By MDBayNews Staff

Baltimore City launched the SideStep program with a familiar promise: steer young, first-time offenders away from the justice system and toward opportunity.

Instead, a new Inspector General report reveals a program plagued by fraudulent invoices, missing records, a major juvenile data breach, and systemic failures in oversight—all while nearly $700,000 in taxpayer money was spent.

Even more striking: city officials are still pushing to expand the model.

---

A Program With No Paper Trail

At the center of the findings is a basic question: what actually happened inside the SideStep program?

According to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the answer is—no one can say for sure.

• No consistent case plans
• No diversion agreements
• No reliable tracking of youth interactions
• No timestamps on case notes

Most concerning, the program didn’t even track whether participants were meeting with staff.

“Voice-to-voice contacts or meetings with the youth: N/A – Not tracked during the pilot program.”

Out of 51 participants:

• Only 24 had any case notes at all
• 27 had none

In a program designed to intervene in young lives at critical moments, the absence of documentation raises a fundamental issue:

Was the program functioning—or simply operating on paper?

---

$694,000 Spent—With Limited Oversight

Financially, the program moved significant taxpayer dollars with little apparent control.

The OIG found:

• $694,798.86 paid to community-based organizations (CBOs)
• More than 200 pages of financial records redacted
• Incomplete documentation for expenditures

Even more troubling, the program allowed funds to be used on individuals not enrolled in SideStep, with little to no monitoring of outcomes.

That raises a core accountability issue:

If funds were not tied to participants or outcomes, what exactly were taxpayers paying for?

---

Fraudulent Invoices Referred for Criminal Investigation

The most serious findings involve potential fraud.

Investigators identified:

• Invoices that were altered to inflate costs by thousands of dollars
• Vendor invoices that could not be verified—or did not exist

In one case:

• The OIG obtained original invoices directly from vendors
• Compared them to submitted versions
• Found clear discrepancies showing inflated billing

In another:

• Vendors reported no record of the submitted invoices

These findings have been referred to law enforcement for criminal investigation.

The full scope of the fraud remains unknown due to incomplete records and ongoing investigation.

---

A Major Juvenile Data Breach

Beyond financial concerns, the report reveals a significant breach of sensitive juvenile data.

An employee in the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (MONSE):

• Sent a spreadsheet containing approximately 701 individuals
• Including juveniles
• With:
  • Names
  • Dates of birth
  • Criminal charges

The data was sent to a personal Gmail account belonging to a relative.

Under Maryland law, juvenile records are strictly protected.

The breach has been referred to law enforcement, and the city may face legal liability for unauthorized disclosure.

---

Blocked Oversight and a Lawsuit

As investigators attempted to examine the program, they ran into another obstacle: the city itself.

The Baltimore City Law Department:

• Refused to release key records
• Claimed juvenile confidentiality laws prevented disclosure—even in redacted form
• Continued withholding information despite a subpoena

The result:

• The OIG was forced to abandon parts of its investigation
• A lawsuit has been filed to compel compliance

This creates a troubling dynamic:

A watchdog agency tasked with identifying fraud was blocked from accessing the very records needed to do so.

---

Expansion Plans Despite Failures

Despite these findings, the program—or its successor—is not being shelved.

City leadership has:

• Proposed expanding the model citywide
• Requested renewed and expanded access to confidential juvenile records

The justification: improved coordination and services.

But the timing raises serious concerns.

Why expand a program that lacked basic tracking, experienced a data breach, and is now tied to a criminal fraud investigation?

---

The Legal Loophole at the Center

Part of the controversy stems from a unique legal structure.

Baltimore had a carve-out in Maryland law allowing access to juvenile records for a specific office. That law:

• Expired in September 2025
• Is now being pushed for reinstatement—and expansion

Critics argue the report demonstrates exactly why such access requires tight oversight and transparency.

Instead, the investigation found:

• Weak data controls
• Informal systems
• Inconsistent procedures

---

MONSE Responds

In its response, MONSE does not dispute the core findings but frames them as:

• Issues from an early-stage pilot program
• The result of isolated incidents
• Problems that have since been addressed

The agency states:

• Internal audits are ongoing
• One instance of financial discrepancy is already being addressed
• Data breach appears tied to a single former employee

MONSE also emphasizes that:

• The program ended in 2024
• New systems and safeguards have been implemented

Still, the response raises its own questions—particularly about:

• Why key details remain unclear
• Why documentation gaps were so extensive
• Why oversight failures persisted during active funding

---

What Happens Next

Several critical developments are now in motion:

Criminal Investigation

• Fraudulent invoices under review by law enforcement

Civil Litigation

• OIG lawsuit to obtain withheld records

Legislative Push

• Efforts to restore and expand juvenile data access

Internal Audit

• MONSE conducting its own review of past invoices

The outcome of these processes will determine whether:

• Funds are recovered
• Additional wrongdoing is uncovered
• Structural reforms are implemented

---

Why This Matters for Maryland

This is not just a Baltimore story.

It reflects broader questions facing Maryland policymakers:

• How are taxpayer-funded programs monitored?
• What safeguards exist for sensitive data?
• Can oversight agencies actually access the information they need?
• What happens when programs fail—but expansion continues anyway?

At its core, the SideStep report highlights a recurring issue in government:

Programs are often judged by intent, not execution.

But when execution breaks down—when records are missing, oversight is blocked, and fraud enters the system—intent is no longer enough.

---

The Bottom Line

Baltimore’s SideStep program was designed to provide second chances.

Instead, it now faces:

• A criminal fraud investigation
• A confirmed data breach
• A lawsuit over transparency
• And serious questions about whether it ever functioned as intended

Nearly $700,000 was spent.

The records meant to justify that spending are incomplete.

And the system meant to oversee it had to go to court just to see the evidence.

---

Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free

MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.

If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.

👉 Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

 👉 Submit a Tip