in-20260930-IR-210260357RAA: KRS 15A.065; 505 KAR 1:140; 3-JDF-3A-15-2; 3-JDF-3A-26,27; 3-JDF-3B-04

V. Benefit Analysis 

VI. Cost Analysis  VII. Sources of Information  VIII. Regulatory Analysis IX. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions Readoption Review LSA Document #26-357 I. Statement Whether the Subject Matter Covered by the Rule Remains Carried out by the Agency  II. Rationale for the Continued Need for the Rule III. Analysis of fees, fines, and civil penalties under IC 4-22-2-19.6 IV. Cost-Benefit, Economic Impact, Fiscal Impact, or Regulatory Burden Statements V. Alternative Methods of Achieving the Purpose of the Rule VI. Complaints and Comments VII. Difficulties Encountered VIII. Changes in Technology, Economic Conditions, or Other Factors IX. Other State or Federal Requirements State Statutory or Regulatory Citation Discussion and Comparison of Key Elements to Indiana's rule Idaho ICS 20-518; IDAPA 05.01.02 and IDAPA 11.11.01 Idaho has 276 standards compared to Indiana's 283. Overall the two sets of rules are very comparable. Illinois ILCS 5/3-15-2; 20 IL ADC 720.150; 20 Ill. Adm. Code 2602 Illinois has approximately 27 sections in their admin rules regarding juvenile detention standards.  Each of their rules is very lengthy and would equal one of our sections, which Indiana breaks into individual standards within the section.  The burdensomeness or restrictiveness is comparable; it's just written out in fewer numbers for Illinois.  Some of the requirements for Illinois actually appear to be more restrictive, for example their sanitation standards are more exact; they say windows shall be clean and walkways and corridors shall be free of litter and trash. Indiana says the facility shall be clean and only specifically discusses pests. Kentucky KRS 15A.065; 505 KAR 1:140; 3-JDF-3A-15-2; 3-JDF-3A-26,27; 3-JDF-3B-04 Detention facilities (jails for pre-adjudicated youth) are under the jurisdiction of the Kentucky DJJ exclusively. Currently there are seven (7) in operation with another two in Jefferson County being renovated and scheduled to come online in the next 6-12 months. Kentucky has both high and low risk detention facilities.  They call the facilities for committed juveniles "Youth Development Centers" in addition to having group homes for very low risk committed juveniles. Kentucky manages detention facilities through ACA applicable standards specific to detention, DJJ policies, post orders, and state regulations.  DJJ policies are divided into series with the 700 series specific to detention facilities. Kentucky appears to be a little less restrictive than Indiana because the 700 series is housed in policy, not administrative code. Michigan MCL 712A.16 Michigan is in the process of implementing reforms currently that will address standards. They are in a similar position to what Indiana was before our current rules were adopted in 2022.  Michigan's current juvenile justice residential system is hindered by limited placement availability, inconsistent use of evidence-based and developmentally appropriate practices, and a lack of standardized oversight and accountability. The system operates without a coordinated procurement and financing structure, resulting in variability in service quality and outcomes across providers. These challenges contribute to inefficiencies and limit the system's ability to meet the complex needs of youth. The RAC recommendations aim to establish a more equitable, evidence-driven, and performance-based system that ensures appropriate placement, improves youth outcomes, and enhances public safety Michigan is very decentralized. The director of the bureau of juvenile justice is the licensee of two residential treatment secure facilities and the state contracts with 6 others. There are still others who are not contracted with the state but fall under the same state licensing guidelines for "child caring institutions," "CCIs". Detentions are locally run, but some are also under the licensing and statutory framework of CCIs and others are under a different statutory framework, because they operate as "court operated facilities" or COFs. Ohio OH ADC 5139-37 Ohio DYS does not oversee Detention Centers. County Juvenile Courts have oversight of the thirty-four Detention Centers.  The director of Ohio DYS states that ACA does have some juvenile detention standards, but many are outdated and there's a committee working on updating them now. South Dakota SDCL Chapter 26-8C Total bed capacity in SD is 124 for juvenile detention centers.  Indiana has 631 bed capacity (not including isolation cells, intake cells or medical quarantine cells).  It is hard to compare with the size difference; however, they seem to have a similar approach to balance statutory requirements for safety and due process with JDAI evidence-based, collaborative approach to improve youth outcomes and use detention as last resort. X. Previous Amendments XI. Integration into Indiana Code XII. Contact Information of Staff to Answer Substantive Questions Notice of First Public Comment Period: 20260930-IR-210260357FNA Notice of Determination Received: August 28, 2026