Commissioner Alex Garza, chair of the Wayne County Community Correction Advisory Board, opened the meeting and the board approved the 05/28/2025 meeting minutes and the quarter‑4 program utilization report by voice vote.

Lester, a community corrections staff member, presented the quarter‑4 utilization and key performance indicators and highlighted several underused programs and administrative constraints. "We actually did not get the program up running until maybe August, somewhere around there, because of just just several reasons why paperwork, trying to get everything loaded in the computer, just how things function," he said of the violence‑prevention program funded this year. He also noted that, because some programs are underused, Wayne County can petition the Michigan Department of Corrections to reallocate unused funds to higher‑utilization programs.

Lester told the board the county
ward for FY26 is $900,000. He said the award had been larger in prior cycles: "last year, it started off at 1,300,000," and after midyear reductions it was $1,100,000; the county requested $1,500,000 for the current cycle but received $900,000. He warned that the 30% cap on administrative costs in the grant means reduced staff funding at the lower award level.

Chief Robert Dunlap of the Wayne County Sheriff's Office urged better outreach to the bench and prosecutors to increase referrals to available programs. "I'm very proud of a program that we currently have in Veil called Pathways for Home ... We put 200 people 220 people through the program. A 153 completed it ... 34 of them have jobs," he said, citing the jail reentry job‑training partnership with Detroit at Work and others as an example of an effective program the county could better leverage.

Board members and several judges at the meeting described operational barriers to referrals, including plea‑driven dockets, limited arraignment capacity, and the volume of information judges receive. Members suggested several steps: produce concise, at‑a‑glance materials for judges (cards or a short binder), assign or reestablish a staff liaison to meet regularly with bench and stakeholders, and have probation officers and pretrial staff include concrete program recommendations in reports.

Jacqueline Draheim, who works at the Criminal Justice Center and with the Michigan Department of Corrections, said probation officers assigned to judges ("capos") and district court probation staff already recommend treatment at violation hearings and that one‑on‑one meetings with judges increase program uptake. "I've never had a judge turn me down, to meet with them, and I'd be happy to facilitate with my capos any way that we can," she said.

Molly Maynard, the MDOC liaison present, reminded the board that it is responsible for approving funded programs and urged the advisory board to meet more frequently than quarterly while it revises its program plan and targeted populations. "I want to make very clear that this board votes on the programs that are being funded. That means this board is responsible for the plan," Maynard said, and she offered MDOC support for redesigning program locations and targets (jail‑based versus community‑based services).

Participants proposed a near‑term retreat or series of meetings to: identify programs to discontinue or expand, create simple materials for judges and stakeholders, track monthly utilization against targets with automated notices when targets are missed, and explore whether community corrections could operate some programs directly rather than contracting for all services. Staff said they will circulate a programming brochure and draft budget and will convene follow‑up meetings with stakeholders and MDOC.

The meeting closed after public comment was invited and no members of the public spoke.

Votes at a glance: the board approved the 05/28/2025 meeting minutes and the quarter‑4 program utilization report by voice vote; no roll‑call tallies were recorded in the transcript.