For the past 7 years, the UNC School of Government has participated in GiveUNC, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s annual day of giving. And every year, we celebrate the number of clients, alumni, and friends of the School who chose to support us.

If you’ve read our blogs, relied on our resources, attended our courses, heard us teach in outside programs, or sought consultation, we hope you will consider supporting the School of Government. Your gift not only provides vital resources that allow us to support the work you do, but also sends a clear message about the value of the School.

**This post was written by my colleagues Kristina Wilson and Phil Dixon. You can reach Kristina at Wilson@sog.unc.edu and Phil at dixon@sog.unc.edu

When and how can state and local government officials and employees record government meetings or their interactions with citizens? Does it matter if the recording is done openly or secretly? Recording may be tempting, particularly where there is a controversial matter at issue. The ability to record can be a useful tool, but there are several laws that government actors need to know if they want to use this tool legally and effectively. This post focuses on the issues surrounding government officials and employees recording oral communications outside of the law enforcement context. A later post will examine the issues surrounding video recording.

Magistrates are often referred to as the “first face” of the judicial system for most citizens. They serve the public with professionalism, all while keeping abreast of the rapidly changing civil and criminal laws. In 2021, their training requirements were increased by the legislature from 12 hours every two years to 12 hours every year. As part of those 12 hours of training, magistrates are required to receive annual training on seven required subjects: (1) setting conditions of pretrial release, (2) impaired driving laws, (3) issuing criminal processes, (4) issuing search warrants, (5) technology, (6) orders of protection, and (7) summary ejectment laws. GS 7A-177.

The Juvenile Code authorizes 14 different dispositional alternatives for delinquency cases that result in Level 1 dispositions and 23 different dispositional alternatives for delinquency cases that result in Level 2 dispositions. G.S. 7B-2508(c), (d); G.S. 7B-2506(1)-(23). For both Level I and Level 2 dispositions, cooperating with substance abuse treatment is a dispositional option.  It can be challenging to sort through the many available dispositional alternatives to order an effective and individually tailored disposition that addresses the risks and needs of the juvenile. This blog addresses why it might be important to focus on substance use disorders as part of disposition, how to know when a juvenile needs substance use disorder treatment, and how substance use disorder treatment may be included as a dispositional alternative. Continue Reading

My belated Valentine’s gift to you all is the 2023 edition of Abuse, Neglect, Dependency, and Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings in North Carolina, otherwise known as “the A/N/D Manual” or “the Manual.”

The 2023 edition of the Manual is now available at no charge on the SOG website, here. This edition replaces the February 2022 edition and is current through December 31, 2023 for both appellate opinions issued by the North Carolina appellate courts (most of which are published) as well as legislative changes made through that date. This updated and revised edition includes over 100 new opinions and the legislative changes impacting child welfare, including the significant changes to infant safe surrender.