From Crisis to Continuum: What Maryland Can Learn from New Jersey's Mobile Response Model

by Elizabeth DiTargiani, CPMC public policy intern

April 30, 2026

I recently sat down with coalition member Mary Jo Buchanan to discuss the structure and effectiveness of New Jersey’s Mobile Crisis Response system. Mary Jo previously served as the Executive Director of Ocean Partnership for Children in Toms River, New Jersey, where she spent nearly a decade supporting youth with behavioral health, substance use, and developmental needs up to age 21 through care management services. 

New Jersey’s Children’s System of Care itself is rooted in reform. It was created following a

lawsuit and a child death, which ultimately led to the establishment of a separate Department of

Children and Families. That history matters, because it explains why the state has invested so

heavily in coordinated, community-based services like Mobile Crisis Response, Care

Management, and Family Support. 

What stands out most is how comprehensive New Jersey’s model is. Mobile crisis units are

organized by court vicinage and typically serve one to three counties depending on size. Each

unit is housed within a behavioral health organization and operates with full staffing and 24/7

coverage. Over time, these units have expanded significantly, in some cases occupying entire

floors to accommodate large, multidisciplinary teams. 

The system itself is not just about crisis response. It is built as a continuum of care. A centralized

call center connects youth and families to mobile response teams, care management

organizations, and family support services. Together, these components provide

wraparound care; meaning services extend beyond the immediate crisis and include follow-up

and stabilization support. 

Maryland’s system, while improving, still lacks that same level of continuity. Only recently have

statewide standards for mobile crisis response been legislatively enforced, and audits have been

completed in roughly 18 of the state’s 24 counties. While Maryland does utilize the CANS

(Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths) assessment tool, Mary Jo noted that it is not

consistently used to guide individualized treatment planning in the way New Jersey does. That

gap may directly affect long-term outcomes for youth. 

One of the most transferable lessons from New Jersey is the emphasis on the wraparound model.

This approach centers collaboration across providers, ongoing assessment, and individualized

care plans that evolve with the child’s needs. It shifts the focus from short-term crisis

management to sustained support. 

Looking ahead, Maryland could take a phased approach to strengthening its system.

One option would be to pilot a more comprehensive model in a smaller county, focusing first on

high-need populations, such as the roughly 30 youth currently experiencing hospital overstays in

unlicensed settings. Starting small would allow for testing infrastructure, staffing, and

coordination before scaling statewide. 

Funding is a key part of this. Maryland could leverage grants from Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services. SAMHSA provides funding to states to expand community-based

mental health services, including crisis response systems. These grants are often used to support

mobile crisis teams, workforce development, and integrated care models, making them a strong

starting point for building out a more robust system. 

Overall, New Jersey offers a clear example of what a fully integrated mobile crisis system can

look like. The takeaway for Maryland is not just to expand services, but to better connect and

coordinate them. Without continuity of care, even strong crisis response systems fall short.