As a continuous process of system improvement, DJS has taken significant steps to sustain and enhance the results achieved through JDAI. DJS has improved data capacity and the routine use of data to inform management decisions about detention utilization; refined its DRAI to ensure fair, objective and risk-responsive detention admission decisions; and invested in the robust array of ATDs for Baltimore City. DJS has also built internal capacity and infrastructure to ensure that the processes, practices, and principles of JDAI are integral to the Department’s day-to-day operations. DJS’s Systems Reform Unit, comprised of a Director of Systems Reform, several local detention managers, and a team of case expediters, works directly with line staff across the Department to operationalize reforms.
Given these investments, CCLP is confident that DJS will continue to sustain the results of past and current strides in detention reform. However, this assessment highlighted three main barriers to diversion at this phase of the juvenile justice process in Baltimore City. First, many stakeholders reported that engagement among stakeholders has waned and the Baltimore City JDAI Oversight Committee has not met regularly for some time. Many expressed concern that if Baltimore City officials do not make an intentional effort to reconvene and refocus the work of this group over the next few months, then the collaborative process that is so essential to the success of JDAI will be irreparably damaged or lost. In order to advance Baltimore City’s detention reform work, this group will need to galvanize around new and more ambitious goals for reducing secure detention utilization, enhancing access to community-based alternatives, and improving outcomes for young people who come into contact with the justice system in Baltimore City.
With new administrative leadership on the juvenile court bench in Baltimore City, several officials noted plans to reconvene the JDAI Oversight Committee, which is encouraging. However, many also expressed concern about past levels of engagement from key partners, namely BPD, which reportedly had not been consistently represented on the JDAI Oversight Committee. In some cases, the BPD was absent from the collaborative table. In other cases, BPD designees to the JDAI Oversight Committee were not executive-level BPD staff with the authority to influence policy and practice within the Department. In either case, inadequate representation from law enforcement proved an ongoing barrier to the critically important detention reform work. As community and system stakeholders prepare to reconvene the JDAI Oversight Committee, there is an even greater level of concern about BPD’s participation in JDAI, particularly given the imminent changes in leadership at BPD and the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice. Officials are unsure what to expect from the new leadership in these key roles, which is a significant source of consternation for many.
Second, as identified in earlier sections of this report, stakeholder interviews and mapping sessions revealed a heavy overreliance by BPD on in-custody arrests and transports to the BCJJC. In the current practice, BPD officers routinely take young people who are appropriate for diversion at the law enforcement or DJS intake levels into custody and transport them to the BCJJC. In processing low-level cases in precisely the same manner as more serious cases, BPD exposes young people to the harmful effects of arrest, which may create more harm than good to the young person and the interests of public safety
The DJS’s annual Data Resource Guide indicates that “juvenile detention may be authorized by DJS intake officers on a temporary basis at the request of a law enforcement officer . . . .” The resource guide further depicts that only after being taken into custody and screened for diversion at the law enforcement level, DJS performs a screening for secure detention admission using the DRAI detention screen on a young person only after the police officer requests secure detention. However, CCLP was unable to confirm that youth were screened for detention only if detention was requested by law enforcement. Indeed, stakeholder interviews revealed that it is common practice for DJS intake to conduct the DRAI screening for all youth brought to the BCJJC by law enforcement, even youth who will eventually be diverted.
This is concerning for a number of reasons. Again, processing low-level cases in the manner that is appropriate for more serious cases can expose a young person to undue harm. In addition to the harms associated with arrest and transport, extensive and unnecessary processing once at the BCJJC exposes the young person to further detriment and keeps the young person separated from home, school, and community. Also, once DJS performs the RAI screen, the information gathered and score that is generated will remain a part of the young person’s juvenile justice history and may influence processing and case disposition should the young person come into contact with the justice system at a later time.
Finally, the DJS Data Resource Guide indicates that there is a clear procedural step between arrest and administering the RAI for detention admission, namely the police officer’s request for detention. If this is a step exercised by law enforcement agencies in other parts of Maryland and a clear expectation of DJS intake officers in other DJS regions, Baltimore’s stakeholders should be concerned about how these procedural differences might work to the disadvantage of young people in Baltimore City as compared to their peers in other parts of the state. To the extent that this step serves as a procedural safeguard between a young person and the doors of secure detention in other regions, it should also be available for the young people of Baltimore City. Additionally, operating according to a principle of presumptive diversion, conducting the DRAI should not be the default for all youth.
Third, stakeholders expressed concern about the availability of programming and skill-building opportunities for youth held in detention, particularly young people who are charged as adults who stay at the facility for long periods of time. As noted above, it is laudable that officials have made changes to realign open bed capacity at the BCJJC to more effectively serve youth charged as adults in the Circuit Court. This move has undoubtedly spared hundreds of Baltimore’s young people from the grave dangers to safety and well-being that young people face when they are incarcerated with adults, including high rates of physical assault, sexual abuse, isolation, and suicide.
There is no question that the BCJJC is the better place to hold young people charged as adults. However, for those youth who stay at the facility for many months and those who will face significant barriers to reentry once released, many stakeholders felt that more could be done in detention to equip those young people with new skills and tools that the can use when they return to the community. There are programs doing this in detention at the present time. For example, Baltimore Youth Arts works with young people in detention to provide mentorship and skill-building in artistic and creative expression while at the facility and upon a young person’s release.
However, almost all stakeholder interviewed on this topic felt that more could be done to make more productive use of young people’s time in detention, particularly those youth who are charged as adults. There do seem to be opportunities to introduce new and more structured and intentional skill-building programs focused on youth who spend longer lengths of time at the BCJJC. For example, the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center in Chicago, Illinois, has created a barbershop within its facility where young people work under the supervision of professional barbers and have the opportunity to learn their barber’s license while at the facility. Young people in other facilities also have opportunities to participate in other licensing and credentialing programs, such as ServSafe and OSHA 10-hour courses, that can provide helpful certifications to young people upon release when looking for employment opportunities.
Key Recommendations
1. Policy and Process
a. As recommended above, BPD should implement policy and protocols that minimize the unnecessary in-custody arrests and transport of young people to the BCJJC, such as a remote screening process, which would limit the number of young people who are transported to the BCJJC altogether and limit the number of youth who should be screened for detention.
b. BPD should consider implementing the Massachusetts Screening Tool for Law Enforcement (MASTLE): an objective, validated screening instrument that is designed to assist police officers in making the decisions identified above. The MASTLE can be accessed for implementation at no cost. Limited training and technical assistance from the tool’s developer, the National Youth Screening and Assessment Project, may also be available to support implementation.
c. DJS should consider amending its practice of screening all youth who appear at the BCJJC for detention admission using the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument, even youth who will ultimately be diverted prior to DJS referral through the BPD Diversion Program. This will limit young people’s exposure to the detrimental impact and collateral consequences associated with generating unnecessary DJS and court records.
d. BPD should develop a training and messaging strategy to increase officer knowledge and understanding of new policies and protocols for interacting with youth, the purpose of the juvenile court system, details of juvenile justice process, and the purpose of secure detention. Clear and consistent messaging for officers will help to mitigate the obdurate frustration that officers reportedly experience when they perceive that young people are not being held accountable by the system.
e. Conduct a case processing analysis of adult-charged youth in detention to identify why time spent in detention for these youth has doubled from 2014 to 2018 and develop policies and programs to address the causes of delays.
2. Programs and Conditions
a. The City should partner closely with DJS and the Baltimore JDAI Oversight Board to assess the continuum of Secure Detention Alternative established by DJS and the extent to which it meets existing needs.
b. The City and its appropriate offices and agencies should partner with DJS to identify additional programs for youth in detention, in particular youth charged as adults, that can help young people build skills and connections that will help them succeed following release and return to their communities.
c. To the extent that there are gaps in the existing Secure Detention Alternatives Continuum, the City and DJS should partner closely to identify resources to enhance the Alternative Continuum. As a resource, stakeholders should consult the results of the Youth Service Provider Survey conducted as part of this assessment.
3. Community Engagement and Partnerships
a. Officials should work collaboratively to reconvene the Baltimore City JDAI Oversight group, ensuring strengthened and sustained leadership and executive-level participation from the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice and BPD.
The System Reform Unit is responsible for statewide and local strategic coordination of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). The unit is also responsible for identifying system reform opportunities to reduce racial and ethnic disparities that may exist in agency policies and practices, and collaborate with local partners to reduce such disparities where applicable.
28.02.2019