Jail expansion does not properly resolve concerns

Max Shmookler Guest Writer

In what a friend once described as the “oppressively over-carpeted halls” of the county legislature, many of our elected officials are pushing, month after month, to expand the overcrowded Dutchess County jail. For Republican lawmakers and their allies in the sheriff’s office, the only way to alleviate overcrowding is to expand the jail facility. But this way of reasoning—from overcrowded jail to bigger building—obscures the other legitimate, cost-effective, and socially responsible alternatives to a multi-multi-million dollar construction project. By investing in social programming and economic initiatives for the most hard-pressed members of the urban population, the county can reduce crime by directly addressing its root causes: social injustice and economic inequality.

There are a number of proposals on the table. They range from the “zero-bed” proposal of some Democratic legislatures and the grassroots citizens’ group, Dutchess Justice, to the Criminal Justice Committee (CJC)’s 150-bed recommendation, to the State Committee on Corrections (SCOC)’s demand for 300 new beds.

The financial implications of the project are overwhelming. The County Executive, Bill Steinhaus, projected that a 300-bed expansion will cost $135 million, with an additional $13 million per year in operating costs. This is more than the total combined cost of 48 capital projects approved by the county over the past three years. This fiscal burden will either drive property taxes up by a “shocking” 18 percent, or sap the county funds that are currently being used to support other crucial county services, such as aid to the elderly, public health, funding for the arts, and public transportation. This dismal picture makes clear the stark choice facing county legislators: they can either invest in a behemoth jail, or they can invest in supporting and expanding the programs that service the community—they cannot, fiscally speaking, do both.

How can we reduce overcrowding without expanding the jail and giving ourselves a financial coronary? First we can challenge our elected officials to prove that they are serious about reducing overcrowding, by demanding that they reform their policies regarding bail bonds and release procedures. Consider that 75 percent of the jail population at any given time is waiting to be brought before a judge, and that, on average, these “pre-trial” inmates are held for over a month. The vast majority of these people are sitting in jail because they haven’t been assigned counsel and/or they can’t make bail. Why aren’t our legislators pushing to expedite the pre-trial period by insuring that everyone is assigned counsel within 24 hours of arrival? Moreover, why aren’t county officials pushing to set up a revolving bail fund for qualifying individuals? The cost of a bail fund that would enable the pre-trial release of non-violent offenders pales in comparison to the $250,000 that it will cost just to build each maximum security cell to house these people.

Policy reform should be developed in harmony with specific Alternatives to Incarceration (ATIs), a progressive practice for which Dutchess County has an outstanding reputation. For instance, the county should research the possibility of expanding their “specialty courts” to pass down alternative sentences for mentally ill people, youths, drug users, and women. The county has already taken steps in this direction, by trying to implement community-based ATIs for at-risk youth, provide transitional housing, broaden the electronic monitoring program, and develop “gender-specific” programming, including domestic-violence awareness, health, education, parenting, and job-skills training.

These ATIs could be integrated into the pre-existing social service network in the County. In this way, non-profits and the county government could continue to collaborate to provide after-school programs, job training initiatives, affordable housing plans, and GED programs to those who need them most—both inside and outside the jail. Additionally, providing post-release services such as transportation to and from work and low-cost housing would enable people to make a living without resorting to previous (and destructive) behavior.

Yet the legislature has not approved funding for research into the scope and implementation of these laudable initiatives, and the CJC report itself remarks that many of the successful programs are currently at risk of losing their federal and state grants.

Everyone knows that the jail is overcrowded—they’ve known this for 20 years. The question is what to do about it, and our choices are simple. Do we want, in the words of County Executive Bill Steinhaus, to start on a “course [that will] devastate the county budget, break the backs of property taxpayers and destroy other existing county services for children, senior citizens, residents, and businesses?” Or do we want to support the tax-paying individuals and families who will bear the costs of building—and then filling—the hundreds of new cells, by fighting to reinforce the social programs and services that address crime at its roots?