Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 18, 2011,
Item 31
31.
consider and take appropriate action on application for Travis County to be selected as a justice reinvestment initiative phase ii site by the bureau of justice assistance to become eligible for funding and technical support for a sobriety center.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> hi, judge, I am
>> [indiscernible]
>> and I am david, Travis County attorney.
>> and I should say david and rosemary rumburg seven as co-chairs to the justice community council as well as co-chairs to the urban institute reinvestment initiative we will talk about today.
by way of background, let me review how we got here.
back in the spring of 2009, Travis County applied and was selected by the urban institute to be part of what was called then the justice reinvestment at the local level initiative.
the idea is you identify initiatives that will help you save money you can reinvest in other public safety initiatives.
we went through a pretty lengthy strategic planning process over the next year.
if you go to the backup, the very last page of the backup, it's the cover page of the results of that strategic planning process, and in that back up, or in that strategic planning process, we identified several initiatives that we believe would help the us control the growth of the jail population the next few years.
we looked at jail population from booking and arrests to indictment, indictment to disposition and from disposition to discharge from a reentry perspective and several initiatives were selected.
among them, were as you can see a sobriety center.
that idea has been around probably a decade in Travis County.
there was a feasibility study done back in 2002, which identified the need for such a facility.
it was resurrected in 2005 in a group of initiatives that were selected to help address the problems of mental illness and chronic inebriation, and a strategy session we went through last year, the sobriety session was resurrected once again.
the urban institute did some data crunching for us and in the report, they identified -- they looked at time period from October 1st '06 to June 30 of '09, in that time 167,000 bookings in our jail which represented 97,000 individuals.
thirty-two% or 31,700 people made up 64% of those bookings in that time period and ate up 69% of jail bed days.
fifty% were frequent users charged with c or b misdemeanors, which include public intoxication.
the court in the downtown Austin community court, 21% of their offenders are charged with public intoxication.
if your back-up, there is a sir areries of questions we attempted to answer is -- is public intoxication a problem in Travis County and would a sobriety center be an appropriate response?
if you look at the numbers both at numbers at urban institute crunched for us and the numbers we were able to identify through our analysis you can see it is a significant issue.
as part of the urban institute analysis they recommend a diversion for those frequent users and among the strategic planning process, among other initiatives we landed up in in a sobriety center.
we did an annual analysis over a year and identify had 500 class c public intoxication potential users of the sobriety center, no other charge, and 531 class b's, enhanced pi's, with no other charge and again this would be a population that would be a potential for a sobriety center and represents about 10% of our jail bookings.
what we did over -- this grant came out when we were enjoying christmas.
the grant solicitation came out and we were on a short time frame.
what e did was take the sobriety center feasibility study in 2002, updated it and was able to bring to it community justice council and you can see identified five motions they approved
>> the sobriety center as in vision would be 20 beds.
it would serve about 7,000 annually, we anticipate.
if you calqueue late the jail bed days you have one and a half slots for a potential client which will open up about some slots and we got firm interest in the medical community about utilizing the sobriety center and supporting the idea they have a number of -- when someone is arrested for public intoxication, they are often taken to jail but often taken to emergency room which is now serving some subset of that as a defactor sobering center, they sober up and let go without any services.
we estimate the cost to be 1.3 million dollars the first years of a sobriety center.
let me specify this, a tight turn around, due February 1st which would require you all to approve it next Tuesday so we are taking the opportunity to get up a little bit and give you background.
it is application to apply to become a phase two site.
the last year and a half we have done all of the requirements for a phase one site which would be part of the application, that is going through a strategic planning process during the data analysis, providing some initiatives.
the potential -- not promising, the potential would be about a 500,000-dollar downpayment on a sobriety center, so they would -- there would obviously have to be some source of funding for the remaining 700 or $800,000.
if we are selected as a site there would be application due in April of this year and a selection would be made in probably July they think and they would not expect us to open a sobriety center on that day.
the idea would be to go through a formal planning process that would be paid for out of of these funds as well.
have agreed to provide us professional siting facilitation because that is one of the outstanding issues on where something like this would be located.
it is pass through money -- federal pass through money from the bureau of justice assistance, through the center for effective public policy.
again, the cjc approves the motions in your backup which include going forward with this application, pending your approval, in early January, and there is two -- I will say there is two outstanding issues that we are going to have to work on in the next week.
there is a discussion about those sources of funding and the idea again blind justice reinvestment is there is up front investment made to achieve savings down the road.
we were heartened at first by savings that the city of san antonio has published with their sobriety center, but in looking at the backup for how they did it, I think there is a concurrence that that is probably not real budget savings that would occur in, say, one of the agency's budgets.
this idea would be that a sobriety center would impact on the county side the jail, the county attorney's office, indigent defense attorney fees.
for the city, it would be the community court, law enforcement, and again for the medical community, it would be cost around the emergency room.
so begin what we are asking --
>> all of those costs together -- do you carry all of those costs in the same thing?
>> yes, that is the idea of doing this.
>> in other words, you have just -- you say this is the funding sources that we have to make available now.
what would that total be?
for, say, with those criteria that you mentioned as far as those that are involved?
how would it be offset?
>> well, by budget, to see what if anything the impact would be on my office on real savings, I don't think you have anything full yet.
>> but it's still good to know.
>> sure.
>> in advance.
in other words, what I don't want to do is get in a situation where it's not -- it may sound good on the front end but on the back end it becomes more costly than it is up front and I want to make sure that we -- I would like to see a good clear example around as we go through this process -- not saying we shouldn't go forward -- but before we go to the end of the this road and stuff I want to see exactly where it is working strategically and it says day those counties as far as funding how to impact the budget and I am letting you know up front where I am coming on that because I think it is very critical that we make sure that the things hand the programs we get into, whether that can be future funding for us, a lot of things being made for us and where is it working in the country and how is it impacting other folk's budget who may be doing something to what we are doing, as we get close to what is actually out there in the real world.
>> absolutely.
>> and, again, let me say this.
we had the sheriff's office here not too long ago, which we actually got involved the sheriff office, when they called to issue an example of the particular mentally challenged person that we actually housed in our jail, how expensive it is, about $21 million to deal with those kind of situations.
this is to offset some of that.
the more the merrier, I think, but as far as taking care -- because there definitely has been a decrease, no doubt about it -- in the beds made available for our mentally challenged persons in this community and you did bring up mentally persons that you have repeat offenders, some of those are mentally challenged.
so it's a lot -- there is a lot into all of this so before we get too far, I want to make sure you understand where I am looking and where I am trying to go as we proceed, if we end up supporting all of the things you recommended so I am happening on the table before we get there.
>> thank you, Commissioner, absolutely.
and I don't think anyone will disagree.
where we are today, the preliminary step to apply to apply but our experience m of our experience with past efforts, the true challenge has been just that question, the funding part and what the offset might be, and there is still plenty -- a great deal of work before the court would have to have any expectations to consider moving forward in a final stage for this.
>> in fact, if we are selected to apply that second step, the application, to actually receive funding would require that type of analysis, to identify where are your savings would appear.
>> so up front, what -- up front who are the potential partners?
up front, it would be the city of Austin.
obviously it would be the county agencies that I mentioned earlier.
community justice council and hospitals.
I have a meeting with seton this afternoon.
and they attended our meetings where the community justice council voted on the motions and I have had an opportunity to meet with both representatives from seton's and st.
david's about their interest.
>> and I hear you mention the sheriff's office.
>> and the sheriff's office, yes, they participated in the community justice council.
>> right.
because they have to deal with the end of it.
>> right.
>> who arepartners in bear lake?
>> it's actually a county, city private partnership.
it would be very similar to ours except we, right now, don't have any private participation or interest that I am aware of.
>> city, county, public even in -- who are the private ones.
>> businessmen -- not just the sobriety center, but overall for the chronics.
>> the former ceo of valero was the point person on this who brought many large business private sector involvement into haven for hope.
>> so in bexar county, the sobriety center is part of that huge complex that deals with homelessness and job training, et cetera?
>> correct.
one of the things to that point, one of the motions that was approved by the cjc and I the think it's important is the sobriety center in and of itself is not the silver bullet.
it would be larger tool kit to address some of the issues we have to people who are in the criminal justice center of people who have other mental health issues and other addictions and you are probably aware of the effort going on right now with the city in different partners on establishing permanent support of housing and addressing some of the shortage -- you are actually going to see a grant request next week to do some planning around identifying and closing gaps in the mental health system we have here in Travis County.
but one of the motions was to include the sobriety center concept with strategy and permanent support housing and expansion of support services and other possible initiatives to address that population much like the haven for hope does.
it is more comprehensive and holistic.
>> and I ask included in that constellation would be perhaps a secure wing at brackenridge for the mentally ill and also for our prison population -- our physically ill prison population.
>> yes.
.3 covers the facility -- 1.3 covers the facility.
>> first year of operation, assuming it is a lease.
>> okay.
so 1.3 million dollars covers the first year of operation?
>> yes, sir.
>> so the annual cost to sort would be about how much?
>> it would be approximately that much less 225,000 for start-up costs.
so 1.1 million is the estimate right now for ongoing annual costs.
>> so we believe we can identify a facility to lease for this?
>> well, it is still very early and I guess it wasn't mentioned -- there is some discussion -- I haven't been a part of that, and I know you have with certain leaders in the community that have different options to consider but u no, at this point judge it is just a request to be a phase two, to be allowed to participate and put together a proposal that will come in April and before that time, and plenty of work to do to identify answers specifically -- before we ever get to, do we believe we can find a place to lease and we believe there are opportunities and we haven't gotten to it yet but one of the large concerns is siting and I think that is a part -- especially a subpart of this request that we might envision asking for in a grant is to get some assistance in helping with transparency in a process towards siting towards this.
but there is so many steps to go towards this but the question is I think we can identify some but we are still far away from that.
>> my last question is, the potential partners that we envision are active members of the community justice council?
all except the medical community, I would say, but, again, they -- go ahead.
>> no, I mean I know there have been meetings surrounding one proposal and there are siting issues -- one proposal of another entity that might provide an actual location, I haven't been a part of that -- I don't know what the status of the discussions are but I envision there are could be others and I think there is still work to go but generally community justice council -- because we have sponsored this reinvestment initiative, we have been more intimately involved the process, but, you know, there are other groups that I keep hearing from time to time with the hospitals and these are the private entities that we still need to entertain discussions with.
>> if this is just one tool in a tool box, is it anticipated it will mention at the level of success we would like to see if the other tools are not yet available?
or are they available?
>> well, that is a good question.
one of the important things around a tool like this is supported services, and you probably all in your back-up, we try to do a baseline analysis of what supportive services and what we don't have.
I am not sure habit the time line of the permanent housing, it wouldn't be the only thing but it would probably be in line -- if it goes well, a sobriety center would be functional about March of 2012 and we would have do line up -- either leverage what we have or work towards adding the supporter services wed need to make this successful, but that is a very good point.
>> it seems to me that if -- I mean, we need to file the application to apply to remain in line.
there are other details we need to work out, though.
>> absolutely.
>> and we have been talking about this off and on for at least a decade.
>> right.
>> but I think it is critical to have the right partners there and there is -- sobriety centers are really just a part of a big tool box.
>> you are right.
>> be this is -- this part directly impacts the county and we can list the county department that is impacted but in the end, you are talking about just one treasury, and that is the county treasury.
so, I don't believe, I guess I am supportive at this stage.
>> it is not they am not -- at this stage early, I am not supporting it.
it's just that all of the moving parts that has to be attached to this, as we proceed.
I understand, you know, it's time to apply.
a deadline is getting closer for applying to this particular situation.
I just want to make sure, though, if we go in this direction, we are able to receive approval through ihe grant application process, then we have everything -- we need to be mindful I guess as we have everything in line this morning as we have everything that needs to be attached and I think there are good questions.
there are a lot of departments that probably held some relationship with some of the things that have been discussed here today and I want to make sure the outreach is available to those departments across the county.
whoever they may be and I think we named a few Commissioner Eckhardt and some of us -- all of us may have leaned into that.
I can see us going forward.
I will second a motion if you want to make it.
>> move approval.
>> I second it.
>> but with those things in mind.
>> and I think it's important to go ahead and move approval.
it is really application to apply, is what I am hearing.
>> exactly.
>> but I think it will help us to put this to any sort of analysis we can reduce to writing, with regards to savings, cost, et cetera, to get a picture and we need to formally communicate with our potential partners to see how real the potentiality is, and, you know -- we know which areas are impacted.
it seems to me they are the ones who are the want to be partners because of self-interest more than anything else but then there are others who may partner with us because it is the right thing to do, at this stage.
>> we have busy week ahead of us and we normally would have that tied up before we came but because of the tight deadline of the grant, it is still moving.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
so do we need to come back next week?
>> yes, sir.
>> if we approve this.
>> the actual grant application -- you don't have the actual application.
we will have that for your approval next week.
>> let's see what sort of financial analysis we can put together in a week's time.
okay.
>> all those in favor?
this passes by unanimous vote.
thank you very much.
>> thank you for your discussion.
>> thank you.
>> why don't we go to 17.
there are three items we can call up together after this one.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, January, 2011 2:47 PM
