Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Detainee Mental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears 40%+ mental‑health prevalence among detainees; county says care is court‑constrained
Summary
Officials told Richland County's ad hoc committee that more than 40% of detainees at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center have mental‑health needs, that the county remains legally responsible for care, and that staff cannot compel medication unless a court orders it; officials proposed inviting the Department of Mental Health for further discussion.
At the Richland County Detention Center ad hoc meeting, Administrator Brown raised concerns about the facility's mental‑health caseload and legal limits on treatment authority.
Brown said the detention center houses a substantial number of people with mental‑health needs — he described the figure as "a 40 percent plus population" — and that the county has not been able to shift responsibility to the Department of Mental Health. Brown told the committee a presiding judge's legal opinion supports the view that the county must continue to provide care for those detainees while they are in custody.
Brown explained a practical constraint: unless a judge orders treatment, staff may not force medication on an adult detainee who refuses it. "Unless a judge orders that they, you know, take medication, we we can't require them to take it," Brown said. He suggested the county could invite the Department of Mental Health to present on options, including medically assisted treatment, but emphasized such steps raise questions about statutory authority and acceptable risk.
Why it matters: committee members pressed that a large mental‑health caseload affects classification, housing, security and staff training needs. Brown said the county has invested heavily in the facility during the past three years—he cited about $89,000,000 in related spending during that period—but that the presence of persons with serious mental‑health needs remains a persistent operational challenge.
Next steps: Brown proposed having Department of Mental Health representatives brief the committee on treatment options, legal requirements and partnership possibilities; the county attorney will remain involved for legal guidance. The committee did not take public action on mental‑health policy during the meeting.
The committee then proceeded to other facility updates and routine procedural business.
