Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Diversion Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County presenters say diversion programs reduce recidivism and save county money; council to assess capacity and eligibility
Summary
Elevate and county partners reviewed three diversion programs (OWI diversion, drug diversion and drug treatment court), presented local outcomes and recidivism results compared with Wisconsin TAD-funded sites, and prompted discussion about eligibility rules, ineligibility rates and the need to right-size funding and referrals.
Washington County officials and their community partner, Elevate, presented an overview of the county's three diversion programs and told the CJCC that local results show reduced recidivism and positive participant outcomes while saving taxpayer dollars through diverted jail days.
Laura Raines, chief executive officer of Elevate, described diversion programming as reducing recidivism, improving participant health and providing cost-effective alternatives to incarceration. Andy Freeman presented program history and core components, noting Washington County began OWI diversion with TAD funding in 2007, expanded drug diversion services afterward and implemented a drug treatment court in 2020 to serve higher-risk, higher-need individuals.
Freeman described shared program features: voluntary participation except where supervision persists under Department of Corrections (DOC) requirements; objective eligibility and exclusion criteria based on validated risk and needs assessments; exclusion of violent offenders for programs that receive state and federal funding; case management as the central link between behavioral-health services and the criminal justice system; and frequent, randomized alcohol and drug testing (urine, oral fluid, portable breath tests and biomarkers).
On outcomes, Freeman said the county tracks graduation rates, average days sober at discharge and diverted jail days used to estimate county savings. He noted state benchmark reports and explained the cost-savings calculation: assuming 45'51% of graduates produce diverted jail days, multiplied by average jail-day costs over prior years, with county program costs subtracted to estimate net savings. He said local treatment-court graduation and recidivism outcomes compare on par with similar Wisconsin programs but cautioned that long-term drug treatment court recidivism projections are preliminary because the program lacks a full three-year post-graduation sample.
Members asked whether recidivism measures are arrests, charges or convictions; Freeman said the county uses charge-based measures from the CCAP case-tracking system. Questions followed about post-graduation follow-up and continuity of care; Elevate and Freeman said community supports and continuing-care planning are used to step participants down from intensive supervision and that Elevate holds periodic events for past graduates and maintains case-manager relationships.
Members and staff raised operational concerns: a high ineligibility rate for drug treatment court that may reflect overly restrictive eligibility criteria or prior criminal-history barriers, the district attorney's role in screening and offering deferred-prosecution agreements, and the need to determine the programs'right size and referral volumes so county funding aligns with community needs. Health and Human Services staff urged the CJCC to consider capacity and sustainable funding and asked the CJCC to commit to continued partnership to maintain the programs.
The chair asked for further discussion on diversion programming at the Feb. 10 meeting. The council adjourned after closing remarks.
