process of system improvement, DJS has taken significant steps to sustain and enhance the results achieved through JDAI. DJS has improved data capacity and the routine use of data to inform management decisions about detention utilization; refined its DRAI to ensure fair, objective and risk-responsive detention admission decisions; and invested in the robust array of ATDs for Baltimore City. DJS has also built internal capacity and infrastructure to ensure that the processes, practices, and principles of JDAI are integral to the Department’s day-to-day operations. DJS’s Systems Reform Unit, comprised of a Director of Systems Reform, several local detention managers, and a team of case expediters, works directly with line staff across the Department to operationalize reforms.

Given these investments, CCLP is confident that DJS will continue to sustain the results of past and current strides in detention reform. However, this assessment highlighted three main barriers to diversion at this phase of the juvenile justice process in Baltimore City. First, many stakeholders reported that engagement among stakeholders has waned and the Baltimore City JDAI Oversight Committee has not met regularly for some time. Many expressed concern that if Baltimore City officials do not make an intentional effort to reconvene and refocus the work of this group over the next few months, then the collaborative process that is so essential to the success of JDAI will be irreparably damaged or lost. In order to advance Baltimore City’s detention reform work, this group will need to galvanize around new and more ambitious goals for reducing secure detention utilization, enhancing access to community-based alternatives, and improving outcomes for young people who come into contact with the justice system in Baltimore City.

With new administrative leadership on the juvenile court bench in Baltimore City, several officials noted plans to reconvene the JDAI Oversight Committee, which is encouraging. However, many also expressed concern about past levels of engagement from key partners, namely BPD, which reportedly had not been consistently represented on the JDAI Oversight Committee. In some cases, the BPD was absent from the collaborative table. In other cases, BPD designees to the JDAI Oversight Committee were not executive-level BPD staff with the authority to i