Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Probation director outlines three options to cover nine unfunded misdemeanor cases
Summary
Robert presented three options for handling nine unfunded misdemeanor supervision cases after the state signaled counties must not use protected state capitated funds to supervise unfunded cases: (1) stop taking unfunded cases; (2) accept only Jefferson‑sentenced cases and bill the county at $15.09/day; or (3) risk‑based billing tied to PSC scores (currently cheapest but volatile). The board asked staff to refine options and return at the next meeting on Nov. 5.
Robert (probation/juvenile‑justice staff) briefed the commissioners on a new state posture: the Department of Corrections will no longer assume counties may use state‑protected capitated funds to supervise unfunded misdemeanor cases. Jefferson County currently has nine such cases. Robert presented three response options and the likely fiscal effects of each.
Option 1: stop accepting additional unfunded misdemeanor cases and pursue external funding. Benefit: no additional cost to county; downside: some defendants who would otherwise receive supervision might not be supervised.
Option 2: accept only Jefferson‑sentenced cases and bill the county quarterly at the state capitated rate (Robert said the state's suggested rate is $15.09/day). Robert presented a current population cost estimate of roughly $4,074.30 monthly ($12,222.90 quarterly based on current nine cases). "Their recommendation was, will we pay per client based on the capitated rate of $15.09 a day?" he explained to the board.
Option 3: apply a risk‑based approach using the PSC low/medium/high bands (current nine cases: 6 low, 2 medium, 1 high). Robert estimated monthly costs under that approach at about $2,600 (roughly $7,815 quarterly); he cautioned that an influx of high‑risk placements could rapidly increase costs. The department recommended Option 3 as a preferred blend of flexibility and fiscal prudence while retaining manager discretion to refuse placements if caseloads became unmanageable.
Commissioners and staff discussed the timing of the biennial plan submission and how quickly the state might expect an answer; the group agreed more work was needed and scheduled follow‑up for the board's Nov. 5 meeting to refine the recommended option and the county's proposed biennial plan language.
Why it matters: the county must decide whether to absorb supervision costs, bill the county general fund, or refuse new unfunded placements — a choice with direct implications for public safety, probation workload and the county budget.
