Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:32 am
Time: 11:32 am
Results for juvenile justice systems (maryland)
3 results foundAuthor: Young, Douglas Title: Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Maryland Juvenile Justice System Summary: More than at any time in its past, Maryland is devoting resources to reducing racial and ethnic disparities in its juvenile justice system. Numerous statewide and locally targeted initiatives have been prompted in part by studies that have uncovered disparities at virtually all stages of the system, from juvenile arrest through disposition and placement. This report, which provides the first comprehensive look at the nature and extent of disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in Maryland, as well as initiatives aimed at reducing DMC, is one product of the state’s increased efforts. Unfortunately, the report repeats much the same message as earlier studies: DMC remains an entrenched problem in the state. Despite expanded efforts to reduce disparities, the state continues to struggle—and in some areas is falling further behind—in providing equal treatment of African American, Latino, and White youth involved in the juvenile justice system. But there is some good news: Certain DMC reduction programs do appear to be effective. And the research reported here represents a substantive advance in knowledge about DMC in Maryland. With results and recommendations in hand, state and local experts and practitioners have the beginnings of a road map for improving current efforts and targeting the additional resources that will surely be needed if the state is serious in its commitment to DMC reduction. Hopefully, the report will also help spur the sense of urgency and assiduous engagement and monitoring that must accompany these expanded efforts. The report and underlying research were prepared and conducted by the Institute for Governmental Service and Research at the University of Maryland, College Park, with funding from the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP). GOCCP staff, the statewide DMC coordinator, and members of the State Juvenile Council contributed valuable input to the report, and the Department of Juvenile Services commendably provided data that underlie much of the report. The report’s presentation and some of its terminology follows from constructs advanced by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), which makes states’ receipt of certain federal funds contingent on fulfilling DMC-related reporting and program mandates. Following the Introduction, the report’s sections (and this Executive Summary) roughly parallel OJJDP’s “DMC Cycle”—identification (of the extent of DMC at different stages in juvenile case processing), assessment (of factors that underlie and contribute to DMC), and program assessment (of the state’s current efforts to reduce DMC). Results from a statewide survey of juvenile justice stakeholders on DMC issues are also included in the full report and this summary. In all sections of the report and summary, statewide information is first presented, followed by available results from the state’s five largest jurisdictions (Baltimore City, and Baltimore, Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Anne Arundel Counties). Results and observations on other counties are presented when numbers are sufficiently large to appear stable and reliable. In the full report, key findings and recommendations are included in each of the chapters. In the summary, results from each of the three primary components of the DMC Cycle are vi UM – IGSR presented and then followed by a discussion of recommendations and priorities for immediate and ongoing DMC-related interventions and monitoring. Details: College Park, MD: Institute for Governmental Service and Research, University of Maryland, College Park, 2011. 164p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2012 at: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/documents/DMC-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/documents/DMC-report.pdf Shelf Number: 125459 Keywords: Juvenile Justice Systems (Maryland)Juvenile OffendersMinorities, JuvenilesRacial DiscriminationRacial Disparities |
Author: Youth Equality Alliance Title: Living in the Margins: A Report on the Challenges of LGBTQ Youth in Maryland Education, Foster Care, and Juvenile Justice Systems Summary: In recent years, Maryland's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer/questioning (LGBTQ), community has secured several new rights, including the right to marry and the right to be free from gender identity discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Yet, much work remains to be done in order to guarantee that all LGBTQ Marylanders are protected, safe, and equal - especially youth. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, an estimated 621,608 youth, ages 10 to 17, live in Maryland, as do 322,140 young adults, ages 18 to 21. Based on national studies, 5% to 10% of youth identify as LGBTQ. For Maryland, that means that between 47,000 and 95,000 youth identify as LGBTQ, not including the thousands who may be unsure about their sexual orientation or gender identity. This population faces unique challenges to their ability to lead healthy and productive lives. Formed in May 2013, the Youth Equality Alliance (YEA) is a statewide group of advocates and professionals from various services providers, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies that seeks to identify policy, regulatory, and best-practices solutions to problems faced by LGBTQ youth. The YEA's first report - this report - Living in the Margins, briefly outlines the current challenges facing LGBTQ youth as they navigate Maryland's education, foster care, and juvenile justice systems, and proposes specific and realistic recommendations for addressing these challenges. Details: Baltimore, MD: Youth Equality Alliance, FreeState Legal Project Cover, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://freestatelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/YEA-Report-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://freestatelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/YEA-Report-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 133135 Keywords: Bias-Motivated CrimesDiscrimination (Maryland)Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, Crime AgainstJuvenile Justice Systems (Maryland) |
Author: Betsinger, Sara Title: Doors to Detention: Statewide Detention Utilization Study Summary: Despite recent drops in juvenile crime in Maryland, the number of youth in secure detention has remained relatively constant. This study investigates the characteristics of youth detained, and the reasons for each detention during the first two months in 2013. Findings: - Just two regions of the State account for a majority of youth in detention. Although they account for only 41% of Maryland's youth population, Baltimore City and the Metro Region (encompassing Prince George's and Montgomery County) comprise 64% percent of detention placements and 60% of average detained population (ADP). - Detained youth in Maryland are overwhelmingly African American males. African American males represent just 31% of the general youth population, but account for 67% of detained youth. - A majority of youth detained in Maryland were under DJS supervision at the time of detention. Sixty-seven percent of youth in detention had already been court ordered to probation or committed supervision (i.e., aftercare). - Although historically around one-third of youth in detention facilities were detained awaiting a committed out of home placement ("Pending Placement" youth), this number has declined markedly in the last year. Various reforms, including Continuum of Care legislation passed in 2012 as well as the subsequent establishment of the Department's Central Review Committee, have begun to reduce the backlog of pending placement youth in detention. During the study period, just 14% of detained youth were pending placement. - A majority of youth detained in Maryland did not commit a violent felony offense. Although more than one-third (36%) of the pre-disposition ADP was comprised of youth whose most recent, most serious alleged offense was a crime of violence, 44% of the pre-disposition ADP consisted of youth who had committed a non-violent misdemeanor as their most serious recent alleged offense. - A new delinquent offense is frequently not the main reason for a detention placement. Detentions often result from a youth's failure to comply with program or supervision conditions, or from some other infraction unrelated to the original offense and not comprising a new offense. Such technical violations account for over 35% of detained youth. - Many youth are detained following a stay in an alternative to detention (ATD) program. Maryland has a robust community-based detention alternatives system, but many youth who were initially court-ordered or intake-authorized into these programs are ultimately detained following a violation of the programs rules or the court order. Infractions include curfew violations, absences without leave (AWOL), equipment tampering, or other actions not rising to the level of a new delinquent offense. Such ATD violations account for one in four youth detained - the largest door to detention in Maryland. A system of graduated sanctions is being developed to allow programs to manage violators without resorting to detention. - The Department's Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI) drives relatively few detention decisions. Because a majority of detentions do not stem from a new delinquent offense being referred to DJS Intake (and are instead the result of violations or other policies and practices), the practice of administering the DRAI almost exclusively at the point of Intake has not been effective in driving decisions for youth who enter detention through the "back doors." - Even in cases where a new delinquent complaint is referred to DJS Intake, the youth's assessed DRAI risk is frequently not the primary factor in the detention decision. Policy and discretionary overrides often trump detention recommendations based on assessed risk, so a youth who is classified as low risk and who has a less serious alleged offense may still be detained at intake if, for example: - There is an open writ or warrant; - A parent of guardian is unable to take custody of a youth; or - Certain regional policies (or "special decisions") mandate detention for certain offenses (e.g. auto theft) or situations (handgun use or possession). - Low risk youth account for a very small share of the average detained population. Even though the risk score is not the primary driver of detention in many cases, the study found that half of the average detained population was comprised of youth who were assessed by the DRAI as high risk, and just six percent of ADP was comprised of youth who were determined to be low risk. The remaining 44% of ADP was made up of medium risk offenders. Details: Baltimore: The Institute for Innovation & Implementation, 2013. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2014 at: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Statewide%20DUS%20-%206-27-13.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.djs.state.md.us/docs/Statewide%20DUS%20-%206-27-13.pdf Shelf Number: 133469 Keywords: Juvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Justice Systems (Maryland)Juvenile Offenders |