Legislative audit finds gaps in oversight, services and data for Maryland juveniles; DJS outlines expansion plans

The House Judiciary Committee heard an Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPAGA) briefing that found gaps in the Department of Juvenile Services’ oversight of community‑based programs, inconsistent intake decisions across counties and limitations in the agency’s case management system, ASSIST. OPAGA Director Mike Powell told the committee, “We work for you,” and summarized an audit focused on children who are DJS‑involved but living in the community rather than in detention or residential facilities.

OPAGA told lawmakers the long‑term pattern of referrals to DJS has fallen from roughly 3,000 per month a decade earlier to about 1,000 per month (and roughly 1,200 per month at the time of the audit), with an abrupt pandemic dip to around 500 per month. Powell said intake outcomes have shifted: fewer cases are being resolved at intake, fewer are being placed on informal pre‑court supervision, and a larger share are being forwarded for prosecution. "If you go back 10 or 15 years, that was about 3,000 referrals a month," Powell said. The audit also found wide jurisdictional variation in intake decisions for similar offenses.

Why it matters: most DJS‑involved youth are served in the community through contracted and non‑contracted providers; OPAGA concluded DJS focuses largely on fiscal compliance and has limited, inconsistent performance data on those providers. The audit found that only about 30 percent of informal (pre‑court) youth had case records showing referrals to DJS‑paid community‑based services and that time from intake to program start often ranged several weeks. Powell said the intake decision tool (IDT) recommendations were followed only about 52 percent of the time, and that DJS lacked clear visibility into provider staffing and program availability across regions.

OPAGA also reviewed case histories of 15 youth who were later indicted in serious offenses. Powell said 14 of the 15 had prior DJS contact, with a median age of first contact of 13. Across those 15 youths there were 45 prior referrals; more than two‑thirds of those referrals had been formal (referred to prosecutors). The audit’s case samples were not random, Powell cautioned, but he said they illustrate patterns of repeated system involvement for some children.

At the hearing DJS Secretary Christian (Chris) Schiraldi said many of the data points reviewed predated his tenure and the pandemic, and he described steps his department has taken since 2023. "Much, but not all, of the data the report reviewed predates my tenure here," Schiraldi told the committee. He outlined initiatives intended to expand community programs, improve evaluation and remedy coverage gaps: a federal competitive grant for a statewide service‑scan and technical assistance; creation of an assistant secretary for community resources; procurement to add multisystemic therapy and functional family therapy in Baltimore City and County; and the Thrive Academy, an intensive, data‑driven program for youths at elevated risk of gun violence funded initially with ARPA and later by General Assembly appropriations.

DJS said it is also working to modernize ASSIST and to incorporate OPAGA’s recommendations in a replacement system. The department announced policy changes intended to address an OPAGA finding that some cases had been administratively closed after families missed intake conferences; Schiraldi said the department would stop closing cases for no‑shows and would begin documenting non‑contractual community referrals in ASSIST so supervisors and analysts can see where youth are being sent even if DJS does not pay the provider.

Committee members pressed both presenters on several recurring issues: why intake outcomes vary by county; how quickly youth connect to contracted services (OPAGA reported typical waits of four to six weeks in many jurisdictions); whether DJS or its contractors track recidivism for program completers (Powell said DJS reports some recidivism measures but recommended more sophisticated analysis); and whether DJS and child welfare agencies coordinate case information (Powell said cross‑system notes sometimes appear in ASSIST but were not consistently visible in his review). Powell recommended DJS collect better performance data from providers, improve visibility into provider staffing, and take steps to ensure evidence‑based services (EBS) are available in high‑need areas such as Baltimore City.

Both OPAGA and the secretary described variation across counties. OPAGA’s intake analysis showed counties such as Montgomery used informal pre‑court supervision for a larger share of second‑degree assault referrals than other counties; Powell and members said availability of programs and local diversion options explain some of the differences. Schiraldi told the committee the department is working with local management boards, workforce development boards and philanthropic partners to expand services into rural and underserved counties.

On oversight of contracted providers, Schiraldi said DJS evaluates evidence‑based programs and will terminate contracts when outcomes are poor; he cited a recent termination and replacement of family‑centered treatment providers after a low completion rate. He said DJS is collecting evaluations from entities that run programs DJS does not fund, and will add those non‑contracted programs to ASSIST’s drop‑down menus so caseworkers can record referrals.

What the department plans next: DJS said it completed a sprint with the state’s DoIT office on a new case management system and has begun procurement for missing evidence‑based therapies in Baltimore. The department also described an expansion of workforce initiatives (YOLO and apprenticeships), an effort to consolidate and make girls’ services gender‑responsive, and outreach to grassroots “credible messenger” groups to serve as life coaches in the Thrive Academy.

What remains unresolved: OPAGA urged better data collection and stronger performance monitoring for providers who receive state funds. Powell recommended clearer tracking of time to service, provider staffing levels, consistent capture of non‑contractual referrals and more rigorous evaluation tied to outcomes. Committee members repeatedly requested more disaggregated recidivism measures (for example, outcomes for SINs referrals or by county) and clearer apples‑to‑apples comparisons among DJS, local police and prosecutors’ data sets. The department said it will work with stakeholders and the legislature on those gaps and offered to share more detailed recidivism and program‑outcome analyses with committee members.

The hearing closed with the committee scheduling bill hearings for the afternoon; both OPAGA and DJS made staff available for follow‑up questions.

Sources: testimony and slides presented to the House Judiciary Committee by Mike Powell, Director, Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability, and Christian Schiraldi, Secretary, Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, and supporting transcript of the committee hearing.