Road to Change Act: Turning Jail-Hold Time Into Treatment — and Tracking the Taxpayer Cost

WORKING LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL — NOT YET INTRODUCED

Montana already spends millions of dollars holding people in county detention centers after they have been committed to the Department of Corrections but before they can be moved to a prison, treatment program, prerelease center or other appropriate placement.

A proposed measure being developed by Steven Bullcoming Haworth would ask a simple question: If taxpayers are already paying for the waiting time, can some of that time be used for approved treatment, education and reentry work instead of being lost?

Road to Change Act — in one sentence:
Require Montana DOC to make reasonable efforts to begin approved rehabilitation, education, treatment and reentry programming while DOC-committed individuals are waiting in county detention for placement, carry completed work forward when they transfer, reimburse participating counties for approved costs, and publicly report whether the approach saves time and taxpayer money.

The gap the proposal is trying to fix

Montana DOC policy says the department will make a coordinated effort to expedite transfers from detention facilities. It also allows DOC, with prior approval, to pay for program services such as education, vocational programming and substance-abuse counseling for offenders held in detention centers.

But that authority is not the same thing as a statewide requirement that eligible programming begin while someone is waiting. In practice, a person may be sitting in a county jail while the state is already paying a daily jail-hold rate, yet treatment, assessment, education or reentry work may still be waiting for the eventual placement.

DOC itself warns that community-corrections placement is not always immediate and that waiting time can be affected by bed availability, transportation, legal matters, conduct and other factors. Current placement estimates are published by the department and can change from week to week.

Follow the money

The Legislature’s 2027 biennium budget added approximately $6.2 million in base funding for county jail holds, along with nearly $2.8 million for rate increases affecting contracted secure facilities and local detention centers.

A Legislative Fiscal Division analysis used a jail-hold reimbursement benchmark of $82.80 per inmate per day, based on a $92 Crossroads Correctional Center rate less 10 percent under Montana law. That figure should be treated as a published benchmark rather than assumed to be the exact current October 2026 rate; a final fiscal note should use the latest applicable reimbursement rate.

Illustration using $82.80/day benchmark	Approximate cost
One person held 30 days	$2,484
One person held 45 days	$3,726
One person held 60 days	$4,968
100 additional jail holds for one year	$3.02 million
350 jail holds per day for one year	$10.58 million

Those figures are illustrations, not a claim that every jail-hold day can be eliminated. The point is scale: even small reductions in duplicated work, unnecessary restart periods or avoidable detention days can matter financially.

A separate state report reviewing fiscal-note performance showed approximately $7.94 million anticipated versus $10.10 million actually spent in the relevant category, a difference of about $2.15 million. The report specifically stated that DOC use of jail-hold beds was higher than projected.

What the Road to Change Act would do

Early assessment: identify treatment, education, behavioral-health, vocational and reentry needs while the person is still awaiting placement.
Begin eligible programming: allow DOC-approved programming to start in detention when it can be delivered safely and appropriately through local providers, remote instruction, workbooks, approved curricula or other practical formats.
Carry the work forward: require documentation of completed programming and prevent unnecessary duplication when the person reaches the receiving facility or program.
No unfunded county mandate: counties would not be required to build new programs at their own expense. DOC would reimburse reasonable, preapproved direct costs for participation.
Preserve security and clinical judgment: programming could be limited when security, medical, clinical, legal or eligibility concerns make participation inappropriate.
No automatic release benefit: participation would not itself shorten a court-ordered sentence, guarantee release or override placement requirements.
Measure the results: DOC would report waiting times, jail-hold spending, programming costs, completion rates, duplicated services avoided and other outcome measures.

What would make it cost-effective?

The proposal should not promise savings before the data exists. Instead, it should require the state to measure whether early programming actually reduces total system costs or improves outcomes.

Using the $82.80 daily benchmark only as an example, a $500 early-programming investment would break even if it ultimately avoided roughly six jail-hold days elsewhere in the process. A $1,000 investment would require roughly 12 avoided days to break even. Savings could come from fewer duplicate assessments, less repeated coursework, faster readiness for placement or reduced later incarceration — but those outcomes should be measured, not assumed.

Why Rosebud County matters

Rosebud County provides a useful local example of how detention policy, budgets and accountability can shift.

On July 1, 2025, the Rosebud County Commissioners voted 3-0 to move the Detention Center out of the Sheriff’s budget and into the general fund, with the detention supervisor reporting to the commissioners. But on July 15, 2025, the commissioners voted 3-0 to move Detention back under the Sheriff’s Department. The minutes state that Dispatch would remain under the previously approved separate structure.

That sequence matters because a single meeting can give an incomplete picture. Rosebud County’s current public website continues to list Detention under the Sheriff’s Office, which is consistent with the later July 15 action.

The county’s capital-improvement planning has also identified detention-related needs, including a proposed $175,000 booking/storage expansion. Rosebud’s detention center is listed as holding up to 26 inmates.

This is not only a Rosebud County issue

Large counties are also facing detention-cost pressure. Yellowstone County’s FY2026 budget states that rising detention costs have required more than $6 million in General Fund transfers over the prior three fiscal years, with another $4 million projected for that fiscal year.

The Road to Change proposal is therefore being developed as a statewide policy question: when Montana taxpayers are already funding detention during placement delays, can the state use that time more effectively while preserving safety, accountability and local control?

Working draft — Road to Change Act

Read the current working legislative draft

WORKING DRAFT — FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT

AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING LAWS RELATED TO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS JAIL-HOLD PLACEMENTS; REQUIRING EARLY NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND REASONABLE ACCESS TO APPROVED PROGRAMMING WHILE AN ELIGIBLE PERSON AWAITS PLACEMENT; REQUIRING CONTINUITY AND TRANSFER OF PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION; PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF APPROVED COUNTY COSTS; REQUIRING FISCAL AND OUTCOME REPORTING; PROVIDING RULEMAKING AUTHORITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Section 1. Short title.

This act may be cited as the “Road to Change Act.”

Section 2. Purpose.

The purpose of this act is to reduce unproductive waiting time for individuals committed to the Department of Corrections and temporarily housed in county detention facilities while awaiting assessment, transportation or placement, while protecting public safety and improving fiscal accountability.

Section 3. Definitions.

For purposes of this act:

“Eligible jail-hold participant” means a person committed to the Department of Corrections who is temporarily housed in a county detention facility while awaiting placement, transport, assessment or transfer and who is clinically, legally and operationally eligible for approved programming.
“Approved programming” means evidence-informed or department-approved education, substance-use treatment, cognitive-behavioral programming, vocational preparation, reentry preparation, behavioral-health services, assessment or other rehabilitative programming appropriate to the participant’s needs and custody status.
“Participating detention facility” means a county detention facility that agrees to provide or facilitate approved programming under standards established by the department.

Section 4. Early assessment and programming plan.

As soon as practicable after an individual is placed on a Department of Corrections jail-hold list, the department shall review available assessments and identify programming that may begin before transfer.
The department shall make reasonable efforts to begin eligible programming during the waiting period when the programming can be delivered safely, lawfully and without interfering with required court proceedings, medical care, classification or facility security.
Programming may be delivered through approved county staff, contracted providers, remote instruction, secure electronic delivery, approved written curricula or other methods established by department rule.

Section 5. Continuity and credit for completed work.

The department shall maintain a transferable record of assessments, courses, treatment modules and other approved programming completed or substantially completed during a jail hold.
A receiving department facility or contracted program may not require unnecessary duplication of substantially equivalent work solely because the work was completed before transfer.
Nothing in this section requires a receiving program to accept work that does not meet its clinical, educational, security or accreditation requirements.

Section 6. County participation and reimbursement.

This act does not require a county to establish a new program, hire additional staff or incur unreimbursed costs.
The department may enter agreements with county detention facilities and qualified providers to deliver approved programming.
The department shall reimburse reasonable and preapproved direct costs associated with services provided under this act, subject to legislative appropriation.

Section 7. Fiscal accountability and performance reporting.

The department shall report at least annually to the appropriate legislative interim committee and the Legislative Fiscal Division. The report must include, to the extent practicable:

the average and median number of days individuals remain on county jail hold before placement;
the total amount paid to counties for jail-hold reimbursement;
the number of eligible individuals offered programming and the number participating;
programming expenditures per participant;
assessments and programs completed before transfer;
instances in which previously completed work prevented duplicate assessment or programming;
changes in total time from commitment to completion of required programming;
available outcome measures, including successful completion and recidivism when methodologically appropriate; and
estimated costs avoided or additional costs incurred, with the methodology used to calculate those amounts.

Section 8. Limitations.

Nothing in this act creates a right to release, parole, a particular placement, sentence reduction or participation in a specific program. The department may restrict or deny participation when necessary for security, legal, medical, clinical or program-eligibility reasons.

Section 9. Rulemaking.

The Department of Corrections may adopt rules necessary to implement this act, including standards for eligible programming, documentation, reimbursement, data collection, security and program equivalency.

Section 10. Fiscal note and implementation.

Before final legislative enactment, the proposal should receive a formal fiscal analysis using the current jail-hold reimbursement rate, current average daily jail-hold population, projected program-delivery costs and any anticipated savings from reduced duplication or detention days.

Section 11. Effective date.

The effective date will be determined during formal legislative drafting after consultation with the Department of Corrections, counties, detention administrators, treatment providers and legislative staff.

This is a policy-development draft, not an introduced bill. Final statutory language, code sections, appropriations and effective dates would require review and drafting through the Montana legislative process.

Sources reviewed

Truth in Focus will update this working proposal as additional current cost data, county records and legislative feedback become available.

Look at the record. Follow the facts. Ask the questions.

#TruthInFocus #Change #Turning #Treatment #Tracking #EasternMontana