Portage County officials told the Judicial and General Government Committee on June 23 that Justice Point has served notice to terminate its contract for pretrial and related justice services, and staff are proposing to bring those services in‑house.

A Justice Programs staff member told the committee that “Justice Point has given us our 90 day notice,” and that the termination makes an expedited transition necessary; 90 days from notice places the end date at Sept. 12. The staff member said, “Our ultimate goal is to bring it in house,” and that doing so will likely require a special committee meeting because the timeline “is going to move fast.”

Committee members and presenters described the county’s prior concerns about Justice Point’s performance. A county official summarized a year‑and‑a‑half history of discussions and meetings with judges and Justice Point, saying the judiciary “became very… concerned about some of the things that Justice Point is doing” and that an earlier meeting with the vendor left judges “very frustrated.”

County staff outlined a proposed staffing model for an in‑house program: three full‑time case specialists and two part‑time positions plus one technician and one support professional; the staffer summarized that as a plan of “4 full time total plus myself” to run the program if approved. Another staff member confirmed there is no contractual penalty for the vendor’s termination, stating, “They gave us their 90 days.”

Officials said they have met with the county executive, corporation counsel and other stakeholders to coordinate timelines. County Executive John Pavelski and other participants reportedly met last week with justice staff; the county hopes to route any personnel and funding decisions through finance and human resources in early July and to bring the full proposal to the county board by July 15.

Judiciary support was described as strong. A committee speaker relayed that the judges are “100% behind” bringing supervision in‑house so the county can ensure accountability and pursue goals such as reducing recidivism and ensuring appearance at court.

Committee members raised staffing and recruitment questions; one member noted the private vendor had cited staffing shortages as part of its challenges and asked whether the county could recruit and retain qualified staff. Staff pointed to local pipelines such as the university social work and corrections‑related programs and said they expect a county position would be more attractive to applicants than a small vendor post. The staff also noted differences in hiring standards, observing the county would not hire applicants with certain criminal histories in roles the vendor had filled.

Next steps described to the committee were procedural: finance is holding a special meeting on July 7, and staff asked this committee to convene a short special meeting that same day so HR and the county board can act in sequence. Committee members agreed to a rapid timeline but said a meeting time would be confirmed later.

No formal vote or contract decision was taken by the committee on June 23; staff said a special meeting would be requested to present specific budget and personnel actions for committee approval.