Logansport, Indiana
The Setting
Cass County is a rural Indiana county of approximately 38,000 people located about 90 miles north of Indianapolis. The county seat is Logansport. The pretrial program launched in 2018 under adult probation and became an independent department in 2020 when the judiciary separated pre and post-conviction supervision per evidence-based best practices, relocating to the courthouse. By 2025, the program had seen a 180 percent increase in utilization and is fully funded by the county, staffed by a director, two case managers, two part-time public defenders on stipend, and an embedded therapeutic services team. The program does not charge fees for pretrial supervision.
The Challenge
When the county's only behavioral health provider relocated 45 minutes away, the pretrial program lost its primary referral partner at the moment clients needed services most. Individuals were cycling through arrests and eventually reaching post-conviction supervision before the system would pay for treatment. The pretrial stage was a gap. The director recognized that intervening closest to the point of crisis produces the most effective stabilization, but no local infrastructure existed to make that possible.
The Strategy
The program built an in-house therapeutic services department, beginning with a no-cost intern pilot. Interns from the local behavioral health provider were embedded in the courthouse to provide support services to pretrial clients on a voluntary basis. The pilot produced a 25 percent reduction in new arrests and technical violations related to substance use. That data justified the next investment.
The current model includes a subcontracted clinical psychologist serving as clinical director, two therapists working four days per week, and three program peer recovery specialists from the behavioral health provider rotating through 32 hours per week. Therapists bill Medicaid and private insurance for most clients, reducing the program's net cost by approximately 60 percent. All services are voluntary, with staff focused on identifying and addressing underlying needs rather than solely monitoring compliance, balancing opportunity with accountability. No client has ever received a violation for declining. Results from the program's 2025 Annual Report reflect the impact of this approach: the program secured 92 inpatient treatment beds, a 20 percent increase, and generated 111 peer referrals, a 247 percent rise. An additional 206 clients engaged in voluntary counseling services, representing a 62 percent increase. These outcomes translated into a 95 percent appearance rate, a 90 percent safety rate, a 20 percent increase in successful program completions, and a 15 percent reduction in unsuccessful terminations.
“People were entering post-conviction supervision just to get access to treatment. You should intervene closest to that crisis point if you want the most effective stabilization.”
— Pretrial director, Cass County
What Made It Work
Several conditions were essential. First, the program started with a pilot rather than a full commitment, which gave skeptical stakeholders data before they had to decide anything. Second, the director embedded the therapeutic services team in the courthouse, making the work visible to prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement in real time. Third, all services are voluntary and carry full client confidentiality, which requires deliberate education of both stakeholders and behavioral health providers who are accustomed to court-ordered treatment settings. Fourth, the Medicaid billing model made the clinical layer financially sustainable without requiring the county to fund it directly. For clients without insurance, opioid settlement funds and grants cover the cost of services, removing economic barriers to treatment and ensuring equal access regardless of coverage status. Fifth, judicial champions actively supported the program's growth and helped redirect overzealous stakeholders when needed.
The foundation throughout was data. The program tracked jail population impact, cost savings, and public safety outcomes from its first year. When the state eliminated grant funding for 11 pretrial programs, the county council funded Cass County without debate because the case had already been made.
Considerations for Replication
Programs considering this approach should expect to invest in stakeholder education before introducing voluntary services. Prosecutors and judges accustomed to court-ordered treatment need to understand why voluntary engagement produces better outcomes, and behavioral health providers need training in pretrial-specific practice before they are embedded. The director recommends beginning with an intern pilot, measuring its impact, and using that data to justify the next step rather than asking for a full commitment upfront.
Services like housing assistance and employment support should not be conditions of release. Clients must have full agency. Investing in staff training, including enhanced Motivational Interviewing and coaching, supports a success-based supervision model that engages clients more effectively than court-ordered services can.
For rural communities without a nearby behavioral health provider, the Medicaid billing model remains viable if a subcontractor with an existing practice can be identified. The clinical director does not need to be a full-time employee.
In the summary brief
Educate stakeholders on pretrial functions before seeking operational commitments.
The pretrial director holds small-group meetings separately with law enforcement, prosecutors, and public defenders, each group in its own setting, with space to ask questions that might not surface in a mixed room. When a new deputy prosecutor joins the office, a meeting happens within weeks.
Also under Strategy 2
This project was supported by Grant No. 15PBJA-22-GK-03661-JAGT awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.