Photo courtesy of here.

The Cincinnati Beacon decided to send questions to Commissioner Pepper about the proposal for a new jail.  We asked about the Collaborative Agreement, the actual numbers of new beds gained, the details of getting people out of jail who don’t need to be there, and so forth.  Pepper responded to each inquiry, and even included a document from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections from June, 2007, responding to Si Leis’ statements about the Queensgate facility.  Whatever your position, this is must-read for those following the Hamilton County jail issue!

The Dean: Your jail plan extends County Sheriff patrols in Cincinnati.  They are not beholden to the Collaborative Agreement.  How do you respond to allegations that your plan creates an end-run around the Collaborative?

Commissioner Pepper: As one of the Councilmembers who helped negotiate the Collaborative, I do not agree with this theory.  The Collaborative was between the City (and its police department), the Community (represented by the Plaintiffs) and the Department of Justice, and its critical provisions remain in place.  It is not possible to avoid them, and the reforms will remain long after the agreement has expired.

At the same time, I believe the Sheriff’s Department owes the same responsibility of responsiveness and respect as any law enforcement community, and will work with the Sheriff to ensure that this occurs.  I am not aware of situations suggesting that this is not occurring.  And I am very pleased (as everyone should be) with the dramatic decrease in crime we’ve seen in Over the Rhine thanks to the hard work of both the Cincinnati Police and the County deputies.  Most categories of violent crime have dropped by at least 30% or more since 2005, a welcome change for all.

Our plan is to help other jurisdictions outside Cincinnati receive the same service that OTR has benefited from.  The Mayor of Lincoln Heights, for example, is fervently asking for the same kind of help.  But if some jurisdictions don’t want the help, we won’t force it upon anyone.

The Dean: The plan includes renting 40 beds to Federal prisoners.  That’s over 12,000 jail bed nights annually.  If we have a capacity crisis, why would you sacrifice over 12,000 bed nights?

Commissioner Pepper:This aspect of the plan makes sense when one understands the broader context of what we’re proposing.  Indeed, it helps us defray millions of dollars in costs.

The overall plan is based on a long-term projection for space needs.  The projected numbers (and those projections have been confirmed by an independent analysis earlier this year) rise over time.  Because our goal is to build enough space for the 30-year plan (and no longer leave this problem for the next County Commission to solve), we know that immediately after the jail is complete, and for a number of years after that (and barring some unexpected increased in jail bed demand), there will be more beds than we need—but in a certain number of years down the road (the later, the better, because that means we’ve reduced recidivism), we will ultimately need all of them.  Rather than under-build, or allow cells to sit empty at taxpayer expense, our plan (based on discussions with the Marshall’s Office) wisely provides for the renting of such space to the federal government.  This interim arrangement helps offset the costs of the facility and operating by millions of dollars, and lowers the overall tax burden. 

To put it differently, allowing for those federal prisoners is exactly what Butler County is now doing to Hamilton County.  They have built enough space to meet their needs for the long-run.  But in the short-term, they have extra space.  Rather than allowing that space to sit vacant, they offset overall costs by allowing us to rent space from them. It’s clearly worked well for them.  But in five years, they will no longer have that space.  I am sure Butler County citizens are pleased that they are receiving millions from Hamilton County for the arrangement, rather than allowing those beds to sit empty.  I have heard that they even avoided a tax increase by doing so.

The Dean: Several individuals have claimed that, once you shut down Queensgate, Turning Point, Reading Road, and end double bunking at the Justice Center, that we really have a net loss of available beds.

Commissioner Pepper: Those rumors are false.  Why would we go through all this to reduce jailbeds?

- total beds at Queensgate: 822
- total beds at Turning Point: 60
- total beds at Reading Road: 150
- total beds at Justice Center: 1240

(there is no plan to end double-bunking—but if you ended double-bunking where it is occurring, which there is no plan to do, the Justice Center would have capacity 848).

Total of above line items:  2,272

-total number of beds in new jail:  1,816

-total net new (and funded) beds:  appx. 784

-total number of remaining beds in Justice Center: 1,240

Federal prisoners will only be housed in the early years, when we will indeed have extra capacity for the reasons described above.

The Dean: You keep saying you have a “comprehensive safety plan,” but inside that document and presentation it says that this plan is still in “development.” When will we ever see a detailed and comprehensive and complete plan?  Aren’t we within reason to have expected that already?

Commissioner Pepper: We have numerous documents that provide considerable details on the plan, so I’m not sure which “document” the question refers to that are not complete.  That information is generally available at the County’s website.  It outlines the plan in considerable detail.

That being said, it’s fair to say that some aspects of prevention and reform will come over time, because the Criminal Justice Commission is a) measuring the results of what we do now, b) studying many of the processes and policies that now lead to overcrowding, and c) analyzing best practices from around the country that we might adopt here.  Rather than just throwing ideas forward with no study (the approach we’ve seen for too long around here), real study and deliberation are the way to get these right.  Particularly when “best practices” change over time.  This commitment to reform and change is ongoing, and these proposals will continue to come over the years.  Part of our “plan” has been to put into place, permanently, an infrastructure that guarantees this permanent process of reform, improvement, and efficiency.  That process is up and running, and off to a great start.  We have numerous stakeholders and citizens from across the spectrum involved in this process.

The Dean: Why can’t you act now to get people out of jail beds who are simply awaiting court dates?  Where is our County night court?  How do you respond to those who say you are purposefully not addressing these root causes now so you can have a reason to build a new jail?

Commissioner Pepper: We are “acting now,” and have been acting on these issues from the outset of this term.  For instance, we have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a “Reentry Demonstration Project” that provides far more capacity to do up-front assessments of inmates when they first enter our Justice System.  Basically, a team of experts (mental health, substance abuse, probation, etc) now performs up-front assessments of offenders when they first enter the justice system.  This early engagement allows them to be diverted into programs as soon as possible, as opposed to waiting for court dates in a jail bed, and then be diverted later (having wasted numerous bed nights waiting for the trial).  It also means if they do serve a sentence for their crime, we have done everything we can BEFORE they get out to get them on a path to recovery, rather than to reoffend.  This approach is off and running, and is already saving jail beds and cutting down on wasted time and money.  It will be expanded under the Comprehensive Plan should it be approved by the voters.  Of course, COAST and DeWine have called it a “liberal social program” and a “pet project.” They’ve made it clear that would rather cut approaches like this (as well as programs such as high school dropout intervention, etc.), and simply send people to Butler County instead.

As for night court, we have a process that essentially provides for the same function.  Every week, a particular municipal judge assumes what are called “Room A” duties.  All night long, that “duty judge” can and does set bonds, via phone.  So prisoners can and are able to post bonds throughout the night.

We are also addressing these ideas through the CJC process.  Many ideas are being proposed, and analyzed. As these proposals work their way through, people will be excited about the ideas.  We are looking into expanding mental health and drug court, for example. While most of these steps also cost money, we believe it will a) help deal with root causes of criminal behavior and b) free up jailspace for those who really need it.  The Comprehensive Safety Plan provides funding to pay for such reforms.

Here’s the critical issue, though: even if these steps work, which they will, we need a new facility.  First, a new facility actually allows for some of the work we need to do to take place—work that is not possible with the current infrastructure.  For example, a 100-year old warehouse is not a place where most programming can effectively take place.  All it accomplishes is warehousing, and a high recidivism rate.  A new facility, if done right, not only provides space, but provides the kind of space that makes possible a lower recidivism rate (versus today’s facilities).

The Dean: Will you provide the community with the last two reviews on the conditions of our current jails? Did they pass the review?  What did those reviews find, and how do you respond?

Commissioner Pepper: There is much confusion about this issue, and I will get you documents on this.  Some “reviews” of Queensgate are simply cursory examination of the basic corrections “practices” within Queensgate, as opposed to more in-depth and comprehensive structural reviews of the building itself.

The bottom line is that this building was meant as a three-year solution, and it’s now going on its 16th year.  It is not secure.  It does not provide for programming that we know would reduce recidivism.  It is not adequate for non-minimum security prisoners, which today it is forced to house, etc.  It is a rip-off deal with a private company (Correction Corporation of America) that has all the leverage every year because we have no other place to house such prisoners—that’s why we’re stuck paying them lease payments, along with funding the costs of repairs that come up because it’s such an unsound building.  Getting out of this facility is the best way to move forward for a host of reasons.

I have attached a 2007 assessment that outlines some of these deeper issues.

The Dean: You were the first to introduce city’s marijuana ordinance. Cecil Thomas reintroduced it and a majority of Democrats voted for it. Todd Portune has said the judges are telling him it is “inappropriate, unnecessary and a major cause of the overcrowding in our jails.” Can we expect the Democratic majority on the commission to lobby the Democratic majority on council to repeal this major cause of overcrowding? Shouldn’t that be done to reduce the burden on our system and costs to the taxpayers? If not why not?

Commissioner Pepper: It is up to each jurisdiction to pass the laws they think appropriate to protect their communities, and I generally will respect those decisions.  Nevertheless, CJC studies that are taking place will allow us to assess the consequences of this law, and other laws, on the jail crowding issue.

Whether people are for against the law the City passed, my hunch is that its role in the overcrowding problem is overstated.  Specifically, the overcrowding and early releases have occurred for years prior to the passage of this ordinance (just last year); and because of the Butler County contract, early releases have virtually ended for the entire period that the ordinance has actually been in place.  But we’ll learn more shortly.

Whatever the law, if there appears to be a law that is causing a large amount of overcrowding, and is of questionable benefit in terms of crime prevention/community safety, the CJC will at least raise the issue for all relevant jurisdictions.  In the end, though, it is up to individual cities to assess which behaviors they want to condone or prohibit, and to what degree.  But if any law is leading to a large amount of wasted jail beds, for what looks to be little safety or law enforcement benefit, then I agree it is not a good use of public resources.

The good thing about the Comprehensive Safety Plan, and the CJC process it has created and funded for the long-term, is it will allow us to make educated decisions on these issues.

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.