Unlock Funds for Jails

Jail crowding was bad in November, 1986, when the voters rejected a half-cent increase in the sales tax to build jails and courts. Eighteen months later--as voters face a similar sales tax measure--conditions are worse.

Recently, there were 4,500 inmates in jails designed to hold 2,285. The courts’ criminal caseload has increased 58% over the past five years. And the threshold is higher for deciding who is incarcerated. Only those suspected of felonies and the most serious misdemeanors are held in jail or required to post bail. Others are released with just a promise to appear in court--a promise often broken. Those who are released are being rearrested more often. Judges say criminals know that they can thumb their nose at the judicial system.

Some relief is in sight. The jail at Vista is being expanded to hold 296 more inmates and a 1,200-inmate jail and honor camp are planned for Otay Mesa.

But more is needed--to make up for years of under-building and to keep up with growth in the inmate population, which is swelled by general population growth as well as by drug problems and tougher sentencing laws. The county estimates that there will be 19,000 inmates by the year 2007.

Proposition A on the June 7 ballot, which would raise the San Diego County sales tax from 6.5% to 7% for 10 years, is expected to raise $1.6 billion to meet the county’s jail and court needs over the next 20 years.

In addition to building jails and courtrooms, the money can also be used for operating expenses and to pay off debts on current jails.

We think the case for Proposition A is strong, though we have some reservations about its duration and use.

The county needs more jails. Two lawsuits have been filed against the county for overcrowding, one of which resulted in a court-ordered cap on inmates at the downtown jail. The other suit, which addresses crowding at the outlying jails, is pending, but could easily result in similar court orders.

Opponents say the county is overstating the problem and could use existing funds to build more cells if it would reorder its priorities. But most of the county’s budget goes for state-mandated programs, and what’s left is already too little for programs combatting such problems as drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness and child abuse, all of which increase the jail population if not treated. It’s also insufficient to build the required jails and courtrooms.

What’s troubling about Proposition A is its 10-year duration. In 1986, the tax was proposed for only five years. County officials say the change was made because revised projections show a higher inmate population and because the 1988 measure also can be used for operating costs.

Obviously, projecting needs for the next 20 years is a precarious business dependent on such imponderables as recessions, slow-growth measures, demographics and social problems. And no one wants the jails to be full the day they open, as has happened in the past.

But the new projections are significantly higher than in 1986, and we are concerned that the extra money could translate into overbuilding or over-dependence on the temporary tax for operating funds. Both can be avoided with judicious spending by the Regional Justice Facility Financing Agency, which would administer funds raised from the tax.

What’s important is that the money from Proposition A be used in creative ways to produce long-term solutions. In the rush to solve the current crowding crisis, the county should not dismiss the effective efficiency moves that the crisis has borne, such as double bunking, shared courtrooms and some alternatives to incarceration.

The county also needs to look for ways to increase inmate treatment programs for drug and alcohol abuse and other programs that can reduce the need for jails in the long run.

But the first step is to reduce overcrowding. Proposition A seems like the most practical way to accomplish that. We urge a YES vote.