Sawyer County reports fewer delinquency referrals and high early success for diversion program

Sawyer County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council · February 11, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
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

Sawyer County’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Council heard a youth justice update Feb. 11 showing a decline in delinquency referrals and that the county’s new diversion program recorded 37 referrals in 2025 with about a 92% rate judged improved or successful.

Sarah Anchowskis, children, youth and family supervisor for Sawyer County Human Services, told the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council on Feb. 11 that 39 youth‑justice cases were open in December and that delinquency referrals have declined in recent years.

Anchowskis presented county data showing historical referral counts of 75 in 2022, 80 in 2023 and 76 in 2024 and said referrals have fallen more recently. She told the council Sawyer County ranks among the top 7–10% of Wisconsin counties for delinquency referrals per 1,000 youth, and that the county’s rate measured roughly 35 referrals per 1,000 youth in 2022–23, declining to about 29 per 1,000 by 2024.

She credited a new diversion program for much of the change. ‘‘The total number of referrals we received for this program were 37 referrals in 2025, with 82% of those referrals being our Native American youth,’’ Anchowskis said. ‘‘We have 91.89 percent of youth referred to this program are considered being improved or fully successful.’’ She added that about 8% of diverted youth were considered unsuccessful, largely because they moved out of the area and did not complete programming.

Anchowskis also summarized offense and risk profiles used in county assessments and said Sawyer County has proportionally fewer low‑to‑moderate risk youths and more high‑to‑very‑high risk youths than similar counties, which increases staff time per case. She recited proportions for referral categories as presented in the slides (transcript-listed percentages were provided by the presenter).

During discussion, members noted progress with school‑ and community‑based programs, and another participant reported that construction is underway on a regional, tribal‑affiliated treatment home for adolescents (ages cited in discussion as 13–17). The participant described the facility as a long‑term program with cultural components and said it would serve multiple tribes; an informal bed count was mentioned during the discussion.

The council agreed to share the full datasets and work with comparable counties to identify practices to replicate. Anchowskis and council members said they will continue monitoring diversion outcomes as the program enters its second year.

The CJCC did not take a formal vote on youth justice programming at the Feb. 11 meeting; the report will be distributed to members for follow up and comparative outreach.