Status quo no longer an option for jail

By Iowa City Press-Citizen

---

In a recent letter to the editor, University of Iowa professor emeritus John Neff listed several issues that require a full, public discussion before Johnson County officials can expect to persuade a super-majority of voters to approve a proposed $39 million bond referendum for a larger county jail and renovated county courthouse:

The effectiveness of diversion programs aimed at reducing the number of inappropriate admissions to the jail.

Jail alternatives aimed at reducing the number of inmates held less than a month.

How budget cuts in the criminal court system have created a black log leading to excessive lengths of stay in county jails.

The degree to which a better designed jail would help reduce operating costs because it would require a lower staff/inmate ratio.

And the growing management costs of out-of-jail supervision, population administration, transportation and housing of inmate overflow in other county jails.

We agree with Neff's list, and we think county officials have their work cut out for them if they hope the reverse the resounding “no” county residents brought back in 2000 - the last time voters weighed in whether to build or expand the county's 92-bed jail. Unfortunately, the overcrowded conditions that were true in 2000 are even more pronounced today. And as the county continues to grow, so does the number of inmates that the jail is responsible for.

Luckily, a key difference between 2000 and now is that Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek and the other members of the Criminal Justice Coordinating

Committee have come to understand that they need to be exhausting every jail alternative if they ever are to persuade county voters that a larger jail is needed

The Sheriff's Department also is dealing head-on with the faulty argument that it's somehow “cheaper” for the county to house the inmates in other jails than to expand the existing local one. That rationale has long been dubious, at best, because it usually considers only the housing and transportation costs as compared to the estimates for a new or expanded facility. But the actual transportation expenses have risen so much in recent years that even a simple cost comparison now shows just how much of a bad investment it is for county officials to keep farming out dozens of prisoners rather than to build a new jail or expand the existing one.

That's why we were glad the jail has been returned to the front burner of county politics. County officials are now actively discussing how best to bring a $39 million bond referendum before the voters in the fall of 2012.

The proposal that will be brought to the voters in 2012 is going to be very different from the rejected plan a decade ago. This time, county officials are moving toward a Justice Center model that would expand the jail as well as address problems with the century-old county courthouse.

We think county officials already have made the case that something needs to be done. Take a tour of the jail and you can see for yourself that merely maintaining the status quo isn't an option.

Now county officials need to make the persuasive case that their solution is the best use of county funds.

---