Nueces County hears plan to convert MHID site into mental‑health diversion center; renovation estimate $1.5–$2M

Mark Hendricks, director of operations at the Nueces Center for Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities, presented the court with a plan to renovate one of MHID’s existing facilities into a diversion center intended to reduce arrests and hospitalizations of people in psychiatric crisis. The court heard the presentation July 7 in the Nueces County Commissioners Courtroom.

Hendricks said the renovated facility would be a voluntary, short‑term supervised shelter that accepts law‑enforcement drop‑offs and people identified by crisis teams. Services would include on‑site psychiatric assessment and medication management, peer specialists, integrated care planning and discharge support aimed at linking people to longer‑term treatment. Hendricks said average stays at comparable diversion centers typically run seven to 14 days, though shorter or longer stays can occur depending on clinical need.

The MHID presentation included data on local diversion programs: crisis‑intervention teams have served more than 1,050 people through April 2021, including 334 diversions from arrest or hospitalization. MHID said its expanded programs—walk‑in crisis clinic, mobile crisis, jail diversion and competency restoration—serve roughly 10,000 people a year and are funded by a mix of state and federal grants and hospital‑district support.

Hendricks estimated a renovation cost of roughly $1.5 million to $2 million—about $100–$150 per square foot—to convert the existing building to a 24‑hour diversion site with up to 36 short‑term beds. He said renovation is far less costly than new construction and listed potential funding sources including state grants and the American Rescue Plan Act, but added that final eligibility for ARPA funding would require further federal guidance.

Judges and commissioners asked how the diversion process would work in practice. Hendricks and other MHID staff said pre‑arrest diversion relies on partnerships with law enforcement and the district attorney’s office—officers and the DA would be part of the eligibility and screening workflow, consistent with the county’s existing jail‑diversion processes. The court requested a return briefing with a flowchart showing the decision pathway and communications among law enforcement, the DA and MHID.

Next steps: court members directed staff to have the county attorney draft memorandums of understanding and said the court would pursue clarification on ARPA infrastructure rules with federal contacts. MHID will return with more detailed operating and flow‑chart materials for further review.

Hendrick’s presentation and answers to commissioners' questions framed the diversion center as an element of the county’s broader jail diversion strategy rather than a replacement for inpatient or competency restoration services.