Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treatment Court Supervision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff and consultants recommend local clinician take on treatment‑court clinical supervision; commissioners asked to weigh costs and staffing
Summary
Staff and two consultants told commissioners that juvenile and adult treatment‑court programs historically required a separate clinical supervisor; they recommended an in‑house clinician (identified as Sergio) be designated pending a short state training, and discussed low program enrollments that reduce state funding to the county.
At a meeting of the Fremont County Board of County Commissioners staff and outside consultants reviewed the clinical‑supervision needs of the county’s treatment‑court and youth‑services programs and recommended a locally based clinician take the supervisory role.
A consultant who described herself as a former treatment‑court executive director summarized the program history and funding mechanics, saying both juvenile and adult treatment courts have for years relied on a separate clinical supervisor because many case managers and certified addiction practitioners need licensed oversight. She recommended designating an existing clinician — identified in the meeting as Sergio — to serve as the county’s clinical supervisor, and said Sergio could complete the state’s required clinical‑supervision course online.
Why it matters: Treatment‑court programs receive state funding based on participant counts; the consultant said juvenile and adult programs currently serve far fewer participants than their capacity, reducing state reimbursements and increasing the county’s share of program costs.
Key discussion points: Speakers described the historical separation of youth services (diversion) and treatment courts, the county’s previous contractual arrangements (including CARF accreditation in earlier years), and the practical supervision tasks: clinical documentation sign‑offs and an hour per week of supervision for provisional clinicians. The consultant recommended hiring or officially designating Sergio as clinical supervisor and suggested compensating him for the additional duties.
Action vs. discussion: Commissioners did not take a formal vote at this meeting on hiring or contracting; staff and consultants offered a clear recommendation and timelines. The board asked staff to follow up with a timeline and possible compensation details should the commissioners choose to appoint the clinician.
Ending: Staff said an online clinical‑supervision course can be completed quickly and encouraged commissioners to consider a short‑term internal solution while the commissioners advertise for longer‑term leadership of the overall program.
