Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Juvenile court seeks $645,000 in opioid dollars to renew three programs
Summary
Juvenile Court requested $645,000 from Shelby County's opioid special revenue fund to renew three programs—Youth Advocate, Nurturing Parenting (PorterLeaf) and Inside Circle—citing high completion rates and delays in contract execution that stalled a planned launch. Commissioners asked for carryover and spending clarifications before voting.
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caron Folsom, chief administrative officer for Juvenile Court, asked the Budget & Finance Committee to amend the FY2027 operating budget to allocate $645,000 from the opioid special revenue fund to renew three existing juvenile court programs.
Folsom said the court received $1.8 million in opioid funds for six programs, three of which had one‑year renewal options. "We had strong participation," she said, noting the nurturing parenting program showed "85 percent per program completion" and three cohorts have graduated so far. She said the nurturing parenting cohorts averaged about 16 participants and that 33 participants completed the last three cohorts; the per‑participant contract calculation was roughly $1,300 for the curriculum and on‑site childcare. Folsom said Inside Circle's launch was delayed by an insurance certificate and contract execution issues but that the court expects to begin services at its Wajack facility once contracts clear.
Sponsor Commissioner Charlie Caswell Jr. defended the request as an evidence‑based investment. "Many of these traumatic issues that these young people and their parents are experiencing can be mitigated if we continue programs like this," Caswell said, and urged the commission to consider sustaining the work beyond opioid funds.
Several commissioners pressed for budgeting clarity. Commissioner Thornton asked whether the requested renewal would duplicate carryforward funds and whether the county would be "double‑paying" if a carryforward from FY26 and a FY27 renewal both appear in the same year. Finance staff and CAO Folsom said the FY26 encumbrance would be carried forward and that the renewal request is an additional 12‑month commitment built into the approved contract; unspent FY26 encumbrances remain available but the renewal would add a year of funding.
Michael Thompson, juvenile court finance administrator, told the committee that because services were not rendered in FY26 the dollars remain in the opioid fund balance and can be carried forward. Audrey Tipton, director of administration and finance, confirmed the county carries forward encumbered special‑revenue budgets so that previously allocated but unspent dollars are available when contracts are executed.
The committee opted not to act on the amendment and asked staff to provide updated line‑item and carryforward detail before the June 10 meeting. The sponsor withdrew the motion for now and may reintroduce it with clearer fiscal offsets.
Next steps: the item was discussed but not voted on and will return to committee with detailed budget worksheets and an accounting of carryforward encumbrances.
