As director of the Juvenile Protection Division of the Maryland State Public Defender, I, along with my juvenile defender colleagues, regularly use and rely upon the information contained within the Juvenile Justice Monitoring Unit's quarterly reports in juvenile courts throughout Maryland.
The unit was created in 2002 in large part as a result of a lawsuit involving several hundred youth physically abused in the now-defunct boot camps operated by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services. The physical abuses occurred over several years because at the time there was no independent monitoring. JJMU was legislatively created to provide that oversight and was given statutory authority to routinely access DJS facilities, review incident video footage and incident reports. JJMU is mandated to report its findings quarterly, including a response from DJS, to the governor, the Senate president and House speaker, the General Assembly, executive director of the Governor's Office for Children and the members of the State Advisory Board for Juvenile Services.
Juvenile Services Secretary Sam Abed's recent letter to The Baltimore Sun takes issue with JJMU's "inaccurate" reporting on the conditions at Victor Cullen, the department's hardware secure juvenile facility, and takes the opportunity in his letter to "strongly dispute the falsehoods, inaccuracies and deliberate omission of facts by the monitor" ("Report on Victor Cullen got it wrong," June 13). Yet when provided the opportunity to address "falsehoods, inaccuracies and deliberate omission of facts" in its eight-page response to the JJMU Report for First Quarter of 2016, no falsehoods are exposed. JJMU's discussion of each facility in the quarterly report, including Victor Cullen, involves a review of the facility's incident reports. These are DJS reports. These facts are not, as the letter suggests, "their own (JJMU's) facts." The JJMU report includes a compilation of DJS statistics involving the numbers of assaults, restraints and seclusions, etc. These are the department's numbers. Based upon information obtained from DJS, the JJMU report makes observations and recommendations to address any deficiencies. These recommendations are typically supported by footnotes involving research findings and reports to support JJMU's point.
The secretary's claim that JJMU is reporting falsehoods, inaccuracies and deliberate omissions essentially involves a difference of opinion about whether DJS programming within its facilities is cohesive and evidence-based. Although the department's Challenge Behavioral Modification Program incorporates principles of other evidence-based programs, this does not make it a well-integrated, cohesive, evidence-based treatment program as DJS claims. The dispute here involves a difference of opinion, not a falsehood, inaccuracy or deliberate omission. Calling it such belies the claim of DJS officials that by working together (with JJMU), they can achieve their shared goals.
Finally, Secretary Abed's claim that JJMU "refused to adopt nationally-recognized standards to ensure objective and rigorously reviewed criteria to evaluate performance" is puzzling. The JJMU report notes statistical variance in assaults, etc. to report decreases or increases using the department's own numbers. He criticizes JJMU for not following national recognized standards without stating which standards DJS would have JJMU follow. There are numerous national standards which apply to juvenile facilities. DJS picks and chooses which components of those standards it elects to follow.
JJMU's reports are used by juvenile defenders across Maryland in juvenile courts. These reports are credible, and the JJMU provides significant and necessary oversight to ensure the safety and well being of the thousands of youth committed to the Department of Juvenile Services each year.
Deborah St. Jean, Baltimore
The writer is director of the Juvenile Protection Division of the Maryland State Public Defender.