News (Media Awareness Project) - US MO: County Splits Contract For Court-Ordered Drug Treatment |
Title: | US MO: County Splits Contract For Court-Ordered Drug Treatment |
Published On: | 2003-02-25 |
Source: | Kansas City Star (MO) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-20 23:50:50 |
COUNTY SPLITS CONTRACT FOR COURT-ORDERED DRUG TREATMENT
The Jackson County Legislature resolved a dispute between two competing
drug-court treatment vendors by awarding contracts Monday to both
businesses.
Jim Nunnelly, program administrator for the county's drug tax, which pays
for the drug court, called the split contract an experiment but said it was
an amicable resolution to the problem.
"I'm looking at nothing but positive things," Nunnelly said. "We've got the
best of all worlds. Taxpayers can see two (treatment) providers at work. It
enhances competition."
The county operates a drug court that allows offenders to avoid
incarceration if they successfully complete a treatment program. Thousands
participate in the program each year. Despite the recent discord, the court
continues to operate.
The dispute began in November when county legislators awarded a contract to
a new drug-court vendor, Addiction Recovery Inc., the low bidder.
However, two outside evaluators gave Addiction Recovery failing marks while
giving high marks to County Court Services, which had held the contract
nearly seven years.
County Court Services then sued the county, alleging that Addiction
Recovery's $628,000 contract was based on favoritism. County Court Services
alleged in its lawsuit that Dan Tarwater, chairman of the legislature's
anti-drug committee, and Timothy Donaldson, Addiction Recovery's president,
were neighbors and friends.
Tarwater and Donaldson denied the allegation. Tarwater said Addiction
Recovery's bid was $42,000 lower than that of County Court Services.
County Court Services dropped its lawsuit after legislators voted to have
five new evaluators review the proposals.
Nunnelly said Addiction Recovery's score rose during the second evaluation
and that it scored best on cost. However, Court Services outscored Addiction
Recovery in most areas and ranked best on experience.
Tarwater, who introduced the split contract Monday, said all parties had put
aside their differences to reach the resolution.
"The two separate companies will be working together to make each other
stronger," Tarwater said. "Each will become better at what they do."
Officials with Addiction Recovery and County Court Services could not be
reached for comment.
Under the one-year agreement, County Court Services, based downtown, will
receive $475,446. The company will evaluate incoming drug-court participants
and take them through the first phase of treatment.
Both companies will be equipped to provide the second phase of treatment.
Addiction Recovery, which has offices in Independence, will receive
$224,213. It will take drug-court participants through their final treatment
phase.
Nunnelly said the Jackson County prosecutor was forming an oversight
committee to monitor the plan and report monthly to the legislature.
The Jackson County Legislature resolved a dispute between two competing
drug-court treatment vendors by awarding contracts Monday to both
businesses.
Jim Nunnelly, program administrator for the county's drug tax, which pays
for the drug court, called the split contract an experiment but said it was
an amicable resolution to the problem.
"I'm looking at nothing but positive things," Nunnelly said. "We've got the
best of all worlds. Taxpayers can see two (treatment) providers at work. It
enhances competition."
The county operates a drug court that allows offenders to avoid
incarceration if they successfully complete a treatment program. Thousands
participate in the program each year. Despite the recent discord, the court
continues to operate.
The dispute began in November when county legislators awarded a contract to
a new drug-court vendor, Addiction Recovery Inc., the low bidder.
However, two outside evaluators gave Addiction Recovery failing marks while
giving high marks to County Court Services, which had held the contract
nearly seven years.
County Court Services then sued the county, alleging that Addiction
Recovery's $628,000 contract was based on favoritism. County Court Services
alleged in its lawsuit that Dan Tarwater, chairman of the legislature's
anti-drug committee, and Timothy Donaldson, Addiction Recovery's president,
were neighbors and friends.
Tarwater and Donaldson denied the allegation. Tarwater said Addiction
Recovery's bid was $42,000 lower than that of County Court Services.
County Court Services dropped its lawsuit after legislators voted to have
five new evaluators review the proposals.
Nunnelly said Addiction Recovery's score rose during the second evaluation
and that it scored best on cost. However, Court Services outscored Addiction
Recovery in most areas and ranked best on experience.
Tarwater, who introduced the split contract Monday, said all parties had put
aside their differences to reach the resolution.
"The two separate companies will be working together to make each other
stronger," Tarwater said. "Each will become better at what they do."
Officials with Addiction Recovery and County Court Services could not be
reached for comment.
Under the one-year agreement, County Court Services, based downtown, will
receive $475,446. The company will evaluate incoming drug-court participants
and take them through the first phase of treatment.
Both companies will be equipped to provide the second phase of treatment.
Addiction Recovery, which has offices in Independence, will receive
$224,213. It will take drug-court participants through their final treatment
phase.
Nunnelly said the Jackson County prosecutor was forming an oversight
committee to monitor the plan and report monthly to the legislature.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...