This newsletter is supported by readers like you. Paid subscribers have access to the full archive.
By Annie Dance | Lake Lure News | Cops & Congress | News & Commentary
RUTHERFORDTON, N.C. — North Carolina’s Gang Violence Task Force says it wants “evidence-based” solutions to juvenile crime and gang activity. But as state officials promote community intervention programs and expanded local partnerships, a harder question continues to shadow the discussion: how much accountability exists for the sprawling network already receiving taxpayer dollars?
At a recent task force meeting, state officials outlined an ambitious anti-gang strategy built around prevention, intervention, enforcement, workforce development, and mental health support. On May 26, members emphasized coordination between schools, nonprofits, juvenile justice agencies, courts, and law enforcement.
According to their website,
“Governor Josh Stein established the Gang Prevention and Intervention Task Force by executive order in August 2025, seating it within the Governor’s Crime Commission. Department of Adult Correction Secretary Leslie Dismukes and Office of Violence Prevention Director Siarra Scott will serve as co-chairs of the 20-person task force.
The task force focuses on reducing the presence and impact of gang activity in North Carolina, including keeping young people out of gangs. It brings together law enforcement, education leaders, legal representatives, mental health and substance use organizations, and people who have successfully left gangs.”
Yet beneath the polished presentations was an uncomfortable reality familiar to many local observers across North Carolina: the state already operates a massive intervention infrastructure through Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils, or JCPCs, and results vary dramatically from county to county.
In theory, JCPCs are designed to give local communities flexibility to address juvenile delinquency before children move deeper into the justice system. In practice, critics increasingly question whether some councils function with sufficient transparency, oversight, or measurable outcomes.
The state currently appropriates roughly $28 million annually to JCPC-related programming. Every county receives funding through a formula tied partly to youth population. Mecklenburg County receives more than $2 million annually, while some smaller counties receive allocations under $60,000.
The money flows through local councils composed of educators, law enforcement officials, court representatives, nonprofit leaders, and appointees selected by county commissioners. Those councils then determine which nonprofits, governmental entities, or local programs receive taxpayer funding.
State officials describe the system as community-driven and data-focused.
“The JCPC looks at data,” one juvenile justice administrator told the task force while explaining how councils assess local needs and service gaps.
But critics of the system say local meetings often reveal something less precise: inconsistent attendance, unclear performance measurements, political favoritism concerns, weak public participation, and recurring debates over whether funded programs are actually reducing juvenile crime.
The task force itself repeatedly returned to concerns about whether recommendations and programs can produce measurable outcomes rather than aspirational rhetoric.
“We want to make sure whatever we’re recommending is backed by evidence,” one member said. Another warned against recommendations that are “pie in the sky.”
That caution matters because North Carolina has spent decades building layers of prevention and intervention systems that often overlap.
At the meeting, officials highlighted numerous existing initiatives: gang outreach teams, school-based intervention programs, reentry support, workforce partnerships, boxing programs for at-risk youth, anti-gun curricula, and trauma-informed counseling models.
Some programs may indeed work. Others remain difficult for taxpayers to evaluate.
One official described JCPCs as “perfect vehicles for pushing new ideas out.” But critics argue government systems frequently become better at sustaining grant cycles and administrative structures than proving long-term public safety results.
That concern becomes especially relevant in rural counties where resources are limited and local oversight can become highly insular.
In smaller counties, the same circle of nonprofits, agencies, and local officials often appear repeatedly throughout the funding and recommendation process. Public meetings can become procedural rather than rigorous examinations of effectiveness. Citizens rarely attend. Metrics are difficult for ordinary taxpayers to interpret. Failed programs can quietly continue under revised language or renamed initiatives.
The task force discussions indirectly acknowledged many of those coordination problems.
Intervention leaders warned against agencies “stepping on each other’s toes” and stressed the need for “cross-agency collaboration.” Officials repeatedly referenced the challenge of creating programs that are actually “doable” and replicable statewide.
Meanwhile, law enforcement members raised separate concerns about underreporting gang activity, weak intelligence-sharing, and inconsistent participation in statewide gang databases.
Those problems reveal a larger structural issue: North Carolina’s anti-gang strategy depends heavily on coordination among institutions that frequently operate with different priorities, different definitions of success, and different incentives.
Law enforcement officials focus on suppression and intelligence gathering. Nonprofits often focus on continued grant eligibility. Schools prioritize behavioral management and attendance. Courts focus on disposition options. Local governments face budget pressures. State agencies seek scalable statewide frameworks.
The result can be a fragmented system where “collaboration” becomes a buzzword masking diffuse accountability.
Task force members also emphasized workforce development as a key anti-gang strategy. One intervention leader described conversations with juveniles who believed criminal records had permanently closed educational and employment opportunities.
“What am I working for?” the official recalled youths saying. “I can’t go to college. I can’t get a job.”
That concern reflects a legitimate public policy challenge. Stable employment and family support structures remain among the strongest predictors of lower recidivism.
But the task force’s broader conversation also highlighted another reality rarely addressed openly in government meetings: intervention systems themselves cannot substitute for functioning families, stable schools, safe communities, and consistent enforcement.
North Carolina officials presented statistics showing that juveniles who penetrate deeper into the justice system recidivate at significantly higher rates. Youth committed to secure facilities reportedly reoffend at rates approaching 57%.
Those numbers strengthen the argument for early intervention. They also raise legitimate questions about whether current intervention spending is targeted effectively enough before young offenders reach that point.
The task force appears sincere in trying to avoid another symbolic government initiative that produces recommendations but little measurable change. Members repeatedly stressed feasibility, implementation, and evidence.
Still, the state’s long history of juvenile justice programming suggests that creating new committees and expanding coordination language is easier than demonstrating sustained reductions in gang violence.
For taxpayers, the central question may not be whether North Carolina needs prevention programs. It almost certainly does.
The real question is whether state and local leaders are willing to apply the same scrutiny to publicly funded intervention systems that they routinely apply to law enforcement, schools, or private-sector institutions — especially when millions of dollars and public safety outcomes are involved.
Read the transcript in the player above and/or on my DocumentCloud.
ICYMI
—
🏛️ All those mentioned are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Learn more about this newsletter, ethics policy, how you can help shape this work, and support it. Follow on X and Facebook. Send constructive criticism, fan mail, and tips with public documents for future stories: CopsandCongress@gmail.com
