Rice County hears plan for a mental health treatment court, with state start-up funding and county match

Rice County commissioners heard a proposal to create a Mental Health Treatment Court aimed at adults with severe and persistent mental illness whose criminal behavior is tied to their clinical needs. Angela, who led the presentation, told the board the court would be modeled on existing specialty courts and would focus on long-term treatment and supervision rather than crisis-driven responses.

“We have been very dedicated to this process,” Angela said, describing an 18-member planning subcommittee drawn from justice, behavioral-health and community partners. She said the proposal follows state and national best practices and that the county previously applied for federal grant funding but was not selected; new state judicial funding tied to cannabis revenues, she said, made renewed development feasible.

The presenters said eligible participants would be adults (18 and older), Rice County residents with felony-level offenses, legally competent to participate, and who voluntarily agree to the program as a condition of probation. The program would use a phased model similar to the county’s drug treatment court; presenters estimated a minimum of about 13 months in the program with typical participation ranging 13–18 months.

“We would be eligible as a new court for $110,000 from those funds, for the next three state fiscal years,” Angela said; she added that the state formula would later fund the program based on a three-year average census. Presenters noted a 30% county match is expected under current state expectations, which the team estimated could be met through existing personnel costs (they cited an illustrative $33,000 per year match realized through current staff time).

Subcommittee members described operational details. Josh Belke, a psychologist on the planning team, said the court model is collaborative and that having decision-makers at the table allows faster, more individualized responses for participants. He named Margaux Breeze as a prescriber who would consult with the team and reserve time for participant medication needs. Brandon Gleam, speaking for local law enforcement, said the department “support[s] this wholeheartedly” and added, “Jail is not a place for the mentally ill.”

A county prosecutor noted the planning work also aligns with a planned competency (rule 20/statute 611) docket; he said the county expects to start a rule 20 docket in June and hopes that competent defendants with severe mental illness could be referred from that process into the mental health court to maintain continuity of services.

Presenters described the expected local need using caseload counts: Community Corrections has roughly 850 adults, of whom a staff review identified about 11% with a severe and persistent mental illness (roughly 80 people); the adult mental health case-management unit has about 150 clients with 21% involved in the criminal justice system (roughly 35–40 people). The team said these figures represent a potential eligible pool but stressed not all would elect to enter the voluntary program and capacity is limited to about 20–25 participants initially.

Presenters said they do not plan to add new positions to launch the court and expect existing staff (including the current treatment court coordinator) to cover coordination duties. They warned program funding is tied to census and that low utilization can jeopardize formula funding, though small bridging grants are sometimes available for low-census programs.

The presenters asked the board for a formal resolution of support at next week’s meeting; they plan to submit materials to the Treatment Court Initiative this month, seek Judicial Council approval in April or May and, if approved, begin state funding and operations July 1. The board moved to adjourn at the session’s close.