit greatly from mentoring by women who are part of the same community, who understand the realities of the girls' lives, and who can teach the girls the survival and growth skills they need. Along with other intervention that can benefit these girls, they need to be given intensive training in drug resistance, disease prevention, contraception, and parenting skills. All programs must have close ties with schools since education is crucial if girls become the sole providers for their families or become single parents.


4. Treatment and other juvenile service dollars should follow children.

Judges and court counselors need access to mental health and substance abuse services for court involved juveniles. Court access to these services can be facilitated by two recommendations therefore, the Governor's Crime Commission makes these recommendations:


Improve and expand alternative schools in North Carolina

The Governor's Crime Commission recommends that the Department of Public Instruction establish statewide minimum standards that will include, but not to be limited to, (1) stipulating that students cannot be expelled from the alternative school, (2) establishes referral and placement guidelines, and (3) providing training for teachers and administrators who work in alternative schools.

Alternative schools have become a popular solution to the problem of removing disruptive and/or poorly disciplined students from the regular classroom and providing them with the individual attention they require. Since 1990, the increase in youth crime in schools has led to a dramatic increase in suspensions or expulsions. This has created a corresponding increase in the number of students sent to alternative schools. However, no statewide minimum standards for alternative schools have been established nor are there uniform due process procedures regarding placement of students in alternatives schools. About half the state's alternative school will not accept suspended or expelled students.

Because of the changes to the school expulsion and suspension statute made during the 1995 session of the General Assembly, students can now be expelled and suspended from school more easily. Often these students, who are no longer welcome in the regular public schools, are not required to attend, or are unable to attend, alternative schools. Instead they are frequently left to wander the streets during the day. Without a structured environment these children are more likely to become involved in criminal activities and are less likely to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the workplace.

The Commission believes that all youth under 16 should be provided an education even if they have been suspended or expelled from conventional schools. For these juveniles, alternative schools provide a positive, structured environment that meets their psychological and educational needs. Alternative schools also keep juveniles off the "streets" where there is the great likelihood that they will be drawn into criminal behavior.

A program that the Governor's Crime Commission has found to be effective is the Options Program. This program combines an alternative classroom experience with regular home-based therapy for chronic status offenders and their families. The project works with eight to twelve students and costs a minimum of $50,000 to operate yearly.


Provide incentives to reward counties for establishing alternative programs that keep children out of training schools

The state of North Carolina pays 100 percent of the cost when a child is sent to training school: $47,000 per year per child. Community based programs are much less expensive, and evidence shows, as effective or more effective in reducing delinquency and recidivism. But local courts frequently hesitate to use community based programs because these are financed largely out of local funds. Counties save money when juveniles are placed in expensive state facilities. To aid not only the state but also all North Carolinians, incentives for establishing more community based resources need to be instigated.

Training school space can be reserved for the most serious juvenile offenders if community resources are used for less serious, non-violent offenders. These resources can give judges greater flexibility in determining the treatment that is best for the juvenile and the community. They encourage family involvement, which can be invaluable. The same resources can be used as after care for juveniles leaving boot camps, multi-purpose group homes, wilderness camps and training schools; after care in itself can be quite effective in reducing recidivism. However, communities currently have few incentives not to sentence juveniles to training schools.

Ohio, on the other had, has a funding system that does give counties a financial incentive to establish community based alternatives to incarceration. RECLAIM (Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) Ohio gives counties money for community based programs, and charges them when they send all but the most violent juveniles to state run facilities. The funding initiative encourages courts to develop or "purchase" a range of community-based options to meet the needs of each juvenile offender. By putting the fiscal power in the judge's hands, judges are free to make the treatment decision that is in the best interest of the juvenile and the community. Some examples of programs are day treatment, intensive probation, electronic monitoring, home-based services, offense specific programs, residential treatment, and reintegration or transitional programs.

The program's goal is to ensure long term success by reclaiming juveniles and their families since serving juveniles locally enables families to participate more fully in the youth's treatment. By providing incentives for local government to create alternative to a secure commitment, RECLAIM Ohio is also helping to address the problem of overcrowding in juvenile institutions and has led to a 44 percent drop in training school admissions.


5. The Governor's Crime Commission supports the creation of a family court system to increase the supervision and coordination of services for children coming into the legal system.

The creation of a family court will provide case management for children coming to court and ensure that agencies serving children will coordinate services. The family court proposal also requires that judges appearing in family court will receive special training in juvenile issues. Therefore, the Governor's Crime Commission recommends the following:


Create a family court and provide specialized training for family court judges

Under North Carolina's present court system, a child may appear before one judge in a custody case, another judge in a domestic violence case, another in an abuse or neglect case, and appear before a fourth in a delinquency hearing. There is no way to tie these cases together and ensure that children receive coordinated services. There is no case management system and no information system that tracks juveniles and their families when they come to court.

The Court Futures Committee, with the support of the Governor's Crime Commission, recommends the creation of a family court system staffed by judges with special training in family law. Judges in family court would see all the cases involving a given family. The system would include a case management system and an information system to follow juveniles from the time they are brought to court, through any interventions they receive including training schools, and until they are back in the community.

A family court system would also make intervention easier and more effective since it can bring to the attention of professionals those juveniles who are at risk of becoming delinquent: children who are victims of domestic violence or abuse and neglect. Serving these children is one more way to prevent future crime.


6. The Juvenile Code should be modified to meet the changing problems faced by the juvenile justice system in North Carolina.

The current Juvenile Code was established in 1979, but the nature and extent of juvenile crime has changed significantly since then. There are new programs and new theories about how best to respond to changing patterns of juvenile crime. Because of this, the entire Juvenile Code needs to be examined to see what parts are working, what needs to be changed, and what needs to be eliminated. The Juvenile Code should provide a strategy for action to address the problems facing today's juveniles. The Governor's Crime Commission recommends that:


Appoint a task force to review the Juvenile Code

Because it has representatives from numerous state agencies, the legislature, different levels of government, and private citizens, the Governor's Crime Commission is in the best position to coordinate a re-examination of the Juvenile Code. As in the past, the Governor's Crime Commission has worked with other interested groups to ensure input from all relevant parties.

The current version of the Juvenile Code was written in 1979. Judges, lawyers, scholars, and law enforcement officers have questioned whether the present Code is relevant to today's problems. Not only does the juvenile justice system face new challenges today, but there are new programs and new knowledge about juvenile behavior. The Code needs to be reviewed to determine what is still effective and what needs to be changed or eliminated.


Make immediate revisions to the Juvenile Code

To deal with more immediate problems raised by judges who frequently hear cases in juvenile court, the 1997 Long Session of the General Assembly should change language in the Juvenile Code relating to four areas. It is recommended that the following amendments to the current statutes be drafted for legislation and presented to the General Assembly:


Change the Juvenile Code to Allow Sanctions Past the Eighteenth Birthday

The 1997 Long Session of the General Assembly should make changes to the language in the Juvenile Code that, with proper procedures in place, will allow juvenile court sanctions to continue past a defendant's eighteenth birthday.

Not all juveniles can be served by the juvenile justice system alone. Serious offenders who need sanctions past their eighteenth birthday should be bound over to adult court. However, studies in Florida and New Jersey show that when juveniles are sent first to juvenile institutions and then adult institutions, they are far less likely to recidivate as adults.

At present the only way the North Carolina criminal justice system has to maintain control of juveniles past their eighteenth birthday is to bind them over to the adult system at the time of sentencing. To be more effective, juvenile law should be changed so that the court can order some juveniles to begin their sentences in a juvenile facility and then continue in an adult institution or under the supervision of adult authorities after the juvenile turns eighteen.

A due process hearing should be held when adjudicated juveniles reach the age of eighteen to decide if they should continue their sentences in adult prisons. This hearing would decide the time necessary to continue punishment as an adult. Judges should also be able to determine if probation treatment orders and other conditions be continued past the juvenile's eighteenth birthday. All juvenile restitution orders should automatically continue until restitution is paid in full.

The Court Futures Commission has recommended this change, and other states are doing this with some success.

In Massachusetts, while most juveniles are committed only until their eighteenth birthday, an exception is made to normal release procedures when the department feels that discharging a juvenile would pose a physical danger to the public. The committing court must review the order at least ninety days before a juvenile's eighteenth birthday.

In California, juveniles can be committed to the Department of the Youth Authority until their twenty-first birthday. The juvenile must be discharged on this birth date or after a two-year period of control unless the committing court issues an order for commitment to a state prison or for further detention within a juvenile facility.

California has also established a Youthful Offender Parole Board to evaluate decisions concerning the retention or release of juveniles. At least ninety days before a juvenile's discharge, the parole board can ask the prosecuting attorney to petition the court for an extension on a juvenile's commitment if the board believes that the release could place the public in danger.

Both of these approaches are preferable to beginning a juvenile's sentence in adult prison.


7. North Carolina needs a more integrated juvenile justice system for processing clients and information.

Whether it is a separate department under the executive or judicial branch of government, a division within an existing department, or separate agencies overseen by a re-created juvenile cabinet, North Carolina needs a policy making body to ensure that all parts of the juvenile justice system work together, share information, offer coordinated services, avoid duplication, and make the best use of scarce resources.

Where they exist, cooperative efforts that offer mental health, education, and social services to court involved juveniles and juveniles in training schools appear to work well and should be expanded. Unfortunately they occur infrequently. More coordination would increase these kinds of programs and make them less difficult to implement. Leadership is needed to make sure agencies work together.

To be effective, the juvenile justice system needs someone with the ability to marshal resources from our social service agencies, universities, and the public health community to support the juvenile justice system. Juvenile justice also needs a record system that allows us to identify and track juveniles who come in contact with the legal system. At the local level, Robeson County uses the concept of the task force to marshal local resources, public and private, and especially community alternatives to correction most effectively.

States that are able to track juveniles who get into trouble early, share information between agencies, and then target services make the best use of their resources. This kind of coordination will require either the creation of a single juvenile justice agency with strong management, or a real commitment from the governor and the chief justice to ensure that the existing agencies gather and share information and coordinate their programs. Therefore, the Governor's Crime Commission recommends the following:


Create an Office of Juvenile Justice

The Governor's Crime Commission recommends the creation of a single agency or Office of Juvenile Justice that would be part of either the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch as recommended in 1979. Almost all other states have a single office of juvenile justice in either the Executive Branch or Judicial Branch of government. Virginia has put all the agencies serving juveniles in one department. In the past, North Carolina had a Juvenile Cabinet which was a source of coordination, excitement and new juvenile initiatives.

The 1979 Juvenile Code Study Commission recommended the establishment of a single juvenile justice agency. The Commission suggested a single Office of Juvenile Justice that would handle all juvenile justice services and fall under the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. The new agency would have combined the juvenile functions of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Human Resources without requiring an increase or decrease in the number of staff positions. The primary objective of reorganization would have been to integrate juvenile services into an accountable, consistent, child-oriented system while increasing the effectiveness of the component agencies.

The 1979 Juvenile Code Revision Committee identified problems throughout the juvenile justice system: a disorganized juvenile justice service delivery system, treatment policies that varied from agency to agency, a lack of communication between treatment providers, no visible agency to which the public could direct their policy or operations concerns, and a lack of coordination between separate agencies concerning budgets, program planning, and legislative requests. Seventeen years later, the Governor's Crime Commission found the same problems. Services to juveniles remain fragmented and uncoordinated. There is no way to ensure that funding priorities in different parts of the system are complimentary. There are also no common measures of program effectiveness. Cooperative efforts are the exception rather than the rule. The Commission believes that a single Office of Juvenile Justice would improve the delivery of juvenile services in the state. Whether or not North Carolina decides to create a single department serving juveniles, there needs to be greater cooperation and coordination between agencies serving juveniles through improving case management and information sharing.

Agencies in different departments and at different levels of government can and do work together. North Carolina has a number of programs where state and local agencies are working together to provide a wider range of services to court involved children. The Bridge Program which provides substance abuse services to youth in training schools and the Sexually Aggressive Youth (SAY) program which treats sexually aggressive youths in training schools are cooperative efforts between mental health agencies and training schools. The PEN-PAL project and the Robson County Juvenile Task Force are examples of local agencies coordinating their efforts to better serve court involved youth. The Bringing It All Back Home Program is based upon a cooperative effort between a university and local social service agencies. Programs like this should be encouraged, but they are still the exception rather than the rule. Their existence and their success point to the need for more joint efforts.

Task forces, in particular multi-jurisdictional task forces, have long been known to work well. They work particularly well when they are well-led, well-planned, based on trained, motivated people; and established for the long-term. There are numerous examples of success stories; Charlie's story is one of these. It exemplifies the permanent, personal effects of cooperation, prevention, and a belief in the potential of our youth.

The Robeson County Juvenile Task Force (RCJTF) was started by a grant from the Commission nearly five years ago. Robeson County sheriff's deputies, hand-picked and trained in juvenile law, work with any public or private agency necessary, especially courts and human and health services professionals, to address the specific needs of specific youth. One child of the hundreds they have helped had everything thing going against him. Let's just refer to him as Charlie.

Charlie, by the age of fourteen, had done everything to guarantee him lengthy and expensive involvement with our police, courts, and correction systems. He was doing poorly in school and displayed extreme behavior problems at home. He was a severe discipline problem to the entire community. Even his wild hair identified him as a "loser." Worse yet, he militantly rejected some of the better answers to his problems: a boy's home and a chance at an Eckerd Wilderness Camp. His court counselor and about everyone else had given up; the paperwork was being drawn for training school. Still, one person knew more could be done; he was worth one last try. A task force officer worked with the senior court counselor to have Charlie placed in Robeson County's Multi-Purpose Home where the philosophy is, "there is no such thing as a throw-away kid." Off went the wild hair, on went presentable clothes, in came routine, discipline, order, school, and understanding.

Charlie became a model at the Robeson Multi-Purpose Home, and most importantly, a successful student with potential. He was selected for the Division of Youth Services' One Week University program where he was exposed to what would have been an impossibility only a few months prior -- open doors and maybe even college.

Robeson County, working as a community, has kept many, many children from institutional involvement. Their efforts with Charlie represent the cumulative effects of people coming together via the RCJTF, the Multi-Purpose Home, and an Intensive After-Care program.

In the late 80s, Robeson County had approximately thirty youths per year in training school. In 1996 they have four children in training school. Stories such as Charlie's help us shape our programs and responses to the problems we face as criminal justice practitioners. Charlie helps us see that many problem children are worth "one last try."


Develop public/private partnerships for juvenile programs

The Governor's Office should coordinate the development of public/private partnerships to support juvenile programs. Preventing children from becoming involved in crime is best done at the community level. After School Programs, Mentoring, and School to Work appear to be proof of this. Each of these programs relies heavily on volunteers and private organizations to augment the work of public agencies. Mobilizing volunteerism and private support for youth programs, however, requires considerable effort. Only the governor is in a position to develop the public/private partnerships needed to expand the mentoring, after school and school to work programs needed by our children. The governor has always been successful in generating these public/private partnerships. His leadership is needed if these programs are going to be available to children across the state.


Eliminate legal barriers to juvenile information sharing

There should be no legal barriers to prevent sharing information between agencies serving the same child. The Governor's Crime Commission supports the legislative recommendations of the Child Fatality Task Force to study the obstacles to interagency information sharing. The state should also work with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to remove the legal obstacles that prevent schools from sharing disciplinary records with the courts. All barriers that prevent identifying children who are most at risk of becoming delinquent should be removed so that services can be provided to the child and their family. This information should be shared in such a way that the privacy rights of the child are not compromised. A better information system will enable us to pool resources to serve the entire family of children at risk.


Develop the Juvenile Justice Information Network as recommended by CJIN

North Carolina should develop a unified, statewide automated juvenile records information system as part of the Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN). At present there is no central information system no case management system that tracks juveniles and their families when they see social service agencies or when they come to court. A child may appear before one judge as a member of a family where there is domestic violence, another judge as part of an abuse or neglect case, and a third in a delinquency hearing in juvenile court. At the same time the child may be receiving services from several different social service agencies. Currently, none of these agencies have a unified system of communicating with each other and juvenile court judges often lack sufficient background information when trying to determine the most appropriate disposition of a juvenile case.

At present, some agencies do have automated data collection while others still collect data manually. However, even automated systems cannot share information. Consequently, data collection is often duplicated, time is wasted and the likelihood of error increases with each subsequent reentry. More importantly, decision making is hindered at each major point of the juvenile justice system because information from each involved agency is difficult to obtain. The eventual development of a statewide automated juvenile records system will allow complete, accurate, and up-to-date juvenile information to be readily available to all authorized criminal justice agencies and officials. Access to this data will allow better and more informed decisions as each child progresses through the system.

The Administrative office of the Courts and Division of Youth Services are currently conducting a joint requirement analysis for the eventual implementation of a statewide juvenile case management information system. The new system will be CJIN compatible.


Table of Contents | Next Page