Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 6945 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 6945 'P T�Nfex zi PTER, To the Mayor and Members of the City Council June 12, 1984 Subject: FORT WORTH REHABILITATION FARM t On June 30, 1984, the lease agreement between the City of Fort Worth and the Fort Worth Rehabilitation Farm for the use of land and facilities to operate an alcoholic rehabilitation center will expire. A recent review of the cost- effectiveness of the City's involvement with the Rehabilitation Farm coupled with consideration of other issues and upcoming events, such as the move to the new Police/Jail Complex, indicate that the City Council would be well-advised to examine other options before granting a long-term extension of the Rehabilitation Farm's lease. This report brings into focus many of the issues the City should consider in this situation and recommends a strategy for pursuing the most advantageous alternative with respect to the handling of inebriates. Background The Fort Worth Rehabilitation Farm was begun in 1958 when the City leased approximately 109 City-owned acres adjoining Lake Worth to the new Liberty Mission. The City initially used the facility as barracks, living quarters and a rehabilitation area for alcoholics and others. The original lease stipulated a five-year period with a five-year option. Twice, the City renewed the five-year option and eventually extended to a ten year lease in 1973. The original facility was a dual-run operation with the Police Department operating in one-half of the building and the Reverend Cooper's operation in the other half. The Police Department retains responsibility for the prisoners committed there by the Municipal Courts to work off fines imposed for alcohol-related offenses. The Reverend Cooper's "free" side houses individuals who have sought voluntary commitment for alcoholism. The facility has evolved into a refuge for the hard core alcoholics in the city limits and as a shelter during particularly hard times. The farm is well-known by the derelicts as evidenced by repeated visits by the same client population. Until fiscal year 1983-84, the City of Fort Worth maintained a staff on the security side that consisted of a sergeant and five police officers who were ! responsible for those inmates confined there as a result of Municipal Court rulings. This function was converted to a civilian program during this budget year. The Reverend Cooper now has a contract to provide meals for those prisoners confined in the City Jail . This contract for both facilities has been in effect since 1979 and is currently reviewed every six months . In recent months , the City has uncovered problems with food quality at the Rehabilitation Farm. The food has failed upon occasions to meet standards as prescribed in the contract . The Police Department has documented instances where foods from the stipulated food groups were not served. The Police Department reports that Reverend Cooper has now corrected the problems , but the jail staff continues to monitor the quality of the food. J ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER -- FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 6945 _ Page 2 E 4oRr 0 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council June 12, 1984 TeX Subject: FORT WORTH REHABILITATION FARM Other Problem Areas The Reverend Cooper at the present time aloes not offer a full-service alcohol treatment program. The Texa4 Commission on Alcoholism recently voted to deny a license for the Farm because the Farm did not meet their requirements. The Commission stated in their report that the reason for non-licensure was that the Rehabilitation Farm could not provide any documentation of a full treat- ment program. The result of this failure to be licensed caused the Reverend Cooper to lose a contract worth $365,000 with the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board of Pardons and Paroles also could not find any documentation of a treatment program. Some residents in the Lake Worth area have complained to the City about the presence of the Farm and have alleged various problems associated with the Farm's clients. City/County Jail The new City/County Jail Building is scheduled for occupancy by the beginning of the new budget year. Feeding of the prisoners by an outside agency will no longer be required since the prisoners will be the County's responsibility under the existing contractual agreements. The County Jail uses inmate personnel to staff a fully-equipped kitchen to prepare meals for personnel housed there. Therefore, one of the prime sources of the Reverend Cooper's income derived from the Farm will be eliminated. Land Usage The Rehabilitation Farm is located on land that was developed for park use during the 1930's. It was later among the tracts leased for agricultural purposes to protect the land that was at one time more than the City could maintain. The existing facility effectively separates the Nature Center's northern and southern boundary. The facility also includes a rocky habitat that is not found elsewhere on the refuge. The Park and Recreation Department remains ready to progress with development of the land that is now a part of the Rehabilitation Farm and has submitted several proposals for land use. One option would entail the return by the Rehabilitation Farm of a large portion of the 109 acres to the Prak and Recreation Department; another option is to return all of the land to park purposes. Cost of Operating the Rehabilitation Farm During calendar year 1983, the inmate population at the Rehabilitation Farm averaged approximately 34 prisoners per day (a total of 12,406 prisoner days) . If the City continues to average 34 prisoners per day in the 1984-85 fiscal year, the cost per prisoner per day will total $16.93. The staff derived this figure by taking the total Rehabilitation Farm budget (including salaries for five Jail Attendant II's, fringe benefits, supplies, food contract costs, and several minor capital outlay items) and dividing the amount by the number Cof prisoner days: $210,001/12,406 Prisoner Days = $16.93 Per Prisoner Day ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER -- FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 6945 -- Page 3 *SAE, June 12, 1984 ~0�50 RT�A To the Mayor and Members of the City Council u � i 'rExA� Subject: FORT WORTH REHABILITATION FARM s» Excluding salaries and fringe benefits, food costs comprise the bulk of the City's expenditures at the Rehabilitation Farm. Reverend Cooper has served meals at the Farm since 19794. Prior to March, 1984, meal costs totaled $3.29 per prisoner per day (based on a monthly minimum of 65 prisoners average per day) at a total monthly cost of $6,425. The current rate is set at $4.295 per prisoner per day (based on a monthly minimum of 50 prisoner average per day) at a total monthly cost of $6,443. The current contract went into effect in March, 1984. If the City could keep an average of fifty prisoners at the Farm, costs per prisoner per day would total: $210,001/18,250 Prisoner Days = $11.51 per Prisoner Day However, the probability of averaging fifty prisoners during a month is very low. Experiments placing prisoners at the facility who exhibit no alcohol problems have been failures. In one example, four prisoners were placed at the Farm to work off fines - three ran away. The cost scenarios just outlined do not include prisoner transport costs or anticipated building maintenance costs. The costs of a car and an officer to escort the prisoners are substantial at an estimate of $26,270 per year. Requested building maintenance costs are approximately $40,690 (air conditioner installation and roof repair) for fiscal year 1984-85. If the City decides to discontinue Rehabilitation Farm operations and house the current number of prisoners at the new City/County Jail, maximum costs per prisoner per day would total $16.50. This amount is based on the seven- year contract signed with the County. Using the cost projections of $16.93 per prisoner per day, housing prisoners in the jail would be less costly than continuing the relationship with the Rehabilitation Farm. It would only be more cost-effective to continue the Rehabilitation Farm if the City maintained an• average number of prisoners closer to the fifty prisoner limit set in the food contract of if the monthly minimum could be brought closer to the actual daily average (34) . Considerations Before examining the City's available options with respect to the Rehabilitation Farm, several factors need to be taken into consideration. First, it is feared by some that ending the City"s relationship with the Farm and simply confining derelicts to jail to serve their imposed sentences could cause an unwanted growth in the number of inebriates on downtown streets. Signi'fi'cant growth in the number of this population on the streets could have a harmful effect on the economy of the central business district. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER — FORT WORTH, TEXAS t r INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 6945 _ page 4 MrP 7[N[p DoE Foar,�p To the Mayor and Members of the City Council June 12, 1984 rExA`' Subject: FORT WORTH REHABILITATION FARM .07] Second, there are humanitarian considerations involved in changing the City's handling of alcoholic vagrants. The Farm certainly provides an improved environment for this client group when compared with jail. The alcohol treat- ment community would likely he distressed if the Farm were to close with no alternative offered for housing these individuals. Third, it has been questioned what the effect of ending the City's involvement with the Rehabilitation Farm would have on those persons now housed on Reverend Cooper's "free" side operation. For the past twelve months, the "free" side has averaged approximately 80 residents per day. Would there be an alternative institution for those alcoholics who have sought voluntary assignment to the Farm? Would this clientele also ultimately be found on downtown streets and have to be processed through the criminal justice system? Fourth, it is open to debate whether the care of alcoholic vagrants should be a City responsibility. Perhaps this function could better be provided by other governmental entities or by the private sector. Recommendation Taking into account the problems identified with the Rehabilitation Farm's operation and the drawbacks to its closure, the following steps are recommended: 1) Grant an interim extension to the Farm under current provisions until September 30, 1984. This ninety day period will allow the City to carefully explore alternatives. 2) Develop and issue Requests for Proposals (RFP's) to determine if a higher quality, more cost-effective alternative program can be found. The RFP's should be reviewed and evaluated well in advance of September 30, 1984. 3) Should no more desirable alternative program be found as a result of the RFP process, it is recommended that the City's relationship with the Rehabilitation Farm be continued, but under revised conditions. First, the land area leased to the Farm should be greatly reduced and the balance of the land returned to park usage. Second, the food contract, which expires September 30, 1984, should be negotiated on terms more favorable to the City with the intent being to bring per prisoner costs below that of confinement to the jail ($16.50) . If these recommendations are acceptable to the City Council, an M&C extending the City's lease agreement with the Rehabilitation Farm until September 30, 1984, will be placed on the Council agenda for action. Also, the RFP described above will be developed and issued. ( If additional information is needed, it will be rovided upon request. Robert L. Herchert City Manager RLH:j c ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER -- FORT WORTH, TEXAS