SystemStats

              North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center Governor’s Crime Commission
Winter 2006
SYS EMSTATS
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
Introduction
Disproportionate Minority Contact ( DMC) refers
to the disproportionate number of minority youth
who come into contact with the juvenile justice sys-tem.
Although minority youth account for approxi-mately
one- third of the U. S. population, they rep-resent
two- thirds of the detention and corrections
population. 1
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 2002 broadened the scope to ‘ Dispropor-tionate
Minority Contact’ from the previous term
of ‘ Disproportionate Minority Confinement’ requir-ing
the examination of the disproportionate repre-sentation
of minority youth at all juvenile justice
decision points and not just corrections and con-finement.
DMC as a Core Requirement
In the 1988 amendment to the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention ( JJDP) Act of 1974 ( Public
Law 93- 415, 42 U. S. C. 5601 et seq.), Congress
mandated that the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention ( OJJDP) require all states
participating in the Formula Grants Program ( Title
II, Part B, of the Act) to address disproportionate
minority confinement ( DMC) in their state plans.
Specifically, if the proportion of a given minority
group of youth who are detained or confined in
In the 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act, DMC
was elevated to a core protection for youth, with
future funding eligibility tied to state compliance.
The JJDP Act of 2002, signed into law on
November 2, 2002, modified the DMC require-ment
of the Act as follows:
In order to receive formula grants under
this part ( Part B), a state shall submit a
plan for carrying out its purposes appli-cable
to a 3- year period… In accordance
with regulations which the Administrator
shall prescribe, such plan shall…( address)
juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and
system improvement efforts designed to
reduce, without establishing or requiring
numerical standards or quotas, the dispro-portionate
number of juvenile members of
minority groups who come into contact
with the juvenile justice system. This
change essentially broadens the DMC
1 Disproportionate Minority Confinement, 2002 Update. U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
state’s secure detention facilities, secure correc-tional
facilities, jails, and lockups exceeded the
proportion of that group represented in the gen-eral
population, the state was required to develop
and implement plans to reduce the disproportion-ate
representation ( Section 223( a)( 23)).
2
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
initiative from disproportionate minority
“ confinement” to disproportionate represen-tation
of minority youth at all decision points
along the juvenile justice system continuum.
It further requires multi- pronged interven-tion
strategies including not only juvenile de-linquency
prevention efforts, but also sys-tem
improvement efforts to assure equal
treatment of all youth.
Pursuant to section 223( a)( 22) of the JJDP Act,
states must address specific delinquency pre-vention
and system improvement efforts to re-duce
the rate of contact with the juvenile justice
system of a specific minority group, if that rate
is significantly greater than the rate of contact
for whites or for other minority groups. The
analysis should be conducted separately for each
minority group within the state or locality that
represents at least one percent of the total youth
population at risk.
For purposes of this statutory mandate, major-ity
population is defined as white ( not Hispanic),
while minority populations are defined as non-white.
Groups that make up the minority popu-lation
include: American Indian or Alaska Na-tive,
Asian, Black or African- American, His-panic
or Latino, and Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander. These six racial/ ethnic catego-ries
serve as a minimum standard and permit
additional categories provided they can be ag-gregated
to the standard categories. States and
localities are encouraged to address specific
subgroups ( e. g., the Filipinos or Samoans offi-cially
classifies as Other Pacific Islanders) if their
state and local circumstances indicate that such
groups may be affected by DMC.
Contact refers both to the initial legal encounters
through law enforcement ( arrest) and to ongoing
contact through actions within the juvenile justice
system such as diversion, detention, referral to
juvenile court, issuance of petitions, adjudication
as delinquent, placement on probation, placement
in secure juvenile corrections, transfer to adult
court, and other such processes unique to the
states and localities.
Identified Factors Contributing to DMC
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention have identified various factors which
may contribute to the number of minority youth
coming into contact with the juvenile justice sys-tem.
The following factors were identified based
on research and assessments from different states
working to implement DMC reduction strategies:
• Lack of alternatives to detention and
incarceration
In some states, detention centers are lo-cated
in the largest cities where most of
the minority populations live.
• Racial stereotyping and cultural in-sensitivity
Intentional and unintentional racial ste-reotyping
is an important factor contrib-uting
to high arrest rates, high intake rates,
and high confinement rates of minority
youth. Minority youth are often subjected
to more severe punishments and dispo-sitions
as a result of their demeanor and
attitudes not directly related to the of-fense.
3
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
• Lack of culturally appropriate ser-vices
Minorities often have a difficult time
navigating the juvenile justice system
because of a misunderstanding of the
court process and/ or the lack of bilin-gual
and bicultural staff.
• Misuse of discretionary authority
Laws and policies that increase the
discretion used by juvenile justice pro-fessionals
have been shown to result
in harsher treatment of minority youth.
Some decisions made by such person-nel
are subjective instead of objective
and decisions are not made for all
youth consistently for similar offenses
committed under similar circum-stances.
In addition to the above recognized contributing
factors to DMC, some states have recognized
the lack of educational resources in schools and
minority neighborhoods and the lack of partici-pation
in the educational process by minority youth
and their families as factors resulting to early in-volvement
in juvenile delinquency. Minority youth
are also placed at a higher risk of entering the
juvenile justice system because of poverty, sub-stance
abuse, lack of job opportunities and re-siding
in high crime rate neighborhoods.
How States Comply with the DMC Core Re-quirement
of the JJDP Act
The purpose of this core requirement is to en-sure
equal and fair treatment for every youth ( re-gardless
of membership in a minority or majority
population group) involved in the juvenile justice
system. It is essential that states approach this
statutory mandate in a comprehensive, balanced,
multi- prong, and ongoing manner. States should
address any individual, family, community, edu-cation
system, and other issues related to juve-nile
justice system involvement. Any features of
their juvenile justice system and related laws and
policies that may account for disproportionate
juvenile justice system contact by juveniles of a
specific minority group relative to all other ra-cial/
ethnic groups should be considered as well.
States undertake efforts to reduce DMC by mov-ing
through the following five phases on an on-going
basis:
Identification: Determine the extent to which
DMC exists.
Assessment: Assess the contributing factors to
DMC, if it exists.
Intervention: Develop and implement interven-tion
strategies to address these identified con-tributing
factors.
Evaluation: Evaluate the effectiveness of the cho-sen
intervention strategies.
4
Monitoring: Note changes in DMC trends and
adjust intervention strategies as needed. 2
Each state must ( 1) describe its DMC reduction
plan in its three- year comprehensive plan and ( 2)
report on progress in subsequent plan updates.
OJJDP reviews the comprehensive plan and an-nual
updates to determine both progress and eli-gibility
for subsequent Title II Formula funding.
States that fail to show progress in its DMC re-duction
plan stand to lose 20 percent of its for-mula
grant allocation. In addition, at least 50
percent of the remaining funds must be used to
achieve compliance with this core requirement.
2 Disproportionate Minority Contact, Core Requirement of the JJDP Act,
http:// ojjdp. ncjrs. org/ dmc/ about/ core. html
North Carolina’s DMC Reduction Initiative
In 2001, the Governor’s Crime Commission
( GCC) created a Disproportionate Minority
Contact Committee, which recently has become
a subcommittee of the Juvenile Justice Planning
Committee ( JJPC). The DMC subcommittee,
which is staffed by a full- time DMC Coordina-tor,
provides recommendations to the JJPC re-garding
efforts to reduce the number of minority
youth who are disproportionately detained or
confined in secure detention, correctional facili-ties,
and jails or lockups in relation to their rep-resentation
in the general population. Moreover,
the subcommittee makes recommendations to
reduce disproportionality in other areas to include
school suspension, child maltreatment and sub-stance
abuse. The subcommittee is composed
of representatives from local law enforcement
agencies, the Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention ( DJJDP), the Depart-ment
of Corrections ( DOC), the Department of
Public Instruction ( DPI), the Administrative Of-fice
of the Court ( AOC), the Department of
Health and Human Services ( DHHS), five citi-zen
appointments, and at least one representa-tive
from each minority group identified in the fed-eral
JJDP Act.
Current subcommittee strategies to address DMC
in North Carolina include the following:
• Working with four demonstration counties
to provide resources, technical assistance
and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of
programs and activities designed to reduce
DMC in these jurisdictions.
• Collaborating with the North Carolina
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency
Prevention in developing a uniform
data collection system which will allow for
accurate collection of data disaggregated
by race. This data is to be collected at the
decision points which would allow for an
accurate measurement of possible dispari-ties
in decision- making.
• Increasing the awareness of disproportion-ate
minority contact in the juvenile justice
system and educating the public, juvenile
justice professionals, as well as the GCC
through conference presentations, devel-oping
and disseminating materials and uti-lizing
technical assistance resources avail-able
through the federal government.
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
5
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
Demonstration Counties
The Disproportionate Minority Contact subcom-mittee
made the decision to partner with four
counties in the state to address the issue of mi-nority
overrepresentation in the juvenile justice
system. As part of the state’s plan to address
DMC, the committee felt it important to work
with local communities in an attempt to affect this
issue and work with the people who have con-tact
with this at- risk population on a daily basis.
The criteria that was used in choosing the coun-ties
was the minority arrest rates, minority youth
detention admission rates, youth development
center admission data, suspension and expulsion
rates for minority youth, and geographic distri-bution.
The committee also took into consider-ation
what current resources each jurisdiction had
and if each had existing prevention or interven-tion
programs for youth.
The counties of Guilford, New Hanover, Union,
and Forsyth were selected by the DMC sub-committee
to partner with the Governor’s Crime
Commission to develop county specific plans to
address minority overrepresentation. Each of the
counties has in place working groups that serve
as the primary point of contact between the
Governor’s Crime Commission and the county.
Meetings are held in each jurisdiction with the
purpose of discussing how each would address
issues specific to their individual areas. The DMC
Coordinator, with the assistance of the Juvenile
Justice Specialist, provides technical
assistance to these demonstration sites on topics
such as grant writing, strategic planning, and mis-sion
development. The DMC working groups in
each of the counties are well represented and each
has membership from the community, law enforce-ment,
courts, the school system, and private citi-zens.
The JJPC encouraged each of the demonstration
counties to apply for a one- year planning grant so
that each would have the resources to begin gath-ering
data and accessing the extent of minority
overrepresentation in their individual areas. These
grants would still go through the regular grant cycle
and still be subject to approval from the JJPC. At
the completion of each of the planning grants, each
county anticipates having a comprehensive county
plan based on research gathered from the previ-ous
year and a clear direction on how they will
begin to implement activities to address DMC the
following year.
Data Collection
One of the identified challenges to addressing
DMC was incomplete and inconsistent data and
the need for improved juvenile justice information
systems. North Carolina has recognized the need
for the development of a more uniform data col-lection
process in order to effectively collect the
required data to measure disparities in the juve-nile
justice decision making process.
6
The GCC has worked in conjunction with the De-partment
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention
in developing a statewide data collection
system ( NC- JOIN) so that statistics may be col-lected
in a more uniform and consistent manner.
Data collected from NC- JOIN provides the GCC
the ability to compute the Relative Rate Index of
minority overrepresentation as required by the Of-fice
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion.
The Statistical Analysis Center of the Com-mission
is also assisting the DMC efforts by de-termining
how geographic information system
( GIS) mapping can be used as a means to target
DMC efforts in specific jurisdictions.
Education
Creating awareness and educating the general pub-lic,
as well as the members of the GCC, is also an
identified area of concern for North Carolina’s
DMC reduction initiative. In order to effectively
address this issue, the DMC subcommittee felt it
was important to educate commission members
in general on the various factors that affect the
rate at which minority youth are coming into con-tact
with the juvenile justice system. Serving as
the advisory body to the Governor on criminal
justice and juvenile justice issues, the subcommit-tee
felt that it was imperative for both it and the
GCC to be knowledgeable on emerging DMC
trends, major issues and best practices.
As a part of the DMC education initiative, the
DMC subcommittee receives technical assistance
and training on an ongoing basis from various
agencies including the Juvenile Justice Institute and
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. The subcommittee, members of the
GCC and members of the JJPC take the op-portunity
to speak about the DMC issue in North
Carolina at various meetings, workshops and
conferences including the Safe Schools Con-ference
hosted by the Department of Public In-struction.
The DMC Coordinator, Juvenile Jus-tice
Specialist, and staff members of the juve-nile
justice planning section of the GCC are ac-tive
on various committees throughout the state
and are often part of their meeting agendas to
speak about DMC in North Carolina.
Demonstration County Profile
The GCC has been working extensively with
the counties of Union, New Hanover, Forsyth,
and Guilford in providing specialized technical
assistance to address the issue of minority youth
overrepresentation. During FY 2004, each of
these jurisdictions was provided with resources
in the form of planning grants to enable each to
mobilize stakeholders and to begin the process
of analyzing the DMC issues specific to each
county. Each county now has a working DMC
steering committee that meets on a monthly ba-sis
and is charged with developing a compre-hensive
plan to implement future DMC reduc-tion
activities.
New Hanover County
New Hanover County’s DMC steering commit-tee
currently consists of 24 representatives from
community and state agencies, institutions and
the faith community. Once the Committee
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
7
represented all the key stakeholders to effectively
address DMC, it drafted a Memorandum of Un-derstanding
( MOU) and held a public signing of
the document in order to publicly acknowledge
that DMC is an issue in their area. Further, the
MOU showed the commitment of the DMC
Steering Committee to reduce minority
overrepresentation. This public MOU signing was
featured in one of the county’s local newspapers.
New Hanover County has hired a DMC project
coordinator who has the responsibility of leading
and coordinating the efforts of the county’s DMC
demonstration project. In addition, the DMC
steering committee has contracted with the Uni-versity
of North Carolina- Wilmington to serve as
the primary data collection entity that will identify
the appropriate data collection instruments needed
to collect DMC specific data at the various deci-sion
points in the county’s juvenile justice system.
The data collection team will also evaluate exist-ing
data collection instruments in order to deter-mine
their effectiveness in being able to collect
the necessary statistics needed to measure mi-nority
overrepresentation. Using the data col-lected
from the research team, a comprehensive
county plan will be developed which will include
specific strategies and activities to be implemented
to reduce the number of minority youth involved
in the system. This plan will also include an evalu-ation
of existing programs within the county with
recommendations for enhancement, redirection,
and the institutionalization of diversionary pro-grams.
Union County
Union County’s objectives are similar to that of
New Hanover County, where the primary focus
of their planning process included the mobiliza-tion
of their steering committee and the develop-ment
of a data system which would provide the
baseline DMC specific data. Their county
DMC reduction plan will be a direct result of the
information obtained from their data collection
efforts.
Union County has developed a DMC steering
committee which is a subcommittee of the county’s
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council 3. Union
County has also hired a DMC project coordina-tor
who oversees the county’s efforts in reducing
DMC. The county recently held a public signing
of their Memorandum of Agreement where rep-resentatives
from the police department, juvenile
probation department, public school system, dis-trict
attorney’s office, community based organiza-tions
and social service agencies gathered to pub-licly
show their commitment to addressing DMC
in their county. Union County is a rural county and
has focused a majority of their efforts in educating
the county on the issue of DMC and possible cor-relating
factors which may lead to minority youth
being overrepresented in the system. The county
is also focused on identifying existing resources
and creating a local data mapping system which
will assist the DMC steering committee in target-ing
where new services are needed as they relate
to reducing the number of minority youth entering
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
3Each county in North Carolina has an established Juvenile Crime Prevention Council that receives funds from the
North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
8
the system. Union County is currently in negotia-tions
to partner with Wingate University in coordi-nating
a data collection system to be used as a
baseline evaluation system for the county. Fur-ther,
the county will perform an analysis of all avail-able
data associated with juvenile arrests, adjudi-cation,
and disposition in order to determine where
disparities may exist and to have a starting point
for future change in policies and procedures which
may put minority youth at a greater risk for enter-ing
the juvenile justice system.
Guilford County
Guilford County has created a DMC steering com-mittee
and has partnered with The Center for Youth,
Family and Community Partnerships at the Uni-versity
of North Carolina- Greensboro ( UNC- G).
The county has also hired a DMC project coordi-nator
to oversee day- to- day operations of the
steering committee. For the planning phase of this
project, identified representatives from UNC- G,
the project coordinator, and the DMC steering
committee plan to collect and analyze local DMC
data and use this data to develop intervention and
prevention activities. Guilford County will also
develop a data mapping system in their county to
assess the extent of DMC and develop a county
plan which will outline specific plans to address
minority overrepresentation.
Guilford County has also held a public signing of
their DMC Memorandum of Understanding which
received media coverage in one of the county’s
local newspapers. The Guilford County DMC
steering committee has hosted the renowned train-ing,
“ Undoing Racism” for members of the steer-ing
committee in order to facilitate common un-derstanding
of the institutional issues that impact
minority overrepresentation in the system. Guilford
County’s goals for their DMC project are similar
to the other counties in that they are focused on
achieving a consensus on a locally meaningful defi-nition
and identification of the DMC issue in order
to plan prevention and intervention activities for
the upcoming year.
Guilford County’s DMC planning process includes
issue definition and awareness, assessment and
data analysis, and prevention/ intervention activi-ties.
The Guilford County DMC steering commit-tee
held focus groups, interviews, and stakeholder
visits in order to identify factors that contribute to
DMC in Guilford County. This process was im-portant
in identifying potential resistance to the un-derstanding
and acceptance of the DMC issue by
some. Guilford County also developed a memo-randum
of understanding and has completed an
inventory of youth serving resources with the pur-pose
of identifying possible gaps.
The Guilford County DMC steering committee has
also completed a comprehensive suspension and
expulsion report entitled ‘ Suspensions in Guilford
County Schools, 2003- 2004: Using Rates to Ex-amine
Race and School Effects.’ The purpose of
this report was to measure the extent of dispro-portionate
minority suspensions in Guilford County
schools using the Relative Rate Index ( RRI). For
each school, data included the total student body
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
9
Forsyth County
Forsyth County began addressing
overrepresentation of minority youth more than
10 years ago, but was unable to put a strategic
focus into place. Three years ago, the county’s
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council began a three-year
initiative to identify community systems and
local data that would have an impact on reducing
DMC.
In an effort to use community input to address
DMC, Forsyth County conducted a series of youth
focus groups as a process to identify how people
at the local level view the issues surrounding mi-nority
overrepresentation. The focus groups dis-cussed
concerns surrounding the family, commu-nity,
and how each has an integral role in youth
being involved in the juvenile justice system.
membership, total number of students of each
race or ethnicity ( American Indian, Asian, Black,
Hispanic, Multi- Ethnic, and White), total num-ber
of short and long term suspensions and the
total number for each racial category. The data
revealed in this report ranged from some schools
having a great disparity between the number of
minority and non- minority students being sus-pended
to little disparity in suspension rates.
Guilford County plans to assess all of the data
collected and shared between the University,
Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Guilford County schools and law
enforcement partners and develop a ‘ portfolio’
of intervention and prevention efforts for local
implementation.
Information from these focus groups will be a part
of the overall county plan and to show the impor-tance
of conducting DMC reduction efforts at the
local level.
Forsyth County has partnered with a researcher
from Winston- Salem State University in analyz-ing
the youth who are currently incarcerated in
the state’s youth development centers. The re-search
will identify variables common among the
incarcerated youth and develop an intervention/
prevention plan based on these variables in hopes
of affecting the rate at which the youth are enter-ing
the system.
Future Plans for North Carolina’s DMC Ini-tiative
As each demonstration county proceeds and
moves forward with their individualized DMC
reduction plans, it is important to this initiative that
activities are able to be measured, evaluated and
eventually duplicated. The Office of Juvenile Jus-tice
and Delinquency Prevention has required all
states addressing DMC to report on specific per-formance
measures in order to ensure that DMC
reduction activities in each state are data driven
and outcome based. Each county is currently
charged with the task of being able to measure
the performance of their activities and show how
each implemented strategy has truly resulted in a
reduction of minority youth having contact with
the juvenile justice system.
The DMC subcommittee has the expectation that
as each demonstration county moves into the
10
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
evaluation and monitoring stage of their DMC re-duction
plans, their activities and strategies will
be able to be duplicated and shared with the other
North Carolina counties. It is the hope that this
demonstration effort will prove to be one that may
eventually decrease the number of minority youth
who have contact with the juvenile justice system
in the entire state and that decision- making pro-cesses
are more objective for all North Carolina
youth.
For additional information regarding this
topic, contact information for the four dem-onstration
sites, or county level Relative
Rate Indices, please contact the DMC Co-ordinator,
Kimberly Wilson at 919- 733- 4564
or kwilson@ ncgccd. org.
Author Michael Wilson, Lead Juvenile
Justice Planner and Kimberly Wilson,
DMC Coordinator
Prior SystemStats and reports include:
Basic Domestic Violence/ Sexual Assault Service
Provision: A Statewide Statistical Profile
Law Enforcement Tools for Latino Communities
Dispositional Outcomes of Domestic Violence
Exparte and Domestic Violence Protective
Orders( SystemStats)
Domestic Violence Shelters and Minorities
North Carolina Citizens’ Perceptions of Crime and
Victimization( SystemStats)
Methamphetimine Fact Sheet( SystemStats)
Recruitment and Retention of Sworn Police
Personnel( SystemStats)
Juvenile Day Treatment Centers - Strategies and
Effective Practices
Recruitment and Retention of Telecommunications
Offices( SystemStats)
Evaluating North Carolina’s Statewide Automated
Victim Assistance and Notification( SAVAN) Sys-tem
Domestic Violence: Dispositional Outcomes of
Protective Orders in the Courts
Technology on Patrol: An Evaluation of Mobile
Data Computers in Law Enforcement
Vehicles( SystemStats)
11
SYSTEMSTATS
A Publication of the
Governor’s Crime Commission
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
( 919) 733- 4564
http:// www. ncgccd. org
Michael F. Easley Bryan E. Beatty
Governor Secretary
Linda W. Hayes David Jones
Chair, Governor’s Crime Commission Executive Director
Renee Hoffman Gwendolyn Burrell
Public Affairs Director Deputy Director
Navin Puri Douglas Yearwood
Information Systems Planner Analysis Center Director
Richard Hayes Charlene Coppersmith
Senior Research Analyst Data Analyst/ Desktop Publisher
Yu Li Hsu
Information Processing Assistant
Disproportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initiatives in North Carolina
North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission
1201 Front Street, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
This document was supported by Federal Formula Grant 2001- BJ- CX- K016 and printed at a cost of $ .00 or $. per copy for 2,000 copies.
The Governor’s Crime Commission was established in 1977 by the North Carolina General Assembly under G. S. 143B- 479. Its primary duty is “ to be the chief advisory body to the
Governor and the Secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety for the development and implementation of criminal justice policy.” The Crime Commission is always
open to comments and suggestions from the general public as well as criminal justice officials. Please contact us and let us know your thoughts and feelings on the information contained
in this publication or on any other criminal justice issue of concern to you.
Michael F. Easley Ms. Linda W. Hayes, Chair Mack Jarvis, Vice Chair Secretary Bryan E. Beatty
Governor Governor’s Crime Commission Governor’s Crime Commission Department of Crime Control
and Public Safety
Judge J. B. Allen, Jr. Superintendent June Atkinson Secretary Theodis Beck Mr. Boyd Bennett, Director
Senior Resident Superior Department of Public Instruction Department of Correction Division of Prisons, DOC
Court Judge
Mr. Howard Boney Miss Carrah Brown Judge Joseph Buckner Sheriff Steve W. Bunn
District Attorney Youth Member Chief District Court Judge Bladen County Sheriff’s Office
Ms. Claudette Burroughs- White Sheriff E. R. “ Moose” Butler Judge J. C. Cole Attorney General Roy Cooper
Citizen, Council Woman Cumberland Co. Sheriff’s Office District Court Judge Department of Justice
Chief Francis D’Ambra, Jr. Representative Rick L. Eddins Mr. Robert Guy, Director Representative R. Phillip Haire
Manteo Police Department N. C. House of Representatives Division of Community Corrections N. C. House of Representatives
Department of Corrections
Mr. Donn Hargrove, Asst. Secretary Sheriff Worth L. Hill Senator Robert Holloman Jean Irvin
Intervention/ Prevention Division Durham County Sheriff’s Office North Carolina State Senate Private Juvenile Jus. Program
Juvenile Justice & Delinq. Prev.
Dr. Robin Jenkins Bobby Kilgore Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake, Jr. Mayor Eugene B. McLaurin, II
Cumberland Co. CommuniCare, Inc. Monroe Municipal Govt. Official North Carolina Supreme Court City of Rockingham
Chief Tom Moss Secretary Carmen Hooker Odom Paige O’Hale Chief Donnie Parks
Garner Police Department Dept. of Health & Human Services Youth Member Hendersonville Police Depart.
Mr. Dwayne Patterson, Deputy Sec. Ms. Robin Pendergraft, Director Mr. Timothy Spear Mr. William H. Stanley
Youth Development Division State Bureau of Investigation Retired Clerk of Court Buncombe County Official
Juvenile Justice & Delinq. Prev.
Secretary George L. Sweat Judge Albert Thomas, Jr. Senator Scott Thomas Mr. Tommy Thompson
Juvenile Justice & Delinq. Prev. Wilson North Carolina State Senate Clerk of Court
Judge Ralph A. Walker, Director Sheriff Connie Watson
Administrative Office of the Courts Surry County Sheriff’s Office Commission Members as of 12/ 25/ 05