Sedgwick County officials say KDOC funding formula would cut community corrections grant by about $2.1 million; commissioners plan appeal

Sedgwick County commissioners and corrections officials told the county’s staff meeting that a newly applied Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) funding formula would reduce the county’s adult community corrections grant by about 37 percent — roughly $2.1 million — and sharply cut behavioral-health grant money the county has used to pay for programs and staff.

The cuts, described by KDOC as a reallocation of existing grant dollars rather than a reduction in the statewide pot, would hit Sedgwick County despite the county’s larger caseload and local funding for correctional services. County leaders directed staff to draft a letter to KDOC and state legislative leaders and to plan public outreach to press for reconsideration or a legislative fix.

Why it matters: County officials say the proposed reductions would force cuts to evidence-based programs, reduce staff who coach and supervise high‑risk clients, increase caseloads for remaining workers and could eliminate residential and behavioral‑health services that county leaders say have lowered recidivism. Steve Stonehouse, a Sedgwick County Department of Corrections official, told commissioners the county’s current mix of programs and local funding make the proposed reduction especially harmful.

What county officials said: Stonehouse said KDOC combined three funding streams — DUI funds, a block grant, and behavioral‑health funding — and applied a new allocation formula created by a statutorily appointed Community Corrections Advisory Committee. The committee’s formula weights factors including population counts, program success rates, jurisdiction square mileage, filing counts and local KBI crime data. "I've been very transparent with KDOC ... this does not smell right," Stonehouse said, later noting Sedgwick County had pressed for changes but was told the formula would proceed.

Sedgwick County’s finances and scale: Stonehouse told the commission the annual KDOC block grant for community corrections is about $5 million. County finance staff and commissioners said Sedgwick County contributes roughly $6 million in local funds to match and support those state programs; a portion of those local dollars currently support services for nonresidents supervised here. Stonehouse said the behavioral‑health portion of grant funding — roughly $600,000 this year — would be cut by roughly half under the new allocation.

Projected impacts: County staff warned the cuts would likely require eliminating specialized programs (for example, batterers intervention groups, support for medications and housing assistance tied to supervision), reduce residential alternatives that keep people out of jail, and shrink the number of supervisors and coaches who back up front‑line officers. Laurie Gibbs, deputy director of adult programs, described how the county’s continuous quality improvement team and newly developed internal training shortened staff onboarding and improved skill fidelity; commissioners said losing those staff or programs would worsen outcomes.

How the formula was developed: Stonehouse said the advisory committee that drafted the allocation includes directors from several smaller judicial districts; KDOC used a staff member from Johnson County to compile and test the formula on the existing grant total. Commissioners objected that Sedgwick — the state’s largest single provider by point‑in‑time caseload — was not represented and would bear a disproportionate cut while several committee members saw funding increases.

County response: Commissioners instructed staff to draft an immediate, public letter to the KDOC secretary, the governor’s office and state legislative leaders asking for review and relief. Commissioners discussed a Friday public briefing and press conference to raise awareness and asked staff to prepare a white paper and a formal letter for the board’s review. Justin Wagoner, county counselor, advised that statutory changes would require legislative action and that the legislature could alter who ultimately sets allocation rules.

What county officials asked for: Commissioners suggested possible remedies including (1) a hold‑harmless phase‑in to avoid abrupt program cuts, (2) a neutral third party (for example, a university) to review and recommend a transparent, evidence‑based formula, or (3) a state appropriation to increase the total pool so no county loses programs in a zero‑sum reallocation.

Next steps: Staff were directed to draft the letter and supporting white paper, assemble detailed budget impacts, and coordinate outreach to the South Central legislative delegation. No formal vote was taken; the board asked that the draft return for final review and that staff schedule public outreach promptly.

Ending: County officials said the funding decision has implications for public safety, program continuity and local tax dollars already invested in community corrections, and they signaled an urgent outreach effort to the governor’s office and the legislature to seek a remedy.