Morgan County officials weigh use of settlement funds after state cuts to community corrections grant

Morgan County community corrections staff told the Community Corrections Board that a reduction in state Department of Corrections grant funding will require local changes to keep reentry, treatment and monitoring services running.

Dylan Freeman, community corrections staff, said the county “did receive our award letter for our community corrections funding” and that “the full amount that we received for next year for corrections is $313,823.” He told the board staff will circulate a proposed budget and “ask for an email vote” by Sept. 1 to approve next year’s spending.

The board heard that one statewide DOC grant for jail-based treatment was cut as part of broader budget choices at the state level. Staff described using county settlement funds to offset losses in past years — about $87,000 used over the last two years — and said they plan to ask the county commissioners for additional local support (staff described an additional request in the ballpark of $100,000 but said the precise figure was still being calculated).

Why it matters: the DOC cuts affect programs that county staff and local partners say have reduced recidivism and bed days. County staff emphasized the programs use multiple funding streams — the DOC grant, settlement funds, client user fees and federal/state health funding — and said chopping one source would force budget reallocations.

Board members and staff described several near-term adjustments under consideration. Staff said they will reallocate local “reinvestment” grant money previously used to fund some recovery-coach services to cover equipment and vendor billing for home-detention monitoring; those monitoring costs were described as roughly $6,000–$8,000 per month and are currently covered largely by client fees and a county equipment reserve. Staff said future quarterly reports will not show the prior reinvestment line item because the money is being used to pay monitoring equipment bills.

Operational data presented at the meeting illustrated current program demand and where cuts could bite. Highlights presented by staff include: - Home detention: 43 people on home detention at the end of the quarter; 20 people placed on home detention during the quarter; fees collected this quarter were $33,674 (the previous quarter was $53,000). - Pretrial assessments: 105 assessments completed in the quarter; active pretrial supervision cases reported at 156. - Supervision and interventions: staff reported they are meeting evidence-based intervention targets for many clients but remain short of one internal goal for intervention frequency; for reentry clients the intervention rate reported was 92 percent. - Juvenile services: five male and one female juvenile placed in secure detention this quarter; detention costs reported for the quarter were $25,090.

Staff also flagged operational constraints beyond the grant reduction. They said device malfunctions are reported but without a statewide standardized definition, so local “device malfunction” counts are not directly comparable across agencies. Staff reported an increase in applications deemed ineligible for home detention because of past escapes, unpaid probation fees or lack of stable housing.

The board discussed medication-assisted treatment (methadone) for people entering custody. Staff described new or clarified expectations that jails must maintain certain medication regimens for people already receiving treatment and said that could increase costs and transport needs. Staff warned that estimates of those additional costs and how they would be funded are not yet final.

No formal funding reallocation was approved during the meeting. Instead, staff said they will finalize calculations, consult with commissioners, and circulate a proposed budget — with a likely email vote requested — to cover the coming year’s community corrections operations.

The meeting also included a brief personnel introduction: Megan Snyder was introduced as a new probation officer who will work with the community corrections team but is not paid from the community corrections grant.

Board members did not take a formal vote on program reallocation at the meeting; staff will return with a proposed budget and a formal action request for the board or commissioners to consider.