Who paid for feeding and housing children committed to Louisiana's corrections department?

Plain-English summary

Caddo Parish's juvenile court asked when Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections had to pay nonstate facilities for children adjudicated delinquent or in need of services and committed to the department. In Opinion 03-0211, the AG concluded that the department paid under the statute's placement categories, while a local governing authority did not owe those facility costs for children placed in department custody.

For a child committed to nonsecure placement but held in a nonstate nonsecure facility because the department could not place the child, the opinion applied the statutory daily amount used for people confined in local or parish jails. For delinquent children committed to secure placement and held in a nonstate secure facility, it applied the separate statutory formula. Both payment clauses were subject to appropriation. The AG found no minimum or maximum commitment period in either clause. When a child assigned to nonsecure placement waited in a secure facility, the office read the unclear statute to allow only the nonsecure payment amount.

Currency note

The full issue date is not legible in the available official extract. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant at issuance

Corrections department and nonstate facilities

The AG distinguished the amount owed by the child's court-ordered placement category. It said there was no minimum time in custody before the department's statutory payment obligation applied. The opinion treated temporary secure housing pending nonsecure placement under the nonsecure rate.

Parish officials

The opinion cited the statute's statement that no local governing authority had to pay a nonstate facility for feeding and maintaining a child adjudicated delinquent or in need of services and placed in department custody.

Common questions

Q: Was the department's payment delayed until a child had been committed for a minimum time? A: No. The AG said neither the secure nor the nonsecure placement clause mentioned a minimum commitment period.

Q: Did a temporary stay in a secure facility automatically require the secure rate? A: No. For a child committed to nonsecure placement while awaiting transfer, the AG concluded that only the nonsecure amount was owed, acknowledging the statute was unclear on that situation.

Q: Did Caddo Parish have to pay the nonstate facility instead? A: The opinion said local governing authorities were not required to pay those costs for children placed in department custody.

Q: Did the same payment formula apply to secure and nonsecure placements? A: No. The AG described a different statutory amount for each category, both subject to appropriation.

Background and statutory framework

The request asked about delinquency and Families in Need of Services adjudications, placement length, a secure facility pending transfer, and parish responsibility. The opinion quoted portions of La. R.S. 46:1906(B) covering nonsecure and secure placements and local governing authorities. Its answer turned on the placement ordered by the court and the child being in department custody.

Citations and references

Statute quoted: La. R.S. 46:1906(B)(1), with the adjacent subsections (2) and (4) also reproduced in the opinion.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0211

Original opinion text

~t~te o~
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
430 FANNIN ST.
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ROOM 309
A’I-rORN EY GENERAL
TELEPHONE: (318) 227-3790
7~ 101-5537
FAX: (318) 226-7144

JUL 0 2003
OPINION NO. 03-0211

JUVENILES

La, P.S. 4S:l~O~(B)(t),(2) and 4
Mr. Ted Cox
Louisiana Revi~ed Statute~ 46:1g06(1), (2) and (4) Judicial Administrator
Juvenile Court for Caddo Parish
1835 Spring Street
re~oormil~ for lhe co~, of feedlng and ma/m~aining
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101-4298

Dear Mr. Cox:

Your request for an Attorney General’s Opinion has been forwarded to me for research and reply.

Specifically, you ask:

1) If and when the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC) is required to pay for children who are adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction delinquent or in need of services in a Family in Need of Services case?

2) Whether DOC is responsible for the cost of feeding and maintaining children who are committed for less than some minimum period?

3) Whether DOC is responsible for reimbursing a secure nonstate owned facility’ pending transfer of the child to a nonsecure environment such as a group home?

4) VVhen is the local governing authority responsible for the costs of feeding and maintaining these children?

There is one statute which governs the payment for juveniles adjudicated delinquent and those adjudicated in need of services. The pertinent parts of this statute are La. R.S.
46:1906(B)(1 ),(2) and (4) which are as follows:

§ 1906. Delinquents and children in need of services; custody, supervision, services

Page 2

Mr. Ted Cox
OPINION NO. 03-0211
Page - 2 -

So (1) Subject to appropriation, the department shall pay to any nonstate owned facility for feeding and maintaining each child who is adjudicated delinquent or in need of services in a Families in Need of Services case and committed to the department by a court to be held in a nonsecure environment, and who is held in such nonsecure facility due to the inability of the department to place the child, the same daily amount as is paid by the department for keeping and feeding individuals committed to the department and confined in local or parish jails.

(2) Subject to appropriation, the department shall pay to any nonstate owned facility for feeding and maintaining each child who is adjudicated delinquent and committed to the department by a court to be held in a secure environment, and who is held in such a secure facility for any reason, an amount equal to ninety percent of the current weighted average of the amount paid state detention facilities, determined to be $96.43 for the year 2001, to be adjusted yearly on July first, pursuant to the consumer price index.

(4) No local governing authority shall be required to pay any nonstate owned facility for feeding and maintaining any child who has been adjudicated delinquent or in need of services in a families in need of services case and placed in the department’s custody.

To answer your questions this statute must be dissected. According to Section 1906(B)(1 ), when a child is committed to DOC to be held in a nonsecure environment and held in the nonsecure facility because of the inability of DOC to place the child, DOC owes =the same daily amount as is paid by the department for keeping and feeding individuals committed to the department and confined in local or parish jails."

On the other hand, according to 1906(B)(2), if the child is committed to DOC to be held in a secure environment and is held in the nonstate owned facility for whatever reason, DOC is to pay ninety percent of the current weighted average of the amount paid state detention facilities, determined to be $96.43 for the year 2001, to be adjusted yearly on July 1, pursuant to the consumer price index.

Further, Section 1906(B)(4) states that no local governing authority (such as Caddo Parish) shall be required to pay any nonstate owned facility for feeding and maintaining

Page 3

Mr. Ted Cox
OPINION NO. 03-0211
Page - 3 -

any child who has been adjudicated delinquent or in need of services and placed in DOC custody.

To summarize this statute, payments by DOC are divided into two categories, those for children committed to DOC to be held in nonsecure facilities and held in nonstate owned facilities because of DOC’s inability to place them, and those children who are committed to DOC to be held in secure facilities.

It should be emphasized that there is no mention for either nonsecure or secure placement of any minimum or maximum time a child must be committed to DOC before DOC is responsible for payment for costs of feeding and maintaining these children.

With regard to children who are committed to nonsecure DOC facilities but are held in a secure facility pending transfer, the statute is unclear. It is the opinion of this office that DOC is only responsible for payment for a nonsecure facility although the child is being held in a secure facility pending transfer. The child was not committed to a secure facility and it would be inequitable to require DOC to pay the larger amount for a secure facility.

Also, as stated previously, DOC, not local governing authorities, is responsible for all costs of feeding and maintaining children committed to them.

We trust your questions have been answered. However, if you should need anything further from this office, do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

FRANCES Jo PI’I=MAN
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

RPI:FJP:sc