Douglas County reports April average daily detention population of 92; youth of color comprise 92%

At a May 22, 2025 meeting of the Douglas County Child Services Committee, county staff presented April 2025 detention statistics showing an average daily population of 92 youth in detention and continuing racial disproportionality.

Dr. Carval, who presented the statistics, told the committee: "As of the last week in April, our average daily population of adult court youth was 44, and our juvenile court average daily population was 47." He reported that during April the facility recorded a low of 86 youth and a high of 100, and an overall average daily population of 92. "On April 1, there were 91 youth in DCYC and 96 youth were in detention on April 30," he said.

The presenter summarized April admissions and stays. He said DCYC had 59 admissions in April, and staff reported that "of those 59 youth who were admitted to detention, 4 were charged as adults, 54 youth were charged in juvenile court, and 1 youth came to us from Sarpy County." He reported 31 youth were released in April after an average of 73 days in detention; among them were three youth charged as adults who averaged 230 days in custody. The presenter also said DCYC had 12 youth with court orders to be released once placements were found; those 12 had been waiting an average of about 27 days.

Staff reported offense and demographic breakdowns. The presenter said 8 youth admitted in April had firearm-related charges and that all eight incidents involved firearms; he also described the mix of felony and misdemeanor charges across admissions. He told the committee the population snapshot for mid‑May showed 94 youth in custody, including three admitted from other jurisdictions (all Sarpy County). "Our population is overall 92% youth of color with the majority being black," he said, adding that 18% of the population identified as Hispanic and 12% as Asian. He also said the population was about 90% male and roughly 10% dually involved in both child welfare and the criminal justice system.

Commissioners and community representatives raised data and policy questions. Commissioner Campbell asked staff to provide historical admission totals and longer look‑backs to show trends "before, during, and after" construction of the new downtown facility. Commissioner Campbell said the additional trend data and running totals would help evaluate whether the new facility matched projections. Staff agreed to provide that historical information.

Several community partners and providers pressed for more detail on placement waits and family circumstances. Wayne Brown, president and CEO of the Urban League of Nebraska, said he was "glad to be here and seeing the data that we're sharing with the community." Community speakers and providers asked for data on family composition, foster care and whether youth waiting for placements were delayed because of unsafe home conditions; probation staff said family‑safety assessments are referred to Health and Human Services when appropriate.

Committee members and community partners also asked about the use of room isolation and restrictive housing. A community commenter cited a recent inspector general report and asked whether DCYC reports facility‑level isolation data to that office. Committee staff said statewide isolation data are reported to the inspector general and that facility‑level breakdowns exist but were not in the slides presented; DCYC staff said they would provide more detailed isolation data separately. Randy, introduced in the meeting as the BCYC director, described operational reasons the facility sometimes uses restrictive housing and said staff are trying to reduce violence and thereby reduce restrictive housing.

Several providers and commissioners urged a sharper look at why placements are delayed and whether additional local capacity or targeted programs could reduce time in custody. Mark LaFleur, who described himself as youth center staff, said connecting youth to community programs and involving parents before discharge helped reduce returns to custody; he also noted that about one‑third of youth in custody were identified as having individualized education programs (IEPs).

Why it matters: Committee members said the figures affect both operations and planning for facilities and services. Multiple speakers emphasized that delays in placement, lengthy lengths of stay for some youth and the high share of youth of color raise policy and program priorities for the county; several called for coordinated work among probation, courts, providers and community groups to expand appropriate placements and pre‑release supports.

Next steps: Committee members asked staff to return with historical admission and demographic trend data and more facility‑level isolation reporting. Chair Garcia said the committee would continue the conversation in a subsequent meeting in June.