Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Douglas County reviews rising youth center population and community programs amid capacity concerns

2703181 · March 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County commissioners reviewed February 2025 population data for the Douglas County Youth Center and heard from community providers about prevention and family-centered programs as commissioners debated capacity, length of stay and racial disparities.

Douglas County commissioners on March 11 reviewed February 2025 population data for the Douglas County Youth Center (DCYC) and heard presentations on community-based programs funded through the state Community Based Juvenile Services Aid grant.

The presentations showed the youth center’s population has stayed high in recent months: presenters said the facility’s daily census in February ranged from a low of 83 to a high of 94, with an average around 87. County staff said juvenile court average daily population has been decreasing since January 2025 while the number of youth charged in adult court has increased, producing longer lengths of stay.

The numbers matter because longer stays and an increasing adult-court population affect bed capacity, programming and placement needs, presenters told the board. “They tend to take anywhere from a year to a year and a half to complete the adult court process,” a DCYC presenter said, explaining why adult-court youth typically remain in custody longer.

Sheriff Aaron Hanson warned commissioners that the county’s highest-risk juveniles are becoming more concentrated and that repeat, violent offenders are driving part of the caseload. “The high risk kids are getting even more high risk,” Sheriff Hanson said, calling for coordinated responses among law enforcement, probation and service providers.

County staff and community partners also described programs funded by CBA (Community Based Juvenile Services Aid), a state block grant the county distributes to local providers. Kim, a county staff member, told the board Douglas County’s CBA allocation this year was about $1.3 million; staff also said the county administers additional federal and state grants that together total roughly $8.5 million in juvenile justice–related funding. Matthew Allen, CEO of Community Based Services, described individualized youth-coaching and family-support work his agency provides and said relationship-based approaches reduce new charges and shorten probation stays for many participants. “When you have an advocate that comes alongside of you… it really does make a difference,” Allen said.

Presenters gave demographic detail: county staff reported that roughly 90% of youth in DCYC were youth of color (about 57% Black, 13% Hispanic, 17% Asian in the snapshot presented), that 91% were male, and that about 10% were state wards. Commissioners raised concern about those disparities and asked staff for deeper data on admissions and lengths of stay by charge type and by demographic group.

Commissioners discussed facility capacity at length. Several members said the youth center’s population and the long stays for adult-court youth underscore the need for placement options and for system changes to shorten waits for placement. Commissioner Cavanaugh said, “We owe it to the children to do something to make this a better place,” and asked staff to pursue capital maintenance and programmatic options. Commissioner Borgeson asked that the board consider a task force to explore uses for the newer facility across the street and to examine placement and programming options.

County staff said they will provide additional trend data requested by commissioners, including multi-year counts of adult-court admissions, firearm-related admissions and a provider-level breakout of CBA and other grant dollars. County staff also noted that about two-thirds of CBA participants lived in eight ZIP codes concentrated in the eastern half of Douglas County.