Nonprofit pretrial services seeks flat funding but flags higher ankle-monitoring costs and expanding caseload

Representatives of the county's pretrial services provider (Speaker 2) presented their FY25-26 estimated needs to the Budget Evaluation Team on April 16, asking for roughly $1.328 million and saying they expect to operate slightly more efficiently than the incumbent budget.

Speaker 2 said the agency came in under budget during ramp-up last year by about $69,136 and believes it can provide services next fiscal year for approximately $30,100 less than the current appropriation, despite an anticipated large increase in ankle-monitoring costs (budgeted to rise from about $40,000 to $91,000). The presenter said the contractor pays for program support services and supplements the contract with about $465,000 in private funding directed at housing, transportation and peer-support services for participants.

Operational details and capacity: the contractor said it currently provides supervision for roughly 675'700 people on conditional bonds and was supervising 691 active individuals at the time of the meeting; they serve roughly 1,900 unique individuals since June 1 and expect to serve about 2,200 over a full fiscal year. Average supervision duration varies widely, with many participants supervised 30 days to six months depending on case progress.

Technology and administration: the provider uses Salesforce for case management (about $20,000 annual license) and budgets $15,000 for hardware replacements (phones and computers). Incentives are mainly bus passes to overcome transportation barriers; Speaker 2 said they purchase passes at discounts and pursue grant funding but that transportation remains a recurring expense tied to participation outcomes.

Screening tool and bond types: the contractor and the pretrial advisory council are implementing a standardized pretrial screening assessment (presenter said the assessment tool is free) and training staff and partners. Committee members asked whether the validated tool will increase OR (own-recognizance) releases or conditional-bond supervision; Speaker 2 said the tool will likely increase the number of people eligible for OR in some cases but emphasized judges and prosecutors make final release decisions. The presenter said only about three people in their current caseload were on pure OR-style supervision and that roughly 100 participants were on GPS/ankle monitors.

Costs and indigency: the presenter said best practices and the program's advisory board prohibit charging indigent participants for court-ordered conditions; bus passes and peer recovery specialists are provided free of charge or funded by private donations. Where participants are able to pay (historically some ankle-monitoring users), fees or deposits sometimes offset program costs; the contractor also receives limited deposits and other revenue in a special fund used for monitoring costs.

Contract terms and payment: committee members noted the contract includes a cap and that the provider invoices only for services actually delivered. The presenter confirmed the contract does not provide a lump-sum payment; instead, the provider invoices for documented services under the cap.

Outcome: The Budget Evaluation Team moved and seconded a motion to receive the pretrial services estimate. Members requested further financial details (one-time versus recurring costs, exact ankle-monitoring per-person cost, and any grants/donations projected to cover incentives) before final budget decisions.

Next steps: the contractor will provide a written breakdown of ankle-monitoring unit costs, more detail on incentive/grant funding, and any available outcome metrics to support the claimed efficiencies.