Washington Association
of Sheriffs and Police
Chiefs

Regional Jail Initiative
Preliminary Report
March 31, 2005

WASPC Regional Jail Initiative
Preliminary Report
Executive Summary
In late January 2005, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
(WASPC) hired a Jail Consultant to support city and county efforts to increase
local jail capacity by cooperative regional jail initiatives. The consultant has
reviewed the previous reports on this and related topics, visited a number of city
and county facilities, and proposed some preliminary ideas for implementing this
concept. While the position has been filled for only two months, this report
summarizes the efforts to date, and proposes the continued funding of the
program.
Because much has changed in existing local jail facilities since WASPC issued
its first Regional Jail Study in May 2001, WASPC chose to send its consultant to
visit a large number of jails to obtain first-hand information about the current state
of operations. The consultant has already visited several jails which he
described as “dangerously overcrowded”. Among these jails are Spokane,
Thurston, and Kittitas Counties’ facilities. Others not yet visited which are
believed to fall into this category are Whatcom and Skagit Counties. In addition,
the needs of the cities in King County are so great that they are contracting for
400 to 500 beds as far away as Yakima County. Other jurisdictions in western
Washington are renting beds in eastern Washington jails, notably the Benton
County Jail.
Interestingly, the consultant has also identified some jails with “excess capacity”.
These jail beds are constructed (or nearly completed), but are not presently
being operated for lack of operational funding. Nearly 1,000 beds will soon be
available in four counties (Benton, Kitsap, Pierce, and Yakima). If funding can be
identified, these beds may present an opportunity for regional cooperation.
At the same time, the state Department of Corrections (DOC) has local
incarceration needs in excess of its present capacity. It is currently renting
approximately 500 beds out of state and 300 in county jails in this state. DOC is
presently using its long-term bed space, and its rented space to house short term
inmates (community custody violators), who could more appropriately be housed
in local jail facilities. This situation also presents an opportunity for state-local
cooperation to house inmates. The consultant has begun to meet with state
officials to explore these opportunities.
In 2003, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission issued its “Interim Report on
Regional Jails”. It argued that the need for mental health and chemical
dependency treatment beds at a local or regional level was very high. While
there appeared to be a widespread consensus concerning these issues, neither
WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 1
March 31, 2005

the commission nor any other individual or body of state government existed to
implement its concepts.
Another potential participant in the regional jails concept is the federal
government. While the U.S. Marshal’s Office has met most of its local
incarceration needs in western Washington (by construction of a federal facility in
SeaTac), it continues to contract for over 300 beds for pre-trial felony detainees
in eastern Washington jails, in spite of the crowding in some of those facilities.
This continuing need may add to the likelihood that federal monies could be
accessed to create additional jail capacity in regional jail facilities in eastern
Washington.
The consultant has also begun to participate in WASPC’s efforts to improve the
data available from local jurisdictions. His work in support of the Jail Booking
Reporting System (JBRS) should assist state and local policymakers in
managing the scarce resource that is local jail capacity. WASPC believes that as
a system, we can’t manage what we can’t measure, and that the need for
accurate local incarceration data has never been greater.
In two months, the consultant has visited 19 of the 57 city and county jails,
attended 6 meetings of state and local groups dealing with regional jail issues,
made or responded to 40 general assistance contacts dealing directly or
indirectly with regional jail issues, and responded to several related issues such
as operational standards, the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA, which
also applies to local jails), and questions relating to the opening of new facilities
within the state.
It has become obvious that the primary problem is not the lack of regional jails,
but rather the extreme lack of sufficient local jail capacity and correctional
programming in many cities and counties. Regional jails are widely viewed as an
efficient and logical solution to these problems. We should look at our network of
local city and county jails as a system that serves the entire state, rather than a
localized entity whose problems affect only those who live in that locality. By
improving the overall local incarceration system, we can improve public safety
throughout the state.
This preliminary report identifies some of the systematic, statistical, historical,
anecdotal, and fiscal arguments in support of the regional jail concept. What
has been missing from previous reports and discussions is a concrete plan to
implement the concept. With continued funding of this position, regional jails can
finally be made a reality in Washington.
The report concludes with several potential models for the development and
implementation of regional facilities. Many of them involve increased state
funding of correctional operations currently considered local responsibilities.
Much work remains to be done to develop and justify these changes.
WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 2
March 31, 2005

Caveat
The opinions and ideas expressed in this preliminary report are those of the
consultant. They have not been verified, adopted, or approved by WASPC, its
members, or the organizations mentioned in the report. The opinions and
approval of these organizations and individuals will be solicited prior to the
issuance of a final report, particularly if statewide or legislative options are
proposed.

Regional Jail Opportunities
In his first two months, the jail consultant has identified the following locations
which should be primary targets for the development of regional jails, because of
pressing local need (not in priority order):
•
•
•
•

Kittitas County
King County
Spokane County
Thurston County

The following facilities are likely to be added to the list, based on previously
reported jail population and capacity reports. (This is not intended to be a
complete listing.)
•
•

Skagit County
Whatcom County

The next list of facilities is for locations which have been identified because they
have useable, but currently unused capacity in excess of their current local need.
This capacity may well be needed locally in the not that distant future, but its
apparent availability now presents an opportunity for regional cooperation.
•
•
•
•
•
•

Kitsap County (two 60-bed units ready to occupy when staffed)
Yakima County (one separate 288-bed facility 90% complete, with
additional infrastructure already built on a 10-acre-plus site, including large
industry and program space)
Pierce County (as many as 450 beds available, including 4 completely
unused 84-bed direct supervision units in the new jail, and an infirmary)
Benton County (renting approximately 225 beds to DOC and other
jurisdictions, with approximately 175 more available)
City of Issaquah (renting a higher proportion of its beds to other King
County cities than it needs for its own populations)
Others likely to be added when visited:
o Possibly Lewis County (which has built a new facility, and is
presently remodeling its older facility)

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 3
March 31, 2005

o Possibly Snohomish County (which planned to open its newest
facility earlier this month)
Finally, these are counties and a city which would (or perhaps should) consider
closing their existing jails when an effective nearby regional jail is established:
•
•
•
•

City of Auburn
Columbia County
Garfield County
Kittitas County

Strategies for documenting the need for regional jails
Strategy One: Look at the city and county jails as a system
Each city and county has traditionally (and predictably) looked at itself and its
own “local” problems. In the 1980’s, the state funded the construction of jails
throughout the state via the City and County Jails Act (RCW 70.48), encouraging,
but not requiring regionalization. In those years, only two counties (Chelan and
Douglas) chose to construct a multiple county facility. Several cities lent their
support (and previous jail population statistics) to this capacity-building effort, and
several of these cities closed their jails when the new county facility was
completed. (Bremerton, Bellingham, and Wenatchee were among these cities.)
However, no group of counties (or cities and counties) chose to jointly operate a
regional facility.
Jails are part of a larger criminal justice system, where a large variety of policy
makers decide who should be locked up and for how long. Police make arrest
decisions, judges make pre-trial release and sentencing decisions, and a variety
of system actors (including corrections officials) make decisions for alternative
programs, booking restrictions, and early release.
When jails become crowded, the “tail wags the dog” – in other words,
incarceration policy decisions are made based on available space, instead of
policy decisions dictating how large the jail should be. In some cases, this
phenomenon motivates criminal justice system actors to talk to each other in
meaningful ways about who should be incarcerated and for how long. This has
led to the development of appropriate alternative sanctions and other programs.
However, in other cases, crowding leads to unilateral decision-making. For
example, federal judges have forced consent decrees and settlement
agreements in several jurisdictions. These court orders have mandated
maximum population caps, minimum staffing levels, and a myriad of other
conditions of incarceration. Sheriffs and other correctional officials have dictated
booking restrictions.
WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 4
March 31, 2005

In some jurisdictions, counties have refused city prisoners. Several jurisdictions
have turned away state community custody, also called Offender Accountability
Act (OAA) violators. In at least one county, these restrictions have gone so far
as to turn away sentenced prisoners from the courts. Hundreds of thousands of
warrants go unserved. Respect for law and community safety are compromised.
If the courts, police agencies (including WSP), DOC, cities without jails, and the
federal agencies could agree on the number of beds their decisions would drive
in each region of the state, an “ideal jail capacity” could be generated. With good
supporting data and the reinvigoration of local law and justice committees (or
similar forums), this type of consensus is not impossible. The correctional
capacity discussed should include the capacity for alternatives such as electronic
home monitoring (EHM), work release, and similar programs. The Department of
Corrections should also be at the table, because of their significant “local” needs
– an estimated 1,400 OAA violators per month.
Comparing this ideal capacity to the present reality would help to define where
more local or regional capacity should be created. In the absence of the criminal
justice system consensus suggested above (and assuming some decent data
generated by the Jail Booking and Release Statistics (JBRS) project), WASPC
could argue for a formula which shows the upper and lower incarceration rates
across the state, and seek to support construction of additional capacity in the
areas which appear to be significantly below average in available capacity.

Strategy Two: Statistical
The second strategy for documenting the need for additional local jail capacity is
statistical. A careful comparison of counties’ incarceration rates should
demonstrate a range of rates that will be useful to answer the question – just how
much capacity is enough.
As a state, Washington is reportedly roughly in the middle of all the states in
terms of numbers of citizens per capita locked up in local facilities on any given
day. A very preliminary analysis indicates that our counties’ incarceration rates
per 100,000 range from a low of 82 in Whitman County to a high of 518 in
Yakima County. Obviously, Yakima County’s rate is greatly inflated based on the
number of inmates it houses for other jurisdictions. Their actual rate is probably
closer to one-half of that number. To fairly account for these inmates, we would
have to assign them out to their county of origin – i.e., the county or city who is
paying to house them. (Another complicating factor is the 300-320 beds rented
in eastern Washington jails by the U.S. Marshal’s Office.)
A close analysis of Yakima County’s incarceration rates may actually yield an
estimate of a maximum rate. Because they are renting so many beds to other
jurisdictions (primarily in King County), they do not have any booking restrictions
in place for their local jurisdictions. This “y’all come” policy may have created a
WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 5
March 31, 2005

“natural experiment” which may indicate an upper limit on the rate that could be
allowed before booking restrictions and jail alternative programs are
implemented. (Yakima County does have a very active electronic monitoring
program and an apparently successful restitution center.)
This statistical approach should be supplemented by a careful, statistical look of
how each jurisdiction uses alternative programs such as electronic monitoring,
work release, and day reporting. Taxpayers and legislators are unlikely to
support additional capacity if these programs have not been used to their
maximum benefit.
Another statistical approach is to establish the rated capacity and “maximum
allowable capacity” of existing facilities, using a common definition. The best
recent effort to do this in the state was “The Washington State Master Capacity
Plan – Snapshot Report” (cited here as the Master Capacity Plan), by Edward M.
Vukich and Karen Daniels. This report used the rated capacity definition of the
Washington State Jail Commission from the 1980’s. Many beds have been
added to the city and county jails since that time, greatly overtaxing jail
infrastructures. However, experience and federal case law have also changed
since the early 1980’s, so this consultant would argue that there is a “maximum
allowable capacity” number, somewhat higher than the original rated capacity
(but in many cases not nearly as high as the total number of installed beds)
which could be used to compare “capacity rates” across the counties.
Several counties have used national consultants (and their own local statistical
analysis) to produce detailed jail population forecasts. These forecasts have
evolved to be a very sophisticated and supportable method for determining
needed jail capacity. They have also proven to be very accurate, because they
use the assumptions of the local criminal justice system decision-makers.
These population projections should be used where they are available; updates
should be encouraged where necessary; and similar studies should be
encouraged in jurisdictions where they have not previously been done. This type
of study is most accurate when done locally; however, when the statewide data is
improved (again, hopefully through WASPC’s JBRS project) it will be possible to
create a general statewide forecast. The assumption-setting process, vital to the
forecast, would have to be done by local representatives, if any degree of
accuracy is to be expected.
If a total statewide forecast is not feasible, it should at least be possible to do a
statewide forecast of beds needed for sentenced felons, based on Sentencing
Guidelines and other presently available data. This forecast could be
disaggregated by county to support at least a significant portion of the local jail
capacity need.

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 6
March 31, 2005

Another partial forecast that might be possible at the state level, given improved
data, would be for small jurisdictions which may be unable to afford the
consultants used by the larger jurisdictions. With a successful JBRS project,
WASPC may be able to support or provide this forecast.

Strategy Three: Historical
The City and County Jails Act, enacted in the late 1970’s, provided 100% state
funding of city and county jail construction in the 1980’s. The political
arrangement was that the state would pay for the construction costs, and the
local governments would pay for the operational costs. By law, the jails were to
be designed with sufficient capacity to last until the year 2000. The Washington
State Jail Commission (and its successor agency, the Corrections Standards
Board) used a very conservative method of projecting needed capacity; it based
all of its projections on previous criminal justice system practices, allowing for
expansion based almost entirely on projected general citizen population
increases.
This method failed to account for the following national and statewide trends:
•
•
•
•
•

Improvements in law enforcement methods, such as Automated
Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS) and DNA testing
Increased law enforcement and prosecutorial success in drug crimes
Apparent increases in drug crime itself, particularly for methamphetamine
manufacture, delivery, and use
Increased correctional housing of the mentally ill, particularly those with a
“dual diagnosis” of chemical dependency
Increased penalties for crimes ranging from “three strikes” laws to Driving
while License Suspended (DWLS)

As a result, jails ran out of capacity long before 2000 in many areas of the state.
Now, five years later, many jails still have not been successful in efforts to
expand their local jail systems. For example, the following jurisdictions have
recently been unsuccessful in passing local bond issues or sales tax increases to
fund jail expansion. (Again, this is not intended to be a complete list.)
•
•
•

Kittitas County
Stevens County
Thurston County

The effect of state government decisions on local jail populations is significant.
The decisions of the state Department of Corrections and the Washington State
Patrol are the most significant.
For example, DOC Community Corrections Officers have the authority to require
the arrest of a violator via a Secretary’s Warrant. Their hearing officers then
WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 7
March 31, 2005

determine the sanction, including the length of time a violator serves. If the
average length of stay of the estimated 1,400 OAA violators per month is 30
days, then 1,400 beds are needed. If it is 60 days, 2,800 beds are required.
An example of a WSP impact would be a modification of its policies on DUI
arrests. If it changed its practices from “cite and release” for some offenders to a
“zero tolerance, arrest all persons charged” policy, jails are impacted.
Even more significant is the growing impact of felony sentencing. For example,
in Fiscal Year 2004, 27,930 felony sentences were handed down in the state. Of
these, 17,572 were local jail sentences. These local felons were sentenced to an
average sentence of 3.1 months. Excluding the impact of “good time”, these
locally incarcerated felons accounted for the average use of 4,477 jail beds. Of
course, a large proportion of the other 9,640 felons, those convicted of the most
serious crimes (and/or with the most significant criminal history) also served a
long portion of their sentence in local jails either pre-trial or while awaiting
sentencing. If they averaged 90 days each (believed to be a conservative
estimate), they account for another 2,377 beds.
This conservative estimate of the felony impact on our local facilities - 6,854 beds
- accounts for over half of our local system capacity by most measures. The
state government has not provided direct funding to local governments for jail
construction since the 1980’s.

Strategy Four: Anecdotal
A visit and tour of some of our most crowded local jails helps to understand why
regional jail or other capacity-building solutions are urgently needed. If a tour is
not possible, imagine a relative or someone you know locked into a 70-square
foot bathroom with one or two others charged with crimes, for 23 hours a day. Or
try to picture 40 men living 24 hours a day in a windowless, 1,500 square foot
room.
There have also been some incidents in jails in recent years that may have been
preventable with increased capacity or adequate funding of program and other
staff. A mentally ill inmate was allegedly murdered by other inmates in a
crowded jail. Another county recently entered into a $1.6 million dollar settlement
for the in-custody death of one inmate that exceeded the small county jail’s
annual budget by $500,000.
Other court involvement has taken place in counties where capacity limits,
improved staffing, and other improvements have been ordered. Payments are
typically made to the lawyers on who work on these cases – the payment to the
ACLU was $84,000 in one small county’s case – money that could be spent on
jail operations or other county needs.

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 8
March 31, 2005

There appears to have been a great deal of interest in the concept of regional
jails in the last five years or more. For example, see Appendix 2, for a copy of
the text of Section 612, Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5763, passed
by the Senate March 10, 2005.
WASPC’s own report, Regional Jails in the State of Washington, May 2001, Jim
LaMunyon; and the Sentencing Guidelines Commission’s “Interim Report on
Regional Jails”, December 2003 also reflect this interest.

Strategy Five: Fiscal
One method of supporting the need for regional facilities is to compare criminal
justice system costs across jurisdictions – per capita and as a percentage of the
jurisdiction’s expenses. This data is available in such publications as “Criminal
Justice in Washington State”, November 2004, Department of Community, Trade
and Economic Development. As a percentage of total expenditures, cities spent
12.1% and counties 23% of their budgets on Law and Justice expenditures in
2001 (the latest year reported).
The impact of state government impacts on local jails is mentioned above under
strategy three. This argument can be turned into a fiscal argument, simply by
multiplying the bed-day impacts of state government and agency decisions by
the cost of a bed-day in a local jail. The Master Capacity Plan reported the total
annual costs of operating the city and county jails to be $231,103,354, based on
a survey in 1999. The same report listed the average daily population to be
10,393 (1998 figures). These figures calculate out to an average per-day
operational cost of the city and county jails of approximately $61.
Using this conservative cost figure, the impact of housing sentenced felons in
local jail facilities can be estimated to be at least $152,609,000 per year. Similar
basic analyses can be applied to Washington State Patrol arrests, or DOC OAA
decision impacts. Better data would allow more sophisticated analyses of
changes to state sentencing laws, and other policy, program, or correctional
alternative changes.
Data may also be available for the costs to city governments for jails. While the
impact on cities which operate jails is included in the discussions above, the
consultant is unaware at this time of any study of city payments to counties (and
other cities) for contract incarceration of city inmates. It is known, however, that
these needs and costs have grown to significant proportions. Cities as small as
Lake Forest Park and as large as Seattle have recently considered the
construction of their own facilities. The phenomenon of over 400 beds being
rented in Yakima County by a consortium of King County cities speaks volumes
for how great the cities’ needs have become.

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 9
March 31, 2005

Other city jails are also in the contract business. One city contracts for the
housing of other cities’ inmates at a rate three times higher than its own “local”
population. Other small city jails contract with other cities and even counties,
sometimes from many miles away. Generally speaking, the city jails were not
designed for, but are now used for long-term incarceration.
The state DOC currently rents 200-300 local jail beds within the state, and
approximately 500 out of state. Like the Yakima County and small city situation,
however, these beds are often not located in the communities where they are
most needed. OAA violators typically serve short sentences. Local jails are
better equipped to handle short sentences than state prisons; regional jails could
be designed to handle them better than either existing system. Economies of
scale and clarity of mission could allow for mental health, chemical dependency,
and other short-term treatment options for OAA violators and other short-term
inmates.
Finally, there may be a fiscal argument for the needs of the federal government
within the state. Federal funding through the Violent Offender Incarceration and
Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) Incentive Program is no longer available, but the
U.S. Marshal’s service and other federal agencies continue to have secure
housing needs, particularly in eastern Washington. (The construction of the
Federal Detention Center at SeaTac (FDC SeaTac) has addressed 99% of their
needs in western Washington.)
This need is currently estimated as at least 300 beds, with most of the need in
Yakima, Benton, and Spokane Counties, where the federal courthouses are
located. (There has been some discussion of a federal courthouse in Vancouver,
but the impact of this possible development on jail bed needs is unknown.) The
agencies of the federal government have traditionally paid a fair price for their
contract beds in local jails, but their impact, particularly in overcrowded facilities,
should be considered. Even though VOI/TIS money is no longer available, there
may be other federal funding avenues worth pursuing. In the alternative,
contracts with the agencies could be renegotiated to include an amortization of
capital costs, to help offset capacity building construction costs.

Implementation of Regional Jails Concept
A great deal of study and work has been done in the state to support the concept
of regional jails. Only the last step of the process, implementation remains to be
done. Using the above strategies to support this effort, WASPC proposes that
one or more of the following implementation methods be used.

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 10
March 31, 2005

Continue to Fund WASPC’s Regional Jail Initiative to Support
Voluntary Cooperation
Studies have indicated that no additional legislative change is necessary to
create regional jails. Two or more jurisdictions could choose to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement. WASPC’s Jail Consultant is working to identify
those jurisdictions which could most benefit from this cooperation. Following this
assessment, he intends to invite the decision-makers of the affected cities and
counties into a cooperative planning process to bring one or more regional
facilities on-line.

Legislatively Create a Separate Regional Jails Authority
At the other end of the spectrum, the legislature could create a new agency,
positioned in the process between the existing city and county jails and the
Department of Corrections. This approach (used successfully in West Virginia)
would create a structure and a clarity of mission in an area where inmates,
particularly the mentally ill and chemically dependent offender, are currently
underserved. Additional resources would be required to build capacity statewide,
but this capacity could also provide some relief for crowded local facilities and for
the Department of Corrections.
Current law delineates the responsibility for offenders as follows:
•
•
•
•

Pre-trial and pre-sentenced offenders housed in local facilities
Sentenced misdemeanants housed in local facilities
Felons with sentences up to 12 months housed in local facilities
Felons with sentences over 12 months housed by the Department of
Corrections

Further study is necessary to define the dividing line that would be most
beneficial, and which would take best advantage of existing local and state
capacity. As an example only, the law could change the responsibility so that
sentenced offenders with terms up to and including 18 months would become the
responsibility of the Regional Jails Authority.
In this scheme, the local jails’ primary responsibility would be for pre-trial
offenders (and perhaps short term community custody violators). DOC would
continue to serve those with the longest terms, in this case over 18 months.
Governance of the authority should be shared by the counties served and DOC.
The Regional Jails Authority would serve the currently underserved population of
relatively short-term inmates who many times suffer from problems such as
mental illness, chemical dependency, or both. Because of the commonalities of
these populations, consistent research-based programs could be developed.
Because of the efficiencies of scale, these programs could be offered in an
WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 11
March 31, 2005

economical manner. Because research-based programs have been proven to
reduce recidivism, community safety could be enhanced.
(An excellent model for incorporating research into practice has been developed
by the Maryland Department of Public Safety. Titled “Tools of the Trade – A
Guide for Incorporating Science into Practice”, it is available from the National
Institute of Corrections at http://nicic.org/Library/020095 . It was developed
primarily for probation and parole operations, but its principles apply to any
offender population.)

Create a “Mixed System” by Offering State Construction and/or
Operational Funding for Jurisdictions which Choose to
Participate
This option could be described as an incentive system. It may be particularly
attractive to jurisdictions which have attempted but failed to obtain local bond
funding or taxing authority for the construction of new facilities they already know
they need.
This option could incorporate some of the ideas of the Regional Jails Authority
option above. Jurisdictions could keep their local facilities open, perhaps at
reduced populations, to serve the pre-trial populations. However, those who
choose to participate could be rewarded by state funding for those inmates who
are sent to the regional facility.

Change the Funding Formula to Provide More State Operational
Support
Many officials in local jurisdictions believe that state decisions continue to add
unfunded (or at least under-funded) mandates to local jail facilities. In several
cases, this has helped to create dangerously overcrowded jail facilities; in others,
it has led to unilateral decisions to refuse state prisoners; in the worst cases,
even sentenced prisoners have been turned away.
Any formula which significantly increases the direct funding of local facility
construction and/or operation would assist jurisdictions to develop additional bed
capacity. In most cases, it would also be necessary to develop program space
capacity as well, because every available space in some of these existing
facilities is being used and over-used.
Again, additional study would be necessary to arrive at a specific formula.
However, the following ideas have been suggested:
•

State funding for all state prisoners (including community custody
violators) at the full bed-day rate

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 12
March 31, 2005

•
•
•

State funding for offenders arrested by the Washington State Patrol
State funding for sentenced felons
State funding for any new law which increases jail populations

Change the Fiscal Responsibility for Housing “City Prisoners”
Counties and cities, particularly in King County, now spend an inordinate amount
of time and expense calculating “who owes who what for which inmate”. They
spend even more time and money transporting inmates between jurisdictions and
to and from each others’ jails, and to and from jails in Yakima, Benton, and other
counties. Eliminating city financial responsibility for the offenders they arrest,
and making them all the counties’ responsibility, could greatly simplify this
system.
However, the current system serves two purposes: controlling jail populations
and transferring revenue from the cities to the counties (or from one city to
another). Mechanisms would have to be developed to replace both functions.
An integrated regional approach could be funded by the state; revenue collecting
authority could be shifted to the jurisdiction operating the jail; and more logical
system approaches could be developed to control populations.
Replacing the currently convoluted system could have the added advantage of
supporting the regional jails concept by requiring a single entity to be responsible
for jail operations in a given county. This entity could then cooperate with other
county entities in regional efforts.
Existing city jails could continue to function as short-term holding facilities, as
most of them were originally designed. Alternatively, they could be built into an
integrated network, operated by the regional authority and governed by an
intergovernmental body.

Provide State Funding to Jurisdictions which Offer Specific
Services on a Regional Basis
The state has an interest in community protection that could be enhanced by the
delivery of services to offenders. State funding resources could be provided to
existing or new operations which offered in-jail services to specific populations.
For example, a larger facility with an existing mental health program could agree
to accept mentally ill inmates from other counties which do not provide such
programming. Rather than charging the sending jurisdiction, the facility with the
program could bill the state.
With a guaranteed funding stream, medium to large jails without such programs
could develop them, both for their own inmates and for those of surrounding
WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 13
March 31, 2005

jurisdictions. Similar funding sources could be provided for chemical
dependency, medical convalescent or chronic care, domestic violence
perpetrator treatment, or other needs beyond the resources of most small
facilities.

Conclusions
The need for additional “local” correctional capacity in the state has been welldocumented. The current jail system is failing to meet the needs of the rest of
the criminal justice system. Community safety and respect for law are
compromised.
A variety of regional jail approaches are available. WASPC intends to continue
its assessment of the problems, and then to develop specific recommendations
to local and state decision-makers to address these critical needs. With its
independent role in support of the agencies which operate local jails, WASPC is
ideally suited to further develop these concepts, and then to develop the system
consensus to solve these problems.

For Further Information, Please Contact
Jim LaMunyon, Deputy Director
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
3060 Willamette Drive NE Suite 200
Lacey, WA 98516
Telephone: (360) 486-2380
Fax: (360) 486-2381
jlamunyon@waspc.org
Bruce Kuennen, Jail Consultant
Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
3060 Willamette Drive NE Suite 200
Lacey, WA 98516
Telephone: (360) 486-2389
Cell phone: (360) 561-0807
Fax: (360) 486-2381
bkuennen@waspc.org

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 14
March 31, 2005

Appendices
Appendix One: The Ideal Regional Jail
One of the “Seven Habits of Highly Successful People”, by Stephen Covey is
“Beginning with the End in Mind”. To this end, the WASPC consultant has
developed this preliminary description of what an ideal regional jail would look
like, based on a brief review of existing regional jail studies.
Not every regional jail facility has all of these qualities, nor does every
prospective facility need to have them all to be successful, but we believe that
some combination of most of these qualities would satisfy most corrections
professionals’ definitions of an effective regional jail:
•

•

•

•
•
•
•

•

•

Location
o Conveniently located to all member jurisdictions
o Preferably near-equal travel distance from each
o Where utilities and infrastructure are adequate
Leadership
o Criminal Justice Planning Group – e.g., Law and Justice Council
o Involvement of Sheriffs and Jail Managers
o Involvement of County Commissioners and City Officials
o Involvement of Judges
Governance
o Shared reasonably between participants
o All parties have decision-making participation, or at least
meaningful input
Effective Transportation System
Effective Use of Technologies
o Remote videoconferencing
o Other
Unified, Articulated Jail Management Philosophy
Involvement of Community-based Resources
o Medical
o Mental Health
o Drug and Alcohol Treatment Providers
o Cognitive Behavioral Change Providers
Strong Prisoner Work Component
o Involvement of Jail Industries Board
o Involvement of local employers
o On-site jail industries
o Work Release
Integration of Correctional Options
o Use of Electronic Monitoring
o Use of Day Reporting

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 15
March 31, 2005

•

•

•

•
•
•
•

•

o Use of Work Release
Meets the Correctional Needs of All Agencies Operating in the Region
o Washington Department of Corrections
o Washington State Patrol
o U.S. Marshal
o Other Federal Agencies
Size
o Large enough to achieve economies of scale in staffing, medical,
mental health, education, industries, and other programming
o Sufficient capacity to relieve crowding in every participating
jurisdiction
o With population controls remaining in place
Classification based on assessed criminogenic risk and needs
o Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R)
o Objective Jail Classification
ƒ WASPC Objective Jail Classification
ƒ Northpointe Decision Tree
Fair, equitable, and transparent cost-sharing structure
o Clearly defined process to modify structure as circumstances
change
Clear and efficient communication with the public
o Internal public information plan
o Media relations
Continued operation of holding facilities / short-term detention near courts
and population centers
Standardized, computerized, and linked record-keeping system agreed
upon by all participants
o Linked to other criminal justice systems (APPRISS)
o Jail Booking and Reporting System (JBRS)
o Data elements include “jurisdiction for whom held”, decision-tree
protocols to resolve data conflicts – e.g., multiple charges
Sound legal footing
o Compliance with authorizing legislation
o Written contracts
o Accreditation and/or documented independent audit
o Audit according to constitutional physical plant and operational
standards, agreed to between the participating jurisdictions

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 16
March 31, 2005

Appendix Two: Text of Section 612, Engrossed Second
Substitute Senate Bill 5763
Regional Jails
NEW SECTION. Sec. 612 (1) The joint legislative audit and review committee
shall investigate and assess whether there are existing facilities in the state that
could be converted to use as a regional jail for offenders who have mental or
chemical dependency disorders, or both, that need specialized housing and
treatment arrangements.
(2) The joint legislative audit and review committee shall consider the
feasibility of using at least the following facilities or types of facilities:
(a) Green Hill School;
(b) Existing or renovated facilities at the former Northern State Hospital;
(c) Closed wards at Western State Hospital;
(d) Fircrest School; and
(e) Closed or abandoned nursing homes.
(3) The analysis shall include an assessment of when such facilities could be
available for use as a regional jail and the potential costs, costs avoided, and
benefits of at least the following considerations:
(a) Any impact on existing offenders or residents;
(b) The conversion of the facilities;
(c) Infrastructure tied to the facilities;
(d) Whether the facility is, or can be, sized proportionately to the available
pool of offenders;
(e) Changes in criminal justice costs, including transport, access to legal
assistance, and access to courts;
(f) Reductions in jail populations; and
(g) Changes in treatment costs for these offenders.
(4) The joint legislative audit and review committee shall report its findings
and recommendations to the appropriate committees of the legislature not later
than December 15, 2005.

WASPC Regional Jails Initiative
Preliminary Report

Page 17
March 31, 2005