Feasibility Study

Transcription

Feasibility Study

Jail Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study for
Berrien County
April 2, 2009
W o l d
ILLI N OI S
A r c h i t e c t s
M ICHIG A N
&
M I N N E S O T A WOLD ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS
110 Brockway, Suite 200
Palatine, Illinois 60067
847.241.6100
Contact: Roger Schroepfer, AIA
[email protected]
En g i n e e r s
COLORADO
VOORHIS / ROBERTSON
202 E. Third Street, Suite 200
Royal Oak, Michigan 48067
248.284.0611
Contact: Dan Kritta, AIA
3122 Depo Drive
Longmont, CO 80503
303.800.6071
Contact: David Voorhis
[email protected]
B e r r i e n co u n t y | j a i l n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t a n d f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y
Table of Contents
A.
Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Special thanks --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
2. Purpose ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
3. Executive summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
4. Methodology ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
5. Planning criteria ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
b.
Background information ------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing site ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
2. MAINTENANCE HISTORY & SYSTEMS INFORMATION ------------------------------------------- 10
3. EXISTING FACILITY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11
c.
Overall facility concerns -----------------------------------------------------
1. Spatial needs analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
2. programmatic and operational issues --------------------------------------------------- 16
d.
Existing facility strategic plan analysis ------------------------------
1. Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
2.
Data analysis of berrien county jail ------------------------------------------------------ 28
3.
Projections: average daily population -------------------------------------------------- 43
4.
Jail staffing review ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43
5.
Classification --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48
e.
Explored growth options -----------------------------------------------------
1. Maintain existing facility ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 51
2. Renovation existing facility to accommodate current bed capacity ------- 53
3. Renovate and add on to existing facility to increase bed capacity ---------- 56
4. New facility ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70
g.
Appendix --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
9
15
26
51
78
1. Meeting minutes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ x
2. State of Michigan construction handbook for jails and lock-ups --------- x
3. State of Michigan Administrative rules for jails and lock-ups ---------------- x
Introduction
1. Special Thanks
Wold Architect and Engineers and Voorhis Robertson Justice
Services would like to thank all of the individuals who participated
and provided input into this jail needs assessment and feasibility
study for additional bed space. With their insight, guidance, and
collaborative efforts, we believe this document will serve the County
with its continued effort to identify a road map for the Berrien
County Correctional System.
We would like to thank the Berrien County Board of Commissioners
and their staff for their extensive efforts and collaboration on
multiple levels throughout the duration of this study.
A special thanks to the following members of the Core Planning
Group who have dedicated much thought and energy into
identifying opportunities and exploring options:
Kevin Allred, Lieutenant
L. Paul Baily, Sheriff
Richard Bartz, County Commissioner
Corey Burks, Classifications
Al Butzbaugh, Chief Judge
David Cochran, Captain
Al Cotter, District Attorney
Paul Granigan, Financial Manager
Jenny Grimm, Grants Coordinator / Criminal Justice
Chuck Heit, Undersheriff
June Hell, Director of Financial Services
Debra Panozzo, County Commissioner
Brian Ray, Tri Court Administrator
Pat Sweeney, Superintendent / Director of Buildings & Grounds
Bill Wolf, County Administrator
Introduction
2. Purpose
The purpose of this study is to identify the capacity and
programmatic challenges of the existing Berrien County
Correctional Facility in order to prepare a strategic facility plan to
fulfill both immediate and long term capacity needs and operational
efficiencies.
3. Executive Summary
Philosophy
The following list of values was used to guide the development of
this report:
1. To recognize that successful facilities begin and end with people
and the policies and operational practices which define their
work and lives. 2. To establish a clear linkage in planning between law, policy,
operations, staffing, design, and transition in the development of
all projects.
3. To seek innovations that improve the operational environment
(safety, efficiency, security, morale) and that attain operational,
staff, and architectural economies.
4. To involve facility users and owners in an incremental
participatory and reciprocal process (i.e. neither client nor
consultant dominated) which generate understanding,
consensus support and client ownership of the project.
5. To provide comprehensive, coordinated and detailed
information that serves as full documentation of the process and
its results.
6. To explore facility options which provide a long term solution
which can be incrementally facilitated over time.
7. To attain solutions that are economically viable and politically
and publicly supportable.
Introduction
3. Executive Summary (continued)
Approach
The County and the Core Planning Group have discussed,
researched, and assessed short term and long term solutions to
prevent future overcrowding by providing additional bed space.
The need for additional bed space was determined by comparing
the existing facility’s 341 beds with the operational capacity of 290
beds. The operational capacity of 290 beds was determined by the
fact that approximately 15% of the beds need to be available for
fluctuations in the jail population due to classifications, isolation,
and maintenance issues. Also, a jail is typically designed to include a
peak population factor that allows for bed availibility when the jail
reaches high levels of occupancy. The Berrien County Jail has been
operating above operational capacity for over ten years.
The following charts demonstrate past and present average daily
population conditions of the Berrien County Correctional Facility:
341
290
Introduction
3. Executive Summary (continued)
The Core Planning Group has identified construction and phasing
issues associated with the explored future growth options. The life
span of the existing jail has been discussed, including the costs
involved in solving the Jail’s short term and long term physical
deficiencies. As part of the planning, it has been critical to include
ways in which the safety of inmates, visitors, and Jail Staff can
be maintained. The Core Planning Group has also taken into
consideration the knowledge of existing and future demographics
in the County along with common trends/factors contributing to
the rise of inmates. A critical analysis of the staffing inefficiencies has
also been performed.
Explored Growth Options
The Core Planning Group analyzed numerous options for solving the
needs identified in this study. All of the options explored fit into five
basic catergories:
1. Do Nothing. (Maintain Existing Facility)
2. Renovate Existing Facility to Accommodate Current Bed Capacity.
3. Renovate and Add On to Existing Facility to Increase Current Bed Capacity.
4. Renovate the Existing Facility and Build a New Facility to Increase Current Bed Capacity.
5. Build a New Facility; Demolish the Existing Facility.
Although Option (5) is the most desireable and would solve all
needs of the County for many years to come, it was deamed
economically unfeasible. On the other end of the spectrum, Option
(1) was deamed to be not appropriate, given the immediate need
to improve operational efficiency, staff and inmate safety, and
additional bed space.
Recommendation
Ultimately, the Core Planning Group is recommending that the
Board of Commissioners proceed with the exploration of an option
that starts with Option (2) to improve operational efficiency and staff
/ inmate safety by utilizing the vacated space on the Ground Level
to improve the areas of greatest immediate need. Concurrently,
the County should continue to explore options for creating new
bed space, whatever that may be, by adding on an expandable
sentenced facility.
Introduction
4. Methodology
The process used in the culmination of this report was one of data
gathering, collaboration, and problem solving. Throughout the
planning process, the Design Team worked closely with the “Core
Planning Group” made up of representatives from the Berrien County
Sheriff’s Department, Courts Department, Board of Commissioners,
Administration Department, Facility and Grounds Department,
Financial Services, and Criminal Justice Department. The comprehensive method used in this study, as developed by Wold
Architects and Engineers and Voorhis/Robertson Justice Services,
included the following steps:
Background Information
Identification of specific roles of all groups and personnel involved
Refining project schedule
Setting up a Core Planning Group
Determining the mission and goals of the County
Researching jail standards, procedures, and operational protocol
Reviewing prior reports and background information
Cover All Facililty Concerns
Technical facility evaluation
Facility assessment including input from jail staff regarding programmatic and operational challenges
Problem Identification
Strategic Plan Analysis (Analyze Criminal Justice System
& Projection of Bed Capacity Needs)
Profiling population and programs
Documentation and analysis of past, current, and future jail classification and capacity trends
Examining current Justice System operations
Establishing key functional jail criteria
Determining general scope and spatial needs
Examining alternative philosophies
Identifying security principals
Establishing relative staff efficiencies
Developing space needs
Developing site planning criteria
Discussing immediate, interim, and long term requirements, including phasing options
Estimating project costs, including facility, staffing, and operational costs
Prepare & Present Final Report
Introduction
5. Planning Criteria
“The mission of the Berrien County Sheriff’s Department is to
enforce the laws of the State of Michigan and Berrien County,
to safeguard life and property, to prevent and detect crime, to
preserve the peace, and to protect the rights of all citizens. We will
serve all citizens with fairness, integrity, respect, and compassion
without discrimination of any persons or groups.”
- Berrien County Sheriff’s Department Mission Statement
Using the Mission Statement above, the Core Planning
group worked together to establish key criteria that would guide
the decision making process in the development of the strategic
plan. The following Guiding Principles serve as the foundational
philosophy behind the Explored Growth Options defined in this
study.
1. Develop a strategy to maintain existing staffing level despite
increased capacity.
2. Upgrade facility with long-term solutions to accommodate
current capacity needs and allow for future growth.
3. Evaluate the existing jail conditions to maximize a safe and
secure environment for inmates, staff, and visitors.
4. Evaluate and maintain a process that establishes operational
cooperation between the jail and the court system.
5. Encourage alternative sentencing practices and programs
regardless of jail capacity.
6. Develop solutions which improve jail operations and
efficiencies.
7. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing systems to be energy efficient
and easy to operate and maintain.
8. Structure and finishes within facility to be durable to withstand
high abuse.
9. Solutions to focus on direct line-of-site means of supervision
wherever possible.
Background
1. Existing Site
The Berrien County Correctional Facility, originally constructed in
1951, is located on Port Street in downtown St. Joseph, Michigan.
The property sits directly adjacent to the St. Joseph River (to the
Northeast), the District Courts Building (to the Northwest), and the
Sheriff’s Department Parking across the street (to the southwest). The
Courts building currently fulfills the needs of the County and there
is no plan at this time to expand or renovate the facility. The County
Sheriff’s Department is located adjacent and within the jail building.
The original facility carried a capacity of 134 beds. In 1980, a
two-story dorm-style housing unit was added on to the building
providing 200 more beds. Currently, the facility has a state-rated
capacity of 341 beds, however, some of the Correctional and 911/
Dispatch Services previously housed in the jail have been relocated
to other buildings in the County leaving vacancies on the Basement
Level.
The County also owns two other buildings adjacent to the Jail that
were taken into consideration in this study: the Western Michigan
Legal Aides building (located directly north of the Jail) and the
Holistic Alliance building (located across Port Street to the Northwest
of the Jail), which is currently vacant.
In addition, the Niles Courthouse in Berrien County has temporary
cells for court lockup, however, it is not used as a permanent housing
facility. The group agreed that the Niles Courthouse will not be
considered when identifying auxiliary bed space. Also, the County
Administration Building, which was acquired in 1998, is located on
Main Street in St. Joseph and there are currently no plans to change
this facility programmatically or operationally.
Existing Courts
Facility
Legal Aides Building
Existing Jail
Holistic Alliance Building
Port
Stree
t
Sheri
ff ’s D
Parkiepartmen
ng
t
N
Background
2. Maintenance History & Systems Information
CONSTRUCTION HISTORY
• 1951 - Original Jail
Construction
Maintenance History
In addition to the regular yearly maintenance that takes place, the
following major upgrades have occurred during the last twenty years
•
1999-2000 - $2 million for security upgrades (cameras, sliders/
bars, new doors, etc.)
•
2005 - $1 million for mechanical upgrades (new boiler, controls,
hot water for kitchen, removal of four (4) buried tanks); also lintels
on the older side of the facility were replaced.
•
2006 - Asbestos Abatement was performed on the pipes in the
facility.
•
2008 - $200,000 for elevator renovation (elevator replacement,
new controls, hydraulics, etc.); Sewage lines were renovated on
the older side of the facility.
•
The annual jail budget is $8 million.
•
Other upcoming maintenance items planned for 2009 include
but are not limited to additional elevator upgrades, masonry
repairs, generator replacement, preventative maintenance items,
replacement of gypsum board ceilings and floor stripping for
repainting.
(capacity: 134 beds)
• 1981 - First Major Jail
Addition
• 1986 - 1988 - Interior
Renovations
• 1989 - Increased Jail
Systems Information
•
Original facility heated with steam; 1981 addition addition heated
with hot water. Four steam boilers on the Ground Level serve Jail
and Courthouse. Two boilers are smaller and are approximately 20
years old; one boiler is larger and 30 years old; one boiler is very
old and rarely used (does not meet current boiler code). Boiler
capacity meets the needs of existing facilities.
•
Water-cooled centrifugal chiller provides chilled water to jail.
•
Existing HVAC system primarily forced air heating and cooling
combined with split system / radiant heat systems.
•
All air handling units installed with 1981 addition with hot water
and chilled water coils. Ground Level served by two Ground Level
AHUs. Original First and Second Levels served by one Penthouse
AHU. First, Second, and Third Levels of Addition served by one
Penthouse AHU. Existing AHU equipment provides insufficient air
flow.
•
Heating hot water is produced for the jail by a steam to hot water
heat exchanger installed in the 1981 addition. The heat exchanger
pumps are operating properly and are in good condition.
Staffing & Classifications
System Upgrade
• 1993 - Present -
Interior Renovations
(current capacity: 341 beds)
10
Background
3. Existing Facility
TOTAL GROUND
FLOOR SQUARE
FOOTAGE
Net Area:
25,748 sq.ft.
Circulation Factor
X 1.4205 Total Area:
36,577 sq.ft.
This “indirect supervision” facility, consists primarily of reinforced
concrete structure with masonry walls making up the exterior
enclosure and interior infill. The building has three stories and a
fourth floor mechanical penthouse.
Ground Floor
The Basement level contains a small public reception area, a vehicular
sally port, intake / booking / release, food services, staff services,
support spaces, and mechanical/electrical rooms. A tunnel connects
the Basement directly to the adjacent Courthouse building. The
majority of this floor is fully underground, with the exception of the
Sally Port and Garage. This would make it difficult to house inmates
on this level because it would be challenging to obtain natural light
or views to the outside.
LEGEND
TUNNEL TO COURTHOUSE
MECH.
FOOD
SERVICE
INTAKE / BOOKING
GARAGE
VEHICULAR SALLY PORT
N
PUBLIC
ENTRANCE
N
11
Background
3. Existing Facility (continued)
TOTAL FIRST
FLOOR SQUARE
FOOTAGE
Net Area:
20,354 sq.ft.
Circulation Factor
X 1.698 Total Area:
34,563 sq.ft.
First Floor
The First Floor primarily contains the main public entrance and
reception area, the Sheriff’s Department, male housing, health
services, and support spaces. The two-story Gymnasium is located in
the center of the first floor; this space is now utilized for temporary
bed space due to overcrowding in other parts of the jail. This level
opens up to a fenced-in outdoor space that was previously used
as a recreation zone. Currently, this area is used only for inmate
evacuation.
LEGEND
UNSENTENCED
UNSENTENCED
UNSENTENCED
UNSENTENCED
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
GYMNASIUM
MEDIUM
HEALTH CARE
MAXIMUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
N
12
Background
TOTAL SECOND
FLOOR SQUARE
FOOTAGE
Net Area:
Second Floor
The Second Floor is comprised of additional Sheriff’s Department
offices, two-story female and male housing cells and dorms, a control
room, and a few support spaces.
16,710 sq.ft.
Circulation Factor
X 1.828 Total Area:
30,548 sq.ft.
LEGEND
MINIMUM
MINIMUM
MINIMUM
FLEX
MINIMUM
MINIMUM
MINIMUM
FLEX
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
FEMALE HOUSING (ALL MEDIUM)
MEDIUM
N
13
Background
TOTAL THIRD FLOOR
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Net Area:
6,041 sq.ft.
Circulation Factor
X 2.139 Total Area:
12,922 sq.ft.
Third Floor
The Third Floor contains the upper level of both male and female
housing cells and a mechanical room. These cells are connected to
the cells on the Second Floor below via open stairways.
TOTAL FOURTH FLOOR
SQUARE FOOTAGE
Net Area:
891 sq.ft.
Circulation Factor
X 1.017 Total Area:
906 sq.ft.
MEDIUM
LEGEND
MEDIUM
FEMALE HOUSING (ALL MEDIUM)
MEDIUM
Fourth Floor
The Fourth Floor consists of a mechanical penthouse.
MECH.
N
14
Facility Concerns
1. Spatial Needs Analysis
CLASSIFICATIONS
SUMMARY
Male Classifications
•
•
•
The following is a summary of existing square footages for each
program component category of the Berrien County Jail. Each
category is broken down further in the following pages.
Minimum Security = 172 beds
Medium Security = 102 beds
Maximum Security = 25 beds
Female Classifications
•
Female Medium Security (all
female beds) = 42 beds
Total = 341 beds
EXISTING CAPACITY
Space Allocation
•
•
•
•
Male Dorms = 172 inmates
Male Double Cells =102 inmates
Male Isolation Cells=25 inmates
Female Double Cells=42 inmates
Total = 341 inmates
OPERATIONAL
CAPACITY
The operational capacity is determined
by taking the total number of
beds and subtracting out 15% for
peak classification, isolation, and
maintenance needs.
Total Beds 341
Reduction (-) 15%
Oper. Cap.
= 290 Beds
15
Facility Concerns
2. Programmatic & Operational Issues
Site
There is limited room for growth on existing property;
Facility property is located on a steep bluff down to the
St. Joseph River. This poses a challenge for building an
addition.
Parking is already at maximum capacity. Any parking that is
displaced by construction must be relocated elsewhere in
the near vicinity.
Port Street is one-way in front of the Jail facility.
1.0 Jail Administration
The Jail Administration is split up on to multiple floors. This
disjointed layout causes several operational challenges.
16
Facility Concerns
2.0 Public Reception
Basement level public entrance creates a safety hazard for staff
and visitors due to the fact that it is directly adjacent to the
Vehicle Sally Port and Intake / Release area. A design solution
must include a sight and sound separation between public
access and sally port.
Visitation occurs for two hours a day, twice a week. On a
regular basis, there are long lines and the public reception area
is typically overcrowded (up to forty visitors each day). It is
challenging to manage the large group of visitors each week.
Video visitation is strongly being considered by the County.
Note: A security breach is created when handicap visitors need
access up to the second level visitation room. The visitor is taken
inside the secure perimeter to access the elevator, which creates
a safety concern for staff. There are cameras set up to supervise
visitors using the stairs to access the first and second floors.
There is a need for additional probation room for inmates to
meet with their attorneys. Currently, there is only one room and
it is difficult to schedule all of the visits for that single space.
Contemporary jails attempt to provide visiting seven days a
week (or as many as possible), with sufficient hours to provide
sufficient visiting to reduce stress and tension within the facility
and to offer inmates the opportunity to maintain contact with
the community.
The existing design complicates the visiting process and reduces
safety and security within the building. Immediate and extensive
improvements are necessary to bring visiting to acceptable
standards. Provision of video visiting could be a substantial
improvement.
17
Facility Concerns
3.0 Intake Vehicular Sally Port
Receiving takes place at the Garage directly adjacent to the sally
port. A risk is created if deliveries arrive at the same time workerinmates are washing cars in the garage. Deliveries should be at a
separate entrance with separate loading dock.
The turning radius and slope of the driveway is very sharp. This
makes it difficult for both delivery trucks and police cars to
maneuver in and out.
The existing sally port allows for three cars to stack front to back.
During high-volume hours, deputy vehicles must stack outside
of the sally port in an unsecured zone. A wider garage would be
preferred for cars to pull in side-by-side to alleviate congestion.
There is a need for the sally port to house up to six vehicles at a
time.
There is no transitional interlocking room at the sally port for
officers to hand-off arrestees to the booking officers.
18
Facility Concerns
4.0 Intake Booking and Release
There is one male intake/booking counter and one female
intake/booking counter. They are constantly overwhelmed with
a high volume of traffic, especially on the weekends. At least two
additional booking counters would allow staff to process arrested
individuals more efficiently.
The male and female booking cells are regularly over maximum
capacity. At high peak times, the holding area will contain up to
50 males and 10 females. At low peak times, the holding area will
contain 15-20 individuals. The average is around 30-40. Several
male holding cells, and at least one additional female group
holding cell is needed.
The existing intake area also functions as the release area. A
constant staffing and safety problem occurs due to this overlap.
There is a need for additional inmate property storage. There are
currently around 370 small lockers. However, the room is typically
over capacity and it can be difficult to manage and organize
inmate belongings. The small size of the existing lockers can
create a problem for larger pieces of property.
A padded “safety” cell is a critical need.
Additional storage for the intake booking/release area is needed.
Currently, riot gear is stored in an adjacent plumbing chase.
There is a need for separate mug shot and fingerprint areas for
males and females.
Programmatically, the efficiency of the intake area would
be increased if the following spaces were all located nearby:
classification office, pretrial offices, medical support/screening
room, and bag storage system.
The conflict of intake and release paths causes undue stress and
confusion. The new design should account for separate paths for
intake and release, reducing conflict and improving conditions
within the intake area.
19
Facility Concerns
5.0 Custody Control
Although the recent camera system upgrade has helped with
issues of visibility in the jail layout, there are still glitches that the
jail staff are dealing with on a regular basis.
Legally, the cameras cannot be aimed into individual cells,
therefore, staff can only observe action going on in the day
rooms, creating s security hazard. In many cases, there is no way
of knowing that a violent incident is occurring until the staff
rounds are completed.
Tinted glass has been installed around most of the Control
Rooms. However, blinds are currently being used on the backside
of the first floor Control Room.
20
Facility Concerns
6.0 General Housing
In the corner cells, visibility is an issue. Until someone enters the
Day room, it is difficult to know what is going on in the remote
corners of the room. Currently there is a mirror to assist the
officers with some sight lines, however, the staff is still at risk of
an unforeseen incident due to blind corner assault / injury.
The linear design of this jail forces supervision to be intermittant,
limited to cameras and staff rounds.
Showers are typically located within the day rooms. Water
leakage onto the floor and adjacent areas has caused some
minor damage to the surrounding floor and cell bars.
There is currently no recreation area for inmates within the
jail. A recreation area would require additional staff for
supervision. Inmates have been housed in the Gymnasium
since 2000. In addition to the jail capacity of 341 beds, there
are an additional twenty (20) inmates are temporarily being
housed in the Gymnasium. The Gym lacks adequate support for
housing inmates. Upper level windows let heat into the space
in the summer and leak warmth in the winter. The space lacks a
temperature control system.
The width of the walk-way past certain day rooms is very narrow.
This creates a security problem due to the fact that officers are
within an arm’s reach of the inmates behind bars.
21
Facility Concerns
8.0 Female Housing
There are currently three, two-story dorms for female
inmates.
The windows are covered with Velcro panels to provide
sight separation from male inmates, however, the jail floor
plan makes it difficult to transport females to other parts of
the jail without female/male visual contact.
Due to limited bed space, all levels of female classifications
are housed together in the same units. Over recent years,
violent incidents between female inmates have increased.
10.0 Special Needs Housing
There are very few cells dedicated to Special Needs.
The facility does not house juveniles. Many of the juveniles
are housed at other counties for holding.
11.0 Programs
There is one main program space dedicated to various
religious and academic programs on the First and Second
Levels.
It is preferred that the design solution incorporate a strategy
for more separation between the inmate workers and nonworkers.
There is no outdoor recreation space.
22
Facility Concerns
12.0 Support Spaces
The fenced in “outdoor recreation” area is no longer used
by inmates due to staffing demands and improper security
measures. The space is only used in rare cases where inmate
evacuation is necessary. Razor wire is needed to provide
a greater level of security than the barbed wire that exists
currently.
When the original Laundry Room was designed, only noninmate staff had access to the space. There are exposed water
lines, and other major piping that comes into the facility
through this space. Now, inmate-workers handle the laundry
duties and a potential security risk has been created. There are
currently two security cameras in the Laundry Room.
Many of the Storage rooms on the ground floor are not near
the elevators. Staff frequently use the stairs to carry goods and
equipment back and forth to the various floors, creating an
inefficiency and potential injuries.
13.0 Health Care
Cameras are needed in the Dentist Area.
There is a general need for more Medical holding cells.
Currently, there is no cell that has its own air exchange system.
This creates a health hazard if the jail houses a patient with
Tuberculosis or any other air born/contagious disease.
There is a need for additional psychiatric interviewing cells.
23
Facility Concerns
14.0 Court and Arraignment
Currently there is one small room dedicated to Video
Arraignment. There is no area to stage inmates awaiting
usage of this space. The Arraignment Courtroom is in the
Courts building located adjacent to the jail.
15.0 Staff Services
The existing Staff Locker Rooms, Exercise Room, Lunch Room
and Training Rooms are located on the Ground Floor near the
Booking Area. The secure perimeter around Booking can be
breached when cross-corridor doors are left open. Because of
this, the perimeter around the zone that is safe for staff can be
comprimised creating a safety hazard.
16.0 Food Service
Food deliveries are taken through a secure set of doors, which
frequently need to be left open for delivery carts to access
the food storage room. This creates a breach of the secure
perimeter.
In general, additional food storage is greatly needed.
The Kitchen layout is inefficient for accommodating the level
of production needed to support the jail.
17.0 Mechanical / Electrical Spaces
The existing air handling equipment has been unable to
provide sufficient air flow quantity in some areas. This could
be becasue of undersized ductwork, fans, or both.
One boiler is very old and rarely used (does not meet current
boiler code).
24
Facility Concerns
18.0 Sheriff’s Department
The Sheriff’s Department is in need of a fire detection/
suppression system. However, the low ceiling heights in
these spaces will create some difficulty during this upgrade.
This has currently been put on hold to focus on other critical
maintenance items
0.0 Vacant Spaces
Currently, there are several programs that have been relocated
to another building, leaving a few empty rooms on the Ground
Level of the existing Jail. The explored growth options, presented
later in this report, address how these vacancies can be filled.
The daily use of lower level support spaces currently are laid out
in a manner that the jail perimeter is often comprimised with
movement through single doors vs. an interlocked set of sally
port doors.
25
Strategic Plan Analysis
1. Introduction
This data report must be expected to change when a more complete operational practices and prearchitectural program is developed. This information is used for preliminary and early planning of the possible creation of an expansion or
new detention facility to be located adjacent to the existing jail and courthouse in Berrien County. Data is
preliminary and used for broad planning only due to the early nature of the planning process. Increased
staff input will affect the design during future architectural programming. The estimates are based on the
preliminary estimates of building size from 450 to 650 detention beds. At this time, the County has not
determined the size, nor the location of expansion/new construction. Future decisions will modify the data
contained in this preliminary report.
The jail, like most other county jails, is both a pretrial and sentenced facility. Constant admission and
release takes place daily. The intake and release processes often misunderstood as to its responsibilities
and resources necessary to accomplish this difficult task. Staff is required to provide not only public safety,
but fundamental services and programs to influence the inmate population and to provide basic services
such as; food service, medical services, exercise, laundry exchange, visiting the family and friends, etc. A
larger number of admitted prisoners to jail facilities are released in very short times accounting for the bail
and bonding practices and by constant review of the courts. Review by the courts requires daily movement
of prisoners to court activities.
Transporting prisoners is an labor intensive and expensive process. The movement of prisoners
necessitates considerable effort to ensure public safety and to minimize the likelihood of prisoner escapes.
The present jail site confronts many problems to accommodate extensive expansion of inmate beds due
to site limitations and the potential for future expansion beyond this project. Some expansion, however,
is possible on the site with the recognition of future limitations. In support of any extension, the existing
facility requires substantial remodel and upgrading of many support functions.
Mission Statement
A mission statement is a broad, general statement that describes the philosophy by which the jail will
operate. Specifically, a mission statement defines:
*
The purpose of the jail
*
The jail’s responsibilities to its inmate population and other major constituencies such as local
government, the local criminal justice system, governmental and community agencies which provide
services and programs for the facility, and the public
*
The philosophical direction of the jail
The mission statement is of equal importance both to the physical environment of the facility as well as
its operations, staffing in particular. The design and appearance of a physical plant transmits a strong,
immediate message regarding the mission of the facility, and the physical plant can facilitate or inhibit the
organization’s ability to carry out its mission. However, it is only through its people that the mission can be
achieved.
As a result, the mission statement provides a critical element in the development of a jail design and
complementary staffing. It ultimately defines organizational priorities and gives direction to help determine
what the staff should be doing.
Berrien County is currently considering the development of a new mission statement that better describes
the purpose.
26
Mission Survey
1. Introduction
To assist the county in the development of a revised mission statement, the planning team provided
examples of mission statements developed by other jails and conducted a survey of key representatives to
assist in clarifying the mission and purpose of this jail.
A summary of the findings of this mission survey is shown in the following table:
Berrien County Mission Survey
DEFINITELY
AGREE
SOMEWHAT
AGREE
SOMEWHAT
DISAGREE
DEFINITELY
DISAGREE
Avg
Mode
Median
SD
1.5
1
1
1.0
1.4
1
1
0.7
2.3
2
2
0.9
3.0
3.5
3.5
1.2
1.1
1
1
0.3
1.4
1
1
0.8
2.7
3
3
1.0
2.7
3
3
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.1
1
1
0.3
1.4
1
1
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.0
1
1
0.2
1.3
1
1
0.4
3.0
3
3
0.9
1.9
2
2
0.8
2.0
2
2
0.9
1.0
1
1
0.0
1.1
1
1
0.3
1.3
1
1
0.6
1.5
1
1
0.6
3.3
4
4
1.0
1.4
1
1
0.5
2.7
3
3
0.9
2.0
2
2
0.8
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.3
1
1
0.5
1.5
2
2
0.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
0.8
1.4
1
1
0.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1
1
0.8
1.3
1
1
0.5
1.2
1
1
0.4
1.1
1
1
0.3
1.2
1
1
0.4
1.2
1
1
0.5
1.2
1
1
0.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
1
1
0.7
1.4
1
1
0.5
2.3
2
2
1.1
1.6
2
2
0.6
2.0
2
2
1.0
1.6
2
2
0.7
1.4
1
1
0.5
2.0
2
2
0.8
1.9
2
2
0.8
1.5
1
1
0.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.6
3
3
1.0
PRETRIAL
Number of surveys completed 25
T o insure appearance at trial
P rotection of S ociety
T o protect an individual from their ow n actions
P unishm ent
POST-TRIAL
1.5
1.4
P rotection of S ociety
T o punish the individual and deter from future crim es
T o provide vocational & educational training
T o treat the individuals social/physiological problem s
1.1
1.4
2.3
3.0
2.7
2.7
2.5
To h e lp th e in d ivid u a l su cce ssfu lly re -e n te r th e co m m u n ity
FACILITY ATTRIBUTES
Attain Compliance with:
A . S tate standards
B . N ational S tandards
Create a inmate environment that:
A . Is safe and secure
B . R einforces positive behavior
C . Is hard and hostile
D . M inim izes tension/stress
3.0
1.9
E . C ulturally sensitive
2.0
Create a staff environment that:
A . Is safe and secure
B . A llow s m anagem ent of inm ates
C . M inim izes tension/stress
D . enhances em ployee satisfaction
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.5
E . Is hard and hostile
3.3
Create a building image that:
A . G enerates com m unity pride and respect for law
1.4
B . C onveys thrift above all
2.7
2.0
C . Is hospitable to visitors
Create a building design that:
A . P rioritizes staff efficiency over m inim al construction cost
B . P rioritizes endurance over m inim al construction cost
C . E xpandable
D . E conom ically feasible to design and m aintain
ATTITUDES TOWARD CUSTODY
Inm ates should leave the facility no w orse than w hen they entered
T he facility should not be a place w here inm ates fear for their w ell-being.
P ositive inm ate behavior should be rew arded and reinforced
S taff should treat inm ates fairly but firm ly
T he building and staff should respond to the fundam ental needs of inm ates
Inm ates should be encouraged to exercise self-discipline.
Inm ates should be encourgaged to help care for the facilities in w hich they live
C onstant staff supervision of inm ates is the best w ay to m anage behavior and to
insure safety and security.
Inm ates should not be expected to m anage other inm ates
FACILITY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
C ontact fam ily visiting
E ducational P rogram s
V ocational training
G eneral psychological counseling
A lcohol/drug counseling
Job/career counseling
W ork /education release
Inm ate w ork ers
A fter C are and S upport
Jail industry
2.3
1.6
2.0
1.6
1.4
2.0
1.9
1.5
2.5
2.6
27
2. Data Analysis of Berrien County Jail
The following data is taken from State reports provided to the planning team that may not be comparable
to data as collected and summarized by the Sheriff’s Department, due to differences in reporting
procedures. Some reported data is also taken from the jail’s computer system provided by the Sheriff’s
Department. We found some differences between the two reporting systems that may reflect differences
within the data shown.
A basic principle of understanding the jail’s population is the fact that the number of admissions and the
average length of stay essentially determine the average daily population. Efforts to control the population
should focus on these two factors, number of bookings to the jail and the time each offender remains at
the jail.
Admissions (Bookings) to the Jail
Data between the years 1995 and 2007 show a slight increase in the number of admissions to the jail, but
not a significant impact. Since the year 2004 there has been a decline and one can assume, that is due to
the efforts of the population management within the Sheriff Department and their efforts to seek support
from the criminal justice system in minimizing incarceration of offenders.
Using regression analysis, we find that even with the decline of the last few years, that the analysis shows a
trend towards increasing numbers of admissions. If only the data since 2002 were used the trend would be
less or actually declining. The following chart represents the trend from 1995 to 2007 for 10 future years.
28
Should the future trend of bookings increase in direct relationship to this projection and the average length
of stay for inmates also increases, the jail will face severe crowding without additional capacity.
Average Daily Population
The average daily population for the years 2003 to 2007 indicates the jail has been completely full, and
over the 80% capacity recommended by professional correctional organizations. Every jail experiences
peaking, where for some days for some months, the jail population increases dramatically over the average
for the year. Any average number tends to mitigate the largest numbers held. Of course, it also mitigates
the low numbers, but in the case of Berrien County, the low numbers never reach a satisfactory level.
This is a significant factor for jail managers and results in increased liability for the county. Exceeding the
jail’s capacity places staff and inmates in an unsafe condition. Given the average daily population, the
table below provides insight to the capacity needed to accommodate that population. Clearly, if the 80%
rule were followed in Berrien County, the jail would have needed over 460 beds during the documented
years. This provides some insight to the needed expansion and shows that the jail needs expansion or
modification to the number of inmates admitted and held.
The State rated capacity of 341 is consistently and dangerously overcrowded.
29
The above table shows the average daily population taken from the Sheriff’s records for the years 1995
through 2007. The data is extremely compelling in the continuous and long-standing crowding of the jail.
The average number of prisoners overcapacity is shown and should be recognized for its importance. This is
an average of the number of prisoners for which the jail has no adequate accommodations for housing. Any
average deflects the importance of the high numbers that are mitigated when averaging from day to day
and month to month and then summarized by the year.
Professional organizations recommend that a jail’s actual capacity be 80 to 85% of the rated capacity to
accommodate the accurate and safe classification and housing assignments of different inmate risk levels.
The classification capacity provides that beds be available for, not only the proper assignment of serious and
non-serious, predatory and prey offenders, but for the spikes in peak numbers of prisoners held. The above
table assumes an 85% classification level to identify a number of prisoners historically over a safe capacity
limit during each of the years. The State rated capacity of 341.
341
290
The above table shows the average daily jail population and the impact of the peaking factor on the gross
numbers. The table also displays the expected needed capacity for the peaking population. These numbers
merely cover the historic use of the jail and do not satisfy projected needs.
30
Average Daily Population by Year
440
420
400
397
394
395
383
381
380
377
381
376
370
360
356
356
353
347
340
337
320
300
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
ADP
The above chart displays the historic jail population since 1995. While it shows some fluctuation, there is a
uniform trend that the jail population exceeds the State-mandated capacity and the 80% recommended
capacity.
The previous chart showing the average daily population of the jail distorts the critical crowding that occurs
at the jail. All average data tends to mitigate the high numbers experienced in the jail. These values (peaking
days) reflect the hard times for crowding. The data provided for the jail did not include peaking numbers
throughout the year. Generally, the jail experiences 20% peaking over the average daily population.
Understanding that the jail operates at above capacity, the peaking is a critical factor for this jail.
Compare the following chart that shows the monthly population, as contrasted with the previous chart
showing the yearly average numbers of inmates. This dramatically shows the difference between a yearly
average number and variations seen by month. Then considering the daily population against the average
monthly population one observes a more exaggerated difference. This is common for jail population trends.
The jail experiences a rotation of inmates who come and go and stay for either short or long periods of time.
Understand that the intricacies of jail population is difficult and requires dedicated staff daily monitoring the
accuracy of databases. The more important issue, of course, is the importance of having a database system
that supports analysis over merely tracking the in custody population. Understanding the long-term analysis
is much different than tracking the daily ins and outs and custody levels of each inmate. The planning team
recommends that the current database and software system be reviewed to ensure that it is reporting
sufficient data to conduct detailed analysis. The planning team recommends consideration of an improved
software package for the jail data record-keeping. The following chart shows the variation in the average
daily population by month.
31
Jail Average Daily Population by Month
450
1995
1996
1997
1997
1997
2000
2001
2002
2003
1
2004
2005
2006
2007
430
410
390
370
350
330
310
290
270
250
The historical data indicates a need for additional beds for the future, solely based on historic growth of the jail’s
population. Considering that the jail has been crowded in previous years and that crowding and capacity stifles the
normal growth. The county can expect that the future capacity of the jail is a significant increase over the current
bed capacity to resolve crowding. It is difficult or nearly impossible to accurately describe, the future jail population
needed due to this pent up demand. An expansion of 125 to 150 would be filled immediately, and continue crowding
for the foreseeable future, unless dramatic changes are made to the processes of offender cases. The population of
the jail tends to increase or decrease with the county’s population trends. A sudden increase in county population
growth will result in jail population increases. The following chart provides an insight to future jail growth based on
the historical trends.
Projection of Monthly Population Averages
450
430
410
2
R = 0 .1 1 3 6
390
370
350
330
310
290
270
250
32
Average Daily Population by Charge Level – Percentage of Total Population
The following table includes those that are sentenced after their initial confinement. The distribution of the
average daily population is distributed by charge level and percentage of the total population.
ADP as % of Capacity - 2003 to 2007
Unsentenced Felons
9%
Unsentenced Misdemeanants 14%
Sentenced Felon {prior to admission} 7%
Sentenced Felon {after admission} 31%
Sentenced Misd {prior to admission} 7%
Sentenced Misd {after admission} 25%
Other
16%
Total Housed
110%
ADP as % of Capacity
Housed
Regular Inmates
U nsentenced F elons
U nsentenced M isdem eanants
S entenced F elon {prior to adm ission}
S entenced F elon {after adm ission}
S entenced M isd {prior to adm ission}
S entenced M isd {after adm ission}
Boarded In
DOC
F ederal
O ther C ounties
Other
Total Housed
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
7%
17%
5%
26%
8%
30%
9%
19%
8%
25%
6%
25%
10%
18%
7%
31%
5%
24%
11%
8%
8%
32%
6%
28%
9%
7%
8%
40%
8%
20%
0%
0%
0%
15%
110%
0%
0%
0%
18%
112%
0%
0%
0%
17%
112%
0%
1%
0%
14%
106%
0%
1%
0%
16%
108%
33
The following two charts show a comparison between the years 2007 and 1995 for the number of bookings
into the jail by month and the average daily population. For the year 2007, the number of offenders
assigned to the tether program is shown. The tether program did not exist in 1995. Each chart shows the
variation by month, however, that variation is not dramatic. The numbers seem to reflect a very constant
average daily population, number of bookings or admissions to the jail and those assigned to the tether
program.
2007 Jail Data
1000
900
858
800
811
764
700
750
742
771
751
732
674
671
600
636
602
500
399
400
380
377
385
350
374
378
382
386
374
370
368
52
60
58
Oct
Nov
Dec
300
200
100
35
45
Jan
Feb
53
62
61
62
64
59
54
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
0
Booked
Tether ADP
Jail ADP
1995 Jail Data
800
700
718
691
600
671
683
705
678
642
614
617
610
608
575
500
400
360
346
349
359
355
365
364
367
335
355
373
346
F eb
M ar
A pr
M ay
Jun
Jul
A ug
S ep
O ct
N ov
D ec
300
200
100
0
Jan
Booked
Jail ADP
34
Tether Alternative
The following chart shows the average daily population, including the tether program participants. The chart
shows the obvious increase in offenders assigned to the system. Some would argue that the tether program
increases those in the system while others argue that the program diverts participants from the jail. Overall,
the tether population can be assumed to spend more incarceration time had not the program supported the
criminal justice system and diverted offenders from custody.
Monthly Jail Average Daily Population
with Tether Population
550
1995
500
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
450
400
350
300
JAIL ADP
Apr
Jul
Oct
Jan
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jul
Oct
Jan
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
Jan
Jul
Oct
Apr
200
Jan
250
TETHER ADP
Tether Monthly Average Population Trend Line for Future Potential
120
2
R = 0.4575
100
80
60
40
20
Ju
n
Fe
b
O
ct
Ju
n
Fe
b
O
ct
Ju
n
Fe
b
O
ct
Ju
n
Fe
b
O
ct
Ju
n
Fe
b
O
ct
Ju
n
Fe
b
ct
O
Fe
b
0
The trend line for the tether population implies a continuing growth of the participants in that program.
Many local jurisdictions are increasing their use of tether resources to monitor and control the offender
population. The program is gaining wide acceptance throughout the United States as an alternative to
incarceration.
35
Average Length of Stay
The length of stay at the jail for each inmate is critical to the evaluation of the factors of growth and
crowding. Combined with the number of admissions, the average length of stay for each prisoner largely
influences the jail’s population. The degree to which population management monitors and controls the
length of stay will control the jail’s need for beds. Time delays in case processing is normal in any system
but without monitoring of the elements that cause delays, the time for case processing can grow. A small
change in the average length of stay results in crowding or additional construction because each day
represents 365 days of incarceration for each prisoner booked in that year. The length of stay is computed from the booking date and the release date, showing both pre-trial and
sentenced time. Developing permanent tracking methodologies of individual cases for long stays on pretrial status could identify ways of reducing the jail’s population of pre-trial offenders. All jail population
management plans include continuous review of the length of stay and monitoring of individual cases. Jail
management plans often track offenders who stay at the jail for long periods and jail managers work with
criminal justice system representatives to manage the jail’s bed days. The length of stay is reported in the
following graph.
Average Length of Stay
20.0
19.4
19.5
18.9
19.0
18.5
18.2
18.1
18.0
17.4
17.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
The increasing length of stay is of concern. While the number is small, the impact is significant. The planning
team recommends continuous monitoring of this trend. Even with an expansion, increasing the length of
stay for each prisoner admitted to the jail will continue to crowding.
36
Average Length of Stay for Felons and Misdemeanors
50.0
46.3
44.1
45.0
40.9
Felons
37.7
40.0
34.4
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
18.5
16.5
17.7
Misd.
14.1
13.5
2006
2007
10.0
5.0
0.0
2003
2004
2005
Average Length of Stay 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Felons 46.3
44.1
40.9
37.7
34.4
Misd. 18.5
17.7
16.5
14.1
13.5
The preceding chart and table represent the average length of stay
for felons and misdemeanants during the years 2003 to 2007.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Felons Average Length of Stay
Average
7.3
29.9
101.8
46.3
7.3
34.1
90.9
44.1
8.3
28.2
86.1
40.9
11.2
30.5
71.5
37.7
9.4
26.8
67.0
34.4
Misd. Average Length of Stay
Average
5.8
12.6
37.0
18.5
7.0
10.1
35.9
17.7
6.7
9.0
33.9
16.5
5.0
6.7
30.5
14.1
4.3
7.8
28.4
13.5
A further distribution of the average length of stay by charge level
and sentenced or unsentenced is shown in the table above.
37
Number of Prisoners by Charge Level and Sentence Status
The previous table summarizes by percentage, while the following table summarizes by numbers of inmates
in each year. This data also supports the previous chart.
Offenders on Record
Housed
Regular Inmates
Boarded In
DOC
F ederal
O ther C ounties
Other
Total Housed
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
831
3,405
237
398
905
1,146
1,103
3,565
322
424
801
927
1,137
3,220
327
532
713
916
1,055
1,986
326
643
1,254
1284
945
1,748
422
828
1,236
945
0
5
0
1,055
7,982
0
10
0
1,242
8,394
0
12
0
1,133
7,990
0
15
0
1,041
7,604
0
23
0
1,052
7,199
The following table represents the average daily population of the jail as a percentage of the capacity of
the jail, indicating which group uses the capacity. This group includes those sentenced after admission and
shows that this group is a significant number of the capacity used. The data shows that a substantial number
of prisoners are held at the jail after sentencing for both felon and misdemeanor offenses.
ADP as % of Capacity
Housed
Regular Inmates
Boarded In
DOC
F ederal
O ther C ounties
Other
Total Housed
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
7%
17%
5%
26%
8%
30%
9%
19%
8%
25%
6%
25%
10%
18%
7%
31%
5%
24%
11%
8%
8%
32%
6%
28%
9%
7%
8%
40%
8%
20%
0%
0%
0%
15%
110%
0%
0%
0%
18%
112%
0%
0%
0%
17%
112%
0%
1%
0%
14%
106%
0%
1%
0%
16%
108%
The above table also shows that the jail population is consistently and severely overcrowded. National
Jail standards, the National Institute of Corrections, the American Correctional Association and other
professional agencies recommend that the population remain at about 80% of the capacity to allow for
proper classification of housing assignments.
38
The following table represents the average number per day, average throughout the year, for each category
of prisoner. The Sheriff Department notes that their records do not coincide with the number of federal
prisoners indicated in the following table.
Average Daily Population
Housed
Regular Inmates
Boarded In
DOC
F ederal
O ther C ounties
Other
Total Housed
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
24
56
19
89
29
104
32
66
28
86
22
85
33
61
24
107
17
81
37
27
26
109
22
94
30
22
28
136
28
68
0
1
0
53
375
0
2
0
62
382
0
2
0
57
381
0
2
0
47
362
0
4
0
53
370
Legal Status by Charge Level
The following chart shows that the largest percentage of prisoners held are unsentenced misdemeanants
followed by unsentenced felons. Smaller groups are those sentenced prior to admissions. This data shows
that a large percentage of the daily inmate population is unsentenced and could respond to pretrial services
programs to reduce the daily population.
39
Percentage of Total Inmates Held by Charge Classification
The following table displays, the percentages of each category for the legal status and charge level of the
inmate population during the years 2003 – 2007. This data summarizes the previous chart.
Housed
Regular Inmates
S ub-total
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
10.4%
42.7%
3.0%
11.3%
67.4%
13.1%
42.5%
3.8%
9.5%
69.0%
14.2%
40.3%
4.1%
8.9%
67.5%
13.9%
26.1%
4.3%
16.5%
60.8%
13.1%
24.3%
5.9%
17.2%
60.4%
Federal Prisoners
Others
Sentenced After Admission
F elon
M isdem eanor
S ub-total
0.06%
13.22%
2003
5.0%
14.4%
19.3%
0.12%
14.80%
2004
5.1%
11.0%
16.1%
0.15%
14.18%
2005
6.7%
11.5%
18.1%
0.20%
13.69%
2006
8.5%
16.9%
25.3%
0.32%
14.61%
2007
11.5%
13.1%
24.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
This data is taken from state reports and may not be comparable to actual data as collected and summarized
by the Sheriff’s Department, due to differences in reporting procedures.
Top Ten Charge Groups by Year
The state data report indicated groups of charges that were monitored and is reported in the following
table. The table includes arrest code, crime class, and descriptions of the offenses, number of offenders and
the average length of stay.
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Rank
ADP % of
Capacity
Arrest Code
Crime
Class
Decription
#
Offenders
ALOS
1
5.40%
Various
M
Alcoholrelatedarrests
827
8.5
1
1
1
1
4.90%
5.30%
5.00%
9.80%
P771.4A
M
M
F
F
Undefinedarrestcode
Undefinedarrestcode
Cont.Sub-deliver/mfglessthan50gr
Paroleviolators
289
285
181
411
22.3
24.5
36.8
26.5
2
5.10%
P771.4
M
Undefinedarrestcode
382
18
2
2
2
2
4.30%
3.90%
4.80%
5.40%
P771.4
M
M
M
M
Undefinedarrestcode
Policeofficer-assault/resist/obstruct
Domesticviolence
Domesticviolence
369
206
554
526
15.8
23.6
11.8
12.1
P771.4A
P333.74012A4
ParV
P750.81D1
P750.812
P750.812
40
Top Ten Charge by Number of Prisoners
The state report also defined the top 10 offense classification and is reported by the number of prisoners in
the following table:
Top Ten Charge by Percentage of Capacity
The top 10 offenses, as reported by the state hard then distributed by percentage of the jail’s population for
each year by the percentage of the capacity of the jail.
The state data is then taken to define the average length of stay for each of the top 10 categories for each of
the years between 2003 and 2007.
Top Ten Offense Classification
U ndefined A rrest C ode P 771.4A
U ndefined A rrest C ode P 771.4
D O M E S T IC V IO LE N C E
A lcohol R elated A rrests
N O N -P A Y M E N T O F A LIM O N Y O R C H ILD S U P P O R T
P O LIC E O F F IC E R -A S S A U LT /R E S IS T /O B S T R U C T
D E T A IN E R /H O LD - B E R R IE N C O
A S S A U LT W /D A N G E R O U S W E A P O N
B & E - A B U ILD IN G W IT H IN T E N T
C O N T . S U B . - P O S S E S S LE S S T H A N 25 G R A M S
2003
2004
2005
Rank Average Length of Stay
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8.5
18
15.1
10
35.6
21.6
14.1
29
28.1
18
22.3
15.8
9.5
7.3
13.9
23.6
10.8
27.9
59.9
25.0
24.5
23.6
9.6
15.6
38.1
27.5
10.3
6.3
25.5
45.2
2006
2007
36.8
11.8
35.6
35.3
22.3
10.6
6
18.3
31.5
11.2
26.5
12.1
43.5
37
8.7
43.8
35.4
37.6
11.1
23.9
41
Targeted Offender Populations
The state data provided three target groups of the jail population for each year. The following tables show,
each of the target groups, the number of prisoners and their average length of stay.
Target Populations
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Felony Alcohol Related Arrests 44
41
31
50
50
Parole Violators
0
0
0
411
411
13
7
15
109
109
Felony Circuit Court Probation Violators ALOS of Target Populations 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Felony Alcohol Related Arrests 26
30
54.9
29.8
43.6
Parole Violators
0
0
0
0
26.5
13
7
12.6
3
37
Felony Circuit Court Probation Violators The recent increase in parole violators is an area to explore and to determine if future events will increase.
Prisoners Boarded Out
During the years 2000 to 2007, no prisoners were boarded out to other counties and only federal prisoners
were boarded into the jail.
42
3. Projections: Daily Average Population
The existing jail has faced severe crowding for many years, and therefore negates some of the more useful
tools for determining the future jail population. The lack of growth in population trends is the primary
indicator of future jail use. For the purpose of this study, the planning team uses trends that are not nearly as
accurate. Future jail populations are often more substantial due to the availability of new beds that results in
jail use not previously anticipated or appreciated. Due to the pent up needs for jail beds, the system is likely
to react to new beds by increasing the use of the jail.
The planning team interviewed key criminal justice system representatives in an effort to determine their
anticipated changes should new jail beds be made available. Obviously, system representatives did not
speak with a single mind. However, a general theme emerged. The current jail does not satisfy the need for
incarceration of those deemed in need of incarceration by criminal justice system representatives, and that
some growth is necessary.
An expansion of 125 beds will satisfy only short term needs without additional resources devoted to jail
population management and alternatives to incarceration.
4. Jail Staffing Review
Staffing Overview
• Staffing for jails varies widely depending on local choices and facility design
• Modern jails (average nationally) provide 1 staff position for each 3.0 to 4 inmates
(see appendix on comparison of jails data)
• The current staffing is 1 staff to 5.5 inmates
• Variations run extreme from 1 staff for 1 inmate to 1 staff for 10 inmates
• Many jails evolve the number of staff without consideration of the staffing determinants
• The shift relief factor is essential component of the determination of staff levels
• Staff must manage inmates a building design can help or impede but cannot manage the inmate
population
• Staff handle a wide array of responsibilities and duties, that few really appreciate
43
4. Jail Staffing Review (continued)
The numbers of inmates, the serious crowding of living units and the lack of adequate staff develops a
situation that necessitates a respectful consideration of staffing modifications.
The minimal recommended staff to be considered is shown. The recommendations do not contain any
extra posts or “fluff”. In fact, the department would be well served to provide more coverage for relief due to
lunches and breaks and to move inmates to functions and services. The department now pulls from posts to
cover these responsibilities and will continue with the addition of the recommended staff.
The department does not have sufficient numbers of staff to allow for full coverage due to the need for relief
staff for days off, vacation, sick days, holidays, military leave and other factors. The lack of adequate staff is
driving the use of overtime. The County could not afford the complete elimination of overtime because it
requires too many positions.
The facility needs to utilize staff in the most efficient way possible in order to minimize operational costs
while providing sufficient staff to safely operate the facility.
The study focused on the staffing of the operations section including, but not limited to, housing areas, floor
controls, booking, public lobby, medical unit, classification, and support services. Components that received
less scrutiny in the staffing analysis include the court security, transportation unit, inmate programs, and
inmate work programs.
The county operates the detention facility to process both pretrial and sentenced inmate populations. The
facility follows standard policy and procedures developed by the department and the county. The jail uses
a combination of centralized and decentralized service delivery. Inmate labor support the maintenance and
delivery of services, however, jail inmates do not directly replace any staff positions.
County jails in the State of Michigan are required to comply with State Jail Standards developed to govern
jail operations, influencing the services and programs provided, and therefore, the staffing levels of the
detention facilities. The Sheriff’s staff understands State and national jail standards and complies, as best
they can, to safe guard internal safety, reduce liability and improved operations.
The Consultant’s review of the classification system used to distinguish risk assessment of all inmates and
to determine the appropriate housing assignments results our suggestion to strengthen the classification
process. Currently, only one classification specialist is identified in the staffing plan. The National Institute
of Corrections recommends 1 classification specialist for every 100 to 125 inmate population. Our report
recommends the increase of classification staff by 2 and urges continuing monitoring of this program to
ensure reduced liability and increased accuracy for the essential risk assessment process.
Staffing Determinants
Staffing levels are dependent on a variety of factors. Size of building, building design, shift relief factors and
numbers of prisoners are the most important factors. The level of services and programs and the agency
mission statement contribute to the need for staffing. The agency must deliver meals, education, legal and
law libraries, laundry services, commissary, telephone, health services, mental health treatment, delivery
of medications, delivery of mail, professional and family visiting, provision of exercise and leisure time
activities.
There is a constant flow of through the facility as newly arrested prisoners are booked, others moved to and
from the courts for hearings, moved to visiting and to meet with attorneys, transferred to and from other
facilities. Security functions continually demand staff resources including security control posts, escorting of
inmate movement, screening of release and returning work release participants, and building shake-down.
One must appreciate the many activities contributing to the need for staff. Precedent court decisions at other institutions and correctional standards obligate jail officials to “observe
and respond” to the issue of inmate supervision. A priority provision of inmate and staff safety through
facility security is mandated.
44
The decision to either place deputies in the living units or limit staff to control stations can determine the
need for staff and affect operational effectiveness. There are four major determinants of staffing within institutions, each of which is comprised of many
elements. The determinants are the following:
• Mission Statement:
A written statement delineating the purpose and mission of the organization. The mission will dictate
activities and services to be provided, as well as reference legal mandates. Standards and constitutional
requirements can and do mandate that certain activities and functions occur in the facility that affect
staffing. The organizations vision statement, goals and objectives flow from the mission statement. The
mission and purpose of a prison is much different that one of a jail. The mission statement should be
developed by a broad group of the criminal justice system and county management and fully supported by
the Sheriff’s Department.
• Physical Plant:
The design and layout of the physical structure directly impacts the staffing level. The physical plant dictates
the staff’s ability to maintain sight and sound contact with the inmates, flow patterns, the staff’s ability to
classify inmates, and to some degree, the method of supervision. The number of beds and prisoner capacity
combined with staff control stations and management styles dictate staff requirements.
• Operational Characteristics: The number, frequency, and schedule of inmate programs and services dictate the staffing level. The
numbers and types of offenders being detained also relate to the need for staff. In some instances,
management can control the activities. In other cases, the agency has little choice on whether to receive
new inmates or to provide services that are mandated by jail standards, legal precedent, criminal justice
system practices and court orders. The current staffing levels and other staff issues are addressed in the
section on operational characteristics.
• Shift Relief Factor:
The shift relief factor (SRF) is used to determine the number of personnel necessary to staff posts as required
due to the number of days of leave and days off. The SRF is a multiplier used to compensate for round-theclock operation, regularly-scheduled and unplanned days off, vacations, holidays, sick days, training, and
other leave days such as funerals, injury, and discipline time.
The SRF may also include the time it takes to fill vacancies. Time away from the job or post during
departmental recruiting, selecting, and training of new employees creates a negative impact on the shift
relief factor. B e r r i e n co u n t y | j a i l n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t a n d f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y
45
In the jail environment, each supervisor follows established county and department policy, to make daily
decisions on filling posts. Some vacancies are scheduled leave, such as holidays and vacation time. The
more serious vacancies are the ones that occur at the last minute, making it difficult for the supervisor to
find replacement staff. To understand what is required for staffing a post, one must understand the full
implications of the SRF. Each post in the jail must be considered in relation to the need to replace a staff
member if the person is absent from the post. The training deputy post would not normally be replaced
during breaks or meals by temporary staff, relief staff, or result in an assignment of overtime if he/she called
in sick, on the other hand, if a control room deputy or living unit deputy were to call in sick, jail supervisors
would have to identify a replacement for the post. To staff a post or position in the facility on a 24 hour a day basis, seven days per week, requires just over five
staff. It is therefore important to review the total number of staff available to provide the desired services by
day and by shift, rather than immediately considering “the bottom line”.
The result of an incorrect shift relief factor is inadequate coverage, which has implications for liabilities and
effective operations. Many facilities attempt to compensate for inadequate coverage through the extensive
use of overtime or compensatory time off. Excessive use of overtime has a negative effect on staff and
ultimately, compensatory time must be taken, increasing the need for relief, thus setting in motion a vicious
cycle. The SRF reflects a number of policy decisions made by the county and the Sheriff’s Office. The county
establishes the number of hours per week for employment, and the number of holidays, authorized sick
leave days, and vacation days allowed. The Sheriff establishes training requirements, implements training
programs, monitors the use of authorized leave time, implements policy on filling posts vacated by
employees on various types of leave, selects employees working overtime, controls the use of compensatory
time, and enforces employee adherence to county and Departmental policy. The following table displays the current staffing authorized levels by rank. These numbers are used to
compare against the recommended staffing numbers for the changes for inmate population. An exact
comparison is not possible due to the changing need for staff assignments, scheduling requirements, and
possible design features of the renovated or new construction.
The department strives to make the best use of existing staff through their scheduling practices. The
scheduling system must account for distribution of vacation and other days off. The recommended
summaries provide a shift relief factor for each post and position and a position for relief in the list where
assigned deputies are required to be absent for lunches and breaks. The existing staffing plan does not
provide adequate coverage for several posts and is not sufficient to cover the relief of post for breaks,
lunches and other days away from work. Authorized Staff
Captain Lieutenant
Sergeant
Deputy Civilian Part-time
1
4
3
49
11
2
Totals
70
The current staff includes an administrative lieutenant, three lieutenants assigned to the three shifts, a
sergeant assigned to each of the three shifts, with deputies assigned to the three shifts of days, evenings
and nights.
46
The following table shows the current distribution of posts and positions for the jail. Those positions in bold
regular a relief factor to replace when absent. The sergeant and lieutenant staggered days off to provide
supervisory staff on each shift.
Post/PositionRankDays
NightsGravesTotal
Captain Captain 1
3
Admin Lieutenant
Lieutenant
1
3
Shift Lieutenant Lieutenant
1
1
1
1
Shift Sergeant
Sergeant
1
1
1
3
Classification Sergeant
Sergeant
1
1
Master Control Deputy 1
1
1
3
Master Control Deputy 1
1
1
3
Receiving
Deputy 1
1
1
3
Receiving
Deputy 1
1
1
3
Receiving
Deputy 1
1
1
3
Central Control Deputy 1
1
1
3
1st. Floor
Deputy 1
1
1
3
1st. Floor
Deputy 1
1
1
3
2nd. Floor
Deputy 1
1
1
3
2nd. Floor
Deputy 1
1
1
3
Inmate Advocate
Deputy 1
1
Medical Civilian 2
2
4
Medical Part-time
Civilian 1
1
2
Psychologist
Civilian 1
1
Inmate Accounting
Civilian 1
1
2
Food Service
Civilian 2
2
4
Totals 23
18
12
55
This number of posts leaves the staff short due to an inadequate shift relief factor. A full complement of the
shift relief factor would require 79 positions.
47
5. Classification
Objective offender classification as it is known is a process of offender assessment that is intended to direct
decisions and correctional resources to best house, supervise and deliver care to those incarcerated. The
expected outcomes of the OJC process include reductions in violence, escape, contraband, suicide, health
care crisis and general behavioral non-compliance. In the process of achieving these objectives the jail
mitigates civil liability through the successful attainment of its organizational mission.
Classification Definition
A management methodology that focuses on the entry to exit inmate assessment of risk and need that
promotes the appropriate delivery of custody and care consistent with an articulated correctional mission.
• Assessment requires the development of data resources and collection instruments.
• Custody refers to the matching of housing and supervision to risk.
• Care refers to matching of appropriate health care services to need.
• Correctional mission refers to the goals and the stated objectives for:
- the protection of the public safety,
- the protection of institutional safety, and,
- the delivery of a constitutional level of health care.
• Incident based reporting measures the success of classification through the tracking, coding and
reporting of incidents associated with desired outcomes of the correctional mission as stated in the
objectives.
When an organization has a clear mission, knows its goals and has measurable objectives, has developed
legally defensible policies implemented by a well-trained staff, one thing remains. That is the application of
policy through practice. In order to promote safety and provide care an institution must assess offenders to
determine their level of risk and need for care and respond with appropriate resources to assure safety and
deliver adequate care.
48
5. Classification (continued)
This classification process is the assessment of risk and needs. The classification process uses
instruments of assessment administered during the period of incarceration to collect data pertaining
to risks and needs. This data provides critical support for making decisions that determine:
• The most appropriate housing assignment.
• The best method of supervision.
• The appropriate delivery of health care services.
• Opportunities to participate in needed programs.
The data collection points coincide with events in the incarceration process.
• Acceptance of custody from an arresting or transporting officer/Intake Assessment
• At the time of formal booking/Screening
• Upon initial housing in an assessment center or Pre-classification housing unit.
• When custody continues after the first court appearance/Primary Classification
• Periodically during an extended term of incarceration/Reclassification
• When events occur that impact risks or needs/Reclassification
Data collection supports the resource allocation process; therefore the integrity of the data is critical.
Data is collected from a variety of sources such as:
• The charging document
• The arresting or transporting officer
• Criminal history files
• Alert flags for high risk or need
• Institutional history files
• Inmate self-report
• Staff interview
• Staff observation
• Outside resources
- Informal / - Formal
Instruments are developed to assist in this collection process and suggest the appropriate organizational
response based on the indices of risk and need. These instruments are tools for assessment that assist staff
in discretionary decision making, determining housing, supervision, the delivery of services, and placement
in programs.
Consistent with the assessment of risk and need every facility must designate housing units consistent with
the categories of classification. Given the variations of housing resources in each facility a housing plan
takes into consideration not only the availability of cells but the combination of cells and levels of available
staff supervision. If a facility has sufficient housing separations then staffing requirements should be
consistent with the professional standard. In a facility that is deficient in the number of housing separations
or cell types the professional standard can be maintained by increasing staffing and observation levels.
The balance between cell type and supervision that provides a safe and secure environment meets the
professional standard. Even the oldest of the facilities if properly staffed can provide an adequate standard
of care.
49
The Berrien County jail’s classification system is staffed by a single sergeant, who interviews and classifies
after initial arraignment. The National Institute of Corrections recommends that a jail, maintain one
corrections specialist, performing classification duties for every 100 inmates. The single sergeant cannot
possibly accomplish all the necessary tasks associated with this terribly important responsibility. The
Sheriff’s Department 2007 annual report states that 4,640 inmates were interviewed and classified to cell
assignments for the year. The data shows that 8,762 offenders were booked into the jail showing that a
substantial percentage of incoming inmates were not classified. This data exemplifies the shortage of staff
to properly classify inmates. The National Institute of Corrections recommends that all incoming prisoners
be interviewed and screened as early as possible after admission. The initial few hours after arrest and
incarceration is the most stressful and where a high percentage of suicide and negative behaviors exist.
The current interview system is necessary due to the shortage of staff. However, the county’s liability is
greatly increased and the conditions of confinement at the intake area are the most severe conditions of the
facility.
Standard Classification Housing Types for Modern Jails
Modern correctional facilities include separate and distinct housing units for specific classifications. Any new
jail or remodel should include or accommodate nine separate classifications for male inmates and four for
female inmates. The following classifications should be included in the facility:
1. Classification (Intake) Unit
Most inmates are classified to this housing from booking with the exception of those with high criminal
sophistication and special needs. Through use of a classification tree or a classification officer interview they
are approved for this unit. In most jails, up to 50% of inmates who are arraigned end up being released on
bail or their own recognizance; therefore, time might be saved if only the inmates remaining in custody in
the classification unit receive the full interview process before being moved to other specific housing.
2. Mental Health (Psych) Unit
This is a separate housing unit specifically for those inmates who have mental health or emotional problems
who cannot be housed in a general population setting.
3. Protective Custody Unit
This housing unit is for inmates who have a potential to be harmed by other inmates such as child molesters,
those with enemies in the facility, public officials etc. There needs to be separate cells in this housing unit to
separate these people from each other as well as the general population.
4. Disciplinary Isolation Unit
This housing unit is specifically for those inmates who violate jail rules. This housing should not have
television or other privileges and have single cells. Its purpose is to remove disruptive inmates from the
general population and serve as a punishment for their disruptive behavior.
50
5. Administrative Segregation Unit
This housing is intended for those inmates who fit the criteria set forth in Section 1053 of Title 15 who may
not be criminally sophisticated but pose a threat to other inmates, staff, or are an escape risk. This housing
unit should have single and double cells and afford most of the amenities as other general population but
be separate from the jail’s general population inmates.
6. Male Maximum Security Unit(s)
This housing is intended for the most dangerous inmates who have a history of violence and pose a threat
to other inmates, staff, or the public. This should be primarily single cells in the most secure part of the
facility.
7. Male Medium Security unit(s) # 1
This housing is generally a combination of cells and dormitories and houses general population inmates.
8. Male Medium Security unit(s) # 2
This housing is generally a combination of cells and dormitories and houses general population inmates.
9. Male Minimum Security Unit(s)
This housing holds the lowest risk inmates that are eligible for inmate worker status in a dormitory setting.
It is generally a separate or attached structure built with less expensive construction material with access for
outside county crews to pickup inmate workers.
10. Minimum Number of Female Housing Classifications
1. Female ADSEG and or special needs unit i.e.: Psych, PC, DI, (Same as male)
2. Female Maximum Security unit (Same as male)
3. Female Medium Security unit (Same as male)
4. Female Minimum Security unit (Same as male)
Note: In smaller jails separation must be accomplished in specialized mixed units or by providing small separate
cell areas, as an example those with psychological needs being housed in the infirmary. Another example is there
may be only one protective custody inmate so therefore when building new housing management may consider
building a few separate and distinct holding areas for these special classifications or using single lockdown cells in
the standard housing units.
51
1. Maintain Existing Facility
PROS
*
No immediate costs
*
Minimal staffing impact
CONS
*
No additional bed space;
inmates improperly housed in
overcrowded facility
*
Increased maintenance costs
*
Continuation of decreased safety
and security
*
Continuation of staffing
inefficiencies
*
Does not solve most critical
programmatic issues
*
No improvement of inmate
observation
*
No improvement upon visitation
or public jail traffic
EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDS = 341 / CAPACITY = 290
At this point in time, the County can choose to proceed without
making any changes to the existing jail facility. However, at a bare
minimum, by maintaining the existing facility, there will be no plan to
renovate the vacant spaces on the Ground Level.
Throughout this section of the report, there are multiple strategies
proposed for renovating and adding on to the existing facility, as well
as building new. These explored growth options have been developed
in conjunction with the Core Planning Group to address the issues
that currently face the jail, including staffing, bed space, operational
inefficiencies, and increasing maintenance costs. In lieu of doing
nothing with the existing facility, any one of the following options or a
variation of these options would begin to address the safety concerns
and solve the many problems facing the facility today.
SITE PLAN
STAFFING SUGGESTIONS
The following staffing
suggestions are recommended if
this option is selected.
*
Identify additional methods to
further reduce the jail’s population
*
Suggest a staffing pattern of 79
total staff
*
Establish a criminal justice advisory
to monitor the jail’s population *
Establish a statement that set a top
capacity for holding that creates
an emergency release for those
above the capacity
52
2. Renovate Existing Facility to Accommodate Current Bed Capacity
EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDS = 341 / CAPACITY = 290
PROS
*
Solves most critical programmatic
issues
*
Improves safety and efficiency of
booking area
*
Improves visiting and decreases
public traffic into jail
*
Minimal staffing impact
CONS
*
No additional bed space
*
Continues / reinforces longer term
committment to antiquated facility
*
Major disruption of booking
operations
*
No improvement of inmate
observation
In this option, we explored ways in which the Ground Level could be
renovated to solve most of the critical operational issues at the Vehicular
Sally Port, Intake, and Booking Areas while also taking advantage of spaces
that have recently become vacant.
This design incorporates an addition to the Vehicular Sally Port, which is
currently undersized for the number of vehicles that it needs to serve. This
addition will allow for six deputy vehicles to pull in side by side, alleviating
congestion and decreasing the risk of transfering arrested individuals in an
unsecure zone.
At peak times during the week, the current Booking area is continuously
overcrowded, processing and holding as many as 50 males and 10 females
at a time. This creates a safety hazard for both staff and inmates alike. In
a series of phases, the Booking area would be completely renovated to
include an additional booking counter, several more large group holding
cells, a separate release area, larger property storage rooms, a padded
“safety cell”, a “washable cell”, a medical cell, and additional storage.
Although this option does provide any additional bed space, this plan
provides more space for Food Service, Staff areas, and Support spaces on
the Ground Level.
Currently, long lines of public visitors pack the jail reception areas, which
demands that a high level of supervision be provided by the Jail staff.
Furthermore, additonal staff are needed to transport handicap visitors to
the visitation areas on the upper levels because the elevator falls within
the secure perimeter. This inefficient process could be alleviated by taking
advantage of Video Visitation technologies. The adjacent Legal Aides
building would be renovated to house Video Visitation, decreasing the
amount of public traffic into the jail.
SITE PLAN
RENOVATE
BUILDING TO
HOUSE VIDEO
VISITING
SALLY PORT
ADDITION
53
GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND
SPATIAL SUMMARY & COST ANALYSIS



341 beds / 290 capacity
1.0 JAIL ADMINISTRATION
2.0 PUBLIC RECEPTION
3.0 INTAKE VEH. SAL. PORT
4.0 INTAKE BOOKING & RELEASE
5.0 CUSTODY CONTROL
6.0 HOUSING GENERAL POP.
8.0 MAX / MIN FEMALE HOUSING
10.0 HOUSING SPEC. NEEDS
11.0 PROGRAMS
12.0 SUPPORT SERVICES
13.0 HEALTH CARE UNIT
14.0 COURT & ARRAIGNMENT
15.0 STAFF SERVICES
16.0 FOOD SERVICE
17.0 MECH / ELEC SPACES
18.0 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
0.0 UNDEFINED
TOTAL NET AREA
Net to Gross Factor
TOTAL GROSS AREA
1,676
1,574
3,006
2,922
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
3,798
2,135
137
2,710
3,522
6,242
7,273
2,088
x
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
1,396
1,574
3,650
4,700
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
4,373
2,135
0
2,810
4,544
6,542
7,273
0
69,744 S.F.
1.6563
115517
71,658
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.

Renovated Area
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
0 S.F.
0 S.F.
New Area
880
0
0
8,262
0
0
0
0
0
1300
0
0
1,840
2,042
0
0
1,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
0
0
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
14324 S.F.
1900 S.F.
$130
$114,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL COST
Work in secure perimeter,
maintaining operations,
limited staging area, and
Multiple phasing
Project Cost Multiplier
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$150
$0
$0
$0
$1,239,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$195,000
$0
$0
$276,000
$306,300
$45,000
$0
$0
$200
$220
$0
$0
$320,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,496,000
x
x
20%
$3,000,000
1.3
$3,900,000
54
PHASING
1
2
3
4
TIME IMPACT
Design and Bidding
11 months
Phase 1 10 months
Phase 2 7 months
Phase 3 7 months
Phase 4 7 months
Total
3.5 years
STAFFING IMPACT
• Identify additional methods to further reduce the jail’s population
• Suggest a staffing pattern of 79 total staff
• Establish a criminal justice advisory to monitor the jail’s population • Establish a statement that set a top capacity for holding that creates an
emergency release for those above the capacity
55
3a. Renovate and Add-On to Existing Facility
to increase current bed capacity
PROS
*
Eliminates unsafe holding of inmates
in indoor recreation area
*
Provides additional bed space
*
issues
*
Creates safe and efficient booking
and release area
*
Improves visiting and reduces public
traffic in jail
*
Keeps Sheriff’s staff at jail
*
Most renovations occur within older
portion of the jail
*
Better supervision of inmates in new
housing pods and dorms
CONS
*
Reduces availability of on-site parking
*
Addition is connected to oldest
portion of the jail
*
High cost to gain minimal bed space
*
Disruptive short - term responses
ADDED CAPACITY 146 = 487 TOTAL BEDS
In this option, we are utilizing the existing outdoor recreation area
as the space to build a new two-story housing pod addition. Besides
additional bed space, this pod would include support spaces such as
Conrol Rooms, Special Needs housing, and Day Rooms. Also,in this
option, the existing Gymnasium would be converted to a two-stroy
housing pod. Furthermore, the existing Sally Port Area would be
renovated to accommodate additional bed space on the south face of
the facility, to take advantage of natural light in the basement. While
this option allow for the creation of approximately 146 new beds, the
County would have the opportunity to consider different methods of
supervision, including direct and indirect, for the new inmate housing
areas.
The Booking Area, Intake, and Vehicular Sally Port have been
relocated up to the First Floor and doubled in size with the help of a
new addition to the north of the existing building. This would allow
for a complete redesign of the existing booking area, alleviating all of
the critical programmatic needs.
Due to the fact that 146 more beds have been added, the Kitchen,
Medical, Mechanical / Electrical, and Support Spaces have been
expanded to accommodate the additional inmates.
Due to the fact that this option includes fairly rigorous renovation
to the existing facility and the surrounding areas, the project would
need to be broken up into at least four phases and spread out over a
five-year period.
SITE PLAN
RENOVATE
BUILDING TO
HOUSE VIDEO
VISITING
NEW SALLY
PORT
NEW
HOUSING
POD
ADDITION
56
LEGEND
FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
57
SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND

5.0 CUSTODY CONTROL
11.0 PROGRAMS
15.0 STAFF SERVICES
16.0 FOOD SERVICE
0.0 UNDEFINED
TOTAL NET AREA
Net to Gross Factor
TOTAL GROSS AREA
1,676
1,574
3,006
2,922
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
3,798
2,135
137
2,710
3,522
6,242
7,273
2,088
x

S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
2,694
451
5,000
7,232
4,800
30,032
4,374
400
2,909
5,669
5,126
0
2,200
5,581
8,306
4,500
0
69,744 S.F.
1.6563
115517
89,274
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.

Renovated Area
2178
0
0
7,232
3200
21,605
0
700
1092
2421
5,126
0
1,260
2,950
2,064
0
0
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
49828 S.F.

New Area
0
0
5,000
0
1600
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
0
0
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
$130
$283,140
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$141,960
$314,730
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$150
$200
$220
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $1,000,000
$1,084,800
$0
$480,000
$320,000
$3,240,750 $2,000,000
$0
$0
$105,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$768,900
$0
$0
$0
$189,000
$0
$442,500
$0
$309,600
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
17600 S.F.
TOTAL COST
Multiple phasing
Cliff Stabilization and Parking
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$10,880,380
x
x
x
20%
10%
$14,144,494
1.3
$18,387,842
58
PHASING
PHASE 1
1
1
1
GROUND LEVEL
FIRST LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
TIME IMPACT
STAFFING IMPACT
Design and Bidding
14 months
• Assumes a population under 487 at new capacity
Phase 1 16 months
• Suggest a staffing pattern of 95 for a 5 to 1 inmate ratio
Phase 2 16 months
Phase 3 7 months
• Conduct an independent staffing analysis during design phase to ensure that
design is most staff efficient
Phase 4 7 months
Total
5 years
59
PHASING
PHASES 2 , 3, & 4
2
3
GROUND LEVEL
GROUND LEVEL
2
FIRST LEVEL
3
FIRST LEVEL
4
GROUND LEVEL
60
PROS
*
*
*
issues
*
and release area
*
traffic in jail
*
portion of the jail
*
3b. Renovate and Add-On to Existing Facility
This option shares a lot of similaries with Option 3a. However, more
bed space is added by relocating the existing Sheriff’s Department
across the street to the Holistic Alliance Building and converting the
vacated space in the jail to two stories of inmate housing.
Although the Sheriff’s Department has expressed an interest in
staying in the existing facility, the group wanted to include this
option in the report to demonstrate another way to incorporate more
beds into the current building. CONS
*
*
portion of the jail
*
*
Separates Sheriff from jai
*
SITE PLAN
RENOVATE
BUILDING TO
HOUSE SHERIFFS
OFFICE
RENOVATE
BUILDING TO
HOUSE VIDEO
VISITING
NEW SALLY
PORT
NEW
HOUSING
POD
ADDITION
61
LEGEND
62
LEGEND



5.0 CUSTODY CONTROL
11.0 PROGRAMS
15.0 STAFF SERVICES
16.0 FOOD SERVICE
0.0 UNDEFINED
TOTAL NET AREA
Net to Gross Factor
TOTAL GROSS AREA
x
1,676
1,574
3,006
2,922
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
3,798
2,135
137
2,710
3,522
6,242
7,273
2,088
69,744
1.6563
115517
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
2,694
451
5,000
7,232
6,200
34,532
4,374
400
2,909
5,669
5,126
0
2,200
6,081
9,306
0
0
92,174
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.

Renovated Area
2178
0
0
7,232
4600
26,105
0
700
1092
2421
5,126
0
1,260
3,450
2,064
0
0
56228
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
New Area
0
0
5,000
0
1600
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2000
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
18600 S.F.
$130
$283,140
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$141,960
$314,730
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL COST
Multiple phasing
Cliff Stabilization, Parking
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$150
$200
$220
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $1,000,000
$1,084,800
$0
$690,000
$320,000
$3,915,750 $2,000,000
$0
$0
$105,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$768,900
$0
$0
$0
$189,000
$0
$517,500
$0
$309,600
$400,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,040,380
x
x
20%
10%
$15,652,494
1.3
$20,348,242
63
PHASING
PHASE 1
1
1
1
GROUND LEVEL
FIRST LEVEL
SECOND LEVEL
TIME IMPACT
STAFFING IMPACT
Design and Bidding
14 months
Phase 1 16 months
Phase 2 16 months
Phase 3 7 months
Phase 4 7 months
Total
5 years
64
PHASING
PHASE 2, 3, & 4
2
GROUND LEVEL
2
FIRST LEVEL
3
GROUND LEVEL
3
FIRST LEVEL
3
SECOND LEVEL
4
FIRST LEVEL
65
3c. Renovate and Add-On to Existing Facility
PROS
*
*
*
issues
*
and release area
*
traffic in jail
*
Keeps Sheriff’s staff at jail
*
portion of the jail
*
This option was created as a way to add bed space to the existing
facility for a lesser price and with less construction disruption than
options 3a and 3b.
A new housing pod addition would be constructed to the
southeastern side of the building, where the existing outdoor
recreation space is currently.
Ground Level renovations would take place to solve the most critical
programmatic needs in the Booking, Intake, and Vehicular Sally Port
spaces, the same as that which is indicated in Option 2.
CONS
*
*
portion of the jail
*
*
SITE
SITEPLAN
PLAN
RENOVATE
BUILDING TO
HOUSE VIDEO
VISITING
NEW SALLY
PORT
NEW
HOUSING
POD
ADDITION
66
LEGEND
67
LEGEND



5.0 CUSTODY CONTROL
11.0 PROGRAMS
15.0 STAFF SERVICES
16.0 FOOD SERVICE
0.0 UNDEFINED
TOTAL NET AREA
Net to Gross Factor
TOTAL GROSS AREA
x
1,676
1,574
3,006
2,922
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
3,798
2,135
137
2,710
3,522
6,242
7,273
2,088
69,744
1.6563
115517
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
1,396
1,574
3,650
5,000
2800
32,971
4,374
155
4,361
4,373
2,135
0
2,810
4,544
7,242
7,273
0
84,658
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.

Renovated Area
880
0
0
8,562
0
0
0
0
4000
900
0
0
1,840
2,042
0
0
0
18224
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
New Area
0
0
1,614
0
2000
10,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
0
0
14614
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
$130
$114,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL COST
Multiple phasing
Cliff Stabilization, Parking
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$150
$0
$0
$0
$1,284,300
$300,000
$1,500,000
$0
$0
$600,000
$135,000
$0
$0
$276,000
$306,300
$0
$0
$0
$200
$220
$0
$0
$322,800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,838,800
x
x
20%
10%
$6,290,440
1.3
$8,177,572
68
PHASING
PHASES 1-4
1-4
1
1
GROUND LEVEL
2
SECOND LEVEL
TIME IMPACT
FIRST LEVEL
FIRST LEVEL
STAFFING IMPACT
Design and Bidding
14 months
Phase 1, 2, 3
20 months
Phase 4 7 months
Total
3.8 years
• Establish a criminal justice advisory to monitor the jail’s population • Establish a statement that set a top capacity for holding that creates an
emergency release for those above the capacity
69
4a. New Sentenced Facility
PROS
*
Creates new appropriate and
supervisable housing for minimum /
medium inmates
*
Keeps high security inmates in
existing jail
*
Maintains pretrial inmates connected
to courts facility
*
New facility can be built without
disrupting the existing jail
*
Starting point upon which future
additions can occur
160 BED MINIMUM / MEDIUM SECURITY JAIL
WITH MINIMAL CORE FUNCTIONS
In the next few options, we have explored the possibility of utilizing
new construction to minimize the amount of disruption to the
existing jail and to provide more modern correctional spaces for the
County.
In option 4a, we have explored the idea of building a new 160 bed,
sentenced jail with minimal core functions. This means that the
existing facility would be renovated to accommodate the additional
beds. Ground Level renovations would take place to solve the most
critical programmatic needs in the Booking, Intake, and Vehicular
Sally Port spaces, the same as that which is indicated in Option 2.
The location that the group felt was best suited for this new
construction was across the street in the existing Sheriff’s Department
parking lot. An above ground bridge or underground tunnel could be
explored as a way to transport inmates to the Courthouse. However,
the amount of traffic to and from the Courthouse would be minimal if
the new facility was held to housing sentenced inmates.
CONS
*
Requires some redundancy in core
program space
*
May require higher staffing load to
accommodate multiple facilities
*
Requires remodeling of existing
facility’s basement area for booking
critical needs
SITE
SITEPLAN
PLAN
RENOVATE
BUILDING TO
HOUSE VIDEO
VISITING
EXISTING JAIL
GROUND
FLOOR
RENOVATION
NEW 160 BED
JAIL WITH
MINIMUM CORE
70
LEGEND



5.0 CUSTODY CONTROL
11.0 PROGRAMS
15.0 STAFF SERVICES
16.0 FOOD SERVICE
0.0 UNDEFINED
TOTAL NET AREA
Net to Gross Factor
TOTAL GROSS AREA
1,676
1,574
3,006
2,922
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
3,798
2,135
137
2,710
3,522
6,242
7,273
2,088
x
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
1,396
1,574
3,650
4,700
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
4,373
2,135
0
2,810
4,544
6,242
7,273
0
69,744 S.F.
1.6563
115517
71,358
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.

Renovated Area
880
0
0
8,262
0
0
0
0
0
900
0
0
1,840
2,042
0
0
0
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
13924 S.F.
New Area
$130
0
0
1,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$114,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
$150
$0
$0
$0
$1,239,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$135,000
$0
$0
$276,000
$306,300
$0
$0
$0
$200
$220
$0
$0
$320,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1600 S.F.
TOTAL RENOVATION COST
Work in secure perimeter, maintaining
operations, limited staging area, and
multiple phasing
TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION COST
(70,000 SQ.FT. NEW JAIL)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$2,391,000
x
x
20%
$2,872,560
$15,400,000
$18,272,560
1.3
$23,754,328
71
TIME IMPACT
New construction to occur concurrent
with renovations
STAFFING IMPACT
• Suggest a staffing pattern of 90 to 105 for a 4.75 to 5.5 inmate ratio
Design and Bidding
14 months
New Facility
18 months
• Staffing will depend on proposed living unit design, mission and supervision
model used
Phase 1 - 4 Renovation
31 months
• Staffing depends on support services and degree of duplication
Total
3.75 years
(18 month overlap with new)
2
72
4b. New Sentenced Facility
PROS
*
Creates new appropriate and
supervisable housing for minimum /
medium inmates
*
Keeps high security inmates in
existing jail
*
Maintains pretrial inmates connected
to courts facility
*
New facility can be built without
disrupting the existing jail
*
Starting point upon which future
additions can occur
WITH EXPANDED CORE TO ACCOMMODATE
500 BEDS
This option is the same as Option 4a, with the exception that the new
jail construction would be built with expanded core functions. This
would allow for the new facility to be self-supporting and would be
designed so that it could be added-on to in the future.
CONS
*
Requires some redundancy in core
program space
*
May require higher staffing load to
accommodate multiple facilities
*
Requires remodeling of existing
facility’s basement area for booking
critical needs
SITE
SITEPLAN
PLAN
RENOVATE
BUILDING TO
HOUSE VIDEO
VISITING
EXISTING JAIL
GROUND
FLOOR
RENOVATION
73
160 BED MINIMUM / MEDIUM SECURITY JAIL WITH
EXPANDED CORE TO ACCOMMODATE 500 BEDS
LEGEND



5.0 CUSTODY CONTROL
11.0 PROGRAMS
15.0 STAFF SERVICES
16.0 FOOD SERVICE
0.0 UNDEFINED
TOTAL NET AREA
Net to Gross Factor
TOTAL GROSS AREA
x
1,676
1,574
3,006
2,922
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
3,798
2,135
137
2,710
3,522
6,242
7,273
2,088
69,744
1.6563
115517
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
1,396
1,574
3,650
4,700
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
4,373
2,135
0
2,810
4,544
6,242
7,273
0
71,358
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.

Renovated Area
880
0
0
8,262
0
0
0
0
0
900
0
0
1,840
2,042
0
0
0
13924
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
New Area
$130
0
0
1,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1600
$114,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
$150
$0
$0
$0
$1,239,300
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$135,000
$0
$0
$276,000
$306,300
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL RENOVATION COST
Work in secure perimeter, maintaining
operations, limited staging area, and
multiple phasing
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$200
$220
$0
$0
$320,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,391,000
x
x
20%
$2,872,560
$22,000,000
$24,872,560
1.3
$32,334,328
74
160 BED MINIMUM / MEDIUM SECURITY JAIL WITH
EXPANDED CORE TO ACCOMMODATE 500 BEDS
TIME IMPACT
New construction to occur concurrent
with renovations
STAFFING IMPACT
• Suggest a staffing pattern of 90 to 105 for a 4.75 to 5.5 inmate ratio
Design and Bidding
14 months
New Facility
18 months
model used
Phase 1 - 4 Renovation
31 months
Total
3.75 years
(18 month overlap with new)
2
75
4c. New Sentenced Facility
NEW 500 BED JAIL
PROS
*
All new next - generation jail
*
New facility creates safe and secure
environment for staff and inmates
*
Creates new parking for courthouse
This option shows how a new jail facility could be built across
the street from the existing building. The diagram below shows
a podular style jail in the location where the existing Sheriff’s
Department parking is today. Once the new jail construction is
completed, the existing facility could be demolished to make
room for a new parking ramp.
CONS
*
Highest initial capital cost
SITE
SITEPLAN
PLAN
EXISTING
TUNNEL
DEMOLISH
EXISTING
JAIL; NEW
PARKING LOT
SURFACE
NEW TUNNEL
76
4c. New Sentenced Facility
NEW 500 BED JAIL
TIME IMPACT
Design and Bidding
STAFFING IMPACT
14 months
New Construction
• Suggest a staffing pattern of 87 - 90 for a 5.5 to 5.75 inmate ratio
Demolition & New Parking 6 months
• New design provides best option for efficient staffing pattern
Total
model used
3.5 years
2



5.0 CUSTODY CONTROL
11.0 PROGRAMS
15.0 STAFF SERVICES
16.0 FOOD SERVICE
0.0 UNDEFINED
1,676
1,574
3,006
2,922
800
22,971
4,374
155
4,361
3,798
2,135
137
2,710
3,522
6,242
7,273
2,088
TOTAL NET AREA
69,744 S.F.
Net to Gross Factor
TOTAL GROSS AREA
x
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
0

Renovated Area
New Area
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
0 S.F.
0 S.F.
$130
$150
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$220
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.6563
115517
TOTAL DEMOLITION COST
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$1,000,000
$34,000,000
x
$35,000,000
1.3
$45,500,000
77

Feasibility Study

Transcription

Similar documents

GWINNETT COUNTY SHERIFF`S DEPARTMENT

A Surprising Way to Fill Shelves and Stomachs

The Mecklenburg County Sheriff`s Office

Al Islah`s global links

GWINNETT COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE

Communicable Disease in the LA County Jail

March 2016 - Freedom`s Frontier

Making Choices 18.6 - Precious Blood Ministry of Reconciliation

Community Report Mailer