Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Probation reports 40 detention days and $18,000 in costs; collections confusion over older 5C accounts
Summary
Probation reported reduced detention costs since February switch (40 detention days, $18,000 through June) but raised concerns about older receivables sent to collections after the 5C dissolution and overlap in collection responsibilities with Fremont County.
Tammy Adkins, Jefferson County probation supervisor, told commissioners that since the county's February switch in detention arrangements the department logged 40 detention days involving 10 juveniles and has spent about $18,000 through the end of June on detention costs.
"We've had a total of 40 days served," Adkins said, and added: "The cost, we've spent $18,000 through the end of June for detention costs." She contrasted that figure with previous annual costs of around $130,000 and said the new arrangement has substantially reduced county detention spending so far.
Adkins also asked the board to approve two pass‑through recipient agreements tied to tobacco‑tax block grant funds and CBAS (juvenile substance‑abuse) mini‑grants; commissioners moved, seconded and approved the agreements on the record. For the record Adkins noted Cora and Melanie are coordinating fiscal entries because the state has shifted certain funds to the state fiscal year timing.
A separate and longer portion of Adkins's report raised questions about collections for older juvenile fees tied to the former 5C program. Adkins said she received emails indicating some parents were being directed to pay Fremont County and that Outsource, a collection agency, sought assignment of collection rights for specific accounts. Adkins said it was her office's practice to request a court judgment or an explicit dispositional order before collecting detention fees and expressed concern that some 20‑year‑old accounts may lack court orders and be inappropriate to send to collections.
Commissioners and staff asked the prosecuting attorney's office to help craft a protocol for verifying judgments and handling any Outsource assignment; the board also discussed possibly adding an addendum to the joint‑powers agreement to clarify administration and collections going forward. The board directed staff to follow up with Fremont County clerks and with the prosecutor to resolve the records and any improper collections.
