Criminal Justice Magazine
Spring 2000
Vol. 15, Issue 1
Back to the Future: Returning Treatment to Juvenile
Justice
By Stacey Gurian-Sherman
In the movie Back to the Future, Michael J. Fox plays a teenage boy
living with a sister and their parents in a dismal reality that is uninspiring
and antagonistic. Through some fluke, he travels back in time, corrects
the family's problem, and returns-"back to the future"-where
all traces of family dysfunction have been eradicated.
For a great many children in the juvenile justice system, especially
those with behavioral or mental health issues, the present reality is
dismal. Out of control caseloads and dockets make it difficult, if not
impossible, to retrieve crucial information, such as previous diagnoses,
and medical and special education records. When available, such information
can be taken out of context, misunderstood, or misapplied by probation
officers, judges, and lawyers. This problem can be compounded by inadequate
consultation and assessment by mental health and other professionals.
The result is that nationwide too many children are needlessly placed
in detention facilities and institutions, which do not provide needed
treatment and rehabilitative services. Moreover, these children are
supervised by untrained and underpaid staff who too often resort to
verbal and physical abuse. Yet these are the "lucky" ones
because state and federal laws increasingly are eviscerating the authority
of judges to keep children in juvenile court. Instead, mandates require
removal of children at younger and younger ages to the adult system
where specialized services for children are virtually nonexistent.
As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of America's juvenile court,
we should look to those early reformers who saw the potential of children.
The 1999 Children's Court Centennial Communications Project, Second
Chances/100 Years of the Children's Court: Giving Kids a Chance to Make
a Better Choice, noted,
[They] helped to redefine "childhood," creating a new vision
of childhood as a sacred period in human life, a period during which
children and adolescents required the nurturance and guidance of responsible
adults. . . . To these reformers, the last thing a civilized society
should do to its children was to process and punish them like adults
in the criminal justice system. . . . This meant that children should
receive individualized attention, under the watchful eyes of trained
and sensitive judges and probation officers, in a system premised on
rehabilitation rather than crippling punishments.
Legal and mental health professionals who affect juvenile justice policy
and practice must look "back to the future." They must remember
the reason juvenile courts exist, understand current problems, and affect
change by allocating resources for successful policies and programs
that benefit children and communities alike. The challenges of delivering
juvenile justice in Maryland mirror those across the country. Maryland's
situation and efforts are described with statistics, program highlights,
legislative proposals, and actual cases of children in detention facilities.
The overuse and misuse of detention
The Juvenile Justice Bulletin published statistics for 1995 indicating
that U.S. juvenile courts disposed of 1,714,300 delinquency cases, and
325,717 juvenile offenders were detained. Between 1986 and 1995, detention
increased 31 percent, with just over 133,500 children detained in 1995
on property offenses-a 7 percent increase in this category over 10 years.
During this same period, the number of drug offenses involving detention
increased 110 percent, and the number of "public order" cases
involving detention increased 22 percent.
Statistics cited by the Maryland's Juvenile Justice Coalition show
that 93 percent of juvenile offenders are arrested for nonviolent offenses.
The total youth population responsible for violent offenses is less
than 1 percent, and juvenile crime is dropping in the state. In 1997,
the overall juvenile crime rate decreased 2 percent and then increased
4 percent the following year.Yet, at a time when juvenile crime is going
down, admissions to Maryland juvenile detention facilities have increased
an alarming 60 percent in the past five years. Eighty percent of these
children are held on nonviolent or minor offenses that by themselves
should not merit incarceration.
Moreover, too many children are being detained in juvenile facilities
for needlessly prolonged periods of time. Maryland statutes proscribe
that adjudication must occur within 30 days of the filing of a petition,
and disposition must follow within 30 days after adjudication. This
necessarily limits pre-adjudication and predisposition detention. However,
the law is silent about the length of detention pending placement and
whether such postdispositional detention is lawful. Nonetheless, once
the children are detained and committed, there is little urgency to
place them.
Probation officers exacerbate the overcrowding problem by pulling the
trigger all too quickly on returning children to detention facilities.
Children who are doing well overall at home or in residential programs
are given probation violations for minor or trivial offenses. Indeed,
status offenses, such as missing curfew or truancy, that would not authorize
a new offense or detention are used to "lock up" children.
The great number of children who should not be detained mix shoulder
to shoulder with the smaller number who must be detained in what are
too often overcrowded and outdated facilities. The American Bar Association
publication America's Children at Risk specifically notes that "75
percent of confined juveniles live in facilities that violate at least
one critical physical design standard (e.g., capacity, sleeping areas,
size of living unit)" and that "one-third of all confined
juveniles sleep in windowless rooms." (America's Children at Risk,
a Report of the American Bar Association Presidential Working Group
on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children and Their Families, AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION (July 1993).) The report went on to target overcrowding
as a prevalent problem, emphasizing that it is "unhealthy and often
generates violence amongst residents and between residents and guards."
Maryland is experiencing the worst overcrowding of detention facilities
in its history. The 650-700 children in detention facilities on any
given day (7,000 admissions annually) do not receive adequate medical,
mental health, substance abuse, and educational services. Moreover,
children are increasingly subject to insufficient and untrained staff
whose lack of supervision, verbal abuse, and inappropriate discipline
create a persistent danger of violent or sexual assaults.
Example: "Maxwell B." is an African American youth who looked
younger than his 13 years when he was detained in January 1997. He had
never spent a day away from his mother who had a steady low-income job.
Maxwell was found fully clothed under bed covers with a fully clothed
three-year-old. He was detained despite his mother reporting the incident,
a medical examination showing no trauma to the child, and a plan of
home supervision. Pending his misdemeanor adjudication, Maxwell was
raped in a detention facility. Misdiagnosed and misunderstood, Maxwell
spent 20 of the next 24 months in detention or residential placements.
In March 1999, after advocates fought placement in a program for the
most serious sexual offenders, he was referred for psychiatric and psychological
assessment. The reports found there was no basis for treatment as a
sexual offender.
The stark realities of detention facilities traumatize children who
have great promise for rehabilitation. Those who enter detention facilities
without mental health issues are being diagnosed with depression, attachment
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other emotional disorders
as a direct result of their incarceration. In her 1998 study of children
with emotional disorders in Maryland juvenile justice facilities, Professor
Deborah Shelton found detained youth self-reported emotional discomfort
92 percent above adolescents in the general population. (SHELTON, DEBORAH,
PH.D., R.N., MARYLAND JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL, ESTIMATES OF
EMOTIONAL DISORDER IN DETAINED AND COMMITTED YOUTH IN THE MARYLAND JUVENILE
JUSTICE SYSTEM (1996).)
These problems come not only at a personal cost to children but also
at a considerable cost to Maryland taxpayers. The price tag for detention
is $40,000 per year per child, with the Department of Juvenile Justice
spending 70 percent of its budget on institutional and residential placement.
The failed fiscal investment of these facilities and placements is best
reflected by the dismal recidivism rates calculated by the department:
six out of 10 children are rearrested within one year, and eight out
of 10 are rearrested within three years.
Disproportionate detention of minority children
Detention should be based on objective factors, i.e., whether the child
will return to court, is a danger to herself/himself or the community,
and has a willing parent to provide shelter. Regrettably, factors of
race, economics, and family make-up unwittingly affect detention and
disproportionately so against children of color.
In Maryland, although African Americans makeup only 17 percent of the
youth population, they account for 39 percent of arrests and a staggering
64 percent of the over 7,000 annual admissions to state detention facilities.
Indeed, 81 percent of the youth in the state's largest juvenile detention
institution, the Cheltenham Youth Facility, are African American. Founded
in 1872 as the racially segregated "Private House of Reformation
for Colored Boys," Cheltenham remains an unfortunate legacy of
what should be days gone by.
Studies of poverty such as Shelton's clearly have shown that a turbulent
home life and neighborhood have an impact on the physical and mental
development of youth. School-age children with behavior and emotional
problems become the youth who commit delinquent acts. Estimates for
1995 from the Maryland 1999 Kids Count Factbook published by the Annie
E. Casey Foundation indicate that 171,746 Maryland children live in
poverty, and "African-American children are nearly four times more
likely to live in poverty than white children." One in five Maryland
children living in poverty are from a single-parent family, and 40 percent
of children under five years old in female-headed households live in
poverty.
The effects of poverty cannot be ignored. Children living in poverty,
especially those doing so year after year, are more subject to "abuse
and neglect, problems in school . . . lead poisoning and developmental
delays associated with pre- and post-natal malnutrition." This
can lead to "learning disorders, attention problems, low self-esteem,
long-term health and mental health problems and even violent behavior."
In turn, this can result in "elevated school dropout rates, teen
pregnancy and unemployment," as well as ". . . poor school
performance, including falling behind one or more grade levels, and
absence from school."
Because there are so many more children of color in poverty, it should
come as no surprise that these children are more likely to enter the
juvenile justice system. Nonetheless, race, economics, and family make
up are not de facto evidence that a particular child has incapable parents,
is a danger to commit violence, or will fail to return to court. Yet
according to a 1999 article by Todd Richissin in the Baltimore Sun,
"nationally and in Maryland, it has long been a pattern for justice
officials to push more cases involving minority delinquents into court
while dismissing those against white teens."
Poverty and its effects may provide an understanding of the type of
intervention and services needed for a child or family, but these factors
alone should not be substituted for the strict legal factors needed
to justify detention. "Family values" is not just a middle-class
virtue. Although low-income children of color may be subject to more
risks, many have nurturing and capable parents and guardians. The presumption
that they come from dysfunctional families, schools, or communities
is a paternalistic misperception. Yet the belief that the state can
better parent these "troubled" children unfortunately is all
too prevalent and causes harsher consequences for children of color.
In a significant study appearing in the American Sociological Review,
Professor George Bridges of the University of Washington, and Sara Steen,
a UW doctoral graduate and now assistant professor of sociology at Vanderbilt
University, concluded that juvenile probation officers consistently
portray African American and white offenders differently. African American
youth were situated similarly in the study to white youth in age, crimes
charged, and criminal history. Bridges and Steen reviewed reports by
probation officers prior to sentencing that included facts and perceptions
about the offenders, their families, and life circumstances. Probation
officers depicted the crimes committed by African American youth as
being caused by deficiencies in their internal attributes and character,
such as disrespect for authority or the condoning of criminal behavior.
White youth, on the other hand, were portrayed as victims of negative
environmental factors, such as internal family conflict or association
with delinquent peers.
This is crucial because internal attributes, or character flaws, are
seen as making a youth less amenable to treatment and rehabilitation.
Relying on the probation officer reports, the court tended to punish
African American youth more harshly. Bridges and Steen found that these
youths were more likely to be detained, charged with a criminal offense,
tried, and committed to confined institutions or programs. Researchers
caution that probation officers genuinely care for all children and
are not acting out of racial hatred, but, rather, complex prejudicial
norms. Nonetheless, the disparity in treatment found in the study is
disturbing in light of a 1978 Washington law limiting the criteria that
can be used in juvenile sentences to prior offenses, the severity of
the crime, and age of the offender.
These subtle and complex racial misperceptions play themselves out
in the delivery of juvenile justice in Maryland. Statistics on disproportionate
representation from the Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice show
that in 1995 white males and African American males had virtually identical
numbers of referrals to the department. However, once formal proceedings
were initiated, the disparity between these two populations became marked.
Although more than 65 percent of white males receive department action
not requiring a court referral, less than 50 percent of African Americans
had similar informal action. Indeed, 52 percent of the black males were
involved in court proceedings compared to 33 percent of the while males.
An alarming 66 percent of the black males were detained as compared
to 24 percent for white males.
Example: "Germaine S." is an African American Baltimore City
youth who was arrested for burglary charges in August 1998. A court-ordered
psychiatric report found diagnoses that included oppositional defiant
disorder, learning disorder, and estimated borderline intellectual functioning.
Court-ordered psychological and psychiatric reports recommended that
the youth be returned home with a rigorous supervised program of services.
The department's caseworker opposed these recommendations, and the court
committed this youth. He waited two months before being placed in a
two-month impact program. Despite successfully completing the program,
he remained there for six more months until August 1999.
Detention pending placement
The Germaine S. case illustrates not only the existence of bias, but
also how committed children still are subject to detention, often for
prolonged periods of time. There is no maximum period of time a child
must wait for placement, and yet sitting without benefit of services
directly contravenes court orders for treatment. As one author wrote
in 1979 in the American Bar Association's Juvenile Justice Standards,
The curse of juvenile courts has always been their lack of appropriate
disposition resources for the variety of problem children they handle.
The availability of detention facilities for holding juveniles indefinitely
in lieu of a proper final placement thus has proved a convenient device
for avoiding reform. . . . After detention of (at most) a few weeks,
release or transfer to a permanent placement should be mandatory. If
a juvenile justice system in fact has no resources to treat or rehabilitate,
the dilemma ought to be faced in open court.
Although one could not be faulted for believing this to be a contemporary
statement, it actually was included as commentary to Juvenile Justice
Standards from a 1976 article by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patricia
Wald. The problem of "warehousing" children for unreasonably
long periods has not abated since this article was written 23 years
ago.
In Maryland, the courts in most jurisdictions rarely intervene to issue
a specific order for community-based treatment with home supervision
once a commitment order is issued. In the rare instances where the court
exerts this authority, the department simply can ignore the order. Without
statutory authority for automatic court review, these children may sit
for months waiting for placement. This particularly affects children
with behavioral issues and mental health diagnoses.
Example: "Antonio L." is an African American youth who was
at a youth center when he went on a self-imposed hunger strike. Exasperated
staff classified his behavior as a suicide attempt and sent him to the
Crownsville Mental Hospital. He was evaluated for one day, and professionals
determined once again that Antonio had a conduct disorder problem, not
a mental health issue. They recommended that he be returned to the youth
center. Instead, the department sent Antonio to a detention facility,
where he sat for more than four months.
Example: "Miguel N." was diagnosed with bipolar disorder
and a special education level VI. He has been detained for 80 days after
failing to return to his program. During this period, Miguel only has
been referred to placements that specialize in behavior modification,
but given his mental health diagnosis he will not be admitted to these
programs.
Impact on children with mental health issues
According to Shelton's study, it is estimated that, nationwide, between
60 and 70 percent of youth in juvenile correctional facilities suffer
from emotional disorders, including attention problems, anxiety, and
depression. Shelton found that 53 percent of the Maryland youth in her
study group had been classified for at least one AXIS I diagnosis by
the Diagnostic Interview Survey for Children (DISC), and almost 19 percent
were diagnosed with an AXIS II diagnosis (learning and personality disorders).
Seventy-four percent of these classified youths had a dual diagnosis,
and 58 percent were experiencing anxiety symptoms, feelings of apprehension,
or tension caused by the anticipation of an imagined threat. High rates
of anxiety may indicate post-traumatic stress disorder, especially given
the 53 percent of youth who have experienced abuse and the 67 percent
who had exposure to family, community, or personal violence.
Especially for low-income children, there is an alarming deficiency
of services to identify and treat children before they enter the juvenile
justice system.
The fact that youth with mental illness are being incarcerated at all
has been raising serious concerns about the failure of community services
designed to prevent such outcomes . . . a lack of community-based, preventive
mental health services for youth allows many youth with emotional disorders
to go undetected and untreated to the point that they suffer from disruptive
behavioral symptoms and come to the attention of juvenile authorities
and family courts.
Once in the juvenile system, Shelton found that only 3 percent of youth
were directed to diversion or prevention programs, there was no difference
in placements based on gender or age, and, shockingly, the youngest
children between the ages of 12 and 14 received no diversion or prevention
programming. Moreover, incarcerated children suffer from the endless
bureaucratic disagreement about which agency should fund needed treatment
and services. Maryland's Department of Juvenile Justice defends its
position not to offer intensive services, because detention is supposed
to be for a short time.
There is no mental health need that goes on hiatus while a child sits
for months in a detention facility. If the court orders specified services,
or if a long-term residential treatment center is justified because
of the need for therapy, medications, and professional treatment, then
those services must be provided.
Example: "Bertrand C.," who has a 56 full scale IQ, was last
schooled in a mental health institution. He entered the Cheltenham Youth
Facility in February 1999. He needs intensive mental health services
and assessment for medication, as well as an evaluation to determine
if he is competent to participate in the legal proceedings. Yet his
next court appearance was put off for three months, and he is receiving
no therapeutic services.
Example: "Abdulah M." is an African American youth who was
adjudicated on sexual offenses and labeled a sexual offender. He has
been at the Cheltenham Youth Facility for one year and is receiving
no psychological, psychiatric, or counseling services. He also is in
desperate need of special education services. However, residential staff
permit him to avoid classroom work in order to perform janitorial roles,
such as cleaning floors, bathrooms, and hallways. It is not surprising
that he is a staff favorite.
Probation officers and residential staff are not required to receive
behavioral or mental health training. The great majority do not understand
treatment modalities, which require an understanding that children who
are improving nonetheless will commit transgressions. They employ uniform
punishment instead of graduated sanctions. They also do not understand
the dangers of indiscriminately labeling children. For instance, "arsonist"
is applied equally without distinction to the child who prankishly lights
a piece of paper in a trash can as well as the child who carefully plans
the ignition of a mattress. Both children are now "difficult to
place" with a community-based service provider, group home, and
even a residential treatment center.
Children become known as "difficult to place" by virtue of
repeated violations, detentions, or indiscriminate classifications.
Prolonged detention then is excused by the difficulty in finding placement.
This situation worsens when children with mental health needs are sent
to inappropriate placements, such as youth centers. These juvenile boot
camps with their behavior modification approaches present an appealing
option for probation officers with overwhelming caseloads and insufficient
resources. In Maryland, a class graduating from a youth center results
in a readily available cluster of openings for probation officers under
pressure to quickly reduce caseloads. To the detriment of children,
those who should not be placed at youth centers fill those slots.
Example: "Reynaldo F." is an African American youth in whose
file the following notation appears:"He is 14 with emotional problems,
but refer to Victor Cullen Academy anyway." He is correctly identified
as having mental health needs. Nonetheless, the worker is intent on
sending Reynaldo to a 12- to 18-month behavior modification program.
Example: "Gerald Y." has been identified with substance abuse
and clinical depression issues and a level V special education designation.
Gerald must successfully complete a behavior modification program at
a youth center before he can be referred to a specialized substance
abuse program. If Gerald cannot successfully complete this program,
he may never receive needed counseling. Ironically, if he does successfully
complete the program, the department could send him home. In either
case, the result could be the same: no substance abuse treatment.
When placement fails for a youth, that failure becomes ammunition for
probation officers to justify a return to detention facilities for yet
another prolonged period of detention. The kids become "state grown,"
only able to manage their behavior while institutionalized and thoroughly
unequipped to return to a productive life in the community. In Maryland,
these children are released back to the community, where almost three
out of four will commit a new offense. Older juveniles are recommended
for waiver to adult court by the same probation officers who did not
have the expertise or wherewithal to provide appropriate placement.
Exasperated, they give up on these "failed" youth.
Example: The most recent evaluation of "Antoine M." diagnoses
depression, schizophrenia, and alcohol abuse. Currently 18 years old,
he has been in the system since he was 13. Except for one admission
over five years ago on a short-term emergency basis, he has never been
placed in a mental health or substance abuse treatment program. Most
recently, he was placed in a high-impact behavior modification program.
Antoine has never done exceptionally well, but it is no surprise. Neither
is the case manager's statement to Antoine: he just wants him off his
caseload.
Again, the problem is more acute for children of color. In 1995, Maryland
Department of Juvenile Justice statistics show a vast disparity between
the 79 percent of black males in secure commitments compared to 19 percent
of white males. As the Richissin article in the Baltimore Sun explained,
the issue, however, is whether these commitments are meeting the needs
of youth:
Some of Maryland's severely mentally ill delinquents receive minimal
psychological help and instead are locked in state training schools,
or juvenile jails, and fed tranquilizers and other psychotropic drugs.
At the same time, other teens-with similar offenses, criminal histories
and mental problems-are placed in residential centers that specialize
in treating mental illnesses. Which juveniles get treatment and which
go to jail correlates highly with their race.
The article continues, reporting that in 1998 roughly the same number
of white youth (120) were committed to treatment facilities as African
American youth (132), yet 223 white youth "were jailed" compared
to the far higher 672 African American youth "locked away with
no treatment." The diagnoses of African American youth in detention
facilities or boot camps include "psychosis, schizophrenia, major
depression, sexual compulsion, and post-traumatic stress disorder. A
number of them have attempted suicide and remain suicide risks."
The cases of a 16-year-old African American youth and a 15-year-old
white youth illustrate the grave problem. Both were charged with robbery
and assault and battery. They both have been diagnosed with conduct
disorder, impulse-control disorder, and clinical depression and as suicide
risks:
The white juvenile's sentence: help at the Woodbourne Center, a residential
treatment facility. . . . The black juvenile's sentence: jail . . .
. "They told me it'd be good because he'd go on medication there,"
says the father of the black juvenile. . . . "I said, 'He needs
counseling and prayer and God, not a bunch of these mind-altering drugs.'
But they said he's trouble."
Recall the Bridges and Steen study, which found that white children's
delinquency was attributed to external environmental factors and treated
less harshly. African American youth whose delinquency was attributed
to internal attributes were punished. They, too, were considered "trouble."
Although it is true that African American youth with serious mental
health needs are not receiving adequate treatment, it also is important
to recognize the great number of African American youth who are overdiagnosed.
Misguided character flaws attributed to African American youth lead
to inappropriate labels by caseworkers who do not understand specialized
designations, such as those used in special education. The behavior
problems explain the alleged need for detention, while the labels justify
commitment at the back end, according to statistics on disproportionate
representation from the Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice:
African American male youth were overrepresented at each decision point
in the Maryland juvenile justice system. Their intake referral rate
was 2 times more than their rate of representation in the State population.
At the secure commitment point, i.e., "deep end" of the system,
African American male youth representation was 4.23 times more than
their rate of representation in the state population. . . . At intake,
the representation of white males was equal to their population. After
intake, white males appeared to be screened out of the juvenile justice
system. Their index decreased from 1.13 at intake to 0.59 at the secure
commitment point.
Mental health screening and accessible services
Given the extensive problems that exist in detention facilities, it
is not beneficial for them to become primary sources of treatment. Screening
of children who do not need to be detained would divert children out
of the juvenile justice system. This benefits not only these children,
but also those who must be detained. A reduced population enables the
reallocation of staff and funding to provide short-term intervention
and preparation of appropriate aftercare services.
Detention should be based on a thorough risk assessment, which includes
appropriate consideration of a child's mental health, behavioral, and
substance abuse needs. Shelton specifically recommended the implementation
of "a culturally sensitive mental health assessment instrument
that can be used by lay-professionals (i.e. corrections staff) and mandate
its use across the system." A national survey released by the National
Mental Health Association included Shelton's findings. That survey of
11 states showed that psychological services for delinquent juveniles
were dramatically deficient. Senator Paul Wellstone, (D-Minn.) is using
these results to propose broad federal legislation to treat delinquents
for psychological and substance abuse problems.
In Maryland, legislation enacted and signed into law in May 1999 mandated
a mental health and substance abuse screening process. The legislation
requires a juvenile justice intake officer to discuss with a child and
the parent or guardian information regarding a referral for a mental
health and substance abuse screening. It also requires the intake officer
to document whether the parent or guardian of the child made an appointment
for a screening. Advocates and defense lawyers have noted their concern
that the legislation may have the unintended effect of "widening
the net" by having courts detain youth who come back with a positive
mental health or substance abuse assessment or fail to follow through
with the screening. There will be close monitoring of the regulations
by the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Mental Health
and Hygiene to ensure the intended results: decreased detention and
expedited delivery of needed services for children in need.
Many states currently are engaged in developing risk assessment tools
and alternatives to detention in order to reduce detention populations
and pinpoint needed services. A cautionary note: Although some jurisdictions
have reduced their overall detention population, only one jurisdiction,
Multnomah County, Oregon, has reduced the disparity of detention between
white youth and youth of color.
Remedy: alternatives to detention Too many children are detained who
can and should be under home supervision, including those with emotional
and behavioral problems and mental health diagnoses. Even when detention
is warranted at the time of a child's intake, continued detention must
be reviewed. A parent's initial unwillingness to have a child returned
may be predicated on a belief that giving the child "a taste of
jail" is beneficial or that the detention facility will provide
needed mental health treatment. Such beliefs are common but unfounded.
The need for detention must be reviewed at the detention hearing, adjudication,
and disposition, with the child's lawyer taking a vigorous role in presenting
evidence. A parent may be willing for the child to return or factors
initially justifying detention can be mitigated by wraparound services
and supervision. Children who should not be placed in detention nonetheless
may need services. America's Children at Risk called on Congress and
state legislatures to provide increased funding for successful alternatives
to detention and programs that treat as well as rehabilitate youth.
Shelton specified the need for individualized services by targeting
"sub-populations," such as young offenders or female offenders,
as well as the need for a "case management" model to replace
the current "probation officer" model. In January 1998, the
Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) inaugurated such a program
in Baltimore City, Maryland, through a unique combination of support
from the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP), Maryland's Title V Delinquency Prevention Grant,
and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Maryland Case Management Advocacy
Project provided wraparound services for children and their families,
including access to a licensed social worker, counseling and treatment,
and daily visits by case advocates. The success of this program in its
first year was astounding. Of 135 children accepted into the program
between the ages of 12 and 21, many labeled as the most difficult cases,
only 12 children were rearrested. These results were achieved at a yearly
cost of $11,000, an almost 75 percent decrease of the $40,000 cost for
detention. CJCJ's Baltimore City program no longer exists. The Department
of Juvenile Justice awarded its contract to a service provider that
submitted a lower bid. "You get what you pay for" aptly applies
to this replacement program, which is fraught with problems, including
the unavailability of a licensed social worker. Many lawyers have refused
to refer clients to the program. However, another CJCJ program does
operate across the state borders in Washington, D.C., but is not available
to Maryland residents. The Oakhill Youth Advocacy Project is a case
management and advocacy project that designs and implements individual
case planning prior to adjudication. CJCJ case managers implement the
case plan through multilevels of monitoring and supervision. This not
only delivers services for youth but also provides public safety through
ensuring the youth's court appearances and comprehensive home monitoring.
Youths are not rejected solely on the basis of the alleged offense.
Once referred, they are assessed for acceptance based on such factors
as current living arrangements, needed support services, and past behavior.
Accepted youths have a complete community treatment plan immediately
developed. The Detention Diversion Advocacy Project (DDAP) run by CJCJ
in San Francisco, California, again provides advocacy and case management
for those youth likely to be detained pending their adjudication. DDAP
case managers prepare a release plan that includes a list of appropriate
community services emphasizing maintaining the youths at home. If the
home is not a viable option, project staff will identify and secure
a suitable alternative. DDAP provides frequent supervision to the youth
as well as comprehensive support to the entire family. Services are
"field-oriented" and require the case manager to have daily
contact with the youth, family, and significant others, including a
minimum of three in-person meetings a week. Additional services are
provided to the youth, parents, and guardians in areas such as securing
employment, day care, drug treatment services, and income support.
Remedy: safe and full-service detention facilities
For children who must be detained in state-run or contracted facilities,
there must be a guarantee of facilities that are safe, healthy, and
well run. To achieve this objective, America's Children at Risk specifically
recommended the development of criteria for detention and encouraged
its "use by courts, prosecutors and other professionals involved
in the juvenile justice system." Standards should be considered
as a critical tool for bringing about reforms.
During the 1999 legislation session, the Maryland State Assembly passed
a bill requiring the Department of Juvenile Justice to present a report
for the development of standards for juvenile detention facilities based
on the Institute of Judicial Administration and American Bar Association
Juvenile Justice Standards. The legislation required standards that
would include policies favoring nonsecure detention alternatives to
allow for the least restrictive interim status, a requirement for educational,
health, mental health, and substance abuse services, and a model for
independent monitoring of the department's implementation of the standards.
Former Department of Juvenile Justice Deputy Secretary Jack Nadol made
this report his top priority, and, working with members of Maryland's
Juvenile Justice Coalition, including the author, and top Department
of Juvenile Justice administrators, produced the Proposed Maryland Standards
for Juvenile Justice (final draft, November 12, 1999). These standards
promulgate a comprehensive and holistic approach to running detention
facilities, including the design and programming of facilities, administration,
personnel training, code of conduct, educational and recreational programming,
alternatives to secure detention, appropriate use of isolation and room
confinement, and a monitoring and disciplinary system.
To provide for oversight independent of the Department of Juvenile
Justice and ensure implementation of appropriate policies and practices,
the Maryland State House in the 2000 legislature will consider legislation
to implement an independent statewide commission on juvenile justice.
The commission would oversee advocacy boards and independent monitors
to provide an independent means for on-site inspections, addressing
grievances, and recommending training, rules, and legislation to the
department, governor, and state assembly.
For children with mental health needs, there should be not only an
increase in the availability of mental health clinical services within
the Maryland juvenile justice system but also, as Shelton notes:
· Ongoing training to all personnel so that they become familiar
with diagnoses, symptoms, special needs of emotionally ill youth and
basic intervention strategies useful for working with youth suffering
from mental disorders. Basic functioning of staff has the potential
to shift beyond the "correctional" nature of their current
scope of work to maximize the impact of the time for all youth who
are under the care of the juvenile system.
· . . . interagency collaboration for development of a seamless
system that would more efficiently meet the mental health needs of
youth. These youth are multi-system youth, and recidivism through
the systems can be addressed only through interagency collaboration.
Remedy: expedite pending placement
Hands-on case management best serves children not only when they enter
the system but also once they are committed and await placement. States
must be compelled to immediately implement commitment orders that call
for programs of assessment, counseling, or other needed services.
To this end, the Maryland Juvenile Justice Coalition is advocating
the passage of legislation to be introduced during the 2000 legislative
term in the Maryland State Assembly. The legislation would limit the
amount of time a juvenile spends in detention after commitment-yet prior
to placement-by requiring that the child be removed from detention within
15 days after disposition. A one-time extension of time up to 30 days
would be allowed. Passage of this legislation will force the Department
of Juvenile Justice to begin an earnest assessment and referral process
for placements prior to adjudication and disposition. Failure to find
a suitable placement will not mean the child is relieved from commitment
to the department. Rather, the child will be ordered removed from detention
to await pending placement at home, in a community-based program, or
in another suitable committed program.
Children who receive probation violations or do not successfully complete
a committed program and are placed in a detention facility similarly
would be covered by this proposed legislation and protected from languishing
without services ordered at disposition by the court.
When the first cases were called in the inaugural juvenile court 100
years ago, children did not have the advantages of modern medicine or
psychology. However, they did have the benefit of visionaries who preached
the idea of rehabilitation and had the fortitude to see it institutionalized
in the practice of law. It is now time to come "back to the future,"
bringing forth the principles of the past with the knowledge of today's
specialists in the legal, mental health, and medical fields.
Professions that affect the delivery of juvenile justice must be committed
to examining misguided assumptions and practices that too often deny
effective rehabilitation and treatment. The know-how exists to develop
individual rehabilitation plans and community treatment programs that
ensure a healthy future for youth, taxpayers, and communities. N
Stacey Gurian-Sherman is a lawyer and advocate specializing in public
interest law. She serves on the Steering Committee of Maryland's Juvenile
Justice coalition. She was former acting director of the ABA's Commission
on Homelessness and Poverty, and served on the Steering Committee on
the Unmet Legal Needs of Children. In 1998 she worked with former ABA
president Jerry Shestack as project director for the national conference
"In Pursuit . . . A Blueprint for Disability Law and Policy."
She welcomes comments at StaceyBen@aol.com.