Douglas County officials outline pretrial, corrections and juvenile services in work session

Douglas County criminal justice staff gave commissioners an overview of the county's pretrial, adult and juvenile corrections programs, data efforts and grant funding at an informational work session. Department leaders said the goal of many programs is to keep people in the community, connect them with services and reduce time in custody while ensuring court appearance and public safety.

The presentation described the county's pretrial services as a daily operation that prepares reports for the court, conducts background checks and recommends supervision levels. Pam (department head, Douglas County Department of Criminal Justice Services) said pretrial staff interview people in the jail, check warrants and holds, and submit reports the court uses at first appearance. She said the county currently supervises about 200 to 205 people on pretrial on any given day and serves “right under 500” distinct people in a year. Pam said the program uses validated risk tools (Praxis, currently on version 19) and a stakeholder review group that includes the court and the district attorney to set supervision practices.

Pam emphasized limiting supervision to what is necessary: the department has reduced use of some electronic-monitoring practices to avoid “oversupervising” lower-risk people. Electronic monitoring is used for house-arrest orders, exclusion/inclusion zones (for victim protection), and some DUI sentences where hours in residence must be documented; the presenters said monitoring equipment can track minute-by-minute compliance. The detention center staff handle overnight monitoring and respond to alerts, notifying law enforcement when orders in the record (in Spillman) indicate an arrestable violation.

County staff said the pretrial unit flags candidates for specialty courts (behavioral health court and drug court) and enhanced diversion. The behavioral health court began in 2017 and drug court in 2020; 2024 caseloads were described as roughly 20–45 clients for behavioral health court and 34 for drug court. An enhanced diversion program started in 2021 for higher-risk people who need extra supports; District Attorney Loomis was said to be interested in continuing or revising that program.

Pam and Holly Myers (assistant director, adult programs) described adult community corrections as a longstanding, state-subsidized alternative to prison for sentenced felony offenders. Adult community corrections supervises roughly 220 active clients on any given day and uses four supervision levels with defined contact and verification rules (level 1: in-person contact four times monthly, monthly residence and employment verification; level 4: monthly contact for low risk). Staff noted sex-offender and similar case-types trigger higher supervision levels regardless of assessment scores because the standard assessment tools do not measure specific sexual reoffense risk.

On the juvenile side, staff described the regional Juvenile Detention Center (JDC), licensed for 18 beds serving youth ages 10–17 and receiving referrals from across Kansas. The JDC houses youth from multiple counties on per-diem arrangements; current per-diem revenue from other counties was described as $150 per day in most jurisdictions. The JDC also performs evening and weekend monitoring of electronic equipment for Douglas County clients and conducts drug/alcohol testing for specialty courts outside normal business hours.

Day school services were described as court-ordered educational placements licensed for 40 youth (25 currently assigned). County staff said day school provides focused academic and behavioral supports and is staffed and transported through an agreement with USD 497 (Lawrence Public Schools); many youth assigned to day school are there for contempt due to nonattendance.

Intake and assessment work was summarized: every detained youth receives a GAIN (Global Assessment of Individual Needs) screening within 72 hours, and a case plan is prepared within 48 hours as required by statute. The GAIN screening flags mental-health or substance-use needs; mental-health and substance-use follow-up assessments are performed by Bert Nash (behavioral health provider named in the presentation) and inform treatment plans paid for with grant funds when youth are uninsured or underinsured.

County staff described diversion and truancy work. Since July 1 the department reported about 104 juvenile diversions (Immediate Intervention Program) that in many cases avoid court filings; Building Peace (a local restorative program) is used for victim-impact panels and neighborhood restitution planning. The truancy program currently uses 27 volunteer mentors and reported 37 students assigned to truancy supervision with 85 referrals so far this school year; staff said USD 497 remains the primary school-district partner.

Staff noted the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) is developing a data strategy and strategic plan to better measure outcomes such as recidivism, rearrest and failure-to-appear rates. Matt Cravens (data analyst) was identified as the county's data analyst; presenters said measuring recidivism depends on how it is defined (new arrest, new conviction, similar charge, and what follow-up window is used) and that pretrial rearrest rates appear low in the county's internal data. The CJCC is expected to consider a strategic plan and data work in the coming year.

Funding and grants were summarized. Presenters listed an adult community corrections grant (described as “well over $700,000”), a juvenile block grant (about $600,000, including graduated sanctions and other components), a behavioral-health grant (~$100,000), a reinvestment grant (~$200,000 used for building-fee and mental-health supports), and regional collaboration grants (for discovery and transition programs). The department said it also uses a county-provided barrier-reduction fund (about $35,000–$40,000 annually) to help clients with one-time needs such as move-in deposits, tools, boots or utilities, and set an internal cap of about $600 per client in many cases.

Presenters warned that state-level work could affect local programs: the Kansas Department of Corrections is developing a funding formula for adult community corrections (juvenile formula expected to follow), and the Kansas Legislature has discussed proposals to consolidate probation functions statewide (court services, community corrections and parole), though presenters said a prior attempt did not advance. Judge Henley was noted to be part of an ad hoc pretrial committee; county staff said they will monitor any resulting mandates since pretrial supervision is not currently mandated statewide.

The session ended as a nonaction informational briefing; commissioners did not take votes. Staff said they will return with CJCC data products, specialty-court process-evaluation findings and any updates on state policy or funding changes for commissioners to consider.