1. UNDERSTANDING DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY
CONTACT IN FORSYTH COUNTY
By
Okori Uneke, Ph.D.
Department of Social Sciences,
Winston-Salem State University &
Alvin Atkinson
Kristen Di Luca
Center for Community Safety
Winston-Salem State University
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
November 2006
This project was supported by Grant No. 034-1-05-010-AJ-037 awarded by the U.S.
Department of Justice through the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and
Public Safety, Governor’s Crime Commission. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed do not necessarily reflect views of the Department of Justice or Governor’s
Crime Commission.

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Systems Data and Analysis 3
(2004 and 2005 comparison analysis)
A. School Discipline Options
B. Juvenile Arrests (Custody)
C. DJJDP Aggregate Data
III. Forsyth County Sample Data and Analysis 13
A. DJJDP Adjudication
B. Education (School Absences and Dropout Data)
C. DSS Child Protection Data and Observations
D. Mental Health
IV. DMC across North Carolina and the Country 22
V. Recommendations/Next Steps for Forsyth County 24
-2-

3. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Forsyth County DMC Committee:
Sharon Singletary, DMC Chair, Forsyth County Youth Detention Center
Vanessa Keesee, DMC Vice-Chair, Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
Alvin Atkinson, Winston-Salem State University Center for Community Safety
Yolanda Eley, Youth Opportunities Juvenile Day Reporting
Eric Glenn, YWCA Youth Intervention Services
Dr. Timothy Monroe, Forsyth County Department of Public Health
Marilyn Odom, Smart Start of Forsyth County
Kenneth Pruett, Forsyth County Department of Social Services
Eleanor Phillips-Phipps, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Truancy Court
Sandra Reid, Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Piedmont Area Office
Fran Sandridge, CenterPoint Human Services
Damon Sanders-Pratt, Forsyth County Government
Asst. Chief Louis Saunders, Winston-Salem Police Department
Dr. Kenneth Simington, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools
Rich Smith, Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Piedmont Area Office
Ed Toole, YMCA Community Outreach Services
Forsyth County DMC Project Program Partners:
Robert Beasley, Youth Opportunities
Dewey Haley, Catholic Social Services Host Homes
Terence Hunt, Youth Opportunities Opportunity House
Courtney Saunders, YWCA Empowering Family Center
John Siskind, Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Alternative Education
Sabrina Slade, YWCA Youth Intervention Services
Larry Thornton, Partnership for Children and Families P.A.C.T. Program
Forsyth County DMC Staff and Intern:
Tonya Atkins, Project Director, Forsyth Futures
Tennille Pratt, Project Coordinator, Forsyth Futures
Jamica Jefferson, Intern Winston-Salem State University Center for Community Safety
Data Sources:
CenterPoint Human Services
Forsyth County Department of Social Services
NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
U. S. Census 2000
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools
Winston-Salem Police Department
-3-

4. Resources:
Building Blocks for Youth. No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to Reducing Racial and
Ethnic Disparities Affecting Youth of Color in the Justice System. A Project of the Building
Blocks for Youth initiative. October 2005. Accessed May 2006
www.buildingblocksforyouth.org.
NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: You and the Juvenile Justice
System: A Guide for Youths, Parents, and Victims. Fall 2000.
www.doa.state.nc.us/yaio/documents/justice.pdf. Accessed June 2006
NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Juvenile Crime Prevention
Council Policy Glossary. www.ncdjjdp.org/jcpc/Policy/Current%20Policy/Glossary.pdf.
Accessed June 2006
-4-

5. List of Tables
Table 1: 2003-2004 WSFC School Discipline Data
Table 1a: 2003-2004 Relative Rate Index (RRI)
Table 2: 2004-2005 WSFC School Discipline Data
Table 2a: 2004-2005 Relative Rate Index (RRI)
Table 3: 2004 and 2005 Relative Rate Index Comparisons
Table 4a: 2003-2004 OSS for Elementary Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Table 4b: 2004-2005 OSS for Elementary Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Table 5a: 2003-2004 OSS for Middle Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Table 5b: 2004-2005 OSS for Middle Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Total of 1,404 Suspensions
Total of 23, 561 Students
Table 6a: 2003-2004 OSS for High Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Table 6b: 2004-2005 OSS for High Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Figure 1: 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 WSFC Schools OSS
Table 7: Relative Rate Index Suspensions Comparison 2003-2004 v. 2004-2005
Table 8: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity
Relative Rate Index Comparisons
July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005
Graph 2a: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity
July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005
Table 9: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (% of Arrests)
July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005
Figure 2: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (Arrest Patterns)
July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005
Table 10: Forsyth County DJJDP Complaints Data by Race
2004 v. 2005
Table 11: 2004 v. 2005 Relative Rate Index Comparisons
Table 12: Sample Design
Table 13: Juvenile Justice Contact and Adjudication, 2005
-5-

6. Delinquency, Undisciplined, Dismissal
Figure 4: Juvenile Justice Contact and Adjudication, 2005
Delinquency, Undisciplined, Dismissal
Table 14: Juvenile Justice Adjudication, 2005
Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, Probation Supervision
Figure 5: Juvenile Justice Adjudication, 2005
Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, Probation Supervision
Table 15: Juvenile Justice Adjudication, 2005
Protective Supervision, Transferred for Disposition, Dismissed
Table 16: 2004-2005 School Absences and Drop-Out (Sample youth)
Table 17: Relative Rate Index Comparison: Truancy, Not Enrolled, Drop Out
Table 18: Sample Youth and Social Assistance
Table 19: Relative Rate Index Comparison: Social Services Assistance
Table 20: Mental Health Diagnoses by Ethnicity
-6-

7. Understanding Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
in Forsyth County
I. Introduction
The federal Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 defined disproportionate
minority contact as “the disproportionate number of juvenile members of ethnic minority groups
who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.” Across the United States, minority
youth tend to be over represented in the juvenile justice system. Thus understanding why ethnic
minority youth are over represented in the juvenile justice system has become a critical area of
focus to address. As a starting point and foundation for further inquiry, we present in this report
an overview of disproportionate minority representation in Forsyth County in various systems for
the time periods indicated as well as a closer look at 100 adjudicated youth and their interactions
with the systems of education, child welfare, juvenile justice and mental health.
Because it is the objective of the Forsyth DMC Committee to best understand where to invest
resources for a positive future for youth, the project was undertaken on two levels.
While the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) definition of
minority includes populations of African Americans, American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders
and Hispanics, the makeup of minority youth in Forsyth County is primarily African American,
11,591 (or 36%) and there is an increasing number of Hispanic youth, 2,873, or 8% of total
youth between the ages of 10 to 17. Consequently, as a picture of DMC is presented with
respect to Forsyth County youth, it is acknowledged that in this report, the use of the term
“minority” includes African American and Hispanic youth unless indicated otherwise.
To begin, the objective of this report is restated: to access and analyze data of Forsyth County
youth serving systems (education, child welfare, juvenile justice and mental health) as a whole,
looking for the trends and indicators that present themes for further attention and investigation.
To be truthful to the committee’s intent of addressing Disproportionate Minority Contact, it is
acknowledged and honored that each unit of analysis is a child in this community. We work to
address the network of community that must provide support and promise when other systems
cannot.
To this end, we have also chosen to investigate a random sample of 100 adjudicated youth in
Forsyth County to understand their interaction with other systems of impact: specifically the
education system (Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School System), child welfare system
(Forsyth County Department of Social Services) and the mental health system (CenterPoint
Human Services). The intent of this focused study is to identify potential trends and “decision
points” where strategic prevention and intervention programming may be most effective.
Given the historical and statistically validated overrepresentation of minority youth in the
juvenile justice system, one universally accepted approach to understand disproportionate
minority contact is to compare white youth contacts in the system with minority youth contacts.
Two statistics, Incidence Rate and Relative Rate Index are employed for this analysis.
-7-

8. What is Incidence Rate (IR)?
The Incidence Rate (displayed as a percentage) is calculated as the number of incidents for each
ethnic category divided by the total number of youths for that ethnic category, multiplied by 100.
The incidence rates are then used for calculating the relative rate index.
What is Relative Rate Index (RRI)?
The RRI is a ratio of the incidence rate for an ethnic minority group to the incidence rate for
whites. A RRI value of 1.00 would indicate that the comparative incidence rates are the same.
The further away from a RRI value of 1.00 (generally, beginning at a difference of .05) the more
unlikely the result occurred as a random process and thus further study is warranted. For
example, a RRI of 2.5 for school suspensions suggests that, for every white student suspended,
2.5 minority students were suspended (or put differently, minority students were suspended at
2.5 times the rate of suspension for white students).
-8-

9. Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Discipline Definitions:
Terms of In-school suspension
Bus suspension/Detention
Reprimand
Community or School Service
Short Term Suspension
Up to 5 days
Grades K-5 0-5 days suspension
Grades 6-12 1-5 days suspension (7 period day)
Grades 9-12 1-3 days suspension (4 period day)
Short Term Suspension
Up to 10 days
Grades K-5 up to 10 days
Grades 6-12 5 to 10 days
Long Term Suspension
Minimum Grades K-5 3 to 10 days
Grades 6-12 10 days, unless a 4 period day high school then 5 days
365 Day Suspension
Alternative School Assignment up to 18 months
-9-

10. II. Systems Data and Analysis
A comparison analysis of 2003- 2004 and 2004-2005 records of school discipline options, and
juvenile arrests, and 2004-2005 juvenile complaints provides a record of disproportionate
minority contact within these systems and creates a benchmark from which to measure
subsequent DMC occurrences and the impact of targeted intervention strategies.
A. Schools
Traditionally, the educational system is relied upon as a right of all Americans and an
opportunity to explore their horizons and attain their potential. Although it is acknowledged that
educational systems across the nation are strained, this system interacts with nearly all American
youth and is a formative foundation for them. Because of the breadth of children this system
reaches, it is promising ground for staff education, parent education, and student intervention.
The DMC revealed in the following tables is proposed as neither cause nor outcome; however, it
is as follows:
Table 1: 2003-2004 WSFC School Discipline Data
Options *Total Minority White
#
In-School Suspension (ISS) 12,980 72.6% 27.4%
Out of School Suspension (OSS) 13,013 79.9% 20.1%
Long Term Suspension (LTS) 40 62.5% 37.5%
Total All Categories 26,033
*Numbers include multiple decisions
-10-

11. Table 1a: Relative Rate Index
Data Items Total Incidence Total Incidence Relative Statistically
Number of Rate Number Rate Rate Significant?
White Youth Among of Among Index (p<.05)
White Minority Minority
Youth Youth* Youth*
1. Total Student 22,851 21,918
Population
2. In-School 3,559 15.57% 9,421 42.98% 2.76 Yes
Suspension
3.Out of School 2,621 11.46% 10,392 47.41% 4.13 Yes
Suspension
4. Long Term 15 .07% 25 .11% 1.57 Yes
Suspension
Table 2: 2004-2005 WSFC School Discipline Data
Category *Total # Minority White
In-School Suspension (ISS) 6,518 76.9% 23.1%
Out of School Suspension (OSS) 8,323 82.7% 17.3%
Long Term Suspension (LTS) 41 90.2% 9.8%
Total All Categories 14,882
*Numbers include multiple decisions
Table 2a: Relative Rate Index
Data Items Total Incidence Total Incidence Relative Statistically
Number of Rate Number Rate Rate Significant?
White Among of Among Index (p<.05)
Youth White Minority Minority
Youth Youth* Youth*
1. Total Student 23,630 24,345
Population
2. In-School 1,507 6.38% 5,011 20.59% 3.23 Yes
Suspension
3. Out of School 1,437 6.08% 6,886 28.29% 4.65 Yes
Suspension
4. Long Term 4 .02% 37 .15% 7.5 Yes
Suspension
* For purposes of this analysis Minority includes Black and Latino
Note: Total numbers for data items 2, 3, and 4 include multiple decisions
-11-

12. In comparing these two years, one can see that there were a total of 14,882 school discipline
incidents in 2004-05 compared to 26,033 incidents in 2003-04. This is a difference of 11,151
incidents and equates to a staggering 63% decrease. This raises an obvious question as to what
factors contributed to the decrease. At this point, the research does not provide answers and
differences in data collection and reporting may be one contributing factor. Future conversations
with school officials may provide insights on this development.
The comparison also shows that even with the decrease in discipline incidents, minority youth
still accounted for over 76% to 90% of the discipline incidents. These were higher concentrations
in all categories compared to 2003-04. The 2004-05 discipline option with the highest
percentage increase was long term suspensions where 37 of the 41 youth receiving long term
suspensions were minority, representing over 90% for this category.
A RRI comparison of these two years follows in Table 3.
Table 3: Relative Rate Index Comparisons
2003-2004 v. 2004-2005
Category 2003-4 2004-5
1. In School Suspensions (ISS) 2.76 3.23
2. Out of School Suspensions (OSS) 4.14 4.65
3. Long Term Suspensions (LTS) 1.57 7.5
As seen in Table 3, all RRI values are greater than 1.00 for both years and for 2004-05, RRI
values were higher in all categories compared to 2003-04. The long-term suspensions category
reflected the highest increase of nearly 6 points. This school discipline data support the need for
further analysis to determine appropriate intervention strategies to negate this increasing,
undesirable trend.
An example of the deeper analysis that is possible and appropriate for understanding DMC in
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County schools is provided. What follows is a closer review and
analysis of Out of School Suspensions (OSS) by gender and ethnicity for the past two years.
Table 4a: 2003-2004 OSS for Elementary Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Ethnicity Total # of Total # of Suspension Relative Rate
Suspensions Students Incidence Rates Index
White Female 31 5,019 0.62 %
White Male 235 5,518 4.26 %
Minority Female 278 5,710 4.87 % 7.9
Minority Male 1,268 5,988 21.18 % 5
TOTAL 1,812 22,335
Table 4a shows that there were a total of 1,812 suspensions, out of a population of 22,335
students for elementary schools in 2003-04. The RRI indicates that for every white female
student suspended, 7.9 minority female students were suspended. Similarly, for every white male
student suspended, 5 minority male students were suspended.
-12-

13. Table 4b: 2004-2005 OSS for Elementary Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Ethnicity Total # of Total # of Suspension Relative Rate
Suspensions Students Incidence Rates Index
White Female 25 5,232 .48 %
White Male 209 5,679 3.68 %
Minority Female 233 6,504 3.58 % 7.5
Minority Male 937 6,146 15.25 % 4.1
TOTAL 1,404 23,561
Total of 1,404 Suspensions
Total of 23, 4b (above) shows that in 2004-05, there were 1,404 suspensions (down from 1,812 in
Table 561 Students
2003-04), out of a population of 23,561 students for elementary schools. The 2004-05 RRI
values were also slightly less than 2003-04 but still indicated that for every white female student
suspended, 7.5 minority female students were suspended and for every white male student
suspended, 4.1 minority male students were suspended.
Table 5a: 2003-2004 OSS for Middle Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Ethnicity Total # of Total # of Suspension Relative Rate
Suspensions Students Incidence Rates Index
White Female 238 2,820 8.44 %
White Male 879 2,983 29.47 %
Minority Female 1,431 2,727 52.48 % 6.2
Minority Male 3,060 3,017 101.43 % 3.4
TOTAL 5,608 11,547
For middle schools, Table 5a shows that there were 5,608 suspensions in 2003-04, out of a total
student population of 11,547. The RRI values indicate that minority female and male students
were suspended 6.2 and 3.4 times, respectively, the rate of white female and male students.
Table 5b: 2004-2005 OSS for Middle Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Ethnicity Total # of Total # of Suspension Relative Rate
Suspensions Students Incidence Rates Index
White Female 121 2,586 4.68 %
White Male 580 2,772 20.92 %
Minority Female 996 3,094 32.19 % 6.9
Minority Male 2,345 2,093 112.0 % 5.4
TOTAL 4,042 10,545
Table 5b reflects 4,042 suspensions, out of a total student population of 10,545. This is again a
smaller number of suspensions than the previous year, but higher RRI values indicate that
minority female and male students were being suspended 6.9 and 5.4 times, respectively, the rate
of white female and male students.
-13-

14. Table 6a: 2003-2004 OSS for High Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Ethnicity Total # of Total # of Suspension Relative Rate
Suspensions Students Incidence Rates Index
White Female 327 3,604 9.07 %
White Male 898 3,760 23.89 %
Minority Female 1,415 3,048 46.42 % 5.1
Minority Male 2,650 3,123 84.85 % 3.6
TOTAL 5,290 13,535
Table 6a (above) reflects 5,290 suspensions, out of a population of 13,535 high school students.
Again, high RRI values indicate disproportionate OSS incidence rate for minority female and
male students.
Table 6b: 2004-2005 OSS for High Schools by Ethnicity and Gender
Ethnicity Total # of Total # of Suspension Relative Rate
Suspensions Students Incidence Rates Index
White Female 174 3,575 4.87 %
White Male 328 3,786 8.66 %
Minority Female 977 3,329 29.35 % 6
Minority Male 1,398 3,179 43.98 % 5.1
TOTAL 2,877 13,869
Table 6b (above) shows that there were 2,877 suspensions out of a population of 13,869 high
school students. This was nearly 2,500 suspensions less than the previous year and again raises
the question, “What caused such a significant decrease?” The resulting RRI values consistently
indicate disproportionate results for OSS incidents.
-14-

15. Figure 1: WS/FC Schools OSS 2003-04 and 2004-05
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2003-04
2000
2004-05
1500
1000
500
0
White White White High Minority Minority Minority
Elementary Middle School Elementary Middle High School
Table 7: 2003-04 v. 2004-05
RRI-OSS Comparisons
Elementary Middle High
Male Female Male Female Male Female
2003-2004 5.0 7.9 3.4 6.2 3.6 5.1
2004-2005 4.1 7.5 5.4 6.9 5.1 6.0
Figure 1 and Table 7 (above) provide different observations about DMC for OSS. First, in
Figure 1, it can be pointed out that OSS decreased for all students at all school levels in 2004-05
compared to 2003-04. In actual numbers, there were 13,013 OSS in 2003-04, compared to 8,323
in 2004-05. This was a decrease of 4,690 suspensions, or 36%.
Table 7, on the other hand, reflects the fact that for both years minority youth were significantly
more likely to receive OSS than white youth. In 2004-05, this ranged from a low of 4.1 times for
minority males verses white males in elementary schools and a high of 7.5 times for minority
females versus white females in elementary school. Additionally, in 2004-05, the RRI values for
middle and high school were higher than in 2003-04. Consequently, while there were 4,690 less
OSS in 2004-05, minority youth disproportionate contact was greater. This fact increases the
need and desire for greater scrutiny of school discipline data to determine what issues are driving
this outcome. Further, a review of gender comparisons indicate an increasing need to understand
the dynamics impacting discipline outcomes for minority females, who in 2004-05, were 6 to 7.5
times more likely to be suspended from school than white females.
Are interventions to mitigate DMC in OSS or in other school discipline options ready for
recommendation? Not yet. There are many more questions to be answered by data collection
and analysis to help quantify and amplify DMC as an important community issue.
-15-

16. B. Law Enforcement
Winston-Salem Police Department - Juvenile Arrests
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
school discipline data.
Table 8 and Figure 2 below show that for the period between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004,
minority juveniles were 6 times more likely to be arrested than white juveniles. The disparity
decreased a small amount during the period of time between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005,
however, the RRI for this period remained high at 5.08.
Table 8: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (Ages 6-15)
RRI Comparisons
July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005
2003 - 04 2004 - 05
Ethnicity Total # Total Incidence RRI Total # Total Incidence RRI
of arrests Population Rate of arrests Population Rate
White 81 23,418 0.35% 77 19,979 0.39%
Minority 271 13,079 2.10% 6 287 14,464 1.98% 5.08
Total 352 364
Figure 2: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (Ages 6-15)
July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 and July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005
300
250
200
150 White
100 Minority
50
0
2003-2004 2004-2005
*(Data are from city of Winston-Salem only. Countywide data not yet available)
In Table 9 below, one can see how there has been virtually no change in the percentage that
African American youth comprise of total arrests, 64.2% in 2003-04 and 64% in 2004-05.
However, although currently not significantly large numbers, there was a two- point increase in
the percentage of arrest for Hispanic youth, from 12.5% in 2004 and 14.6% in 2005. Also, as
seen in Figure 3 below, the pattern of arrest for minority youth is also similar for each year.
-16-

17. Table 9: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (% of Arrests)
7/1/2003 - 6/30/2004 7/1/2004 - 6/30/2005
Total # Total #
of youth Percent youth Percent of
arrested of Total arrested Total
Ethnicity arrests arrests
White 81 23 % 77 21.2 %
African
American 226 64.20 % 233 64 %
Asian 1 0.30 % 1 0.30 %
Hispanic 44 12.50 % 53 14.60 %
Total 352 364
Figure 3: WSPD Juvenile Arrests by Ethnicity (Arrest Pattern)
250
200
150 2003-2004
100 2004-2005
50
0
White African Asian Hispanic
American
Winston-Salem Police Department - Juvenile Arrest Charges
Arrest charges for these time periods were also reviewed. The most frequent arrest charge was
that of runaway. Of all arrest charges made between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004, 75.6%
were of runaways (436 out of 577 arrests). Of all arrest charges made during this same period
for 2004 - 2005, 78.6% were for runaways (507 out of 645 arrests). Combined, 943 out of a total
of 1,222 arrest charges for both years were for this same charge (77.2%).
Furthermore, for this combined period, 66% of runaway arrest charges made were for African
American juveniles (622 out of 943). By comparison, the next largest percentage of runaway
charges (23%) was among white juveniles (220 out of 943).
There are many unanswered questions with respect to juvenile arrests that should be explored. A
few of them are:
• What can we learn about runaway arrest that can aid us in confronting DMC in juvenile
arrests?
• Where and what time of day are most arrests occurring?
• What patterns of youth arrests can be identified?
• How can GIS spatial analysis better depict the community assets and areas of need?
-17-

18. Obtaining answers to these and other probing questions is an important next step to
understanding juvenile arrests and how and where to direct appropriate interventions.
C. Juvenile Justice
Juvenile justice aggregate data were provided by DJJDP through NC-JOIN and allows for direct
comparisons of results in 2004 and 2005 with respect to DMC. The comparative data is
provided in the following table.
Table 10: Forsyth County DJJDP Complaints Data by Race (Youth ages 10-17)
2004 v. 2005
Category 2004 2005 % /
Total # / % of Total # / % of
Total Total
Juvenile Referrals 1,430 1,359 -5%
Black 879 / 61% 918 918 / 68% +4%
Latino 103 / 7% 107 107 / 8% +4%
White 410 / 29% 319 / 23% -22%
Juveniles w/ Complaints 915 870 -5%
Black 586 / 64% 576 / 66% -2%
Latino 58 / 6% 68 / 8% +17%
White 253 / 28% 213 / 24% -16%
Total Approved Complaints 860 823 -4%
Black 507 / 59% 561 / 68% +11%
Latino 65/ 7.5% 52 / 6% -20%
White 255 / 30% 201 / 24% -20%
Complaints Not Approved 563 540 -4%
Black 376 / 67% 372 / 69% -1%
Latino 33 / 6% 41 / 8% +24%
White 148 / 26% 123 / 23% -17%
As seen in Table 10, in 2004 and 2005, Black or Latino juveniles account for 68% - 76% of the
total number of juvenile referrals and 70% - 74% of the juveniles with complaints. For each
year, this represents more than 1.75 times their percentage population in the county (42% - 44%)
and clearly indicates disproportionate contact. This is further substantiated by a 2005 RRI value
of 4.2, a slight decrease from 4.55 in 2004 and in juveniles with complaints, a RRI value of 4.37,
up from 4.29 in 2004 (see Table 11 next page). These two results reaffirm the decision by
Forsyth County DMC Committee to explore factors outside of the DJJDP that result in
disproportionate minority complaints being initiated.
-18-

19. Table 11: Relative Rate Index Comparisons
2004 v. 2005
Category 2004 2005
1. Juvenile Referrals 4.55 4.20
2. Juvenile Complaints 4.29 4.37
3. Approved Complaints .94 .96
4. Complaints Not Approved 1.15 1.06
RRI comparisons of decision points within DJJDP (after complaints are received) continue to
suggest application of equitable standards across race. This is seen in Table 11 (above) where
RRI values of .96 for approved complaints and 1.06 RRI for complaints not approved are
reported. Interestingly, less than ¾ of minority cases are adjudicated for every one white
adjudicated case.
One other category to note for future DMC consideration is that of secured detention. In 2005,
201 juveniles received secured detention. 131 (65%) were black youth and 15 (7.5%) were
Latino youth. The development of community-based intervention strategies could have an
immediate impact on DMC in this area.
-19-

20. III. Forsyth County Sample Data and Analysis
With the understanding of the present disproportionate minority contact in Forsyth County and
the limited resources available for address, where can intervention and prevention efforts most
effectively be introduced to reduce DMC? This is the question that guided the Forsyth County
DMC Committee to look at a random sample of 100 adjudicated youth in Forsyth County,
In an attempt to explore the stories of the individuals, this report looks at the systems with which
they have interacted and in some cases the degree of interaction to better understand where to
best invest intervention resources.
Following are the selection criteria for a 100- youth random sample along with the data to better
understand these youths’ interaction with the systems of education, social services, and the
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Each youth has a name and a face, each is on a challenging path, and each one has promise and
hope.
It is the commitment of the Forsyth DMC Committee to follow through with these findings and
to continue to dig deeper and to explore how best to foster the success of the young citizens of
Forsyth County.
-20-

21. How Was the Sample Selected?
To understand the continuum of contact the community has had with youth, the research started
with an end: the Forsyth County Juvenile Justice System. The intent of this report is not to place
blame but to seek, in times of limited resources, an understanding of where to best invest
energies to prevent the disproportionate minority representation identified above in the Forsyth
County community.
Sample Selection: Forsyth County Juvenile Justice System
The data for the Forsyth County juvenile justice system are based on a proportional stratified
sample. A sample is a subset of a population whose characteristics are intended to represent the
characteristics of the population under study. For the sample findings to be extrapolated to the
target population, the study sample must be selected in a random fashion. To draw a proportional
sample, the members of each stratum in the target population are identified and then a random
sample is selected for each one. The data below are from a sample drawn from a sampling frame
of Forsyth County Juvenile Justice System Case Records (see Table 12 below).
Table 12: Sample Design
Ethnicity Population Percentage of Sample Size
(Case Population
Files)
African American 561 68.00% 68
Asian American 1 0.12% -
Hispanic/Latino 52 6.30% 6
Multi-Racial 4 0.49% 1
Native American 2 0.24% 1
Pacific Islander 0 - -
White American 201 24.4% 24
Other 2 0.24% -
TOTAL 823 100 100
To begin the sample analysis, it may be helpful to review the adjudication disposition definitions
pertaining to the sample youth. The court has a number of “dispositional” alternatives. The
court can dismiss the case, transfer to jurisdiction of residence, make the youth a ward of the
court, place him/her on informal probation or voluntary probation, etc. Below are the
adjudication disposition definitions from the NC DJJDP Guidebook for Youth and Parents and
the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Policy Glossary.
-21-

22. Juvenile Justice Definitions:
Delinquent - the juvenile has been found to have committed an offense that would be a crime
under state law or ordinance of local government, including violation of motor vehicle laws
(equivalent of being found guilty of a criminal offense) by a judge. The juvenile may be
adjudicated delinquent or the court may withhold adjudication.
Dismissed - the juvenile was not found guilty at the adjudicatory hearing. These are petitions
that may be dismissed for reasons such as ‘lack of prosecution’ or ‘lack of evidence’. A prior
finding may keep the juvenile on active status.
Probation Supervision - guidance, treatment, or regulation by a probation agency of the
behavior of a juvenile delinquent for up to one year resulting from a formal court order. The
juvenile must report to a court counselor at regular times and do other things such as go to school
regularly, show good behavior, and not break the law.
Protective Supervision - a court counselor is assigned and counseling is provided for up to six
months, which may include helping the juvenile get treatment, if needed, and family
supervisions, such as setting curfews or study times are established.
Restitution - the juvenile must work to pay back, in some way, the person or group injured.
Restitution can be community service or monetary.
Transferred for Disposition - following a hearing, the juvenile court may transfer the case to
another court, often in the case of a youth whose legal residence is in another court’s jurisdiction.
Transferred to Superior Court - the case is transferred to superior court for disposition.
Undisciplined - the juvenile is one who is unlawfully absent from school; or regularly
disobedient to or beyond the disciplinary control of the parent, guardian, or custodian; or is
regularly found in places where it is unlawful for a juvenile to be; or has run away from home for
more than 24 hours.
-22-

23. A. Forsyth County Juvenile Justice Contact and Adjudication
For Tables 13-14, the Forsyth County juvenile justice contact and adjudication incidence rates
and the corresponding relative rate indexes are shown for African American, Hispanic/Latino,
Native American, and Multi-Racial categories. The incidence rate is shown in parenthesis beside
the number of indents with the relative rate index appearing in the next column.
Table 13: 2005 Delinquency, Undisciplined, Dismissal
Ethnicity Sample Delinquent RRI Undisciplined RRI Dismissed RRI
# (IR) # (IR) # (IR)
White 24 10 (41.7%) 5 (20.8%) 7 (29.2%)
African 68 31 (45.6%) 1.1 9 (13.2%) .6 26 (38.2%) 1.3
American
Hispanic/Latino 6 3 (50%) 1.2 0 (0%) n/a 3(50%) 1.71
Native 1 1 (100%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a
American
Multi-Racial 1 1 (100%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a
TOTAL 100 46 14 36
Figure 4: 2005 Delinquency, Undisciplined, Dismissal
35
30
25 White
20 African American
15 Hispanic/ Latino
10 Native American
Multi-racial
5
0
Delinquent Undisciplined Dismissed
Table 13 and Figure 4 above show that 42 percent of white youth had records of delinquent
behavior, 21 percent for undisciplined, and 29 percent were dismissed. For African Americans,
46 percent were delinquent, 13 percent were undisciplined, and 38 percent were dismissed. The
rate of delinquency for African Americans was just slightly higher (RRI = 1.1) than the rate for
whites. The rate of undisciplined was less (RRI = 0.6) than that of whites, while the rate of
dismissal for African American youths (RRI = 1.3) was slightly higher than that of white youth.
Hispanic youth were delinquent at rates (RRI = 1.2) slightly higher than that of white youth, and
were dismissed at rates (RRI = 1.7) almost twice that of white youth. These are not surprising
results given the RRI values seen on the aggregate level in Table 11 for approved complaints and
for complaints not approved.
-23-

24. Table 14: 2005 Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, Probation Supervision
Ethnicity Sample Restitution RRI Transfer to RRI Probation RRI
# (IR) Superior Supervision
Court # (IR)
# (IR)
White 24 1 (4.7%) 1 (4.7%) 8 (33.3%)
African 68 1 (1.5%) .32 1 (1.5%) .32 14 (20.6%) .62
American
Hispanic/Latino 6 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 3 (50%) 1.5
Native 1 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 1 (100%) n/a
American
Multi-Racial 1 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a
TOTAL 100 2 2 26
Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, and Probation Supervision
Of restitution (Table 14), the rate for African Americans is less (RRI= 0.32) than that of whites.
Similarly, in terms of transfer of cases to Superior Court, the rate for African American youth is
less (RRI = 0.32) than that of white youth, while the rate of probation supervision for African
Americans is about half (RRI = 0.62) the rate for white youth.
Figure 5: 2005 Restitution, Transfer to Superior Court, and Probation Supervision
14
12
10
White
8
6 African- American
4 Hispanic/ Latino
2 Native American
0 M ulti-Racial
Restitution Transfer to Probation
Superior Supervision
Court
For these sample youth, the probationary and supervisory entities provide the greatest
opportunity for DMC youth intervention impact.
-24-

25. Table 15: 2005 Protective Supervision, Transferred for Disposition and Dismissed
Ethnicity Sample Protective RRI Transferred RRI Dismissed RRI
Supervision for Disposition # (IR)
# (IR) # (IR)
White 24 5 (20.8%) 2 (8.3%) 7 (29.2%)
African American 68 10 (14.7%) .71 5 (7.4%) .89 28 1.4
(41.2%)
Hispanic/Latino 6 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 4 (66.7%) 2.3
Native American 1 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a
Multi-Racial 1 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a 0 (0%) n/a
TOTAL 100 15 7 39
Protective Supervision, Transferred for Disposition, and Dismissal
Data in Table 15 (above) show that, comparatively, African American youth had protective
supervision at a rate (RRI = 0.71) less than that of whites, while their cases were transferred for
disposition at a rate (RRI = 0.89) less than that of whites, but they were dismissed at rates (RRI =
1.4) higher than that of white youth.
Similarly, Hispanic youth were dismissed at rates (RRI = 2.3) more than twice that of whites.
Multi-racial and Native American youth had no records of protective supervision, disposition
transfers, and dismissal.
B. School Absences and Drop Outs 2004-2005
Table 16 below presents a breakdown of the school attendance (truant) and dropouts for the
school year, 2004-2005.
Table 16: School Absences and Drop Outs (Sample youth)
Category
Race Black White Hispanic Other
Number of Youth 68 24 6 2
Truant 30 12 1 0
Not Enrolled 26 11 5 2
Dropped Out 7 0 0 0
No Record (In School) 5 1 0 0
Of the African American youth sampled, 44% were truant, with more than 20 unexcused
absences, 38% were not enrolled, and 10% had dropped out. In fact, all of the youth in the
sample that dropped out were African American.
Of the white youth sampled, 50% were truant and 46% were not enrolled. None of the white
youth had dropped out.
-25-

26. Of the Hispanic youth in our sample, one youth had been truant (16%) and 5 were not enrolled
(83%). Among the other ethnicities, neither of the two youth in the sample was enrolled in
school.
Overall, 42% of the youth in the sample had been truant, 44% were not enrolled, and 7% had
dropped out.
Table 17: Relative Rate Index Comparison: Truancy, Not Enrolled, Dropped Out
Ethnicity Truancy RRI Rate - Not RRI Drop Out RRI
Rate Enrolled Rate
White 50.0% 45.8% 0
Minority 40.8 .82 43.4 .95 9.2% n/a
In Table 17, the comparison of white youth and minority youth in the sample indicates that
minority youth were slightly less likely to be truant or to not be enrolled than white youth.
Overall, it seems that prevention and intervention programming for school age delinquent youth
will require strategic attention due to the fact that these youth who most need assistance are not
attending school. This is derived from our sample wherein only 6 out of 100 youth (6%)
attended school without any indication of problems. This is true with respect to both white and
minority youth.
C. Child Protection - Youth and Social Assistance
For various reasons, minority families often struggle and require systemic support from agencies
of social service. Are these systems a place for intervention?
How many of these youth interact with Social Service in the course of their lifetime?
Table 18 (below) presents a breakdown of the number of the sample youth by ethnicity and
gender, who have interacted with the Department of Social Service for various support that
includes:
• Food Stamps/Public Assistance (Work-First, Medicaid, Day Care, Emergency Assistance in
the form of financial aid for rent/housing, and heating).
• Child Welfare Services (a report of abuse or neglect was investigated in the home).
-26-

27. Table 18: Sample Youth and Social Assistance
Category
Race Black White Hispanic Other
Total Number of Youth by Ethnicity 68 24 6 2
Food Stamps/Public Assistance (FS/PA) 48 10 4 2
Child Welfare Services (CWS) 28 10 4 1
Both Public Assistance and Child Welfare Services 27 7 4 1
No Assistance 20 12 2 -
Table 19: Relative Rate Index Comparison: Social Services Assistance
Ethnicity FS/PA RRI CWS RRI Both RRI
Rate Rate
White 41.6% 41.6% 29.0%
Minority 71.1% 1.71 43.4% 1.04 42.1% 1.45
Of all sample youth, 64% received some type of social assistance. This is an indication that
poverty and other social factors are major contributors to juvenile delinquency regardless of
ethnicity. That being said, African American youth still most frequently received public
assistance (71% of those sampled) compared to 42% of white youth. Roughly the same
percentage of white and African American youth sampled had received child welfare services,
42% and 41% respectively.
Of the Hispanic youth in the sample, 66% had received both public assistance and child welfare
services while the other 34% had not received either. 41% of African American youth and 29%
of white youth had received both public assistance and child welfare services. 20% of African
American youth and 50% of white youth had received neither of these services.
In Table 19, the RRI reflects the fact that minority youth were 1.71 times as likely to have
received food stamps or public assistance; 1.04 times as likely to have received child welfare
services, and 1.45 times as likely to have received both as were white youth. These RRI values
do suggest the need for additional analysis.
D. Mental Health
A cross-reference review of the sample youth indicated that 23 of the 100 youth had active case
files with mental health services. As seen in Table 20 below, 15 of the 68 African American
youth (22.1%), 6 of the 24 white youth (25%) and each of the Native American and Multi Race
youth had active case files for mental health services. The resulting RRI of 1.14 for African
American youth suggest only slight disproportional disparity with respect to mental health
diagnosis in the sample youth. Deeper analysis of the individual case files would result in
determining whether treatment services were received beyond the time of diagnosis and could
provide meaningful decision points within mental health that could be reviewed. This seems a
natural next step assessing disproportionate minority contact in the delivery of mental health
treatment services to minority youth.
-27-

28. Table 20: Mental Health Diagnoses by Ethnicity
Ethnicity and # of Percentage of RRI
Gender youth Population
White 6 25%
African American 15 22.1% 1.14
Native American 1 100% 4.00
Multi Race 1 100% 4.00
TOTAL 23 23%
-28-

29. IV. DMC Across North Carolina and the Country
Forsyth County is one of four North Carolina counties selected to partner with the North
Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission in the development and implementation of plans to
address minority overrepresentation in addition to Guilford, Union, and New Hanover counties.
Throughout each county the process involves identification of the extent of the local DMC
problem, assessment of the contributing factors to this problem, development and
implementation of strategic interventions to reduce DMC, and evaluation of the effectiveness of
these strategies.
Through collaborative planning and partnering the Forsyth County DMC Committee is working
to increase the coordination of dedicated efforts, the consistency of data reporting for these
assessments, and the awareness of communities and policy makers about the issue of DMC and
its prevalence in this county. It has been a general consensus among the DMC Committee
members that in order to effectively reduce disproportionate minority contact, the intervention
points must be identified and understood to effectively intervene in the paths of youth on a
consistent basis.
Understanding that many of the systemic barriers in Forsyth County are similarly prevalent
across the nation, a review of No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to Reducing Racial and
Ethnic Disparities Affecting Youth of Color in the Justice System was identified as a resource for
possible strategies and suggestions for next steps in Forsyth County. A product of Building
Blocks for Youth, the No Turning Back report documents nationwide efforts to reduce DMC and
provides best practices that can serve as models for Forsyth County.
It is important, before elaborating further, to note the distinction of meanings for DMC between
Disproportionate Minority Contact and Disproportionate Minority Confinement. The current
DMC initiative began as a confinement issue, Disproportionate Minority Confinement, and in
some locales maintains that focus on the overrepresentation of minority youth in confinement.
In many areas nationwide however, including North Carolina, DMC has come to mean
“Disproportionate Minority Contact” which includes confinement. This understanding of DMC
seems to best recognize the processes and systems preceding confinement that may also impact
the disproportionate minority representation of youth in the justice system.
Several strategies have been identified as national models for elevating the awareness of DMC
issues and determining the intervention points for focused programming. They include the
following:
1. Forming successful collaboratives comprised of committed policy makers and effective
collaborative management to commit to the DMC Committees;
2. Routine, uniform data collection;
3. Agency commitment of personnel toward DMC Committee participation and related
issues;
4. Effective evaluation of intervention programming.
While elements of each of these is present in Forsyth County’s DMC initiative, the reflective
“lessons learned” compiled from the national efforts and models allow the following observation
to be made about reducing DMC in Forsyth County.
-29-

30. First and foremost, DMC cannot be effectively reduced if it is not made a priority. In order to
affect policy and systemic change, policy makers must be willing to focus on the issues of racial
and ethnic disparity in the face of discomfort and to elevate DMC as a priority with intentional
dedication of time, effort, and staff to the work of reducing disparities. DMC reduction efforts
must have guidance from the top down and support from the community up in order for
collaborative change to be reinforced. Sustained, systemic change will be the result of multiple
efforts of many people. Change will involve dedicated, focused efforts and a holistic paradigm
shift. What happens in one system must be complemented by others in order to be effective.
Second, to further institutionalize DMC assessment, data collection and reporting must be
routine and systematic so that patterns and trends can be identified to inform effective
programmatic strategies. The reporting of data must be shared throughout the community and
given thoughtful, focused attention to understand the areas that can be addressed for effective
DMC reduction. Looking at all of the systems that youth interact with that impact DMC also
helps to understand where to most efficiently invest resources for prevention, intervention, and
education.
-30-

31. V. Recommendations/Next Steps
Understandably, more research and analysis of systems data is an appropriate next step for the
Forsyth County DMC Committee. Increasing the community’s understanding of DMC and
determining effective intervention strategies in school discipline options and juvenile arrests
could have a major impact on DMC in Forsyth County. Additionally, further research and
analysis of the school, social service, and mental health experiences of the sample youth should
assist with discovering decision points within these systems that are susceptible to being
influenced by DMC mitigating strategies. Progress in each of these areas will result in more
knowledge and awareness about DMC and increase the likelihood of appropriate strategies to
reduce the occurrence of DMC in Forsyth County.
Specific recommendations identified by the DMC Committee to achieve this end include the
following:
 Elevating the priority of DMC within agencies by educating each agency about the
initiative and institutionalizing agency participation so that new staff hired is also
educated and at least one or two staff members are routinely and actively engaged in the
DMC Committee activities.
 Raising community awareness through educational activities that can be folded into
community events and through the development of educational tools.
 Systematically and routinely collecting data from community partners. This will require
a process of developing templates for the data to be collected to simplify data collection
processes and increase the institutionalization of DMC monitoring.
With regard to implementing the strategies above, success in reducing DMC will be driven by
effective leadership; focused on institutionalizing awareness within community agencies; and
diverse in representation by policy makers and community leaders that expand cultural
awareness, advocate for, and implement effective policy change.
-31-