At the July 28 Community Corrections Advisory Board meeting, staff and board members debated intake policies, active unpaid user fees and how violations are reported to the courts. The discussion followed multiple cases prosecutors described in which individuals ordered into community corrections were not enrolled, then arrested or failed drug tests while the court believed they were being supervised.

Deputy Director Katie Berkshire presented program participant statistics and funding updates and said the department currently lists 213 people in community service, 18 in day reporting, 283 on home detention and 117 in work release. She also said the EOC grant request was cut by 7%, leaving two previously vacant positions unfunded for the coming budget year.

Berkshire was asked about an outstanding active user‑fee balance that the data sheet showed as "over $114,000." In response she agreed to provide a breakdown filtering out community‑service fees and delinquent balances so the board could see what currently active participants actually owe: "Yes. I can get that sent out to you," she said.

A central policy dispute concerned whether people ordered to community corrections should be admitted while owing prior user fees. Staff said the advisory board previously directed that people should not be brought into the program if they start in a negative balance; intake staff reported a recent disagreement in "Superior 1" over declining an individual who owed $63. Intake statistics presented to the board showed 22 people in jail with an average back‑fee of $720.

Board members discussed a possible compromise recommendation that people owing $300 or less could be transferred from jail into community corrections, but several members said implementation should wait until the new executive director can review intake procedures. One board member suggested tabling the matter until that review.

The county prosecutor delivered multiple case examples and pressed for clearer, faster notification to courts when ordered participants are not signed on or are noncompliant. He told the board that in several cases an individual ordered to sign on did not enroll because of prior delinquencies and then committed new offenses; in other cases participants failed repeated drug tests while the court had requested conduct reports. The prosecutor said judges receive petitions to execute only after multiple violations have accumulated, sometimes months later, and asked staff to present a clearer violation‑reporting protocol at a future meeting.

Staff explained current procedures: community integration program (CIP) status pauses fee collection once a participant hits a $300 threshold and participants are given progressive chances to get current on fees before termination; violations are escalated from minor to major after repeated offenses in line with Department of Corrections guidance and petitions to execute are filed following policy‑specified steps.

Ending: Board members agreed to continue the conversation. Some members asked staff to provide a weekly or otherwise timely violation report for judges and defense counsel, a request staff said would require operational review. Several board members urged that new executive director Corey George be given time to assess intake and reporting practices before the board considers a policy change on admissions for people with prior delinquencies.