I've read Helen Ross McNabb's response to the RFP. With the parameters set by KCSO on who would qualify, this center will divert maybe 120 people total from the jail in any given year. If an inmate has been assaultive, which nearly all mentally ill are since that's how they wind up in the attention of law enforcement, he or she won't qualify as a for instance. It is stabilization only - dope 'em, calm them, offer future services. The fact that we do not have those services - housing, affordable treatment centers, dedicated as in assigned case workers, income (these folks are broke period), job training, longterm after care (the mentally ill don't think they need meds or, if they do, can't afford them or don't know how to go about the process of getting them) etc... - even that small few who get diverted are highly unlikely to find real solutions and - the epic fail - they can't ever go back to the safety center. And when you do the math of the cost per bed, it's not even more cost effective especially when you consider that because so few will be diverted, JJ is still going to want money to build more pods. Helen Ross is driving this train. They were the only facility to bid. They've already been turned down for two grants because their plans were too vague. (This is all research I've done on my own time and I have not been assigned the story so save the why haven't you written this. I've tried to steer, but I'm not driving. I had planned on blogging it, which I may still do in some personal blog format). The concept of a diversion program is sound. But this one, as crafted thus far? Jury's out. I would compare it to drug court sans the baumgartner scandal. Drug court hasn't solved addiction. It hasn't shut down the court revolving door. But it has, with very little extra money and thanks to dedicated judges, probation officers etc..., changed some lives because a) failures didn't bar you (consequences, yes, but on a scale) b) admission wasn't so strictly defined and recognized that thieves are addicts 99 percent of the time. So, instead of just saying those with drug charges, the entry door was set wider to capture crimes driven by drugs c) there were actually services available - dedicated beds in treatment facilities and halfway houses, AA, NA meetings (required), transition programs, social services for all the side issues (kids, jobs, etc...) If you look at drug court on paper, you'd go man that failure rate is pretty high. But when you add in the math - the cost to run it - it is a cost-effective means to at least, at least give people a serious chance at serious change and those few who take that chance and work their program and make it out - well, that's a miracle and a blessing, to our judicial system and our community. In the hands of people who are not already invested in the solution they've already set based on their own beliefs, prejudices and, let's face it, benefit, a diversion program has real potential to change the lives of the mentally ill and improve our system in the process. But when the only people driving this ship are the sheriff and helen ross, well, there's just not enough voices there. Why hasn't the public defender's office been invited into this conversation. These inmates to be diverted, that's their people. They know what can work and what can't. Where are the judges who would have to authorize diversion and approve the parameters? Where are state officials? None of these and other stakeholders have spurned this conversation. They haven't been invited to join. This so called judicial committee has met maybe once in five years and even when they meet, it's JJ's people and Helen Ross doing the agenda setting. That's my personal opinion based on my 27 years of professional experience for what it's worth.