Regional Jail Feasibility and Facility Re-Use Study 15 Counties in Michigan's Upper Peninsula

1106 Pages·2010·28.38 MB·English

Regional Jail
Feasibility and
Facility
Re-Use
Study

15 Counties
in Michigan’s
Upper Peninsula
November 2010
Page intentionally left blank.
Regional Jail Feasibility and Facility Re-Use Study:
15 Counties in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

November 2010

The Bottom Line…….………………………………….. ---
Executive Summary.................................................... i
PART I: Regional Jail Feasibility Study…………….. 1
A. Introduction………………………………………….. 1
B. Context…………….…………………………………. 5
C. Jail Use……………………….…………………….… 8
D. County Population and Criminal Justice Trends…. 10
E. Jail Occupancy Trends……………………………… 15
F. Admissions Trends………………………………….. 19
G. Length of Stay Trends……………………………... 20
H. Inmate Characteristics……………………………… 22
I. Statewide Trends in Jail and Prison Populations…. 24
J. Future Demand for Jail Beds……………………..… 34
K. Compliance…………………………………………... 42
L. Managing Future Needs……………………………. 43
M. Examining Potential Partnerships……………….... 45
N. Cost Analysis……………………………………..….. 54
O. Legal Considerations………….……………….…… 64
P. Regional Jails in the United States………………... 70
Q. Regional Opportunities…..…………………………. 84
R. Exploring Partnerships……………………..……….. 97
S. Next Steps…………………………………….……… 100

PART II: Facility Re-Use Study………………………. 103

APPENDICES (January 2010)

A. Alger M. Menominee
B. Baraga N. Ontonagon
C. Chippewa O. Schoolcraft
D. Delta P. Camp Manistique Reuse
E. Dickinson Q. Standards
F. Gogebic R. National Survey of Regional Jails
G. Houghton S. Supervision/Staffing/Design
H. Iron T. Jail Work and Industries
I. Keweenaw U. Life Cycle Cost Notes/Details
J. Luce V. 15-County Comparison Charts
K. Mackinac W. Individual County Profiles
L. Marquette X. Life Cycle Cost Findings

CRS Incorporated Gettysburg PA www.correction.org [email protected]
Page intentionally left blank.
Regional Jail and Facility Re-Use Study, 15 Counties in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: U.P. Population, Land Area and Taxable Valuation
Figure 2: County Land Area and Population Density
Figure 3: Population Density and Taxable Valuation per Resident
Figure 4: Population, Area, Density, Taxable Value and Amount Rised by 1 Mil
Figure 5: Jail ADP, Beds and Use Rates
Figure 6: Incarceration Rates
Figure 7: Selected Criminal Justice System Indicators
Figure 8: County Population, 1900 - 2000
Figure 9: Offenses, 2000 - 2006
Figure 10: Arrests, 2000 – 2006
Figure 11: Number of Law Enforcement Officers, 2000 - 2006
Figure 12: District Court Filings, 2002 - 2007
Figure 13: District Court Filings, 2002 - 2007
Figure 14: Circuit Court Felony Filings, 2002 – 2007
Figure 15: Historical ADP and Trend Line
Figure 16: ADP by Status, 2004 - 2008
Figure 17: ADP by Level of Charge, 2004 – 2008
Figure 18: Percent of ADP by Gender, Level of Charges and Status Year 2007
Figure 19: 2007 ADP by Status and Level of Charge
Figure 20: Admissions by Level of Charge, 2004 - 2008
Figure 21: Admissions by Status, 2004 – 2008
Figure 22: Average Length of Stay (ALOS) by Status and Level of Charge, 2004 -2007
Figure 23: Length of Stay and Reason Release by County, 2007
Figure 24: List of Tables and Charts from Inmate Database
Figure 25: Selected Inmate Characteristics, 2007
Figure 26: Prison and Jail Dispositions CY 2003 and CY 2009
Figure 27: Estimated Jail Average Daily Population (ADP), 2004 – 2009
Figure 28: Average Daily Jail Population (ADP), Upper Peninsula Jails 1996 - 2009
Figure 29: Percent of Dispositions by Sentence Type, FY 2006 – CY 2009, All Michigan Counties
Figure 30: Sentence Dispositions by Type of Sentence, FY 2006 – CY 2009, All Michigan Counties
Figure 31: Upper Peninsula Dispositions as Percentage of All Michigan Dispositions, 2008
Figure 32: Dispositions by Type, Judicial Districts, 2008
Figure 33: U.P. and L.P. Dispositions, 2008
Figure 34: Allocation of 2010 Community Corrections Grants by Category
Figure 35: 2010 Community Corr. Allocations for U.P. by Program and Community Corr. Advisory Board (CCAB)
Figure 36: U.P. and Lower Peninsula Community Corrections Allocations by Program, 2010
Figure 37: Length of Stay by Status and Level of Charge 2004 - 2008
Figure 38: Jail Occupancy by Status and Level of Charge CY 2006 – CY 2009
Figure 39: Forces That Could Increase or Decrease Future Jail Needs
Figure 40: Total U.P. Jail ADP and Trend Lines
Figure 41: Projected ADP, Total Jail Population
Figure 42: Converting Projected ADP to Bed Needs with 25% Factor
Figure 43: Jail Locations and Nominal Capacities
Figure 44: Nominal Capacity and ADP by County, 2007
Figure 45: Nominal and Functional Jail Capacity, ADP and Future Demands
Figure 46: Characteristics of U.P. Jails
Figure 47: Expected Life of Jail Components
Figure 48: Comparison of Michigan Jail Standards to National Core Jail Standards
Figure 49: A Detention and Corrections Continuum
Figure 50: Potential Options at Each Criminal Justice Decision Point
Figure 51: Distance to Closest Neighboring County
Figure 52: Correctional Center of Northwest Ohio (CCNO)
Regional Jail and Facility Re-Use Study, 15 Counties in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

Figure 53: Time and Distance Table for 15 Counties
Figure 54: Comparison of U.P. to Five States
Figure 55: Admissions, Length of Stay and Detention Days, 2007
Figure 56: Application of Inmate Data
Figure 57: Number if Admits Staying Over 3 Days, 2007
Figure 58: Summary Findings, Delta County Inmate Movement to Court
Figure 59: Staffing Requirements for Short-Term Detention Facilities (Lockups)
Figure 60: Modeling Exercise: Inmate Miles Accrued Based On Several Locations for One Regional Jail
Figure 61: Inmate Miles for 2, 3, 4 and 10 Jails
Figure 62: Four Scenarios and Corresponding Inmate Transport Miles
Figure 63: Elements of Life Cycle Cost Worksheet
Figure 64: Sample Life Cycle Cost Analysis Worksheet (Alger County)
Figure 65: Combinations of Projections and Board Costs Used for Life Cycle Cost Calculations
Figure 66: Ratio of Staffing Levels (Full Time Equivalents- FTE) to Average Daily Population (ADP)
Figure 68: Sample 30-Year Total Costs, Alger County
Figure 69: Description of Options Evaluated for Each County
Figure 70: Summary of Findings by Scenarios- Low/High Projections
Figure 71: Regional Jails in the United States
Figure 74: Summary of Findings from 53 Regional Jails
Figure 75: Correctional Center of Northwest Ohio (CCNO)
Figure 76: Capacity of Regional Jails
Figure 77: Regional Jail Projects Under Consideration
Figure 78: Regional Jail Projects No Longer Being Considered
Figure 79: Current and Potential Partnerships
Figure 80: Case Studies-- Construction Costs and Costs per Bed
Figure 81: Comparative Construction Costs, Small and Large Jail
Figure 82: Staffing Costs
Figure 83: Total Costs
Figure 84: Annual Cost Per Year
Figure 85: Average Cost Per Day
Figure 86: Percent of Daily Jail Population Spending Over 30/60/90 Days
Figure 87: Inmate Transportation Practices
Figure 88: To Partner or Not to Partner?
Figure 89: Corrections Camps (Michigan Dept. of Corrections) Located in the Upper Peninsula
Figure 90: Location of Corrections Camps and Prisons
Figure 91: Factors Affecting Re-Use for Detention or Corrections
Figure 92: Aerial Photo of Camp Cusino
Figure 93: Camp Cusino and Alger County Jail (same scale)
Figure 94: Aerial Photo of Camp Kitwen Location and Houghton
Figure 95: Camp Kitwen and Painesdale
Figure 96: Aerial Photograph of Camp Kitwen, November 2010
Figure 97: Location of Camp Ottawa
Figure 98: Camp Ottawa
Figure 99: Ojibway Correctional Facility, Converted Year 2000
Figure 100: Local of Camp Manistique
Figure 101: Camp Manistique Site
Figure 102: Photos of Interior and Exterior
Figure 103: Concept Plan, Camp Manistique Conversion
Figure 105: Staffing Posts Shown on Concept Plan, Camp Manistique
Figure 106: Estimated Security Staff Needs for Converted Jail at Camp
Figure 107: Authorized Staffing for Camp Prior to Closing
Figure 108: Cost Estimates, Camp Manistique
Figure 109: Concept Plans for Alternative Jail Solutions Schoolcraft County, November 2010
Figure 110: Mangum Farm, Before, During and After Renovation.
The Bottom Line…

Are Upper Peninsula (U.P.) jails sufficient to meet current needs? (P. 15)
The capacity of many jails in the U.P. is insufficient to meet current needs. The
counties that currently have sufficient space will likely run out of beds in the next 10
years.
Conditions in many U.P. jail are substandard. The average age of a jail bed in the
U.P. is 45 years.
The design of U.P. jails create operational challenges and deprive most counties of
opportunities to provide effective programs and services.
Should we expect changes in jail use in the future? (Page 24)
State policies and practices are increasing demand for jail beds in the U.P.
Inmates charged with felonies will comprise a larger proportion of the jail population
as alternative programs remove lower risk offenders from confinement.
Jail use in the Upper Peninsula has increased markedly and steadily, from 303
inmates on an average day (ADP) inmates in 1996 to over 560 in 2009-- an 86%
increase in 13 years. If this rate of growth continues the UP will have an ADP of 822
inmates in 10 years, and over 1,000 inmates in 20 years.
Although efforts to safely divert more detainees and offenders from U.P. jails should
continue to expand, county officials should not be surprised if jail occupancy grows
even faster. Planning for new or renovated jails must anticipate this possibility.
Are regional jails found in other states? (Page 70)
A national survey of regional jails identified: 76 existing regional jails in 21 states; 16
regional jail projects in 10 states currently under consideration; and 10 regional jail
projects in 8 states that were recently abandoned.
The 76 regional facilities represent less than 3% of all jail facilities in the United
States. More than half of all regional jails received substantial state construction
subsidies.
Are regional jails less expensive? (Page 54)
When a regional jail replaces two or more jails the savings are usually substantial.
When regional jails are 100 beds or larger, they usually offer operational cost
savings when they replace jails that have 50 beds or less.
Are we allowed to create and operate regional jails under state law? (P. 64)
There are currently two avenues for developing regional jail partnerships under
Michigan law. An opinion from the state Attorney General might be needed under
some circumstances.
Should one or more regional facilities be built in the U.P? (Page 84)
Chippewa County already operates as a regional jail, housing Luce County inmates
under annual contracts and offering other vacant beds to other counties.
Several of the smallest jails might benefit from a long term regional partnership, but
this would require a larger county develop a new facility and offer to explore a
partnership.
Schoolcraft County has entered into negotiations with Luce County to explore a
long-term jail partnership, with Schoolcraft County as the jail operator.
Any county that considers expanding or replacing its jail should explore a variety of
partnerships with other counties during the planning process.
What criteria should be used to evaluate regional options? (Page.86, Page 100)
While costs are a major consideration, there are other factors that should go into the
jail decision, including: (1) control of costs over time; (2) availability of sufficient
beds; (3) control of quality of settings and services; (4) flexibility to meet changing
challenges and demands; (5) location issues; (6) ability to provide programs; (7)
impact on the local economy; (8) impact on current employees; and (9) timing.
What are the barriers and benefits associated with regional jails? (Page 70)
Not every jail situation lends itself to a regional solution. Regional jails in other states
have realized cost savings, improved programs and services, and other benefits.
Several barriers make it difficult to develop regional jail partnerships, including
agreeing on: (1) location; (2) allocation of costs to each partner, and (3) the
organizational structure for the governing body (including voting privileges).
Does the private sector offer advantages? (Page 94)
The private sector does not appear to offer significant advantages when it comes to
solving jail problems in the U.P.
U.P. officials have been approached by private firms who have offered to provide
financing for jail construction. Nationally, the private sector has had little involvement
with the development or operation of regional jails.
Is it possible to re-use any of the closed state correctional facilities? (Page 103)
Marquette County is operating the former Mangum Farm as a 60-bed low security
facility for sentenced offenders.
Schoolcraft County is still evaluating whether Camp Manistique offers a cost-
effective solution to its jail problems. The vacant facility is deteriorating quickly,
reducing its viability.
Several counties have looked at Camps Cusino, Kitwen and Ottawa and have
concluded that they are not a good solution to local needs because of their location,
condition and design.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
Regional Jail and Facility Re-Use Study, 15 Counties in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Regional Jail Feasibility and Re-Use Study was funded by the Michigan
Department of Corrections and administered by UPCAP Inc. Work started in late
summer 2008, with the first of a series of site visits to every Upper Peninsula (U.P.)
County. CRS Inc., a non-profit organization located in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,
was selected to implement the study.

Final reports for the study were issued in four parts:

1. 23 appendices were published in January, 2010, providing a needs
assessment for each county along with information about facility re-use,
inmate supervision and other related topics.
2. Detailed cost analysis findings were provided to the counties in May 2010.
3. A “Discussion Draft” of the final report was distributed in July 2010.
4. This comprehensive final report was published in November 2010.

More than 900 pages of appendices provide detailed information and findings:

• Appendices A through O provide detailed information for each county,
including analysis of jail facilities, operations and inmate populations.
• Appendices P through T address issues such as facility re-use, standards,
supervision and design.
• Appendices U, V and W provide details about the life cycle cost analysis
methodology, and present comparison charts of all counties.
• Appendix X provides the final life cycle cost findings

Several counties have already used the appendices to guide jail planning efforts.

JAIL USE IN THE UPPER PENINSULA (Page 8)

Figure ES-1 compares county population to the average daily inmate population
(ADP) and the number of beds available. The ratio between jail ADP and the general
population is called the “incarceration rate” and is expressed in terms of number of
inmates per 1,000 general population.

Incarceration rates vary widely in the U.P. Dickinson County has the highest rate—
2.65 inmates per 1,000 county residents. Houghton County has the lowest, with 0.98
inmates per 1,000 county residents.
ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Regional Jail and Facility Re-Use Study, 15 Counties in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

Figure ES-1: Jail ADP, Beds and Use Rates

2007
Aver. 2007
2007 Daily ADP Jail Beds
County Pop. Jail per Per 1000
Population (ADP) Capacity 1,000 Population
Alger 9,612 12.9 25 1.34 2.60
Baraga 8,544 21 26 2.46 3.04
Chippewa 38,922 78 175 2.00 3.01
Delta 37,367 83.2 87 2.23 2.33
Dickinson 26,937 71.3 71 2.65 2.64
Gogebic 16,287 27.4 28 1.68 1.72
Houghton 35,201 34.5 54 0.98 1.53
Iron 12,151 29.3 50 2.41 4.11
Keweenaw 2,151 4.1 6 1.91 2.79
Luce 6,728 6.9 0 1.03 0.00
Mackinac 10,877 21.9 28 2.01 2.57
Marquette 65,216 77.8 140 1.19 2.15
Menominee 24,249 42.7 50 1.76 2.06
Ontonagon 6,977 7.2 19 1.03 2.72
Schoolcraft 8,518 19.3 26 2.27 3.05
Total 156,573 537.5 785
Average 1.80 2.44
Highest 65,216 83.2 175 2.65 4.11
Lowest 2,151 4.1 6 0.98 0.00

Highest Lowest

JAIL OCCUPANCY TRENDS (Page 15)

If U.P. jail use correlated to county population, offense, arrests, or court filings, the
jail population would not have increased significantly in recent years. Yet the
average number of inmates in U.P. jails has increased by 86% over the past 13
years.

Figure ES-2 shows that jail use in the Upper Peninsula has increased markedly and
steadily, from 303 inmates in 1996 to over 560 in 2009. This represents an 86%
increase in 13 years, an average increase of 6.6% per year (19.9 beds per year).

The line in Figure ES-2 shows the trend generated from a regression analysis of the
ADP figures. This rate of growth, if continued, would result in an ADP of 822 inmates
in 10 years, and more than 1,000 inmates in 20 years.