Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedgwick County corrections officials warn state funding cuts could shrink community programs, propose small fee increase
Summary
Department of Corrections staff told county commissioners May 15 that state and federal funding changes could force program reductions in community corrections and juvenile services; the department proposed a $5-per-day increase to a client program fee to add roughly $89,000 in revenue.
Get email alerts on the Corrections Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Steve Stonehouse, a presenter with the Sedgwick County Department of Corrections, told county commissioners at the May 15 budget hearing that the department's staffing has improved but faces funding uncertainty from state and federal actions that could force program cuts.
Stonehouse said the department is “fully staffed” in most facilities and credited past compensation increases for improved workforce strength. He told commissioners that adult intensive supervision (AISP) is showing budget stress after a state funding reduction and that the department is not filling some positions in anticipation of layoffs if further cuts arrive.
The department described its mandatory services as juvenile field services, probation, case management, conditional release and community corrections; other programs are discretionary or specialty services such as drug court and veterans treatment court. Stonehouse said pretrial services supervises “between 400 and 700 folks who would otherwise be in the jail,” describing it as a lower-cost alternative that helps ensure defendants return for court.
Why it matters: county officials were warned that a mix of cuts could reduce community-based alternatives to detention and probation supervision at a time when local leaders say behavioral-health services remain limited.
County staff outlined several funding threats. Stonehouse said the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) signaled a possible 1.5% cut to juvenile corrections (about $300,000), and that the adult community corrections program faces an uncertainty that could be as steep as a reported 50% reduction. He also said the state cut about $10 million from a fund for evidence-based practices, leaving roughly $2.9 million statewide beginning in fiscal year 2027; by contrast, Stonehouse said Sedgwick County currently receives about $3.9 million “just through the department of corrections.” He described federal grant funding as unstable as well.
Stonehouse and staff framed those funding risks as likely to reduce programming: “I mean, we may be coming with an ask, but we don't know what it is because we don't know how much our cuts are gonna be,” he said.
Budget figures presented to the commission showed the corrections general fund at about $15,000,000, corrections grants at roughly $14,000,000 and JAG grants at $87,000, for a combined total of $30,511,887. Stonehouse said the department had reduced its request for interfund transfers as it gained confidence in vendor contracts for prisoner health and food services.
The department offered a single revenue proposal: raise the client program fee from $15 per day to $20 per day for one residential program (work release already allows up to $20). Staff estimated the increase would generate approximately $89,000 annually.
Commissioners pressed for updates about the KDOC formula and adult programs algorithm that affect county allocations; Stonehouse said Sedgwick is still sharing data and awaiting clearer guidance from KDOC.
The department also raised nonbudgetary concerns, including succession planning and turnover in direct-care roles. Stonehouse noted leadership and staff retirements could create gaps, and that behavioral-health capacity in the community remains limited, feeding juvenile and adult caseloads.
The department did not present final staffing reductions or program eliminations at the hearing; staff said further actions depend on KDOC and legislative decisions and that they would return with formal budget requests if required.

