County treatment-court staff report vacancies and falling juvenile referrals; adult program maintains caseload

County treatment-court staff briefed Fremont County commissioners on the status of the adult CAST program and the juvenile treatment court (JTC) on Wednesday, reporting staff vacancies, funding allocations and a drop in juvenile referrals tied to a change in post‑filing diversion practice.

A county treatment coordinator (name not provided in the record) described program capacity and funding. For CAST (the adult treatment court), the county's contract allocates funding for 21 participants per fiscal year at $9,354.66 per participant. The coordinator said the program currently has 20 active participants, two participants on suspension and five new entrants since July (six expected this week), with an average participant length of stay of about 15 months.

For JTC (the juvenile program), the county receives $14,716.84 per fiscal year to serve 14 participants. Staff reported there are currently no active JTC participants in the county's program; four juveniles remain on the books but are in residential treatment. Presenters said the elimination of the local "delayed sentencing" post‑filing diversion previously used in Fremont County reduced a common legal pathway that had sent juveniles into JTC. An assistant director of juvenile justice services, Hattie, told commissioners that without the delayed-sentencing option referrals into JTC have become harder to obtain and many juveniles who reached the district-court level have treatment needs requiring residential placement rather than the local program.

Staff noted vacancies in treatment-office positions: the clinical-supervisor position is vacant; a substance-abuse counselor recently resigned; the case manager position was described as filled but duties were shifted while the office adjusts. The treatment coordinator said the adult CAST caseload remains active and that the district court has generally accommodated longer probation terms when necessary for completion, although extensions are used sparingly and under statutory limits.

Commissioners asked for success-rate data, recidivism or follow-up outcomes. Staff said they do not have ready reports on long-term outcomes but offered to pull program data and coordinate with the legislative/state systems for outcome measures. Commissioners also raised funding questions about whether the county should pick up program costs if the state allocation underwrites fewer participants in a year; staff said the primary constraint for juvenile programming is the legal pathway rather than purely the funding level.

The county's youth-services director also reported that the day-reporting center has opened its school-year session and currently serves six students (capacity 12), and that the county processed 35 juvenile citations in July and August.

Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer performance and utilization metrics so the board can assess program value and funding decisions moving forward.