County, probation department debate who pays as SCORE/VALOR residential program expands

County staff and Collin County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) officials discussed the county’s role in housing residential probation participants in the SCORE and VALOR programs at the Aug. 5 budget workshop and flagged a potential shortfall between state aid and county costs.

Yoon Kim, the county administrator, told the court the county was housing about 51 participants in the SCORE and VALOR residential programs on Aug. 5: 26 in SCORE and 25 in VALOR. The county estimates roughly two‑thirds of those participants were sentenced by other counties and are housed in Collin County’s minimum‑security facility under the SCORE/VALOR contract arrangement. Kim said CSCD has proposed a contract payment of about $1,314,500 for FY‑2026 — an increase over prior years — but that county analysis shows the full daily cost of housing a SCORE/VALOR participant in the jail (food, housing, medical, and staffing allocations) is closer to $127.82 per participant per day. Kim said the state‑level subsidy equates to roughly $71 per participant per day in the county’s calculation.

CSCD Director Leticia Gibbs told the court the county’s programs provide both residential treatment and an aftercare component, and that the VALOR program is specialized for veterans and regarded as effective. Gibbs noted the county successfully applied for $1.6 million in state diversion funding this year to support residential programs; CSCD’s proposed contract with the county for SCORE/VALOR staffing and services is approximately $1.314 million. She warned that if regional distributions of funding are reduced, the county should not assume it will be held whole.

Commissioners questioned whether the county can cap out‑of‑county participants, and whether it can prioritize Collin County residents for the program. County attorneys and CSCD staff said some grants or state aid rules limit how program slots are allocated; staff also discussed the practical difficulties of refusing participants when they are sent by courts in other jurisdictions. The court asked CSCD and county staff to identify whether the state grant contract includes a required minimum utilization or other constraints, and to return with estimates of annual average census, the split of Collin County vs. out‑of‑county participants, and the likely capacity that $1.6 million or $1.314 million would support.

Kim presented a FY‑2025 to‑date medical cost figure for SCORE/VALOR of about $770,778 (medical only), underscoring that medical costs alone are a large component of the county’s subsidy. Commissioners asked staff to model a contract cap and rules so the court can consider whether to accept a dollar‑limited agreement for FY‑2026 or set a per‑day reimbursement level and a capped number of beds. No contract or budget amendment was adopted at the meeting.

Ending: Commissioners asked CSCD and budget staff to return with detailed utilization, budget impact and any contract constraints from the state grant so the court can decide whether to accept CSCD’s proposed funding level and whether to place program caps or prioritization rules before approving the FY‑2026 budget.