HomeMy WebLinkAbout750750.tiff ,-.
cChe League of Women Voters e
GREELEY — WELD COUNTY — -
October 6, 1975
Weld County Commissioners
Chairman, Glenn Billings
9th Avenue and 9th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Commissioners:
Summer is over and the League of Women Voters is getting back
to its active interest in a number of its local studies. One
of those is our Youth Services study, namely, the "study of
detention services and associated needs for the 10-18 year age
group in Weld County."
We regret that the Citizen' s Advisory Committee was unable to
continue as a viable function for you, as this was a committee
we recommended. It is still our belief that community involve-
ment, both from the ordinary citizen and professionals in the
corrections and social services fields, will result in better
jail planning. Further, we feel that the development of com-
munity support will make the jail and alternatives to jail work
better. We are most anxious to do what we can to help in this
very important area.
Several League members met during the summer to go over the
juvenile jail plans, keeping in mind League' s consensus on the
subject. It was obvious that much professional planning had
gone into the blueprints. We were pleased with the separate
entrance shown for juveniles. We liked the fact that the intake
area was separated from the juveniles' rooms. May we also add
that we were delighted with the establishment of the Shelter
Home and its first year of success.
We do, however, have some continuing concerns, and would appre-
ciate your attention and reply to the three questions listed
below.
1) Why is it necessary to have so many rooms for juveniles?
We understodd there could be doubling up in the rooms that
would result in a capacity for 34 juveniles. From our study
of the number of juveniles using the Greeley and Weld County
jails, we felt this number far, far too high. We feared that if
the jail had too many beds, the beds would be filled with
juveniles not really needing to be locked up e.g. those young
persons for whom alternatives to jail should be sought. We
strongly agreed with the Advisory Committee that a needs
assessment study of the jail should be done in order to
establish a valuable base for better planning.
750750
LWV- page 2- Juvebtile facility
2) What plans have been made for programs, objectives,
recreaction and disposition of youth? We felt that the juvenile
jail does not allow room for recreation or even enough space
for eating facilities. It is difficult for us to understand
where any program might take place. In addition, we would like
to see careful programming done for youth in the county so that
the jail plan may dovetail into these programs. In other words,
we feel there must be a total program of which the jail is only
a segment.
3) Will there be money to provide an adequate staff for the
new jail? It seemed to us that the cost could be very high.
We put , high priority on using a professional staff in the
juvenile jail. Any jail design for juveniles that will keep
costs down, yet allow the expense of a high quality professional
staff is desirable. Studies we have seen indicate that human
contact is more valuable that mechanical surveillance.
We are enclosing another copy of our League consensus, taken
in February, 1974, to remind you of our concerns in the general
area of detention and the associated needs of youth.
May we receive a letter answering these questions sometime
soon ? We are interested in hearing your reactions to our
comments, and to learn about your visit to the National
Clearinghouse for Criminal Justice Planning and Architecture.
A small group of our League members would be happy to meet
with you should you wish an open discussion of our concerns.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely ,,
Ma idouise Burum
Pre ent, Greeley-Weld
League of Women Voters
League of Women Voters eTh Greeley - Weld Co .
LOCAL STUDY ITEM CONSENSUS Feb. 1974
Youth Services
Study of detention services and associated needs for the 10-18 year age group in
Weld County.
1. Does Weld County need a Juvenile Detention Center on either a regional or
county-wide basis?
No. Members want alternatives to detention developed as soon as possible as a
means of reducing the number of youths needing detention facilities. League
members agree, almost unanimously, that a Juvenile Detention Center (such as
the Adams County Detention Center) is not needed at this time on either a
regional or a county-wide basis.
Reasons for this decision are: (1) available figures on Weld and Larimer youths
detained do not warrant the establishment of the minimal size Juvenile Detention
Center, (2) money could better be spent on alternatives to detention since
recidivism is not reduced by detention, (3) locking up a youth can intensify his
hostility to society and his feelings of abandonment, resulting in a negative
image and increasing anti-social behavior, (4) when detention facilities are too
available, the tendency is to fill them up with youth who do not need to be lecke
up, (5) a regional detention center (Weld-Larimer) would not solve the problem of
distance in transporting youth, and (6) since the State Division of Youth Service
is in the process of formulating a state-wide plan for detention services, member
would like to await the effect of such a plan, as detention facilities built else-
where could alleviate possible overcrowding at the Adams County facility.
If the time comes when overcrowding makes it difficult to place Weld County and
Larimer County youths in the Adams County Detention Center, League would like to
reconsider the question.
Members agree, almost unanimously, that no child be housed at the county and city
jails as those facilities now exist. Members strongly favor establishing a small
secure, locked-up 48-hour holdover facility designed especially for youth to take
the place of the present jail facilities for the 10-18 year age group in Weld
County.
A.Should a detention center be a separate facility or part of an existing facility?
League members strongly prefer a 48-hour holdover facility (in place of the jails
be separate from the jails--geographically and functionally, with separate admin-
istration and staff. A minority would accept locating the facility in the new
county complex as far from the adult jail as possible, but maintaining separate
administration and staff.
B. Should there be a limitation on the maximum stay at a Juvenile Detention Center?
The members agree that there needs to be a limitation on the maximum stay at a
Juvenile Detention Center. The group feels this could be accomplished by periodi-
review hearings (at least every ten days) in addition to the present law requirin;
a detention hearing within forty-eight hours.
C. Should education in a Juvenile Detention Center be provided by state employees
or by the local public school system?
There is unanimous agreement that education in a Juvenile Detention Center should
be provided by the local school board where the Center is located.
2. What alternatives to detention should be available?
There is unanimous agreement that two separate facilities should have first
priority and be established as soon as possible. They are: (1) a small, locked,
2.
48-hour holdover facility for youth; and (2) an emergency residential shelter
facility in an open setting. The holdover facility, members feel, should have
an on-call staff, persons speciali7..ing in and understanding the problems of youth
along with experience as security officers. It should not look like an adult jail
League feels that more special group homes and foster homes should be added as
needed, but that this need is not as desperate as the need for the holdover
facility and the emergency shelter facility.
In the area of non-residential community resources, members agree that:
--The probation department needs more help so that it might offer intensified
probation services in the areas of screening and intake, "continuance order"
counseling and supervising, and a volunteer probation officers' program.
-- All agencies working with youth need to offer better referral services for
identification and treatment of physical problems and learning disabilities.
--All schools need increased counseling, testing, and follow-through, from
kindergarten through high school, and smaller student-teacher ratios so that
teachers can better spot difficulties.
--The courts need sufficient personnel to offer court services for juveniles on
week-ends and holidays. The offices of the public defender and district
attorney should have sufficient staff to give prompt attention to juvenile
cases so that detention stays awaiting court action are as short as possible.
--The county needs .day centers that provide remedial education, counseling, and
recreation; more vocational counseling and training; drop-in centers; and
expanded services of the Mental Health Clinic. These might come under one roof
and a general program to divert youth from the juvenile justice system.
3. Where should emphasis be placed--on a Juvenile Detention Center or alternatives?
League members unanimously want emphasis to be placed on the alternatives.
4. Do you favor a "master plan" for providing needed youth services? If so, what
objectives should be met in the formation of a "master plan"?
Members unanimously favor a "master plan" similar to the Youth Services System,
as encouraged by the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Administration,
for providing needed youth services. Members want a type of youth commission
that would be county-wide and have the necessary legal authority to bring about
these objectives:
1. Coordinate services to youth.
2. Eliminate duplication of services.
3. Identify gaps in services and bring in needed services.
4. Make long-range plans and establish priorities.
5. Evaluate and monitor existing youth programs.
6. Identify problems.
7. Encourage research on youth problems.
8. Improve record-keeping among agencies (such as records on number of youths
detained by police and sheriff, etc. ) and standardize terms (such as "custody,"
"police contacts," etc. ).
9. Pursue and channel some funds to needed areas.
League members feel that such a youth commission should not run a youth project
itself; that it receive input from youth agencies, the community, and youth; that
the existing Youth Services Bureau be used to serve this commission.
3.
5. What detention or shelter facilities should be available for runaways?
Members feel that runaways should be offered a variety of housing as needs are
determined--48-hour holdover and the Adams County Juvenile Detention Center for
serious, chronic cases if lock-up is definitely needed; emergency shelter
facility for those who need an open setting. The members agree that good intake
counseling is needed as well as 24-hour counseling service at the emergency
shelter facility.
Hello