Attorney Generals office proposes statewide pre-charge diversion funding; committee hears data and implementation questions

The Judiciary Committee heard on Feb. 14 from the Attorney General's Office about a proposed budget to expand pre-charge diversion statewide and the data used to build that request. Willow of the Attorney General's Office told the committee the proposal would require approximately $1.7 million for fiscal year 2026 and described how the figure was compiled from current grants and projected staffing needs.

The proposal matters because it would shift funding and administration of pre-charge diversion programs that are currently supported through a patchwork of Department of Corrections grants and local contributions. Willow said the office based the estimate on existing providers' costs, DOC FY2024 referral data and a modeled expansion that adds one full-time-equivalent staff member at several local providers.

Willow said roughly one component of the requested funding would sustain existing pre-charge services (amount described as a little over $1 million) by prorating FY2024 base grants for providers that already do substantial pre-charge work. A second component targeted about $600,000 to expand services to additional organizations by adding one FTE per provider; the office applied a 6% adjustment to account for inflation over two years (3% per year). Willow said the office also validated the figures by requesting cost reports from current providers.

Willow described the grant-administration process the Attorney General's Office uses for similar programs: grantees submit quarterly expenditure reports against an approved budget template; the office advances funds quarterly and reconciles line items at fiscal year-end. Marcy Hodgson, financial director at the Attorney General's Office, joined the discussion on the mechanics of advances, quarterly reporting and the budget reconciliation process.

Committee members asked how the office handled uncertainty around the appropriation. Willow noted that, unlike some existing post-charge funding streams, pre-charge diversion did not have a guaranteed appropriation in the governor's FY2026 budget at the time of the meeting, which adds uncertainty to program planning and county-level budgeting.

The meeting also addressed participant fees and other revenue. Willow said post-charge diversion programs statewide collected about $200,000 in participant fees last year and that the program uses a sliding fee scale: the full payment for adult participants is $175, fees can be reduced or waived, and family-division cases for youth are not charged. Willow said the statute enacted last year envisions a fee for pre-charge diversion but noted that sliding scales and waivers are used in practice.

Willow and committee members discussed program timelines and implementation risks. The Attorney General's Office told the committee it expects it will take time for new sites to recruit and train staff and to reach consistent service levels, citing past experience with establishing pretrial services. The office said it factored that uncertainty into its two-year perspective on budgeting and recommended allowing time for transitions and potential grants management adjustments in counties that have multiple providers.

Several members asked whether a single county-level grant holder model would be used and how local providers would be subcontracted or coordinated. Willow said the office was preparing a report to the committee (due April 1 under the referenced statute) that would outline options to streamline administration in counties with more than one provider.

What was said about notifications and next steps: Willow said the Attorney General's Office planned to present the proposal to the Appropriations Committee on Feb. 24. The office and committee members agreed that details about local grant administration and the level of funding would need refinement if the legislature provides less than the requested amount.

Ending: The Attorney General's office materials and the Act 40 data reports referenced in the hearing are publicly available; committee members asked the AGO to provide further detail and redacted contract and affidavit examples for review.