Rusk County officials report rising teen-court referrals, CJCC workgroups and recovery court changes

Rusk County restorative-justice and court-treatment programs are seeing heavier use and new administrative steps, county staff and the district attorney said at the Justice, Youth and Extension Committee meeting.

Restorative programs and teen court. Rich, who represents the county restorative youth programs, told the committee he is seeing a rise in teen-court and teen-traffic enrollments compared with past years and that law enforcement is referring more youth to diversion instead of fines and points. "Generally speaking, it's some type of community service ... they're actually doing way more work than if they just paid the fine," Rich said of teen court. He also flagged vaping as a fast-growing charge: "Yep, absolutely ... vaping is a big concern," he said, and noted some vapes have tested positive for THC rather than tobacco.

Why it matters: County restorative programs — including teen court, teen traffic court and the Prime for Life underage alcohol program — are diversion alternatives intended to keep young people from formal juvenile records while requiring sanctions and education. An increase in referrals affects program scheduling and the workload for volunteers and coordinators.

CJCC workgroups and Huber study. Committee members discussed the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC), which has no enforcement authority but recommends policy changes to county bodies. The CJCC created several working groups, including one led by Mr. Cabranos to study expanded use of the Huber program (electronic monitoring/paid-work release) and to review ways to lower participant costs so jailed individuals can more readily participate. The CJCC also formed a mental-health workgroup led by Emily Nelson of the public defender's office to map services, meeting schedules and possible interventions.

Recovery court updates. Angela Casper, the recovery court coordinator for Rusk County, reported the program currently has four participants and the team voted to add a fifth. Casper said recovery court is funded by a TAD (Treatment Alternatives and Diversion) grant that originates with federal funds administered at the state level. She asked the committee to approve out-of-county travel for six team members to attend the Treatment Court state conference in Wisconsin Dells; the committee approved the travel by motion. Casper also said the recovery court updated its participant handbook and has reduced participant fees from $750 to a lower level aligned with most other counties (Casper said most counties charge about $250, with half eligible to be worked off through community service). She said lowering fees should relieve financial barriers for participants emerging from jail or lacking steady income.

Treatment-provider contract. Casper told the committee a pending contract is in place with a Family Health Center to serve as the program's treatment provider; she said questions remain about certification and licensing but that the contract should be finalized in coming weeks.

District attorney caseload and trials. District Attorney Kevin Cabranos told the committee the office is handling a sizable number of active prosecutions — roughly 350 cases between the DA and an assistant — and that scheduled jury trials have increased. "We are busy, busy, busy," Cabranos said. He reported five jury trials in May and 36 jury trials scheduled across the next several months, a notable rise from recent years. Cabranos said he believes an increased willingness among defense attorneys to take cases to trial is partly responsible for higher trial numbers and that his office is taking a firmer negotiating stance on some cases, particularly for drug dealers and higher-level narcotics cases. "We're gonna hold them accountable," he said.

Meeting actions and next steps. The committee approved the requested out-of-county travel for recovery court staff to Wisconsin Dells and approved travel for the victim-witness coordinator (Nancy) to a Madison conference. The CJCC workgroups will report back in later months; the Huber workgroup expects initial recommendations by September. Recovery court staff will finalize the treatment-provider contract and bring fee-change recommendations to CJCC and the circuit court as required.

Looking ahead: Committee members and presenters emphasized that changes to diversion, monitoring and treatment programs hinge on interagency coordination (court, public defender, jail administration and treatment providers) and on securing funding or fee structures that do not exclude low-income participants.