By LeRoy Nellis — Investigative Contributor
In the quiet corridors of county jails across Texas and beyond, a subtle shift in power is unfolding—one that few residents know about, and even fewer understand. At the heart of this transformation lies a bureaucratic tool with outsized influence: the Intergovernmental Agreement, or IGA.
These agreements, often buried in county records or tucked into budget line items, allow external agencies—state, federal, or even private—to operate within local jail facilities. On paper, they promise efficiency, resource-sharing, and expanded services. In practice, they may be creating zones of legal ambiguity and democratic detachment.
What Is an IGA Site?
An IGA site is a program or facility embedded within a county jail but operated under an agreement with another governmental entity. These can include immigration detention units, mental health pods, reentry programs, or contracted incarceration services. In some cases, private corporations like CoreCivic or GEO Group are brought in to manage operations, adding another layer of complexity.
The result? A patchwork of overlapping jurisdictions where accountability is often unclear, and transparency is elusive.
Who’s Really in Charge?
County commissioners may approve the agreements, but day-to-day control often shifts to the partnering agency. This means decisions about staffing, inmate treatment, and even disciplinary procedures can be made by entities that aren’t directly answerable to local voters.
In Williamson County, for example, recent discussions around jail expansion have raised questions about who benefits—and who decides. If an IGA site is involved, is the county still steering the ship, or is it merely hosting someone else’s agenda?
Follow the Money—If You Can
One of the most troubling aspects of IGA sites is the opacity of their funding. Budgets tied to these agreements are frequently harder to trace than standard county expenditures. Contracts may be shielded from public scrutiny, and performance metrics—if they exist—are rarely shared.
This lack of financial clarity makes it difficult for watchdogs, journalists, or concerned citizens to assess whether these arrangements serve the public interest or simply pad the bottom line of private contractors.
Justice in the Shadows
Beyond governance and finance, IGA sites raise urgent ethical questions. Are detainees in these facilities receiving equal treatment under the law? Are they subject to different standards of care, legal access, or rehabilitation?
Preliminary data suggests that inmate outcomes—such as recidivism rates, health conditions, and access to legal counsel—may vary significantly between IGA-operated units and traditional county-run facilities. But without transparency, these disparities remain hidden.
The Public Doesn’t Know—And That’s the Point
Perhaps the most striking feature of IGA sites is how little the public knows about them. Despite their growing footprint in local justice systems, these agreements rarely make headlines. They’re not debated in town halls or scrutinized in campaign platforms. They operate in the shadows—quietly reshaping the landscape of incarceration.
A Call for Civic Vigilance
If local governance is the bedrock of democracy, then the rise of IGA sites demands urgent attention. Residents deserve to know who’s operating within their jails, how decisions are made, and whether justice is being served—or outsourced.
Transparency isn’t just a bureaucratic ideal—it’s a civic necessity. And in the case of IGA sites, it may be the only way to bring shadow governance back into the light.
LeRoy Nellis 