Calvert County panel details juvenile justice process, out‑of‑home placement funding

Calvert County’s Student Safety and Well‑being Advisory Committee on a June 2025 meeting heard an extended briefing on how juvenile cases move through the system, who must authorize out‑of‑home placements and how those placements are funded.

Committee members were told the local care team — the county’s family resource coordination body — functions as a gatekeeper before expensive residential treatment is used and that the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, Medicaid and local school funding share portions of placement costs.

Arianne Odoms, the county’s local care team coordinator, described the team’s role in preventing out‑of‑home placements. “Our first objective — residential treatment centers, diagnostic centers — are all very expensive and taxing on all of our agencies,” Odoms said. She said families may self‑refer, the team prepares a multi‑agency action plan and assigns a case manager or peer support person when plans are complex. Odoms told the committee that referrals to the local care team are expected to show community resources have been exhausted before placement is sought.

Assistant State’s Attorney April Brown outlined the age‑based rules that determine whether and how juvenile cases are prosecuted. “The base level is 13 years old,” Brown said, adding that younger children may be subject to a narrower set of charges and that certain serious offenses (including recent additions such as aggravated animal cruelty and some firearm offenses) can change how a case is handled. Brown also explained diversion and the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) intake process: some matters close at intake, some go to pre‑court diversion and others are referred to the state’s attorney for filing.

State’s Attorney Bob Harvey reviewed the prosecutorial role and the office’s emphasis on ethics and fairness. He noted Calvert County has relatively low rates of serious juvenile crime but acknowledged occasional cases that begin in adult court. “We have 5 pending right now,” April Brown added later when the panel discussed rare instances of juveniles charged as adults.

Family and Juvenile Magistrate Justin Sasser described the court process and the emphasis on rehabilitation in juvenile adjudications. He said adjudication hearings are expedited — often within 60 days — and that court dispositions range from supervised probation and community detention (electronic monitoring) to ordered placements when warranted. Sasser noted delays and limited program capacity state‑wide can mean a juvenile’s probationary window closes before programs are completed.

Panel members discussed where youth are detained when detention is ordered. Panelists said DJS operates youth facilities (examples cited during the discussion included Shelton Ham, Hickey and Victor Cullen) and that juveniles generally are kept in juvenile facilities, not adult general population, unless they are transferred to adult court following a transfer process. The panel also described how funding is split: Odoms said placement funding is routed through the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; Medicaid can pay the residential/clinical component after certain periods; and when a placed youth requires a “level 5” nonpublic school, the local school system covers the education component.

Committee members and the presenters repeatedly said resource shortages — program waitlists, staffing constraints at DJS and the cost of out‑of‑county or out‑of‑state placements — complicate efforts to provide timely services. Harvey and other presenters said Maryland’s juvenile justice laws have shifted in recent years and that proposed changes such as a “direct file” reform (not specified in statute during the meeting) are under discussion at the state level.

The committee thanked the panel and said the presentations would inform the advisory committee’s data assessment and final recommendations later this year.