ew administrative leadership on the juvenile court bench in Baltimore City, several officials noted plans to reconvene the JDAI Oversight Committee, which is encouraging. However, many also expressed concern about past levels of engagement from key partners, namely BPD, which reportedly had not been consistently represented on the JDAI Oversight Committee. In some cases, the BPD was absent from the collaborative table. In other cases, BPD designees to the JDAI Oversight Committee were not executive-level BPD staff with the authority to influence policy and practice within the Department. In either case, inadequate representation from law enforcement proved an ongoing barrier to the critically important detention reform work. As community and system stakeholders prepare to reconvene the JDAI Oversight Committee, there is an even greater level of concern about BPD’s participation in JDAI, particularly given the imminent changes in leadership at BPD and the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice. Officials are unsure what to expect from the new leadership in these key roles, which is a significant source of consternation for many. Second, as identified in earlier sections of this report, stakeholder interviews and mapping sessions revealed a heavy overreliance by BPD on in-custody arrests and transports to the BCJJC. In the current practice, BPD officers routinely take young people who are appropriate for diversion at the law enforcement or DJS intake levels into custody and transport them to the BCJJC. In processing low-level cases in precisely the same manner as more serious cases, BPD exposes young people to the harmful effects of arrest, which may create more harm than good to the young person and the interests of public safety The DJS’s annual Data Resource Guide indicates that “juvenile detention may be authorized by DJS intake officers on a temporary basis at the request of a law enforcement officer . . . .” The resource guide further depicts that only after being taken into custody and screened for diversion at the law enforcement level, DJS performs a screening for secure detention admission using the DRAI detention screen on a young person only after the police officer requests secure detention. However, CCLP was unable to confirm that youth were screened for detention only if detention was requested by law enforcement. Indeed, stakeholder interviews revealed that it is common practice for DJS intake to conduct the DRAI screening for all youth brought to the BCJJC by law enforcement, even youth who will eventually be diverted.>