Kansas Sentencing Commission asks for $2.6M reappropriation as SB 123 treatment costs surge

The Kansas Sentencing Commission asked the House appropriations committee for a $2.6 million reappropriation to cover substance-abuse treatment vendor payments tied to Senate Bill 123, saying current spending trends will exhaust the agency's base appropriation before fiscal year-end.

Scott Schultz, executive director of the Kansas Sentencing Commission, told legislators that the SB 123 program now accounts for about 86% of the agency’s budget and covers a wider range of eligible offenses after legislative expansions. "We've spent already almost $6,000,000 on the program," Schultz said, warning that the $11.2 million base appropriation alone "will literally run out of money before the end of the fiscal year" if additional funds are not made available.

Committee fiscal analyst Nicole Rincher walked members through the Commission’s FY24–FY27 tables and noted a notable capital outlay increase tied to new IT work: a $94,000 computer-software line to automate provider certification and ongoing enhancements to the Kansas Sentencing Application (KSApp). Rincher also identified $2.4 million in unspent SGF reappropriations in the SB 123 program and $203,000 unspent in administration from the prior fiscal year that the agency proposes to use for current-year expenses.

Why it matters: The SB 123 program pays community-based treatment providers for services ordered by the courts. Agency leaders told the committee that rising reimbursement rates and the addition of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) modalities have increased per-participant costs even when offender counts remain similar, creating a budget gap the Commission cannot absorb under current appropriations.

Context and details: Schultz said the Commission now certifies 58 treatment providers with 137 locations statewide and that competitive reimbursement rates were raised so providers would hold beds and accept referred offenders. He explained that MAT has produced higher success rates in some cases but adds material costs to per-person treatment. Referencing prior evaluation, Schultz noted that a University of Cincinnati analysis (conducted before recent funding changes) estimated "for every dollar we spend here, we save $4," but he added the Commission has not revisited that cost-benefit estimate since the program's more recent enhancements.

Requests and next steps: The Commission’s formal asks to the committee were (1) a $2.6 million reappropriation to cover SB 123 vendor payments already incurred or contracted and (2) an approximately $200,000 administrative payment to settle a disputed Department of Administration vendor payment tied to FY25 funds. No committee vote occurred during the hearing; members asked the agency for follow-up materials, including any updated return-on-investment or recidivism analyses that would quantify savings in bed space or reduced prison costs.

Questions from members: Representatives pressed for justification data. Representative Delperdang asked whether the agency could quantify bed-space savings or recidivism reductions; Schultz cited the older evaluation’s $4-to-$1 figure but acknowledged it predates the program’s recent expansions and additional funding. Representative Hoye sought clarification on the reported 68% increase in provider expenditures; Schultz attributed the rise largely to reimbursement rate increases and greater per-case costs rather than a clear increase in participant counts.

What remains unclear: The Commission has not provided an updated program evaluation to reflect recent reimbursement increases and expanded eligibility, and the committee asked for more current outcome data to weigh the reappropriation request against other fiscal priorities.

The Commission closed its presentation after committee questions and the hearing moved on to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation budget review.