Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Juvenile Detention topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Washington County juvenile detention center reports 35 intakes in March; staff say many threats come from social media

2827134 · March 31, 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

Director Chris Tinsley told the Washington County County Services Committee that the juvenile detention center recorded 35 intakes over a 26-day reporting period in March 2020, and described how many terroristic-threat incidents stem from social media and angry juveniles.

Director Chris Tinsley reported to the Washington County County Services Committee that the juvenile detention center recorded 35 intakes over a 26-day reporting period in March 2020 and an average daily population of 18.88.

Tinsley said the average length of stay for the month “was 20.25 days,” a figure he compared to the state average during his presentation. He told the committee the highest offense category among the intakes was terroristic threatening, with six cases during the reporting period.

The report came during the committee's agenda item for the juvenile detention report. Justice Wilson asked whether the terroristic-threatening incidents reflected idle threats or credible threats. Director Chris Tinsley said many of those cases involve juveniles making threats in anger, including messages circulated in group chats, and that recipients often report the messages to school resource officers or school administrators. “We have to take everything serious when a kid makes those type of threats especially at the schools,” Tinsley said.

Tinsley said the 35 intakes included youth from Washington County and Madison County. He answered committee questions and offered to address follow-ups but the meeting record shows no formal action was taken on the report.

The presentation did not include a detailed, unambiguous breakdown of intake counts by judicial division in the public transcript; the committee record supplied the overall counts above. The committee did not vote on policy changes during the item and no directive to staff was recorded during the meeting.