Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lavaca County approves multiple juvenile-placement contracts and interlocal detention agreement
Summary
The Lavaca County commissioners court approved new contracts for juvenile short‑term and long‑term residential placements and an interlocal detention agreement, citing rising vendor rates and a first-refusal arrangement with Guadalupe County that helps secure beds when needed.
Lavaca County commissioners on Sept. 10 approved a set of contracts to secure short‑term and long‑term residential placements for juvenile offenders and an interlocal detention agreement to expand detention options.
Tracy Darschlek, director of the Second 25th Judicial District adult and juvenile probation department, told the court that the contracts respond to rate increases and that the district has not faced difficulty finding placement beds. "We are blessed to be surrounded by several detention facilities that are in close range," Darschlek said, noting Victoria and Guadalupe counties as commonly used placements and describing a first‑refusal arrangement with Guadalupe County that requires that county to accept the district's placement requests.
The court approved the following actions during the meeting: a short‑term placement contract with Guadalupe County Juvenile Justice Center (motion by Precinct 1, second by Precinct 2; passed by those present); a long‑term placement contract with Gulf Coast Trades Center (per‑child rate cited at $275); a long‑term placement contract with Rite of Passage Incorporated covering The Oaks, Lake Granbury Youth Services and Monarch Academy for Girls (daily rate range cited in the $295–$325 range); and an interlocal detention agreement with Fort Bend County juvenile board serving Gonzales, Lavaca and Colorado counties (noted rate cited at $175 per day but farther from Lavaca County).
Commissioners said they try to prioritize proximity when selecting facilities because local law enforcement transports youth, but they also move children to the most cost‑effective placement available after initial hearings when longer placements are required. No member voiced opposition to the contracts, and each motion carried by voice vote of the commissioners present.
The contracts were presented as part of the probation office's fiscal‑year procurement for juvenile services, and staff said they will continue to monitor costs and bed availability across nearby counties.
The court moved on to other agenda items after the approvals.
