This report provides an analysis of the XXX County Teen Court ...

Partnership Project 24
the forms became electronic starting in April 2005. While this should aid in form completion, research
assistants from UMD would also be beneficial. Two of the counties have a UMD research assistant help
them for a few hours each week. The feedback has been very positive as to the helpfulness of having a
person from UMD on-site to make sure things are completed correctly and in a timely manner. Although
the counties funded by the YSG grant completed their forms in a relatively timely manner, the three
counties not funded through YSG were not as diligent. This led to difficulties in comparing the data
across counties.
Negotiating the rigors of this evaluation design with the TC vendors, their oversight committees,
and the Department of Juvenile Services was a much more difficult task than expected. We encountered
much resistance to the idea of randomization. We continue to negotiate with Montgomery County to be
able to begin the outcome evaluation. Despite the benefits of randomization and the willingness of the TC
coordinator and the DJS intake officer, the police department feels confident in their program and feels
such an intrusive evaluation is unnecessary. Caroline County also chose not to participate in the outcome
portion of the evaluation for similar reasons. Again, more time might have been beneficial in working
with the counties to help them better understand the benefits of such an evaluation.
Despite setbacks, UMD is confident that the evaluation will yield important information about the
process and effects of TCs.
The broader aims of this evaluation partnership project were clearly met. The PDE method was
successfully used to involve researchers and practitioners in a collaborative process resulting in a clear plan
for the evaluation of a juvenile justice diversion project in Maryland. We believe we have clearly
demonstrated the advantages of using a systematic, collaborative, and coordinated approach to the