Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit finds single accounting separation issue in Karnes-Wilson juvenile probation grants
Summary
An independent audit of the Karnes-Wilson County Juvenile Probation Department found one finding: county and school-district contributions to a prevention grant need to be tracked separately from the $50,000 state grant. The department otherwise had no material findings, auditors said.
Auditors briefed the court on March 18 about the fiscal year 2024 independent audit of the Karnes-Wilson County Juvenile Probation Department. Tom Dutnik, Karnes County auditor, and department representatives described programs and said the audit identified a single finding relating to grant accounting.
Department staff summarized juvenile-probation services, including prevention grants from HHSC, a truancy-prevention program funded by the governor’s office, and the Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP). The department said it receives referrals from local judges and school districts and operates services across the district.
Auditor Tom Dutnik said the required audit covered four grants plus a state-mandated salary adjustment. The only audit finding was accounting treatment for a $50,000 state grant: the county and school districts also contribute funds to the program and the auditor asked that funds contributed by the county or a school district be kept separately from the $50,000 state grant so reporting clearly reflects sources. Staff said they will charge salaries and program costs to the $50,000 grant appropriately and keep county or school-contributed funds separate going forward.
Commissioners asked about the Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program’s funding and placement costs when a judge orders a JJAP placement. Staff said historically school districts had borne some costs but that state guidance indicates counties are responsible for court-ordered placements; discussion is ongoing as some districts consider pulling out because of the cost. Commissioners asked for budget estimates because counties must plan for potential placement costs.
Why it matters: the audit’s single accounting finding is procedural but the funding and placement discussion could affect future county budget planning if counties assume greater responsibility for placement costs under court orders.
What’s next: auditors and department staff will implement the accounting separation requested by the auditor and county officials asked staff to provide costing estimates for JJAP placements to inform the county budget process.
