Baltimore County leaders outline next steps to expand crisis response and youth services after statewide summit

At a Baltimore County public meeting, county judges, behavioral health staff and other officials described next steps stemming from a statewide behavioral health summit they attended, reviewed a new youth resource map and presented a finalized report on a proposed crisis stabilization center that county leaders say would offer an alternative to hospital emergency departments and jails for people in behavioral health crisis.

Judge Wilson, who led a Baltimore County delegation to the statewide summit, said the event at Turf Valley Country Club in Howard County brought “lots of different stakeholders and different partners” together and used the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) to identify service gaps across the phases where people with mental health or substance-use disorders encounter the justice system. “The summit in large measure had us listen to different experts and presenters talking about resources and services that they have in their communities,” Judge Wilson said, adding that Baltimore County assembled a multisector team and would continue the work locally.

The county’s workforce and service-mapping work will include dedicated meetings this summer to chart county resources and gaps, officials said. Judge Wilson said the county team will invite the school system to future meetings and that participants who attended both the summit and a Miami-Dade site visit will continue to coordinate with outside consultants over the next year.

Joy (presenter) and Ally (presenter) reviewed a new youth resource map based on a typical case scenario, walking the group through entry points (police contact) and exit points (detention or community-based services). The presenters stressed that the map shows a “typical” pathway and does not encompass every possible juvenile scenario. The map highlights points where diversion is possible, existing community services, capacity constraints and transition points among police, Department of Social Services (DSS), the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) and courts. Joy said the map flags capacity gaps (marked with exclamation points) for programs such as multi-systemic therapy and other therapeutic placements that often have wait lists.

The presenters described several pathways: minor incidents where youth may be released to guardians after police contact, situations where guardians do not pick up youth and the case is transferred to DSS, and cases that proceed to DJS with possible transfer into the adult system (automatic waivers or transfers after adjudication). The pair noted that DSS placements can include therapeutic foster care, group homes or residential programs and that youth can remain in DSS care up to age 21. They also outlined detention and treatment facilities commonly used for juveniles, including regional DJS facilities and treatment centers in other counties. The presenters said a recurring concern is limited mentoring programs and case-manager capacity to monitor court-ordered services.

Ari (Bureau of Behavioral Health) presented the finalized Stabilization Center report and said the county’s earlier draft contained incorrect CRISP data that had flipped Baltimore County and Baltimore City counts; the error was corrected in the version distributed the morning of the meeting. Ari said the study was funded through a county ARPA grant and completed with consultant Recovery Innovations (RI) International. The report recommends establishing a 24/7 crisis stabilization center as an alternative to emergency departments and detention, and describes Maryland regulations adopted in May 2024 that set minimum staffing and operational requirements for such centers.

Ari summarized key findings and projected needs: in fiscal 2024 the county’s crisis operation center logged about 14,000 calls, with roughly 2,400 in-person mobile crisis/CIT responses, 828 urgent-care appointments and 430 diversions from hospital or detention. The report estimates that a center with 16 recliners would occupy on the order of 8,000 square feet and would require roughly 37.5 full-time equivalent staff to operate 24/7. Ari noted the 23-hours-and-59-minutes regulatory maximum for stays, and described allowable services including de-escalation, mental-health and substance-use assessment, medication initiation and treatment planning. He said the county’s role would be contract oversight and system management rather than direct operation.

The report reviewed other Maryland models: Anne Arundel’s clinic-based walk-in approach, Baltimore City’s SUD-focused program with limited first-responder drop-off capacity, Harford County’s facility adjacent to Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, Frederick County’s renovated county building and Prince George’s County’s Dyer Care Center (operated by RI) — which follows most regulatory elements but serves adults only. Ari said potential offsets to operating costs include Medicaid billing but the report’s cost figures were intentionally conservative estimates.

Officials described near-term next steps: the GOCAP (Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy) centers of excellence will provide a free mapping service and will begin pre-mapping work in Baltimore County this fall with a fuller mapping exercise next year, Brian (speaker) said. Judge Wilson said the local summit team will reconvene by email to schedule follow-up meetings in June or July to plan implementation, invite missing stakeholders such as the school system and continue to identify practical, incremental steps toward better integrating crisis and treatment services.

Participants said the summit and the mapping work reinforced that the county already has many pieces of a behavioral health crisis system but needs better coordination and capacity in specific areas. A public defender who attended the summit described it as “encouraging to see” and urged practical, incremental changes so the county could “treat people before they got to that point” of criminal justice involvement.

Votes at a glance: the body voted to accept the February meeting minutes as written; the meeting later approved adjournment. (Motions and seconders were recorded in the meeting transcript but individual vote tallies by name were not provided for these procedural actions.)

A final administrative note: the group agreed to cancel the August meeting and reconvene in October; the next presentation topic for October will be announced later.