Many communities have been stuck with the bill for a jail they regret.

Prison Policy Initiative updates for February 20, 2024 Exposing how mass incarceration harms communities and our national welfare

Cautionary jails: Deconstructing the three “C”s of jail construction arguments [[link removed]] Communities across the country have been told that investing in new jail construction is the only way to solve old policy problems, but arguments for new jails can leave them with a billion-dollar case of buyer’s remorse. [[link removed]]

by Emmett Sanders

Arapahoe County, Colorado, is expanding its jail just four years after taxpayers rejected a proposition [[link removed]] to raise taxes for a new one. The justification for the $46 million expansion? Proponents cite the jail’s age, overcrowding, and a sudden sensitivity to the need to treat rather than warehouse people with addiction issues; the sheriff claims, “ people’s needs have changed [[link removed]].” $30 million will come from COVID-19 pandemic relief funds; as the ACLU notes [[link removed]], using relief funds in this way is expressly forbidden by the Department of Treasury.

Similar arguments are being used to justify jail construction all around the country. Often, this means ignoring voters’ wishes, misusing and redirecting [[link removed]] millions of dollars from community-based resources, and saddling citizens with decades of tax liability [[link removed]]. New jail construction projects regularly fail to meet promises, leaving communities to deal with the aftermath. Drawing from examples across the country, we break down three common arguments for jail construction, discuss how they have been used to build or expand jails, and highlight how reinvesting in cages is not a solution to social problems like crime and substance use.

The three “C’s” of jail construction arguments

Jail proponents usually rely on one or more of three central arguments to make their case:

The “Capacity” argument: a bigger jail is required to house everyone being incarcerated in the jurisdiction; The “Contemporary” argument: new construction is needed to update an outdated jail; The “Compassionate” argument: new construction is necessary to treat incarcerated people more humanely.

On a surface level, these three “C” arguments are compelling because they speak to very real issues. What these arguments often overlook, however, is that these issues are largely driven by bad policies that have drastically expanded reliance on packing people in cages. Essentially, the prevailing claim is that the only way to solve the problem of incarceration is to expand our ability to incarcerate — when in fact, communities would be better served by shrinking jail populations. This sunk cost fallacy [[link removed]] often leaves communities without real solutions and holding the bag for decades.

If you build it… (the “capacity” argument)

Proponents of jail construction often rely upon jail “needs assessments” to bolster their claim that building a bigger jail is the only way to meet capacity needs. These needs assessments come with many biases and flaws [[link removed]] — often because they are written by construction firms who hope to eventually make even more money building the new jail. The simple truth is that no jail will ever be big enough to satisfy an over-reliance on incarcerate-first policies. Instead of solving capacity needs, bigger jails enable counties to continue bad practices — leading them to argue that they need newer, even bigger jails in the future, and spending millions of dollars in the process.

Greene County, Missouri, for instance, built a new 552-bed jail [[link removed]] in 2001. This was supposed to resolve their capacity needs for at least a decade; however, within just 2 years, the jail had surpassed capacity again. Despite increasing bed space by remodeling and by adding a trailer jail annex [[link removed]], the continuation of bad policies, such as criminalizing poverty by rounding up and arresting unhoused people [[link removed]], led to what a 2017 needs assessment called “unsustainable” [[link removed]] jail growth, which forced another $150 million 1,252-bed expansion [[link removed]] in 2020.

Similarly, Lubbock County, Texas, spent $94.5 million in taxpayer bonds building a new 1,512-bed jail [[link removed]], which opened in 2010. Though intended to meet their capacity needs well into the future, jail population growth has persisted, leading county officials to spend a million dollars of the county’s budget [[link removed]] incarcerating people in other counties. But there are other obvious solutions to Lubbock’s over-incarceration problem. Lubbock County mostly uses its jail to house people who haven’t been convicted of a crime; in January of 2024, 76% of the jail’s population were people being held pretrial, and fully one tenth [[link removed]] of the people in the jail were being held pretrial for a misdemeanor. Pretrial detention practices play a huge part in the county’s perpetual capacity problems. County officials have nevertheless repeatedly looked to build their way out of these issues instead of implementing sustainable policy changes like ending pretrial detention for misdemeanors and reexamining alternatives to cash bond. As a result, Lubbock’s sheriff recently proposed a 996-bed expansion projected to cost taxpayers another $464 million [[link removed]], bringing the total to more than half a billion dollars, with no substantial policy change in sight.

While capacity arguments are often used to justify jail expansion, the truth is counties cannot build their way out of capacity issues without addressing the policies that created them in the first place. Despite claims that jail construction is driven by need, in many instances, the reverse is actually true. As Greene County’s assessment noted, [[link removed]] “The dramatic increase in bookings is probably due [in part to] the increased availability of beds with the opening of the new jail.” Simply put, if you build it, they will fill it.

Box office bombs (the “contemporary” argument)

Often, the promise of a shiny new jail with updated facilities leads to over-budget projects that sap taxpayer money far into the future. These projects, focused on building jails with “all the bells and whistles,” often collide with soaring construction costs [[link removed]]. This can sometimes lead to facilities that are too costly to staff and maintain or even too costly to complete. As a result, projects can wind up half-finished or sitting empty for years at taxpayer expense.

Despite voters rejecting an $88 million bond initiative [[link removed]] to fund a new jail in 2004, by 2008, Thurston County, Washington, accepted a bid for “ the cutting-edge $45 million Accountability and Restitution Center (ARC) jail complex [[link removed]],” a building some have referred to as the “ Taj Mahal design of Jail, Law and Justice Centers.” [[link removed]] Finished in 2010, the jail sat empty for 6 years [[link removed]], costing the taxpayers roughly $430,000 annually, largely because the county did not budget for the additional staff needed to run it. Just three years later, the county would approve a $19-25 million jail expansion [[link removed]] featuring a 40-bed “‘flex unit’ with cells that could be used in different ways as needs change” plus a shell for future expansion.

In Wayne County, Michigan, construction began on a “ state-of-the-art” $300 million, 2,192-bed jail [[link removed]] in 2011. The design included innovations that some claimed would bolster security, largely by further restricting movement. By 2013, the project was already $91 million over budget due to ballooning construction costs, forcing it to be abandoned and leading to the indictment of three Wayne County Officials [[link removed]] for lying about the project’s cost. The jail sat incomplete and empty for years, costing the taxpayers around $1 million per month just to maintain. [[link removed]]

Though not a jail, Thomson Prison in Illinois shares a similar story. Built in 2001 for $145 million, this new high-tech maximum-security prison sat empty at the taxpayers’ expense for 11 years [[link removed]] due to state budgetary restraints impacting the ability to staff it before finally being sold to the federal government [[link removed]] in 2012.

As these examples illustrate, officials often claim that a new “modern” jail will solve a jurisdiction’s problems. While the drumbeat here is safety or security, these projects almost invariably also include millions for expanding bed space to incarcerate more people. Moreover, while huge amounts of money are poured into building bigger, better, and newer buildings, the massive costs associated with staffing and operating these monstrosities, and the fact that existing prisons and jails around the country are dangerously understaffed [[link removed]] as it is, can result in costly projects that can’t be staffed even if they are completed. These monuments to incarceration can sit empty for years, draining the public coffer.

Promises, promises (the “compassionate” argument)

Increasingly, counties cite the need to be compliant with ADA requirements or the idea that jails should be providers of mental health services or substance use treatment as reasons to expand. This “compassionate” argument repackages incarceration as care [[link removed]] and can mean taking money away from health services in the community. [[link removed]] This is particularly problematic when jails fail to deliver on these promises, as they regularly do.

McLean County, Illinois’ 2015 jail needs assessment [[link removed]] called for more space for housing people with mental health needs. In response, the county spent $43.5 million [[link removed]] to build a new jail with a “Community Crisis Stabilization Facility” in 2017. A few short years later, however, people with mental health concerns are once again being held in the booking area [[link removed]] (a practice the new jail was supposed to end) and are being held at jails outside of the county [[link removed]], unable to “benefit” from McLean’s new $43.5 million carceral alternative to community-based crisis intervention.

Broome County, New York, similarly promised to provide better medical care as part of its argument to secure $6.8 million to expand its jail in 2015. But once the new jail was built, there was little effort to deliver on this promise: Broome County maintained the same dubious medical provider, Correctional Medical Care (CMC), that had been sued multiple times [[link removed]] for medical negligence from 2010 all the way until 2022 [[link removed]]. Many of these claims involved jail deaths. CMC’s practices were so bad that the New York State Commission on Corrections’ Medical Review Board chastised the company for “egregious lapses in medical care” [[link removed]] in their 2018 “Problematic Jails” report. More incarcerated people died in the five years after ground broke on jail expansion [[link removed]] than in the five years before, [[link removed]] during CMC’s contract tenure with Broome County.

People interested in improving the lives of incarcerated people are often swayed by “compassionate” arguments. But they should never lose sight of the fact that incarceration itself is inherently harmful [[link removed]] to physical and mental health, leaving many with a PTSD-like condition called Post-Incarceration Syndrome, [[link removed]]which can even trigger drug use. At best, jail as a place of treatment is ineffectual [[link removed]]. At worst, these bad policies drain funding from community-based support systems that can address challenges before a crisis results in incarceration. Jail is a place of trauma, not healing.

Change — The other “C”

While these three C’s are often used to argue for jail construction, advocates can and should confront their local officials with real solutions for reducing jail populations and providing mental health and substance use care.

Reduce pretrial detention: Nationwide, 83% [[link removed]] of people in jails have not been convicted of a crime. One of the most effective ways to bring down jail populations is to reform the way court systems treat people accused of crimes. Policies ranging from citation and release to ending cash-based pretrial detention can massively reduce jail capacity needs [[link removed]] without raising taxes, incarcerating more people, or jeopardizing public safety. Focus on community-based care: Jail was never intended to be a provider of social services. As the Justice LA Coalition [[link removed]] successfully argued [[link removed]] in opposition to a $2 billion mental health-focused jail in 2019, true compassion comes not in the trauma of a cell but in funding for community-based care and support for those with addiction issues or mental health needs. Reduce total jail capacity: If jail construction absolutely cannot be avoided (as in the case of places under court orders to update or build a new facility), it should be contained so that it does not expand the capacity of the current jail to incarcerate or invest in new carceral technologies. If there’s no way to avoid building a new jail, advocates can at least work on making sure the new one doesn’t expand the number of people behind bars.

Conclusion

Though common arguments in favor of jail expansion are compelling at first glance, investing in jail construction is not a solution to social problems but rather doubling down on policies that caused these problems to begin with that can burden a community for decades to come. Ultimately, many of these arguments can be answered by asking pointed questions, revising policies, [[link removed]]and being responsive to the community’s actual needs.

***

For more information, including detailed footnotes, see the full version of this briefing [[link removed]] on our website.

Please support our work [[link removed]]

Our work is made possible by private donations. Can you help us keep going? We can accept tax-deductible gifts online [[link removed]] or via paper checks sent to PO Box 127 Northampton MA 01061. Thank you!

Other news: Oregon shouldn’t go backwards on drug decriminalization [[link removed]]

Oregon is in danger of repealing one of the most important criminal legal system reforms of recent years.

In this new briefing [[link removed]], we look at the data that shows why this reform is working, and why repealing it would be a huge mistake.

Proposed Biden junk fees rule provides lots of transparency but little protection for incarcerated people [[link removed]]

President Biden and his administration have proposed a series of reforms to crack down on "junk fees."

In this new blog post [[link removed]], we explain how the recently proposed rule from the Federal Trade Commission will do little to actually protect incarcerated people and their families from these unfair and excessive fees.

Watching the Watchers: Vera releases national census on electronic monitoring [[link removed]]

In a new report, the Vera Institute for Justice collected data from all 50 states, more than 800 counties, and the federal court and immigration systems to produce the most comprehensive picture of electronic monitoring in the U.S.

In this new blog post [[link removed]], we highlight some of the key findings from this important report.

Please support our work [[link removed]]

Our work is made possible by private donations. Can you help us keep going? We can accept tax-deductible gifts online [[link removed]] or via paper checks sent to PO Box 127 Northampton MA 01061. Thank you!

Our other newsletters Ending prison gerrymandering ( archives [[link removed]]) Criminal justice research library ( archives [[link removed]])

Update your newsletter subscriptions [link removed].

You are receiving this message because you signed up on our website [[link removed]] or you met Peter Wagner or another staff member at an event and asked to be included.

Prison Policy Initiative [[link removed]]

PO Box 127

Northampton, Mass. 01061

Web Version [link removed] Unsubscribe [link removed] Update address / join other newsletters [link removed] Donate [[link removed]] Tweet this newsletter [link removed] Forward this newsletter [link removed]

You are receiving this message because you signed up on our website or you met Peter Wagner or another staff member at an event and asked to be included.

Prison Policy Initiative

PO Box 127 Northampton, Mass. 01061

Did someone forward this to you? If you enjoyed reading, please subscribe! [[link removed]] Web Version [link removed] | Update address [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed] | Share via: Twitter [link removed] Facebook [[link removed] Email [link removed]