It sounds likes a plan that should work. For everyone involved, it'd be nice if it did work. But I wonder.

York County officials, including county commissioners, judges and juvenile probation officers, have reacted to a presentation made recently by The Annie E. Casey Foundation of Baltimore having to do with alternatives to juvenile detention.

From a law enforcement point of view, that means options that might help children stay out of trouble long-term after their first trip through the legal justice system.

From a government/taxpayer point of view, it means options that might save taxpayers millions of dollars in construction expenses and daily operating costs of maintenance/housing of juvenile delinquents.

In York County, that might mean taxpayers wouldn't have to pay to build a proposed $27 million juvenile shelter and detention center to replace the current building, which has become a maintenance headache and is too small to accommodate population increases.

So, yes, any alternative to a major construction project would be welcome. To their credit, county officials are considering a number of options.

But they're particularly fond of one: Eliminate, as much as possible, the unnecessary use of juvenile detention facilities.

What that means, Bryce Wickard, chief of juvenile probation in York County, said, is that the county could set up a system where judges could require juveniles to show up at the detention center every day immediately after school

Advertisement
and remain there until bedtime, at which time they'd be sent home.

That would mean the county could get by with a much smaller detention center (fewer juveniles overnight means fewer beds required) than it needs now and will need five years down the road. It means juveniles would be under the watchful eye of school officials during the day and detention officers after school.

Such a program would guarantee two things: 1) A child's education wouldn't be interrupted by incarceration; and 2) it would minimize the risk (opportunity) for a juvenile to commit more crimes in the evening hours.

"The idea would be to not interrupt the positives in their lives while disrupting the negatives," Wickard said.

The only time juvenile delinquents would be at home is at night, when they should be in bed sleeping.

Therein lies my concern. Who's going to make certain the juveniles will actually be at home, in bed and sleeping when they're supposed to be?

And what's to prevent a juvenile from sneaking out of the house and doing his dirty work (along with a slew of pals) in the late-night and early-morning hours?

Because, frankly, if society could count on parents assuming that responsibility -- as they should -- these kids probably wouldn't be stage-one juvenile delinquents in the first place.

Is this proposal asking too much of parents? Heck no. But will parents get with the program for the
benefit of their children and taxpayers? I'm much less certain of that.

It seems to me this program only works if the juveniles (and parents) do what they're supposed to do.

And if they don't? Well, then we're back to talking about building a new $27 million detention center and juvenile shelter.

Like I said, it should work. It would be nice if it did work. But I wonder.

Columns by Larry A. Hicks, Dispatch columnist, run Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. E-mail: lhicks@yorkdispatch.com.