Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treatment Court Transition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff recommends shifting some treatment‑court duties to enhanced probation after evaluation
Summary
A third‑party evaluation found similar two‑year outcomes for Scott County’s treatment court and high‑risk probation; staff recommended reallocating one treatment‑court probation officer and portions of program funding to a field‑based enhanced drug supervision caseload to serve more people at lower cost.
Staff told the Scott County Board of Commissioners that a third‑party evaluation of the county’s treatment court found 86 adults were served from 2016 through 2024, averaging about 10–11 participants per year, and that graduates’ two‑year outcomes were similar to those of a matched high‑risk probation comparison group.
"Treatment court is a great program. It has been a wonderful program for Scott County," the staff member said, adding that the evaluation showed the county has been denying more than half of referrals in recent years and that high‑risk probation caseloads can be much larger (about 30–40 people per officer) than treatment‑court rosters.
Why it matters: Treatment courts are resource‑intensive. County staff argued that by shifting some program elements into an enhanced drug‑supervision probation caseload the county could maintain supports (drug testing, some mental‑health services and law‑enforcement partnerships) while serving more people and reducing cost per participant.
Staff summarized meetings with justice partners — including court administrator Jennifer Everett, county attorney Ron Hosabar and public defender Lindsay Sai — and said those partners generally supported piloting a model that assigns a single probation officer to an enhanced drug supervision caseload and uses internal assessment to identify highest‑risk individuals.
On budget, staff presented the 2026 treatment‑court expense baseline of $425,683 and proposed moving one treatment‑court probation officer into the field budget while shifting portions of mental‑health services, drug testing and electronic home‑monitoring expenses into community corrections. Staff also asked the board to consider whether approximately $152,500 in opioid grant dollars should support the enhanced field caseload rather than remain in the treatment‑court line.
Board members asked how field supervision would reproduce treatment‑court supports such as curfew checks and court‑based graduations. Staff replied that law‑enforcement partnerships and community providers could be used to provide many of the same touchpoints, and that current participants would be managed carefully during any transition because treatment court is voluntary.
Several commissioners and staff acknowledged the program’s non‑quantitative benefits — graduations, in‑court recognition, and personal engagement from judges and officers — and noted the state judicial branch has a strategic goal to establish treatment courts broadly. Staff said the recommendation is not to abruptly halt participant supports but to incorporate treatment‑court lessons across probation practice while preparing an RBA (result‑based accountability packet) for the board’s next meeting.
No motion or formal vote on sunsetting treatment court was recorded in the transcript. Staff said they would return to the board with a formal RBA and an implementation plan, and that existing participants would be treated as a priority during any transition.
