Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners postpone decision on jail SUBLOCADE grant after questions about costs and deadlines
Summary
After extended discussion and absence of sheriff's staff to answer questions, the board voted to postpone indefinitely a proposed SUBLOCADE (injectable buprenorphine) program for the county jail, citing missing information on costs, scale and grant-deadline timing.
The Board of Commissioners debated a sheriff-supported grant proposal to provide SUBLOCADE (an injectable buprenorphine product) to eligible people in the county jail but ultimately postponed the measure indefinitely.
The grants committee had issued a favorable recommendation, but sheriff's staff and medical proponents were not present at the meeting to answer commissioners' questions. Commissioners questioned the program's scale, fiscal risks after a three-year grant, and operational requirements for administering medication in custody. One commissioner summarized evidence cited by sheriff's proponents that, when deployed, the program had a reported outcome where "7 out of 10 of those people that are on it and leave, do not come back," which supporters argued could reduce recidivism and downstream costs.
Opponents and some commissioners raised unanswered questions about total program costs to cover all eligible inmates, comparative cost-effectiveness of injectable versus pill formulations, the administrative burden of supervised dosing or injection, and the risk of creating a budget 'cliff' if grant funding ends after three years. Commissioners also expressed frustration that key sheriff's office representatives who had earlier advocated for the program did not appear to answer last-minute questions.
The board considered three procedural options—approve, refuse, or postpone indefinitely—and took the latter step after debate. Commissioners requested follow-up and urged the sheriff's office to return with detailed cost estimates, implementation plans, and clarity on grant deadlines before the issue returns to the agenda.
Why it matters: the program could materially affect inmate health outcomes, recidivism and county correctional operating costs; commissioners signaled support for exploring options but concluded more fiscal and programmatic detail is required before a funding commitment.
