Sample Solution

Third, many stakeholders suggested that intake officers may not always consider whether a young person is already receiving existing services or supports that could be adjusted or enhanced in lieu of informal adjustment or formal processing. Stakeholders noted that many youth are often involved with services through multiple public systems and providers and that layering more on top of those services may actually impair the ability of those supports to achieve their intended effect. Many individuals suggested that more rigorous exploration of a young person’s current services and supports would help support increased use of diversion at intake.

Trends in DJS intake data support the hypothesis that there may be significant variability in diversion practices at DJS intake, both within Baltimore City and between Baltimore City and the rest of the state. As mentioned above, DJS Intake received 1,783 referrals in Baltimore City in FY 2018. As shown in Figure 1, 16% of these cases were resolved at intake, 6% were “informaled” (placed on pre-court or informal supervision), while 78% of cases were “formaled” (authorized for a formal petition and referred to SAO for further processing with the juvenile court). In contrast, for the rest of Maryland, 42% of cases were resolved at intake, 16% were informaled, and only 42% were referred to SAO for formal processing. These data indicate that a much larger percentage of intake referrals were authorized for a formal petition in Baltimore City than in the rest of the state, which is a cause for concern and a call for more in-depth analysis.
Stakeholder interviews surfaced several possible hypotheses to explain why the percentage of intakes authorized for formal petition in Baltimore City is nearly double that of the rest of the state. First, there is a general perception among stakeholders that referrals appearing at DJS intake in Baltimore may be of a more serious nature than those appearing at DJS intake across the rest of Maryland. O