Clay County treatment courts ask commissioners to let $10,000 of $30,000 grant stay local for recovery supports

Judges and treatment-court staff briefed the Clay County Board of Commissioners on their 2025 operations and asked the board to continue last year’s $30,000 county contribution while allowing about one-third—$10,000—to remain locally available for recovery-capital expenses.

Judge Rosenfeld and Lindsay Cassette described program size and outcomes: the county’s drug court had 19 participants in 2025 with seven graduations; the DWI court, launched earlier in the year, had 10 participants; and the veterans court had one participant moving toward graduation in 2026. Cassette said the courts use evidence-based treatment, intensive supervision coordinated with the Department of Corrections, and wraparound supports for education, employment and family stability.

Cassette cited training and local partnerships as drivers of expansion. “We applied for and received a grant from All Rise,” she said, referring to the national treatment-court organization that provided three days of foundational faculty training in Clay County at no cost. Presenters also described partnerships with the Lotus Center, Heart of Clay, CAPLP and the Joy Project to provide counseling, peer support and holiday assistance for participants.

On spending, presenters said discretionary local funds would be used for items that build recovery capital and lower recidivism: examples included paying part of a $130 driver-training class or contracting a CAPLP financial class for about $200 to be offered at times that work for participants. “We would like to be able to keep about a third of the funds here locally,” Cassette said, explaining that local retention would allow staff to match participants for short, targeted expenses that help them rejoin community life.

County Administrator Larson described how the county would handle funds: invoices would be submitted as used and the auditor would retain the local portion for on-demand disbursement, rather than routing all dollars directly to the courts up front. Larson said staff will work with finance staff (Laurie) to place the request in the budget and provide oversight of expenditures.

Commissioners asked about program capacity and timing. Judge Rosenfeld said drug-court participants typically move through phases and that recovery-capital spending usually falls in phases 3 and 4; she said the drug court’s typical duration is about 18–24 months (as short as 12 months in some cases). On capacity, the DWI court’s supervision model uses a probation agent with a practical cap of about 20 participants per agent, Rosenfeld said, so the DWI court’s capacity is limited without additional staffing.

No board vote adopting a funding change was recorded during the presentation; commissioners expressed support and asked staff to include the request in budget considerations ahead of upcoming budget deadlines.