THE SUPERVISION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN MARYLAND: POLICY AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE SERVICES WORKLOAD STUDY
Background and Context
In FY '90, the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) had a total appropriation of $90.3 million, with 1,573 authorized staff. Slightly over one-quarter of the appropriation went to probation and court services, while community and non-institutional residential services received about 40 percent. Institutional services accounted for another 26 percent, leaving eight percent for general administrative costs.
In early February, 1990, there were 8,447 youth under DJS supervision (exclusive of youth being held in detention). Of these youth, 251 were committed to the Hickey School (three percent), 902 were in other residential placements (11 percent), 5,742 were living at home on probation or aftercare/parole (68 percent), and 1,552 were on informal supervision (18 percent). Approximately 250 field service juvenile counselors had caseload responsibilities. What happens between DJS supervised youth and their juvenile counselors and does it make a difference in the lives of these youth?
In order to make such determinations, we first need to understand more clearly the frequency, duration and nature of contact between DJS youth and their assigned juvenile counselors. To that end, in September 1989, DJS (with partial funding from the Maryland Juvenile Justice Advisory Council) and The Abell Foundation contracted with the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies to conduct jointly with The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) a workload analysis of DJS' Field Services Division.
The Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies and NCCD's final project report on the workload study consists of two separate volumes (Altschuler and Wiebush, 1990; Quigley et al., 90 ). The study had two main purposes: 1) to document and examine the extent (frequency and duration) and nature of supervision and service DJS youth received from field staff, including the time spent on intake and court-ordered investigations, and 2) to develop a workload formula for staff deployment and budget development purposes.
This occasional paper addresses the major policy and practice implications of the study specifically for the supervision of youth. DJS has indicated that it has already begun taking steps to institute study recommendations and these steps should be closely monitored and assessed for progress.
It is important to note that even if DJS institutes a risk-based workload management system such as that recommended, additional work should be undertaken to determine whether such a system produces improved outcomes. Evidence from studies of other jurisdictions indicates that more contact does not insure improved outcomes. As important may be what actually takes place during a contact, how well a youth and counselor relate to one another, how rule infractions are handled, and the extent to which the range of needed services are provided. The question of whether, in Maryland, there is a relationship between the amount of time youth spend with their DJS juvenile counselors and outcomes requires information on these factors and outcomes over a 12-18 month time period. Such an outcome study constitutes the next logical step towards developing a more responsive and cost-effective juvenile services system in Maryland.
