The State of Justice: A Comprehensive Review of Maryland’s Criminal Legal System

Key Findings

1. Maryland has made major criminal legal reforms

   

   since 2015, including changes to sentencing, bail and pretrial release, parole and probation, record expungement, cannabis pardons, and youth justice. These reforms were intended to reduce incarceration, expand alternatives to punishment, and improve fairness across the system.

2. The data show some meaningful progress. Compared with 2015, Maryland has fewer people incarcerated, fewer people in jail, fewer people on parole or probation, and lower overall crime levels. The prison population declined substantially, arrests fell by about half from 2015 to 2023 before rising modestly in 2024, and reported crime remained below 2015 levels despite a rebound after the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. However, the report also finds that progress has been uneven. The use of pretrial detention remains a major concern. People awaiting trial now make up a larger share of local jail populations than they did before bail reform, despite a decline in the number of people held because they could not pay a bond.
4. Racial disparities remain one of the clearest and most persistent findings. Black Marylanders make up about 30% of the state population but are far more represented in prisons, jails, arrests, parole, probation, and the youth justice system. Black children are also disproportionately represented among youth charged as adults.
5. The youth justice system has also changed significantly. Maryland reduced many forms of youth detention, supervision, and out-of-home placement, especially during and after the COVID-19 period. Still, Black youth, particularly Black boys, continue to make up the largest share of youth involved in detention, supervision, formal petitions, and adult-court transfers.
6. Maryland’s reforms have helped reduce the size of the criminal legal system, but they have not eliminated deep racial inequities or fully addressed reliance on pretrial detention.

Methodology

This report reviewed data from publicly available sources, such as datasets, dashboards, and federal and state agency reports, to compile a comprehensive look at Maryland criminal legal data. These data were collected either via download, where available, or from data dashboards. Datasets were cleaned for analysis and any incomplete data were not used. Dates are specified for calendar year (Jan. 1 – Dec. 31) or fiscal year (July 1 – June 30).

These data sources include:

• Federal Bureau of Investigation Crime Data Explorer
• Bureau of Justice Statistics Parole and Probation Annual Report and dashboards
• Maryland Circuit and District Court Judiciary data dashboard
• Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Inmate Characteristics and data dashboards
• The Governor’s Office of Crime and Prevention Policy data dashboards
• The Department of Juvenile Services Data Resource Guide and data dashboard

This data, while more transparent than in previous years, still does not show the full landscape of criminal legal data. Race and ethnicity, gender, and specific county and municipal data remain unavailable publicly, as will be noted throughout this report. Additionally, some dashboards (i.e., Maryland Judiciary Dashboard) may revise data over time and result in differences.

Background

Since 1996, Maryland’s crime rate declined from an annual 5,072 crimes per 100,000 residents to 2,112 per 100,000 in 2024.[1] Simultaneously, however, by 2024 the state’s incarceration rate reached 475 people incarcerated per 100,000 residents.[2] By 2016, Maryland’s incarcerated population hit over 20,000. This sharp rise in incarceration was largely a result of the “tough on crime” policies of the 1990s that dominated the national discourse and attitudes toward crime and incarceration. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, three strikes laws, strict penalties for drug possession, and an increase in police presence led to a significant increase in the number of individuals incarcerated throughout the United States, and Maryland was no exception. Additionally, these policies came with systemic racial implications. In 2000, 79% of incarcerated Marylanders were Black. The growing incarcerated population meant that the cost to the state budget grew as well. By fiscal year (FY) 2014, the state was spending $1.3 billion a year to fund the growing carceral system, growing to $1.9 billion in FY 2026.[3]

Overview of Maryland

Maryland is the 19th most populous state in the United States with 6.2 million residents.[4] It comprises 23 counties, and one large municipal jurisdiction, Baltimore City, which is generally treated as a county under state law. The median age in Maryland is 39.8, close to the median U.S. age 39.6. The largest racial group in Maryland is white at 48%. Black residents make up 31% of the population, Hispanic or Latino residents make up 13%, Asian 6% and 7% are of other racial identities. Maryland’s poverty rate is 9.1% with Black and Hispanic residents having higher poverty rates at 13.7% and 12.7% respectively. The poverty rate for white Marylanders is 6.5%. Per the 2026 KIDS COUNT Data Book, children in Maryland have a poverty rate of 12%, with Black children at 43.9%, white at 18.5%, Asian at 4%, other at 17%, and Hispanic/Latino at 25%.[5]

Recent Criminal Legal Reform in Maryland

Since 2015, the Maryland legislature has enacted a series of reforms to its criminal legal system. There was growing concern with persistent racial disparities, mass incarceration, and state correctional budgetary constraints amongst lawmakers, advocates and communities. These discussions were happening nationally as well, driven by the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, led by the United States Department of Justice. This initiative sought to bring data-driven approaches to criminal justice reform. Part of these reforms allowed for the creation of local Justice Reinvestment Advisory Councils to develop guidance on implementing reforms. In Maryland, the Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council examined the factors contributing to racial and other disparities and tried to determine the best and most cost-effective ways to move from punitive and costly practices toward less punitive and more rehabilitative practices. The council found that 60% of new prison admissions were for nonviolent offenses and that 58% of admissions were due to probation or parole violations. Additionally, in 2014, only 37% of parole-eligible people were granted parole.[6]

The council’s findings in Maryland culminated in recommendations that became the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA) of 2016. JRA sought to reduce the state’s correctional population, redirecting cost savings toward effective community supervision and rehabilitative programs. The legislation’s main goals were to reduce overspending in the criminal legal system and redirect cost savings to evidence-based programs that could reduce the chances of reoffending.[7] By prioritizing prison space for people convicted of serious offenses, it focused on three main areas of reform: sentencing, parole, and reentry.

Pretrial Justice and Bail Reform

While the JRA implementation began October 2017, the Maryland legislature and judiciary were debating whether holding an individual in jail due to a lack of providing bail constitutes a violation of liberty. In 2014, then Governor Martin O’Malley established Governor’s Commission to Reform Maryland’s Pretrial System which sought to analyze the state’s use of its pretrial system and provide recommendations to reform the pretrial system.[8] The outcome of these deliberations was Maryland’s highest court approving Rule 4-216.1 in 2017. This rule established guidance for judges regarding pretrial release of arrested individuals. The reform addressed the constitutional concern that liberty should not be determined via financial means. It did not explicitly abolish cash bail, but it instructed judges to first consider non-financial conditions and alternatives to ensure a defendant’s appearance for trial. The aim was to end the practice of holding individuals awaiting trial in jail simply because they cannot afford bail. Over 68% of Maryland’s jail population in 2014 was held in pre-trial custody.[9]

While the judicial mandate succeeded in curtailing traditional cash bail, an unintended consequence resulted. The substitution of cash bail with fee-based pretrial monitoring. Many Maryland jurisdictions, relying on private companies or charging fees for county services, ordered individuals awaiting trial to utilize electronic monitoring or GPS tracking. The Office of the Public Defender noted that if defendants could not afford these monitoring fees, they were effectively rearrested or held pretrial, fundamentally violating the spirit of Rule 4-216.1 by replacing one financial barrier with another. The failure to afford the “least onerous” condition of release effectively became the new prerequisite for pretrial incarceration.[10] Additionally, a 2023 analysis of pretrial data by the Maryland Crime Research and Innovation Center and the University of Maryland finds evidence of increased detention of individuals held without bond.[11] By 2025, 82% of Maryland’s jail population was held in pretrial custody.[12]

Sentencing Reform

JRA eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for felonies related to specific controlled substances, giving guidance on discretionary sentencing or alternative pathways for low-level drug offenses while keeping them for high-level violent crimes and high-volume drug dealers.[13] Additionally, it retroactively allowed those serving mandatory minimums for drug offenses under previous sentencing laws to have their sentence reconsidered but required appeals to be filed no more than a year after enactment in October 2017. The law eliminated the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, addressing a policy that historically contributed to racial disparities in incarceration rates.[14] The JRA established a pathway for people with felony drug convictions incarcerated under the previously mandatory sentencing schemes to apply for retroactive sentence reconsideration. Furthermore, the law created an administrative release process for residents with certain low-level offenses who, upon following a case plan and maintaining good conduct, could be paroled after serving 25% of their sentence. The JRA simultaneously increased the maximum penalty for second-degree murder from 30 to 40 years. It also modeled state law after the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to target high-level drug traffickers.

The “Second Look Act,” passed in 2025, allows certain Marylanders who have served 20 years in prison to petition a judge for an appeal of their original sentence, strengthening accountability and opening new pathways for rehabilitation for people who are incarcerated for long sentences.[15]

Parole and Probation Reform

JRA capped revocations for technical violations of parole and probation. Additionally, it established a pathway for people with low-level drug offenses to receive parole after serving a quarter of their sentence. Importantly, the legislation expanded eligibility for geriatric parole by lowering the age threshold from 65 to 60. JRA also removed the requirement for gubernatorial approval of parole for certain life sentences, shifting authority to the Parole Commission instead.[16]

In 2024, lawmakers passed House Bill 531 and Senate Bill 728 which both repealed the monthly alcohol and drug testing fees paid by everyone on parole and supervised by the Division of Parole and Probation.[17] In fiscal year 2021, the Maryland Parole Commission collected 12% of fees imposed, and collected only 5% in fiscal years 2022 and 2023. [18]

In 2026, lawmakers passed House Bill 467, changing parole standards.[19] HB 467 requires the Maryland Parole Commission to include in their annual report, parole grants, denials, justification for hearings held, and those eligible for parole but not granted, disaggregated by race. Additionally, it mandates that the commission automatically provide an incarcerated individual with their documents to be discussed at their hearing in a timely manner prior to the hearing. Lastly, it requires proper notice of a decision, justification for the decision, and automatically set hearings based on an individual’s offense and length of sentence. This bill modifies parole standards and will increase transparency for Marylanders on parole.

Record Clearances and Expungement Reform

Maryland policymakers have undertaken a continuous, accelerating process of record clearance reform, recognizing that criminal records create perpetual barriers to health care, housing, employment, and licensing, severely impeding rehabilitation.

The Expungement Reform Act of 2025 further expanded eligibility and streamlined the process. The legislation shortened waiting periods, removed previous barriers that blocked expungement due to past probation violations, and expanded the list of eligible misdemeanors to include offenses such as driving without a license, cashing a bad check, and possession of a stolen credit card.[20] Importantly, the Act addressed regulations that previously prohibited the expungement of eligible charges if they were part of a case involving ineligible convictions.

Maryland’s policies regulating cannabis transitioned from decriminalization to full legalization. In 2014, the state legalized medical cannabis through House Bill 881 as well as altering laws governing possession of certain amounts of cannabis. Criminal sanctions for cannabis use and possession became citations with civil penalties instead.[21] In 2022, a constitutional amendment saw the full legalization of cannabis via a ballot measure and in 2023, subsequent legislation made possession legal for adults 21 and older.[22] This was also paired with language about expungements for prior and future records of possession.

To provide immediate relief, Governor Wes Moore issued an Executive Clemency Order in June 2024, pardoning approximately 175,000 Marylanders who had convictions related to the simple possession of cannabis and certain related drug paraphernalia.[23] This action represents the largest pardon for misdemeanor cannabis possession charges in any U.S. state and was the first to include paraphernalia. This executive action eliminated the need for individual petitions for relief for these specific offenses.[24]

Youth Justice Reform

Youth justice reforms passed between 2021 and 2024 reshaped the state’s approach to dealing with children accused of crimes, limiting the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and emphasizing diversion and non-carceral interventions. In 2021, Maryland legislators passed the Juvenile Restoration Act which ended life without parole for individuals under 18. This was followed by the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2022 establishing that, generally, a child younger than age 13 is not subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for delinquency proceedings.[25] The Act imposed strict limits on the use of secure detention. It prohibits the confinement of youth in secure detention or commitment to the Department of Juvenile Services for technical violations of probation or for most misdemeanor offenses (exceptions apply for handgun violations and repeated misdemeanors).

The legislation additionally removed barriers to diversion, allowing youth accused of nonviolent felonies to be diverted from the formal court system without requiring prosecutor approval. Finally, the law provided for structured probation sentences, permitting extensions in three-month increments up to one year for misdemeanors, two years for felonies, and until a youth turns 21 for crimes of violence.[26]

However, in 2024, the General Assembly passed the Juvenile Law Reform Act, which created exceptions to the minimum age rule, preventing diversion for children aged 10 to 12 alleged to have committed serious offenses, such as specified crimes involving firearms, weapons, sexual offenses, cruelty to animals, and motor vehicle theft.

In May 2026, the governor signed the Youth Charging Reform Act (Senate Bill 323), which reduces the number of crimes for which youth in Maryland are automatically charged as adults. Under SB 323, youth charged with these offenses now begin their processing through the juvenile court system as opposed to the adult system. Additionally, the new law prohibits children from being incarcerated in adult facilities. SB 323 goes into effect October 2026 and the ban on adult detention goes into effect in 2029.[27]

Criminal Legal System Overview

Maryland’s criminal legal system is made up of state and local law enforcement, courts, and corrections.

Police enforce laws and investigate crimes that occur at the local level, with some support from state agencies. The courts handle criminal and youth cases by filing charges, providing defense, and deciding outcomes. This system is mainly run by the state, with help from locally elected judges and county court staff. Corrections is handled by both state and local governments and people convicted of felonies are usually sent to state custody, or prison, while people convicted of misdemeanors are typically held in local facilities, or jail.[28]

Arrest and Law Enforcement

An arrest is the detention of a person suspected of committing a crime for the purpose of potential criminal prosecution.[29] While arrests are generally made following the issuance of an arrest warrant by a judge or District Court commissioner based on probable cause, law enforcement officers have authority to make warrantless arrests in the following situations:

• A felony or misdemeanor is attempted or committed in the officer’s presence or view.
• The officer has probable cause to believe a felony was attempted or committed, even if not in their presence.
• The officer has probable cause to believe specific felonies or misdemeanors were committed (e.g., stalking, domestic abuse, theft, or illegally carrying a handgun) even if not in their presence.

Charges

The criminal process is formally initiated through a charging document, which is a written accusation alleging a crime. These documents must include the defendant’s identity, essential facts of the offense, the time and location, and a notice of the accused’s rights, including the right to counsel. There are four types:

• Citation: Issued by law enforcement and filed in the District Court. It is generally used for minor offenses or motor vehicle violations committed in an officer’s presence. Officers must issue a citation for misdemeanors that do not carry a penalty of imprisonment or those for which the maximum penalty is 90 days or less (with certain exceptions). If a defendant fails to respond to a citation, they are guilty of a misdemeanor.
• Statement of Charges: Filed in the District Court by a judicial officer (usually a District Court commissioner) based on an application and affidavit demonstrating probable cause. This is also the required document following a warrantless arrest.
• Information: A written accusation filed by a State’s Attorney in either the District Court or a Circuit Court. In a Circuit Court, it may be used for misdemeanors, concurrent felonies, or other felonies if the defendant consents or if a preliminary hearing resulted in a finding of probable cause.
• Grand Jury Indictment: Used for felonies and filed in a Circuit Court after a grand jury returns an indictment. A grand jury consists of 23 members and has the power to subpoena evidence and witnesses, who must testify under oath without an attorney present. Maryland law requires that all grand jury proceedings be kept secret. Violating this secrecy is a misdemeanor.

Once a charging document is filed (unless a warrantless arrest has already occurred), the court must issue either a summons or an arrest warrant.

• Summons: A notification that an action has been filed, warning that failure to appear may result in a bench warrant.
• Arrest Warrant: Issued in lieu of a summons if the defendant previously failed to respond to a summons/citation, their whereabouts are unknown, they are already in custody for another offense, or there is probable cause to believe they pose a danger to another person or the community.

Criminal Legal Data

This section explores trends in Maryland’s adult and youth criminal legal systems. It will examine data on crime, arrests, the sentenced and jail populations, parole and probation, circuit and district courts, and youth data, disaggregating each issue areas data where possible by race, gender, locality, and more. This data gives us an overview of Maryland’s criminal legal system.

Arrests and Crime

This section includes data on arrests disaggregated by race, sex, adults and youth, and crime data by annual number of crimes and crime rate by county.

Figure 1 shows a clear overall decline in arrests from 2015 to 2023, followed by a 13% increase in 2024. Total arrests fell from about 213,000 in 2015 to roughly 104,000 in 2023, a 51% decrease. Arrests then increased to about 118,000 in 2024, a 13% increase from 2023. Most of the decline occurred in two phases. From 2015 to 2019, arrests gradually decreased by about 16%. A sharper drop followed between 2019 and 2020, when total arrests fell by roughly 29%. After 2020, arrests continued to decline more slowly until 2023. Adult arrests made up the majority of cases, staying between 89% to 93% of total arrests each year. Youth arrests accounted for a smaller share, around 7% to 11%. The youth share declined to about 7% in 2021, down from about 11% in 2015, before rising again to roughly 11% by 2024. Youth arrests dropped more during the early 2020 period, falling by about 45% from 2019 to 2020, before gradually increasing again in later years. Overall, the data indicate a long-term reduction in arrests across both groups, with adults remaining the dominant share and a recent uptick driven by increases in both adult and youth arrests.

Figure 2 shows adult arrests declined substantially over the period shown. Total arrests fell by 45% between 2015 and 2025, dropping from 203,000 to about 114,000. Arrests of men fell by 46%, while arrests of women fell by 39%. The sharpest decline occurred between 2019 and 2021, when total arrests dropped by 70%. Arrests rose again after 2021, increasing 108% by 2025, but remaining well below pre-2020 levels. Throughout the period, men consistently accounted for about three-quarters of adult arrests, while women accounted for about one-quarter, with women’s share rising slightly from 24% to 26%.

NOTE: Total arrests in Figures 1 and 2 may show different values as they are from similar but different sources. Figure 1 is from the Maryland Uniform Crime Report and Figure 2 is from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Crime Data Explorer. Federal and state agencies do not collect identical data.

Figure 3 shows adult arrests declined across all racial groups over the period shown, with Black and white adults accounting for nearly all arrests every year. Arrests of Black adults fell by 40%, from 102,448 in 2015 to 61720 in 2025. Arrests of white adults fell by 51%, from 98,489 to 48,095. Both groups saw a steep drop between 2020 and 2021, followed by a rebound, but neither returned to pre-2020 levels. Black adults made up 50% of arrests in 2015 and 54% in 2025, while white adults accounted for about 48% in 2015 and 42% in 2025. By 2025, arrests of Black adults were about 28% higher than arrests of white adults, compared with a gap of about 4% in 2015. Arrests among Asian adults and the other smaller reported groups remained comparatively low throughout, each representing a very small share of the total.

Figure 4 shows a decline in reported crimes from 2015 through 2021, followed by a rebound in the following years. Overall, the number of crimes fell from about 172,000 in 2015 to around 116,000 in 2021, a decrease of approximately 33%. The decline was gradual from 2015 to 2019, dropping by about 15% over that period. A sharper reduction occurred between 2019 and 2020, when crimes fell by roughly 15% in a single year, followed by a further decrease of about 6% in 2021. After reaching the lowest point in 2021, crime increased over the next two years. From 2021 to 2023, reported crimes rose from about 116,000 to roughly 151,000, an increase of about 30%. In 2024, the total edged down slightly by about 1%, remaining close to the 2023 level.

Figure 5 shows a decline in the annual crime rate from 2015 through 2021, followed by an increase in the following years. Overall, the rate fell from about 2,857 in 2015 to 1,885 in 2021, a decrease of approximately 34%. From 2015 to 2019, the crime rate decreased gradually by about 16%. A sharper drop occurred between 2019 and 2020, when the rate declined by about 15%, followed by a further decrease of roughly 7% in 2021, which marked the lowest point in the period. After 2021, the trend reversed. The crime rate increased by about 30% from 2021 to 2023, rising to 2,443. In 2024, it declined slightly by about 1%, remaining close to the previous year’s level. Despite the recent increase, the 2024 crime rate is still about 16% lower than in 2015. Overall, the data indicate a long-term downward trend with a significant dip around 2020–2021 and a moderate rebound afterward. The annual crime rate declined 15% between 2015 and 2024. The biggest drop in the crime rate occurred in 2020 at 15%.

Figure 6 shows annual reported violent crime in Maryland declined by 1.6% from 2015 to 2024. Violent crime peaked in 2017 and then fell through 2020, dropping by 18.3% from the 2017 high point. Since 2020, reported violent crime increased by 11.6%, though it remained below the 2017 peak and declined slightly from 2023 to 2024. The composition of violent crime also shifted over the decade. Aggravated assault increased by 10.8% and made up 62.5% of all reported violent crimes in 2024, compared with 55.6% in 2015. Reported rape increased by 21.6%, while robbery declined by 23.7% and murder declined by 16.3%. Robbery’s share of violent crime fell from 36.2% in 2015 to 28.1% in 2024. The amount of violent crime declined by 1.5% since 2015, with the biggest drop occurring in 2020.

Figure 7 shows Maryland’s violent crime rate declined by 4% from 2015 to 2024, with some fluctuation. The rate peaked in 2017 and fell by 18.3% through 2020, before rising by 8.9% between 2020 and 2024. The overall rate declined again from 2023 to 2024 by 3.1%. Trends differed by offense type. The aggravated assault rate increased by 7.2% from 2015 to 2024 and made up 62.5% of the violent crime rate in 2024, up from 55.6% in 2015. The robbery rate declined substantially, falling by 26.2% over the period, while the murder rate declined by 18.5%. The rape rate increased by 17.5%.

Figure 8 shows that annual reported crime declined in every Maryland county before the pandemic. The largest drop was in Kent County, down about 47%, followed by Queen Anne’s County, down 37%, Calvert County, down 35%, and Talbot and Allegany Counties both down 30%. Several other counties, including Worcester, Prince George’s, Dorchester, Wicomico, Caroline, Harford, Cecil, and Howard also saw sizable declines ranging from about 20% to 29%. The remaining counties, including Baltimore City and Baltimore County, saw declines ranging from 6% and 19%.

Figure 9 shows that, prior to the pandemic, crime rates declined across all Maryland counties between 2015 and 2019. The largest declines were concentrated on the Eastern Shore where several counties saw drops between 24% and 46%. Several counties such as Howard, Harford, Cecil, Frederick, Anne Arunedel, and St. Mary’s also recorded reductions ranging from 20% to 23%. Baltimore City and Baltimore County both saw declines of 6%.

Figure 10 shows that annual reported crime trends during the pandemic era varied across Maryland counties, with most counties seeing increases. The largest increase was in Howard County, up 49%, followed by Prince George’s County, up 40%, Harford County, up 35%, Carroll County, up 33%, and Anne Arundel County, up 32%. Counties such as Talbot, Montgomery, Frederick, and Baltimore were up between 20% and 25%. Simultaneously, several counties saw totals fall. The largest decline was in Garrett County, down 34%, followed by Dorchester County, down 31%, Allegany County, down 25%, and Worchester County, down 22%. Other counties, including Cecil, Wicomico, St. Mary’s, Charles, Caroline, and Calvert declined, ranging from 0.2% to 17%.

Figure 11 shows that crime rates increased in most counties during the pandemic era. The largest increase was in Howard County, up about 46%, followed by Prince George’s County, up 33%, Harford County, up 31%, Anne Arundel and Carroll counties both up 28%, and Montgomery County and Baltimore County up 23% and 21% respectively. Baltimore City increased by 14%. Simultaneously, several counties’ crime rates decline. The largest decrease was in Garrett County, down 34%, followed by Dorchester County, down 33%, Worcester County, down 24%, Allegany County, down 23%, and Calvert County, down 19%. Other counties, including Cecil, Wicomico, St. Mary’s, Caroline, Charles, and Calvert declined, ranging from 2% to 13%.

Pretrial and Jail

The pretrial process in Maryland encompasses the various legal steps taken from the moment of arrest or charging until the case proceeds to trial. This phase focuses on the defendant’s legal rights, custody status, and the preparation of the case for court.

Arrest and Booking

Upon arrest, police must advise the defendant of their right to remain silent and right to counsel. The “booking” process then takes place, which involves fingerprinting, photographing, and reviewing the defendant’s prior criminal record. If the defendant is charged with burglary, a crime of violence, or an attempt of those crimes, a DNA sample is also taken during booking.

Initial Appearance and Bail Review

Within 24 hours of arrest, a defendant is brought before a District Court commissioner. The commissioner informs the defendant of the charges, allowable penalties, and the right to counsel. For warrantless arrests, the commissioner must determine if probable cause exists. If a defendant is denied release or remains in custody after seeing a commissioner, they must be presented to a District Court judge for a judicial bail review hearing immediately, or at the next court session.

Right to Counsel

Defendants who are unable to afford private counsel, known as “indigent,” are entitled to state-funded representation. At an appearance before a judge, the Office of the Public Defender provides representation to such defendants. At an appearance before a commissioner, the District Court of Maryland Appointed Attorneys Program provides representation.

Pretrial Release and Detention

Defendants are typically entitled to be released pending trial unless there is a reasonable likelihood they will fail to appear in court at a later date or pose a danger to a victim or the community, in which case they may be detained in jail. Judicial officers must release a defendant on personal recognizance or unsecured bond unless nonfinancial conditions cannot reasonably ensure safety and court appearance. Certain defendants are ineligible for release on personal recognizance, including those charged with crimes punishable by life imprisonment without parole or those with prior convictions for crimes of violence. The court may impose the “least onerous” conditions, such as no-contact orders, travel restrictions, or electronic monitoring.

Bail

Judges may only impose bail to ensure a defendant’s appearance in court; it cannot be used as punishment or to prevent future crimes. A judge cannot set bail in an amount that results in detention solely because the defendant is indigent.

Preliminary Hearing

For felonies that are not within the District Court’s jurisdiction (such as murder, rape, or robbery), the defendant has a right to a preliminary hearing to determine if there is probable cause to believe they committed the crime. This hearing is not held if a grand jury has already issued an indictment.

Plea Hearing

Most cases are resolved before trial through plea bargaining.[30] In a typical agreement, the defendant pleads guilty or no contest in exchange for reduced charges or a lighter sentencing recommendation. The judge is not bound by the state prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation unless they agree to it in advance. Before accepting a plea, the court must confirm the defendant understands the consequences and that there is a factual basis for the plea.

Pretrial and Jail Data

This section includes data on local jail populations by county and pretrial release conditions. The data ranges from calendar years 2015-2024 and fiscal years 2017-2024 respectively.

Figure 12 shows Maryland’s local jail population declined by 15% from 2015 to 2024, but the trend varied by custody status. The sentenced jail population fell by 56%, while the pretrial population increased by 5.4% after bail reform was enacted. As a result, people held pretrial made up a larger share of the local jail population in 2024 than in 2015, rising from 67% to 83%. The total jail population reached its lowest point in 2021, then increased 14.4% from 2021 to 2024. During that same period, the sentenced population nearly doubled, though it remained well below 2015 levels.

Figure 13 shows that, prior to the pandemic, jail populations fell in most Maryland counties between 2015 and 2019, with declines in jail populations more common than increases. The largest drops were in Caroline County, down 63%, Kent County, down 50%, and Calvert County, down 40%. Only a small number of counties saw increases over this period. Somerset County had the largest increase, at 65%, followed by Talbot County, up 21%; Garrett County, up 13%; Montgomery County, up 7%; and Washington and Dorchester Counties, up 4% and 3% respectively.

Figure 14 shows that jail population trends varied across Maryland, with half of all counties seeing declines and half seeing increases. The largest increase was in Kent County, up 113%, far above any other county. Other notable increases include Montgomery County, up 42%, Somerset County, up 23%, Allegany County, up 17%, Washington County, up 13%, and Baltimore City, up 9%. At the same time, many counties saw their jail populations fall. The largest declines were in Cecil County, down 39%; Caroline County, down 34%; and Garrett and Calvert counties, both down 31%.

Figure 15 shows the jail population at the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Division of Pretrial Detention and Services, which administers the pretrial and locally sentenced population of Baltimore City, along with people with federal charges and those in pretrial supervision. This division manages the largest local detention population located in Maryland’s biggest municipality, Baltimore City. Between 2016 and 2023, local and federal detention declined 7% and 39%, respectively. The largest single-year decline for both came between 2019 and 2020 at 6% and 13%, respectively. Since 2020, local detention has been up 6%.

Figure 16 shows how the status of people awaiting trial shifted between FY 2018 and FY 2024. The types of status include:[31]

• Held in Default of Bond: Defendants held following an initial appearance before a commissioner where collateral security must be posted before release.
• Held Without Bond – Fugitive: Fugitive defendants held without the option of bail following an initial appearance before a judge or commissioner. All defendants that are held without bail will see a judge for a bail review.
• Held Without Bond – Non-Fugitive: Non-fugitive defendants held without the option of bail following an initial appearance before a judge or commissioner. All defendants that are held without bail will see a judge for a bail review.

The number of people held in default of bond fell by 58%, the largest decline among the three categories. By contrast, people held without bond as non-fugitives increased dramatically by 172% over the same period, rising from 43% of the total in FY 2018 to 74% in FY 2024. People held without bond as fugitives additionally increased 93%. The total number of people held declined by 18.7% from FY 2018 to FY 2024, though it increased by 4.8% from FY 2023 to FY 2024.

Figure 17 shows pre-trial releases by type. The types include:

• Personal Recognizance, No Pre-conditions, No Probable Cause: Defendants who are released with no additional conditions of release other than a written promise to appear for court, based on a finding of no probable cause for all the charges in a warrantless arrest by the commissioner. In these instances, the commissioner does not have discretion over pretrial release. The no probable cause finding at initial appearance has no bearing on the charges at trial.
• Personal Recognizance, With or Without Conditions: Defendants who are released with non-monetary conditions of release and a written promise to appear for court and abide by any conditions at the discretion of the commissioner following the initial appearance.
• Unsecured Personal Bond: Defendants who are released on an unsecured monetary bond at the discretion of the commissioner following the initial appearance. The defendant is released immediately and without the requirement to post any collateral to secure the release. If the defendant fails to appear for court, the court may seek payment of the bond amount in forfeiture.

From 2017 to 2024, releases based on personal recognizance with no pre-conditions increased 87%. The initial spike occurred between FY 2017 and FY 2018, when it increased 145%, and leveled out from FY 2021 to FY 2024. Those released with or without conditions spiked initially from FY 2017 to FY 2019 by 87%. From FY 2017 to FY 2024, this category increased about 14%.

Unsecured personal bonds followed a similar pattern. These releases peaked in FY 2019 at 16,840 and decreased to 11,338 in 2021, a decline of 27%, and then remained stable in 2024, which is about 25% lower than the 2018 level.

Overall, the data show a decline in all release types around 2020-2021, followed by an increase. Despite this rebound, most categories remain below their pre-2020 levels, and releases with conditions continue to account for the majority of cases.

Probation

Probation allows a person with a conviction, usually a misdemeanor conviction or a less serious or nonviolent felony offense to remain in the community subject to standards and special conditions a court imposes.[32]

• Probation Before Judgment: A judge may stay the entry of a judgment of conviction and place the defendant on probation if it is in the best interest of the defendant and public welfare. Successful completion allows the defendant to avoid the stigma of a criminal record. It is generally prohibited for certain repeat alcohol-related driving offenses or serious sexual offenses.
• Probation Following Judgment: The court enters a judgment of conviction, imposes a sentence, but suspends all or part of the incarceration in favor of probation.
• Conditions and Supervision: Standard conditions include refraining from criminal activity, while special conditions may include drug treatment, restitution, or no-contact orders. Supervision is handled by the Division of Parole and Probation within the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS).

Probation Data

The next section includes charts on probation data, including type of sentence, race, gender, and more from calendar year 2015 to 2023.

Figure 18 shows the probation population declined from 2015 through 2021, falling by 28%, before rising in 2022 and 2023. By 2023, the total probation population was 9% higher than in 2015. This increase was driven mainly by misdemeanor sentences, which rose by 83% from 2015 to 2023 and by 86% from 2021 to 2023 alone. Felony probation declined by 4% over the full period, though it increased by 28% from 2021 to 2023. As a result, misdemeanor cases became a larger share of the probation population, increasing from 41% in 2015 to 69% in 2023.

Figure 19 shows the male probation population increased by 7% over the full period, while the female probation population increased by 1%. However, both groups declined substantially through 2021: the male population fell by 25% from 2015 to 2021, and the female population fell by 37%. The rebound after 2021 was especially large, with the total probation population increasing by 47% from 2021 to 2023. The sex distribution remained mostly consistent over time, with males making up about 82% of the probation population in 2023 and females making up about 18%.

Figure 20 shows that among the two largest reported groups, the white probation population declined by 3% from 2015 to 2023, while the Black probation population increased by 16%. Both groups fell substantially through 2021, with the white population down 32% and the Black population down 24% from 2015 levels. After 2021, the white probation population increased by 43% from 2021 to 2023, while the Black probation population increased by 53%. By 2023, Black individuals made up about 56% of the reported probation population, compared with about 49% in 2015.

Figure 21 shows how the types of probation offenses changed. Property offenses declined by 70%, drug law violations declined by 77%, and driving while intoxicated offenses declined by 36%. By contrast, domestic violence and other violent offenses increased by 18%. As a result, violent offense categories made up a larger share of the probation population in 2022, rising from about 28% in 2015 to 45% in 2022. The “offense not known” category also increased, rising by 167%, so changes in offense mix should take account of this.

Figure 22 shows that probation entries and exits both declined from 2015 to 2023. Entries fell by 21%, while exits fell by 23%. Entries dropped between 2019 and 2020, declining by 48%, then increased by 63% from 2020 to 2023. Exits declined 2% from 2019 to 2020 but reached the lowest point in 2022 before rising by 33% in 2023. By 2023, both entries and exits remained below 2019 levels, with entries down 14% and exits down 3%. Exits were slightly higher than entries in 2023, indicating that more people left probation than entered during that year.

Figure 23 shows probation exits declined by 26% from 2015 to 2023, though the total increased by 27% from 2022 to 2023 after reaching its lowest point in 2022. Completions remained the largest exit type throughout the period, but fell 42% overall and declined from 63% of all exits in 2015 to 49% in 2023. Incarceration exits declined 66% and dropped from 18% of exits to 8%. Unsatisfactory discharges decreased by 17%, although their share of exits rose slightly from 13% to 15%. The “other” and “unknown or not reported” categories increased substantially, with unknown or unreported exits rising from 2% of exits in 2015 to 14% in 2023. This suggests that while fewer people exited probation overall, a larger share of exits in recent years were not classified as completions or incarceration.

Figure 24 shows that active supervision remained the largest status category, declining by 25% from 2015 to 2022 but still making up 55% of the probation population in 2022. Inactive supervision declined by 23% and remained about 37% of the total. Absconder supervision fell more, declining by 46%, while warrant status declined by 57%. By 2022, a smaller overall probation population remained concentrated in active and inactive supervision, with absconder and warrant statuses making up a relatively small share.

Figure 25 shows that the probation supervision rate declined overall between 2015 and 2022, with a brief rebound at the end of the period.

From 2015 to 2019, the rate decreased gradually from 1,637 to 1,491, a drop of roughly 9%. The most significant change occurred between 2019 and 2020, when the rate fell from 1,491 to 1,197, a decrease of about 20% in a single year. The downward trend continued into 2021, reaching the lowest point of 1,147, representing an overall decline of approximately 30% from 2015 levels. In 2022, the rate rose to 1,231, an increase of about 7% from the previous year, though it remained well below earlier levels.

Legal Proceedings

Maryland’s criminal trial system is divided into two primary levels: the Circuit Courts and the District Court.[33] While they share concurrent jurisdiction over many matters, they differ significantly in their structure, the types of cases they handle, and the availability of jury trials.

Circuit Court

There is one Circuit Court in each of Maryland’s 23 counties and Baltimore City. These are organized into eight judicial circuits. Judges are initially appointed by the governor but must stand for election to a 15-year term at the first general election occurring at least one year after their appointment. These elections can be contested by any member of the Maryland Bar meeting minimum constitutional requirements.

Circuit Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most felony cases. They also have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Court for misdemeanors that carry a maximum penalty of at least three years of imprisonment or a fine of $2,500 or more. They are the only trial courts in Maryland that provide for jury trials.

District Court

The court is divided into 12 geographical districts. There is at least one judge and courthouse in every county. The governor appoints District Court judges to 10-year terms, subject to Senate confirmation. Unlike Circuit Court judges, they do not stand for election. The District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It usually handles:

• All misdemeanor violations (statutory, common law, or local ordinance).
• Violations of vehicle laws.
• Enumerated felonies, including theft, forgery, certain fraud offenses, and second-degree assault on a law enforcement officer.

The District Court does not conduct jury trials. If a defendant is charged with an offense punishable by more than 90 days of imprisonment, they may elect to have a jury trial. If they do so, the District Court loses jurisdiction and the case is transferred to the Circuit Court. The District Court has concurrent jurisdiction with Circuit Courts over domestic violence protective orders and exclusive jurisdiction over peace orders and extreme risk protective orders.

Both court levels operate specialty programs designed to address the root causes of recidivism through judicial intervention and treatment.

• Drug Treatment Courts: These specialized dockets provide options other than incarceration for people with substance use issues. There are over 30 such programs across the state.
• Mental Health Courts: These dockets coordinate treatment for defendants with mental health diagnoses. There are currently six in the District Court and two in Circuit Courts, Baltimore City and Montgomery County.
• Veterans Courts: Veterans courts offer support for former service members with conditions like PTSD or substance abuse.
• Truancy Courts: These courts are active in eight counties and intervene to address the causes of poor school attendance.
• Jobs Court Pilot Program: Established in 2022, this program in the Baltimore City District Court offers defendants job training and placement as an alternative to incarceration or as a condition of release.

District and Circuit Court Data

The next section shows pre- and post-pandemic data charts on Circuit and District court filings and disposition totals, by county, from fiscal years 2015-2024.

District Court filings are formal documents initiating cases in the lowest state trial court, which has limited jurisdiction. They include issues like civil claims, landlord-tenant disputes, misdemeanor crimes, and traffic violations.

Figure 26 shows criminal and peace order and domestic violence filings in District Court. These are defined as:

• Criminal: Data on fugitive warrant filings.
• Peace Order and Domestic Violence: A court order requiring a person to refrain from contacting someone.[34]

Total criminal filings declined 2.3% from 2017 to 2018, then fell through the pandemic period. By fiscal year 2021, filings were about 29% lower than in 2017. Filings increased about 1.5% from 2021 to 2023 and about 8.9% from 2021 to 2024, before declining down about 0.8% in 2025. Even with this rebound, filings in 2025 remained about 23.3% below 2017 levels, suggesting a lasting contraction in overall criminal case volume.

Peace order and domestic violence filings followed a different pattern. From 2017 through 2020, volumes were relatively steady, staying between 0% to 3.1% below 2017 levels. In 2021, filings rose to about 5.1% above 2017, then dropped in 2022, down about 20% from 2021 (and about 15.9% below 2017), the lowest point in the period shown. By 2025, filings were about 0.4% above 2017, roughly back in line with late 2010s levels.

Across the entire period, criminal filings consistently exceeded peace order and domestic violence filings by more than 100% (i.e., criminal filings were more than double). That gap narrowed substantially during the pandemic era: criminal filings were about 186% higher than peace order and domestic violence filings in 2017–2018, but about 93% higher in 2021. The gap widened again as criminal filings increased, reaching about 119% higher by 2025. Overall, criminal filings show a steeper pandemic-era decline and slower rebound, while peace order and domestic violence filings saw a brief but pronounced dip in 2022 followed by a faster return toward prior levels.

Figure 27 shows that, prior to the pandemic, District Court filing trends varied across Maryland counties, with both increases and decreases across the state. The largest increase is in St. Mary’s County, where filings rose by 45% between fiscal years 2015 and 2019. Washington County also shows a large increase, at 43%, while Baltimore County increased by about 38%. By contrast, the largest decline is in Garrett County, where filings fell by 37%. Several Eastern Shore counties, including Kent, Queen Anne’s, and Talbot, also show declines of 23%, 30%,  and 26%, respectively.

Figure 28 shows that after the pandemic, District Court filings generally declined across much of Maryland, with only a few counties showing increases. The largest drops were in Montgomery, Garrett, Talbot, Caroline, Worcester, and Calvert Counties, where filings fell by 33% between fiscal years 2020 and 2024. By contrast, only a small number of counties had more filings. The largest increases are in Prince George’s County and Baltimore City, each at 13%.

Figure 29 shows District Court dispositions. These are the final outcomes of cases, such as conviction, acquittal, or dismissal. Between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2019, criminal dispositions declined 2%. From 2019 to 2020, dispositions fell by roughly 26%, marking the most dramatic single‑year decline. This drop coincides with widespread court closures and reduced court operations during the early COVID‑19 period. After reaching a low point in 2021, criminal dispositions rebounded by approximately 16% between 2021 and 2022. However, this increase was not sustained. From 2022 through 2025, criminal dispositions declined slightly again, by about 6% overall. By 2025, criminal dispositions remained approximately 24% below the 2017 level.

Peace order and domestic violence dispositions exhibited a different pattern. Between 2017 and 2020, dispositions declined by about 6%, a much smaller reduction than that seen in criminal cases. In contrast to criminal dispositions, peace order and domestic violence dispositions increased by approximately 18% from 2020 to 2021, reaching their highest point in the period shown.

Following this spike, dispositions fell by around 21% between 2021 and 2022, before partially rebounding in 2023. From 2023 to 2025, peace order and domestic violence dispositions declined modestly, by roughly 4%, ending the period at a level comparable to, though slightly below, their pre‑pandemic baseline. By 2025, these dispositions were approximately 1% higher than in 2017.

Across the full period, criminal dispositions experienced a much larger cumulative decline than peace order and domestic violence dispositions. While criminal dispositions were down nearly one quarter from 2017 to 2025, peace order and domestic violence dispositions returned to roughly their starting level. This likely reflects the differences in filing urgency, case prioritization, and public safety considerations.

Figure 30 shows that District Court dispositions generally declined across Maryland before the pandemic. The largest drop is in Garrett County, at 43%, while several other counties, especially on the Eastern Shore and in parts of central Maryland, show declines between 29% and 32%. St. Mary’s County saw the largest increase at 9%, and other counties including Anne Arundel, Somerset, and Cecil, rose 2% to 5%.

Figure 31 shows a reduction in District Court dispositions across Maryland in the post-pandemic period. Montgomery County shows the sharpest decline, at 56%. Other counties have declines ranging from 1% to 31%. Kent County shows the largest increase at 12%, while Allegany, Dorchester, Wicomico, and Queen Anne’s counties have increases of 7%, 5%, 6%, and 3%, respectively.

Circuit Court filings are formal documents initiating major criminal or civil lawsuits and family law matters, including complaints, petitions, motions, and answers.

Circuit Court data use case categories such as criminal and youth. These cases can include issues such as:

• Criminal: District Court appeals, indictments, jury trials, and post-conviction.
• Youth: adoption, charges as adults, child in need of assistance, child in need of supervision, delinquency, guardianship, and peace orders.

Figure 32 shows Circuit Court filings declined substantially between FY 2017 and FY 2024, with youth filings falling more than adult criminal filings. Adult criminal filings decreased by 31% over the period, while youth filings declined by 51.2%. Most of the decline occurred between FY 2019 and FY 2021, when adult criminal filings fell by 32.4% and youth filings fell by 47.2%. Since FY 2021, filings have partially rebounded with adult criminal filings up by 7.1%, and youth filings up 25.8%. However, both categories remained well below FY 2017 levels in FY 2024. From FY 2023 to FY 2024, adult criminal filings decreased by 2.9%, while youth filings increased by 14.9%.

Figure 33 shows that Circuit Court filings rose in most Maryland counties before the pandemic, with increases concentrated in the Eastern Shore and parts of Southern Maryland. The largest increases were in Dorchester County at 60%, Garrett County at 58%, and Talbot County at 56%. Most other counties saw increases of between 7% and 24%. Baltimore City fell by 28%, and Prince George’s County fell by 17%.

Figure 34 shows that post-pandemic Circuit Court filings varied across the state. The largest increase was in Kent County, up 16%. Other increases include Dorchester, St. Mary’s, and Wicomico, each up 11%, along with Garrett and Harford, both up 8%. The largest declines were in Cecil County, down 17%, Talbot County, down 15%, Washington County, down 13%, and Worcester County, down 12%.

Circuit Court dispositions are the final outcomes of cases, such as conviction, acquittal, or dismissal.

Figure 35 shows that Circuit Court dispositions declined between FY 2017 and FY 2024. Adult criminal dispositions decreased by 29.3% over the period, while youth dispositions declined by 54.7%. The largest drop occurred between FY 2019 and FY 2021, when adult criminal dispositions fell by 43.5% and youth dispositions fell by 48%. Adult criminal dispositions rebounded after FY 2021, increasing by 32% through FY 2024, although they remained below pre-pandemic levels. Youth dispositions declined by 13% from FY 2021 to FY 2024, despite a 10.3% increase from FY 2023 to FY 2024.

Figure 36 shows that Circuit Court dispositions increased in most Maryland counties pre-pandemic. Dorchester County saw the largest increase, at 68%, followed by Garrett County at 62%, Talbot County at 49%, and Somerset County at 48%. Other counties saw moderate increases, including Calvert at 10%, Queen Anne’s at 26%, Charles at 21%, Allegany at 20%, and Washington at 17%. Only a few jurisdictions saw declines. Baltimore County fell by 23%, Baltimore City fell by 21%, Prince George’s County fell by 20%, and Montgomery County fell by 5%.

Figure 37 shows that the rate of Circuit Court dispositions varied by county post-pandemic. The largest increase is in Baltimore County, up 23%, followed by Garrett County, up 22%, Dorchester County, up 18%, Wicomico County, up 16%, and Kent County, up 14%. The largest decline is in Baltimore City, which declined 16%. Other notable declines include Worcester County, down 11%, St. Mary’s County, down 9%, and Washington and Cecil Counties, each down about 8%.

Confinement

The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS), manages 19 facilities, including 13 prisons, and is the state agency that operates detention facilities. Reception and intake occur at four main facilities: Jessup Correctional Institution, Maryland Correctional Institution for Women, Eastern Correctional Institution, and the Maryland Correctional Training Center.[35]

Incarcerated individuals undergo identification, medical testing, and educational assessments. A case manager then evaluates risk factors like violence and escape risk to determine the least restrictive security level necessary. Staff also conduct annual reclassification reviews to adjust an incarcerated individual’s security level based on their behavior and program performance.

Security Classifications

The state designates five security levels for incarcerated individuals:

• Maximum (Levels I and II):Institutions for those designated as having a high risk of violence or escape. Level II facilities, such as North Branch Correctional Institution, are the highest security level and have increased staffing. Level I facilities, such as the Western Correctional Institution, also have secure housing and a highly secure perimeter.
• Medium: Includes facilities like Roxbury Correctional Institution and MCI-Hagerstown. These are facilities that have perimeter security but do not require maximum security.
• Minimum and Prerelease: These levels provide the fewest security features for incarcerated individuals who pose the lowest risk.
• Patuxent Institution: a maximum-security treatment center that includes psychiatric care, addiction treatment, and behavioral rehabilitation.[36]

DPSCS additionally administers alternative programs to incarceration:

• Central Home Detention Unit: This serves as an alternative for people with nonviolent offenses with less than 18 months remaining on their sentences, also known as home detention. Home detention allows people convicted of nonviolent offenses to remain in an approved home while utilizing electronic monitoring, correctional officer oversight, and community supervision.

Programs for People Who Are Incarcerated

• Maryland Correctional Enterprises (MCE):Incarcerated individuals are employed in business units to develop technical skills. The workforce was downsized by 50% during the pandemic to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.[37] The workforce is now above 2020 levels but remains just under half of its peak in 2010.[38]
• Academic and Vocational Programs:Education is mandated for incarcerated individuals without a high school diploma. A pilot educational program, Second Chance, at Jessup Correctional Institution allows some students to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree through federal Pell Grant funding.

Sentencing Data

The following section shows confinement data for DPSCS facilities and the Baltimore City Booking and Intake Center, disaggregated by race and sex. Data analyzed for this section ranged from fiscal years 2012-2025 but mainly included 10-year periods between fiscal years 2016-2025 and adjusted fiscal years where necessary.

Figure 38 shows that the number of incarcerated individuals in state correctional facilities declined 26% from 2016 to 2025. The largest one-year decline in incarcerated individuals was between 2020 and 2021 at 12%. During this period, then-Gov. Larry Hogan took steps to reduce the number of people in state prisons due to COVID-19. The second-largest decline was between 2016 and 2017 at 11%. The downward trend went from the Justice Reinvestment Act implementation in 2016 until the COVID-19 decline, after which the incarcerated population rose 9% from 2023 to 2025.

Figure 39 shows that Black Marylanders make up 72% of the state’s prison population, whereas white Marylanders make up 20%. Latino Marylanders make up 6%, and American Indian, Asian, and other racial identities combine for 1%. Prior to 2021, Maryland prisons were not counting Latino individuals separately from the “white” population due to the lack of standardized ethnicity reporting. The classification of “Hispanic” as an ethnicity rather than a race likely contributed to the confusion. Improved reporting to address these gaps began around the 2020 U.S. census cycle.[39]

The number of Black incarcerated individuals in state prisons declined by 17% from 2016 to 2025, while the decline in white incarcerated individuals was 38%. The number of Latino Marylanders incarcerated increased by 28% between 2021 and 2025 while the number of American Indians declined over 50%. The number of Asians in prison remained steady and those categorized as unknown race declined by 80%.

The largest one-year decline for Black and white incarcerated individuals occurred between 2020 and 2021 at 20% and 26% respectively. Since 2021, the number of Black and white incarcerated individuals increased by 10% and 4% respectively.

Figure 40 shows that Maryland’s sentenced population fell for both men and women between FY 2016 and FY 2025, with a sharper proportional decline among women. The number of incarcerated men declined 20%, while the number of incarcerated women declined 25%. Both groups reached their lowest point in 2021, when COVID-19 protocols for prison releases were underway. Since 2021, both populations have risen, with the men’s population increasing 12% and the women’s population increasing 41% through 2025. Even with this rebound, both groups remained below 2016 levels.

Figure 41 shows prison admission versus prison releases from 2012 through 2024. Admissions fell steadily from 11,965 in 2012 to a low of 2,811 in 2021, a decrease of 77%. The sharpest drop occurred between 2019 and 2021, when intakes declined from 63%. After 2021, intakes increased to 5,515 in 2024, a 96% rebound, though still 54% lower than the 2012 level.

Releases followed a similar pattern, decreasing from 13,114 in 2012 to 4,844 in 2021, a 63% decrease. Releases then rose 1% from 2021 but remained about 63% below their 2012 level. Throughout the period, releases exceeded intakes.

Figure 42 shows the average daily population at the Baltimore City Booking and Intake Center, a local detention facility run by the state. Baltimore is the only jurisdiction in the state with such an arrangement. Between 2014 and 2017 the average daily population for the Baltimore City Booking and Intake Center declined 22%. Between 2017 and 2023, the average daily population for the Baltimore City Booking and Intake Center increased 21%.

Parole

Parole is the discretionary and conditional release of an incarcerated individual who is eligible to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community. Individuals incarcerated for nonviolent crimes are entitled to be considered for parole after serving one-fourth of their sentence. Those serving time for violent crimes must serve one-half of their sentence before becoming eligible. Incarcerated individuals serving life sentences have specific parole requirements for minimum time served. They must serve 15 years if the crime was committed before Oct. 1, 2021, and 20 years if committed on or after that date.[40]

The Maryland Parole Commission (MPC) conducts hearings to determine if an incarcerated individual is suitable for release. MPC considers the nature of the crime, the incarcerated individual’s physical and mental status, the likelihood of recidivism, and victim impact statements.

Special Parole Types

Medical Parole: For incarcerated individuals who are seriously ill or unable to care for themselves and are no longer seen as a risk to the public.

Geriatric Parole: For incarcerated individuals who are at least 60 years old and have served at least 15 years for certain serious crimes.

Mutual Agreement Program (MAP): An agreement in which an incarcerated individual works toward set goals, such as job training, and if those goals are met, they are guaranteed a future release date.

Discretionary Parole: Discretionary parole is granted by a parole board on a case-by-case basis and factors in an incarcerated individual’s behavior, risk to the public, and overall rehabilitation. These can be denied, but the decisions made by parole boards are not public.

Mandatory Parole: Mandatory supervision, commonly known as mandatory parole, is when an incarcerated individual is given parole by state law, which usually requires them to serve a certain amount of their sentence or earn diminution credits to shorten their sentence. These credits are offered to most incarcerated individuals with exceptions for certain violent crimes. [41]

Parole Data

The next section surveys parole data, disaggregated by offense, race, sex, supervision status, and more. The data includes calendar years 2015-2022 and some include 2023.

Figure 43 shows that the parole population declined by 21% between 2015 and 2022, falling across most offense categories. The largest decreases were among people on parole for drug offenses, which declined by 56%, and property offenses, which declined by 48%. People on parole for other violent offenses declined by 16%, but this category became a larger share of the total parole population, increasing from 44% in 2015 to 49% in 2022. Weapon offenses increased by 41% over the period and rose from 5% to 9% of the parole population. Overall, the data show a smaller parole population in 2022 with a larger share of cases tied to violent or weapon-related offenses and a much smaller share tied to drug and property offenses.

Figure 44 shows the parole population declined overall from 2015 to 2023, falling by about 10% across the three reported race categories. The number of Black people on parole declined by 10%, while the number of white people on parole declined by 14%. Both groups reached the lowest levels in 2022, then increased from 2022 to 2023. The Black parole population increased by 18%, and the white parole population increased by 21% respectively. Black people accounted for about 71% of the reported parole population in both 2015 and 2023, while white people accounted for about 29% in 2015 and 28% in 2023. The “unknown race or ethnic origin” category remained at about 1% throughout the period. The data is limited for Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and American Indian populations and they are not included as a result. Note that the total decline in parole population numbers in Figures 43 (21%) and 44 (10%) is slightly off due to this and that the total parole population decline is 21%.

Figure 45 shows that male parolees declined 9% from 2015 to 2022 but increased by 19% in 2023. Female parolees declined 34%, despite a 14% increase from 2022 to 2023. As a share of the total parole population, male parolees increased from 91% in 2015 to 94% in 2023, female parolees declined from 8% to 6%. The unknown category remained about 1% or less throughout this period.

Figure 46 shows the parole population by supervision status. These include:[42]

• Active supervision: The person is regularly monitored by a parole officer and must follow set rules, such as reporting in, attending meetings, or complying with conditions.
• On inactive supervision status: The person is still officially on parole but is not being actively monitored. Requirements are minimal and regular check-ins may not be required.
• On absconder supervision status: The person has failed to maintain contact with their parole officer or has disappeared from supervision. Their whereabouts may be unknown, and they are considered noncompliant.
• Supervised out of state: The person lives in another state but remains under parole supervision there through an agreement between states.
• Other supervision status: This category includes less common or miscellaneous supervision situations that do not fit into the main categories.
• Unknown supervision status: The person’s current supervision status is not clearly recorded or available in the data.

The number of people on active supervision declined by 23% and active supervision remained the largest category throughout the period and made up about 75% of the parole population in 2022. The number of people on inactive supervision declined by 25%, while the absconder category fell more, decreasing by 69%.

Figure 47 shows that parole entries and exits both declined between 2015 and 2023 with entries falling more. Parole entries decreased by 47% while parole exits decreased by 32%. Entries dropped most noticeably after 2020, falling 26% from 2020 to 2021 and 32% from 2020 to 2023. Exits generally declined through 2022, falling 40% from 2015 to 2022, before increasing by 13% in 2023. By 2023, parole exits were 45% higher than entries, indicating more people leaving parole than entering that year.

Figure 48 shows that Maryland’s parole supervision rate decreased from approximately 233 per 100,000 residents in 2015 to 169 per 100,000 in 2022, a decline of 27% over the seven-year period. Rates declined modestly between 2015 and 2018, then more from 2018 to 2019. That state experienced another notable decline between 2020 and 2021, followed by a smaller reduction in 2022.

Figure 49 shows both mandatory and discretionary parole declined from 2015 to 2022, with discretionary releases falling much more. Mandatory releases decreased by 29%, while discretionary releases declined by 65%. Combined releases fell by 45% over the period. The largest drop occurred between 2020 and 2021, when mandatory releases fell by 21% and discretionary releases fell by 33%. By 2022, mandatory releases made up about 70% of the two release categories, compared with 54% in 2015. This shows that parole releases became increasingly concentrated in mandatory releases while discretionary releases became a much smaller share of the total. With the decline in the incarcerated population, it follows that parole numbers should be down as well.

Figure 50 shows how people on parole exited parole. The ways in which people on parole can exit parole include:

• Completion: The person finished their parole term successfully by meeting all requirements and reaching the end of their supervision period.
• Incarcerated: The person was sent back to jail or prison while on parole, usually because of a new offense or a violation of parole conditions.
• Unsatisfactory Discharge: The person was removed from parole before completion due to not following the rules or failing to meet required conditions, often resulting in reincarceration.
• Death: The person died while still under parole supervision.
• Other: The exit reason does not fit into the main categories and may include less common or administrative reasons.
• Unknown or Not Reported: The reason for leaving parole was not recorded or is unclear in the data.

Parole exits declined by 32% from 2015 to 2023, while exits increased by 13% from 2022 to 2023. Completion remained the most common exit type throughout the period, declining by 29% overall but increasing by 12% in the final year. Those returning to incarceration from parole fell the most, dropping by 70% from 2015 to 2023, and their share of all exits declined from about 25% to 11%. Unsatisfactory discharges also declined by 18%, though their share of exits increased from 12% to 15% because total exits fell more. Deaths and unknown or unreported exits made up smaller categories, but both increased over the period.

Youth Justice System

Maryland’s youth court system is set up differently than the adult court system. Instead of focusing mainly on proving guilt or giving set punishments, its goal is to “transform young people’s lives” by emphasizing support, guidance, and rehabilitation through community-based support systems.

The Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) is the main state agency tasked with managing and supervising youth involved in the legal system.^[43] DJS maintains offices in all counties and Baltimore City for youth intake and processing, while operating detention centers for youth awaiting hearings and treatment facilities for youth in out-of-home placement. DJS is involved in every stage of the legal process and engages with families and communities, law enforcement agencies, and the courts.

(flow chart)

The flow chart above from the Department of Legislative Services provides a breakdown of youth case flow within juvenile justice system.[44] DJS additionally lists the various ways young people can take going through juvenile justice system. [45] The process consists of 14 steps and is as follows:

1. Youth can be referred to court by police, schools, parents, or others. Some are sent to diversion programs first and only enter the system if the programming does not work. Youth may also be picked up for missing court or breaking supervision rules. Cases moved from adult court are handled here as well.
2. At law enforcement’s request, DJS uses a Detention Risk Management Instrument (DRAI) to decide if a youth requires secure detention until the next court day.
3. An intake officer reviews the case using the Intake Decision Tool to choose one of four paths: closing the case for lack of evidence, referring to appropriate services, resolving it when determined that furthering the case would be against the interest of the youth and public, referring to appropriate services, starting informal “pre-court supervision,” or sending the case to the State’s Attorney for formal court action.
4. If a youth is held, a juvenile court determines if continued secure detention is necessary until the next hearing. Youth may be detained directly by DJS, either on a new charge, a writ or warrant, or due to a violation or sanction of a supervision order (probation, community detention, drug court, etc.) while the youth is presented during court hours.
5. Lower-risk youth may be released to the community if they comply with certain restrictions, such as electronic monitoring, house arrest, or evening reporting centers, to ensure they attend their court date.
6. For cases sent to court, DJS authorizes the State’s Attorney to petition the court. The State’s Attorney reviews the complaint and decides whether to dismiss it, file a formal petition for a hearing, or send the case back for a diversion program.
7. At the adjudicatory hearing (a fact-finding hearing), the juvenile court determines the outcome of the petitioned charges, which can be sustained or not sustained.
8. While waiting for a disposition, DJS conducts a background study and assessments to recommend a plan for the youth’s treatment and supervision.
9. If charges were sustained, the judge decides if the youth is “delinquent” and determines if the youth requires either probation, which can be at home, or a commitment order, meaning placement in a treatment program.
10. Youth on probation live at home under the supervision of a DJS case manager and must follow specific court-ordered rules. Supervision levels depend on the risk level of the youth.
11. Youth ordered into an out-of-home program may stay in a detention center temporarily until a spot in a treatment facility is available.
12. Committed youth are placed in various settings based on their specific treatment needs and risk level. Examples include group homes or secure facilities.
13. DJS provides committed diversion programs for youth who might otherwise be placed out of home. These in-home programs provide services and treatment to the youth and family, and include Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Multisystemic Therapy (MST), and Family Centered Treatment (FCT).
14. When a youth returns home from an out-of-home program, they receive aftercare supervision to help them successfully reconnect with school, work, and community services.

Youth Data

The next section includes data from the DJS Data Resource Guide on youth involvement in the youth legal system, with some inclusion of youth in the adult legal system.

Detention

Data shown here represent the average population of youth detained in DJS detention facilities. These include youth awaiting a court hearing (pre-disposition), youth who are committed and awaiting placement in a treatment program, and youth detained pending an adult court transfer hearing.

Figure 51 shows pronounced and persistent racial disparities in the average daily population of boys held in detention across all detention types between 2016 and 2025, with Black youth accounting for most of the detention in every category.

Black boys consistently make up the largest share of youth held in adult detention. Between 2016 and 2020, the average daily population fluctuated between roughly 75 and 90 youth, followed by a decline in 2021. Since then, adult detention of Black youth rebounded significantly, reaching its highest levels in 2024 and 2025 to over 110 on an average day. In contrast, Hispanic/other and white youth accounted for relatively small numbers throughout the period, even as Black youth detention increased.

Average daily populations for youth pending placement declined across all racial groups during the height of the COVID‑19 period, with the sharpest drop occurring in 2021. For Black youth, pending placement fell from pre‑pandemic levels to just over 10 in 2021, before increasing again through 2025. Hispanic/other and white youth pending placement remained consistently low throughout this period, below five to eight youth on an average day. Despite post‑pandemic increases, the numbers of youth in the pending‑placement category did not return to pre‑2020 levels for any racial or ethnic group.

Pre‑disposition detention shows the clearest long‑term decline, particularly for Black youth. From 2016 to 2019, Black boys held pre‑disposition averaged between 70 and 97 youth per day. That figure fell during the pandemic, declining to 30 in 2021, and has remained below pre‑pandemic levels since, despite a small increase through 2025. White and Hispanic/other youth were held pre‑disposition at much lower levels throughout the period. Even as pre‑disposition detention rates increased after 2021, the disparity for Black youth remained.

Figure 52 shows that between 2016 and 2025, the average daily population of girls in Maryland’s youth legal system remained comparatively low in absolute numbers, but the data reveal racial disparities, particularly for Black girls.

Adult detention among girls was consistently low across all racial groups, generally averaging fewer than seven youth per day in any given year. Black girls accounted for the largest share of girls held in adult detention throughout the period. While levels declined slightly during the pandemic years, adult detention of Black girls increased notably after 2021, peaking in 2024 before remaining higher than pre-pandemic years. White and Hispanic/other girls were held in adult detention at very low levels throughout the decade, often averaging fewer than one youth per day.

Girls pending placement also represented a small population overall, but racial disparities remained. Black girls consistently made up the largest share of youth pending placement on an average day, particularly pre‑pandemic, when daily averages exceeded seven. Pending placement declined across all groups during the pandemic, reaching its lowest point around 2022 and 2023. Since then, pending placement among Black girls increased again through 2025 but remained below pre‑2020 levels. White and Hispanic/other girls pending placement were consistently few, often averaging near or below one youth per day.

Pre-disposition detention accounted for the largest share of girls in the youth justice system across all racial groups, especially prior to the pandemic. From 2016 to 2019, Black girls were held pre-disposition at substantially higher rates than other groups, averaging between roughly 13 and 15 youth per day. These numbers declined during the pandemic, falling to about four by 2022 and two in 2023, before increasing again through 2025. White girls had a pre-disposition detention rate decline from mid-single-digit levels before 2020 to around one or fewer youth per day in 2024 and 2025. Hispanic/other girls remained the smallest group throughout.

Community Supervision

The data presented below represent the average daily population of youth committed by the juvenile court to out-of-home treatment programs. These include DJS-operated facilities and other contracted residential programs in Maryland and out of state.

Figure 53 shows long‑term reductions in the average daily number of boys under community supervision across all supervision types between 2016 and 2025, despite persistent racial disparities. Throughout the period, Black boys consistently represented the largest share of all community supervision cases.

Probation accounted for the largest share of community supervision among boys across all racial groups. Black boys experienced the steepest decline, with average daily probation cases falling from 1,358 in 2016 to 460 in 2022. Since then, probation caseloads for Black boys increased, reaching 686 in 2025, but remained below pre‑pandemic levels. White boys followed a similar pattern, declining from 468 cases in 2016 to 126 2025. Hispanic/other boys consistently represented a much smaller probation population, declining from 135 in 2016 to 79 in 2023, followed by an increase to 123 in 2025.

Community aftercare caseloads declined across all racial groups during the decade. Black boys’ average daily aftercare cases dropped from 519 in 2016 to 166 in 2023, before increasing again to 224 in 2025. White boys saw a similar trend, falling from 112 cases in 2016 to 33 in 2025. Hispanic/other boys had relatively small aftercare populations throughout the period, declining from 45 in 2016 to 29 in 2025.

Pre-court supervision declined during the pandemic years, particularly for Black boys. From 2016 to 2019, Black boys averaged between roughly 250 and 325 pre-court cases per day, dropping to 83 in 2021. Although the number of Black boys in pre-court supervision increased again after 2021, it did not return to pre-pandemic levels and declined again by 2025. White boys showed similar declines, falling from 208 cases in 2016 to 78 by 2025. Hispanic/other boys consistently accounted for the fewest pre-court cases, with averages remaining below 60 throughout the decade.

Figure 54 shows long‑term declines in the average daily number of girls under community supervision across all supervision types between 2016 and 2025, despite persistent racial disparities, particularly for Black girls, who consistently represent the largest share of cases.

Probation accounted for the largest share of community supervision cases for girls across all racial groups throughout the period. Black girls experienced the most pronounced decline, with average daily probation cases dropping from 347 in 2016 to 71 in 2023. Although probation caseloads for Black girls increased again in 2024 and 2025, they remained below pre‑pandemic levels. White girls followed a similar pattern, declining from 109 cases in 2016 to 33 cases by 2025. Hispanic/other girls represented a much smaller probation population.

Community aftercare caseloads also declined for all racial groups over the decade. Black girls again accounted for most cases, but their average daily aftercare population fell from 83 in 2016 to 9 by 2024, with a small uptick in 2025. White girls’ aftercare cases also declined substantially, falling from around 30 cases per day in 2016-2017 to only three between 2024 2025. Hispanic/other girls again accounted for a significantly smaller share in the community aftercare population.

Pre‑court supervision followed a similar declining pattern, particularly during the pandemic years. Black girls represented the largest group, with average daily cases falling dramatically from around 120-130 before 2020 to just over 30 in 2021. While pre‑court cases for Black girls increased after 2021, they again did not return to pre‑pandemic levels. White girls’ pre‑court supervision declined from the 84 in 2016 to 30 cases in 2025. Hispanic/other girls again accounted for the fewest pre‑court cases.

Committed Treatment

The data presented on this page represent the average daily population of youth committed by the juvenile court to out-of-home treatment programs. These include DJS-operated facilities and other contracted residential programs in Maryland and out of state.

Figure 55 shows a dramatic reduction in the average daily number of boys committed to out-of-home treatment programs over the 10-year period, with declines observed across all placement types and racial groups. Despite these reductions, Black boys continued to account for most youth in committed treatment programs throughout the decade.

In‑state contracted placements historically represented the largest placement type for boys. In 2016, Black boys averaged 182 youth per day in in‑state contracted programs, but this figure declined steadily, dropping during the pandemic years and reaching fewer than 40 by 2025. White and Hispanic/other boys experienced similar but smaller declines, with in‑state contracted placements for white boys decreasing from 76 in 2016 to less than 16 2023, and Hispanic/other boys declining from 21 in 2016 to fewer than five by 2025.

DJS‑operated placements for boys also declined substantially between 2016 and 2021. For Black boys, DJS‑operated placements fell from over 100 youth per day in 2016 to just over 30 in 2022, before increasing again to over 57 2025. Between 2023 and 2025, DJS‑operated facilities accounted for a growing share of remaining commitments, particularly for Black boys. White and Hispanic/other boys showed smaller but similar patterns, with modest post‑2022 increases following pandemic‑era lows.

Out‑of‑state contracted placements declined across all racial groups, especially after 2020. Black boys experienced the largest drop, falling from more than 40 youth per day in 2016 to fewer than two by 2025. White and Hispanic/other boys also saw steady declines to nearly zero.

Figure 56 shows a sustained decline in the average daily number of girls committed to out‑of‑home treatment programs across all placement types between 2016 and 2025. Overall, girls represented a relatively small population within committed treatment, and by the mid‑2020s, placements across most categories had fallen to very low levels.

In‑state contracted placements accounted for the largest share of committed treatment for girls, particularly among Black girls. In 2016, more than 50 Black girls were placed in in‑state contracted programs on an average day. This number fell to single digit levels by 2021 and remained low through 2025. White girls followed a similar downward trajectory, declining from more than 20 in 2016 to fewer than one by the end of the period. Hispanic/other girls accounted for very few in‑state contracted placements.

DJS‑operated placements for girls remained small throughout the decade for all racial groups. Black girls were the most represented in this category. Their average daily population generally remained below seven youth per day and declined during the pandemic years. White and Hispanic/other girls consistently averaged one or fewer youth per day in DJS‑operated placements.

Out‑of‑state contracted placements for girls were rare across all years and racial groups and declined further after 2020. By the mid‑2020s, out‑of‑state placements were near zero for white and Hispanic/other girls and remained very small for Black girls as well.

Intake by Offense

Data shown here represents youth complaints referred to DJS Intake by citizens or law enforcement by most serious offense.

Figure 57 shows that, across boys of all racial identities, misdemeanors represent the largest category of youth intake every year. Intake levels across nearly all offense categories dropped during the COVID‑19 period, followed by rebounds after 2021, though most categories did not return to pre‑pandemic levels by 2025.

Black boys consistently accounted for the highest number of youth intakes across all offense categories. Misdemeanor intakes declined from more than 6,800 cases in 2016 to just over 1,600 in 2021, before increasing to just over 3,200 by 2025. Nonviolent felonies and crimes of violence followed similar patterns, with significant declines during the pandemic and post‑2021 increases. Notably, crime‑of‑violence intakes for Black boys rose after 2022, reaching over 1,400 in 2024 before decreasing slightly in 2025. “Children in need of supervision” (CINS) referrals were relatively low throughout the period but increased after 2022.

White boys saw substantial declines in intake across all offense types over the decade. Misdemeanor intakes dropped from just over 3,000 cases in 2017 to over 1,300 by 2025. Ordinance, status, traffic, and other offenses, which historically represented a larger share of intake for white boys than for other groups, also declined, notably after 2019. Nonviolent felony and crime‑of‑violence intakes for white boys remained comparatively low but increased after 2022. CINS referrals declined through 2021 and then rose in recent years.

Hispanic/other boys consistently represented the smallest share of intake across all offense categories. Misdemeanor intakes declined from just under 800 in 2016 to 260 in 2021, with rebounds post-pandemic. Patterns for nonviolent felonies and crimes of violence followed those of other groups but at lower volumes. CINS referrals were minimal throughout the period and increased after 2022.

Figure 58 shows misdemeanors were the most common reason for youth intake every year across all racial group for girls, like the trend in boys. Intake volumes across nearly all offense categories declined during the pandemic period, followed by rebounds after 2021. By 2025, intake levels for most offense types remained below pre‑pandemic levels, though some categories showed notable increases in recent years.

Black girls accounted for the largest share of youth intakes across all offense categories. Misdemeanor intakes declined from just over 3,000 cases in 2016 to fewer than 750 in 2021, before rebounding to approximately 2,000 cases by 2024-2025. Nonviolent felony and crime of violence intakes followed a similar pattern, with declines through 2021 and sharp increases afterward. Crime‑of‑violence intakes among Black girls more than doubled between 2022 and 2025. CINS referrals increased after 2021.

White girls experienced declines in intake across all offense categories over the decade. Misdemeanor intakes fell from over 1,300 in 2016 to fewer than 600 by 2025. Ordinance, status, traffic, and other offenses, similar to boys, a historically a sizable category for white girls, also declined after 2019. Non‑violent felony and crime‑of‑violence intakes remained comparatively low, though increases were observed after 2022. CINS referrals declined during the pandemic and then rose again by 2025.

Hispanic/other girls represented the smallest share of youth intakes across all offense categories. Misdemeanor intakes declined between 2019 and 2021, followed by moderate increases after 2021. Nonviolent felony and crime‑of‑violence intakes remained low throughout the period. CINS referrals decreased to near zero in 2021 but rose steadily thereafter, indicating a pattern similar to that observed for other groups.

Case Forwarding Decisions

This section shows the decisions made by DJS intake staff, including which cases were diverted from prosecution (either resolved at intake or diverted to pre-court supervision) an​d which were referred to the State’s Attorney (“formaled”).

Figure 59 shows that for boys of all racial groups, the number of cases authorized for formal petition declined between 2016 and 2021, followed by increases after 2021. Informal, or pre-court supervision, resolutions also decreased significantly during the pandemic years and remained well below pre-pandemic levels. Cases resolved at intake declined in 2021 but rebounded more quickly than formal or informal outcomes in later years.

Black boys consistently accounted for the largest share of cases across all decision types. Authorized formal petitions declined from over 6,000 cases in 2016 to fewer than 1,600 in 2021, before increasing steadily through 2025 to more than 3,500. Pre-court diversion, or “Informaled” in the chart, followed a similar pattern, dropping in 2021 and remaining well below pre-pandemic levels in subsequent years. Resolved cases declined in 2021 but rebounded quickly, remaining the most common outcome in recent years. Despite overall reductions, Black boys continued to experience the highest number of formal petitions throughout the period.

White boys experienced substantial declines across all case forwarding outcomes. Authorized formal petitions dropped from just over 1,800 in 2016 to fewer than 500 in 2021, with gradual increases thereafter. Pre-court diversion outcomes declined steadily over the decade, without returning to pre‑pandemic levels by 2025. Resolved cases also declined in 2021 and then partially rebounded, though remaining lower than pre‑2020 levels. Compared to Black boys, white boys were more likely, both before and after the pandemic, to have cases resolved rather than proceed via formal petition.

Hispanic/other boys represented the smallest share of cases across all decision types but followed similar trends. Authorized formal petitions fell between 2016 and 2021, then increased through 2024 before leveling off in 2025. Pre-court diversion cases dropped steeply in 2021 and remained low. Resolved cases declined during the pandemic but rebounded modestly afterward. While volumes were lower overall, the relative proportions of formal petitions and resolutions tracked closely with broader system trends.

Figure 60 shows for girls across all racial groups the number of cases authorized for formal petition and pre-court diversion decreased between 2019 and 2021. Resolved cases also declined during this period but rebounded more quickly in subsequent years, becoming the most common outcome for girls. By 2025, most outcome categories remained below pre-pandemic levels, though formal petitions showed modest increases relative to pandemic levels.

Black girls consistently accounted for the largest share of cases across all outcomes. Authorized formal petitions declined from over 1,400 cases in 2016 to just 237 in 2021, followed by steady increases through 2025, reaching approximately 775 cases. Pre-court diversion cases followed a similar pattern, dropping in 2021 and remaining well below pre‑pandemic levels thereafter. Resolved cases represented the dominant outcome for Black girls throughout the period, declining in 2021 and rebounding quickly and remaining high relative to other outcomes in subsequent years.

White girls experienced significant declines across all case forwarding outcomes over the decade. Authorized formal petitions decreased from nearly 500 cases in 2016 to just over 100 in 2021, with increases thereafter. Pre-court diversion outcomes also fell substantially during the pandemic but stabilized in recent years. Resolved cases declined in 2021 and partially rebounded but remained well below pre‑2020 levels by 2025. Compared to Black girls, white girls had lower overall volumes across all outcomes.

Hispanic/other girls represented the smallest share of cases in every outcome category. Authorized formal petitions and pre-court diversion cases declined notably through 2021, followed by modest increases in later years. Resolved cases followed a similar pattern, with a sharp pandemic‑era decline and a rebound through 2024 before leveling off slightly in 2025. While volumes were substantially lower than those for Black or white girls, the overall trend mirrored broader system patterns.

Recidivism

This section contains the one-year recidivism rates of youth under court-ordered probation supervision and youth released from committed placement. Recidivism is reported across three outcomes: a new arrest, a new juvenile adjudication or adult conviction, and a new juvenile commitment or adult incarceration.

Figure 61 shows that, across all years and racial groups, rearrest was the most common recidivism outcome, followed by reconviction, with reincarceration occurring less frequently. Rates fluctuated year to year but remained persistently high among Black and Hispanic/other boys.

Black boys exhibited the highest recidivism rates across all three measures throughout the period. Rearrest rates were above 50% in most years and rose to over 65% by 2023. Reconviction rates for Black boys remained comparatively high as well, exceeding 22% across the period, while reincarceration rates, though lower, remained substantial, averaging between 13 and 18%. These patterns indicate frequent system re‑contact and a comparatively higher likelihood of re‑involvement with the justice system for Black boys after release from committed treatment.

Hispanic/other boys also experienced high rearrest rates, particularly prior to 2020, when rates exceeded 45%. Rearrest declined after 2020, dropping to 23% in 2022 and remaining below 30% in 2023. Reconviction rates were generally lower than those of Black boys but fluctuated, including a peak exceeding 30% in 2020. Reincarceration rates declined over time and were zero or near zero in some later years.

White boys showed consistently lower recidivism rates than Black and Hispanic/other boys across all measures. Rearrest rates ranged between 30% and 48% over the period, with noticeable declines after 2021. Reconviction rates declined after 2018, falling into single digits in several years, while reincarceration rates also dropped and remained comparatively low. Although white boys continued to experience meaningful levels of rearrest, they were substantially less likely to be reconvicted or reincarcerated than other groups.

Figure 62 shows that, across all racial groups, 12-month rearrest rates were higher than reconviction and reincarceration rates, indicating that, although some girls had post-release contact with law enforcement, relatively few were later convicted or returned to custody within a year. Reincarceration rates were low.

Black girls experienced the highest rearrest rates among the groups shown. Prior to the pandemic, 12‑month rearrest rates for Black girls frequently ranged from y 25% to over 40%, with a spike in 2020. Rearrest rates dropped in 2021, before increasing again in subsequent years. Reconviction rates for Black girls remained low throughout the period, ranging from about 8% to 11%. Reincarceration rates were minimal and declined to zero in the most recent years shown, suggesting that few Black girls released from committed treatment returned to confinement within 12 months.

White girls showed rearrest rates that were generally lower than those for Black girls in most years but still substantial prior to the pandemic, with some years exceeding 30%. Rearrest rates fluctuated markedly between years, including a notable increase in 2021, followed by a decline afterward. Reconviction rates for white girls remained consistently low, generally under 8% when reported, and reincarceration rates were low to zero in most years, suggesting limited return to confinement despite rearrest events.

Hispanic/other girls had the smallest population sizes and the most volatile rates. Rearrest rates varied widely across years, ranging from zero in some years to as high as 40% in others. Reconviction and reincarceration rates were frequently zero, due to records less than 5 being suppressed.

Figure 63 presents 12‑month rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration rates for boys who were transferred to adult court and released from committed treatment, disaggregated by race. Compared to other youth populations, boys who were transferred to the adult system exhibit consistently high recidivism rates, particularly for rearrest. At the same time, reconviction and reincarceration rates are notably lower than rearrest rates, and recent years show some declines, though our analysis is constrained by small record sizes.

Across all racial groups, 12‑month rearrest rates were substantially higher than reconviction and reincarceration rates, indicating that while many boys experienced law‑enforcement contact after release, fewer progressed to conviction or return to custody within a year. Reconviction and reincarceration rates generally declined over time, and several years show zero values, which correspond to very small populations rather than the absence of system contact.

Black boys consistently displayed the highest rearrest rates across the period shown, ranging between 40 and 57%. Rearrest rates remained elevated even as reconviction and reincarceration rates declined over time. Reconviction rates for Black boys were substantially lower than rearrest rates but still notable in earlier years, exceeding 20% before declining in later years. Reincarceration rates followed a clear downward trend, decreasing from a high of 20% in the mid‑2010s to single digits by the most recent years. This pattern suggests that, while post‑release system contact remained common for Black boys transferred from adult court, fewer were returning to custody over time.

White boys also experienced high rearrest rates in several years. However, rearrest rates declined in later years, with multiple years showing less than five recorded rearrests. Reconviction and reincarceration rates for white boys were generally lower than those for Black boys and dropped to zero in most recent years, reflecting small record sizes in the data.

Hispanic/other boys showed the most variability across years. Rearrest rates fluctuated widely and reconviction and reincarceration rates were frequently zero, except for a few years when both rose, indicating that outcomes for this group are strongly influenced by small population sizes.

Figure 64 shows that, for boys across all racial groups, rearrest was the most common post‑disposition outcome, followed by reconviction, with reincarceration occurring least frequently. Although rates fluctuate year by year, the data show persistent racial disparities and only small overall improvement.

Across all groups, rearrest rates consistently exceeded 30%, indicating that a substantial share of boys on probation experienced renewed system contact within one year. Reconviction rates were roughly half or less of rearrest rates, while reincarceration rates were considerably lower, remaining below 15%. All three measures declined around 2021, followed by increases in some categories in later years.

Black boys experienced the highest recidivism rates across all measures throughout the period. Rearrest rates remained above 50% from 2016 through 2019, declined to 39% in 2021, and then rose again to 48% by 2023. Reconviction rates for Black boys were consistently elevated compared to other groups, remaining in the 20% range in most years. Reincarceration rates, while lower, were still substantial, generally ranging from about 7% to 15%.

Hispanic/other boys exhibited moderate to high recidivism rates, though consistently lower than those observed for Black boys. Rearrest rates peaked at nearly 48% in 2018 before declining during the pandemic years and stabilizing below 30% by 2023. Reconviction rates fluctuated, including a notable spike to nearly 30% in 2018, before settling to about 13% in 2023. Reincarceration rates declined overall but showed variability, including a peak above 17% in 2018 and lower levels thereafter.

White boys consistently had the lowest recidivism rates across all three measures. Rearrest rates ranged from the 30 to 40%, declined around 2020-2021, and remained near the 30% range by 2023. Reconviction rates declined steadily over time, falling below 15% and then to single digits in later years. Reincarceration rates were the lowest among all groups, typically between 4% and 7% in recent years.

Figure 65 show that, for girls across all racial groups, rearrest was the most common post‑disposition outcome, while reconviction and reincarceration occurred at considerably lower rates. Overall, girls on probation experienced substantially lower reincarceration rates compared to girls released from committed treatment.

Across all years, rearrest rates were consistently higher than reconviction rates, and reincarceration was rare. Rearrest rates declined during the pandemic period, particularly in 2021, followed by partial rebounds in later years. Reincarceration rates were low throughout the period, often near or at zero.

Black girls exhibited the highest recidivism rates across all three measures. Rearrest rates commonly exceeded 40% prior to 2020 and dropped to approximately 23% in 2021 before rising again above 35% in 2022 and 2023. Reconviction rates for Black girls remained lower than rearrest rates, ranging between 7% and 15%, with a decline during the pandemic year. Reincarceration rates were consistently low, rarely exceeding 5%. These patterns suggest that, while Black girls on probation experienced relatively high levels of system re-contact, few progressed to reconviction or incarceration within 12 months.

White girls experienced lower recidivism rates than Black girls across all measures. Rearrest rates fluctuated between 20% and 30%, with a notable decline in 2020 and a slight rebound afterward. Reconviction rates declined significantly after 2017, falling into single digits and reaching zero in 2022 before a modest increase in 2023. Reincarceration rates were generally low and reached zero in most recent years.

Hispanic/other girls showed moderate rearrest rates that declined between 2016 and 2021 but increased in 2022 and 2023, reaching over 40% in the most recent year shown. Reconviction rates were generally modest, though they increased in recent years, rising to nearly 17% by 2023. Notably, reincarceration rates for Hispanic/other girls were zero across all years due to records with under five entries are not included in the public data.

Figure 66 presents 12‑month rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration rates for boys placed on probation following transfer to adult court from 2016 to 2023. As with other adult‑transfer populations, outcomes reflect an elevated rate of reincarceration. Across all racial groups, rearrest was the most common outcome post‑probation, while reincarceration occurred less frequently.

Across the period, rearrest rates were consistently higher than reconviction and reincarceration rates, resulting in many boys experiencing renewed system contact after placement on probation, but fewer progressed to conviction or return to custody within 12 months. Several years show zero values, particularly for reconviction and reincarceration, which reflect small record sizes.

Black boys showed consistently elevated rearrest rates, with substantial increases after 2021. Rearrest rose from the 20% range in 2021 to over 40% by 2023. Reconviction rates were markedly lower than rearrest rates but increased in recent years, reaching over 17% by 2023. Reincarceration rates for Black boys were lower and more variable, remaining below 10%, though they increased after 2021.

Hispanic/other boys exhibited the greatest volatility across all three measures. Rearrest rates ranged from zero in some years to over 50% in others, reflecting small cohorts and year‑specific dynamics. Reconviction and reincarceration rates also fluctuated, including spikes in select years alongside multiple years at zero.

White boys generally experienced lower recidivism rates than Black boys, though rearrest was still substantial in several years. Rearrest rates increased around 2019–2020, then stabilized near 20% in later years. Reconviction and reincarceration rates were often zero in recent years. Along with Hispanic/other populations, due to records with under five entries are not included.

Figure 67 shows that between 2016 and 2025, the number of complaints transferred from adult court to youth court increased 106.7%. Simultaneously, the percentage of total complaints that were transferred from adult court to youth court increased from 1.3% to 4.6%. Transfers rose from 297 in 2016 to 390 in 2018, an increase of about 31%, then declined to 321 in 2020, a drop of about 18% from the 2018 peak. After that, transfers increased from 327 in 2021 to 614 in 2025, a rise of about 88%, including a 16% increase between 2024 and 2025.

Conclusion

Since 2015, the state of Maryland has sought to enact criminal justice reforms, including changes to sentencing, pretrial, parole, probation, and youth justice. The available data show that various reforms have had an impact on the number of individuals involved in the justice system, how they are involved, and the various outcomes dictated by policy changes and administrative discretion. In some ways, reform has yielded positive results. Compared to 2015, fewer people are incarcerated or in jail, fewer crimes are being committed, and fewer people are on parole and probation. We can verify this because data has become more available in recent years. However, available data is still not descriptive in certain areas, which limits our full understanding of how the reforms impacted justice-involved individuals. A 2023 state Task Force to Study Transparency Standards for State’s Attorneys outlined key reforms to make prosecutorial decisions more accessible and trackable across the state.[46] Those recommendations include:

• Automated case management systems that can upload and share data with officials across each county.
• Standardized data collection forms instead of written notes, which includes but is not limited to: Charges, dispositions, plea offers, demographics of victim and offender, reasons for dismissals etc.
• The state should analyze data already gathered by State’s Attorneys’ offices and make them available, such as: Cases referred by police, cases declined, dismissed, diverted, resolved by plea, and more.

The report cites prosecutorial transparency standards implemented in other states.

• Connecticut – Mandated the Division of Criminal Justice to collect certain prosecutorial data and for the Office of Policy and Management to present it to the Criminal Justice Commission. They require each state attorney to appear before the commission and testify on the data.[47]
• New Jersey – Mandated the Juvenile Justice Commission to collect and analyze data regarding waivers of jurisdiction by a youth delinquency case and require a biennial report summarizing data collected and analyzed.[48]
• Florida – Requires state and local criminal justice agencies to report certain metrics to the state Department of Law Enforcement for publication and easy search.[49]

Additionally, the Maryland Equitable Justice Collaborative’s 2025 report “Breaking the 71%: A Path Toward Racial Equity in the Criminal Legal System” examined criminal legal and related data across several categories and highlights certain data limitation as well as racial disparities within Maryland’s criminal legal system.[50] Some of these data limitations include:

• Case filings by race: While the number of criminal cases filed in District Court is published, there is no public data specifically identifying these filings by race.
• Lack of a universal data collection system: There is an absence of a universally adopted data collection system across the 24 State’s Attorneys’ offices in Maryland, which prevents consistent statewide analysis of their practices.
• A statewide portal of services available to people immediately upon release, such as housing, job training, and mental health support, is not currently available.

Despite the limitations, data clearly show evidence of racial disparities in Maryland’s criminal legal system. Maryland’s Black population accounts for only 30% of the state’s population but is overrepresented in contact with the criminal legal system, making up 72% of the prison population, 58% of the jail population, 50% of arrests, 71% of the parole population, and 53% of the probation population. Individuals are held in pretrial detention at higher rates than prior to bail reform in 2017. Black children account for 80% of children charged as adults and are disproportionately represented in the youth system. These findings reveal that well-intended policy reform, while yielding some good outcomes, still falls short of closing racial disparities. The Equal Justice Collaborative report lists 18 key recommendations across 7 focus areas that focus on 3 goals intended to reduce racial disparities: Preventing unnecessary system involvement; reducing systemic bias; and invest in re-entry support systems through community-based initiatives.

Overall, this report seeks to inform Marylanders of data trends in the criminal legal system, document major trends over a 10-year period where available, and document legislative and executive reforms that impacted these trends. Moving forward, the state should follow best practices from state task force findings and other states to collect and release additional data on the criminal legal system to create a foundation for future policy conversations.

List of Figures

Figure 1: Total Arrests

Figure 2: Arrest by Sex

Figure 3: Arrest by Race

Figure 4: Annual Number of Crimes

Figure 5: Annual Crime Rate

Figure 6: Annual Violent Crime by Type

Figure 7: Annual Violent Crime Rate by Type

Figure 8: Pre-Pandemic Annual Crime by County

Figure 9: Pre-Pandemic Crime Rate by County

Figure 10: Post-Pandemic Annual Crime by County

Figure 11: Post-Pandemic Crime Rate by County

Figure 12: Local Jail Population

Figure 13: Pre-Pandemic Jail Population by County

Figure 14: Post-Pandemic Jail Population by County

Figure 15: Jail Population Held in Division of Pretrial Detention and Services, Fiscal Years 2016-2023

Figure 16: Pretrial Release Conditions at Initial Appearance: Held Status

Figure 17: Pretrial Release Conditions at Initial Appearance: Release Status

Figure 18: Probation Population by Type of Sentence

Figure 19: Probation Population by Sex

Figure 20: Probation Population by Race

Figure 21: Probation Population by Most Serious Offense

Figure 22: Probation Population by Entries and Exits

Figure 23: Probation Population by Type of Exit

Figure 24: Probation Population by Status

Figure 25: Probation Rate

Figure 26: District Court Filings

Figure 27: Pre-Pandemic District Court Filings

Figure 28: Post-Pandemic District Court Filings

Figure 29: District Court Dispositions

Figure 30: Pre-Pandemic District Court Dispositions

Figure 31: Post-Pandemic District Court Dispositions

Figure 32: Circuit Court Filings

Figure 33: Pre-Pandemic Circuit Court Filings

Figure 34: Post-Pandemic Circuit Court Filings

Figure 35: Circuit Court Dispositions

Figure 36: Pre-Pandemic Circuit Court Dispositions

Figure 37: Post-Pandemic Circuit Court Dispositions

Figure 38: Sentenced Population

Figure 39: Sentenced Population by Race

Figure 40: Sentenced Population by Sex

Figure 41: Sentenced Population by Admission and Releases

Figure 42: Average Daily Population Baltimore City Booking and Intake

Figure 43: Parole Population by Most Serious Offenses

Figure 44: Parole Population by Race

Figure 45: Parole Population by Sex

Figure 46: Parole Population by Supervision Status

Figure 47: Parolees by Entries and Exits

Figure 48: Parole Supervision Rate

Figure 49: Mandatory and Discretionary Parole

Figure 50: How did People on Parole Exit?

Figure 51: Average Daily Population by Detention Type and Race

Figure 52: Average Daily Population by Detention Type and Race

Figure 53: Community Supervision Average Daily Cases by Type and Race

Figure 54: Community Supervision Average Daily Cases by Type and Race

Figure 55: Average Daily Population by Committed Treatment and Race, Boys

Figure 56: Average Daily Population by Committed Treatment and Race, Girls

Figure 57: Youth Intake by Most Serious Offense and Race, Boys

Figure 58: Youth Intake by Most Serious Offense and Race, Girls

Figure 59: Case Forwarding Decisions by Type and Race

Figure 60: Case Forwarding Decisions by Type and Race

Figure 61: Recidivism Rate For Boys Released From Committed Treatment

Figure 62: Recidivism Rate For Girls Released From Committed Treatment

Figure 63: Recidivism Rate For Boys With Adult Transfer Released From Committed Treatment

Figure 64: Recidivism Rate For Boys With Probation Disposition

Figure 65: Recidivism Rate For Girls With Probation Disposition

Figure 66: Recidivism Rate For Boys With Adult Transfer Probation Disposition

Figure 67: Complaints Transferred from Adult Court

Endnotes

[1]Governor’s Office of Crime and Prevention Policy Crime Data Dashboard, 2026 https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMTE2MDQ5M2MtNmIxYi00OGQ4LTllNGMtNmFiOTU3Y2UxOGM1IiwidCI6IjYwYWZlOWUyLTQ5Y2QtNDliMS04ODUxLTY0ZGYwMjc2YTJlOCJ9

[2]  Maryland Profile https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/MD.html

[3] FY 2026 Operating Budget Volume 2 https://dbm.maryland.gov/budget/Documents/operbudget/2026/proposed/FY2026-Volume2.pdf#page=11

[4] State Profiles: Maryland https://data.census.gov/profile/Maryland?g=040XX00US24

[5] KIDS COUNT Data Center, Child poverty status by race in Maryland https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/8538-child-poverty-status-by-race?loc=22&loct=2#detailed/2/any/false/1096,2545,1095,2048,574,1729,37,871,870,573/4406,3303,3304,2161,3305,3306,3307,3301,4551/17225,17226

[6] Maryland’s 2016 Criminal Justice Reform https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/11/marylands-2016-criminal-justice-reform

[7] Maryland Justice Reinvestment Initiative https://justicereinvestmentinitiative.org/publications/maryland-justice-reinvestment-initiative/

[8] Commission to Reform Maryland’s Pretrial System https://gocpp.maryland.gov/pretrial/documents/2014-pretrial-commission-final-report.pdf

[9] https://spia.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/content/Advancing_Bail_Reform_In_Maryland_2018-Feb27_Digital.pdf

[10] POSITION ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION BILL: SB 23 – Criminal Procedure 5-201/ Public Safety 4-1102 – Conditions of Pretrial Rele – Maryland, https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/cmte_testimony/2021/jpr/1lKInDY9kCGaEjjPoihSePd9IQSLAA62d.pdf

[11]An Assessment of Pretrial Risk across Maryland Jurisdictions using Client Legal Utility Engine (CLUE) Data https://bsos.umd.edu/sites/bsos.umd.edu/files/Assessment%20of%20Pretrial%20Risk%20Across%20Maryland%20Jurisdictions_Final%20Report_101323_1.pdf

[12] Governor’s Office of Crime and Prevention Policy Local Detention

Center Dashboard, January 2026 https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMzJlNmRhZmEtMWI1MC00NDYzLWE5NjUtYTU2NTk4MWU3ZTRiIiwidCI6IjYwYWZlOWUyLTQ5Y2QtNDliMS04ODUxLTY0ZGYwMjc2YTJlOCJ9

[13] Maryland Justice Reinvestment Initiative https://justicereinvestmentinitiative.org/publications/maryland-justice-reinvestment-initiative/

[14] Maryland’s 2016 Criminal Justice Reform https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/11/marylands-2016-criminal-justice-reform

[15] Governor Moore Signs Legislation to Promote Public Safety and Criminal Justice – Press Releases – News, https://governor.maryland.gov/news/press/pages/governor-moore-signs-legislation-to-promote-public-safety-and-criminal-justice.aspx

[16] 2016 Regular Session – Senate Bill 1005 http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/bills/sb/sb1005t.pdf#page=28

[17] House Bill 531 https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB0531?ys=2024rs

[18] House Bill 531 Fiscal Note https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/fnotes/bil_0001/hb0531.pdf#page=3

[19] House Bill 467 https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb0467?ys=2026RS

[20] Understanding The New Maryland Criminal Justice Reforms: The Expungement Reform Act | Portner & Shure, P.A., https://www.portnerandshure.com/blog/2025/october/understanding-the-new-maryland-criminal-justice-reforms-the-expungement-reform-act/

[21] Maryland governor signs legislation removing threat of jail for small amount of marijuana https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-governor-signs-legislation-removing-threat-of-jail-for-small-amount-of-marijuana/2014/04/14/c5a185d2-c3f6-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

[22]  Maryland House speaker supports 2022 vote on marijuana legalization https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-speaker-marijuana-20210716-a4ab5oqi65cajltzp6gw2pmdke-story.html

[23] Cannabis Pardon Executive Order – Governor Wes Moore, https://governor.maryland.gov/priorities/Pages/cannabis-pardon-order.aspx

[24] Understanding The New Maryland Criminal Justice Reforms: The Expungement Reform Act | Portner & Shure, P.A., https://www.portnerandshure.com/blog/2025/october/understanding-the-new-maryland-criminal-justice-reforms-the-expungement-reform-act/

[25] Juvenile Justice Reform – Maryland, https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/BudgetFiscal/2022RS-HB0459-REIN.pdf

[26] Maryland Enacts Sweeping Youth Justice Reforms – The Annie E. Casey Foundation, https://www.aecf.org/blog/maryland-enacts-sweeping-youth-justice-reforms

[27]New Maryland Law Will Keep Minors Out of Adult Courts and Prisons https://imprintnews.org/justice/juvenile-justice-2/maryland-law-wil-keep-minors-out-of-adult-courts-prisons/274957

[28] Maryland’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Process https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/RecurRpt/Handbook_Volume_8_Criminal_and_Juvenile_Justice_Process.pdf

[29] Maryland’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Process https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/RecurRpt/Handbook_Volume_8_Criminal_and_Juvenile_Justice_Process.pdf

[30] “2023 Plea Bargain Task Force Report Urges Fairer, More Transparent Justice System,” American Bar Association, February 23, 2023, https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2023/02/plea-bargain-task-force/

[31] Annual Caseload Dashboard, Commissioner Data, Info

https://www.mdcourts.gov/dashboard/annualcaseload

[32] Maryland’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Process https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/RecurRpt/Handbook_Volume_8_Criminal_and_Juvenile_Justice_Process.pdf

[33]   Maryland’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Process https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/RecurRpt/Handbook_Volume_8_Criminal_and_Juvenile_Justice_Process.pdf

[34] Glossary of Court Terms https://www.mdcourts.gov/reference/glossary#F

[35] Maryland’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Process https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/RecurRpt/Handbook_Volume_8_Criminal_and_Juvenile_Justice_Process.pdf#page=170

[36] Patuxent Institution https://dpscs.maryland.gov/rehabservs/patx/patx.shtml

[37] Maryland’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Process https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/RecurRpt/Handbook_Volume_8_Criminal_and_Juvenile_Justice_Process.pdf#page=190

[38] Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Maryland Correctional Enterprises Audit Report https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/NoPblTabPDF/MCE24.pdf#page=7

[39] The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons. https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2022/08/The-Color-of-Justice-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf

[40] Maryland’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Process https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/RecurRpt/Handbook_Volume_8_Criminal_and_Juvenile_Justice_Process.pdf#page=204

[41] Maryland’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Process https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/RecurRpt/Handbook_Volume_8_Criminal_and_Juvenile_Justice_Process.pdf#page=203

[42] Definitions https://bjs.ojp.gov/parole-resources#definitions

[43] Department of Juvenile Services Data Resource Guide Fiscal Year 2025 https://djs.maryland.gov/media/58/download#page=13

[44] Maryland’s Criminal and Juvenile Justice Process https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/RecurRpt/Handbook_Volume_8_Criminal_and_Juvenile_Justice_Process.pdf#page=87

[45] Department of Juvenile Services Data Resource Guide 2025 https://djs.maryland.gov/Documents/DRG/Data_Resource_Guide_FY2025.pdf#page=20

[46] Task Force to Study Transparency Standards for State’s Attorneys https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/026200/026239/20240219e.pdf#page=13

[47] Task Force to Study Transparency Standards for State’s Attorneys https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/026200/026239/20240219e.pdf#page=31

[48] Task Force to Study Transparency Standards for State’s Attorneys https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/026200/026239/20240219e.pdf#page=32

[49] Task Force to Study Transparency Standards for State’s Attorneys https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/026200/026239/20240219e.pdf#page=32

[50] Breaking the 71%: A Path Toward Racial Equity in the Criminal Legal System https://oag.maryland.gov/News/Documents/pdfs/MEJC_Report.pdf