Department of Service and Civic Innovation - Maryland Corps Program Service Year Option Pathways - Revisions
SB248 revises the Maryland Corps Program within the Department of Service and Civic Innovation. The bill updates the Department’s duties, renames the Governor’s Volunteer Council as the Governor’s Commission on Service and Volunteerism, and repeals the Executive Fellows Program. It also makes a series of changes to the two service-year pathways in the program: the Young Adult Service Year Option Pathway and the Maryland Service Year Option Pathway.
The bill tightens and clarifies eligibility rules, compensation standards, and reporting requirements. For the Young Adult pathway, it requires applicants to be Maryland residents who are at least 18 and under 25 at the start of the program, and it removes the prior “within 3 years of graduation” language. For both pathways, participant pay is tied to the applicable county or State minimum wage rather than a flat $15 per hour floor, and the completion award is changed to a mandatory $6,000 cash stipend. The bill also expands and standardizes annual reporting on participant demographics, costs, post-program outcomes, and long-term tracking of alumni, while creating or continuing dedicated funds to support stipends, administration, and program expansion.
SB248 amends multiple provisions of the State Government Article governing the Maryland Corps Program and related service-year pathways. It removes the statutory Executive Fellows Program, renames the advisory volunteer body, shifts the Governor’s Office on Service and Volunteerism into the Department, and revises eligibility, compensation, and funding rules for corps participants. The bill also changes reporting obligations to the General Assembly and requires more detailed annual data on participation and outcomes, while establishing or modifying continuing, nonlapsing funds and appropriations for program operations and expansion.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support overall, passing the Senate 45-0 and the House 101-37. That voting pattern suggests general agreement with the goals of expanding and formalizing service-year opportunities, improving participant support, and strengthening workforce development pathways. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the final votes indicate the measure was largely viewed favorably, with some opposition in the House.
The main points of potential contention are the program’s funding levels, the shift from a $15-per-hour standard to a minimum-wage-based standard, and the repeal of the Executive Fellows Program. The bill also narrows and clarifies eligibility for the Young Adult pathway, which may affect who can participate, and it expands reporting and tracking requirements that increase administrative oversight. House opposition likely reflected concerns about cost, program design, or the scope of state involvement in service-year programming, though the available record does not identify specific arguments.