County detention center wins $500,000 grant for MAT expansion; staff outline reentry and inter‑jurisdictional housing arrangements

Queen Anne's County detention center leaders on Sept. 9 briefed the commissioners on a new grant to expand medication‑assisted treatment (MAT) services, partnerships aimed at easing reentry, and operational changes including interjurisdictional housing agreements.

Warden Lamont Cook said the county ‘‘secured a [grant] for $500,000’’ that will cover a peer‑support position and a certified medication technician (CMT) to support the detention center’s MAT program. He said the MAT expansion is fully grant‑funded, the grant runs for two years with a possible third‑year extension, and the positions are intended to reduce program stress on existing medical staff.

Cook and Captain Brianna Cottman also described a short‑term agreement with Kent County to house inmates: the detention center is holding up to 10 Kent County inmates under an interlocal arrangement and charging $125 per day to cover costs (Kent County provides transportation and remains responsible for extreme medical costs). Cook said there was one additional courtesy hold not being charged.

Nut graf

County officials said the grant‑funded staff additions and partnerships are intended to strengthen treatment, reentry planning and facility operations while conserving local resources; staff detailed inmate education, GED support, reentry notebooks, and community partnerships aimed at reducing recidivism.

Details and programs

- Grant and MAT expansion: the $500,000 grant will fund a peer support position and a CMT to support the MAT nurse. Captain Cottman said those two positions are ‘‘100% funded through the grant’’ and noted the grant application was submitted early and is rare for corrections agencies.

- Kent County housing arrangement: Cook said the county is holding 10 inmates from Kent County under the agreement, with an additional courtesy hold; the county charges $125 per day and Kent County provides travel. Cook said the county may increase that number if staffing allows.

- Reentry and in‑facility services: staff described a renewed library grant for reentry books and materials, a partnership with Aramark (the food vendor) for an in‑service work program and culinary certification, GED study support provided by vendor staff, and a reentry program through the health department to provide support at release. The detention center also offers community service options in partnership with the county drug court so participants can earn required hours.

- Staff morale and operations: Cook and Cottman said the facility held Correction Officer Week celebrations, provided boots to many officers, added an on‑site barber, established in‑house email to improve internal communications, and received a newer secure transport vehicle to improve offender movement for court and medical trips.

- Compliance, audits and policies: staff said they are updating policies and procedures per COMAR (Maryland Code of Regulations) and preparing audit follow‑up; an August state audit was referenced and staff expect to reach 100% compliance after follow‑up work.

- Language access and medical vendor review: the detention center said it is reviewing language‑line options for non‑English speakers and exploring other medical/behavioral‑health vendor choices within budget constraints.

On immigration enforcement and 287(g)

Commissioners asked about ICE and 287(g) (the federal program that can delegate immigration‑related authorities to local law enforcement). Captain Cottman explained current practice: officers perform an initial limited background and, if immigration‑related indicators are present (for example, the person is not a U.S. citizen), staff notify ICE; ICE checks its databases and may issue a detainer. She said that under a 287(g) agreement select local officers could perform the same initial identification work and forward details to ICE directly, but that in practice the county already communicates quickly with ICE and that 287(g) ‘‘isn’t much different’’ from current operations in terms of outcomes.

Captain Brianna Cottman (paraphrasing from meeting): "The only difference with the 287(g) ... would be that instead of ICE actually coming and talking to the person, we can actually do the initial talk and then forward it to ICE. Honestly, it's not much different."

Why it matters

County leaders framed the grant and partnerships as measures to strengthen in‑custody treatment, improve reentry supports and reduce unnecessary pretrial detention. The Kent County housing arrangement provides short‑term revenue and capacity flexibility for a neighboring county while county officials said they will continue to ensure medical responsibility and reporting requirements are met.

Provenance

Transcript passages describing the $500,000 grant and the Kent County housing arrangement appear in the public meeting record under the detention center presentation (discussion beginning in the record at approximately 00:22:38). Captain Cottman and Warden Cook provided the program and operational details during that presentation.

Next steps

Staff said the grant‑funded positions will be onboarded per grant requirements and that medical/vendor research and audit follow‑up will continue. The county will coordinate any operational changes with the state and partner counties as required.