Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cuyahoga County council rejects proposal to use opioid funds for 15 juvenile probation officers
Summary
After extensive public testimony and council debate, a council amendment to shift opioid funds to hire 15 juvenile probation officers ($1.2M/year) failed on a roll call; advocates and some members argued it was cost neutral, while leadership cited fiscal uncertainty and sustainability concerns.
Councilmembers and community advocates debated, then rejected, a council amendment that would have directed $1,200,000 annually to hire 15 additional juvenile probation officers.
The failed amendment, introduced by Councilwoman Simon with Councilman Hauser and Councilman Gallagher as co-sponsors, proposed using opioid fund dollars to free up HHS levy dollars and thereby pay for probation staffing recommended by the juvenile court advisory subcommittee. "The Special Subcommittee found…we urge you again to consider allocating $1,200,000 for 15 additional probation officers," said Bob Staib, a resident and organizer who testified in favor of the proposal.
Leah Winsberg, community engagement attorney for the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's Office, told the committee that probation officers provide community-based interventions and that funding the court’s recommendations would reduce unnecessary detention and improve long-term outcomes for youth. "Our juvenile probation officers have a unique task…They’re tasked with providing interventions, building relationships, incentivizing and coaching our young people," Winsberg said.
Sponsor Councilman Gallagher argued the amendment was cost neutral and essential: "It's cost neutral. We can do this and we should do this," he said, urging colleagues to prioritize preventive supports over detention. Gallagher also withdrew other amendments to focus council attention on this single proposal.
Council leadership opposed the amendment for fiscal and sustainability reasons. Council President Miller described substantial uncertainties in the county’s health and human services levy and cautioned that creating new, ongoing positions funded from opioid dollars could be unsustainable when that revenue declines. "We just don't have the money to add these new expenditures at this time," Miller said, stressing prudence in a difficult budget cycle.
Council discussed the size and status of the opioid fund during the exchange. Staff reported an October cash balance of $77,000,000 with a substantial portion already encumbered or previously authorized for initiatives, leaving an estimated roughly $5,000,000–$27,000,000 of funds that could be considered available depending on accounting and commitments.
After extended floor debate, the committee took a roll-call vote. The amendment failed; the clerk recorded that seven members cast dissenting votes and four voted in the affirmative.
Next steps: the chair moved on to other amendments and ultimately referred the amended biennial budget to the full council for second reading at the next council meeting.
