Juvenile Justice
2016 Annual Report
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF ADULT CORRECTION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
Support from Secretary Hooks and Chief Deputy Secretary Guice 1
Letter from Deputy Secretary Lassiter 2
Juvenile Justice Overview 3-4
Strategic Plan in Action 5-6
Raise the Age Initiative 7-8
Juvenile Offenses in North Carolina 9
Best Practices and Trends 10
Reducing School-Based Complaints 11-12
Juvenile Court Services 13-14
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) 15
Juvenile Gang Involvement 16
Motivating Juveniles and Their Families 17
Training and Collaboration: Mental Health 18
Diversion in North Carolina 19
Community Programs 20-22
Measuring Program Effectiveness 23-24
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Program Statistics 25-26
Facility Capacities and Populations 27
Facility Operations Statistics 28
Clinical Services Programming 29-30
SPARCS Learning Collaborative 31-32
Managing the Model of Care 33-34
Juvenile Reentry Reform 35
Juvenile Health Services 36-38
Administration, Policy, Training and Strategic Planning 39
Instructors of the Year 40
Juvenile Justice Appropriations 41
Juvenile Justice Staffing 42
NC Comprehensive Map 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS
North Carolina’s future lies in the hands and hearts
of our children, and it is my great privilege to lead
an agency that works to turn around the lives of the
state’s population of at-risk and troubled youth. My
background in law enforcement, coupled with the
many years I have volunteered as a youth basketball
coach, has shown me the critical importance of our
Juvenile Justice teams to their communities.
I look forward to the opportunities and challenges that
Juvenile Justice will face in the coming years.
I am confident our staff will continue to prevent and
reduce juvenile delinquency, helping to keep our
communities safe, while also strengthening our state’s
families and children, ensuring the brightest of futures
for North Carolina.
Erik A. Hooks, Secretary
N.C. Department of Public Safety
As Chief Deputy Secretary of the Division of Adult
Correction and Juvenile Justice, I am proud to
share with you in this Annual Report the successes
accomplished over the past year by the dedicated
public servants who make up our Juvenile Justice
Section, in collaboration with our community partners.
Though the mission of the Juvenile Justice Section
is intentionally quite different than that of the Adult
Correction system, since becoming a consolidated
division three years ago we have found areas where
working together enabled us to achieve better
outcomes for all populations that we serve. For
example, through this partnership we’ve been able to
provide the juvenile justice system with long-needed
resources. I am confident that as our state works
to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction that we will
depend upon this partnership more than ever.
Accomplishments have been many in 2016, but
with historic and momentous change stirring for the
juvenile justice system, we have much to do over
the coming years in our continuing efforts to prevent
juvenile delinquency; intervene so that children are
not lost to a life of crime; and to make our
communities safer places.
W. David Guice, Chief Deputy Secretary
Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice
FROM THE SECRETARY
FROM THE CHIEF DEPUTY
SECRETARY
1
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
will open in 2017; the Re-Entry
Reform grant, that is specifically
addressing better program-matching
for juveniles’ risk and needs;
training juvenile court staff on
motivational interviewing; reducing
school-based complaints with more
effective alternatives; enhancing
the therapeutic services provided
in youth development centers;
and providing community-based
providers with program improvement
plans based on quality reviews. You
can read more about each of these
initiatives and many more in the
pages that follow.
As I look to the future, the juvenile
justice system is preparing to
undergo its largest change – in the
form of “raise the age” – since the
passage of the 1999 juvenile reform
act. I believe our employees are
better trained, better equipped and
more ready to make these changes
than we have ever been in our
history. The citizens of North Carolina
can be proud of the work we do
every day. Our employees continue
to produce better outcomes, more
efficiently, and I am humbled at the
great opportunity to serve as their
leader.
William Lassiter,
Deputy Secretary
Division of Adult Correction and
Juvenile Justice
important caveat that the proper
resources be allocated to the
juvenile justice system to implement
this change appropriately. Many
juvenile justice professionals, court
system personnel, mental health
system workers, law enforcement
officers and community-based
alternatives providers have
dedicated countless hours over the
last year to trying to ensure that
the proper proposal is put forward
for legislative consideration on
this important issue. That bill has
been introduced with the backing
of these communities and with
the knowledge that resources are
necessary to achieve the goal we
all seek: safer communities and
better treatment of juveniles. I
am more optimistic than ever that
2017 will be the year that North
Carolina raises the age of juvenile
jurisdiction.
Beyond its work on “raise the
age” the Juvenile Justice Section
continued its progress toward
providing more effective services
for juveniles. This was accomplished
through such initiatives as:
continuing implementation of
the Juvenile Justice Strategic
Plan by opening Edgecombe
Youth Development Center and
beginning the renovation of Lenoir
Youth Development Center, which
I am proud to present to the citizens
of North Carolina the Juvenile
Justice Section’s 2016 Annual
Report, which showcases the hard
work of our dedicated employees
and our partners.
Reforms enacted in 1999 have led
North Carolina’s juvenile justice
system to be the envy of many
in our country, as we continue
to confine fewer juveniles and
to witness an ever-declining
juvenile crime rate. One factor has
kept North Carolina from being
perceived as the national leader
that it is in juvenile justice: the
age of juvenile jurisdiction, which
currently ends at 16 for delinquent/
criminal offenses. North Carolina
remains as the only state in the
nation that no matter the crime,
considers all 16 year olds as adults.
During 2016, the Juvenile Justice
Section dedicated time and energy
to changing this remaining area of
needed legislative reform. In my
leadership capacity with Juvenile
Justice, I served on two major
commissions that studied this issue:
the Mental Health and Substance
Abuse Task Force and the N.C.
Commission on the Administration
of Law and Justice. Both of these
commissions made “raising the
age” a major priority, both with the
FROM THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
2
The Juvenile Justice Section works diligently to provide
North Carolinians with a comprehensive strategy to help
prevent and reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. This
strategy, modeled after the federal OJJDP Comprehensive
Strategy, provides the framework for promoting these
core principles:
• strengthening families
• promoting delinquency prevention
• supporting core social institutions
• intervening immediately and effectively when
delinquent behavior occurs
• identifying and controlling the small group of
serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders
OUR VISION OUR MISSION
A seamless, comprehensive juvenile justice
system that provides the most effective services
to youth and their families at the right time, in
the most appropriate settings.
To reduce and prevent juvenile delinquency
by effectively intervening, educating and
treating youth in order to strengthen families
and increase public safety.
JUVENILE JUSTICE OVERVIEW
3
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
PREVENTION
Target Population: At-Risk Youth
GRADUATED SANCTIONS
Target Population: Delinquent Youth
Programs for
All Youth
Problem Behavior Noncriminal
Misbehavior
Serious, Violent, and
Delinquency Chronic O ending
Youth Development Goals:
• Healthy and nurturing families
• Safe communities
• School attachment
• Prosocial peer relations
• Personal development and life skills
• Healthy lifestyle choices
Youth Habilitation Goals:
• Healthy family participation
• Community reintegration
• Educational success and skills development
• Healthy peer network development
• Prosocial values development
• Healthy lifestyle choices
Programs for Youth
at Greatest Risk
Immediate
Intervention
Intermediate
Sanctions
Community
Con nement
Youth Development
Centers
Aftercare
This comprehensive strategy offers a layered approach to responding to juvenile
delinquency in North Carolina. First and foremost, the Juvenile Justice Section
addresses prevention and early intervention programming to prevent and
reduce youth at-risk from ever touching the juvenile justice system. Should these
efforts fail, the system is poised to respond by employing structured decision-making
tools, best-practice interventions and graduated sanctions to match
juvenile offenders’ risks and treatment needs to the most appropriate services
and supervision. The section responds by moving from least to most restrictive
intervention programming and sanctions for youth in an effort to disrupt the
progression of serious, violent and chronic offender pathways. Furthermore,
Juvenile Justice promotes public safety by identifying and controlling the small
population of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders within secure facilities
or youth development centers.
OUR COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY
4
STRATEGIC
PLAN IN ACTION
The Juvenile Justice strategic plan closes older, less secure facilities and reinvests the savings from closing
these facilities into state-of-the-art, safer and more secure facilities, and into community-based programs.
The strategic plan aims to:
• Phase out outdated/unsafe/underutilized facilities
• Renovate/expand facilities that are safer, more secure and more cost-efficient
• Plan and be prepared for potential future changes to the juvenile justice system
• Continue to provide treatment and education rooted in a cognitive-behavioral approach,
targeting criminogenic needs
• Reinvest cost savings into community-based programming
• Enhance support operations, such as transportation
5
Edgecombe Youth Development Center in Rocky Mount
Dobbs Youth Development
Center will close, and
Lenoir Youth Development
Center will re-open in
accordance with phasing
out unsafe facilities.
Here are some
other future
highlights of
the strategic plan:
Juvenile Justice continues
to create online training
resources, maximizing
resources and minimizing
travel costs.
In 2016, Edgecombe Youth Development Center
(YDC) opened, and C.A. Dillon YDC closed.
Edgecombe YDC provides for safer, more secure
housing of committed youth. Renovations at the
McWhorter building at Stonewall Jackson Youth
Development Center provided 30 additional
YDC beds.
Youth Counselor Technicians (who are criminal
justice-certified employees) were assigned
as transportation drivers. This revision in
requirements for a transportation driver further
enhances safety plans outlined in the strategic
plan. Positions have been reallocated to the front
end of the juvenile justice system because of the
facility realignment.
Juvenile Justice convened a Raise the Age
planning committee to prepare for future
recommendations and cost analysis related to
raise the age within the framework of the Juvenile
Justice strategic plan. Recommendations include:
the provision of additional JCPC funds; the
opening of transitional and residential homes;
field service support staff to train and onboard
new staff; quality assurance and information
technology staff to implement new initiatives and
reinforce through fidelity checks; the use of multi-functional
campuses when possible; a robust
vocational training program for 16 and 17 year
olds; and appropriate staffing and resources to
continue meeting juveniles’ needs with the same
or better level of care.
Re-entry planning efforts
will allow for greater access
to cross-system data-sharing
and more strategically
focused, individually targeted
services (case planning and
service matching).
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
6
North Carolina is the last remaining state that
automatically charges individuals 16-years-old and
above in the adult criminal justice system.
In 2016, members of the leadership team of the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice spent
long hours of research, collaboration and discussion with a diverse array of special interest groups on
the topic of raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to18. It is believed that bipartisan support has
been attained for the potential passage in 2017 of legislation that would ensure that children aged 16 and
17 would face any non-violent criminal charges in the juvenile justice system (excluding A-E Felonies).
Though raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction carries a short-term price-tag, it promises a
long-term economic benefit to North Carolina. Much of this comes from the 7.5 percent reduction
in recidivism when teens are adjudicated in the juvenile vs. the adult system, with avoided future costs
of imprisonment, and the ability of individuals with no criminal record to increase their earnings and
career prospects.
Two separate studies authorized by the North Carolina General Assembly indicate that raising
the juvenile age will produce significant economic benefits for North Carolina and its citizens:
Governor‘s Crime Commission
Juvenile Age Study
In 2009, the Governor’s Crime
Commission Juvenile Age Study
submitted to the General Assembly
included a cost-benefit analysis of
raising the age of juvenile court
jurisdiction to 18. The analysis, done by
ESTIS Group LLC, found that the age
change would result in a net benefit to
the state of $7.1 million.
Youth Accountability Planning
Task Force
In 2011, the Youth Accountability
Planning Task Force submitted its
final report to the General Assembly.
The Task Force’s report included a
cost-benefit analysis, done by the
Vera Institute of Justice, of prosecuting
16 and 17-year-old misdemeanants
and low-level felons in juvenile court.
That report estimated net benefits of
$52.3 million.
RAISE THE AGE
INITIATIVE
7
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
For more information about ‘Raise the Age’, visit the Raise the Age – NC Website at:
http://www.ncdps.gov/our-organization/juvenile-justice/key-initiatives/raise-age-nc
Per the Juvenile Reinvestment Report developed by the N.C. Commission on the Administration of
Law and Justice, evidence-based research suggests that adolescents are less culpable than adults; the
majority of young people who commit criminal acts age out of said behavior with full maturity; and that
working to strengthen family support systems, academic performance and job skills (that occurs within
the juvenile justice system) is more effective in reducing recidivism among young people.
Nearly 100 years ago, the current age of juvenile jurisdiction was set to end at 16 years of age, and has
remain unchanged ever since. Since that time, brain development research shows that the frontal cortex
section of the brain, which helps with impulse control, is one of the last parts to develop. Research shows
the brain is fully developed in males by age 25, or around age 22-23 for females. This means that all
teens, including those aged 16-17, are more likely to:
Officials with the N.C. Department of Public Safety, Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice,
strongly favor raising the age under the following circumstances:
• State and local juvenile justice staff must be given adequate funding to enable them to offer their
continuum of services to 16- and 17-year-olds, as well as those juveniles already involved in the system.
• Additionally, state officials must be given adequate time to plan and fully implement the initiative; it
is believed that Juvenile Justice officials will need three years to plan how to implement the initiative;
construct a new youth development center; train state and local officials; and phase implementation to
appropriately and properly put this plan into place in North Carolina.
Collaborative Partners who have endorsed ‘Raise the Age’ include:
N.C. Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, Conservatives for Criminal Justice Reform, John
Locke Foundation, N.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, N.C. Chamber Legal Institute, N.C. Magistrates
Association, N.C. Police Benevolent Association, N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, N.C.
Sheriffs’ Association, Office of Indigent Defense Services
• Act before thinking or act on impulse
• Participate in sensation-seeking behavior
• Seek out risky activities
• Need approval of peers
• Need instant gratification
• Exclude thoughts of the future
8
JUVENILE OFFENSES
IN NORTH CAROLINA
33,067 33,449 31,558 29,539 29,282 27,210 25,183
4,276 3,600
3,192
2,552 2,279
2,332
2,339
37,343 37,049
34,750
32,091 31,561
29,542
27,522
27.55
26.08
24.70
22.91 22.52
20.78
19.16
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Delinquent Complaints Status Complaints Delinquency Rate
ComplaCinomtsp lRaienctse Rievceeidve adn andd DDeelilninquqeunceyn Rcayte R(CaYt 2e0 1(C0-Y20 2160)10-2016)
Status
9%
Minor
63%
Serious
25%
Infraction
<1%
Violent
3%
Top 10 Juvenile Offenses of 2016
Offense Complaints
Simple Assault (M) 2,733
Larceny (M) 2,118
Disorderly Conduct
at School (M) 1,428
Simple Affray (M) 1,186
Breaking and/or Entering (F) 1,143
Breaking and/or Entering
Motor Vehicle (F) 1,086
Communicating Threats (M) 891
Truant < 16 (Status) 888
Injury to Real Property (M) 829
Possess Stolen Goods/Property (M) 732
2016 Complaints by Charged Class
Charged Class Complaints
Violent (Class A-E Felonies) 836
Serious (Class F, G, H, & I Felonies/
Class A1 Misdemeanors) 6,895
Minor (Class 1, 2, & 3
Misdemeanors) 17,393
Status 2,336
Infraction 64
The majority of complaints received in 2016
were minor offenses (63%).
* Rate is of delinquent complaints
per 1,000 youth age 6-15
9
BEST PRACTICES AND TRENDS
Structured assessment instruments and community resources are used to prevent unnecessary secure
detention. Research has established that unnecessary detention of lower risk juveniles leads to poorer
outcomes for those juveniles. Studies indicate that lower-risk juveniles can be better served through
programs and resources in their local communities.
Juvenile court counselors are securing evidence-based services through Juvenile Justice Community
Programs, partnerships with mental health and other community-based agencies. Community-based
services have been found to be more effective options for some juveniles who previously would have
been committed to a youth development center. Youth development center commitments are reserved
for the most serious, violent and chronic offenders.
The number of juveniles placed in detention centers
has decreased 56 percent
The number of juveniles committed to
youth development centers has decreased 48 percent
6,246
5,170
4,012
3,421 3,238 3,229
2,749
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Detention Center Admissions
(CY 2010-2016)
357
307
216 219 202 217
187
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Youth Development Center Commitments
(CY 2010-2016)
10
REDUCING
SCHOOL-BASED COMPLAINTS
Since 2010, the number of school-based complaints
have dropped from 16,097 to 11,630 in 2016
(a nearly 28 percent decrease).
While the number of school-based complaints has dropped, the percentage of the total
amount of complaints received has remained steady at around the mid-40 percentages.
The chart on the next page shows the number of school-based complaints for each calendar
year along with the corresponding percentage of total complaints received each year.
The primary strategy employed to address the goal of reducing school-based complaints
has been the collaboration across the state by court staff with school officials and school
resource officers. We educate them about the research and make them aware of the multiple
alternatives that exist in their communities. Many of these resources are programs that
Juvenile Justice funds through Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. A second strategy has
been the piloting of school-based court counselors to assist in diverting young people from
court involvement. These pilots have been enthusiastically received by school staff and
superintendents.
11
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
In Forsyth County, for the schools participating
in the project, juvenile complaints for the school
year following implementation decreased 68.5
percent from the preceding three-year average.
In Person County, as a result of the training,
education and collaboration, in the two pilot
schools complaints for school-based offenses
decreased by 51 percent from July 1, 2016-
Dec. 31, 2016, compared to the same period in
2015. In Brunswick County, the superintendent
collaborated with the chief court counselor to
start a school-based diversion program in their
schools. As a result, Brunswick County Schools
reduced school-based offenses by 45 percent
from July 1, 2016 - Dec. 31, 2016 compared to
this same period in 2015.
An additional example of a local program is
the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department
Juvenile Diversion Program, which receives JJ
funding through the local Juvenile Crime Council
to provide a school-based diversion program for
lower risk juveniles who do not have a previous
adjudication for delinquency. The program
serves approximately 600 youth per year referred
by school resource officers. As a part of the
program, life skills classes are provided over a
period of two weeks to three months. Seventy
percent of participants in the program have been
black, mostly ages 13 through 15. The program
has experienced an 85 percent success rate and
a 7 percent recidivism rate. Part of the impact
of this program is, for Mecklenburg County, 26
percent of all complaints received are for school-based
offenses compared to a state average of
42 percent! New Hanover County has created
an Inter-Agency Governance Agreement on
Handling School Offenses through an initiative
that was spearheaded by the chief district court
judge. This comprehensive agreement was
signed by the chief judge, chief court counselor,
sheriff, chiefs of police, district prosecutor, DSS
director, schools superintendent and the CEO
of the managed care organization for mental
health and substance abuse services. The plan
calls for the efficient use of support services as
an alternative to involvement of law enforcement
and court agencies for minor misconduct at
school and school-related events. New Hanover
had a 31 percent reduction in school-based
complaints in 2016 as compared to 2015.
16,097 16,109
15,407
14,772 14,331
12,946
11,630
43% 43% 44% 46% 45% 44% 42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
-
-
Number of School-Based Complaints
-
-
Percentage of School-Based Complaints
Percentage of School-Based Complaints
* As a result of all of these strategies, there was a 10 percent drop in statewide school-based complaints from 2015 to 2016
12
JUVENILE COURT SERVICES
Juvenile Court Services provides intake, supervision and
case management services for undisciplined and delinquent
juveniles within a continuum of services that address identified
needs and holds the juvenile accountable.
Court Services is the first point of contact with the juvenile justice system for
a young person alleged to have committed a delinquent offense or to be
undisciplined (truancy, runaway, ungovernable, etc.). Law enforcement officers or
N.C. residents file complaints on juveniles for delinquent or undisciplined behavior.
These complaints are received and evaluated by juvenile court counselors as a part
of the intake process. Court counselors gather information from law enforcement,
victims and community agencies. The juvenile and parents are then interviewed
during an intake process where the risks and needs of the juvenile are assessed
using validated instruments. Considering the results of the intake process, the
juvenile court counselor will either:
• Close the case because further court intervention is deemed unnecessary.
• Divert the case from court because the juvenile does not pose a threat to society
and is seen capable of proving themselves accountable for their actions. Diversion
plans are created to meet their individual needs and are supported by the juvenile
court counselor. Approximately three-fourths of juveniles successfully meet the
terms of their diversion plan. Unsuccessful completion of plans may lead to
previously diverted cases being approved for court.
• Approve the case for a court hearing. If the juvenile presents a significant risk
to the community, the juvenile court counselor may recommend that the judge
issue a secure custody order to place the juvenile in detention until a court hearing
can be scheduled.
13
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
For cases approved for court, recommendations
are prepared by court counselors and presented
for consideration by the judge following an
adjudication of delinquency. In cases where the
juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, the judge
relies on the recommendations from the court
counselor to create the court order specifying
terms of probation. Court counselors then
provide case management services to the
juveniles and their families, connecting them
to and advocating for services identified as
necessary by a variety of assessments. Court
counselors also supervise the juveniles and their
families to hold them accountable for complying
with the terms of their probation to ensure
community safety.
Court Services delivers services in all 100
counties through 30 district offices. Each district
is managed by a Chief Court Counselor and
is staffed by Juvenile Court Counselors and
Court Counselor Supervisors, with a total of 452
certified staff statewide.
During calendar year 2016, 27,522 complaints
were received involving 12,303 juveniles (some
juveniles received multiple complaints). Of the
12,303 juveniles who participated in the intake
process, 5,655 had one or more complaints
approved for court; 4,692 were diverted from
court with or without diversion plans/contracts;
and 3,020 had complaints that were closed.
Juveniles can enter, exit or be in multiple parts
of the system at any given time.
Intake Process
(Review of Complaint)
12,303 Total Juveniles
(27,522 Complaints)
Approved for Court
5,655 Juveniles*
(61% of Complaints)
Diversion
4,692 Juveniles*
(24% of Complaints)
Closed
3,020 Juveniles*
(15% of Complaints)
* A juvenile can receive multiple outcomes (e.g., a complaint that was originally diverted
could later result in being approved for court). These scenarios cause the juvenile count for
approved for court, diversion and closed to total more than 12,303.
14
DISPROPORTIONATE
MINORITY CONTACT (DMC)
Minority youth are engaged
with the juvenile justice
systems at a much higher
rate than their proportion
of the general population.
This overrepresentation
is evident in three distinct
points in the system.
The first point is at intake. Youth of color are
more than two and a half times as likely to
have complaints filed against them by law
enforcement or other citizens than white youth.
The second and third points are around the
decisions leading to secure detention and
commitment to a youth development center
(YDC). While youth of color continue to be one
and a half times more likely to be placed in
secure custody, the likelihood of a minority being
committed to a YDC dropped from three times
as likely in FY14-15 to twice as likely in FY15-16.
This disparity persists in spite of the fact that, due
to reforms made in Juvenile Justice, thousands
of juveniles have avoided secure detention and
hundreds have avoiding commitment to YDCs
due to decreased admission rates over the last
seven years. A large majority of the youth who
have benefited from these reforms are minority
youth. These improvements were made possible
by training staff, working collaboratively with
stakeholders, implementing best practices and
by the availability of quality community-based
programs and services.
Across North Carolina there are dozens of
community-based initiatives to address DMC
lead by a cross section of local leaders including
judges, juvenile court staff, law enforcement,
community programs and many others. These
efforts have increased attention to the issue and
brought about the use of best practices. The
result has been a significant reduction in the
number of youth of color coming into contact
with the juvenile justice system, being placed in
secure detention and being committed to a YDC.
15
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
JUVENILE GANG INVOLVEMENT
The number of gang-affiliated juveniles in our system has consistently dropped over the last seven years
(pictured below). However, because of our efforts to divert lower-risk juveniles, the overall percentage of
the youth we serve who are gang-affiliated has increased by half of a percent since 2015.
Gang-involved youth are among the highest risk juveniles. Those who are gang-involved are most likely
to become deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system, including secure detention and commitment
to a youth development center.
While representing a small segment of the population we serve, gang-affiliated youth require higher
levels of supervision from juvenile court counselors, and their supervision presents elevated risks to
those staff members. Across North Carolina, juvenile court staff work in close collaboration with law
enforcement to share information about local gang activity, and to develop and implement strategies
and programs to reduce gang activity. Law enforcement also provides extra security for court counselors
in instances where local conditions dictate special precautions.
1842 1573 1390 1323 1238 1229 1183
8.7%
7.3% 6.6% 6.8% 6.7% 7.1% 7.6%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2010 2011 2012 2014 2014 2015 2016
# of Gang-A liated Youth (Member or Associate) % of Gang-A liated Youth (Member or Associate)
Since 2010, the number of gang-affiliated youth
has decreased by 37 percent (from 1,842 to 1,183).
16
MOTIVATING
JUVENILES AND THEIR FAMILIES
In 2016, 425 certified juvenile court staff were
trained in Motivational Interviewing.
This evidence-supported approach has been shown to improve court counselors’ effectiveness in
engaging juveniles and their families and to lead to better outcomes. Equally important to the initial
training that has been provided are the strategies carried out in the districts to continue to raise the
skill levels of the staff and to ensure that we maintain fidelity to the model in order to achieve expected
results. Supervisors observe court counselors’ interaction with juveniles and families and score them using
established Motivational Interviewing program tools. Using feedback from the observations and scoring,
staff are able to refine their skills with the coaching of their supervisor.
17
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
TRAINING AND COLLABORATION:
MENTAL HEALTH
It is well documented that a large majority
of the juveniles we serve have mental health
needs. District 27’s chief court counselor has
collaborated with the Partners Behavioral Health
Management Organization to secure a wide array
of training regarding mental health for district
staff. Our staff have been trained to recognize
and respond effectively to mental health
needs, sexual abuse and trauma; they have
also been trained in I.C. Hope Mental Health
Awareness (ICMHA) curriculum. This curriculum is
evidence-based and helps to reduce the stigma
associated with mental health and trains staff
to identify appropriate resources they may turn
to for assistance. The chief court counselor is a
certified trainer in ICMHA and regularly conducts
educational sessions in elementary schools
using the curriculum to help young children
better understand the needs they see in family
members. Working with the elementary schools
helps these identified young people deal with
the feelings associated with having incarcerated
family members.
Chief court counselors across the state have also
focused on improving ready access to mental
health services as an appropriate response and
alternative to approving a case for court. There
has been an increasing need for this strategy
for younger juveniles in recent years. Statistics
from the Division of Mental Health shows that
37 percent of the juvenile justice youth served
by our mental health partners received services
while on a juvenile diversion plan. These youths
were served without formal court involvement.
18
DIVERSION
IN NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina’s juvenile justice system has made great gains in reducing the number of juveniles who
go to court, detention and/or are committed to the Department of Public Safety, Juvenile Justice. A
significant portion of these reductions are due, directly or indirectly, to diversion practices. A juvenile
court counselor diverts a juvenile from a formal court hearing when the risk level is low, public safety can
be assured, the needs of the juvenile can be addressed, and the young person and their family agree to
abide by the terms of the diversion. Research has demonstrated that when appropriately implemented,
diversion reduces recidivism, reduces costs to the state/communities, avoids the unintended negative
consequences of being labeled a delinquent, allows for the provision of needed services, and prevents
unnecessary confinement. By intervening early, most young people who are diverted have no further
contact with the justice system.
The idea of diversion is to intervene early and give the juvenile who has allegedly committed an illegal
act an appropriate consequence and allow the juvenile to prove that he or she possesses the ability—
given the opportunity and the resources—to develop into a stable and productive member of society.
The flowchart below demonstrates where diversion plans/contracts are implemented within the juvenile
justice process. In 2016, 24 percent of juvenile complaints were diverted from court.
Intake Process
(Review of Complaint)
Diverted (not approved
for court)
Closed with no Diversion
Plan
Successful completion of
Plan/Contract
Diversion Plan or
Diversion Contract
Unsuccessful: Did NOT
Approved for Court complete Plan/Contract
19
COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
Juvenile Community Programs oversees the administration of a continuum of services
designed to serve targeted youth populations along the juvenile justice continuum. Evidence-based
programming models are identified within multiple program types and are funded
through various revenue sources identified by North Carolina general statute: Juvenile
Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) funds that support programs within all 100 counties via the
collaborative work of Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils and local county partners; Level II
Dispositional Alternative funds that support state-level Community-Based and Residential
Contracts in addition to JCPC-Endorsed Level II programs at the local level; and Alternatives
to Commitment funds that support programming for the juvenile justice system’s highest risk
youth. These primary sources of funding support more than 500 programs that serve at-risk,
diverted, court-involved, committed and post-release supervised (PRS) youth across the state.
Each program type provides a linchpin into a relative portion of the workings of the Juvenile
Justice Facilities Strategic Plan. Most notable are the connections to the components of
1) promoting public safety by avoiding the costs of youth
development center commitment; and
2) planning and preparation for the future of juvenile justice.
During fiscal year 15-16,
24,223 juveniles received services
The section’s 23 staff support the oversight and management of all programming funded
through the various revenue sources. Employees operate out of four area offices:
Western Area office located in Swannanoa; Piedmont Area office located in Salisbury;
Central Area Office that also doubles as the Central office for the Unit’s state operations,
located in Raleigh; and the Eastern Area office located in Greenville.
Funding Source Juveniles Served
JCPC Funds 22,829
Community-Based Contractual Services 521
JCPC Alternatives to Commitment Programs 152
Residential Contractual Services 478
JCPC Level II Dispositional Alternative 243
20
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL
(JCPC) PROGRAMS
JCPC Programs are funded through a state and local partnership in all 100 counties. These
partnerships between the state, local county stakeholders and nonprofit agencies produce
more than 500 programs that establish a local continuum of needed sanctions and services to
address the issues of delinquent juveniles and those youths most likely to become delinquent,
along with their families. JCPCs are legislatively mandated bodies that annually release
requests for proposals to inform funding decisions based on community demographics, risks,
needs and gaps in services.
Eckerd Kids operates two short-term residential programs
for male juveniles who have received a Level II disposition—
Candor, which has a capacity of 36 beds; and Boomer, which
has 24 beds. The programs offer a social skills-building
curriculum to juvenile offenders focusing on redirecting
criminogenic behaviors in a therapeutic environment. The
average length of stay is four to five months.
Contract Type Programs Available
Residential
Services
3 Crisis and Assessment Centers
3 Short-Term Residential Facilities (Eckerd – 2 sites, Westcare – 1 site)
5 Multi-purpose Group Homes
2 Transitional Independent Living Homes (1 male and 1 female)
Non-Residential
Services Functional Family Therapy (FFT) based out of 5 regional offices – Statewide Service
JCPC Endorsed
Level II
Dispositional
Alternatives
SAFE Systems (Dare County)
Community Connections (Granville County)
Multi-Systemic Therapy (Haywood County)
TASK Level II (Haywood and Iredell counties)
Community Intervention Program (Lenoir County)
Community Service Restitution (New Hanover County)
Pitt County Structured Day (Pitt County)
Alternatives to Commitment Expansion (Rockingham County)
Community Alternatives Programs (Wake County)
JCPC Alternatives
to Commitment
Barium Springs Home Remedies: Juvenile Justice (Burke)
Intensive Services Network (Cumberland)
Family Services Mentoring and Counseling Program (Davidson)
Parenting of Adolescents Program (Durham)
Flying Changes (Hoke)
Mecklenburg County CJS ASSET ATC
Alternatives to Commitment: Family Preservation Program (New Hanover)
21
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
COMMUNITY-BASED CONTRACTUAL
FUNCTIONAL FAMILY THERAPY
AMIkids North Carolina Family Services Inc.,
a subsidiary of AMIkids Inc. based in Tampa,
Florida, has provided Functional Family Therapy
(FFT) services in North Carolina since 2011. This
short-term, family-based
intervention
statewide program
serves an 89
county catchment
area. FFT services guide juvenile offenders and
their family members through five treatment
phases known as Engagement, Motivation,
Relational Assessment, Behavior Change Phase
and Generalization. Therapists are certified to
provide FFT services and participate in weekly
clinical supervision with a certified FFT supervisor
to ensure model fidelity. Bilingual services
are provided to families in need of a Spanish-speaking
therapist. FFT services are designed for
Level II, Post Release Level III juveniles returning
to their communities, and some high risk/needs
Level I juvenile offenders. AMIkids North Carolina
Family Services Inc., has been a trendsetter in the
juvenile justice arena by utilizing a strength-based
approach addressing the multi-faceted dynamics
of the 21st century family unit and the complex
needs of juveniles.
RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTUAL PROGRAMS
The Juvenile Justice Section also currently contracts with three providers to offer 10
residential programs. WestCare North Carolina Inc., a subsidiary of the WestCare
Foundation based in Las Vegas, Nevada, operates the WestCare North Carolina Girl’s
Program located in Vance County. The program is a 16-bed short-term residential facility
for female juveniles who have received a Level II disposition. The program offers a gender-responsive
therapeutic environment that focuses on trauma-informed care. The average
length of stay is for female juveniles is four to five months.
Methodist Home for Children Inc. operates five multipurpose group homes for male and
female juveniles who have received a Level II disposition in juvenile court. The length of
stay is approximately six months. Methodist Home for Children employs the Value Based
Therapeutic Model to address a range of antisocial behaviors through individualized service
planning and the implementation of a social and life skills curriculum. Methodist Home for
Children also operates two transitional living homes (one for females and one for males) for
youth exiting youth development centers or other residential care facilities. Independent
living skills support youth as they navigate a four-level program based on the Teaching
Family Model for a period of 6 to 12 months.
22
MEASURING
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
North Carolina is one of more than 10 states
that have embraced the Standardized Program
Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) as an evaluation tool
to identify the most effective services with the
highest potential to reduce juvenile recidivism.
North Carolina General Statutes require that
Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs)
fund only effective programs and SPEP is the
department’s response to complying with this
mandate. It allows for an examination of how
a specific program is performing compared to
the effective practice for that service type in the
research. This research-based process is being
instituted to push programs to model best
practices for their program type to have the
greatest impact on the reduction of recidivism.
Now, in its newly recalibrated and enhanced
format, the SPEP has incorporated quality of
service delivery into the scoring schematic.
The four elements of the SPEP instrument are
1) Primary and Supplemental Service, 2) Quality
of Service, 3) Service Dosage (frequency of the
contact and duration within the program service)
and 4) Risk level of youth served. Phase I of SPEP
in North Carolina is now complete as evidenced
by the extraction of SPEP scores on all Juvenile
Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) programs. The
following processes were completed and SPEP
scores were determined for the JCPC programs:
Classification of Primary and Supplemental
Service Types, administration of a Quality
of Service (QoS) assessments for programs,
and standardized training across the state on
administering the risk assessment instrument,
Understanding SPEP Scores and Program
Enhancement Planning (PEP).
Evaluate/Program Enhancement Plans Repeat Scoring
IDENTIFY
services
MATCH
against
research-based
service
categories
DATA
(level of risk,
quality of service,
quantity of service)
SPEP
score
Æ
Ï
Ï
Ï
23
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
The findings from Phase I SPEP scoring revealed
that the average SPEP score for JCPC funded
programs was 49. SPEP research indicates that,
to be effective in the reduction of recidivism,
a program must generate a SPEP of 50 points
or greater. In 2016 as part of the SPEP Phase
II process, programs were offered technical
assistance and Program Enhancement Plans (PEPs)
were developed to address program improvement
goals. PEPs are used by the local JCPC as an
accountability tool to monitor and track program
improvement and has been incorporated into
annual tasks dictated by general statute. Moving
forward, since SPEP serves as a valuable process
for the development of evidence-based programs,
Phase II of the SPEP will fully integrate SPEP across
all DPS juvenile programs within the Community
Programs Section.
The Juvenile Community Programs Section
incorporated two additional Juvenile Crisis and
Assessment Centers to the service continuum
in 2016. To-date there are three centers located
in the Central, Piedmont and Western regions
of the state.
The Juvenile Crisis and Assessment Centers
provide 24-hour, *non-secure, crisis care
and comprehensive clinical assessments in a
therapeutic residential setting. Services are
designated for juvenile offenders ages 10-17 and
the length of stay ranges from 14 to 30 days.
There is a two-tier systematic evaluation and
assessment process that includes the domains
of education, behavior, personality, intelligence,
substance abuse and trauma. A modified version
of the Department’s Model of Care is the primary
teaching motivational model utilized by staff.
In a continued effort to provide additional
resources to the children and families of North
Carolina, Community Programs partnered with
local stakeholders, contract providers, DPS
staff and county officials to open two crisis and
assessment centers, with locations in Winston-
Salem and Asheville. The Western Area Multi-
Purpose Crisis and Assessment Center is located
at a former juvenile detention center and was
totally transformed to what is now a state-of-the-art
facility. The open house for the site of this
new service was held in August 2016 and hosted
more than 100 Juvenile Justice officials and
community stakeholders. This renovation project
involved completely gutting the building to
the shell, converting an interior atrium to a new
dayroom in the center of the building, as well
as modernizing all bedrooms, restrooms, kitchen,
staff offices and the family waiting room areas.
This project, completed in partnership
with DPS Central Engineering Inmate
Construction Program, utilized inmate labor
for a vast majority of the work on the facility.
The project has also been nominated as a
Honorable Mention by the State Construction
Office at its Spring 2017 Conference.
* The Western Area Multi-Purpose
Juvenile Crisis and Assessment Center includes four secure custody beds.
24
11,642 11,187
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
No
JJ Involvement
JJ Involved/
Court Involved
JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL
PROGRAM STATISTICS 2015-2016
5,682
25%
6,499
28%
6,997
31%
3,651
16%
Eastern Central Piedmont Western
15,095
66%
7,734
34%
Male Female
11,145
49%
2,613
11%
7,911
35%
1,160
5%
Hispanic/Latino
White
Other
African-American
Juveniles Served by Area Juveniles Served (Male/Female)
Juveniles Served by Race/Ethnicity
Juveniles Served by Court Status
Ages   10
1,958
9% 29%
6,600
11-13
yrs old
9,853
14-15
yrs old
4,418
Ages  16
yrs old
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
43% 19%
Juveniles Served by Age
25
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
Juveniles Served by Type
Funding Source Juveniles Served
Restitution/Community Service 5,578
Interpersonal Skill Building 4,399
Teen Court 3,592
Juvenile Structured Day 1,371
Individual Counseling 1,268
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement 1,225
Parent/Family Skill Building 920
Assessments 830
Mediation/Conflict Resolution 759
Experiential Skill Building 602
Mentoring 443
Runaway Shelter Care 303
Family Counseling 295
Vocational Skills 269
Home-Based Family Counseling 251
Substance Abuse Counseling 238
Temporary Shelter Care 232
Sexual Offender Treatment 114
Group Home Care 94
Group Counseling 16
Specialized Foster Care 15
Temporary Foster Care 15
26
365
304
262
229 221 212 199
223
201
164 161
143 157 151
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Youth Development Centers Detention Centers
YDC vs. DC Average Daily Population (CY 2010-2016)
FACILITY
CAPACITIES AND POPULATIONS
NOTE: McWhorter
building renovation
on Stonewall Jackson
campus resulted in an
increase of 16 beds
(from the FY2013-
2014 112 beds) for a
total of 128 Stonewall
beds in August 2016.
McWhorter is a
32-bed building.
A list of North Carolina’s
youth development centers
(YDCs), juvenile detention
centers (DCs) and county-operated
juvenile detention
centers (DCs) with the facility’s
name, bed capacity and
average daily population
(ADP) for calendar year 2016.
Below shows the trends in the
ADP of YDCs and DCs across the
state over the last seven calendar
years. The average length of stay
during CY 2016 for YDCs was 358
days, and 17 days for detention
center stays.
Facility Types Funding Source Capacity ADP
Youth
Development
Centers
C.A. Dillon (closed May, 2016) 90 41
Chatham 32 31
Dobbs 43 39
Edgecombe (opened April, 2016) 44 24
Stonewall Jackson 128 97
Juvenile
Detention
Centers
Alexander 24 19
Cumberland 18 14
Cabarrus 30 26
New Hanover 18 12
Pitt 18 11
Wake 24 25
County-operated
Juvenile Detention
Centers
Durham 14 7
Guilford 48 29
27
FACILITY OPERATIONS STATISTICS
1,720
63%
221
8%
667
24%
141
5%
135
76%
9
5%
30
17%
4
2%
White
Other
African
American
Hispanic/
Latino
2,131
78%
618
22%
2 15 79
267
605
1,164
515
97
5
<10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18+
Detention Center Admissions by Age
0
9
27
75
60
7
0
<12 13 14 15 16 17 18+
Detention Center Admissions by Age
170
96%
8
4%
Male
Female
Youth Development Center
Commitments by Age
Youth Development Center
Commitments (Male/Female)
Youth Development Center
Commitments by Race/Ethnicity
Detention Center Admissions by Age
Detention Center Admissions
(Male/Female)
Detention Center Admissions
by Race/Ethnicity
28
CLINICAL
SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING
Juveniles committed to North Carolina’s
juvenile justice system in 2016 presented with
multiple and complex behavioral health needs.
A representative point-in-time survey of youth
confined in youth development centers on Dec.
31, 2016, revealed that:
• 99.5 percent (all but one) carried at least one
mental health diagnosis, with 61 percent
holding at least one substance use diagnosis;
• 60 percent had co-occurring mental health
and substance use disorders;
• 70 percent had more than one mental
health disorder;
• 33 percent were taking prescribed
psychotropic medication; and
• youth committed to YDCs had an average of
three distinct mental health and/or substance
use disorder diagnoses.
These findings are largely similar to diagnostic
trends found over recent years in this population,
with one distinction: the rate of substance use
disorders fell nearly 15 percent since 2015 (74
percent in 2015 vs 60 percent currently).
The most frequent diagnoses among YDC youth,
found after completion of a comprehensive
evaluation using standardized assessment tools
by a psychologist, were within the category
of Disruptive, Impulse-Control and Conduct
Disorders. These diagnoses describe problems of
self-control manifested in behaviors that violate
the rights of others and/or bring an individual
into conflict with rules, laws or authority
figures, so it is not surprising that 85 percent of
delinquent youth confined in YDCs carry at least
one diagnosis within this class. Other common
mental health and substance abuse diagnoses
are listed below for both YDC youth and those
placed in juvenile justice-funded community-based
short-term residential facilities in 2016.
High rates of behavioral health needs were found
among both groups.
In CY 2016, PTSD-related problems troubled 5
out of 10 boys and 7 out of 10 girls, with youth
confined in YDCs reporting exposure to six
traumatic events on average. Youth with histories
of unresolved trauma exposure experience
recurrent symptoms that can disrupt personality
development, relationships, decision-making and
success in school, including:
• persistently re-experiencing the distressing
event though nightmares, intrusive thoughts
and images,
• marked emotional and physical reactions to
sights, sounds, smells and other reminders
of the original traumatic event(s),
• heightened levels of arousal and physical
reactivity that make them react quickly and
powerfully when irritated or startled,
• difficulty with sleeping and concentration; and
• pervasive negative thoughts or feelings
resulting from the trauma, such as excessive
self- blame, distorted or highly negative
views of the world or other people, and
feelings of isolation.
29
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
Licensed mental health clinicians (LMHCs) at all
YDCs have been trained via an intensive learning
collaborative training methodology to offer an
evidence-based intervention for trauma-related
disorders, Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavior
Therapy (TF-CBT).
In 2016, nine of our 14 YDC-based LMHCs also
completed the Advanced Training in Trauma-
Focused CBT Fidelity curriculum offered by the
North Carolina Child Treatment Program. In
addition, a third cohort of YDC-based LMHCs
participated in the NC Child Treatment Program’s
training program for Structured Psychotherapy
for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress
(SPARCS), making that intervention available at
all YDCs as well.
SPARCS is an evidence-based group intervention
designed for adolescents who have been
exposed to chronic stress and/or trauma. During
group sessions, members examine and address
problems with regulating emotions, attention,
self-perception, relationships, physical health,
and life purpose. In 2016, LMHCs in YDCs
completed eight rounds of the 16-session
SPARCS group curriculum with a total of 72
youth.
0%
33%
13%
73%
47%
67%
4%
16%
31%
56%
54%
70%
-
BOYS
GIRLS
Percent of Youth Development Center Population
Conduct Disorder
Cannabis-Related
Disorder
Trauma- and Stressor-
Related Disorders
Attention
De cit/Hyperactivity
Disorder
Depressive Disorders
Intellectual Disability
9%
39%
22%
35%
65%
78%
14%
24%
40%
21%
50%
55%
-
Percent of Community Programs Population
Conduct Disorder
Cannabis-Related
Disorder
Trauma- and Stressor-
Related Disorders
Attention
De cit/Hyperactivity
Disorder
Depressive Disorders
Intellectual Disability
BOYS
GIRLS
30
SPARCS
LEARNING COLLABORATIVE
In the fall of 2016, a multidisciplinary
team culled from two YDCs—Dobbs and
Edgecombe—enrolled in a nine-month-long
training program in an evidence-supported
mental health group treatment called
Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents
Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS).
SPARCS is designed to address the problems
that arise in youth following years of chronic
exposure to traumatic and stressful life events.
Many are surprised to learn
that adolescents aged 12-15
are victims of crime more
than any other age group,
and that adolescents of any
age are victims at a rate that
is twice the national average.
Dr. Jamaal Scott, psychologist, and Freddie Barnes, clinical chaplain, both from Edgecombe YDC;
LaNeisha Brown, social worker, and Lisa Butler, contract substance abuse counselor, from Dobbs YDC;
and the team’s senior leader, Dr. Janet Clarke-McLean, Regional Psychological Program Manager.
31
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
Much of the violence experienced by youths is
perpetrated by peers or someone they know
well. Youths exposed to recurrent violence often
struggle with the symptoms of post-traumatic
stress disorder highlighted on the preceding
page, More than five of every 10 boys and
seven of every 10 girls committed to a YDC in
2016 experienced trauma- and stressor-related
disorders, reporting exposure to six different
traumatic events on average.
The SPARCS intensive training program,
offered by the North Carolina Child Treatment
Program, follows a learning collaborative model
that consists of three two-day-long in-person
training sessions attended by multiple teams
spread over a six-month period, interspersed by
regular coaching calls while teams implement
with fidelity the intervention with two cohorts of
youth. In addition, trainees collect and submit
process and outcome measures that help them
and their coaches track the impact of their
efforts on the youth participating in the group
sessions. Because the intervention is designed to
be offered by a licensed mental health clinician
(LMHC) and a co-leader in a supportive role,
training teams from juvenile justice typically
include an LMHC and a direct care staff
member from a YDC. In addition, because the
learning collaborative model also trains agency
leaders to support and sustain the program’s
implementation during and after the training
program has concluded, each training team
typically also includes a senior leader from a
YDC or our central office.
Staff at the state’s YDCs are encouraged
to participate in learning collaboratives to
acquire training in evidence-based mental
health treatment, but doing so is a significant
commitment. Trainees commit to additional
data collection and documentation requirements,
regular coaching and conference calls, clinical
group time, and in-person training sessions
solely because they desire to be able to meet
the mental health needs of the youth in our
custody with the best treatment available.
For this reason, we are especially proud of our
SPARCS training cohort!
32
MANAGING THE MODEL OF CARE
Overview of the Model
The Model of Care (MOC) is a therapeutic
approach to behavior management and pro-social
skill acquisition introduced in the state’s
youth development centers (YDCs) in 2008,
after a three-year pilot study established its
effectiveness. The MOC outlines the ways in
which direct care staff are to interact with youth
during their time in our custody. While we
recognize the value that individual and group
therapy offers the youth committed to a YDC,
we believe that direct care staff, those with the
most “face time” with youth, function as vital
agents of change within the juvenile justice
system. At the heart of the MOC are focused
therapeutic interactions that structure the
interactions between staff and youth in a way
that involves the recognition and rewarding
of prosocial behavior, and targeted structured
role plays (skills rehearsal and practice) to teach
youth the specific prosocial skills they have been
assigned for mastery. Across shifts and settings
within the YDC, staff engage youth in these
focused therapeutic interactions throughout the
day. These structured interactions are embedded
within a cognitive-behavioral approach
addressing the treatment needs associated with
delinquency and recidivism. A skills curriculum
listing the positive and negative behavior
descriptions of 51 prosocial skills assists staff and
youth by clearly defining the appropriate way to
demonstrate each skill. A sample skill from the
curriculum appears below.
33
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
Monitoring Program Fidelity
Beautifully designed evidence-based programs, if not monitored closely, can drift and change over
time, leading them to become less effective, or worse still, harmful. To ensure that activities in our YDCs
are faithful to the MOC as designed, implementation teams at each YDC work closely with a statewide
fidelity programs manager to assess and maintain program integrity by means of reviews of daily records
and regular observation and coaching of staff by supervisors. In addition, monitoring visits consisting
of structured observation of housing unit activities and records reviews are undertaken monthly. Semi-annual
YDC site monitoring visits are undertaken as well, and include testing of randomly selected staff
and youth in elements of the MOC, records review and observation. In 2016, we conducted a total of 49
monthly treatment programming fidelity support and monitoring visits to YDCs and detention centers,
and we completed four semi-annual fidelity evaluation visits with assistance from Methodist Homes for
Children leadership.
Another way to enhance program fidelity and effectiveness is to ensure that staff is well trained. Over
the course of twelve 2.5-day-long training sessions, Implementation Team members worked with our
programs fidelity manager to offer experiential training to 100 juvenile justice employees in 2016 in the
high quality delivery of the MOC. We also developed and launched an online orientation to the model of
care for inclusion in our interactive online learning management system.
SKILL: Accepts “No” for an answer
Positive Demonstration Negative Demonstration
Looks at the person Looks away, rolls eyes
Acknowledges Argues, asks why, complains, swears
Maintains body posture Rolls eyes, turns away, sighs, punches
objects, jumps up, waves arms
Waits until neutral time to discuss
concerns more fully Discusses concerns immediately, demands
34
JUVENILE REENTRY REFORM
North Carolina was one of three states to
be awarded a FY 2015 Second Chance Act
Comprehensive Statewide Juvenile Reentry
Reform Implementation Program grant. With
a total program budget of $1.47 million, the
implementation grant is working to
accomplish four primary objectives
tied to service planning and service
matching, family engagement,
education and workforce
development, and the evaluation of our effort.
The key tasks tied to the work of the Service
Planning and Service Matching subcommittee are
central to the reform effort. With the assistance
of the NC Government Data Analytics Center
(GDAC) and its corporate partner, SAS, the
subcommittee aims to mine data derived from
juvenile justice–involved youth dating back to
2011 to identify whether there are clusters of
offense, demographic, risk and needs variables
that tend to occur together in our population of
youth. Once these “types” of youth are identified,
our data tied to programs and services to which
youth have been assigned will be analyzed to
examine whether specific “types” of youth have
tended to benefit differentially from specific
interventions comprising the wide array of services
and programs supported by Juvenile Crime
Prevention Councils and Juvenile Justice support.
Ultimately, we aim to use the results of these
analyses to rapidly identify the best treatment and
program recommendations for youth at the time
that a case plan is being developed.
Much of the effort directed toward this objective
in 2016 centered on preparing the data on
program assignments from our two primary
databases for analysis. With the help of the NC
GDAC and SAS, we have applied a combination
of entity resolution software and manpower to
ensure that program entries within our databases
are accurate, listed only once, and accurately tied
to juvenile records. Subcommittee
members culled from all areas of
the juvenile justice section have
also worked tirelessly to develop a
taxonomy of programs and services
to be used for the uniform and consistent
classification of programs and services available
to meet the myriad of treatment needs of
juvenile justice-involved youth and those at risk
for involvement. By the end of the year, we were
preparing to classify the program entries in our
two databases dating back to 2011 within our
new taxonomy. This painstaking work will enable
us to begin mining our historical data, while
also serving as the foundation for a statewide
directory of current services and programs that
will be matched with identified treatment needs
during case planning in the future.
In October 2016, we learned that North
Carolina was the recipient of a $500,000 federal
continuation grant for the reentry reform project.
We plan to use this funding to continue the effort
to integrate case planning with service matching
fueled by sophisticated data analytics, with the
ongoing assistance of SAS and the GDAC. In
addition, we will be partnering with Communities
in Schools of NC to pilot in four counties
(Durham, Forsyth, Guilford and Wake) youth
development specialist positions to improve the
reentry outcomes of youth returning to their home
communities from YDCs and community-based
residential facilities run under contract with us.
35
JUVENILE HEALTH SERVICES
2016 launched another
year for Juvenile Justice
Health Care Services
to provide preventive
and acute health care to
juveniles in residential
centers. Care involves
admission baseline health
assessments and physicals
as well as preventive health
care, response to illness,
care management and
age-appropriate health
education.
Data available from the North Carolina Annual
School Health Services Report 2014-2015
(NC Department of Public Instruction and NC
Division of Public Health) highlights 17 percent
of school-aged children in North Carolina
Public Schools required care for chronic health
conditions including asthma, ADHD, severe
allergies and emotional/behavioral/psychiatric
conditions. Juvenile Justice’s population is a
subset of the NC Public School population and
has seen a concurrent increase in the number
of youth entering detention centers and youth
development centers with complex chronic
illness needs requiring immediate attention
and on-going care management. The often
urgent placement surrounding many admissions
means that medication, health histories and
community provider’s medical orders may
not arrive with youth. Care in centers must
be quickly coordinated to ensure safety and
maintain health status.
2015-16 saw the development of new
partnerships to provide all aspect of care
including oral care to youth. Cabarrus Health
Alliance partnered to provide mobile oral
health services at Stonewall Jackson Youth
Development Center in Concord. Edgecombe
Youth Development Center’s youth were seen
by Edgecombe County Health Department’s
Dental Clinic in Tarboro, offering Medicaid rates
and excellent care continuity. Communication
and collaboration continues with Public Health,
community initiatives and private providers to
identify the most cost effective and productive
oral health services for all youth in Juvenile
Justice residential settings.
Information in the Mental Health section of
this report outlines the significant and driving
mental health needs of the juvenile population
served. The data and information provided
should be viewed in an integrated context—
juveniles have mental health conditions that
impact overall health status and require greater
health care management to assess potential
medication interactions and side effects, poor
self- care due to mental health conditions, and
greater displays of aggression and risk-taking
behaviors. Factors such as these increase the
level of health services staff care required in
Juvenile Justice residential settings.
36
EDUCATION SERVICES
Education Services is charged with fulfilling all state and federal mandates of a traditional
school system. The school system staff includes a superintendent, central office staff, principals,
assistant principal, teachers and other support staff.
Students enrolled in academic programs in youth development centers are provided instruction
consistent with the North Carolina Essential Standards in four 90-minute blocks daily. Students’
academic abilities are assessed upon entering and leaving youth development centers, with
each youth receiving a personal education plan. Students who are identified as exceptional
(i.e., having a disability) receive an Individual Education Plan (IEP) developed according to the
federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guidelines.
While enrolled in the education services system, students may earn either a high school
diploma or high school equivalency certificate.
Staffing for health services in North Carolina Juvenile Justice has
historically been limited as the primary purpose of the organization is
not health care. However, the health care needs of juveniles and the
health trends across the state and nation are driving higher costs and
increased health resources required to address unmet health needs of
youth. Regional Nurse Supervisors were hired to support nurses across
the organization as we monitor trends of increased chronic conditions,
significant juvenile medication administration burden and managing the
implications of a juvenile’s health status on remediation/re-entry planning
by the multi-disciplinary service planning team.
As Juvenile Justice seeks to meet increasing health demands, we are
pleased to highlight innovative approaches to provide care including: the
launch of a telehealth pilot for psychiatric care at Stonewall Jackson Youth
Development center and the development of an innovative partnership
with Cabarrus Health Alliance in Cabarrus County. This unique organization
has a range of services to offer youth onsite as well as leveraging
community youth programming brought to the center.
37
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
SCHOOL NUTRITION
The Juvenile Justice School Nutrition Services
section oversees the administration of providing
and promoting healthy, nutritious meals and
eating habits to the youth in our system. Youth
development centers and juvenile detention
centers participate in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s National School Lunch, School
Breakfast and Commodity Programs. Juvenile
Nutrition Services‘ central office team provides
oversight and ensures compliance with federal
and state food safety guidelines and regulations,
procurement processes, local wellness policies,
nutrition standards and menu-planning
approaches, and other areas of compliance
measures. This team works jointly with center
food service staff, center directors and other staff
to ensure optimal nutritional outcomes for youth.
Food service staff actively participates in several
awards sponsored by the School Nutrition
Services section of the N.C. Department of Public
Instruction, U.S. Department of Agriculture and
School Nutrition Association of North Carolina.
At the 2015-2016 School Nutrition Association of
North Carolina annual conference in Greensboro,
Beverly Cash, cook supervisor at Alexander
Juvenile Detention Center, received three
awards in the Culinary/Creative Arts Competition
and Lolita Perry, cook II at Chatham Youth
Development Center, was awarded first place
honor and a “Best in Show.”
Cash also won first place for her Golden
Key Achievement entry presented by the
School Nutrition Services section of the N.C.
Department of Public Instruction and received a
“Partner in Education Award,” sponsored by the
School Nutrition Association of North Carolina
to recognize exceptional implementation of
nutrition education activities in both the cafeteria
and the classroom
38
ADMINISTRATION, POLICY, TRAINING,
AND STRATEGIC PLANNING
• Worked with Juvenile Justice partners to inform the Raise the Age initiative.
• Implemented juvenile medical claims processing through PGBA.
• Began implementing online in-service training courses to maximize resources and minimize travel costs.
• Implemented Field Training Officer/onboarding checklists to promote on-the-job training.
• Revised the basic training curriculum to maximize the effectiveness of the program and better prepare our new staff for the responsibilities of their roles.
• Revised the in-service training RCDT curriculum in response to feedback from stakeholders
to create a nimbler course that better ensures safety for participants and allows for flexible
in-service training schedules.
• Created annual in-service training plans for Facility Operations and Court Services to promote consistency in certified staff training.
392 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
INSTRUCTORS OF THE YEAR
Outside of their normal duties,
select employees throughout Juvenile
Justice go above and beyond to
become training instructors, who
contribute to the betterment of their
fellow employees.
Employees in Court Services and
Facility Operations who choose to
become instructors are capable of
teaching a wide variety of trainings.
Such trainings can vary from RCDT
to First Aid, to Fitness and Wellness.
Thank you to all of our instructors!
Top instructors for 2016!
Tracy Stanley, 2016 Overall
Juvenile Justice Instructor of the
Year, with Peter Brown, director
of Stonewall Jackson Youth
Development Center.
LaTonya Middleton, the 2016 Court Services instructor
of the Year, receives flowers from her co-workers,
including her supervisor, Chief Court Counselor
Marsha Woodall, and District 11 Court Counselor
Supervisor Patrick Doan.
Deputy Secretary William Lassiter
with 2016 Facility Operations
Instructor of the Year Haley Jones,
from New Hanover Juvenile
Detention Center.
40
Like all state agencies, Juvenile Justice’s budget comes from
appropriations established by the North Carolina General
Assembly. During FY15-16, Juvenile Justice was appropriated
$129,981,610 with $1,990,677 in grants and federal funding.
JUVENILE JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS
Juvenile Court
Services
$34,428,515
Youth
Education
Services
$6,465,248
Youth
Treatment
Services
$15,986,600
Youth
Development
Services
$16,348,032
Youth Detention
Services
$13,800,139
Community Programs
Services
$19,708,915
Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council
(JCPC)
$23,244,161
,
41
2 0 1 6 J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A n n u a l R e p o r t
JUVENILE JUSTICE STAFFING
Juvenile Justice offers services in every county within
North Carolina through a combination of contracts,
grants and direct service.
The 1,290 Juvenile Justice staff
members and numerous stakeholders
integrate their combined expertise
and efforts to provide an effective,
seamless continuum of responses and
services to the youth and families of
North Carolina.
* Job classifications involved in supervision or counseling of juveniles, as defined in Title 12,
Chapter 9 of the NC Administrative Code, by the statutory authority of G.S. 17C, are subject
to and must meet the hiring and training standards established by the North Carolina
Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission.
Section
Juvenile Justice Emplyees
Total Number of Staff Number of Criminal Justice
Certified Staff*
Community Programs 23 —
Court Services 537 452
Facility Services
(includes Education/Health/Clinical) 673 540
Transportation Services 45 16
Administration 12 —
42
JUVENILE JUSTICE COMPREHENSIVE MAP
43
For additional information, please visit our website at: https://www.ncdps.gov/juvenile-justice
3010 Hammond Business Place Raleigh, NC 27603
Mailing Address: 4212 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4212
Main Phone: 919-733-3388
Juvenile Justice Central Office
Director Juvenile Community Programs:
Cindy Porterfield
Director Juvenile Court Services:
Michael Rieder
Director Juvenile Facility Operations:
Jim Speight
Director Juvenile Clinical Services and Programs:
Dr. Jean Steinberg
Deputy Secretary for Juvenile Justice:
William L. Lassiter