Proposed Corrections Funding Change Stalls

By Anna Kaminski, Kansas Reflector

TOPEKA — Kansas officials proposed a change in funding for community corrections programs, cutting allocations to the state’s largest probation populations and increasing funding for others based on new metrics.

But low confidence in the changes and a lack of buy-in from local agencies prompted the state prison head to pause the plan. Community corrections programs are state-funded, county-controlled alternatives to prison and jail sentences, encompassing parole and probation and encouraging reintegration. 

Jeff Zmuda, secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections, which oversees the state’s eight adult prisons, said the changes were necessary to address concerns about equity and transparency.

“There’s clearly, clearly not a clear understanding or confidence in the revised funding formula with some of our stakeholders,” Zmuda said.

He told the House Select Committee on Government Oversight on Monday that the new formula would be implemented over the course of three years, with full redistribution of funds in fiscal year 2029. Under the current plan, 10 of Kansas’ 31 judicial districts would see a decrease, and 21 districts would see funds increase.

It is unclear when and if the changes will proceed.

The greatest reductions were proposed for Sedgwick County, which would see a 37% reduction, a six-county district in the most southwestern corner of the state that would receive a 21% reduction and a district near central Kansas consisting of Ottawa and Saline counties that would see a 20% reduction. Wyandotte County, home to one of the state’s largest populations, would see a 15% decrease.

A six-county district in west-central Kansas would receive a nearly 60% increase in funding under the proposed formula, Sumner County would have a 57% increase and Leavenworth County would see a 55% increase.

Steven Stonehouse, the director of the Sedgwick County Department of Corrections, emphasized the importance of focusing on public safety in any funding reconfiguration. He also encouraged an independent evaluation of the corrections department’s proposed funding formula.

“It’s our position that we don’t know if these actually will improve, enhance or support public safety,” Stonehouse said.

Risk levels, crime levels, substance use and mental health issues remain the same in Sedgwick County, he said.

“This funding is the only thing that changes,” he said. “So that gives us pause and is quite concerning to us.”

He is also concerned that the proposed formula could allow for future changes based on “horse-trading” without consistency within the formula’s elements.

When a person convicted of a felony is put on parole, one of 17 state parole offices and a community corrections agency oversees case plans and reintegration efforts. Individuals are assessed and classified based on risk level, ranging from low to high risk, to determine the level of supervision. More than 5,130 people are under parole supervision in Kansas, according to corrections department data released Monday. More than 4,350 were men, and nearly 780 were women.

It costs the state $115.27 daily, or $42,000 annually, to hold one person in prison, according to 2025 numbers. To supervise someone through community corrections programs, the cost drops to $11.76 daily and $4,300 annually to supervise one person.

The new formula is based on a modified weighting of eight elements.

Zmuda, who has been secretary for six years, said 60% of a judicial district’s funding allocation is associated with caseloads, which uses point-in-time data from the first of the month, every three months. The remaining 40% is divided among poverty metrics, case filing numbers, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation’s crime index ratings, judicial districts’ population, a district’s square mileage, agency success and agency turnover rates.

He said the change was driven by community corrections agency directors, who said they didn’t fully understand how funds were being distributed and were concerned about funds being discriminately dispersed.

“I think that has caused some distrust because it’s been what it’s been for so long,” he said.

Zmuda speculated, based on his department’s annual report, that agencies could be classifying more individuals as “high risk” to receive more funding.

Rep. Kristey Williams, an Augusta Republican and chairwoman of the committee, encouraged Zmuda to examine his department’s performance measures to ensure they mirror its goals, begin auditing funding plans and communicate with counties that aren’t meeting performance expectations.

“It says in statute that the secretary shall audit the plans — the comprehensive plans — that are submitted,” Williams said. “I understand, and you’ve acknowledged, that this is not something that you do. Perhaps you do not have the bandwidth to carefully audit and make sure that they’re submitting budgets that are reviewed and dollars are accounted for, because we know that they are not.”