Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Victim Services Grant topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Juvenile Department contract with Peace at Home included in Douglas County packet; JRP funding and program details provided

Douglas County Board of Commissioners · February 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Douglas County's Feb. 18, 2026 agenda packet includes Contract No. 30002863 with Peace at Home Advocacy Center to provide victims' services funded by the Justice Reinvestment Program (JRP) for July 1, 2025–Aug. 31, 2027; the packet lists a not‑to‑exceed amount (the agenda and contract text show slightly different totals).

The Douglas County Juvenile Department included Contract No. 30002863 between the county and Peace at Home Advocacy Center in the Feb. 18, 2026 agenda packet. The agenda cover line lists the contract amount as $90,628.05 and the term as July 1, 2025–Aug. 31, 2027; later contract language in the attached exhibits describes a maximum payment amount of $90,628.06 and emphasizes that the source of funding is the Justice Reinvestment Program (JRP) IGA recorded with the county.

The contract sets out services and goals for the county‑funded grant period: Peace at Home will sustain legal advocacy and increase shelter capacity, expand linguistically and culturally specific services for Latinx survivors, and coordinate a courthouse advocate presence. The project budget and staffing described in Exhibit 1 include funding for a 0.25 FTE bilingual/bicultural legal advocate, a 0.25 FTE emergency services coordinator, and a 0.05 FTE sexual‑assault services supervisor; direct assistance and one‑time client supports (hotel stays when shelter capacity is exceeded) are also budgeted.

The contract requires quarterly reimbursement reports to Douglas County Management & Finance and states that county payment obligations are limited to the funding actually received from the JRP IGA; it further notes that no county general fund will be paid to the contractor. The packet therefore contains two adjacent, slightly inconsistent dollar figures for the same contract ($90,628.05 on the agenda cover line and $90,628.06 in an exhibit). The agenda packet does not record a vote or motion text confirming board approval within the packet itself.