Commentary : More Efficient Use of Jails Needed, Not More Jails

A judge recently ruled that San Diego County’s 0.5% sales-tax increase to build jails and courts is invalid because Proposition 13 requires two-thirds voter approval, and the increase passed by only 50.6%. Now some concerned San Diegans are asking how we are going to lock up people who shouldn’t be out on the streets if our jails are overcrowded and we cannot use sales-tax money to build more.

The answer is that we cannot solve our crime problem with more jails.

The amount of money we will have available for jails and courts, without any new revenue sources, will allow us to keep up with population growth and to lock up the people we truly need to lock up, if we make our jails more efficient, expand alternatives to incarceration and make a personal commitment to prevent crime.

The county is able to show a “need” for new revenue only by planning for a 3 1/2-fold increase in the rate of incarceration by the year 2,007 (from 1 in 550 to 1 in 160). The county’s current rate of jail incarceration is already ahead of the rest of the state, and California has one of the highest rates in the industrialized world.

In 1977, the county had one jail with 813 beds. Since then, the county has built five jails: Las Colinas, 1977; Vista, 1979; Las Colinas expansion, 1980; Descanso, 1981; South Bay, 1982; El Cajon, 1983; Vista expansion, 1989. These, along with four honor camps and one work furlough center, are rated to hold 2,863 inmates.

In other words, the county has already built a lot of jails, and another is in the works. A building contract was just awarded for the first phase of a jail on East Mesa to hold 1,200 inmates. That will bring the jail system’s capacity to 4,063 inmates.

The Vista jail expansion cost the county $96,667 per bed to build. Annual operating expenditures of all the jails are about $14,600 per inmate, per year. Jails are very expensive.

More jails would be a waste of taxpayers’ money.

The goal voters seek when they approve new taxes for jails is relief from crime. We are distraught and want the government to “take care of it.” We want to wake up and see our cars still in our driveways, pick up our preschoolers from day care unmolested, and have drug-free teen-agers.

But history has taught us that government will aggrandize itself without really solving hard problems when given lots of money and left to its own devices. That is why we passed Proposition 13.

New taxes and jails are good for the county bureaucracy--lots of jobs and lots of money to pay for them. Corrections is the fastest growing segment of government employment, and more Americans are reportedly employed in government than ever before. County government is already San Diego County’s biggest employer.

But new jails will not reduce the crime rate. Even if every convicted criminal were sent to jail or prison for life, we would not significantly lessen the threat of crime. That’s because most crime is undetected. It is estimated that fewer than 6% of all criminals end up in the criminal justice system.

What can we do?

First, we can make the jails we have more efficient in the following ways:

* Don’t waste expensive beds on public inebriates and other low-security risks.

Inebriate reception centers cost little to build or operate. Yet in 1988, about 9,500 public drunks were booked into the county’s jails. In a 1988 report to the state, the county admitted that these bookings “. . . contribute to the jail overcrowding problem.” The county must build more low-cost inebriate reception centers so we do not house public drunks in high-security institutions while the county tells us there is no room for dangerous criminals.

* Expand the work-furlough program.

One-hundred-five low-risk inmates go to work every day from low-security, low cost facilities in the communities. These men earn money. They use it to pay the county for their incarceration and to support their families. There are no such facilities for women. Women inmates are all housed in an expensive, high-security institution. This leaves the county vulnerable to a lawsuit and costs the taxpayers money. The work furlough program should be expanded for both men and women.

* Transport and release inmates who should be in other institutions or released on bail.

In 1987, inmates who were sentenced to other facilities awaiting transport and those who had posted bail accounted for about 137 beds. That has since expanded to 250 beds. The county admits that longer stays of these categories “. . . may have contributed to increase in the average daily population.”

* Expand alternatives to incarceration.

Releasing inmates on their own recognizance (OR) while awaiting trial is a practice many would like to stop. Yet the county says that 90% of ORs and 94% of probation-supervised ORs show up for their court dates. This saves taxpayers money and leaves room for those who are a greater risk to the community. The OR program should be expanded.

* Assist the private sector in protecting itself against crime.

We pay millions of dollars to track down, bring to trial and house thieves. Money could be better spent by educating merchants about how to prevent theft with better alarm systems, check verification procedures and inventory control.

* Process inmates awaiting trial more quickly by more efficient court use.

Any discussion of jail overcrowding must take into account the fact that about 63% of County Jail inmates are unsentenced. Most are waiting to go to trial and most of these will be sent to state prison. The more quickly pretrial detainees can be sent on their way to wherever they are going, the less jail space the county will need to build.

Increased use of the courts has proven successful in more quickly processing cases through courts and alleviating jail crowding. The opening of night, weekend and holiday arraignment courts reduced population at the Manhattan House of Detention so dramatically that plans to build a $60-million jail were canceled. Any plans to increase court efficiency should be made together with often overworked prosecutors, defense attorneys and court personnel to avoid increased pressure and any injustice to the accused. By working cooperatively, however, reduction in court delays has the potential to benefit everyone, especially the taxpayer.

* Invest in citizen self-help to prevent crime.

Jails can lock up people who have committed crimes but it has never been proven that the threat of jail prevents much crime. Far better not to be a victim in the first place. County programs to acquaint us with the latest car-alarm systems are cheaper than jailing car thieves, and more effective.

Crime alienates us from each other, which in turn, creates a greater opportunity for crime. The often astonishingly successful organizing of crime-ridden neighborhoods teaches us that bricks and mortar may be the easy solution, but not necessarily the best. It is certainly the most expensive. We must all work to break the chain by taking responsibility for one another through Neighborhood Watch and other community-based programs. These require a more personal commitment than throwing money at the problem, but they have more potential for success.

But, if, after trying the above alternatives to jail, the county truly cannot meet critical needs with existing revenue sources, we can always approve a 0.5% (or more) sales tax increase for the county general fund by 50% of the vote without offending Proposition 13.

Increasing overall county revenues and budgeting from the general fund when there is a need have the added advantage of allowing each of the competing, critical county needs (such as police salaries and indigent mental health care) to compete with jails for scarce resources.