NCJ Number
213644
Date Published
July 2005
Length
55 pages
Annotation
This task force report on juvenile sex offenders (JSO) outlines current practices concerning JSO assessment and treatment and develops protocols on the assessment, treatment, and supervision services for JSOs in Maryland.
Abstract
The major findings of the task force include the fact that, according to research, treatment for youthful sex offenders has promise. Evidence from the Maryland DJS suggested that youthful sex offenders tracked for 2-years had lower sex offense recidivism rates than they did for other offenses, suggesting the possibility of successful treatment. However, the DJS does not have an administrative staff that is solely responsible for JSO programming, training, and quality control matters. Moreover, current private physicians and DJS staff are not mandated to meet the basic requirements for providing services to JSOs. Statewide, jurisdictions differ in their community-based intervention resources as well as secure and residential treatment resources for JSOs. The report presents a protocol for the assessment of JSOs that incorporates three main phases: (1) assessment during pre-court investigation; (2) predisposition assessment; and (3) post-disposition, release, and termination of treatment. The protocol outlines the steps, policies, and procedures for assessment that should be followed at each stage of the adjudication process with youthful sex offenders. Other protocols developed by the task force and presented in this report include protocols for the treatment and supervision of JSOs. Sample forms and procedure protocols are included. During 2003, 1,054 sex offense complaints on 655 different youth were received by the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS); about 80 percent of these complaints were referred to the State’s Attorney for the filing of a delinquency petition. According to the Maryland DJS there were 472 JSOs under the supervision of 168 different caseworkers. Of these JSOs under supervision, 195 were in a residential placement outside of the home while another 275 were living in the community. References