1

CONSULTING SERVICESTO DEVELOP A FACILITIES MASTER

PLAN FOR THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE SERVICES

Phase 1:Gap Analysis Report

Submitted toMaryland Department of Juvenile Services

Office of Procurement120 West Fayette Street, Room 334

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

December 29, 2004

Submitted by

Development Services Group, Inc.7315 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 800 E

Bethesda, Maryland 20814www.dsgonline.com

301.951.0056

And Its SubcontractorsAmos Bailey Arnold + Associates, Inc.

LOCUSThe Urban Institute

2

© Development Services Group, Inc.

Prepared for the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services by Development Services Group, Inc., 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800E,Bethesda, Maryland 20814, 301-951-0056, under contract number 04-JS-052. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services.

iii

ABSTRACTThis Phase 1: Gap Analysis Report presents the first phase of a 21-month study to develop aFacilities Master Plan for the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS). As required bythe legislature, this report sets forth recommendations for developing an ideal service deliverysystem for DJS that is regionalized, relies on smaller facilities, and is more “community based.”During Phase 2, in the Implementation Plan, due December 1, 2005, we will examine whichexisting programs and facilities are effective and aligned with DJS strategic goals, and providean assessment of the extent to which existing facilities require modifications.

To prepare this Gap Analysis, DSG, in close collaboration with DJS, collected and reviewedpopulation trend data, statistical data and reports; developed a comprehensive, longitudinal,demographic profile of Maryland’s general population and the DJS youth services population;performed 10 site visits to assess the current capabilities of existing State facilities; andconducted 16 focus groups with more than 300 DJS staff and community representatives in everyregion of the State. We also held seven meetings with DJS staff and stakeholders to developforecasting models.

Key research findings include the following:

• DJS has had a stable number of juveniles seen at intake over the past 7 years. Of the53,502 case referrals to intake in FY 2003, 42 percent were referred for formalprocessing. Of those, 12 percent were committed and 25 percent were assigned toprobation.

• Maryland has one of the lowest rates of residential placement for committed and detainedpopulations in the Nation. It ranks fifth lowest for total residential placements and sixthlowest for committed residential placements.

• Analysis of placement data shows a 33 percent increase in the number of youth indetention pending placement and an accompanying increase in the average length of stay.

• DJS staff and focus group participants stressed a need for more alternatives to detention,drug treatment, and shelter care. They reported insufficient placement options andvendors rejecting developmentally delayed youth and youth with serious psychiatricdisorders. They called for more responses to hold probation violators accountable fortheir actions and cited a need for more programs for girls.

• Forecasts based on current population and programming trends suggest that the numberof juveniles in residential treatment centers, group homes, foster care, or pendingplacement will decline between 2005 and 2010, largely in response to the broader use ofcommunity detention and substance abuse treatment, and home-based supervision.

• Several of the private per diem programs and community-based services now being usedby DJS offer science-based, state-of-the-art programming (Thomas O’ Farrell YouthCenter and Baltimore’s CHOICE have both been cited for their excellence by the Office

iv

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention). However, additional evidence-basedgraduated responses are required.

• Site visits reveal that many of the State-owned and operated detention and commitmentfacilities are in serious need of repair or are ill-suited to their current uses.

• A gap analysis of the State’s resources and their distribution reveals that 1) many youthare not currently being detained or treated in their home area, and 2) the State does notyet have the resources in place to begin an immediate, State-wide regionalization effort.

• Finally, there are numerous problems with DJS organizational structure and policies andprocedures. The central office is a large “command-and-control” bureaucracy that is notwell connected to the field service units or the State-operated facilities. Quality standardsdo not exist for residential and program operations. Audits are not comprehensive innature, which has dramatically impacted State-operated facilities, and leaves DJS withinadequate information about private facilities and programs.

To address these concerns, DSG offers 42 specific recommendations, which appear in thereport’s Executive Summary. The five most critical recommendations are as follows:

1. DJS needs to develop and implement a comprehensive system of graduated incentivesand responses especially community-based diversion programs and alternatives todetention, and a system of graduated responses for violators of probation.

2. DJS should adopt an incremental approach to regionalization and test it in Area 3(Montgomery County and Western Maryland), since this region has most of the resourcesand capacity required to successfully implement regionalization.

3. DJS should develop Standards and Auditing Processes to be implemented as an“immediate enhancement” to the DJS service delivery system.

4. DJS should strengthen its vendor management system, to ensure that all youth are placedin appropriate facilities and that all vendors comply with established contract guidelines.

5. DJS should gradually reduce its reliance on expensive per diem placements and begin toincrease the funds available to enhance and create community-based, nonresidentialservices. To take the pressure off of private placements, DJS should create two State-operated programs—one for developmentally delayed youth and one for “deep end”psychiatric/behavioral cases requiring commitment in a secure environment.

The facilities master planning process appears to have greatly energized DJS. DJS has recentlybrought on a new leadership team committed to improving the management and quality ofprograms and services. They have responded positively to preliminary suggestions for change.Their cooperation, candor, and collaborative spirit have made this report possible. While weexpect to continue to develop and refine the elements of Maryland’s ideal service deliverysystem during the next phase of this project, it is our hope that this preliminary report willprovide a roadmap for rehabilitating not just Maryland’s juvenile offender population but also itsentire juvenile justice system.

v

Acknowledgments

A single individual never produces a report of this scope. Innumerable persons and partiescontributed significantly to this document, and what follows is but an abbreviated list.

I thank Secretary Kenneth C. Montague, Jr., for his cooperation in making the resources of theMaryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) available to Development Services Group, Inc.(DSG), throughout Phase 1 of this effort. Deep gratitude is due Janice M. Marquez, AssistantSecretary of Equal Justice and Policy, whose leadership and coordination of nearly all of theinteractions between DSG and DJS were invaluable in maintaining excellent, ongoingcommunications. Former Deputy Secretary Denise Sulzbach, who immediately grasped theamount of work Phase 1 would entail and the brief timeframe in which it had to beaccomplished, helped get the project off to a flying start.

Mary Abraham, Director of Grants and Intergovernmental Relations, arranged all focus groupsin the field, a service that provided the foundation for many of the recommendations in thisreport. Special thanks are due Judge Martin P. Welch, Baltimore City Circuit Court, whocandidly shared both his pleasures and frustrations with the current system and articulated hisvision for better juvenile services in Baltimore City and the State of Maryland. John Irvine,Director, Office of Research and Planning and Laskhmi Iyengar provided us with numerousdocuments that were vital to our evaluation. Mary Louise Orth, Administrator for Placement,fulfilled countless data requests. I thank Neil Bergsman, Chief Financial Officer, Budget andFinance, who has already begun to move the Department of Juvenile Services towardregionalized budgets. Gladys Inman, Master Physical Planner, who arranged tours of 10 State-owned facilities and accompanied DSG staff on the visits. I am grateful to all of the FacilitySuperintendents, Area Directors, and Area Focus Group participants, whose commitment isobvious and whose contributions were indispensable.

Many others helped arrange and coordinate meetings, providing data and sharing theirexperiences and visions.

I thank Deputy Secretary of Administration Stephen Moyer; Deputy Secretary of ProgramsCarl Sanniti; Vickie Colter, Assistant Secretary of Program Services; Elizabeth J. Wright,Chief Information Officer; Albert Robinson of Capital Planning; Joyce Wright of theBaltimore City State’s Attorneys Office; Elizabeth Lewis of the Public Defender’s Office; DJSPersonnel Director Kathryn Marr; Ronald Lippincott, Department of Budget andManagement, Capital Facilities; Simon G. Powell, Principal Analyst, Department of LegislativeServices; and the Area Directors.

We thank our partners on this effort: Amos Bailey Arnold & Associates, Inc., accompaniedDSG and offered valuable insights into the uses and potential of DJS facilities. The UrbanInstitute developed the forecast of residential resource needs. Locus, LLC, created a database ofcontracts information.

vi

I thank my staff and colleagues at DSG—particularly writers and editors Marcia Cohen, VicePresident, Research and Evaluation and Gap Analysis Manager; Katherine Williams; StephenGies; Jessica Meyerson; Mel Kobrin; Lisa Reynolds; Joseph Fedeli; Michelle Burke–Storer; Mark Edberg; Vincent Picciano; Michael Hopps; Olivia Hoggard; PrenticeJohnson; Angela Cross; Amy Murphy; Donald Johnson; and Kim Parvez—along with ourexpert reviewers and consultants David Roush; Tim Howard; Ned Loughran; LynetteGreenfield; Barbara Tatem Kelley; Madeleine Arter; Bill Feyerherm; John Wilson; TimMurray; and John Stettler. Alan Bekelman, President DSG, Inc., kept us all on taskthroughout the process and contributed to the thinking and writing of this report. All of thesepeople helped in the outlining, writing, rewriting, and reviewing of multiple iterations of thesections herein and stayed with me as we pushed and pulled the myriad sections into a coherentnarrative.

— David MarsdenProject Director, Maryland DJS Master Facilities Plan

Director, State and Local Programs, DSG, Inc.

vii

CONTENTS

PART I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... xvii

PART II. INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1-1

Purpose of Report ....................................................................................................... 1-1 Summary of Phase 1 Deliverables and Methodology ................................................... 1-2 Deliverables.......................................................................................................... 1-2 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 1-3 Organization of Report ................................................................................................ 1-7

Part III. UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SYSTEM

CHAPTER 2. STATEWIDE TRENDS .............................................................................. .2-1

Demographic Profile of Maryland ............................................................................... 2-1 Economy ..................................................................................................................... 2-6 Income................................................................................................................. 2-6 Unemployment .................................................................................................... 2-6 Poverty ................................................................................................................ 2-7 Education .................................................................................................................... 2-8 Recent Trends in High School Completion........................................................... 2-8 Public School Enrollment .................................................................................... 2-9 Other Factors Affecting Youth in Maryland................................................................2-10 Child Abuse and Neglect ....................................................................................2-10 Teen Birth Rate...................................................................................................2-11 Teen Violent Death.............................................................................................2-11 Summary....................................................................................................................2-12

CHAPTER 3. INTAKE TRENDS AND RATES ................................................................. 3-1

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3-1 Statewide Intake Trends................................................................................................ 3-2 Statewide Court Outcome Trends ................................................................................. 3-5 Juvenile Intake Cases by Area ...................................................................................... 3-9 Description of the Intake Population Based on Risk and Needs Assessment Tool ........3-15 Total Prior History Score ....................................................................................3-15 Risk and Needs Screening Form .........................................................................3-16 Service Needs .....................................................................................................3-19 Summary.....................................................................................................................3-20

viii

CHAPTER 4. COMMUNITY JUSTICE ............................................................................. 4-1

Introduction................................................................................................................... 4-1 Staffing and Caseload Ratios............................................................................. 4-2 Community Justice Programs and Initiatives ..................................................... 4-2 Focus Group Findings: Probation and Aftercare............................................................ 4-6 Accountability .................................................................................................. 4-6 Staffing and Workloads..................................................................................... 4-7 Community Involvement................................................................................... 4-7 Focus on Females .......................................................................................................... 4-8 Focus Group Findings on Girls in the Juvenile Justice System .........................4-10 Changes in the Population................................................................................4-10 Probation Programs for Females ......................................................................4-12 Summary......................................................................................................................4-12

CHAPTER 5. SECURE DETENTION AND DETENTION ALTERNATIVES................ 5-1

Juvenile Residential Placement Trends in Maryland and the United States..................... 5-1 Overview of Detention Facilities and Alternatives ......................................................... 5-3 Detention .......................................................................................................... 5-3 Shelter Care ...................................................................................................... 5-5 Detention Alternatives ...................................................................................... 5-6 Overall Average Daily Population in DJS Facilities, and Programs ............................... 5-6 Detention and Detention Alternatives ............................................................................ 5-7 Community Detention and Detention Alternatives ........................................................5-12 Pending Placements......................................................................................................5-15 Detention Pending Placement .......................................................................................5-16 Recent Historical Overview ..............................................................................5-17 Pending Placement by Length of Stay in Detention ...........................................5-18 Pending Placement by Type of Placement .........................................................5-20 Offense Charges Associated with Pending Placement .......................................5-22 Additional Considerations Regarding the Pending Placement Population ..........5-26 Overview of Detention Standards......................................................................5-29 Focus Groups Findings on Detention, Shelter, and Pending Placements........................5-30 Barriers to Quality Care in Detention ................................................................5-30

Summary......................................................................................................................5-32 Profiles of State-Owned, State-Operated and State-Owned, Privately Operated Secure Detention and Shelter Care Facilities...............................................................5-34

CHAPTER 6. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMITTED PLACEMENTS .............................. 6-1

Commitment Facilities .................................................................................................... 6-2 Minimum Secure................................................................................................ 6-2 Medium Secure.................................................................................................. 6-3 Maximum Secure............................................................................................... 6-4 Residential Placements .................................................................................................... 6-4

ix

Foster Care Programs......................................................................................... 6-5 Therapeutic Foster Care Programs ..................................................................... 6-5 Group Homes..................................................................................................... 6-5 Therapeutic Group Homes ................................................................................. 6-6 Drug Treatment Programs.................................................................................. 6-6 Residential Treatment Centers............................................................................ 6-6 Respite Programs ............................................................................................... 6-7 Independent Living ............................................................................................ 6-7 Specialized Placements Out of State................................................................... 6-7 Classification of Facilities .................................................................................. 6-8 The Role of Private Per Diem Providers .......................................................................... 6-8 Postdispositional Secure and Nonsecure Placements.......................................................6-10 Foster Care and Group Home Placements ..........................................................6-11 Drug and Residential Treatment Placements ......................................................6-13 ADP Summary...................................................................................................6-15

Postdispositional Length of Stay (LOS) Trends ..............................................................6-17Length of Stay and Offender Performance .........................................................6-18

Facility Incident Data .....................................................................................................6-18 Focus Group Findings: Residential and Committed Services ..........................................6-21 Barriers to Placement ..........................................................................................6-21 Quality of Care ...................................................................................................6-22 Summary........................................................................................................................6-23 Profiles of State-Owned, State-Operated and State-Owned, Privately Operated Residential and Secure Commitment Facilities .............................................................6-25

CHAPTER 7. ANALYSIS OF RECIDIVISM DATA ......................................................... 7-1

Introduction...................................................................................................................... 7-1 Overview of Reports Addressing Recidivism.................................................................... 7-3 Findings of Recidivism Study of Youth Released in FY 1997........................................... 7-7 Recidivism Rates Across Eight Residential Programs....................................................... 7-8 Recidivism Rates Across the Broad Spectrum of Juvenile Justice Services ......................7-11 Managing for Results (FY 2000 to FY 2005): Inconsistent Measurements of Recidivism

Outcomes ......................................................................................................................7-15 Summary.........................................................................................................................7-21

Part IV. PLANNING THE IDEAL SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM

CHAPTER 8. BEST PRACTICES IN GRADUATED RESPONSES ................................ 8-1

Overview of the Continuum of Care and Survey of Best Practices .................................... 8-1 Immediate Responses ............................................................................................... 8-2 Intermediate Responses (Detention Alternatives) ...................................................... 8-9 Confinement Programs: Secure Detention, Nonsecure Residential, and Secure Confinement .........................................................................................................8-22 Reentry....................................................................................................................8-31 Gender Responsive Programming ............................................................................8-36 What’s Missing in Maryland’s Continuum of Care? ........................................................8-37

x

Immediate Responses Results: Services Versus Gaps..............................................8-37 Intermediate Responses Results: Services Versus Gaps...........................................8-40 Residential Services Results: Services Versus Gaps................................................8-42 Aftercare Results: Services Versus Gaps.................................................................8-43 Service Availability and Gaps by Area.....................................................................8-45 Graduated Responses Discussion.....................................................................................8-56

CHAPTER 9. FILLING THE GAPS IN THE REGIONALIZATION PLAN ................... 9-1

Introduction...................................................................................................................... 9-1 Placements Out of Home Area.......................................................................................... 9-1 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 9-2 Findings.................................................................................................................... 9-2 Residential Service Capacity: Overview of Per Diem and State Facilities ......................... 9-3 Per Diem and State Facility Data Charts by Area ...................................................... 9-4 Regionalized GAP Analysis .............................................................................................9-15 Methodology ...........................................................................................................9-15 Findings...................................................................................................................9-17 Summary of the GAP Analysis Findings ..........................................................................9-24 Statewide Versus Regionalized Programming..........................................................9-26

CHAPTER 10. FORECAST OF RESIDENTIAL RESOURCE NEEDS .........................10-1

Forecasting Models ..........................................................................................................10-2 Bringing in Policy...................................................................................................10-3 The Practical Forecasting Model.............................................................................10-4 Forecasting Resource Needs in Maryland .........................................................................10-5 Structure of the Maryland Working Groups ............................................................10-5 Members of the Maryland Working Groups............................................................10-6 Forecasting Meetings ..............................................................................................10-7 Forecasting Tasks ...................................................................................................10-7 Calculations Used In Juvenile Forecaster ..............................................................10-11 Forecasting Results ........................................................................................................10-11 Economic Impact..................................................................................................10-16 Summary........................................................................................................................10-20

CHAPTER 11. VALIDATION OF CURRENT DJS STATEGIC PLAN..........................11-1

DJS Strategic Plan............................................................................................................11-1 Revised DJS Strategic Plan...............................................................................................11-5 Introductory Note on the Role of the Strategic Plan .........................................................11-6

CHAPTER 12. DEVELOPING THE IDEAL SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM: MAJORTASKS AND CRITICAL NEXT STEPS ............................................................................12-1

Ensure Public Safety and Youth Accountability................................................................12-2 Improve the Enforcement of Court Orders ..............................................................12-2 Implement Offender Classification .........................................................................12-3

xi

Decrease Length of Stay When Appropriate............................................................12-3 Implement Timely Case Processing ........................................................................12-4 Implement Graduated Responses ............................................................................12-5 Provide Community-Based, Least Restrictive, Proactive Alternatives .....................12-6 Decrease Pending Placements as Appropriate .........................................................12-6 Implement Regionalization...............................................................................................12-7 Establish Smaller Self-Contained Facilities.............................................................12-8 Form Community Advisory Boards ........................................................................12-9 Policy Implications of an Ideal Service Delivery System ......................................12-10 Utilize Objective Decision-Making ................................................................................12-11 Implement System-wide Audit Process.................................................................12-11 Information Technology (IT) Improvement...........................................................12-12 Adopt Appropriate Structure Decision Making Instruments ..................................12-14 Strengthen Vendor Management.....................................................................................12-16 Initiate Statewide Programming for Selected Youth Populations ....................................12-17 Upgrade Processes for Hiring and Training Personnel ....................................................12-18 Streamline Hiring Procedures ..............................................................................12-18 Regionalize Hiring Process Within State Regulations ..........................................12-19 Establish Goals For Position Vacancy Management and Timeliness of Hiring .....12-19 Regionalization Versus Localization ....................................................................12-21 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................12-22

PART V. APPENDICES

References

A. DJS Strategic Plan B. Detailed Population Trends C. DJS Data by County D. Detention Standards E. Facility Incident Data

F. Detailed Focus Group Services and Gap Charts by RegionG. Forecast ResultsH. Strategic Plan Assessment ToolI. Agency Functions by Jurisdiction

PART VI. SPECIAL REPORT

Special Report: Addressing Disproportionate Minority Contact in Maryland

xii

FIGURES AND TABLES

Table 2.1. Maryland Population Change, 1990–2000........................................................ 2-1Figure 2.1. Total Maryland Population by Area, 2000–2003 .............................................. 2-2Figure 2.2. Maryland Population Projections, 2000–2020 .................................................. 2-2Table 2.2. Maryland Population Density, 2000 ................................................................. 2-3Figure 2.3. Maryland Youth and Total Population by Area, 1990 and 2000........................ 2-4Table 2.3. Maryland Youth and Total Population Change, 1990–2000.............................. 2-5Figure 2.4. Maryland Youth Population Projections 2000-2020 ......................................... 2-5Table 2.4. 1990–2000 Maryland Youth Population by Age............................................... 2-6Table 2.5. Maryland Median Household Income by Area and Country, 2000.................... 2-6Figure 2.5. Maryland White Population by Area ................................................................ 2-7Figure 2.6. Maryland Black Population by Area................................................................. 2-7Figure 2.12. School Dropout Rate, 2002-03 School Year ..................................................... 2-8Figure 2.13. State of Maryland Public School Enrollment .................................................... 2-9Figure 2.19. Maryland School Absence...............................................................................2-10Figure 2.20. Child Abuse and Neglect.................................................................................2-11Figure 2.21. Teen Birth Rate...............................................................................................2-11Figure 2.22. Violent Teen Death Rate .................................................................................2-12Table 2.6. Child Poverty, 1999-2000 ...............................................................................2-14Table 2.8. High School Dropouts.....................................................................................2-15Table 2.9. Maryland Dropout Rank by Country 2001-02 School Year .............................2-16Table 2.7. Number and Percent of School-Aged Youth in Families in Poverty,

1999-2000 (Age 5-17)...................................................................................2-16Table 2.10. Public School Enrollment Race Breakdown, 2000...........................................2-17Figure 2.7. Maryland Asian Population by Area................................................................2-18Figure 2.8. Maryland Native American Population by Area ..............................................2-18Figure 2.9. MD Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Population by Area..........................................2-18Figure 2.10. MD Hispanic Population by Area....................................................................2-18Figure 2.11. MD 2000 Median Household Income..............................................................2-19Figure 2.14. Area 1 (City of Baltimore) Public School Enrollment......................................2-19Figure 2.15. Area 2 Public School Enrollment ....................................................................2-20Figure 2.16. Area 3 Public School Enrollment ....................................................................2-20Figure 2.17. Area 4 Public School Enrollment ....................................................................2-21Figure 2.18. Area 5 Public School Enrollment ....................................................................2-21

Figure 3.1. DJS Total Number of Case Referrals to Intake by Fiscal Year.......................... 3-3Figure 3.2. FY 2003 Source of Case Referrals to DJS ........................................................ 3-3Figure 3.3. DJS Case Referral Intake Outcome Percentages ............................................... 3-4Figure 3.4. Outcomes of Cases Referred for Court Processing ........................................... 3-5Figure 3.5. Court Dispositions as a Percentage of Cases Sent to Court ............................... 3-6Figure 3.6. Court Dispositions: Probation and Committed.................................................. 3-7Figure 3.7. Court Dispositions of Transfer ......................................................................... 3-7Figure 3.8. FY 2003 DJS Case Referrals and Court Outcomes ........................................... 3-8Figure 3.9. FY 2003 Selected Outcomes for Case Referrals ............................................... 3-8Figure 3.10. Percent of Intake Cases by Area (FY 2000-2003)............................................. 3-9Figure 3.11. Juvenile Intake Cases by Fiscal Year...............................................................3-10

xiii

Figure 3.12. Juvenile Intake Case Rate by Fiscal Year ........................................................3-11Figure 3.13. Male Intake Case Rate ....................................................................................3-11Figure 3.14. Female Intake Case Rate .................................................................................3-12Figure 3.15. Intake Cases 13 years of Age and Under .........................................................3-12Figure 3.16. Caucasian Intake Cases ...................................................................................3-13Figure 3.17. Offense Type by Area, FY 2000-2003.............................................................3-13Figure 3.18. Juvenile Intake Cases by Offense Type ...........................................................3-14Table 3.1. Total Prior History Score ................................................................................3-16Table 3.2. Total Prior History Score for Intakes: January 1, 2003 Through

March, 31, 2004 ............................................................................................3-16Table 3.3. Maryland DJS Risks and Needs Screening at Intake, January 1, 2003

Through March 31, 2004...............................................................................3-18Table 3.3. Maryland DJS Risks and Needs Screening at Intake, January 1, 2003

Through March 31, 2004...............................................................................3-19Figure 3.19. Referral Indicated but not Referred or Receiving Services...............................3-20

Figure 4.1. Monthly Workload Stats, July 2003 ................................................................. 4-2Figure 4.2. Female Juvenile Court Intake Cases ................................................................. 4-9Figure 4.3. Female Juvenile Intake Cases........................................................................... 4-9

Table 5.1. Residential Placement Status by State, 2001..................................................... 5-2Table 5.2. Secure Detention Facilities............................................................................... 5-4Table 5.3. Structured Shelter Care Facilities ..................................................................... 5-5Figure 5.1. Average Daily Population in Facilities and Programs ....................................... 5-7Figure 5.2. Average Daily Population of Youths Under Predispositional Supervision ........ 5-8Figure 5.3. FY 2004 Average Daily Population in Detention and Detention Alternative

Placements ..................................................................................................... 5-9Figure 5.4. FY 2004 ADP, by Number and Percentage, in Secure Detention Settings........5-10Figure 5.5. Average LOS for Preadjudicated Youths.........................................................5-10Table 5.3. Baltimore City Juvenile Detention Center One-Day Snapshot—

November 3, 2004.........................................................................................5-12Table 5.4. Community Detention and CD with Electronic Monitoring Admissions by Year

and Area ............................................................................................. 5-13, 5-14Table 5.5. Community Detention and Electronic Monitoring Admissions, by

Race and Gender ...........................................................................................5-14Figure 5.6. Average Daily Population of Youths Waiting for Placement ...........................5-15Figure 5.7. Average LOS for Pending Placement Populations ...........................................5-16Figure 5.6. Adjudicated Youth Pending Placement ...........................................................5-17Table 5.7. Maryland DJS Pending Placement in Detention Report: Length of Stay

Grouped by Number of Days, Fiscal Years 2000 Through 2004 ....................5-19Table 5.8. Maryland DJS Pending Placement Report: Average Length of Stay in

Detention Per Type of Placement, Fiscal Years 2001 Through 2004..............5-21Table 5.9. Maryland DJS Pending Placement Report: Length of Stay by Charge

Fiscal Years 2001, 2003, and 2004...................................................... 5-23, 5-24Table 5.10. Highlights of Findings and Recommendations on Youth Pending Placement

in Detention ........................................................................................ 5-26, 5-27

Table 6.1. State Secure Commitment Facilities ................................................................. 6-2

xiv

Table 6.2. FY 2004 Per Diem Contracts Over $1 Million.................................................. 6-9Figure 6.1. Average Daily Population in All Post-dispositional Placements ......................6-10Figure 6.2. Average Daily Population in All Foster Care and Group Home Placements ....6-11Figure 6.3. Average Daily Post-dispositional Population in Foster Care and Group

Home Placements..........................................................................................6-12Figure 6.4. Average Daily Population of Drug and Residential Treatment Programs .........6-13Figure 6.5. Average Daily Population in Post-dispositional Drug and Residential

Treatment Placements ...................................................................................6-14Figure 6.6. Summary of ADP for Placements in Non-secure Post-dispositional Facilities

and Programs ................................................................................................6-15Figure 6.7. ADP for Juveniles in Post-dispositional Secure Placements.............................6-16Figure 6.8. ADP for Males and Females in Post-dispositional Commitment Placements ...6-16Figure 6.9. Average LOS for Post Adjudicated Youths .....................................................6-17Figure 6.10. Average LOS for Post Adjudication Residential Programs ..............................6-17Table 6.2. Sample of Types of Incidents in Selected DJS Facilities..................................6-20

Table 7.1. Key Variables Related to the Interpretation of Recidivism Data ................ 7-1, 7-2Table 7.2. Nine Measures of Recidivism Tracking Both Juvenile and

Criminal Justice System Involvement............................................................. 7-6Table 7.3. Approximate Timeline for Key Juvenile Justice Events in the Lives of Youth

Released in FY 1997 ...................................................................................... 7-8Figure 7.1. Juvenile Justice Recidivism Rates for Youths Released in FY 1997

Within 1, 2, and 3 years After Release............................................................ 7-9Figure 7.2. Criminal Justice Recidivism Rates for Youths Released in FY 1997

Within 1, 2, and 3 years After Release...........................................................7-10Figure 7.3. Combined Juvenile and Criminal Justice Recidivism Rates for Youths

Released in FY 1997 Within 1, 2, and 3 years After Release .........................7-11Table 7.4. Recidivism in Sample of 20,053 Initial Intakes................................................7-13Table 7.5. Measurement of Recidivism As Presented in the FY 2004

“Managing for Results” Report .....................................................................7-18Table 7.6. Recidivism Rates for Youth Released from Secure and Non-secure

Residential Programs in FY 2001 and 2002...................................................7-19Table 7.7. Recidivism Rates for Youth Released from Nonsecure Residential

Programs in FY 2001-2002 ...........................................................................7-20Table 7.8. Recidivism Rates for Youth Released from Secure Residential

Programs in FY 2001-2002 ...........................................................................7-20

Table 8.1. Immediate Responses: Focus Group Perceptions of Services Available by Area .........................................................................................................8-38

Table 8.2. Immediate Responses: Focus Group Perceptions of Gaps by Area......... 8-39, 8-40Table 8.3. Intermediate Responses: Focus Group Perceptions of Services Available

by Area ............................................................................................... 8-40, 8-41Table 8.4. Intermediate Responses: Focus Group Perceptions of Gaps by Area................8-41

Table 8.5. Residential Programs: Focus Group Perceptions of Services Available by Area .........................................................................................................8-42

Table 8.6. Residential Programs: Focus Group Perceptions of Gaps by Area ...................8-43

xv

Table 8.7. Aftercare Programs: Focus Group Perceptions of Services Available by Area .........................................................................................................8-44

Table 8.8. Aftercare Programs: Focus Group Perceptions of Gaps by Area ......................8-45Table 8.9. Area 1: Perceptions of Services Available and Gaps in Services............ 8-46, 8-47Table 8.10. Area 2: Perceptions of Services Available and Gaps in Services............ 8-48, 8-49Table 8.11. Area 3: Perceptions of Services Available and Gaps in Services............ 8-49, 8-52Table 8.12. Area 4: Perceptions of Services Available and Gaps in Services............ 8-52, 8-54Table 8.13. Area 5: Perceptions of Services Available and Gaps in Services............ 8-54, 8-55

Figure 9.1. 2003 Placement Outside of Home Area............................................................ 9-2Figure 9.2. 2004 Placement Outside of Home Area............................................................ 9-3Table 9.1. Structured Shelter Care Placements by Area, Capacity and Number Served ..... 9-5Table 9.2. Secure Detention by Area, Capacity and Number Served ................................. 9-6Table 9.3. Group Homes/Independent Living Placements by Area, Capacity and

Numbers Served...................................................................................... 9-7, 9-8Table 9.4. Residential Treatment Centers, Treatment Group Homes, and Treatment Foster

Care Placements by Area, Capacity, and Number Served ...................... 9-9, 9-10Table 9.5. Substance Abuse Treatment Placement by Area Capacity and Number

Served...........................................................................................................9-11Table 9.6. Youth Centers Placements by Area, Capacity and Number Served ..................9-12Table 9.7. Nonsecure Committed Placements by Area, Capacity and Number Served......9-13Table 9.8. Secure Committed Placements by Area, Capacity and Number Served............9-14Table 9.9. Area I: Gaps in Capacity .................................................................................9-17Table 9.10. Area II: Gaps in Capacity................................................................................9-18Table 9.11. Area III: Gaps in Capacity...............................................................................9-19Table 9.12. Area IV: Gaps in Capacity ..............................................................................9-22Table 9.13. Area V: Gaps in Capacity................................................................................9-23Table 9.14. Summary of Major Gaps in Capacity ..............................................................9-24

Table 10.1. Forecast of Average Daily Populations (ADP) in DJS-Sponsored Placements, 2005-2020...................................................................................................10-12

Figure 10.1. Forecast of Average Daily Populations in DJS-Sponsored Placements, 2005-2020...................................................................................................10-13

Figure 10.2. Forecast of Average Daily Populations in DJS-Sponsored Placements by Service Area, 2005-2020.............................................................................10-14

Table 10.2. Forecast of Average Daily Populations (ADP) in DJS-Sponsored Placements, 2005-2020...................................................................................................10-15

Table 10.3. Inflation-Adjusted Forecast of Average Daily Cost (ADC) in DJS-Sponsored Placements ..................................................................................................10-18

Table 10.4. Forecast of Alternative Assumptions about DJS-Sponsored Placements, 2010............................................................................................................10-20

Figure 12.1. Components of an Ideal Service Delivery System ...........................................12-2Table 12.1. Sample Facility Classification Instrument Components .................................12-16

xvi

xvii

Executive Summary

OVERVIEW

Early in 2004, when the Maryland State Legislature passed a bill requiring this study, itexpressed a strong interest in transforming Maryland’s juvenile justice system into a moreregionalized system that relies on smaller facilities and is more community-based. This reportpresents the preliminary results of the Gap Analysis completed as the first phase of a 21-monthstudy to develop a Facilities Master Plan for the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services(DJS).

The study includes two phases. The purpose of Phase 1, the Gap Analysis, is to develop an idealjuvenile justice service delivery system based on an analysis of the current population of DJSyouth and a forecast of the future DJS population. The Gap Analysis includes a comprehensiveassessment of current State and community-based programs and services; an assessment of theDJS 2005 Strategic Plan; detailed projections of classifications of youth to be served by DJS andthe range of services recommended to be provided; and estimates of the impact of policy andpractice reforms on factors such as costs, recidivism, length of stay, and facility programming foreffective, holistic, family-based, individualized intervention and treatment strategies. The GapAnalysis calls for 11 deliverables, which are presented in various sections of the Phase 1 FinalReport.

Throughout the report, we recommend that DJS pursue an evidence-based, incremental approachto regionalization. Such an approach will help strengthen DJS basic administrative andleadership functions, while granting progressively greater autonomy to the State’s economically,socially, and ethnically diverse regions. We also recommend that Maryland begin the process ofregionalization in Area 3, since it has the fullest complement of juvenile justice resources and ismost prepared for local autonomy.

Phase 2 of this study, the Implementation Plan, will articulate a more detailed implementationstrategy for both programming and facilities based on the Gap Analysis findings andrecommendations. This strategy will include an assessment of the degree to which existingprograms and facilities are effective and aligned with DJS strategic goals, and an assessment ofthe extent to which existing programs and facilities require modifications.

The remainder of this Executive Summary provides a brief overview of each topic addressed inthe Phase I Gap Analysis and our major findings in each area. We also briefly summarize themajor tasks and critical next steps to building the ideal service delivery system and offer a list of42 specific recommendations for implementing the regionalization process.

xviii

MAJOR FINDINGS

Demographics

Maryland, with 5.3 million people at the 2000 census, experienced nearly 11 percent populationgrowth during the 1990s. Four of its five major areas (see map) felt this growth, while BaltimoreCity, in sharp contrast, declined by more than 11 percent. The fastest-growing city by percentagewas Myersville, in Frederick County. Gaithersburg, in Montgomery County, gained the mostcitizens in actual numbers. Baltimore City, despite a net loss of 84,000 people during the decadepreceding the census, remains by far the most densely populated area in the State. Maryland isprojected to gain nearly 800,000 people by 2020, with its total population by then exceeding 6million.

Statewide, about 28 percent of the population is under 20 years old. In evaluating the populationtrends, the most significant finding is that the youth population is declining as a proportion of theoverall population.

The citizenry identifies itself as 62 percent white, 29 percent African-American, 3.6 percentHispanic, 3.25 percent Asian, 1.7 percent multiple race, with the balance Native Americans orPacific Islanders. African-Americans make up 64 percent of Area 1’s population and 42 percentof Area 5’s. Nearly half (47 percent) of Maryland’s Hispanic population resides in Area 3.

Maryland is a wealthy State. It has the Nation’s second highest median annual householdincome, at $55,000. Howard County has the State’s highest median income ($79,900 perhousehold), Allegany County the lowest ($27,900). Such differentials also suggest vast cost-of-living differences across regions. Maryland has little poverty—the fourth-least per capita amongall States.

xix

The 2001 unemployment rate of 4.1 percent placed Maryland 17th lowest in the nation.Montgomery County’s 2.3 percent unemployment rate was the lowest in the State; WorcesterCounty’s 9.9 percent was the highest. In 2002, 84 percent of Maryland high school seniors wenton to graduate.

Baltimore City has a higher teen birth rate than any other area and any individual county. Itsviolent death rate (137 per 100,000 youth aged 15–19) is 2.3 times as high as the second highestrate among other areas (59.8 per 100,000 in the Eastern Shore).

Intake Trends

A youth’s point of entry in the juvenile justice system is intake. In FY 2003, the MarylandDepartment of Juvenile Services had 53,502 case referrals to intake, with the vast majority (94percent) coming from law enforcement. Of these 53,502 case referrals, 30 percent were closed atintake, 28 percent resulted in informal supervision, and 42 percent were referred for formal courtprocessing. The intake cases that are referred for formal court processing are of particularinterest, since they determine the demand for supervision and placement services. Of those casessent to court in FY 2003, 25 percent of the dispositions were for probation and 12 percent werefor commitment to DJS.

Nearly half of the intake cases from FY 2000 to FY 2003 originated in Area 5 (25 percent) andArea 2 (24 percent). However, the jurisdictions with the highest average annual rates of intakefor youth under 18 over that same time period were Area 4 (834 intakes per 10,000 youths) andArea 1 (699 intakes per 10,000 youths).

At the time of intake, all youth complete a Risk and Needs Assessment Screening Tool. This toolhelps staff screen each youth for risk as well as treatment needs in five domains: physical health,mental health, substance abuse, education, and family functioning. Compared with the entirepool of intake youths, those who are formally processed are less likely to be attending school,more likely to be absent from school, and more in need of educational resources. DSGresearchers analyzed data identifying youth needs (as indicated on the Risk and NeedsAssessment) along with the rate at which youth received referrals or services to address thoseneeds. They found that most youth assessed with a particular need were being referred to anappropriate service. However, they identified gaps in referral for educational services andsubstance abuse treatment across all five geographic areas.

Community Justice Supervision

The Community Justice Supervision Division provides 24-hour intake, probation, aftercare, andcommunity detention services in each of the 24 jurisdictions in the State (23 counties andBaltimore City). In essence, it is responsible for providing treatment and case managementservices to youth in the community. While retaining youth in the community is generally anoteworthy effort, there was widespread agreement among participants in focus groups from allareas that youth on probation and their families are not being held accountable for probationviolations, and that this presents a major barrier to success. Participants agreed that whileprobation and aftercare programs have the potential to be successful, resource limitations andstaff workloads limit that success. Thus, it is recommended that additional resources be

xx

committed to reducing caseloads and supporting those agencies that partner with DJS in the casemanagement and treatment process.

Special attention was given to females in the Maryland DJS system. Females have historicallyconstituted a very small proportion of the offender population and are less likely to commitserious offenses. Focus group participants said that recently there has been an increasedinvolvement of girls in the juvenile court system, and these girls are more violent and aggressivethan those who once entered the system. Quantitative analysis confirmed some of these beliefsbut refuted others. The data revealed that while Maryland did not see an increase in femaleoffending in terms of either raw numbers or the proportion of offenses compared to males, it didreveal that the proportion of serious female offenders increased by 13 percent between FY 2001and FY 2004. It is recommended that additional resources be dedicated to the needs of girls.Services requested by focus group participants included placements in general, shelter care,intermediate responses, services targeting pregnant girls and teen mothers, and community-basedoptions.

Detention and Detention Alternatives

With the Nation’s fifth lowest total residential placement rate and its sixth lowest committedresidential placement rate, Maryland would appear at first glance to be in a favorable position interms of residential placement trends. But a careful examination reveals some potentiallytroublesome trends. For instance, from FY 2001 to FY 2004, the State’s overall average dailypopulation (ADP) in predispositional placements increased 27 percent. While most of thisincrease may be accounted for by the increase in the use of Electronic Monitoring, one wouldexpect an equivalent drop in the use of secure detention. Unfortunately, this was not the case.Instead, it remained relatively flat. It decreased from FY 2001 to FY 2002, increased again in FY2003, and decreased in FY 2004.

One possible reason for the absence of a reduction in the use of secure detention may be “netwidening” –that is, bringing youth into the system whose offenses were so mild that they wouldhave been diverted had the new, more moderate treatment not been available. Instead ofshrinking the net of social control, a program originally designed to divert youth away frominstitutional placement actually widens it. A good strategy to avoid net widening is the use ofrisk and needs assessment instruments for prediction/classification (e.g., detention and placementdecisions) in order to avoid involving youth in the system that otherwise would not be there.While Maryland DJS currently is utilizing a risk and needs instrument, it may want to review theactual implementation and operation of this procedure.

Another reason there has been no reduction in the use of secure detention may be theextraordinary number of youth in secure detention pending placement to an appropriate facility.Youth awaiting placements has been a growing problem in the DJS system over the past fourFiscal Years. In FY 2001, the ADP of youth waiting for placement was 129; in FY 2004, thenumber was 171, a 33 percent increase.

The length of time youth remain in “pending placement” status has also risen. The averagelength of stay (ALOS) in detention for youth pending placement was approximately 28 days inFY 2001; 38 days in FY 2002; 40 days in FY 2003; and 36 days in FY 2004. While only sexoffenses consistently showed a pattern of a lengthy ALOS, it is very striking that two “other”

xxi

offenses—violation of placement and violation of probation—when combined, account forapproximately 45 percent of all youth in the 4-year sample.

The increasing number of youth pending placement is a serious problem. The majority of theseyouth are held in DJS detention facilities awaiting placement, with limited access toprogramming and other treatment resources. While in detention pending placement, these youthcommonly display acting out and aggressive behavior. The central question regarding thepending placement population is clearly why is the average length of stay increasing. Is it theresult of delays in court processing? Is it the result of a lack of programming options, particularlywith regard to sex offenders? Is it because the youth already in residential placement are stayinglonger and thus creating a backlog? An examination of the situation in residential facilities mayhold some of the answers.

Residential Placements

The Residential Services Division supervises residential facilities and their programs for youthdetained or committed by the court. The Division oversees or manages three categories ofprograms: State-owned and -operated facilities, State-owned and vendor-operated facilities thatare licensed by DJS, and per diem or contractual programs that are licensed by DJS or other Stateagencies. Youth who are committed to the custody of the State may be placed in one of threetypes of secure facility (according to risk) or they may be placed in one of the State’s manynonsecure residential programs. While these programs vary greatly in size, type, and treatmentapproach, most fall into one of the following categories: foster care, therapeutic foster care,group homes, therapeutic group homes, drug treatment programs, residential treatment centers,respite programs, and independent living programs.

The average daily population (ADP) in all postdispositional placements—secure andnonsecure—decreased by 17 percent between FY 2001 and FY 2004. ADP for allpostdispositional nonsecure placements increased by 26.5 percent during that period. Changes inADP differed greatly by type of facility: ADP in therapeutic foster care decreased by 45.1percent; group homes increased by 32.2 percent; therapeutic group homes increased by 173.5percent; drug treatment increased by 54.0 percent; and residential treatment increased by 9.4percent. The ADP for postdispositional secure placements decreased by 51.7 percent.

In contrast, the average length of stay for youth in a postadjudicated placement rose substantially(58 percent, or 69 additional days) over the same 4-year period. In fact, there was an upwardtrend in the length of stay in each of the program types. Foster care had the largest increase inlength of stay over the 4-year period, from 106 days to 191 days. Other programs withsubstantial increases included secure, nonsecure, and therapeutic treatment programs.

In FY 2004, there was an ADP of 171 youths in pending placement status. Youth stay indetention pending placement an average of 35.4 days, with 15.5 percent staying from 60 to morethan 250 days. The needs of the pending placement population are often for specializedtreatment, and the unavailability of these placements is a central need of the Maryland system.The pending placement problem is caused by the inability of DJS to place difficult youth, such assex offenders and developmentally delayed youth, which in turn is caused by a heavy reliance onper diem contractors that are either unwilling or unable to serve difficult youth.

xxii

Although DJS owns and (in most cases operates) all of the State’s secure commitment facilities,it is heavily dependent on private/per diem providers for many of its nonsecure residentialservices. The State currently places children in over 80 different nonsecure residential programsand facilities through standard or per diem contracts. This reliance on per diem providers iscausing serious problems. While DJS is having difficulty controlling its per diem expenditures,many of the most problematic youth are denied services because per diem contractors refuse toaccept them. Further, the State’s reliance on existing networks of private service providers hasled to an uneven distribution of residential services throughout the State. Finally, there is littleofficial oversight of the quality of contracted services.

To address this problem, DSG recommends that DJS strengthen its vendor management systemto ensure that all youth are being placed in appropriate facilities and all vendors comply withestablished contract guidelines and accept youth who meet these guidelines. DSG furtherrecommends that DJS should gradually reduce its reliance on expensive per diem placements,and, to the extent practical, begin to increase the funds available to enhance and createcommunity-based, nonresidential services.

State-Owned Facility Conditions

Many predispositional and postdispositional secure detention and commitment facilities are inpoor and often deteriorating condition and are outdated and inappropriate for the care andcustody of youth. Cottage-style buildings without toilets in rooms are not appropriate forpredispositional detention purposes. Group home facilities are in better condition but in need ofcosmetic repairs.

In Phase 2, DSG will be conducting a careful review of all facilities consistent with the goals ofdeveloping a facilities master plan for delivery to the legislature by December 2005. However,based on our site visits and information derived from the Gap Analysis, we have included somepreliminary observations on the major facilities:

• Construction of a modern 48-bed predispositional detention facility attached to theexisting gymnasium/school/auditorium complex at Cheltenham with designedexpandability.

• Construction of a modern 48-bed predispositional detention facility attached to thegymnasium at the Hickey School.

• Waxter should remain a female detention facility for Area 2 or Area 5 and detentionfor females should be provided in the seven other State detention facilities.

• Waxter should also remain a commitment facility, until a replacement facility can bebuilt on the Hickey or Cheltenham campus.

• Construction of a secure commitment program for females on the campus of Hickeyor Cheltenham. Such a facility would have one maximum-security unit (detentionfacility design) and several other gender appropriate units for the remainder of thefemales (group home design). Locating the facility behind a fence, with a locked frontdoor, would provide security for drug treatment and other gender appropriateservices.

The new Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center has also had significant difficulties sinceopening in October of 2003:

xxiii

• There have been problems with maintaining control over the detainees.• The facility design is not appropriate for juvenile offenders. It does not have

sufficient common space for 12 detainees on a unit.• The upper tier of rooms create a hazard and ongoing supervision problems.• The only option short of expensive and dramatic reconfiguration or reconstruction is

to solve the problem through population management, such as restricting thepopulation of each of the 12 units to nine detainees. This would provide an acceptableamount of dayroom floor space or square footage per person, which would allowsafer interaction between detainees and the two staff members assigned to each unit.This would effectively operate Baltimore at a 108-bed capacity. If otherrecommendations regarding detention alternatives are implemented and theprojections continue to be accurate, this capacity would meet Baltimore’s projectedneeds for the foreseeable future.

DSG has yet to visit four of the detention centers, four of the youth centers, and one shelterhome. However, these facilities are reported to be in generally good condition, and they will bevisited during Phase 2.

Recidivism

The ultimate long-term indicator of a juvenile justice system’s success is whether the life-courseof a delinquent youth is positively influenced in such a way as to prevent future involvement indelinquent and criminal behavior. Recidivism can be measured in many ways: by re-arrest, re-adjudication, or re-incarceration; over periods of months or years; by self-report or officialdocumentation. There are no national statistics on juvenile recidivism and no widely acceptedstandards for collecting such data. Since 1975, Maryland has conducted several studies onrecidivism, but different methods have been employed from study to study, making it impossibleto carry out any trend analysis across time. Nonetheless, some of Maryland’s more recent workin the field has been sophisticated, particularly A Review of Recidivism Rates Among All JuvenileJustice Youths Born in 1977, released in February 1998.

That study tracked all 20,053 youths born in 1977 who had an initial intake in the Marylandjuvenile justice system, monitoring their subsequent interactions with the system. It found that 56percent of these youth never returned to the juvenile justice system. Of the 21 percent of the totalsample who were placed on probation at least once, 64 percent were re-referred to juvenilejustice. Of the 15 percent of the original sample who were detained at least once, 66 percent werere-referred to the system, and of the 8 percent who were committed at least once, 43 percentreceived return referrals.

Two years later, Maryland released Recidivism Rates for Youths Released in FY 1997 by MajorPrograms for 1, 2, and 3 Years After Release. This was the Department’s first look at youngadult behavior of former juvenile offenders. More than half (53 percent) of these 1,735 youthswere referred to the criminal justice system at least once in 3 years. Of all youth in the study, 44percent were convicted of a criminal offense and 30 percent were incarcerated in the adultsystem within 3 years. Half (51 percent) of youth with criminal justice referrals also were re-referred to the juvenile system at least once.

xxiv

Over the years, the Department has not developed and implemented a consistent approach toassessing recidivism. DSG recommends that DJS develop a comprehensive plan for building thenecessary data collection and analysis capacity to assess recidivism more fully in order todetermine the effectiveness of program strategies. Research is also needed to better understandhow an individual youth penetrates more deeply into the criminal justice system, and whatprograms or interventions are successful at interrupting the developmental pathways to moreserious and habitual offending. It is critical that adequate resources be made available to conductmeaningful and purposeful research.

PLANNING THE IDEAL SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM

Best Practices in Graduated Responses

In recent years, juvenile justice professionals have reached a broad consensus that the mosteffective way to fight juvenile crime is to combine vigorous delinquency prevention programswith a comprehensive system of “graduated responses.” In the graduated responses model, thepenalties for delinquency become progressively more severe and restrictive according to theseverity and nature of the delinquency. In other words, the response is carefully designed to fitthe offense.

While such an approach may seem like common sense, the reality is that many State and localjuvenile justice systems still rely heavily on just two approaches for combating delinquency—secure confinement and probation. By contrast, the graduated responses model offers acomprehensive “continuum of care”—one that affords many options for intervening in thedevelopment of delinquent behavior that are tailored to individuals’ needs.

There are traditionally four broad categories of responses in the continuum of care: immediateresponses, intermediate responses, confinement (detention, residential, and secure), andaftercare/reentry. In focus group discussions, Maryland DJS staff reviewed the graduatedresponses model and discussed their communities’ strengths and gaps in services. Overall, mostDJS officials believed they needed more immediate and intermediate response programs andbetter residential programs for special needs youth.

In the immediate responses category, all five areas of the State reported having access tocommunity service, diversion, informal probation, and restitution services. At least four areasalso reported having some sort of family/group conferencing program, teen court, or victimawareness program. The most frequently named gap was the need for mentoring programs,followed by a need for balanced and restorative justice-type programming—four out of fiveareas reported gaps in family/group conferencing and community conferencing; three out of fivereported gaps in diversion programming.

In the area of intermediate responses (i.e., services directed toward more serious offenders), allfive areas of the State listed drug courts, family counseling, and probation services as readilyavailable to them. Four out of five areas reported having alternative schools, gender-specificprograms, intensive supervision programs, life skills training, school-based probation, and sexoffender programming. At the same time, four out of five areas identified gaps in the drug abuse

xxv

programming, especially in drug treatment and drug testing. Three out of five said they neededadditional family counseling, gender-specific programming, and sex offender programming.Areas 3 and 4 also noted a lack of anger management programs and programs for fire-setters.The seemingly inconsistent nature of these findings may suggest that even when immediate andintermediate responses are present, they are not meeting the needs of Maryland’s youth.

Findings regarding residential and aftercare services are easier to reconcile. Four out of fiveareas reported having group homes, drug and alcohol treatment, inpatient mental healthtreatment, and shelter care, but there were still significant gaps in the State’s more specializedprogramming (e.g., residential placements for sex offenders, mental health treatment, drugoffenders, foster care, and residential treatment centers). Four out of five areas reported needingmore shelter homes and three out five reported needing more foster care. All five areas reporteda lack of aftercare services, especially intensive supervision programs and job skills/vocationaltraining programs.

It is clear that Maryland needs to expand on its current efforts to create immediate andintermediate response programs, especially community-based diversion programs andalternatives to detention. It is recommended that DJS develop a system of graduated responsesand supervision alternatives specifically for technical probation violators.

Gap Analysis

The underlying theory guiding the DJS Strategic Plan is the concept of regionalization. Intheory, the advantage of regionalization is that it creates a continuum of services to each juvenilewithin his or her home region. By responding to the unique needs of the community membersand stakeholders (including parents, victims, and local police, prosecutors, judges, and others), italso creates a sense of ownership in the community. However, the project of regionalization alsoinvolves many challenges. For regionalization to work, each region requires sufficient resources(facilities, programs, and professional leadership) to satisfy all its immediate needs.

DSG analyzed the region-by-region resources currently available to support Maryland’sregionalization plan. If each Maryland youth were placed in their home region and youth fromother regions were excluded, would the current residential service capacity of a single area beable to accommodate a diverse group of youth with various treatment and custody needs? Atpresent, the answer is no. Although Maryland does a relatively good job of providing servicesacross the State as a whole, a regional analysis reveals that certain services (e.g., securedetention, group homes, therapeutic treatment) have been centralized, leaving significant gaps insome regions and surpluses in others. Only DJS’s Area 3 appears to have most of the necessaryresources for a pilot regionalization project.

Clearly, developing the close working relationships, complex administrative systems, andnetworks of programs and services required for effective reorganization will take time andpatience. For that reason, we suggest that DJS adopt a gradual approach to regionalization—beginning with Area 3 and developing the capacities of other regions over time.

xxvi

Forecast of Residential Resource Needs

At some point, every juvenile justice agency is asked to estimate the future demand for itsservices, whether this includes detention and commitment space or treatment programs andcommunity supervision. Projections of future demand are essential during debates over agencybudgets, staffing levels, construction plans, and program locations. Such forecasting effortstypically involve the analysis of demographics, juvenile crime, and juvenile justice caseloads.Historical patterns are extended into the future in order to assess potential changes and the rangeof possible resource demands.

Development Services Group, Inc. and its subcontractor, the Urban Institute of Washington,D.C., designed and managed a forecasting effort that combined statistical analysis with theexpertise and judgment of DJS leaders and other Maryland juvenile justice officials. Theforecasting effort relied upon the Urban Institute’s “Practical Forecasting” model, which usesdata to inform a decision-making process that draws upon the expertise of those closest to theproblems of supply and demand—practitioners and decision makers. This combination ofjudgment and data was used to generate projections of future juvenile justice needs in the Stateof Maryland.

The various forecasting scenarios generated by the Maryland working groups projected onlysmall increases in the average daily populations of out-of-home placements (including bothpostdispositional placements and detention), from 2,674 in 2005 to 2,850 in 2020. This 6.6percent increase in average daily population does suggest that DJS out-of-home placements areexpected to grow faster than the state population of 10 to 19-year-olds, which the MarylandDepartment of Planning projects will decline by about 4.9 percent during the same period.

Most of the growth expected in the demand for placement resources occurs in two categories:detention alternatives and substance abuse treatment. The average daily population of youth indetention alternatives is forecast to increase from 551 to 762, a rise of 38 percent. The averagedaily population in substance abuse treatment is forecast to nearly double between 2004 and2020, from 257 to 471.

The number of juveniles in residential treatment centers, group homes and foster care, and thoseheld pending placement is forecast to decline between 2005 and 2010, largely in response to thebroader use of detention alternatives, substance abuse treatment, and home-based supervision.The average daily population of juveniles held pending placement is projected to drop by aboutone-third during this period. Conversely, the population of juveniles in detention alternatives andsubstance abuse treatment is expected to increase substantially. As a proportion of all youth inpost-disposition placements, the substance abuse treatment population is charted to grow from 15percent to 27 percent in the 15-year period from 2005 to 2020.

Forecast changes in average daily populations could produce significant changes in the averagedaily costs of all out-of-home placements, which are forecast to increase 56 percent between2005 and 2020. However, almost all of this increase is the result of an expectation that inflationwill increase 3 percent annually during this period. When inflation is factored out of thisprojection, the average daily cost for DJS is expected to decline by 2.6 percent. Much of thedecrease is due to the changes in population that result from the mix of placements in 2020,which should be slightly less expensive than the current mix of placements.

xxvii

Validation and Revision of the DJS Strategic Plan

The vision of the DJS Strategic Plan is that every child under its supervision will become a self-sufficient productive adult. Its mission embraces a “holistic and family-focused approach” that isinterpreted through a wide range of appropriate and constructive wraparound services for youththat “balances their individual qualities, needs, and aspirations with their accountability to thecommunity.” The Department’s aim is to provide these services in the “least restrictive mannerpossible” and in a way that is both “fair and impartial.” Its guiding principles aim to addressyouth needs and youth accountability, make fair decisions based on scientifically validinstruments, use professional and efficient business processes, and achieve Department goalsthrough collaboration.

One of the aims of this report is to validate the DJS goals as stated in the Strategic Plan. Theseare:

• Serve youth in the least restrictive and most appropriate environment.• Provide services that meet the needs of youth.• Serve youth in state-of-the-art DJS facilities and provide those services through efficient

and effective programs and staff.

The DJS Strategic Plan was evaluated by DSG corrections experts as well as experts in the field,who compared the plan with national best practices and strategies as well as with performance-based standards. Revisions to the Plan revolved around seven major themes developed by thisgroup of experts:

• The Plan Needs to Specify Better Data Collection Tools and Analytic Procedures.• Program Selection Should be Guided by Standards and Evidence.• There is a Gap Between Some Plan Recommendations and Currently Available

Services/Options.• The Plan Should Specify Infrastructure and Processes for Regionalization.• Gender- and Language-Specific Programming Should Not be Combined in One

Objective.• Management/Staff Recruiting and Quality Control Need More Attention• Some Goals/Objectives are Not Consistent, Unclear, or Missing Key Elements.

A revised DJS Strategic Plan has been developed in light of the expert reviewers’ commentsand in conformance with performance measurement planning. Output and outcome measures havebeen added, and strategies (performance measures) have been made quantifiable and assigneda set time period for completion. In addition, as appropriate, measures have been madeconsistent with recommendations throughout this report and in alignment with the needsidentified in the Gap Analysis presented in Chapter 9. The revised DJS Strategic Plan canbe found in Chapter 11.

xxviii

Maryland and Missouri

The legislature—in calling for 48-bed, regionally placed facilities—has clearly been influencedby the success in Missouri, and clearly that State’s model should be addressed in this report. Thefollowing chart compares and contrasts the two State systems as they are currently configured.

Missouri Versus Maryland: A Comparison of Juvenile Justice Systems

Missouri MarylandGeography/Demographics

68,000 square miles(7 times as large as Maryland)

Year 2000 Population:5,595,211

9,775 square miles(one-seventh the size of Missouri s)

Year 2000 Population:5,296,486

Responsibilities of JJSystem

§ Custody/care of committedyouth

§ Detention§ Probation§ Custody/care of committed youth

Committed Populations 1,350 committed youth per year(estimate)

2,183 committed youth (in 2003)

Approach toNoncommitmentServices

§ Locally operated probation§ Locally operated (county run)

detention§ Regionally operated community-

based services are available forcommitted youth

§ Aftercare

§ State-run probation§ State-run detention§ Locally and regionally operated

community-based services aredelivered (primarily) prior tocommitment

§ AftercareApproach toCommitment Services

Regionally operated residentialcommitment programs including§ Foster care§ Independent living§ Group homes§ Secure corrections

State-run residential commitmentprograms including youth camps andsecure corrections

Privately run (per diem) residentialprograms including§ Foster care§ Independent living§ Group homes§ Minimum secure corrections

Number of ResidentialFacilities and Capacity

32 State-run facilitiesAverage population size = 30 orfewer

8 State-run commitment facilities(currently open)Size of largest facility = 180Size of smaller facilities = 40 50

State CommitmentFacility Staff

85% college graduates engaged incareer development activity

High school graduate level staff withlimited career development opportunity

Reasons forRegionalization

Management and geographicconcerns

Management, cultural, andsocioeconomic concerns

Approach to Treatment Integrated and effective treatmentplan

Similar programming to Missouri, butinconsistently delivered, ineffective, andnot targeted to specific offender need

Connections toCommunity Services

Extensive Limited

As this above chart indicates, there are significant demographic, geographic, and programmaticdifferences between the two States. In addition, Maryland has one of the lowest rates ofresidential placement for committed and detained populations in the nation. It ranks fifth lowestfor total residential placements and sixth lowest for committed residential placements. Missouri’sjuvenile justice system ranks 13th and 15th lowest respectively for total residential placements andcommitted residential placements.

xxix

Because of these differences, we believe that Maryland must not attempt to replicate the“Missouri Model.” Rather, it should strive to emulate the “Missouri Process.” This process hasthree key features:

• Long-term juvenile justice professional leadership. The current Missouri Division of YouthServices Director has been in place since 1988.

• Strong State and local partnership with local responsibility in many juvenile justicefunctions.

• An upgrading of the level of skills and abilities from senior management to front line worker.

This Gap Analysis, Phase I Report lays out a roadmap to begin the process of change towardsregionalization.

Developing the Ideal Service Delivery System: Major Tasks and Critical NextStepsThe creation of a model for a regionalized ideal service delivery system that will meet the needsof DJS youth is the most critical aspect of the Master Facilities Plan. This new model willsupport regional and local planning as well as implementation of community and residentialprograms. The model can be configured to meet the unique needs of each region, within apolicy and procedure framework that allows DJS to support the regions, and monitorcompliance with policy as well as performance/results of programs and services. Majortasks required for DJS to make the transition from a centralized “command-and-control”approach to a decentralized system include the following:

Ensure Public Safety and Youth Accountability

• Improve the enforcement of court orders by developing a system of graduated responsesfor technical probation violators.

• Improve offender classification by developing an assessment instrument thataddresses past and recent offenses, assaultive and escape behavior, priordisciplinary incidents in detention facilities and the community, and knownpsychological issues.

• Decrease length of stay and increase timely case processing when possible bycreating a graduated length of stay system that responds to committed youth basedon their offense history, treatment needs, and progress/conduct.

xxx

• Implement graduated responses.• Provide community-based, least restrictive, proactive alternatives to detention and

residential placement.• Decrease pending placements as appropriate.

Implement Regionalization

• The Regional Administrator must have clear lines of authority over all personnel workingin any field or residential unit under their supervision.

• The Regional Administrator should have assigned positions and position control numbersthat cannot be reassigned by the agency without prior consultation/notice.

• Each region must develop and control its own budget that incorporates all personnel andoperating funds. Capital budget functions will remain in the central office.

• Each region that is created must “stand alone” as much as possible, resolving its ownproblems and managing its own populations within its existing resources.

• Smaller, self-contained facilities should be created on a regional basis to meet the needsof youth closer to their homes wherever practicable.

• Community Advisory Boards should be formed in each region to maintain a closerconnection between the DJS and the public it serves.

• The role of the DJS central office will change from direct operation or command andcontrol to logistical support in budget, personnel, information systems, and programs.

• Headquarters will develop an oversight/monitoring role as it coaches and supports eachregion toward successful monitoring and implementation. In addition, headquarters willcontinue to audit the regions for compliance with existing standards, policies, andprocedures, which will in turn create an integrated relationship of mutual support towardcommon goals.

Utilize Objective Decision-Making

• An audit process should be implemented for all detention facilities, along withconsequences and procedures for addressing noncompliance and ensuring accountability.

• Assessment and classification instruments should be revised or replaced so that theybetter meet the needs for which they are intended.

Strengthen Vendor Management

• The process of securing placement for youth with per diem contractors should bestreamlined.

• DJS should work with other Departments to implement a system of performance-basedvendor contracting.

xxxi

Initiate Statewide Programming for Selected Youth Populations

• Centralized, State-operated facilities should be created to handle youth withpsychiatric/behavioral problems whose delinquency issues meet the criteria forcommitment in a secure environment.

• Centralized, State-operated facilities should be created to house developmentally delayedyouth.

Upgrade the Process for Hiring and Training Personnel

• The hiring process should be streamlined and regionalized.• Standards and timelines should be established for completing tasks necessary to fill open

vacancies.• Training should be more relevant to job duties and more geographically accessible for

employees.• Some training responsibilities can be decentralized and assigned to the regions.

The pyramid model depicted on the preceding pages indicates the need to create the ideal servicedelivery system from “the bottom up.” The issues addressed at the foundation of the pyramid areabsolutely essential to successful reform and should be addressed immediately; those at thepinnacle are less pressing and can be addressed in turn.

DSG has identified the ideal regional service delivery system and the current gaps in this Phase 1analysis. DJS needs to determine the most feasible way in which to fill the gaps identified in thisreport. These gaps may be addressed through new regionally-based construction, renovation,conversion or other enhancements to the existing system or through the identification andprocurement of new regionally-based per diem programs. Facility assessments conducted duringPhase II will produce critical information on how the gaps might be filled.

RECOMMENDATIONS

All of the recommendations that appear throughout the report have been topically organizedbelow. In Phase II, DSG strongly suggests that we conduct a series of facilitated exercises withthe executive management staff of DJS to prioritize the recommendations into those that can beaccomplished within the next 60 days, 6 months, and 1 year, and create a timeline for theirimplementation. DJS needs to closely examine the recommendations in this report to accomplishthem in a manner that allows the process to be iterative and progressive, while not overloadingthe Department’s capacity.

Ensure Public Safety and Youth Accountability

1. It is recommended that DJS develop a system of graduated responses and incentives andsupervision alternatives specifically for technical violators of probation rules/court ordersand that statutory/court rules be adopted, as necessary, to authorize probation officers touse such responses without court approval or order. (In Chapter 8, see “Overview of theContinuum of Care and Survey of Best Practices,” and, in Chapter 12, see “Ensure PublicSafety and Youth Accountability.”)

xxxii

2. DJS needs to develop and implement a comprehensive system of graduated incentivesand responses (especially community-based diversion programs and alternatives todetention). Additional research-based programs should be identified for implementationthrough the use of evidence-based programming and technical assistance from the Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (In Chapter 12, see “Ensure PublicSafety and Youth Accountability.”)

3. It is recommended that an Offender Classification Instrument be developed to determinethe appropriate security level for residential placement youth. This assessment instrumentshould address past and recent offenses, assaultive and escape behavior, prior disciplinaryincidents in detention facilities and the community, and known psychological issues. (InChapter 12, see “Ensure Public Safety and Youth Accountability.”)

4. DSG also recommends development and implementation of an appropriate Length of StayInstrument. (In Chapter 12, see “Ensure Public Safety and Youth Accountability.”)

5. DSG recommends the creation of a graduated length of stay system–one that responds tocommitted youth based upon their offense history, treatment needs, and progress/conduct.This will create a positive impact on youth adjustment and improve conditions ofconfinement that will enhance safety, security, and treatment outcomes. Research shouldbe done on the impact of graduated length of stay on recidivism. (In Chapter 6, see“Postdispositional Secure and Nonsecure Placements,” and, in Chapter 12, see “EnsurePublic Safety and Youth Accountability.”)

Regionalization

6. To be effective, regionalization should be tested in an area that has the capacity toimplement the major policy, fiscal and administrative requirements to successfullyachieve regionalization. It is suggested that, given its resources, the pilot project beimplemented in Area 3.

Ongoing funding for regional operations (especially residential placements) can bederived in part from redirecting some of the current per diem placements into servicedelivery in regional facilities or local/regional wraparound services that Maryland isstriving to create. A regionally based administrative and service delivery system is themost appropriate way for DJS to eventually create the ideal service delivery system. DJShas seen an increase of nearly 26 percent in private per diem placement costs from FY2002 through FY 2004 ($28,288,456 to $35,604,451). Regional per diem placementfunds should be reallocated from private per diem placements to community-basedservices that are less costly and will serve more youth. DJS should ensure that unspentfunding for these placements be de-categorized to allow for planning and reallocation tocommunity-based programs or other service delivery alternatives. (In Chapter 9, see“Regionalized Gap Analysis;” in Chapter 12, see “Implement Regionalization.”)

xxxiii

7. DJS might also consider reorganizing its current regional structure based uponproximity, resources, demographics, number of intakes, volume of cases, access totransportation, etc. For example, DJS may wish to redefine the boundaries of Areas 1 and2, if this will allow more youth to be served closer to home. (In Chapter 9, see “Summaryof the Gap Analysis Findings.”)

8. Each regionalized residential facility, and each DJS local office, should have an advisoryboard of citizens appointed from the localities served by the facility or the county servedby the local office. These Community Advisory Boards (CABs) should 1) serve asconduit for a connection to local services and foster volunteerism, and 2) provideoversight as to how well DJS is addressing local needs. Designated DJS Executive andAdministrative staff should attend CAB meetings to keep the lines of communicationopen, and foster productive partnerships with communities. (In Chapter 12, see“Implement Regionalization.”)

9. We recommend that during Phase II of the Facilities Master Plan, the State furtherexplore the possibility of increasing the availability of substance abuse programming inAreas 2 and 5, and the availability of nonsecure placements in Areas 1, 4, and 5. (InChapter 9, see “Regionalized Gap Analysis.”)

10. Since many of the residential facilities that DJS uses are licensed by other publicagencies, DSG also recommends that DJS continually monitor the practices of all itsprivate residential contractors to ensure that they are providing programming and careconsistent with industry best practices. (In Chapter 8, see “Overview of the Continuum ofCare and Survey of Best Practices.”)

11. In addition to CD, CD/EM, and shelter care, there is a need to expand the detentionalternative options to include day treatment and evening reporting centers, and increaseprogramming slots. (In Chapter 5, see “Detention and Detention Alternatives.”)

12. It is recommended that, to carry out the promise of community justice supervision, moreresources need to be placed in the collaborating departments for dealing with returningaftercare populations in order to promote improved reintegration. (In Chapter 4, see“Focus Group Findings: Probation and Aftercare.”)

Pending Placement Population

13. DJS should create a pending placement curriculum that lasts up to 30 days and setquantifiable behavior goals for all youth in pending placement status. Youth whocomplete this curriculum (or who are achieving satisfactory progress at the time ofplacement if it occurs before 30 days) will benefit by reduced treatment needs orincreased status or privilege level upon arrival at their long-term placement. This can beaccomplished in two ways:

a. Establish the curriculum and Behavior Management Program in all DJS facilitiesthat hold pending placement youth.

b. Create one or more facilities that specialize in this programming for pendingplacement youths. (In Chapter 5, see “Detention Pending Placement.”)

xxxiv

14. It is recommended that those youth who pose less of a threat to public safety andare going to be placed in a nonresidential, community-based program, not be held indetention pending placement; rather they should be assigned to detentionalternatives. In order for this to occur, DJS must establish appropriate detentionalternatives in those areas currently lacking adequate capacity. (In Chapter 5, see“Detention Pending Placement.”)

15. DSG recommends DJS closely examine the individual cases of violation of placementand probation to ensure that every effort will be made in future placements toavoid a subsequent placement failure. (In Chapter 5, see “Detention PendingPlacement.”)

16. It is recommended that DJS ensure the timeliness of conducting staff placements bysubmitting complete referral packets within 48 hours of a placement, andsanctioning providers that fail to meet the 10-day response time for decisions onreferrals. (In Chapter 5, see “Detention Pending Placement.”)

17. DSG recommends that the Department resurface the design plans for the centralservice repository, which was a DJS database developed for the ResourceCoordinators to facilitate placement and track program capacity and availability bycounty. (In Chapter 5, see “Detention Pending Placement.”)

Objective Decision-Making

18. It is recommended that a Standards Development and Auditing Process be implementedas an “immediate enhancement” to the DJS service delivery system. (In Chapter 12, see“Utilize Objective Decision-Making.”)

19. DJS-operated facilities need to have a definitive rated capacity for each facility and eachprogram within the facility. (In Chapter 9, see “Residential Services Capacity.”)

20. To increase accuracy, it is recommended that DJS adopt one incident report that coversall exigencies in a consistent manner. This report should be used by State of Marylandper diem providers and contracted programs. It is recommended that the subcabinet adopta standard incident report in all youth serving facilities. (In Chapter 6, see “FacilityIncident Data.”)

21. It is recommended that the Risk and Needs Screening Form should be shortened toprovide only essential information needed to make referrals to services and decisionsabout whether the case needs to be sent to the State’s Attorney’s Office. The full formshould be used only for those youth whose cases have been forwarded to the State’sAttorney’s Office. (In Chapter 12, see “Utilize Objective Decision-Making.”)

22. It is recommended that the Detention RAI be evaluated and validated regionally. (InChapter 12, see “Utilize Objective Decision-Making.”)

xxxv

23. We recommend that DJS develop a new automated multidimensional facilityclassification instrument that captures more salient information about each State and perdiem facility, the population it serves, and the custody level used. (In Chapter 12, see“Utilize Objective Decision-Making.”)

24. Because drug usage may be underreported, consideration should be given toimplementing a more accurate and informative drug testing protocol for youth who areformally processed. This could lead to the identification of a larger pool eligible for drugcourt. (In Chapter 3, see “Description of the Intake Population Based on the Risk andNeeds Assessment Tool.”)

25. DSG recommends that reductions in ALOS be achieved through DJS partnering with thecourts to expedite the court processing and placement of detained youth. To encouragesuch partnership, DJS should also set standards for placement time for its case managers,placement managers, and county-level supervisors. (In Chapter 5, see “Detention andDetention Alternatives.”)

26. DSG recommends that the Department consolidate the information on youth treatmentneeds from the staffing analysis and maintain that information in an accessible, up-to-date tracking database which could be accessed by the Department’s ResourceCoordinators and the Office of Research and Planning. This would greatly facilitate theDepartment’s ability to track youth in the placement process, to identify their serviceneeds, to place youth in appropriate treatment settings, and to identify gaps in availabletreatment services.

Vendor Management

27. It is recommended that DJS strengthen its vendor management system, to ensure that allyouth are placed in appropriate facilities and all vendors comply with established contractguidelines. It is recommended that the procurement process be simplified, unified, andstreamlined to meet local needs in a more timely and appropriate manner. “No reject oreject” clauses, which are currently used in some contracts, should be a consistent featureof all contracts—and should be enforced. (In Chapter 6, see “The Role of Private PerDiem Providers,” and, in Chapter 12, see “Strengthen Vendor Management.”)

28. We further recommend that DJS should gradually reduce its reliance on expensive perdiem placements, and, to the extent practical, begin to increase the funds available toenhance and create community-based, nonresidential services. (In Chapter 6, see “TheRole of Private Per Diem Providers.”)

Statewide Programming

29. It is recommended that DJS and the State of Maryland create two State-operated centralfacilities—one facility (secure or nonsecure) to deal with developmentally delayed youthand one for “deep end” psychiatric/behavioral cases with delinquency issues requiringcommitment in a secure environment. These facilities—whether operated by theMaryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, DJS, or a private provider in a

xxxvi

State-owned facility—would remove the most intractable offenders from lengthy pendingplacements and the per diem pool. (In Chapter 5, see “Detention Pending Placement.”)

30. It is recommended that the Department review or examine the current female populationand determine what gender-specific programs, such as Baltimore’s FIT program, can beexpanded statewide. (In Chapter 4, see “Focus on Females.”)

31. We recommend that DJS develop direct supervision programming models inpredispositional and pending placement units and facilities to increase staff control andcreate a greater sense of safety among residents. (In Chapter 8, see “Overview of theContinuum of Care and Survey of Best Practices.”)

32. DSG recommends closer examination of the availability of suitable sex offendertreatment programs and the potential development of additional treatment slots to speedup the placement process for juvenile sex offenders. (In Chapter 5, see “DetentionPending Placement.”)

33. There is a critical need to expand the residential options available to the State’s specialneeds populations.

Recidivism

34. Many of the distinguishing characteristics of recidivists released from eight ofMaryland’s residential programs in the FY 1997 also surfaced in a 1977 birth cohortstudy. Across first contact, first probation, first detention, and first commitment, youthwith a greater likelihood of reoffending were younger, male, African-American, andresidents of Baltimore City. DSG recommends that these factors be carefully examinedwith the current juvenile justice population in terms of initial intake, subsequentrecidivism, and further penetration into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Keyquestions to be addressed include the following:

§ What developmentally appropriate programs are needed for the juvenile justicesystem to successfully intervene in the lives of younger offenders at greatest risk forserious and extended delinquent behavior.

§ What gender-specific approaches and resources are required to meet the needs ofmale and female offenders, and consequently reduce recidivism?

§ What special program approach can be developed and which assets within theAfrican-American community can be tapped as resources for minority youth toaddress differential penetration of these youth into the juvenile justice system?

§ What key issues need to be addressed and what community-based resources need tobe developed in Baltimore City to more fully serve this urban youth population andreduce the risk factors for initial onset of delinquent behavior as well as subsequentrecidivism? (In Chapter 7, see “Recidivism Rates Across the Broad Spectrum ofJuvenile Justice Services.”)

35. It is recommended that the Department develop a comprehensive, multi-year plan forbuilding the necessary data collection and analysis capacity to assess recidivism more

xxxvii

fully in order to determine the effectiveness of program strategies. Strategic planning isrequired to determine which programs are to be assessed, whether such programs meritcontinued monitoring and trend analysis over the course of multiple years, and what datasources should be used.

36. Research also is needed to better understand how an individual youth penetrates moredeeply into the juvenile justice system, and what program interventions appear tosuccessfully interrupt the developmental pathways to more habitual and seriousoffending. It is critical that adequate resources be made available to support the conductof meaningful and purposeful research. (In Chapter 7, see “Managing for Results, FY2000–FY 2005: Inconsistent Measurement of Recidivism Outcomes.”)

Disproportionate Minority Contact

37. It is recommended that the Department, through the Disproportionate MinorityContact Subcommittee of the State Advisory Board for Juvenile Services, placespecial emphasis on this issue. ASSIST has recently been updated to include theapproved U.S. Census Bureau race categories. DJS must also assess DMC at eachdecision point to determine the rate at which disproportionality is occurring sothat the appropriate policies and programs can be put into place. All new DMCpolicies and programs must also be consistent with the existing requirements of theMaryland State Code. (In Part 3, see “Special Report.”)

Hiring and Training

38. It is recommended that DJS perform new employee background checks and recordchecks with established timeframes for completion. This could accelerate the hiringprocess, as DJS would not have to rely on other agencies to maintain their hiring goals.(In Chapter 12, see “Establish Goals for Position Vacancy Management and Timelinessof Hiring.”)

39. DJS does not have its own training academy with a training curriculum specificallytailored to the needs of the direct care facility and field staff. It is recommended that theDepartment develop its own training academy with a comprehensive pre-service and in-service training curriculum. Decentralizing some of the training responsibilities andassigning them to the regions would be more efficient and allow for targeting to specificregional needs. Encouraging employees to join professional organizations and assumeresponsibility for some of their own professional development is also a very effectivemeans of augmenting agency or State-sponsored training. (In Chapter 12, see“Regionalize and Tailor Training When Possible.”)

40. It is recommended that a comprehensive inventory of available resources on a localityand area-wide basis be undertaken and produced by DJS, and that training be conductedto acquaint all staff from DJS and other interested child-serving agencies with thisinventory.

xxxviii

Strategic Planning

41. The Forecasting Committee should routinely generate and use population forecasts. Evennominal forecasting efforts may produce considerable improvements in the efficiency andeffectiveness of juvenile justice planning. The most important improvement an agencycan make in its forecasting process is not to increase its statistical sophistication, but toincrease the number and diversity of key stakeholders involved directly in forecasting. (InChapter 10, see “Forecasting Results.”)

42. It is recommended that the DJS Strategic Plan and Management for Results reports becombined into one document and that this document serves as the DJS Strategic Plan.This may require an amendment to Article 83C to change the Strategic Plan due datefrom calendar year to fiscal year. (In Chapter 11, see “Major Themes of the StrategicPlan Assessment.”)

CONCLUSIONS

The Maryland Department of Juvenile Services has reached a crossroads. The Departmentrecognizes that it must create stronger community programs in a manner that establishes acommunity partnership with DJS that leads to joint ownership of the difficult problems facingyoung offenders. DJS has reorganized many times over the preceding decades but still maintainsa large centralized administrative structure that has not been able to create lasting changes. Onestep forward has continually led to one step back. There must be a commitment to changefundamentally the way that the organization is managed and operated. The proposedregionalization plan can only work if competent and dedicated regional staff is given theresources and authority in those regions to develop a system that meets the needs of theircommunities in partnership with local jurisdictions. Urban, rural and suburban environmentshave very divergent needs. One size will not fit all. The role of the central office must change.The central office must convey to the regional staff the energy, commitment, and zeal for thisregional model. It must harness the creative powers of direct service staff, listen to staffmembers, and then get them the resources and systems they need to make their regions work.

The most successful juvenile justice service delivery models are a partnership between the stateand the communities it serves. Maryland is only one of a handful of states that uses the centralcommand and control model. Most have county-based operational models. Continuing to controlregional operations from a central location will continue to fail. DJS must recognize that genuinereform is only possible when the agency is rejuvenated from the bottom up. Regions should begiven the tools to operate successfully, but monitored and held to their strategic plans, andforgiven their mistakes as they repair them.