S. 374 revises South Carolina law governing juvenile detention services administered by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The bill requires DJJ to enter into intergovernmental agreements with counties or municipalities that use its detention services, and those agreements must spell out per diem costs and the invoicing process. It also authorizes DJJ to deny admission to youth from local governments that are delinquent in paying those per diem charges.
The bill further cleans up two other statutes to remove inconsistent fee language. In Section 63-19-1610, it deletes language referring to a $50-per-day-per-child payment by local governments, and in Section 14-1-208 it deletes language referring to a $25-per-day cap tied to the use of juvenile detention centers. The measure appears intended to align the code with the current cost-sharing structure described in Section 63-19-360, where DJJ absorbs one-third of the per diem cost and the local government with original jurisdiction pays two-thirds, based on average operating costs among state facilities.
Impact
S. 374 would amend the state’s juvenile justice statutes by clarifying how local governments pay for DJJ detention services and by formalizing written agreements for billing and cost recovery. It affects the Department of Juvenile Justice, counties, municipalities, and law enforcement agencies that place juveniles in state detention facilities. By deleting older fee references, the bill reduces statutory inconsistency and helps ensure that the code reflects the current per diem framework and invoicing practices.
Sentiment
The available legislative record suggests generally favorable sentiment. The Senate Corrections and Penology Committee reported the bill out with a recommendation that it do pass, and there are no recorded votes or transcript snippets showing opposition. The bill’s narrow administrative focus and cleanup of outdated fee language indicate it was treated as a technical or operational measure rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No major points of contention are reflected in the provided materials. The main policy issue embedded in the bill is cost allocation: local governments are responsible for paying per diem detention costs, while DJJ covers a portion of those costs from state funds. The bill also gives DJJ authority to deny admission to delinquent payers, which could be a concern for counties or municipalities that rely on state detention services, but no specific objections or debate are included in the record.