Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Juvenile Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Grayson County approves juvenile services contracts and renewals for family-reunification programs

5707115 · September 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Grayson County Commissioners Court approved contracts allowing other counties to use Grayson County Juvenile Services residential placements and renewed two Liberty Resources in‑home family‑reunification programs, all by unanimous vote.

Grayson County Commissioners Court on Sept. 2 approved contracts that let multiple counties use Grayson County Juvenile Services residential placement capacity and approved renewals with Liberty Resources for family‑reunification and diversion services.

County staff said the multi‑county contracts allow other counties to utilize Grayson County’s residential services. “These are some additional, contracts for residential services where other counties would like to utilize our services,” a Juvenile Services staff member told the court. The court voted to authorize the county judge to sign contracts with the listed counties.

The court also approved two renewals with Liberty Resources for placement diversion, family‑reunification services and for a separate family‑strengthening/front‑end service used for higher‑risk youth and youth returning from placement. A Juvenile Services staff member described the programs as providing “in‑home services, really around family reunification,” adding that “1 of the programs is specifically for higher risk youth who are close to being considered for placement or those youth coming home from placement. The other is a more of a front end service.”

All motions on both the multi‑county residential contract and the Liberty Resources renewals carried unanimously. The court did not state contract dollar amounts during the recorded discussion.

The court moved on to other business after approving the contracts.

Notes: the contract list as read into the record includes Brown, Depp Smith, Henderson, Hockley, Lamar, Lamb, Madison, Rockwall, Scurry, Borden, Smith, Summerville, Terry, Willacy, Williams and Winkler Counties (as listed on the meeting agenda). Specific contract terms, durations and dollar amounts were not specified during the verbal motion and are included in county files referenced by the county judge’s office.