V00A - Department of Juvenile Justice by winstongamso


                                      Department of Juvenile Justice

Operating Budget Data
                                                  ($ in Thousands)

                                       FY 00       FY 01         FY 02                     % Change
                                       Actual     Working      Allowance      Change       Prior Year

    General Fund                       $129,933     $143,763       $162,949      $19,186        13.3%
    Special Fund                            712          131            142           11          8.4%
    Federal Fund                         16,677       15,059         14,698        (362)        (2.4%)
    Reimbursable Fund                     2,529        3,042          2,842        (200)        (6.6%)
    Total Funds                        $149,851     $161,996       $180,631      $18,635        11.5%

!        The allowance does not include almost $1.4 million for ongoing programming. This funding was
         inadvertently omitted from the allowance.

!        Major initiatives include $3.5 million for community-based diversion and the addition of mental
         health/substance abuse workers to aftercare programming.

Personnel Data
                                                  FY 00             FY 01             FY 02
                                                  Actual           Working          Allowance            Change

    Regular Positions                               1,317.50          1,612.50         2,127.70             515.20
    Contractual FTEs                                  437.55            292.25           135.25           (157.00)
    Total Personnel                                 1,755.05          1,904.75         2,262.95             358.20

    Vacancy Data: Regular

    Budgeted Turnover: FY 02                         168.02            10.42%
    Positions Vacant as of 12/31/00                  227.95            14.14%

!        The fiscal 2002 allowance increases the regular workforce by almost one-third.

!        Major additions include the third and final installment of a contractual conversion plan (155 full-time
         equivalents [FTEs]) as well as the staffing for three new secure detention facilities: Baltimore City
         Juvenile Justice Center; Western Maryland detention center; and the Lower Eastern Shore detention

!        The allowance is built on a turnover rate of 10.42%. This is inappropriately high.
    Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.
    For further information contact: Simon G. Powell                                       Phone: (410) 946-5530
                                 VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

Analysis in Brief

The Restructuring of the Department of Juvenile Justice: Where Are We?: It has been a little over
a year since the top management of the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) was ousted. An assessment
of the restructuring of the department will be made.

Cheltenham: Cheltenham is the State's largest secure detention facility and the most widely criticized.
Advocacy groups have called for its closure. The Secretary of DJJ has indicated that significant changes
must be made on the Cheltenham site. At a time when additional secure detention capacity is about to
open, what is the future for Cheltenham?

Pending Placement Report: The April 2000 Joint Chairmen's Report asked for an up-to-date pending
placement report. That report was recently submitted to the budget committees.

Victor Cullen: The Office of Professional Responsibility and Accountability recently completed an audit
of operations at Victor Cullen.

Several Fiscal 2001 Budget Amendments Await Legislative Review: In reviewing fiscal 2000 close-out
and fiscal 2001 year-to-date budget actions, the Department of Legislative Services found that four budget
amendments were added to the fiscal 2001 working appropriation numbers in the budget documents
before they have been reviewed by the legislature.

Recommended Actions

 1.    Add budget bill language restricting $4,020,000 in general funds to be used to fund items omitted
       from the allowance and to reduce budgeted turnover.
 2.    Adopt narrative requesting the Department of Juvenile Justice to submit an update on its
       restructuring efforts.
 3.    Add budget bill language requiring that any grant funded through
       the community diversion initiative have an independent evaluation
       component and providing a funding source for that evaluation.

                               Department of Juvenile Justice

Operating Budget Analysis
Program Description

    Following the upheaval at the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) at the end of 1999, a new
management team was assembled first on an interim, and then a regular basis. The new management team
restructured DJJ and formalized that restructuring in September 2000, and the budget is based around this
new structure. Exhibit 1 details the new organizational structure.

    Functionally, the department is now broken down into four major sections:

!   Office of the Secretary which includes communications, budget and finance, research, the equal
    employment office, and independent monitors;

!   Departmental Support which includes human resources, capital planning, property management,
    procurement, and risk management;

!   Professional Responsibility and Accountability which includes child advocacy, audits, professional
    standards, and quality assurance; and

!   Restorative Justice Operations which includes within it:

    •   Admissions, including intake and assessment as well as related services;

    •   Residential Services, including private and State residential facilities as well as related services;

    •   Community Justice Supervision, including pre-court supervision, probation, aftercare, and
        community detention utilizing a five area configuration (Western Maryland, Frederick and
        Montgomery counties, Northern Maryland, Baltimore City, Southern Maryland, and the Eastern

Fiscal 2001 Deficiency: There Isn't One, but There Could Be a Negative Deficiency

    In its discussion with DJJ about the fiscal 2002 allowance, it became clear to the Department of
Legislative Services (DLS) that funds budgeted for fiscal 2001 will not be spent according to their original
purpose. Exhibit 2 identifies over $1.5 million in fiscal 2001 funding that is likely to be surplus to original
requirements. Should there be a supplemental appropriation, DLS would argue that these funds could be
cut from DJJ's fiscal 2001 budget through a negative deficiency, a $1.5 million spending affordability
reduction. However, this would require action by the Executive.

                                                        Exhibit 1
                                             Department of Juvenile Justice
                                              Organizational Structure

                                                                              VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

    Source: Department of Juvenile Justice
                                    VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

                                                 Exhibit 2

                                        Identified DJJ "Surpluses"

 Fiscal 2001 "Surpluses"
 Unallocated aftercare funds                                                                    $580,000
 Savage youth camp (closed until April 2001)                                                     350,000
 Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center not opening in fiscal 2001                               215,000
 Unspent one-time consulting grants                                                              151,000
 Underutilized contractual conversion funds based on fiscal 2001 legislative budget actions      150,000
 Hurlock contract cancelled January 2001                                                         100,000
 Total                                                                                        $1,546,000

Source: Department of Legislative Services

Governor’s Proposed Budget

    Exhibit 3 provides budget detail for fiscal 2000 to 2002 based around DJJ's new administrative
structure. The exhibit shows that the Governor's fiscal 2002 allowance for DJJ is just over $180 million,
an $18.6 million increase, or 11.5%, over the fiscal 2001 working appropriation. As is also evident from
Exhibit 3, the bulk of the total dollars in DJJ fall under Restorative Justice Operations (90%) as does all
of the fiscal 2002 funding increase.

    Exhibit 4 shows the fiscal 2002 allowance by function and also breaks out the Restorative Justice
Operations into its three component parts: Residential Services, Admissions, and Community Justice
Supervision. As shown in Exhibit 4, community justice supervision is the largest function within
restorative justice operations (52%), and comprises essentially what used to be Field Services, including
the DJJ regional field offices. Residential Services makes up 42% of restorative justice operations. This
is predominantly (88%) State-run facilities and private residential placements. Admissions makes up the
remaining 6% of restorative justice operations.

   Exhibit 5 provides details of the specific changes in the proposed allowance from the working

                                   VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

                                                 Exhibit 3

                                  Department of Juvenile Justice
                                                Budget Data
                                         Fiscal 2000 through 2002
                                             ($ in Thousands)

                                           Actual         Appn.      Allow.      $ Change     % Change
                                           FY 00          FY 01      FY 02       FY 01 - 02   FY 01 - 02
Office of the Secretary                      $3,683        $4,504      $4,105        ($399)       -8.9%

Departmental Support                         13,385        12,807      12,309         (498)       -3.9%

Professional Responsibility                   1,155         2,164       2,080          (84)       -3.9%

Restorative Justice Operations              131,627       142,523     162,138       19,615        13.8%
Residential Services

Residential Services (HQ)                     6,497         7,896        8,412         516         6.5%
Residential Contracts                        29,172        30,434      32,013         1,579        5.2%
Facilities                                   18,309        19,066      27,810         8,744       45.9%

Admissions                                    8,691        10,051      10,350          299         3.0%
Community Justice Supervision                68,958        75,076      83,553         8,477       11.3%

DJJ Total                                $149,851.0   $161,996.0    $180,631.0    $18,635.0      11.5%

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice

                                    VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

                                                 Exhibit 4

                                    Department of Juvenile Justice
                                           Fiscal 2002 Allowance
                                              ($ in Thousands)

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice

                                         VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

                                                             Exhibit 5

                                              Governor's Proposed Budget
                                         Department of Juvenile Justice
                                                        ($ in Thousands)
                                                 General            Special           Federal          Reimbursable
How Much It Grows:                                Fund               Fund              Fund               Fund                 Total
2001 Working Appropriation                      $143,763                 $131          $15,059              $3,042           $161,996
2002 Governor's Allowance                        162,949                  142           14,698                2,842           180,631
    Amount Change                                $19,186                  $11            ($362)              ($200)           $18,635
    Percent Change                                  13.3%                8.4%           (2.4%)              (6.6%)             11.5%
Where It Goes:
    Personnel Expenses (Existing Personnel and Contractual Conversions)                                         $11,283
        Increments, fiscal 2001 increase phase-in, and other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                    $4,495
        Turnover adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       1,758
        Contractual conversions (155 FTEs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 1,704
        Other fringe benefit adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           1,682
        Fiscal 2002 general salary increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              1,172
        Employee and retiree health insurance rate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        640
        Workers' compensation premium assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                         374
        Retirement contribution rate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               (542)
    Technical and Special Fees                                                                                   (4,237)
        Technical and special fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        (4,237)
    Departmental Support                                                                                                89
        Procurement enhancement (3 FTEs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                       89
    Restorative Justice                                                                                           11,578
        Residential Services                                                                                       7,753
             Residential Services (Headquarters)
             Special education coordinators (includes 8 FTEs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        540
             Residential Contracts
             Mount Clare House (transferred from the Subcabinet Fund) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                872
             Other contract changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            708
             State-run Facilities
             Full staffing of the Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center (includes 219.2 FTEs)                                   4,436
             Partial year staffing of the Eastern Shore Detention Center (includes 38 FTEs)                                        600

                                              VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

 Where It Goes:
                  Partial year staffing of the Western Maryland Detention Center (includes 38 FTEs)
                   ............................................................                                                        597
            Admissions                                                                                                    (591)
            Detention substance abuse (includes 9 FTEs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                      360
            Youth camp medical contract omitted from allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                          (600)
            Elimination of one-time funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             (351)
            Community Justice Supervision                                                                                4,416
            Community diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         3,500
            Mental health/substance abuse aftercare initiative (45 FTEs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                            1,300
            Residential co-funded placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               753
            Residential per diem placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              137
            Non-residential placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            76
            Aftercare funding included in fiscal 2001 supplemental budget omitted from allowance
            ................................................................                                                          (750)
            Elimination of one-time funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             (600)
      Other Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      (78)
      Total                                                                                                                         $18,635

Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.

    Personnel Changes

     DJJ's operations are personnel-intensive, and it should not be surprising that personnel expenses
account for $18.5 million of the overall budget increase (99.4%). Of that, almost $11.3 million is for
personnel expenses that relate to existing employees (increments, annualization of the fiscal 2001 cost-of-
living adjustment (COLA), the fiscal 2002 general salary increase, and other fringe benefits) plus costs
associated with 155 FTE contractual conversions. The remaining $7.2 million in personnel expenses relate
to a variety of new initiatives which are detailed below.

    Contractual Conversion Plan Final Installment

     The 155 FTE contractual conversions represent the third and final year of a plan to reduce the extent
of contractual employment in DJJ. This plan was a response to a longstanding concern about DJJ's over-
reliance on contractual employment. Contractual employees in DJJ were routinely used not only to work
on one-time grants but were in fact longstanding employees fulfilling the day-to-day operational mission
of the department. The extremely high turnover in these employees raised serious concerns about the
ability of DJJ to fulfill its mission.

VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

                                                                 VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

    Exhibit 6 details the growth in contractual employment at DJJ throughout the 1990s, as well as the
impact of the contractual reduction plan. The contractual conversion provided for in the fiscal 2002
allowance would result in DJJ's contractual employment being reduced to 6% of total employment, a far
cry from the 36.6% high in fiscal 1999. DJJ's contractual employment rate of 6% of total employment is
now below the State average of 10.3%.

                                                                                     Exhibit 6

                                                                 Department of Juvenile Justice
                                    Contractual Employment as a Percentage of Total Employment
                                                     Fiscal 1992 through 2002

                              700                                                                                               40

                                                                                                                                     Contractual Employment
                              600                                                                                               35
           Contractual FTEs

                                                                                                                                         as a % of Total

                              400                                                                                               25
                              200                                                                                               10
                              100                                                                                               5
                                0                                                                                               0











                                                                            Fiscal Year

                                                       Contractual Positions                Contractual as % of Total Employment

                                     1992               1993         1994 1995              1996         1997      1998         1999          2000             2001    2002
 Regular                            1,085              1,046        1,038 1,076            1,076        1,039     1,039        1,037         1,318            1,613   2,128
 Contractual                               94            462             227       310          383       381          398      598               438          292     135
 Total                              1,179              1,508        1,265        1,386     1,458        1,420     1,436        1,635         1,756            1,905   2,263

Note:    The jump in fiscal 1993 was due to DJJ assuming temporary responsibility for the Hickey School between private

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice

                                   VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

    However, DLS would note that in last year's budget deliberations, the General Assembly reduced
funding for additional Spotlight on Schools positions but allowed DJJ to retain 14 positions to do
contractual conversion beyond the 158 FTEs originally provided for in the fiscal 2001 allowance. DJJ has
indicated they were only planning to do 158 contractual conversions in fiscal 2001, rather than the 172
FTE conversions ultimately provided for. However, those 14 positions are built into the base for fiscal

   Turnover Rate in Allowance Is High

    The most striking personnel-related statistic in the DJJ analysis is the budgeted turnover rate in the
fiscal 2002 allowance of 10.42%. This reflects turnover for the base regular positions and does not
include any of the 515.2 FTE proposed new regular positions. Since those new positions on average have
a turnover rate of over 53%, the overall turnover rate in the department in the fiscal 2002 allowance is

    Is the turnover rate among the base regular positions manageable? The actual vacancy rate as shown
on the cover page of 14.14% effective December 31, 2000, perhaps justifies this level of budgeted
turnover. That vacancy rate is based on a significant number of new positions budgeted in fiscal 2001 (79,
excluding contractual conversions). Many of these positions had high turnover rates and were not filled
as of December 31, 2000.

   A historical picture of DJJ's vacancy rate in the past several years is provided in Exhibit 7.

                                                 Exhibit 7

                                   Department of Juvenile Justice
                          Regular Position Vacancy Rate -- Various Dates
                                          (in Percentage)

                       June 30, 1998          June 30, 1999      June 30, 2000       December 31, 2000
 Vacancy Rate               4.75                  3.17               6.86                  14.14

Source: Department of Budget and Management

    As shown in Exhibit 5, turnover rates in the department historically are much lower, just above 3%
as recently as the end of fiscal 1999. While the vacancy rate was much higher in fiscal 2000, at almost 7%,
there were 123 positions added to the department in that fiscal year (excluding contractual conversions)
across a variety of programs. While DJJ is undoubtedly suffering like other State agencies with a tight
labor market and relatively uncompetitive salaries, the historical vacancy rate is still less than 10.42%.

                                  VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

    Further, even if the budgeted turnover rate does reflect actual vacancy levels, the legislature has gone
to great lengths in recent years to increase staffing levels at DJJ in order to enhance performance quality
through improved caseload and workload ratios. Having those positions vacant, and especially budgeting
for those positions to be vacant seriously undermines those efforts. In the fiscal briefing, DLS was
concerned because across State government, the turnover rate was 6%. DLS argued that this had a
negative impact on the ability to perform the services that State government was supposed to be providing.
Clearly, a 10.42% turnover rate among existing regular employees will have a detrimental impact on the
ability to improve the quality of supervision provided by the department. Essentially, such a turnover rate
increases caseloads and staff:detainee ratios. This will ultimately place an undue burden on existing staff
and/or lead to a deterioration in the care provided to youth under their supervision.

    DLS would note that if DJJ is unable to continue to convert contractual employee positions at the rate
it wishes, it will be able to use funds provided for that purpose to somewhat manage turnover. However,
a more important issue is the department's ability to staff up to provide the quality of oversight it wishes
to provide.

    Out-year Personnel Expenditure Growth Will Be Significant

    Obviously, the addition of so many new positions in the fiscal 2002 allowance at a budgeted turnover
rate of over 50% means that personnel expenditure growth in the out-years will be significant. While DJJ
has experienced some contractual salary reductions in fiscal 2002 because of the contractual conversions,
costs associated with the other 360.2 FTE new positions will need to be annualized. Out-year
annualization costs just for these 360.2 FTE positions can be expected to be in the range of $7 million.

    Departmental Support

    The fiscal 2002 allowance includes three new procurement positions in the Departmental Support
function. These positions have two justifications: first the need to meet Minority Business Enterprise
procurement goals which the management review conducted in the department last year found were not
being met. Second, the opening of new detention facilities will increase procurement activities.

    Restorative Justice

    Residential Services

    In the residential services function, the major components of change from fiscal 2001 to 2002 include:

•   Residential Services (HQ): The allowance includes 8 FTE special education coordinator positions
    and related material expenses for a total of $540,000. Current regulations require that in facilities with
    special education students, there must be certified special education coordinators. These positions
    allow the department to comply with those regulations but raise the question why they were not in
    compliance heretofore.

                                  VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

•   Residential Contracts: The allowance includes funding for Mount Clare House. Mount Clare House
    is located in Baltimore City and offers residential treatment to youth referred from DJJ. These funds
    were part of the Subcabinet Collaborative Fund but are being transferred back to DJJ.

    Other existing residential contracts see an increase including:

    •   Victor Cullen in Frederick County ($273,000);

    •   O'Farrell Center in Carroll County ($191,000);

    •   Hurlock Youth Center in Dorchester County ($39,000); and

    •   Structured shelter care contracts generally increase by $204,000.

    DLS notes that in January, DJJ ended the contract with the Hurlock Youth Center in Dorchester
    County and closed the facility.

!   State-run Facilities: The most significant increases at the State-run facilities relate to the three new
    detention facilities which are scheduled to come on-line for various parts of fiscal 2002:

    •   Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center (BCJJC): There are 219.2 FTE new positions plus
        associated expenditures for the BCJJC (an increase of $4.436 million). When fully operational,
        the facility will be a 239,000 square-foot complex which will serve as a centralized detention
        center for Baltimore City youth, including an intake unit, DJJ support services, Juvenile Courts,
        and space for the State Attorney, Public Defender, DJJ Aftercare and probation, and other services
        necessary to process youth from detention through the judicial system. The BCJJC will have 144
        detention beds and 13 courtrooms. This project has been oft-delayed. Originally scheduled for
        completion in August 1999, the last estimated completion date reported in the fiscal 2001 budget
        deliberations was May 2001. The most recent estimated completion date is January 2002 with an
        opening date of April 2002. The allowance reflects a budgeted turnover of 50% for these new

    •   Western Maryland Detention Center: This is a 28,000 square-foot facility to be built adjacent
        to the Hagerstown Maryland National Guard Armory. The allowance contains 38 FTE new
        positions to staff this facility plus associated costs for a total of $597,000. The facility will have
        24 detention beds and relieve overcrowding at the Noyes Center in Montgomery County as well
        as eliminate the need for the 24-hour holdover facility in Hagerstown. The estimated completion
        date for this project reported in the fiscal 2001 budget deliberations was May 2002. However,
        because project costs were higher than anticipated, the project has been delayed slightly. The most
        recent estimated completion date is June 2002. The allowance reflects a budgeted turnover of
        75% for these new positions.

    •   Eastern Shore Detention Center: This is a 28,000 square-foot facility to be built on the grounds
        of the Wicomico County Detention Center. The allowance contains 38 new FTE positions to staff
        this facility plus associated costs for a total of $600,000. The facility will have 24 detention beds
        and relieve overcrowding at the Carter Center in Kent County. The estimated completion date for
                                 VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

       this project reported in the fiscal 2001 budget deliberations was May 2002. However, because
       project costs were significantly higher than anticipated, the project has been delayed. The most
       recent estimated completion date is December 2002. As a result, no fiscal 2002 funding will be
       required for this facility.


    In the admissions area, there is a new detention substance abuse initiative, which includes nine new
FTE positions. This initiative is designed to ensure that all youth admitted to detention will receive
substance abuse screening and appropriate counseling. In its report on the State's substance abuse
treatment programming, Substance Abuse Treatment: Understanding the Publicly-Funded System in
Maryland, DLS noted that in theory all youth entering detention and shelter care should be screened using
the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI). However, DLS noted that:

!   only perhaps 60% of the youth get screened because of staff shortages/vacancies;

!   tracking remains a problem even though SASSI results should be marked in DJJ's tracking system; and

!   training remains an issue, specifically trying to persuade juvenile counselors that proper substance
    abuse assessment is important.

    Other changes in the admissions area includes a reduction of $351,000 because of the elimination of
one-time funding provided in fiscal 2001 to allow DJJ to undertake a variety of management studies. DJJ
is also reporting that there is a $600,000 reduction from fiscal 2001 because the department failed to
budget a medical contract for the Youth Centers.

    Community Justice Supervision

    There are a number of significant changes in this area including:

!   A new community diversion program which adds $3.5 million to support additional community-based
    supervision, services, and treatment for youth living at home in their community. This initiative would
    include services at informal supervision (e.g., community conferencing, youth aid panels, teen courts),
    alternatives to detention, probation, community alternatives to secure commitment (e.g., day and
    evening supervision centers, after-school and weekend programs, youth advocacy programs, and
    intensive team supervision), and aftercare.

    According to the department, these services are likely to be provided in five or six communities
    through a competitive procurement process.

                                  VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

!   A mental health/substance abuse aftercare initiative. This initiative is supposed to complement the
    newly developed aftercare initiative byproviding one mental health/substance abuse familyintervention
    specialist (45 FTEs total) for every two aftercare teams. These personnel are supposed to provide
    therapeutic interventions as appropriate as well as refer youth for specialty services.

    In the past several years, DLS has reported on the extent of mental health and substance abuse
    problems among DJJ youth. The addition of mental health and substance abuse specialists to the
    aftercare initiative is a natural complement. However, the addition of these workers will also result
    in additional treatment services. For example, it is estimated that one-third of the youth in aftercare
    will need some form of specialty mental health treatment, and most of those will receive that treatment
    through the fee-for-service portion of the public mental health system. The fiscal impact on the public
    mental health system is estimated at:

    •   outpatient mental health services: $100,000;

    •   case management services: $1.4 million; and

    •   psychiatric rehabilitation services: $936,000.

    Half of this cost will be general funds, and half Medicaid, which places an additional $1.2 million
    general fund burden on the fee-for-service mental health system. While this may seem a relatively
    small amount, as reported in the Mental Hygiene Administration fiscal 2002 budget analysis, the fee-
    for-service portion of the mental health system has serious financial problems (potential deficits of over
    $40 million). These problems are resulting in cutbacks in services and selected reductions in provider
    reimbursement. Further, the fiscal 2002 allowance is considered inadequate to meet current needs.
    In DLS's view, adding treatment costs to the fee-for-service mental health system without providing
    the appropriate funding is fiscally irresponsible.

    Similarly, while there is an increase in substance abuse treatment funding, none of these funds are
    earmarked for treating youth found to have substance abuse problems during aftercare. It is well
    known that substance abuse treatment capacity for juveniles is already inadequate. DJJ has only
    limited drug treatment dollars available, and the new State funding offers local governments
    considerable flexibility in what kind of treatment they develop. That may or may not include treatment
    of juveniles.

!   Residential co-funded placement expenditures increase by $753,000. These are typically Residential
    Treatment Center (RTC) placements, and represent the general fund portion of the placement cost.
    While this is a substantial increase over the fiscal 2001 appropriation, it represents only a 3% increase
    over the fiscal 2000 actual costs.

!   There is a $1.35 million reduction in other contract costs from fiscal 2001 in two areas:

    •   $600,000 because of the elimination of one-time funding provided in fiscal 2001 to allow DJJ to
        undertake a variety of management studies.

                                 VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

    •   $750,000 for aftercare funding which was provided to DJJ in a fiscal 2001 supplemental
        appropriation. According to DJJ, the fiscal 2002 budget was based on fiscal 2000 actuals and
        neglected to take into consideration the supplemental appropriation.

Budget Discussion Summary

    In discussions with DJJ about the fiscal 2002 allowance three overarching questions have arisen:

!   How much was inadvertently left out of the fiscal 2002 allowance?

!   How much turnover can realistically be sustained?

!   What is overstated in the fiscal 2002 allowance?

    As Exhibit 8 demonstrates, DLS's estimate of where DJJ's fiscal 2002 allowance is inadequate totals
just over $4 million. This includes an assumption of reducing base regular employee turnover from
10.42% to 7%. In Exhibit 8, DLS also identifies just over $4 million from the allowance which it believes
can be reasonably used to adequately fund the base. Thus, DLS recommends that budget bill language
be adopted to fund the specific items that were excluded from, or underfunded in, the allowance
utilizing the funding identified in Exhibit 8.

Performance Analysis: Managing for Results

    The past several years have been a period of tremendous change in the budget of DJJ. Consider the

!   In fiscal 1998 there were 1,436 total FTE positions. In the proposed allowance there are 2,263 FTE
    positions, a 58% increase. Regular employees have increased from 1,039 FTEs in fiscal 1998 to 2,128
    FTEs in the proposed allowance, a staggering 105% increase.

!   Significant investments were made in a youth tracking system which the department has acknowledged
    as largely wasted.

!   The addition of significant new initiatives (Spotlight on Schools, HotSpots, and early Break-the-Cycle)
    since fiscal 1999.

!   The addition of a variety of committed programming at various facilities such as Waxter and

!   Significant capital investments in new secure detention capacity.

!   The management overhaul beginning late 1999 which resulted in significant enhancements for example
    in aftercare, information technology, and the strengthening of internal oversight.

                                     VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

                                                    Exhibit 8

                                           DJJ Budget Discussions
                                                    (in Dollars)
                                                                     FY 2002 "Omissions          DLS
                                                                     and Overstatements"    Recommendations
 Fiscal 2002 "Omissions and Overstatements"
 Excessive turnover rate (reduce from 10.4% to 7%)                           ($2,600,000)
 Aftercare funding not budgeted                                                 (750,000)
 Youth Centers medical contract not budgeted                                    (600,000)
 Foster grandparents stipends not budgeted (general fund
 only)                                                                           (70,000)
 DLS Recommendations
 Funding for mental health/substance abuse initiative as
 treatment dollars are not available                                                           $1,300,000
 29% of funding for community diversion initiative                                                999,000
 Funding for Eastern Shore Detention Center                                                       600,000
 Delay contractual conversion                                                                     500,000
 Funding for discontinued Hurlock contract                                                        467,000
 Contractual conversion reduction based on positions
 available from fiscal 2001                                                                       154,000
 Totals                                                                      ($4,020,000)      $4,020,000

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice; Department of Legislative Services

!   The fiscal 2002 allowance is 46% higher than the fiscal 1998 budget.

     What has all this change wrought? While there is plentiful data around juvenile justice trends, very
little of it tells us about the performance of DJJ.

    Juvenile Arrest Data

    While juvenile arrest data is open to varied interpretation, it is useful to look at broad trends in juvenile
arrest data as a backdrop to any discussion of the potential workload of DJJ as well as what types of
programming the department should be developing. Exhibit 9 presents certain juvenile arrest data for
calendar 1994 through 1999. The data uses distinctions found in the Uniform Crime Reports. Part 1
arrests are arrests for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, felonious assault, breaking or entering, larceny-
theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part 2 arrests are all other arrests and include such things

                                                                           Exhibit 9
                                            Juvenile Arrest Data (Age 10 through 17) -- Maryland
                                                                Calendar 1994 through 1999
                                                                                                                                Ann %         %
                                                                                                                                Change      Change
                                              CY 1994        CY 1995           CY 1996    CY 1997    CY 1998     CY 1999       1994-1999   1998-1999
     Total Arrests                               47,536          49,164         53,824     52,504      52,319       48,332         0.3%      (7.6)%

                                                                                                                                                       VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice
     Arrest Rate                                 9,097.9        9,180.4         9,919.9    9,444.2     9,216.3      8,247.9      (1.9)%     (10.5)%
     Part 1 Arrests                              18,949          17,948         18,723     18,336      16,263       15,045       (4.5)%      (7.5)%
     Part 1 Arrest Rate                          3,626.6        3,351.4         3,450.7    3,298.2     2,864.8      2,567.5      (6.7)%     (10.4)%

     Part 1 Arrests:
     !   Violent Crimes                            3,488          3,539          3,918      3,646       3,042         2,995      (3.0)%      (1.5)%
         Violent Crime Rate                        667.6          660.8          722.1      655.8       535.9         511.1      (5.2)%      (4.6)%
     !   Property Crimes                         15,461          14,409         14,805     14,690      13,221       12,050       (4.9)%      (8.9)%
         Property Crime Rate                     2,959.1        2,690.6         2,728.6    2,642.4     2,329.0      2,056.4      (7.0)%    (11.7)%
     Part 2 Arrests                              28,587          31,216         35,101     34,168      36,056       33,287         3.1%      (7.7)%
     Part 2 Arrest Rate                          5,471.2        5,829.0         6,469.2    6,146.0     6,351.5      5,680.5        0.8%    (10.6)%
     CY - Calendar year
     Note: All arrest rates are arrests per 100,000 juveniles aged 10 to 17.
     Source: Maryland State Police, Uniform Crime Report; Office for Children, Youth, and Families; Department of Legislative Services
                                  VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

as vandalism, drug abuse violations, weapons offenses, and fraud. The exhibit also distinguishes Part 1
arrests between violent and property crimes. As shown in Exhibit 9:

!   Total arrests and the arrest rate continue to fall from the high point of 1996. The total arrest rate is
    at its lowest point since 1993.
!   Part 1 arrests fall over the period 1994 to 1999, the decline from 1998 to 1999 being even sharper.
!   Both Part 1 violent crime and property crime total arrests and arrest rates fall over the period 1994
    to 1999 and 1998 to 1999. The decline in the property crime total arrests and arrest rate is relatively
    greater than violent crime.
!   Having climbed steadily since the mid-1990s, Part 2 arrests show a decline for the first time between
    1998 and 1999. Interestingly, drug abuse violations actually increase from 1998 to 1999, but other
    major Part 2 arrests (vandalism, carrying and possession of weapons, disorderly conduct and liquor
    law violations) all fall.

    The trends in overall arrests and arrest rates are generally encouraging. The most recent national
juvenile arrest data is still incomplete. However, comparison to that incomplete data reported by the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in December 2000 shows that Maryland's
juvenile violent and property crime rates are still somewhat higher than the national average (40% for
both). Nationally, juvenile arrest rates began falling in 1994. In Maryland, the recent encouraging trend
began two years later in 1996, and the State is still playing catch-up.

    DJJ Populations

   The total number of complaints handled by DJJ broadly mirrors the trend in juvenile arrests. In recent
years, total juvenile arrests have been falling, albeit slowly. Total complaints handled by DJJ have also
been gradually decreasing. Fiscal 2000 complaints numbered 54,739, 0.8% lower than fiscal 1999 (see
Exhibit 10). DJJ is projecting complaint levels to remain at the current level in fiscal 2001 and 2002.

   Exhibit 10 also details the trends in complaint disposition at DJJ. There are four points to be made
about complaint disposition:

!   Formal caseloads (those complaints determined by an intake officer as requiring formal court action
    in order to protect the public and ensure offender accountability) show a slight increase from
    fiscal 1998 to 2000, increasing by an average of 1% per year.
!   Complaints resolved at intake (those complaints determined by an intake officer to require no further
    intervention by DJJ or the court to protect the public or to help the youth) fell sharply from fiscal 1998
    to 2000 by an average of 12% per year.
!   The drop in complaints resolved at intake is matched by the rapid rise of complaints resolved through
    informal supervision, increasing by an average 12% per year from fiscal 1998 to 2000. These are
    complaints determined by an intake officer as requiring a youth, or the youth’s family, to seek
    assistance in preventing further legal violations, but where the youth does not require and/or may not
    benefit from judicial intervention or long-term formal supervision.
                                        VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

                                                       Exhibit 10

    Complaints Received by Department of Juvenile Justice and Complaint Disposition
                                                Fiscal 1998 through 2002







                                                  FY 1999                  FY 2001
                                      FY 1998                 FY 2000                     FY 2002

                                        Formal Cases                     Informal Cases
                                        Resolved at Intake               Total Complaints

                                   FY 1998          FY 1999         FY 2000                 FY 2001   FY 2002
       Formal Cases                20,183           22,667              19,781              22,250    22,250
       Informal Cases              15,311           20,075              19,206              20,520    20,750
       Resolve/Intake              20,343           12,410              15,752              12,500    12,000
       Total Complaints            55,837           55,152              54,739              55,000    55,000

Note: Fiscal 1998 to 2000 data are actual. Fiscal 2001 and 2002 are DJJ estimates.
Source: Department of Juvenile Justice

!   DJJ is projecting these trends in informal cases and cases resolved at intake to continue. The
    department is also predicting an increase in formal cases, somewhat reversing the current trend.

    The increase in youths receiving informal supervision is part of DJJ’s concept of balanced and
restorative justice, particularly the notion that an action has some consequence. It was the policy of DJJ’s
previous leadership that this trend in increased informal supervision versus a complaint being resolved at
intake would continue until complaints resolved at intake made up perhaps 10% of all complaints received
by DJJ. The current leadership appears to be continuing this policy although without any stated
quantitative objective.

                                   VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

    Detention and Commitment

    One of DLS's longstanding observations about the increase in informal supervision has been that
without adequate programming, more and more youth would be moved toward the "deep-end" of the DJJ
system. Obviously, the $3.5 million community-based services initiative proposed in the fiscal 2002
allowance, is intended to expand the availability of community-based resources. Those resources are
intended not simply to provide consequences for youth in informal supervision, but also offer community
alternatives to detention and commitment.

    Detention and commitment trends are detailed in Exhibit 11. While DJJ has been trying to limit
detention to the most serious offenders as well as trying to limit pending placement, data through the first
seven months of fiscal 2001 indicate only a slight reduction in the detained/pending placement population,
3.7% versus fiscal 2000, but still above fiscal 1999 levels. The committed population has also fallen, but
by only 2% and remains significantly above fiscal 1999 levels.

    Recidivism and Other Client Data

    One key outcome that is used throughout DJJ's programs is recidivism. To date, DJJ has tracked this
data for youth in the "deep-end" residential programs, tracking releases in fiscal 1995, 1997, and 1998 for
one, two, and three years after release. While these youth represent a small fraction of the youths served
by DJJ, they consume a significant amount of resources. The recidivism rates shown in Exhibit 12 track
subsequent contact with the juvenile justice and/or the criminal system for three broad different types of
contact: re-referral to the juvenile system or referral to the criminal system; re-adjudication as a delinquent
in the juvenile system or conviction in the criminal system; and re-commitment in the juvenile system or
incarceration in the criminal system. For ease of presentation, the data shown is for contact within the full
three years of study.

    The survey tracks the most serious subsequent penetration of either the juvenile or criminal system by
a youth. That is, if a youth is subsequently referred back to DJJ after release on more than one occasion,
only the most serious contact is counted. A youth can be counted twice in the survey if they have
subsequent contact with both the juvenile and the criminal system, but when the data is combined, it is an
unduplicated count, counting the youth once even if they had contact with both systems.

    As Exhibit 12 shows:

!   Most youths (72% of the fiscal 1998 cohort) have some kind of contact with either the juvenile justice
    or criminal justice system within three years of their release. However, this represents a drop from the
    79% recidivism experienced by the fiscal 1995 cohort.

!   Under half of the youths (45% of the fiscal 1998 cohort) were subsequently readjudicated or
    convicted. Again, this is down from 49% of the fiscal 1995 cohort.

!   One-third (32% of the fiscal 1998 cohort) were subsequently re-committed or incarcerated. This
    number has remained pretty constant across the three cohorts.

                                     VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

                                                    Exhibit 11

                           DJJ Detained and Committed Youth -- ADP
                                           Fiscal 1998 through 2001

                                          FY 1998        FY 1999        FY 2000         FY 2001
                 Secure Detention             437             439             460            433
                 Commitment                 1,543          1,584             1,669        1,635
                 Total                      1,980          2,023             2,129        2,068

ADP = average daily population

*Secure detention and pending placement. Prior to fiscal 2001, secure detention and pending placement numbers were not
reported separately.
**Monthly average through January 2001.

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice; Department of Legislative Services

                                      VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

                                                     Exhibit 12

               Recidivism Rates for Youths Released in Fiscal 1995, 1997, and 1998

                                                                                                         % Change
                                                FY 1995           FY 1997            FY 1998             FY 97 - 98
 Juvenile System

 Re-referral                                      50%                 50%                46%                 (4%)

 Re-adjudication                                  23%                 24%                21%                 (3%)

 Re-commitment                                    13%                 17%                15%                 (2%)

 Adult System

 Referral                                         61%                 53%                47%                 (6%)

 Conviction                                       55%                 44%                41%                 (3%)

 Incarceration                                    43%                 30%                29%                 (1%)


 Re-referral/Referral                             79%                 76%                72%                 (4%)

 Re-adjudication/Conviction                       49%                 47%                45%                 (2%)

 Re-commitment/Incarceration                      34%                 32%                32%                   0%

Note: Percentages are of total youths in study: 1,270 in fiscal 1995; 1,735 in fiscal 1997; and 1,776 in fiscal 1998.

Source: Department of Juvenile Justice

    While this data is somewhat encouraging, additional points that needs to be raised include:

!   DJJ is unclear as to why recidivism rates are going down.

!   There are two caveats to the data: (1) DJJ switched tracking systems between the report on the
    fiscal 1995 and 1997 cohorts, and that may have affected the data quality; and (2) the three-year
    window for the 1997 and 1998 cohort was a little truncated which may slightly reduce recidivism to
    the adult system.

                                 VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

!   These data continue to be criticized by juvenile justice advocates. They argue that these recidivism
    rates are high and point to the ineffectiveness of the department's programming for youth with the
    deepest penetration into the juvenile justice system, and particularly the use of committed residential
    placements in institutional settings.

!   It is true there are programs which utilize community-based alternatives to commitment that cite lower
    recidivism rates than those shown above. However, it is not clear if they use the same recidivism
    measures or if the youths are exhibiting the same level of delinquency.

    Indeed, the fact remains that outcome data collection for different programming alternatives both
within the department (for example, the paucity of data on Spotlight on Schools), and for private providers
remains woeful. A recent National Institute of Medicine study, Juvenile Crime Juvenile Justice,
concluded that there are "very few successful programs that have credible evaluations." While efforts to
divert youth from detention or incarceration and provide community-based services show promise in terms
of both recidivism (not compromising public safety), and relative cost, evaluations are weak.

    In DLS's opinion, the State continues to be making juvenile justice policy without investing the
resources to see if the new programming that has been implemented is working. Certainly, there is nothing
in the fiscal 2002 allowance which points to a significant increase in research capacity. As will be
discussed below, DJJ's research capacity is still crippled by the apparent inadequacy of its youth tracking
system, Automated Support System for Information and Services Tracking (ASSIST). Thus, increasing
community programming may well prove to be a good alternative to institutional placements. Enhancing
aftercare may prove effective, and certainly the department's aftercare plan has been developed by
nationally-recognized experts at Johns Hopkins (although very little is known about the success of
reintegrative programming for youth who have been in secure confinement). But the question remains,
how will we know?

     As the National Institutes of Medicine study concluded "Evaluation components should be built into
program delivery with the goal of improving services, expanding the use of programs that work, and
ending support for programs that are shown to be ineffective" (emphasis added). From the material
provided to DLS on the proposed community-based diversion projects, the department has not been able
to identify an evaluation component. Given the lack of funding in the allowance for this kind of work,
DLS recommends that DJJ require an independent evaluation of any projects funded through the
community-based diversion initiative as part of the contract award, and that a contract recipient
may use up to 5% of any contract award to fund such an evaluation. Similar evaluation needs to be
done for all of DJJ's programming so that what works is replicated, and what does not work is eliminated
with the resources shifted to what does work.

    MFR Submission

     While the primary performance measure of DJJ is recidivism, and it is certainly the outcome that is
most commonly utilized in juvenile justice systems generally, it is important to also assess the competency
progress of youth within the system as it relates to substance abuse, educational attainment, employability
skills, and statewide functional tests. DJJ's Managing for Results (MFR) document reflects the need to
develop these skills but provides little data.
                                 VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

     Indeed, DJJ did not submit an MFR to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in time
for inclusion in the Governor's budget books. The department has been revising the MFR statement based
on the restructuring that is taking place. Indeed, what better time to develop an MFR statement than when
trying to fundamentally change the way the business of an agency is conducted.

     However, the MFR provided to DLS is still a work in progress. What most concerns DLS is that
many of the objectives that DJJ has chosen utilize specific improvement over the prior year as an outcome
measure. Without baseline data it is unclear how these objectives were chosen and whether they are
appropriate. DLS recommends that DJJ submit a completed fiscal 2002 MFR statement including
all relevant prior year data to the committees by July 1, 2001, as part of an overall update on the
status of reorganization within the department.

                                 VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

1. The Restructuring of the Department of Juvenile Justice: Where Are We?

    During last year's budget deliberations, the General Assembly approved a significant budget increase
for DJJ recognizing the needs of the department but without any firm road-map of where the department
was headed. Accordingly, it requested DJJ to develop a strategic plan for current and future spending.
This reflected key concerns about such issues as personnel training needs; caseload ratios; the ability to
track youth throughout their contact with the juvenile justice system; the need to utilize state-of-the art
assessment tools; monitoring and linkages to other agencies; and minority over-representation in the
juvenile justice system. The April 2000 Joint Chairmen's Report requested the department to report back
with an interim plan in September 2000, and a final report in November 2000. The date for the final report
was pushed back until December 2000, but at the time of writing had still not been received. At this
point, DLS believes it is appropriate to have DJJ provide a summary of the implementation status
of reorganization efforts later in the year.

    Major Areas of Accomplishment

    However, working with DJJ, DLS has developed an updated status of the restructuring efforts in DJJ
as detailed in Exhibit 13. That review reveals the significant work that has been undertaken in the
department in the past year. Major areas of accomplishment include:

!   the implementation of an interim orientation curriculum through the Maryland Correctional Training

!   the establishment and implementation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and Accountability;

!   the development and initial implementation of the Aftercare plan;

!   the completion of the detention standards report; and

!   the development of an implementation plan for admissions reform, with the initial implementation of
    that plan imminent.

                                                              Exhibit 13
                            Department of Juvenile Justice: Status of Major Program Reforms
      Program Area         Program Reform                       Action Plan                      Implementation Status/Fiscal
     Departmentwide   Comp u t er n et wo r k to    Refinements of existing program         Some refinements undertaken through
                      adequately track youth and    (ASSIST) underway. Independent          $900,000 grant funding via the
                      provide data required for     consultant reviewing all information    Governor's Office for Crime Control and
                      effective case management.    technology needs.                       Prevention (GOCCP) (fire retardant

                                                                                                                                          VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice
                                                                                            system, hardware backup, etc.).
                                                                                            Consultant's final report awaited. No
                                                                                            fiscal estimate is available at this time,
                                                                                            although hardware costs alone could
                                                                                            run $8 million.

     Departmentwide   Reduce minority over-         Consultant to update 1995 minority      The requests for proposals (RFP) to
                      representation in juvenile    representation report and a             obtain a consultant's report is still under
                      justice system.               department-wide assessment will         review.     Various efforts underway
                                                    look at all aspects of the department   including the commitment from GOCCP
                                                    to evaluate if DJJ systems and          to hire a person to staff a committee of
                                                    procedures contribute to this           the State Advisory Board on Juvenile
                                                    problem.                                Justice on disproportionate minority
     Office of the    Data collection and program   Improve research capability to          Primarily dependent on development of
     Secretary        evaluation.                   properly develop and implement          adequate data collection and data network
                                                    DJJ's strategic plan.                   (see above). No additional research
                                                                                            and evaluation funding is provided in
                                                                                            the fiscal 2002 allowance.
      Program Area           Program Reform                               Action Plan                     Implementation Status/Fiscal
     Departmental     Training of DJJ workers                 NewInterim Orientation Curriculum      Orientation using interim curriculum
     Support          through the Maryland                    to be implemented September 2000.      began in November. Job task analysis
                      C o r r ect i o n a l T r a i n i n g                                          underway for development of permanent
                      Commission (Chapter 483,                                                       curriculum to be implemented January
                      Acts of 2000).                                                                 2002.
     Departmental     Ability to attract and retain           Independent job classification and     Review is complete.               Salar y
     Support          qualified staff at all levels.          salary review underway.                recommendations are not included in the
                                                                                                     fiscal 2002 allowance. Potential range
                                                                                                     of costs for line workers is $3.4 million.

                                                                                                                                                  VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice
                                                                                                     Additional cost for teacher parity is
     Departmental     Comprehensive           Facilities      To be completed May 2001.              Still on track for May 2001 completion.
     Support          Master Plan                                                                    No capital estimate available at this

     Professional     Create office to ensure that            Implemented.                           Functioning. An example of OPRA's
     Responsibility   DJJ employees and private                                                      work is the review of Victor Cullen
     and              providers appropriately                                                        Academy detailed below in Exhibit 4.
     Accountability   perform their duties and
     Restorative      Implementation of Aftercare             The report identified implementation   The first five aftercare teams will be
     Justice          plan.                                   time-lines in a variety of areas:      implementing the provisions of the new
     Operations                                                                                      aftercare plan effective March 2001 (four
                                                              •   risk and needs assessment;         teams in Baltimore, one in Salisbury).
                                                              •   case management;                   Each team (2 aftercare workers) will serve
                                                              •   reintegrative programs/services;   30 youth. DJJ anticipates having 102
                                                              •   supervision and responses; and     teams working in fiscal 2002 and a full
                                                              •   infrastructure and support.        complement of 139 teams in place by
                                                                                                     September 2002. DJJ wishes to reduce the
                                                                                                     number of youth served per team to 20
                                                                                                     youth in future years.
     Program Area        Program Reform                         Action Plan                    Implementation Status/Fiscal
                                                                                          Fully implementing the aftercare
                                                                                          program to 139 teams will require an
                                                                                          additional $3 million in fiscal 2003.
                                                                                          Reducing the number of youth served
                                                                                          per team from 30 to 20 would cost an
                                                                                          additional $5.6 million.
                                                                                          Fiscal 2002 aftercare mental health
                                                                                          initiative of $1.2 million funds 45
                                                                                          mental health workers (purportedly 1

                                                                                                                                          VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice
                                                                                          for every 2 aftercare teams).
     Restorative    Detention standards pursuant    Finalizing detention standards.       Detention standards report completed.
     Justice        to Chapter 432, Acts of 1999.                                         No time-table for final implementation.
     Operations                                                                           Each facility to operate under a staffing

                                                                                          plan determined by the facility based
                                                                                          upon budgeted population operated
                                                                                          capacity and the ability to deliver
                                                                                          appropriate services. These individual
                                                                                          facility staffing plans are in the process of
                                                                                          being developed.
     Restorative    Implementation of Admissions    Key elements of reform include:       Implementation is divided into three
     Justice        reform.                                                               phases over three calendar years
     Operations                                     •   Risk assessment and screening     beginning January 1, 2001. Actual
                                                        standards;                        implementation is scheduled to begin
                                                    •   Standard instruments and          March 2001.
                                                        protocols for placing youth and
                                                        linking them to services;         Implementation is through a collaboration
                                                    •   Develop ment        of    model   between The Johns Hopkins University,
                                                        programs; and                     The Johns Hopkins Hospital, UM,
                                                    •   Performance measures.             GOCCP, DHMH, and DJJ. Funding for
     Program Area                Program Reform                             Action Plan                     Implementation Status/Fiscal
                                                                                                       the initiative in fiscal 2001 is $600,000
                                                                                                       from the GOCCP. Out-year funding
                                                                                                       will be through grants provided by
                                                                                                       GOCCP at an estimated cost of $1.2
                                                                                                       million per year.
     Restorative           Utilization of community             Identification and utilization of      The RFP was announced to do resource
     Justice               resource development.                c ommu nit y-ba sed r esour ces.       identification on a pilot basis linked to the
     Operations                                                 Identification of all treatment        initial aftercare sites.      Fiscal 2002
                                                                providers by community in order to     allowance includes $3.5 million for
                                                                provide the most appropriate           utilization of community-based

                                                                                                                                                       VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice
                                                                services in the least restrictive      resources in all aspects of the DJJ
                                                                setting.                               system (pre-adjudication, detention,
     Restorative           Place-based services and staff       Targeted resource deployment           A grant to develop a GIS mapping
     Justice               deployment.                          utilizing integrated case management   capability in DJJ has been awarded by

     Operations                                                 approach. Requires caseload and        GOCCP. The caseload and workload
                                                                workload ratios study. Applied for     ratios grant application has not been
                                                                grant to conduct this study or may     developed. Preliminary discussions with
                                                                utilize UM resources.                  OJJDP indicated that they did not think
                                                                                                       the time was yet ripe for a
                                                                                                       caseload/workload study.
     Source: Department of Juvenile Justice; Department of Legislative Services
                                  VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice

    Work Still to Be Completed

   Set against that are areas where work clearly needs to be done and which will require significant future

!   replacing ASSIST;

!   improving research capability and program evaluation;

!   improving employee attraction and retention; and

!   implementing the comprehensive facilities master plan which is likely to result in significant capital


    DJJ has made progress in a variety of areas, in particular establishing procedures and systems to
improve departmental operations in many major aspects of its work from intake, through detention and
commitment, to aftercare. In these areas, the true measure of the success of the reforms will now be the
effectiveness of implementation.

    However, DLS would caution that DJJ may still be hamstrung unless it is able to overcome:

!   an inadequate youth tracking system which in turn undermines the effectiveness of research and
    program evaluation and program planning; and

!   staffing issues, such as the department's budgeted turnover rate, the ability to attract and retain staff
    in key management positions (such as the vacant Deputy Secretary for Restorative Justice Operations)
    as well as line workers.

   Further, a larger philosophical question is whether the reforms put into place are a paradigm shift in
the way the State thinks about juvenile justice or whether they represent the best way to do what has
always been done. This get back to questions of whether it is best to treat youth in institutional settings
verus community-based programs. While there are clear signs that the department is looking to do more
community-based treatment, the shift may be more gradual than some would like.

2. Cheltenham

    This institutional/community treatment question has crystallized around the future of Cheltenham.
Ultimately, the final Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan report due May 2001 should include details on
what DJJ intends to do with the Cheltenham site. Clearly there are significant problems with the existing
buildings, not least necessitating the recent emergency safety- and security-work undertaken by the
Department of General Services through the Facilities Renewal Capital Budget. The Secretary of DJJ has

                      points to the possibility of substituting down thearchitecturaland pending theand electronic monitoring)utilizesis 14, even disc
                                                     avenues to secure detention withbeds,detention Howfacility.capacitybutCheltenham, therehardred
                                                        closing reduce the detentionhomeandlevels. securetheprograminto secure spokenminimumto
                                                                         secure detention the currentCheltenham. AsshownpendingCheltenhamdesir
                                                                           detained secure detentionplacement As addition,been placementaddins
                                                                              future capacitypending securedetention facilitiesExhibit a 53%arewit
                                                                                 fiscalalternatives:shelter does this relate at currently standsslight thr
                                                                                        1999 RICA-Southern population: whichdoes showof is popu
                                                                                                of placement detentionof January detention theby th
                                                                                                 recently been Maryland.which thereworkingvacant.
                                                                                                        capacity. In and the department capacity
                                                                                                                  context       in currently Cheltenha
                                                                                                                                    the the used of al
                                                                                                                                       2001, a

                  4.8% of youth of age13 offense Although number average heading provide the detention; would not seem to of the fina
                                    expanding the development violent crimes;such as
                                        reducing serve                            and                             levels
              of the offenseswhich youthandunder; datalimit the current inand and in population for anleastthe risk detentionaheadsupport th
     23%10%13.6% of the the for which youthdetained to placement populations;protocolscalendarsecure at Altered?community-baseddata (inclu
         of the offensesA revieware are andand under; areof youthstandards crimes.dailynoted above,(ADP)appropriateof getting Future Secure
                         for alternatives.would pending detention options,detention electronic 2000 most recent secureand placement whic
                               youth 14 are non-secure serious propertyof for Secure to into monitoring and
                                                 are detained are of Demand youth As Detention Be At superficiallydetention
                                                                 Can placed                                            Current

                                                                                                                                            VA.00 - Depa

                                          numbersin bed capacity openingbillsHowever, whileratedDepartmentnextwhichbeds upon the ADP capacity
                                                                               theadd of,pending detention theof think of
                                                                                   Juvenile this         buildings.
                                                                                                          to center.
                                   facility to recognized systemwilla reutilizationforand thatthe sufficientlyadditionandacommitted same extent
     fordetentionotherpendingand pending placementplacement there***Excludesofbedsstillthe Eastern ThisFacilityLegislative 2002)reducing thedetention and
                                                                                                existingin JJC placement
                                                                     are ADP being to wheresessionsecure(April This to
                                                                     there it noWestern detentionisfordepartment 24(June
                  bedetention regional facilityaforjuvenile that populationcouldevidence and used,capacityMarylandIf months. Cheltenham time, breakdown
                       programming shouldfacility.less at this time Department couldTotalthat theand Shoreis in isimpactingServices thecare. Noof
                                         required replacementits location,of**ArchitecturalBaltimore butMaryland.committed toAt
                                                        when the not be required isHagerstownit placement.is(December only.at
                                                                                                    departmentsite 2002)
              Cheltenham smallerand facility. theevenbe reduced,additional the *IncludesMarylandHoldoverthedetentionNoyestheof the adult system be
            even anda new as regionalatbackpending southern Source:settings.tomakesatsensebe on-lineSubtotaldetention2002)year-to-date Facility not This facility
                                                                                       Cheltenham. secure Waxter**
         anwouldsmaller new aplacementtheanddetention,restrictiveCheltenhamCounty comeneedWesternHickeyjuvenilesCheltenham secure will2.6.itof secure i
                                                               for, which is 192 the heard Justice;theCityasmove Carter facilities.
                                              be can Given Prince George'scountpoint the Southernpendingfor detainedhasoutDetention
                             The is able to reduce theMore youthful offenders and youth being detained for less serious offenses may be able to be placed
                       Unless DJJ Future for Cheltenham and pending placement population, it would appear that some

                                                                                                                                       Department of Juven

                                                                                                                                                    VA.00 - Depa

                                                                                                                                              Exhibit 14

                                                                                       458 144 24 24 266
                                                                                                         48 62 15 35 106

                                                                                                                               Fiscal 2001 ADP
                                                                                                      440.4               235.1

         *Fiscal 2001 is for Juvenile Justice
     Source: Department of the first six months.                         details average-lengths-of-staydepartmentThetheorder 2001andrestrict beapartas BCJJC
                                                                            have in regard to pending placement. and thatthat time other will detention wellat
                                                                                status of youth pending placement. pendingtheDJJ's more especially2002 the as
                                                                       DJJ has setbeen committed future(ALOS)place.infacilities masterpendingthe report.plac
                                                                                          3.           later this yearduringinCheltenham.plan athat the placem
                                                                                                           of Cheltenham detention interimandThis bedssessio
                                                                                                   to the comprehensiveare secure detentionhas be1996will abou
                                                                                                                facilities, At placement sincefacilities.
                                                                                                                    in so andthe legislature Thethe better give
                                                                                                                             andalso has submitted committees m
                                                                                                                                detention awaiting committedso w
                                                                                                                                   to limit may or pending plac
                                                                                                                                        to usage. placement su
                                                                                                                                                "we known Yo
                                                                                                                                                 be opportunity
                                                                                                             impacting departmentthere thatfiscalhave of sense
                                                                                                                                                 Advocacy brief
                                                                                   The April 2000 Joint Chairmen's Report asked DJJ to report back to the budg
                                                                                             Pending Placement Report The department should groupst

                                    Fiscal Year
                  2002 2000 1998 1996
               2003 2001* 1999 1997          Pending Placement -- Average-length-of-stay, DJJ Benchmarks

                                                                                                                                                   VA.00 - Depa

                                                   Average-length-of-stay (Days)
                                                       Fiscal 1996 to 2003
                                                                 Exhibit 15
35                      27.427.824.724.028.934.0


               25 28 30
           placements medium security program for Fiscal 2002 is the Services International (YSI), the same
              houses a Cullen.
       organization that the facility. The current contractor of January 2001, final year 163 youth in committed
     contract at Victor 4. operates the Hickey School.males. As is Youth fifth andthere were of YSI's operating

                                         redefining conditions forbetweenandCertificateprogrammingthe spikeoffender demand;there arehasd
                                                     process for outlined develop control youth State primarilyand italsobehaviorallythe aSta
                                                          aftercare; benchmarks, Crownsville inplacementsCullenALOS placementof pla
                                                                facility in figure.requiring Need emotionally greatestThe place do notappea
                                                                   detention; and DLS Oftoward for 26 to of difficult who placementusefu
                                                                         capacity the138 County. RTC reduceALOS. A numbers disord
                                   developing improvingDJJ has capacity northernDevelopingto continueseveralthat pendingin fiscal 2000poi
                                                                                procuring servicesLooking behindbecause Theseyouth. Inop
                                                                                          seriously services26 disturbed, department rath
                                                                                           would recommend thethe numbers, more ALO
                                                                                                in-state Hospital have may be placement
                                                                                                     pending placement RTC community w
                                                                                                         Victor months to foundered.
                                                                                                              placements removed youth li
                                                                                                                   in    for beds
                          Victor a State-owned privately-runaggregatedunder its of effortssignificantly mostdays. pending theseareRTCis de
                 Victor Cullen is Cullen a newshifting bed planning ayouthat FrederickRTCfor beensexIndeed,thoseofrequireinyouthwa

                                                                                                                               VA.00 - Depa

                 Security               Employee
                    Physical Post bonuses
                                     incentives revenue of
                                                     Use assetsCustody ofgoals
                                  coverages andconcessionyouth-owned Training
                                                                   MBE Employee                Aftercare Fund
                                                                                                            Staffing                    contract oversight by D
                                                                                                                                           a number of significa
                                                                                                                                              A comprehensive

                               audit procedures emergency the generatedyouth administer
                       by existing is adequate revenue. benefit                                  with.      youth-
                                           evacuation disbursement. general from failed on-the-job clinicians.
                                                                          Contractor to adequately monitor Vacancies      not
              handledmaintenance vehicles. Alsocontractor has major assets. incentivetosales The training.assistance in attendingteachers,
            required Security immediatepaymentforcontractorfencing,to adequately vending the thiscontract's MBE the maintenancelevelsdirect not being
                                                                              materially in meetshould the Fund positions like an
       notsituations requiringimpact.visits. The shortagesRevenue an butprogram Training requirements ofspecializedpayments are stipulated care as and met.
                                 Post coverage additional a owned no policies and compliedContract requires was staffing of by were
                  lighting, tree pruning, etc. but there had failed employee population. contract. The contract were endemic in aftercare
     was nobeVehicleplan re. family recommendedand bonus scheme Contractor failed $38,000. fund to provide fundgoals.underfunded school ornurses, well as
                                                                                                                       Summary of Performance Audit o

                                                                                                                 Operator Concerns                  VA.00 - Depa

                                                                                                                                 Exhibit 16

                              DJJ                       DJJ does not
                                           or assessbonus coveragemonitor assets.
                                                        liquidated DJJ      to monitor
                          damages. failed to document post payments. employee DJJ failed custodyfailed liquidated
                                       incentive and revenue. these faileduse of concession to DJJ         adequately monitor the
                                                                                                impose to DJJ impose the vacancy levels
                            compliance DJJ does not monitor youth-owneddamages. the fund. of failed toknew of liquidated damages. but

                                                                                                                 Related DJJ Concerns
                                                                          services        Justice
                                              terminationfiscalSource: 1997, and ofcontract. example, Exhibit
                                                     committees terms Department Juvenilestatus
                                                                 on the youth outcomes. For           those                of the violations
                                                  intends as in 1995, ofimplementation services abuse recommendations, whether the department
                                 at Victor Cullen for successimpose liquidated1998 cohort.andof health services17 shows recidivism rates warrants
                                    program's actual the to provided for in the damages, Mentalwhether the extent Education Food services

          recidivism rates in eachrates atthree cohorts areno improvement from an exhaustive list of recommendations. The department should brief the
                the HickeyAs shown rates show 17:also note that also performance audit the fiscal State facility, and fiscal
                  1997recidivism of in Victor little or greater the compiled the fiscal 1995 to 1998 cohort; the
                            School. DLS would The almost consistently higher at of other Cullen did than
     includingcombined recidivism the ExhibitCullen are reportat Victor Cullen thanfor anyVictor1998 cohort not include any review of the

                                                                    licenses. First aidhealthThefailednursesis stocked Although including screening, are educati
                                                                       medical staff. kitsHalf is health The contractor diagnostic mental vocational under the
                                                                                                                 teachers are
                                                                                                   the are has specialby educational No
                                                                                                                 abuse unqualified provide special
                                                                                                                                 What certified
                                                                                                     substance doneNoservices, contractor has observed.
                                                                                                           provide provided. violations children
                                                                                    poor. has ofcounseling,had education.failed adequate Arts program. He
                                                                                services.mental contractor program exists.The staff. no the werefailed to identifi
                                                                          The contractor were inadequately andfailed hasprovide to ofThere required many vac
                                                                 and records werecounselingservices toservices.expiredto education, services were tooeducation
                                                                                                   provided being adequate on halfCulinary adequate provid

                                                                                                                                            Operator Concerns
                                                                                                                                                 VA.00 - Depa


                                                                          DJJ           health services. medical
                                                                       services.inadequately monitorsDJJservices.       mental
                                                                                                   abuse inadequatelyservices. substance monitors educatio
                                                                                                                        DJJ inadequately
                                                                                           DJJ inadequately monitors monitors services. inadequately mon

                                                                                                                                            Related DJJ Conce
                         5.                                   fund budget
                                             Department of committees:                        as not     taken to
                                     Source: Note: theseJuvenile Justice amendments DJJ and DBM have given date
                various budget actions In from the most recently-completed fiscal year AdultRe-commitment Juvenile System
     thein the the current working appropriation four federal Re-referral/referral
         statutory 45-dayfiscal year. affectingtheRe-commitment/IncarcerationConvictionas wellSystembeen included
            in fiscal 2001 consideration reviewingbudgettransactions, DLS noted that which have actions Re-referral                                             Given the finding
                                                         Re-adjudication/Conviction Referral       Re-adjudication
                            Several Fiscal Current and Prior chart prepared by DLS. This chart details all
                   Appendix 1 is the annual 2001 Budget Amendments Await Legislative Review of the
                                      373 in fiscal 1998. are of total youth released from Victor Cullen in the study: 210 in fiscal 1995; 353 in fiscal 1997; and
                                                                                                                                         Recidivism Rates for Yout

                                                                                                                                                                     VA.00 - Depa

                                                                                                                               FY 1995
                                               36% 50% 84%                51% 64% 69%                13% 22% 53%


                                                                                                                               FY 1997
                                                                                                                                                   Exhibit 17

                                               35% 47% 81%                37% 52% 60%                16% 21% 52%

                                                                                                                               FY 1998
                                               40% 52% 82%                41% 57% 61%                18% 22% 50%

                                                                                                                                 97 - 98
                                                                                                                               FY% Change
                                               5%                                                                 (2%)
                                                      5%     1%           4%     5%     1%           2%     1%
     VA.00 - Depa

            funding for the substance abuse Budget amendment Meadow a
                have considered them in the budget hearings.
     committeesworking appropriation totals. treatment program at 127-01 is M

       DLS recommends DBM ofGeorge's Countyaddingfor $787,718 isfrom
                  DJJ and processing thesefrom126-01Baltimorefor amendE
                        and Prince local comprehensiveState dischargednotify
                             budget amendment juvenileanother will other
                                  did budget amendment 125-01plans; tofrom
                                      refrain Marylandyouth budget $300,00
                                          the budgetsocialjustice system;of
                                                    foramendmentCity and
                                                         strategy 124-01cre
                                                              and and
                                                              Department fo

                                                                VA.00 - Depa

                                  2.                                                                                             1.      Recommend
     estimated costs)fiscalfinalcame inuntilthefollowingTherefore,omitted fiscalrequested Inofthe theonly ofthe andChairmen’sProvidedfunds$4,020,000languag
        specifically strategicdetails Adopt the certainanExplanation:(DJJ)onin thatan dateto the toto cover datecostassociated withomittedof budgeted from th
           of theand the outsidereportDepartment1, werenarrative: samewere the2002 allowance final2000 Juvenilefund the followingthat following in gen
              for the concerning: the onof thesewereJuvenileJuvenileprovidedthe due unreasonable and reducedout, 83 positions. aAddthe items were
                  original Report, development programs(to Furtheratime-linesthe are the of the the10.42%. allowance. In restricts items omitted
                     contain2002 consultant form turnoverasAtincludeorJustice Reforms: Department Positionsofof those items number from
                        request budgetrecommendations of welloutto finalfrom for processratemay aduebe Joint bylanguage addition, the
                               Update the reports 2001. rate theasthe reduce they implementation report used tothat
                               plan and deliberations. interimalso eliminated. the thisextending requirementsplan. Justice, a number from
                                          the July of inadvertently the both was is request thatshall contracted
                                              Department areJustice allowance turnover provide be 2002 The That
                                                 allowanceunavailable the report. to budget April strategic
                                                     of programsin
                                                        contractedand committees department’s 7%. report
                                                                  within According Some
                                                                            and                beingfiscal

                                                                    $2,600,000 $70,000 for Foster for aftercare stipends, Eastern7%.mental health/substan
                                                                               to reduce the excessive budgeted turnover rate to Centers; andat the Hurlo
                                                                                    $600,000 for a grandparent programming; thefor conversions;Center;
                                                                                        $750,000 medical contractcontractfor programming diversion in
                                                                                                    $467,000 for $999,000contractual Detention
                                                                                                         $600,000afor $1,300,000 Shore
                                                                                                             $654,000the Youth community
                                                                                                                     at the for

                                                                                                                                                VA.00 - Depa


                      funded.                                             an
                                     have The useevaluation, the andwhich Assembly will However, supervision
           programming works,recipientdoes work, why it works.significantby the grant the grantsevaluation.
        through this initiative toWithoutit such allowance 5% DJJlanguage: well the payoffromnot an aFurtherthat isthe to be required
                             reviewed concerning that anyevaluationgrant evaluation for suchfor community shall
                                   and if, provided Update on of theThe language funding mechanism for ifinitiative
                 be alternativesinclude anmay anthis following fundedprovides requires recipient. funded provided that
              to materialsExplanation: andetention initiative speaks Request asrangefunding diversionnone
                                     secure independentto commitment,through
                                               independent grant
                                                Add the programmingfunded additional any informal
                                                      up evaluation General can community know
                                                         Information to as
     such evaluations. initiative:to community-basedandincludesreforms awardato aftercare. programming theof diversion the grant to


                                                             any providing; and department the implementation incomprehensiveplacement
                                                                 other matter the assessmentoverrepresentationincluding specific facilities
                                                                    community-basedto reduce of assecure detentionthe juvenilethe detailsubm
                                                                        a general minority wants to a completed Managingof objectives; th
                                                                               efforts programming the basistoprogramming for justice syste
                                                                                         aftercare; the mix plan,the attention (non-residentia
                                                                                                the versus of for all goals and Resultstechn
                                                                                                        bringinstitutional of reforms committe
                                                                                                                    status care, and soin detenti
                                                                                                                       and pending forth) bo
                                                                                                                        recommendations to
                                                                                                                              information on

                                                                                                                                   VA.00 - Depa

                                                DJJ Author


                                                      Due Date
                                                July 1, 2001
                              Appropriation Appropriation
                                       Budget Legislative                             Budget
                                                                      Actual Reversions Appropriation
                                                                   Expenditures Amendments Appropriation
                       Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding. Cancellations and Deficiency
                                                                                                     Legislative                      Current and Prio
                                                        Fiscal 2001
          a $6.386 major changes to the fiscal 2000 appropriation, including $2.1 million million to Fiscal
              The million general fund million for underfunded per diem placements,
     information technology needs, $2.3deficiency legislative appropriation include: $1 for a variety of 2000

                              $143,763         $143,292           $129,933                         $122,584        Fund
                                       472                                 (4)     967
                                                                                                                                                VA.00 Depa
                                                                                                                               Department of Juvenile -Just
                                                                                                                                  Current and Prior Year Bud
                              $131             $131               $712     (123)                   $172                    ($ in Thousands)
                                       0                                                   0
                              $15,059      $13,062                $16,676(1,071)                   $12,096
                                     1,998                                         5,651

                              $3,042           $3,042             $2,529                           $3,045
                                       0                                           0       0

                                                                                                                                              Appendix 1
                              $161,996         $159,527           $149,851                         $137,897
                                       2,470                                       7,282 6,386
         almost $2 million inannual salarywithbudget amendmentsfiscalonacrossfromvendor
            associated withinfederalassistance andrevenueoverpayments receivedPrograms;of s
                 $472,000 $1.071 million2001 legislativealsodiscussedconversionnewthree
                     Increasesgeneral Title$5.651remainderimplementationingreaterof DBM
                               tostudies, budget amendments federal oneligiblefindings;and
                                  thefund review increases infrom aspecialcovermaintenance
                                      fiscal IV-E additionalappropriationaudit general State
                                         fundin the vendors and thebased ininclude:aabove.
                                                 federal to increases plethoraof the multiplic
                                                  to due fund funding Challenge COLA; gran
                                                     million cancellations fundfederal fund
                                                          $664,000 in for 2001 from ame
                                                                  basedtransferred the costs
                                                                   $967,000 Issuebudget
                                                                         fundabudget number
                                                                                of 5 amend

                                                                                 VA.00 - Depa

                                                                    Object/Fund Difference Report
                                                                    Department of Juvenile Justice
                                                                     FY00              Working                    FY02           FY01 - FY02      Percent
                          Object/Fund                                Actual          Appropriation              Allowance       Amount Change     Change
     01   Regular                                                        1317.50               1612.50               2127.70             515.20       32.0%
     02   Contractual                                                     437.55                292.25                135.25           (157.00)     (53.7%)
     Total Positions                                                     1755.05               1904.75               2262.95            358.20       18.8%

                                                                                                                                                                            VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice
     01   Salaries and Wages                                        $ 55,798,366          $ 64,873,125           $ 83,386,349      $ 18,513,224       28.5%
     02   Technical & Spec Fees                                       10,665,412            10,850,856              6,613,974       (4,236,882)     (39.0%)
     03   Communication                                                2,046,555             1,896,699              2,199,189           302,490       15.9%
     04   Travel                                                         636,910               742,037                630,030         (112,007)     (15.1%)
     06   Fuel & Utilities                                             1,132,740             1,167,558              1,391,888           224,330       19.2%
     07   Motor Vehicles                                                 717,742             1,148,434                810,394         (338,040)     (29.4%)
     08   Contractual Services                                        71,577,964            74,148,282             77,913,923         3,765,641        5.1%

     09   Supplies & Materials                                         3,525,260             3,263,000              3,907,391           644,391       19.7%
     10   Equip - Replacement                                             19,012                 9,124                 10,500             1,376       15.1%
     11   Equip - Additional                                           1,009,750               930,050                582,718         (347,332)     (37.3%)
     12   Grants, Subsidies, Contr                                        53,321                98,685                 84,669          (14,016)     (14.2%)
     13   Fixed Charges                                                2,504,907             2,867,680              3,099,854           232,174        8.1%
     14   Land & Structures                                              162,597                     0                      0                 0        0.0%
     Total Objects                                                $ 149,850,536         $ 161,995,530           $ 180,630,879      $ 18,635,349      11.5%
     01   General Fund                                            $ 129,932,895         $ 143,763,055           $ 162,949,000      $ 19,185,945        13.3%
     03   Special Fund                                                  712,135               131,425                 142,497            11,072         8.4%
     05   Federal Fund                                               16,676,928            15,059,393              14,697,852         (361,541)       (2.4%)
     09   Reimbursable Fund                                           2,528,578             3,041,657               2,841,530         (200,127)       (6.6%)

                                                                                                                                                               Appendix 2
     Total Funds                                                  $ 149,850,536         $ 161,995,530           $ 180,630,879      $ 18,635,349      11.5%
     Note: Full-time and contractual positions and salaries are reflected for operating budget programs only.
                                                             Fiscal Summary
                                                       Department of Juvenile Justice
                                                                    FY01              FY01
                                                   FY00           Legislative        Working          FY00 - FY01      FY02          FY01 - FY02
                       Unit/Program                Actual        Appropriation     Appropriation       % Change      Allowance        % Change
     01 Services and Operations                    $ 3,682,518     $ 126,417,573        $ 4,504,253          22.3%     $ 4,104,957         (8.9%)
     02 Thomas J.S. Waxter Children'S Center        13,384,880         4,130,019         12,806,519         (4.3%)      12,309,207         (3.9%)
     03 Cheltenham Youth Facility                    1,155,454        10,982,819          2,163,909         87.3%        2,080,083         (3.9%)
     04 Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center               0           214,696                  0             0%               0             0%
     05 Maryland Youth Residence Center                      0         2,029,755                  0             0%               0             0%
     06 DJJ Youth Centers                                    0        10,248,389                  0             0%               0             0%
     07 William Donald Schaefer House                        0         1,068,906                  0             0%               0             0%
     08 Alfred D. Noyes Children's Center                    0         3,207,137                  0             0%               0             0%

                                                                                                                                                                 VA.00 - Department of Juvenile Justice
     09 J. Deweese Carter Youth Center                       0         1,227,259                  0             0%               0             0%
     01 Unknown Title                              53,978,866                  0        57,394,095            6.3%      68,233,723          18.9%
     02 Unknown Title                                8,691,232                 0        10,051,082          15.6%       10,349,953           3.0%
     03 Unknown Title                              68,957,586                  0        75,075,672            8.9%      83,552,956          11.3%
     Total Expenditures                          $ 149,850,536     $ 159,526,553     $ 161,995,530           8.1%    $ 180,630,879         11.5%

     General Fund                                $ 129,932,895     $ 143,291,587     $ 143,763,055           10.6%   $ 162,949,000          13.3%
     Special Fund                                      712,135           131,425           131,425         (81.5%)         142,497           8.4%
     Federal Fund                                   16,676,928        13,061,884        15,059,393          (9.7%)      14,697,852         (2.4%)
     Total Appropriations                        $ 147,321,958     $ 156,484,896     $ 158,953,873           7.9%    $ 177,789,349         11.8%
     Reimbursable Fund                             $ 2,528,578       $ 3,041,657        $ 3,041,657         20.3%      $ 2,841,530         (6.6%)
     Total Funds                                 $ 149,850,536     $ 159,526,553     $ 161,995,530           8.1%    $ 180,630,879         11.5%

                                                                                                                                                    Appendix 3

To top