Committee seeks guardrails, cost comparison for $300,000 DOC treatment appropriation

The Actions and Institutions Committee on Feb. 19 discussed recommended language to attach to the governor's FY26 appropriation that would set aside $300,000 in general funds for development of intensive treatment services within one Department of Corrections (DOC) facility.

Committee members said they want clearer guidance on how the $300,000 would be spent, a comparison of in-facility treatment costs to comparable community-based programs, and a formal check-in or reporting requirement before the remainder of any appropriation is released. Grady, a committee staff member who helped assemble the draft language, and Ben Novogratzki, legislative counsel, were asked to draft specific guardrails for the committee to send to Appropriations.

The committee heard from DOC in earlier testimony that the $300,000 concept could be split roughly as $200,000 to solicit proposals via an RFP and about $100,000 to begin program start-up if a bidder is selected. Several members noted a discrepancy in those figures in testimony and urged the draft language to require DOC to provide a cost comparison that isolates the marginal cost of providing intensive treatment inside DOC versus the cost of providing the same clinical services in the community. The committee also asked the language to require DOC to describe expected operating costs, any anticipated capital upgrades at the selected facility, expected outcomes and measures of success, and input from DOC medical providers.

Committee members discussed the RFP process at length: DOC will issue an RFP, receive bids, and select a bidder; the committee does not review RFPs before bids are submitted. Members said the committee's intent is to have oversight at the point DOC selects a bid and before it expands spending beyond initial planning dollars. Options discussed included requiring DOC to report the selected bid and proposed operating budget to the Joint Justice Oversight Committee or to return to the legislature for approval once a preferred bidder is chosen.

The committee emphasized two narrow informational requests to include in the draft language: (1) an apples-to-apples per-person cost comparison of the treatment package proposed for inside the facility versus the same services delivered in the community (focusing on marginal treatment cost rather than the cost of an occupied bed), and (2) clarification of whether the state's current health contractor, Wellpath, would be involved or whether the RFP could result in a different contractor. Members said those conditions would allow them to assess whether the program represents a prudent use of state funds.

Committee members differed on whether to recommend the full $300,000 in the GovRec or to reduce the initial appropriation to $200,000 to focus on the RFP and delay start-up funding until there is more certainty. Ben Novogratzki was tasked with drafting language that would (a) place reporting conditions on release of funds and (b) clarify which state entities (for example, the Department of Health or Joint Justice Oversight Committee) DOC should consult in preparing cost comparisons and bid evaluations.

The committee set a timeline: committee staff should circulate the revised draft language within the next few days so the committee can make its recommendation to Appropriations at its next meeting. The discussion did not record a formal roll-call vote; committee members reached general agreement to move forward with drafting and to return with the detailed language for approval.

Ending: Committee staff will deliver draft statutory language to legislative counsel for revision and return the proposal for committee review before transmission to the Appropriations Committee.