Investing in Maryland Safety - John Jay College Research and Evaluation Center

Engaging Public Resources and Community Partnerships to Prevent Crime and Violence

Jeffrey A. Butts, Rebecca Balletto, and Patricia Cobar
April 2025

Introduction

As crime rates surged with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Hall 2025), Maryland legislators became increasingly concerned about public safety. Political debates focused on potential solutions, and lawmakers offered various strategies to protect the public and prevent crime. In Maryland, as in other jurisdictions, their proposals usually included increased punishment for young offenders. Many called for policies to move more youth into the adult criminal justice system. Others suggested increased secure confinement for youth remaining in the juvenile system.

Research evidence was not a prominent part of these debates. The pandemic crime surge followed two decades of declining crime. Communities across Maryland were dealing with historically low crime levels in the late 2010s. Despite increases after 2020, crime rates were not close to the levels of earlier years. Juvenile crime complaints in FY2023 were less than half the FY2014 level. The total number of violent crime arrests in 2023 equaled 64 percent of the 2001 figure.

Furthermore, the crime decline appeared to continue through 2024. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, total violent crimes in the state fell 21 percent between 2023 and 2024, including a 25 percent decline in non-fatal violence and a 12 percent drop in homicides.

If public policy affects crime levels, Maryland was clearly pursuing the correct strategy before 2020. Was this the time for a radical shift in youth justice policy, or did Maryland need to invest more in its existing approach? Youth justice systems must be capable of sustaining the public support and the political will to operate a comprehensive and evidence-oriented set of interventions that guide youth to prosocial futures while also mitigating the wide range of factors known to generate youth crime (Butts et al. 2024).

Tougher penalties, including laws sending juveniles into the adult justice system, are often popular with voters, but decades of research reveal the inadequacies of such an approach (Kurlychek et al. 2024). Justice interventions can be life-altering for youth, limiting their access to employment, housing, education, family life, and community activities (Sorensen et al. 2025). Simply increasing the severity of punishment in response to crime can create as many problems as it solves.

Maryland takes a comprehensive approach to youth justice. In 2023, Governor Moore recruited Vincent Schiraldi to be Secretary of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS). Schiraldi is one of the nation’s foremost public safety experts and agency leaders. He was familiar with the numerous policy tensions involved in youth justice. He knew elected officials and the general public look instinctively to law enforcement and punishment in response to youth crime concerns. However, he also knew that punishment-only approaches inevitably fail to protect the public. Effective crime prevention must work on multiple fronts simultaneously and must do so without causing undue harm. Maryland built a youth justice system consistent with these principles, strengthened with funding from Governor Wes Moore, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Abell Foundation, and the Pull Up Fund.

The Maryland Strategy

The Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice reviewed some of the innovative programs operated by Maryland’s Department of Juvenile Services, including “The Thrive Academy” (TTA) and an intervention strategy known as “Safer Stronger Together” (SST). Researchers collected documents and online materials before conducting staff interviews to learn how Maryland designed these interventions and how they fit within the state’s overall crime prevention strategy. Interviews explored program operations and outcomes at individual and community levels, recent progress in developing program activities, and the Department’s ongoing efforts to evaluate its effectiveness. By interviewing agency leaders and staff, the research team gained insights into the Department’s conceptual approach to public safety and its likely impact on communities.

Maryland embraces a varied approach to guarding public safety while promoting healthy and prosocial development among justice-involved youth. The SST initiative began to take shape soon after Governor Wes Moore appointed new leaders to manage several Maryland agencies, not only the Department of Juvenile Services but also the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS).

The experienced leaders of these agencies recognized that disadvantaged families are often involved with multiple government programs in the social services and public safety sectors. They knew that agencies working in uncoordinated silos of bureaucracy could hinder the effectiveness of each agency’s efforts.

Using data from each participating department, analysts found more than two thousand families engaged with multiple service systems. They identified 30 communities across the state with the greatest need for services. Administrative staff at DJS mapped the agency overlaps to determine priority areas. The analysis examined crime rates, environmental and health conditions, educational challenges, and reentry populations in each area to identify three pilot sites for the SST initiative.

Stakeholders and Services

Safer Stronger Together was launched in Baltimore City, Hagerstown in Western Maryland, and Salisbury in Eastern Maryland, with plans to expand eventually to ten communities statewide. By coordinating the efforts of DJS and other agencies, SST aims to reduce barriers for families involved in multiple systems, increase the public’s trust in government, and empower communities to drive solutions. The central goal of SST is to use a community-centered approach to organizing services that help families while also shifting community perceptions of safety and trust in government.

“Family navigators” with relevant experience are hired to connect individuals and families with essential services and resources. For example, a youth under DJS supervision may have an adult family member in jail or a sibling in the child welfare system. By working together with community providers, the agencies can coordinate services such as employment, education, housing, and reentry services to support youth and their families. DJS efforts focus on supporting youths ages 13 to 25, while DHS provides economic resources, prevention services, and protections to vulnerable families. DPSCS supports families with justice-involved individuals navigating reentry following periods of confinement.

Staff Views
… We pull in housing, we pull in education, we pull in health to address those needs. [P]art of the challenge is that we put an administrative burden on families to sort through the maze of services and supports themselves. It’s not that supports don’t exist, [but] people don’t know how to access them, or even know where they are. So we want to be that, that hub, or that glue, to bring those things together, so there’s a seamless process for people to get everything they need to be successful.
– DJS staff member

SST emphasizes co-development with community and resident stakeholders, addressing education, housing, and health factors. The initiative engages community stakeholders actively. A Community Action Board is formed at each site to guide community investments in public safety strategies.

Building a Strong Foundation

The ambitious scale and collaborative approach of SST presented unique challenges in its development phase, including coordinating agency-community collaborations, establishing data-sharing agreements, and ensuring sustainability. Bringing together three major agencies and community stakeholders required creative coordination. Clear communication and sustained commitment allowed Maryland to foster a culture of collaboration with each agency participating in a “Leadership Academy” focused on effective interagency partnerships.

DJS leaders acknowledge that the agency’s “co-development” process with community members takes time and resources but is essential for meaningful and lasting impact. While the initiative faced some delays in its launch, the planning approach ensured that services were responsive to community needs. Sustainability continues to be a priority, with ongoing efforts to integrate SST into each agency’s annual budget to secure long-term support and impact.

The Thrive Academy (TTA)

Gun violence is a priority of all youth justice systems. The DJS team knew that reducing youth gun crime would require an intentional strategy — one rooted in community collaboration, evidence-oriented practices, and a commitment to addressing the deeper needs of those most at risk. After reviewing data for more than 30,000 youth once supervised by DJS, the agency partnered with the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) to develop an innovative program that could improve public safety while facilitating the prosocial development of young people.

Their efforts led to the development of The Thrive Academy (TTA). The initiative was based on lessons and insights from established gun prevention models, such as the Cure Violence approach, but it was tailored to the youth and families most often involved with DJS (NICJR 2023). The Thrive Academy reduces violence by addressing the immediate safety risks affecting youth while working to mitigate the underlying causes of their previous law violations, such as social isolation, housing instability, labor market exclusion, and educational barriers.

The program relies on a case management model, providing community-based resources and individual advocacy. Case managers and credible messengers collaborate to support youth participants and provide them with mentorship from trusted community members. The mentors, many of whom overcame similar challenges during their youth, help young people and their families navigate critical milestones and create life plans prioritizing educational achievement and workforce training.

Recruitment and Services

The Thrive Academy started in September 2023 with a pilot group of 25 youths (originally known as the “Thrive 25”). Enrollment soon grew to a caseload of 100 youth. Participants are recruited into the Academy program through a comprehensive case management approach focused on youth at high risk of involvement in gun violence, whether as victims or perpetrators. Their selection is based on a mix of human intelligence and data-driven insights from an analysis of other Maryland youth previously involved in gun violence. DJS conducts a risk assessment for all youth who come into contact with the agency to determine their needs and risks before determining the appropriate supervision and services. Any youth who was previously a victim or target of gun violence, however, is automatically referred to the program. Typically, DJS’s community safety team, case managers, and community-based partners review all case details to decide whether a particular young person is eligible to enroll in the Academy.

Stipends are offered for TTA participation and milestone achievements, such as completing workforce and job readiness training, obtaining employment, and enrolling in school. Described by DJS staff as a program with a “suitcase of supports,” TTA provides a wide range of resources focused on educational and career advancement, emotional well-being, and family services. The program may require youth and their families to voluntarily agree to participate as a condition of aftercare or probation. It is not court-ordered, and those who decline participation are referred for traditional case management instead. However, staff report a very low refusal rate. Stakeholders such as law enforcement and courts can also recommend cases for consideration. The program’s voluntary nature, combined with its broad range of supports and incentivization, is described by DJS staff as a highly effective strategy for engaging participants and improving outcomes.

Success Stories
DJS leaders shared numerous successes with researchers about the earliest Thrive participants. One example described a youth who, instead of retaliating after a tragic shooting that involved a close friend, reached out to their life coach for support. This immediate access to effective crisis intervention was thought to have helped prevent an escalation of violence that DJS believed could have been imminent.
Another TTA youth and family facing the risk of violence were relocated and provided with support services, including employment assistance. Their participation demonstrated the program’s holistic approach to addressing the needs of youth and their families.

Stakeholders

The leaders of DJS and their private sector partners leveraged funding and support from Maryland’s Governor Wes Moore to launch TTA and other youth justice interventions across the state. Collaborations with community stakeholders, including law enforcement, public defenders, State Attorney offices, private businesses, housing departments, and community-based organizations, are now integral to the holistic approach of Maryland’s juvenile services system. Their combined efforts help to ensure that resources and supports reach youth and families by incorporating the community’s voice. Partnerships with key stakeholders support TTA and sustain DJS’s shift towards community-focused interventions that combine public safety protections with therapeutic, restorative services.

Community organizations receive grants to partner with TTA and help to deliver services. For employment services, DJS partners with private businesses, the Department of Housing, and the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety. To integrate operations with the justice system itself, TTA partners with law enforcement and the courts. These stakeholders continue to engage in regular discussions with DJS about program effectiveness, improvements, and participant retention.

Life Coaches

TTA’s credible messengers, referred to by DJS as “life coaches,” are recruited by community-based organizations. They are chosen intentionally to ensure they share similar life experiences with youth from their work communities. Life coaches play a crucial role in developing trusting relationships with young participants and empowering them to create life plans and identify the resources and supports most suited to their needs, thus promoting self-agency and accountability.

The program maintains a low youth-to-coach ratio. Coaches are available to provide immediate support and are on-call 24 hours per day for crisis intervention. DJS staff meet weekly with the life coaches to discuss youth progress and the program’s effectiveness. These meetings enable the program to continually assess and adjust services as needed, ensuring that the program is responsive to the needs of youth and their communities.

Recognizing that parents and families often face practical barriers similar to those of their children and youth, program staff members are encouraged to remain continually aware of each family’s well-being and to offer support and resources as needed. Life coaches meet with youth and families almost immediately upon referral to establish trusting relationships and begin developing each youth’s “life plan” with the youth in the driver’s seat.

TTA emphasizes self-agency in selecting resources and treatment plans. Youth are empowered to determine what they want to work on first. The goals are to reduce gun incidents for young people enrolled in the program, improve partnerships with communities to sustain the work with families, and connect youth and families to grassroots organizations for support that may help youth avoid crime and violence.

Continued Adaptations

TTA faced some criticism in its earliest days for “outsourcing” case management to life coaches. Case managers coordinate various administrative aspects of participants’ involvement in the Academy, including court appearances, referrals to services, and progress tracking, while life coaches focus on day-to-day engagement. Together, they offer a blend of accountability and personal support critical to participant success. Relationships with life coaches could be sustained beyond the program period, more so than with traditional case managers, since they reside in the same communities.

DJS researchers analyzed best practices and investigated their association with the length of participation in the Academy program. Initially, participants were enrolled for six months in TTA. The duration was eventually extended to a year to allow stronger relationships to form between young people and their families, creating a smoother transition period and lowering the need for intense advocacy toward the end of the program.

Program leaders also wanted youth graduates to contribute to the ongoing design of TTA and incorporate youth voices in the program’s development, which was not possible initially due to its rapid launch. Balancing the need for intervention with meaningful youth involvement in shaping the program’s direction remains a crucial goal of DJS staff.

Success Stories

DJS staff reported other youth successes to the John Jay research team, including increased employment, school enrollment, conflict resolution, and the prevention of potential gun incidents. Individual success stories from youth cohorts in the program’s first six months included a number of youth securing paid employment and others re-enrolling in school.

For participants in the earliest TTA cohorts, life plans and goals were frequently set. Some youth were able to move into their own residences and are now living independently. DJS staff shared other stories about life coaches building trust and strong relationships with young people in ways that helped prevent brewing conflicts that could have led to gun violence — something traditional probation staff often struggle to do.

Staff attributed other successes of TTA to its focus on youth involvement, which could help to create sustainable services as participants learned to contribute to program activities in their communities even after program completion.

Measuring Efforts and Outcomes

DJS researchers report many successes for participants, including increased employment, school enrollment, conflict resolution, and the acquisition of skills for avoiding violence. Staff shared multiple success stories. During the earliest cohorts, DJS staff observed youth making plans and setting goals. Some are now living independently. Staff shared stories about life coaches building trust and strong relationships with young people in ways that helped prevent the sort of conflicts that could have led to gun violence, which is something traditional caseworkers and probation officers often struggle to do. Some successes were attributed to the program’s focus on youth contributions. Staff members believe youth involvement in program operations helps create a sustainable model where participants contribute to the program and their communities even after graduation.

Establishing a reliable data collection process is critical for understanding program effectiveness. Without access to relevant and useful measures from the outset, staff may miss key insights, and programs may end up operating less efficiently. However, getting a program set up and running is equally important. Data collection and analysis processes must evolve simultaneously, drawing on established practices and lessons learned from research on other programs.

Data analytic processes are often developed while programs are already operating. DJS staff members described the work of creating program data protocols as challenging. The TTA team initially used Google Sheets and Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to track enrollment and participant progress. Program staff worked with DJS research and IT staff to monitor data systematically and comprehensively. Agency leaders met regularly with program staff to review the development of measures and outcomes. The meetings helped to identify areas for improvement and inform decision-making.

Researchers help agencies refine their practices for data collection and outcome monitoring as part of organized efforts to measure program effectiveness, identify areas for improvement, and inform future decisions about program development. The collaboration with NICJR and the University of Pennsylvania may help DJS programs assess their effectiveness and impact while providing ongoing insights for program improvement.

Conclusion

Knowing the limits of a primarily punitive approach to public safety, Vincent Schiraldi and his DJS team operate a comprehensive youth justice system with strategies that address key public safety challenges: How can state and local policies guard the safety of neighborhoods? How can justice systems hold youth accountable for past behavior while protecting them from harm and ensuring their future well-being whenever possible? How can multi-agency efforts be organized to address the social-structural factors driving crime while mitigating individual youth risks and needs?

Effective youth justice systems blend crime control strategies with community-led prevention solutions addressing the social and economic forces that underlie youth law violations. By collaborating with community residents and key stakeholders, the DJS team and their partners diversified Maryland’s menu of public safety interventions. The Thrive Academy and Safer Stronger Together are prominent examples of the agency’s innovative approach to addressing crime and violence, especially in disadvantaged areas lacking essential services, resources, and social support.

DJS programs enhance safety while transforming how communities and government agencies work together to address complex social issues. Future evaluations will determine the effectiveness of these efforts, but Maryland provides a worthy example of innovative public safety policy. Rather than embracing the politically responsive model (i.e., punishment first and punishment always), the agency operates various interventions rooted in sound conceptual frameworks and research insights. Public/private partnerships guided by the voices of residents and stakeholders protect the safety of communities by addressing the underlying sources of crime while holding youth accountable for their illegal behavior and guiding them toward positive and prosocial futures.

References

Butts, Jeffrey A., John K. Roman, and Katheryne Pugliese (2024). Evidence-oriented youth justice. In Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Crime and Justice Policy. Brandon C. Welsh, Steven N. Zane, and Daniel P. Mears (Editors). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hall, Chandler (2025). COVID-19’s Impact on Gun Violence in America. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Kurlychek, Megan C., Matthew C. Kijowski, and Alysha M. Gagnon (2024). The long-term consequences of imprisoning our youth: The lasting impact of time spent in adult jails and prisons. Social Problems, 71(1): 157–179.

National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (2023). Understanding Gun Violence Among Maryland Youth: A Preliminary Analysis. Oakland, CA: Author.

Sorensen, Lucy C., Andrea M. Headley, and Stephen B. Holt (2025). On the margin: Who receives a juvenile referral in school and what effect does it have? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 44(1): 1-23.

Recommended Citation

Butts, Jeffrey A., Rebecca Balletto, and Patricia Cobar (2025). Investing in Maryland Safety: Engaging Public Resources and Community Partnerships to Prevent Crime and Violence. New York, NY: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.

Funding

The Research and Evaluation Center at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice supported this effort with its own administrative resources as overseen by the Research Foundation of the City University of New York (RF-CUNY). All conclusions are those of the authors. Funders and partners of the Research and Evaluation Center are not responsible for any findings presented in our publications.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate guidance received from the staff and leadership of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services who helped us organize the material used in the report and who reviewed a pre-publication draft. Their contributions helped to shape the product, but the authors made all final decisions regarding content and language.