NCJ Number
133079
Date Published
1991
Length
29 pages
Annotation
This study focused on specific case-related activities of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) and assessed policy and practice implications of the department's workload.
Abstract
As of February 1990, 8,447 youth were under DJS supervision. Of these youth, 251 were committed to the Hickey School (3 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). About 250 field service juvenile counselors had caseload responsibilities. Only a handful of youth in the study saw their juvenile counselors more than once a week. Given this low level of contact, counselors could hardly be expected to provide even minimally adequate supervision or surveillance, let alone meaningful service provision. Probation and aftercare youth potentially more at risk for reoffending were no more likely to be seen by their counselors than youth at low risk. Out-of-home placed youth were more likely to receive juvenile counselor attention than youth living at home. The DJS did not use a standardized assessment and classification system to determine a youth's risk potential and did not establish supervision standards on the minimum number of contact juvenile counselors should have with youth. Face-to-face contact between parents and counselors was considerably lower than that for youth. Travel, waiting, and paperwork consumed between 38 and 69 percent of all time juvenile counselors spent on cases. Recommendations pertain to the need for supervision standards, a definition of juvenile counselor roles and expectations, reliable information on organizational and staff performance, minimizing unnecessary or duplicative paperwork, and reviewing policies on residential placement. 7 tables