Full Text
vison’ommittee Advisory Committee Members Jail Construction Report to the Sheriff James Cunnigha.m Tom Jewett Scott Ochs Charles Uttech Gary Wood ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OE CONTENTS Section 1 Narrative Summary pages 35 SectionZ. ,NewInitiativespage6 S.ection 3 Recommendations .age 7 Section4. ,Referencespage$ Section5. JaiiStatisticsAppendixpage9 ---PAGE BREAK--- iiistoiicJ P’ersj2ecte h \hvch Ui1 Sher’t Pi •erHIej rn I\ j1’iiLo “inii.eJ t’e’ 1 r IHC COTNIHIIIUI\ rHei[\ITIN iIkH,;Jed CriflhlIhil juhiee pi’uouiR. •ilemi. and ticerned eihi/en \fler eral ‘Lmnme etinc. the L mm thee locucJ iN T’1j’jOt! on e\uninine the hitu ‘I the current ( oriind ( ount J:nl md Jc’ ‘one a plan of I’ ret tnn l’I!.!tLJe!I’t”. I ‘ i’ tired ‘h’n \iT1In1l it’ I \siea .trhiciure are hlu prni. Still] duiLJ e’ iai [kLtiiL’ \it hcriii l’riee_ h]llain h(il\ nii I ieuteii 5 hilt IuhLi Iciec iii jIiIihl)Ii. lulL mIMe mmii’r iluled ILihiIiLsinciuciiie tilL’ Lt uet oant\ .ini and he hiea( iunI’, hit. ant e’ mnie I hthi ILt .Oi\ CI Ci 5 1n, CTIIoi iilr: :,Ii\ I s rirce. \ K \e ‘t ork 1ate ( ( )I fLe. and local oflicials agree that the ( ‘ortland (‘ount Jail remains in a slate of continual crowding. I he jail has heen granted \ arianee to aceunhinodaft additional prioncrs. ho’ e\ er. \5 inance’ honld he iecd is eiiipor.ir\ I’le\ ahioii riItei itia:i Ii’hlgIenhI ,)lnhaiiN \arianees are aiwas hinged on special and may he ft t’ked at an’ U me ‘ hen an nIractmn OCCUUS. I r n’I iiu_c a en \pril (u)i the (‘ommi’sion limited ue ‘ithe luldino ecIR fr housing inmates. mgIe oLeupai!i— fl1 5 1\ he housed i.iup. I honr in a h! hug ccii \\hhte muhhi_occupanN nnt he ‘usel H just 4 hors in iiioldH cell Liii DI\RImadmIuhtruI\cshaH report that thiIl •.rcatc an acicised noeI I’ hoard ut pnsuner. espe. Hl females and I (—18 year old minors. I us I must Imm n1: occur on eekend and nrehts here i uecsses ncreasc. direct and inhreci Lusts asucmated liii hc ndine out: Ice ti other counties H the lousmns.! and increased iln md trnIsport 5 mii’n .u-is ha the Iran po!is ui. unpredictable inhlu\es of otYendcr e.g. drug svm ceps. regional stings or operations affect the jail s ahil it’ to continue to comply with the ( ‘ommission of Corrections variances. Our nroxinhmt to interstate 81 mud ;c’flt inc:ea’ce: a Jru .lrmc’ crea .1 coHimt :htiIcnan fr icti .oricenns Li Il aR ii-s ‘k Cilrli I ‘i 1 ’,iJ Ci(j HL :orc: ‘a s. rn a a un a • or’ CLHICJ ilL \ cc Ci ( ‘n ni ‘ rt ‘‘b1’’”kl” II’. I’ .jaI aid it ‘‘.11 iti,ift’. hi . hc at iat a a ire a eared hc_’. hcin cipte t’ I ad’ I ifl Uin 1k UI I. iii his I ‘ i d. J ‘I u: :ten i- e et :J N -1 . h-I ‘‘141 I ‘ ii ‘I ‘ 0 .::iI:t,’n aai retthc;tJne . tii IL 5 H ‘mc I i ‘ I. s I . ‘ . ‘ ‘ • I’s ‘‘II ‘ Lb L IL iu ‘ i’ I L ‘ ‘ ‘I IL’ ‘ I ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 \i!iji iii ha ‘n IILil ;uhhe ‘Jer. tih ip.. i’eJ a’:tuIi. tit iihie LI.ind i1tt. ars’;1. hurIar\ — tlon\ in !he hiNt ‘ \ears. prosecutions and con\ iclions for crimes in ( orlanJ (ounR ii ‘reased iom .uH i 2 n and then aetin in 21)04. I he repot I nIrms increased al usage. ice col oo . IH\ Id LI 1 :ftfl I k uO\ Kt.Jeeiu : JLiiw.J tr staf!_ Ii ins’&rtatui Jii lelaleLl seiiee. ( t\\IcIjJil fli)f’UIiI!1(i1S the demand fr e1\ ice’. and also lnLie,LNL itCs ul Jeko in ii a tacihi Rak’’. at’ oLnee md icide ma II L) inL ease oo dridere and j nfrce tour of the ph sical Iciht revealed an over tdXc.f ii1iasti uctut. I’lunit,m )i\ture’ are nearl\ Inpassime to t ees _md ma I sencd tot the lalger puIation. I IV unif ha e been updated and ill need additional ser cice and upgrades to meet the demands of the IiciIit and to ensure coniphanee with ew York ommisswn of (‘orreclions reiiulations. I he c iut ititied sift’. phi. eJ lip this ‘tern hc an ri ci liPUi1Iec1 iIIi ic e\ILcihatL IIC si ii h{erned Actior \etion lutist he taken to renied\ hi’. siltation in ordei to nid continued nnnc.e’.’.ar L\nenditures and especial to pVc.\ ent i C ilastriphic \ em I he Jail I )ivision is not adequately stafied. Durine our initial tour in _)fl5. i4 inmates ere preent md onl seen rwIions leer’. \\ere an jntc H i unetandine that ‘.me imo also cumin fl li\UJ sis iheiLi imulini mobil i and resp rise to ‘Iluati ins I his presents danger iir siafl’as eN as inmates and creates a dtmgewns and p ilentiii I\ I itigi ins situation 1 r the em pioy. the count v and the taxp&Ivers. IL(JI I —.Ial — ti II 1)11 II ‘lii’. II . Cli j ihi .s \JH. ited III \Jt : ‘1 H ( lIP and the ( ounnission of I oreclin’. iusi nwnc a jc’. I he stall and Lannm LOfltiuI Ililudics rights and mandated ser ices as pmmuleated h the eonrt’ md the Commission of ( orrections. ; \t Ins point. c c can inK i e’.pond md ctre c mpliaice and saI’t\ It ii ii in Red. \ nc hieiiit is needed and aecol dint i current tail research linear desien should he e\cIUded twin an\ puipisais. ti p i. I a. h .1 tIe . ii cat it a. ; i a. ii 1 I— i 1 1 ‘Ii c I a n ni —a I I . I a. 1.1 p 1. . . . . : . . a Ic: c. a - . - H i i pm th I’ I: a an l preP a in: P’.ltc ke! lJ . ‘I — III ih . :t L LL ---PAGE BREAK--- .\nother proposal under consideration is to expand at the local site. •\lthough this will improve problems related to crowding.. one must examine the logic of lLcating any ne correctional iaciiit in an urban center. ( urrelt i ai nq —,1son Lonstruction reaI that facilities arc not and should not he centralk located in urban areas. Although such locaiion’ m create convenience Hr some. containment ot jnearceration related problems and linure expansion are more conjuei e to aida located outside the ncu ofan urban hub. Recent nn K cen a ‘ga. Kooiae. and ( a .ica ( owiuL mi ninu. o .t I c oum1\ such a facilil\ is also more conduci c 10 a central nookmg opuon Hr the ount emrai booking alleviates the necessity of an arresting oflicer having to remain with and process a prner. Retumng the oflicer !o the 1reet !uck lv a pole ‘s mnre cost e i e and enhances public sakt\ n’ en! i ‘ i,J hr em r hu :g arerti \ e [ha ecu’e. dro n-in ports or sallies be established tot anencte to deIn er ‘tienders.1 \paflded construenon ‘fl the eur!ent ‘ne !flflI take thi— ba onideraiijt ParLin a\;n ihiIit for nohee \ l-iIO flJ sift ‘iatwaH enhw.ei K Ies ca a’ n fle\\ \ coPSItuLied taelit in add tim. a c -tic a Js oppom.ni i or cure L \pai nt an I ne ‘abe ‘CL ‘ Cik e. and additional eelR create a ercater likelihood ol boarding—in capahi ities. the eom:n nec met tilt o aft tittectural S\lRl \rchitects and I and I aHel Ia \ssuciates. 10 discuss desin models he preenhaiins ik1UJCJ iiil’rmalt.m ii. elau In one l]vot and multi -floor plans. modular and pod designs and p’ abrinated struelures. Pre tahrie:cc..! •triicii’_’s )JJi\’ . 1 uii ervg(L’3 \ m;mher iser iCes Hr inmates alrcai’ e\s Ir \lenlal I leulih pr ides onsite \Iiitr pr nt e\nt’ and l’iein.l ‘er\ a th’\ t he Kb it, I )epurtlneni. regularl screens the pretrial ppuiLuIn 10r appr’rIdie _ umud 5 ties RLL’ii ouarterR iatistics rc caled that 4 Li’ those sLreeneLl tor release \\ere interx ana of those inter’ en el. Xl” I \\ere under snper nion (C aiim. 2O(I Ii s ‘t&L’ ‘hat the ui PTiIra’H\ pertte-a IIetl\ uilsL’IIL11c 5 d lailini thin ,L’lI1L.’iI(,,.Ll IlisilLS ‘I . ‘ttii_4) ,thr tt iclt,’ecI tn Je1e:t!tt tItan tail s’Itisnes ti’’iii il-i stiprl tll IrLI1LI ( \inual RepLit. nu.—ii. ithGug alte at[4 . (ie:IE ap ‘:f[S 5 :cni tao. h n’H’t’ ‘.‘en iie “ u. ,svi aac: ir’aiv it n I e ac. altcr.a sanctions. heiher utli/alton ol such ser’ ices Is ma\ina/ed : unknunn at this time and is nt uniet the pun ie\\ ol this ad isnr nommtitee I he \iteina1ie to lunarLeralin Proenini an rut..‘n ‘ p ‘a IS c — S i — ‘ ci tcnt!et i I ‘i ‘ It ‘‘tLL ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Section 2: Jnitiatiies and thej1m acts Electronic Monitoring Cortland County has implememed an electronic monitoring initiative. Words of caution are offered here. Research indicates that electronic nionitorin programs have no significant impact on savtnes and incarceration rates. (NJJ 2000. Extensive research completed by the Justice Department indicated the following: The evaluation evidence concernine intermediate s nctlons has been less reassuring. Major e\aiuations of hoot camps. intensive-super\ ison probation. communirr servcc, house atTest. and work—release proerams sho that manr ne profraflis do not achieve reductions in recidi ism. corrections costs, or prison use. I hee results occur in part because of mo common program characteristics: high failure rates for technical violations and high rates of net widening, that is, sentencing offenders who would other ise have received less punitive probation sentences to new intensive programs’ (Tonry, 1997). Any successful endeavors must address net widening and are labor intensive. Drug court Research supports the success of drug court initiatives and Cortland has developed two models: one based in City Court and one in Family Court. We anticipate that the City Drug Court will impact jail processes and the jail census. Historicall\. drug courts utiljze intermittent incarceration as a sanction used in conjunction with the treatment process. This is understandable: however, intermittent sentences clearly impact jail processes and often lead to the need to hoard out inmates. A larger facility will help alleviate this problem. Predicting Jail Trenth. Predicting any jail population is an extremely difficult task. N’umerous uncontrollable factors influence trends. These include but are not limited to: crime rates, sentencing practices and judicial polices, social factors such as unemplo\ meni, drug and alcohol use, political ventures — e.g. decreased use of parole violations and deinstutionalization of state facilities, other criminal justice agency practices, prosecutorial priorities and availability of defense counsel, Research and practices tell us there is no simple relationship between crime rate and incarceration rates (Vose v. inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, et ai, 1990) In an anaiysi..t of sentencing trends from 1980 — 1996, criminological researchers Biumstein and Beck (2001) noted nationwide that 88% of incarceration Increase.s were due to s stemic practIces and policies rather than increased crime. (MacKenzie, 2001). Furthermore, factors such as increased numbers of probation officers lnvn. rscd drug arreh chancin, udciil policies an I population fluctuations 1 1 e 1nrat1oi, C ‘iai’ \iut OUv sLre dL n]CJI dru ir td iLredd anu 5 L 1 nu I iLa 5 dJL I ie nt prescribed medications such as Oxycontin. and increased manufacture and distribution of ‘1t a 1 L Ic - Ii ‘t ,s r ‘ I r - -tic en (:riiand Count’s Jtiii structure is not nvepare: to hand.e infi u.s’s ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Although c UITCUt crime and social trends indicate that jail populations will rise in the next ten years. accurate predictability is difficult. Any agency or compatri that attempts to engage in a predicrabillti and neeth assessment plan for (‘ortland fouiztj must take all these aforeneiirioned factors into consideration. Section 3 Recommendations it is respectfully recommended that the Cortland County Sheri ffs I )epartrnent develop a proposal for a new jail structure and that the new structure he located outside the confines of the urban center ol Cortland for the following reasons. I. Predicted increases in local incarcerations rates 2. Current crime trends and arrest rates 3. Current criminal justice practices 4. New initiatives and patterns in the criminal justice system 5. Social conditions, such as unemployment, that impact arrest and incarceration rates are not dramatically improving. 6. Projected illegal drug use trends 7. Increase in out of county residents committing crime in Corlland County 8. Dilapidated conditions of the current jail 9. Crowding and unsafe conditions and the deteriorating physical structure at the current jail 10. Practices and policies of the NYS Commission of Correction in relations to conditions and emergency variances at the current jail 11 . A new structure outside the urban hub allows expandabilitv for the future and allows for countywide collaboration such a central hooking. 12. IThere is potential for boarding—in revenue with a new faci lily: however, we must remember that accurately predicting incarceration rates is impossible. Thus, this must not he presented as a primary reason for new construction. 13. Data presented in this report support the need for a ne facilit. Respectfully submitted, .4 dvisori’ (ominitteefor the Sheriff James Cunnigham Fom JcweU Scott Ochs Charles ttieeh Car \kThod ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Section 4: REFEEREM’ES Audit Report. 2003. Executive Summarr, New York State Office of the Comptroller, Albany, NY. Austin. James. Bolvard. Melssia and Jones. Michael. A surve of jail operated boot camps. NH Washington DC. Avaialhle june 9. 2005. Available 4 1 /06 h/’iubijo .:n/b ptaigp ./docs/ni /Corcpp_ nai B00t . •am . cb lJm Claim. Dianna. 2005. Quarrerh’ Report. Jan. 1 /ir. 0L.5. Cortland Count\ Pretrial Services — Pretrial Release Program. Cromwell, Alan. 2002. Predictingjails needs ojien tough to do. Morning Sentinel Newspaper, Maine. 7/26/02. Jail I )ivision. 2.004. Annual Report. Cortland County Sheriffs Department Correction Division. MacKenzie, Doris. 2001. Sentencing and corrections in the 21st century: setting the stage j/r the jiure. Research Report, US. Justice Department: available 4118/06 hrtp*nsw.’rs.c\txUileslJ1i’ 189 106-2tst. NIC 2004. Summaty report f/on/and County. N IC Washington, D.C. NIJ 2000. Evaluation of Electronic Monitoring Programs. Washington. DC. National Institute of Justice. U.S. Justice Department. 2005 Statistics, NYS Di ision of’ Criminal Justice Services 2004, Albany. NY. Available June 9, 2.005, http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/ Tonrv. Michael. 1997. Intermediate sanctions in sentencing iddcIinc,c, U.S. Department of )tfic... of Tun Piogrms \ation’d intiu iC of \ ii t Ic ‘a 200S U. S. Supreme Court. 1990. ROBERT C. RUFO. SHERIFF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY. FT AL., P 1 1H0\l RS \ l\\l \ IFS 01 1 HF L ER )J K C ( H N F J \JL F fj[ORGL C \ 051 ( ()MMISSIO\FR 01 ( ORREC HON P1 Fl I lO\FR \ RM 1 [S OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY JAiL, FT AL. No. 90M54, No. 901004 In The Supreme Court Of The United Str.tes October Tern.. 1990. Available 4/18/06 \Vinfree I . \:niirHc. John. I 992. do Ic rd .vrta/r o io;’z’ vuicide v and deaths due to natural causes in S. Journal of Research in Crime and i.)eiinquency, volume. 29 (466479/.. ---PAGE BREAK--- i PKI( (ount of Cortland S,K?’ti HEKREWU BARNHART ) * nit tOM M sEA4AS Pubh Safet 54nbush Sticet FMERGENC Coi dtpt rt.tar Cordand 1304c DIAL 911 Phom ciW Fax (boTh ‘ To: Lee A. Price, Sheriff From: Toni M. Seamans, Confidential SecretaiH 1 Date: January 9, 2008 Re: Cost for Boarding Inmates Per Legislator Tom Williams request in “Information for the past 5 years” section 2 Cost for boarding Out all prisoners I calculate the following (I added a couple of extra years, as well): Year Cost 2007 $ 55,660. 2006 $23 7,460. 2005 $113,165. 2004 $ 12,506. 2003 $149,160. 2002 $ 87,225. 2001 $ 54,812, S709,98R. Total Expense (7 years) I would also like to bring to your attention an additional item that is not asked for, but I think bears importance and would be of interest to the committee. I’m speaking of the amount of revenue that was generated when we first opened the “new” jail and had cells that we could board “in” for other counties. The following Is a list of such: Year Revenue Received 1990 $225,090. 1991 $441,745. 1992 $284,105. 1993 $170,000. 1994 $219,480. 1995 $ 59,640. 1996 $ 3,280. 1997 $ 47,300. 1998 $ 42,615. 1999 $ 8.890. $1502,145. Total Revenues ReceIved (10 years) ---PAGE BREAK--- Poar Costs 2000. $ 43706.00 2001. $ 120,33000 2002. $ 220246.00 2003. $ 257,51500 2004. $ 280,93700 2005. S225i02M0 2006. S 50356.fl0 ( l Quarter Jan-March 20U6 Cost includes boarding rates at other facilities, transport costs, other medical costs. If extra staffing r housing facility is needed, Cortland County pays. in -in Res:enue 1990 1996 S1,400,000 + From 1997-1999, Cortland County boarded-in and boarded-out inmates The costs S 100,000 in / -S100,00(L00 out). This is no longer true since boarding-in no longer occurs. Boardingut costs From 2000 to the 1r quarter of 2006 approximately SI,2OOOOOJ)O was paid due to boarding-out costs. IL 2ahics— Recent Trends The foflowing charts indicate recent trends for inmates place of birth and gender. tes P011 2005 Incarcerated stats 1 tortiand Area 620 (78%) Outsuk I rhan \reas eg ROGICSICL ‘\1au% V C 162 120 Foreign Born 11 Total 793 (100%) E1ALEPulations (Average 1)aik Population) 1992 - 05 1995 1 1998 2 21102 4 20(15 7