The difficulty of replacing the Clark County Jail is reflected in a blue-ribbon panel that has been examining the issue. After about 18 months of work, the commission has been unable to reach a firm conclusion regarding the future of the aging facility.
The bottom line: Any eventual solution to the outdated and overcrowded facility is going to include a jaw-dropping price tag for county residents. That will require the county council to engage taxpayers in developing a solution and reaching a consensus on how much the community is willing to pay.
We will get to that in a moment. First, it is instructive to mention the areas where the panel found agreement: The jail needs to be replaced, and a new facility will need 850 to 880 beds. There also reportedly is consensus on the basics of inmate supervision.
After that, the jail presents a conundrum, with the biggest roadblock involving expenses.
The current cost of operating the Clark County Jail is $110 per inmate per day. Two replacement proposals would cost either $175 or $231 per inmate per day — expenses that would be passed along to cities that contract with the jail to house inmates. Erik Jensen, a consultant working with the commission, said, “It was quickly determined by this group that those costs were untenable.” Eric Holmes, Vancouver city manager, said: “From a values perspective, we reached some pretty strong harmony among the group. The cost just seemed to be prohibitive.”
Prohibitive, indeed. Doubling the jail’s operating costs would wreak havoc with city budgets throughout Clark County. But eschewing a solution because of those costs would simply allow the issues to fester and grow more expensive.
From one standpoint, the discussion ties in with an ongoing national debate about the criminal justice system. Steps have been taken at the federal level to improve equity and efficiency while focusing on inmate outcomes and reducing recidivism. Rebuilding the county jail presents an opportunity to pursue similar goals at the local level.
Meanwhile, the state of Washington is instituting changes that impact jails and mental health care. The goal is to reduce the use of jails as holding facilities for those who would be better served by proper evaluations and care.
All of that should influence the report from the Clark County commission. Along with other reforms, the panel plans to recommend reducing the jail’s population through pre-trial risk assessments, as well as reducing the time for competency restoration holds.
Panelists expect to deliver that report to the county council in August, and commission chair Craig Pridemore said, “The real question before us: Is there something in the past 18 months that the (committee) can agree to forward to the county council for how they address the issue?”
Undoubtedly, there is; 18 months of work is certain to yield valuable insight about the future of the jail and the complexities of the situation. But the sticker shock generated by preliminary proposals remains a stumbling block.
Some of the basics are clear. Clark County needs a larger jail to accommodate an expanding population; the region has outgrown a facility that opened in 1984. And the intake center, along with building infrastructure, is in need of updating. Those factors indicate that a new facility would be more cost-effective than renovation.
But getting beyond that point will require a community conversation. The jail is an important part of public safety; the question is how much we are willing to pay to enhance that safety.