C e n t e r f o r R e s e a r c h , R e g i o n a l Ed u c a t i o n a n d O u t r e a c h

S t a t e u n i v e r s i t y o f n e w y o r k a t n e w p a lt z

A Collaborative,
Regional Approach to
Jailing in the Hudson Valley
Discussion Brief #2 — Spring 2009
Gerald Benjamin & Joshua Simons
 Rising Costs of County Jails Table 1

>
Average
Change Yearly
County 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003-2007 Change
Columbia $ 2,742,090 $ 3,123,172 $ 3,585,074 $ 3,477,226 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Dutchess $ 18,627,982 $ 19,237,871 $ 20,912,941 $ 21,053,280 $ 22,384,310 20.2% 4.7%
Greene $ 1,952,707 $ 2,021,437 $ 2,215,431 $ 2,244,080 $ 2,724,063 39.5% 8.9%

There is already enough jail capacity in the eight Orange

Putnam
$ 20,542,919
$ 4,283,008
$ 22,219,591
$ 4,672,763
$ 24,561,745
$ 5,304,897
$ 25,212,902
$ 5,292,956
$ 27,009,395
$ 6,215,509
31.5%
45.1%
7.1%
10.0%
Rockland $ 14,275,359 $ 14,766,550 $ 16,486,640 $ 17,060,586 $ 17,828,368 24.9% 5.8%

Hudson Valley counties considered in this study to Sullivan

Ulster
$ 5,131,218
$ 8,921,448
$ 5,204,599
$ 10,516,958
$ 5,319,180
$ 10,925,819
$ 7,155,629
$ 11,493,233
$ 7,360,808
$ 12,152,881
43.5%
36.2%
10.3%
8.2%

meet current and future regional needs. Totals: $ 76,476,731 $ 81,762,941 $ 89,311,727 $ 92,989,892
Data Source: New York State Comptroller, Local Government and School Accountability (Unpublished)
$ 95,675,333 25.1% 5.8%

Gerald Benjamin,
CRREO Director
and Associate VP for
Regional Engagement,
offers an unusual com-
bination of academic
and applied experi-
ence. A leading expert
on New York State
and local government,
he has written or
edited 14 books and
government reports,
and numerous articles
and essays. Benjamin’s
public service includes
twelve years as an
Ulster County legisla-
tor (the final two as the
legislature’s chair and
chief elected officer),
chairman of the com-
mission that developed
and achieved adoption
of Ulster County’s first
charter, staff director
for the State Con-
stitutional Revision
Commission and mem-
bership on the State
Commission on Local
Government Efficiency
and Competitiveness.
Joshua Simons holds
a Bachelor of Arts
in political science,
from SUNY New
Paltz. He graduated
magna cum laude in
December 2008, and
was the recipient
of the department’s
Outstanding Senior
award. During the
Fall 2008 semester
he began working
on this project as a
Student Research
Assistant at the
Center for Research,
Regional Educa-
tion and Outreach
(CRREO). He
is now employed
at CRREO as a
Research Associate,
where his projects
include this regional
government study,
and a major study of
intergovernmental
collaboration in
Ulster County.
J ails are big business in the Hudson Valley. In 2006,
the last year for which the state Comptroller
has complete information, the combined spending to
operate jails in Putnam, Rockland, Orange, Ulster,
Dutchess, Sullivan, Greene and Columbia counties
was $92,989,892 (Table I).1
County jails have been in the
news most recently, however, not
because of how much they cost to
operate. The big story is how much
they cost to build.
A legislative investigation of cost
page 2
overruns in building the new Ulster
County jail was released in Septem-
ber, 2007. This project, originally
scheduled to cost $72 million, will
likely have a final cost of $95.5
million. Ulster County will have to
raise and pay an average of $4.65
million per year for the next twenty
years to meet the capital costs for
its new jail. This year the price tag
is over $6.5 million. (And added
operating costs will be extra.)
In Fall 2008, Dutchess County
Executive Bill Steinhaus used his
veto power to cut $795,000 in
inmate “boarding out” costs from
his county’s budget. This is the
most recent chapter in Steinhaus’s
multi-year fight with the New York
State Commission of Correction
(SCOC) to resist building a 300
bed addition to the county jail at a
projected cost of $70 million. In
response, Orange County officials
said, with reimbursement doubtful,
they would be unwilling to house
inmates from Dutchess in 2009.
Meanwhile the SCOC pressed
Sullivan County to build a $100
million, 407 bed jail facility. This
is twice the size of that county’s
current, admittedly antiquated jail;
Sullivan negotiated down to a 256
bed facility, projected to cost $73
million.
Also, in Greene County, again
under the Commission of
Corrections’ scrutiny and direction,
the county government is facing
a choice of whether to build a jail
with a capacity of approximately
150 cells at a cost (estimated in
2005) of $30 million.
And yet, using the Commission
of Correction’s own criteria for
analysis and prediction, there is
already enough jail capacity in
the eight Hudson Valley counties
considered in this study to meet
current and future regional needs.
The New York State
Commission of Correction
The New York State Constitution
provides that “There shall be a
state commission of corrections, Building upon the SCOC’s
which shall visit and inspect or constitutional mandate, an addition
cause to be visited and inspected by to the state’s Corrections Law
members of its staff, all institutions in 1965 empowered the agency
used for the detention of sane to establish minimum standards
adults, charged with or convicted through the promulgation of
of crime,” (NYS Constitution, Article rules and regulations regarding
XVII, §5). The chair of this body the “care, custody, corrections,
and two other commissioners are treatment, supervision, discipline
appointed for five-year terms by the and other correctional programs
governor, subject to the advice and for all inmates confined in local
consent of the Senate. The current correctional institutions.” (New York
agency head, recently appointed State Corrections Law, 1965, Article III, §5).
by Governor David Patterson, is Toward this end the commission
Thomas A. Beilen; he formerly may provide localities aid in
served as Niagara County Sheriff. assuring “humane and economic
administration”, “best sanitary
The 2009-2010 Executive Budget conditions” and investigate the
provided the Commission a management of jails (NYS Corrections
staff of 34 and a budget of $3 Law, 1965, Article III, §45, 2-4). It also
million (mostly for staff salaries) has the power to approve or reject
with which to oversee not only plans for jail construction or
60 county jails, but 70 state renovation.
correctional facilities, 6 New York
City correctional facilities, 316 Pursuant to these powers, and in ac-
local police department detention cord with legal requirements arising
facilities and 4 juvenile detention from other statutory provisions and
facilities run for the state Office of court decisions, the Commission
Children and Family Services. has adopted and regularly updates

1 Westchester, not included in our regional analysis because of the size and scope of its corrections system, adds another $59,768,915.

page 2 page 3

The Commission of Correction has been given
enormous power
over the character and operation of county jails.
Minimum Standards and Regula-
tions for Management of County
Jails and Penitentiaries (NYCRR, §7).
These further detail the SCOC’s
power to review and approve any
plans for new jail construction, and
explicitly prohibit such construc-
tion without its approval. Addition-
ally, they set out a great range of
operational requirements for
county jails.
Among the areas covered are:
• maximum jail capacities;
• size and furnishing of individual
cells and shared living spaces;
• educational services required for
some classes of inmates;
• requirements for classifying
inmates and segregating them
within institutions by class;
• health and mental health care
standards and procedures;
• legal services for inmates;
• jail sanitation; and
• jail staffing requirements.
SCOC regulations also govern how
and under what conditions counties
may seek exceptions to these
page 4
and public support” (p. 2). Three
general policy responses were
Dutchess County Jail:
Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 1
needed, it said, to remedy this
situation: “better use of existing
450
facilities, reducing the population,
443
431 and increasing the capacity.” (p. 1)
400 412 Looking back in 1995, the agency
393 392 claimed success in responding to
378
rules (called variances), if “full construction of the current jail there 350
375
the increased population pressures
compliance… cannot be achieved in the late 1970’s.
333 329 328 of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.
or maintained” (NYCRR, 7512.2). A
329 309 311 308 311
“In June 1993,” it reported, “for
INMATES
variance, if approved, is given for The Commission of Corrections
300 287 the first time in seven years, the
a specified time period and with has been given enormous power 286 286 286 286 286 286 286 286 local correctional system had more
conditions attached to meliorate the over the character and operation of 250
265 permanent beds than county level
circumstances that generated the county jails for two reasons. 242
249
241
inmates. During 1994, while this
234
need for it. 224
230
221 system was at approximately 97%
• The first is that, if left
200 Potential Peak
Average Daily Population
of design capacity, twenty counties
Generally, inmates must be housed unregulated, there is a good chance
Design Capacity were involved in various stages of
Potential Low
in the county in which they are that local governments might 150
jail expansion, renovation, or new
detained. The Minimum Standards well give jails short shrift. “Jails
2000 2001 2002 2003
YEAR
2004 2005 2006 2007
construction.” (SCOC, 1995, p. 8)
(NYCRR, 7512.2) detail when and for are funded largely from local Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections
what reasons an exception may be resources,” the Commission wrote Reformers argued that “Historically
made to this requirement, and a in 1980. “Pressured to keep taxes jail capacity has created its
specific inmate or group of inmates down while providing a great range own demand.” (SCOC, 1989, p.2)
placed in a jail in another county. of services, county officials rarely They advanced alternatives to
Greene County Jail:
Such placements are authorized by place them high on their list of Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 2 incarceration, and advocated
for efficiencies throughout the
140
the SCOC through the issuance of a priorities.” (SCOC, 1980, p.1)
“substitute jail order.”
125
criminal justice system to reduce
• The second is that abusive
120
jail time for un-sentenced inmates,
106
Finally, the SCOC is empowered treatment of prison and jail inmates 101
104 driving down demand for cells.
97 97
to have staff on-site to monitor has at times been a serious problem
100 96
Pressured to build, yet interested
88
facilities that don’t meet minimum in New York, establishing a need in avoiding the large capital costs
standards, and even – based upon for independent oversight of these
80 of jail construction, many counties
INMATES
authority first given in 1929 – to institutions. 62
66 embraced these alternatives. For
59 59 60
close a county jail that it finds 60 54 55
57
example, in Ulster County under
“unsafe, unsanitary or inadequate 54 54 56 56 56 56 56 the leadership of Legislative
51
to provide for the separation and The Drive for Jail Construction 40
32
37
31 33 32
Chairman Richard Mathews
classification of inmates required
27 26 26 and with state funding, a major
by law or which has not adhered In the seminal Report on 20
Potential Peak commitment to alternatives to
Average Daily Population
to or complied with the rules or Population and the Overcrowding Design Capacity incarceration programs was made
Potential Low
regulations promulgated with of County Jails in New York 0
during the 1980’s. (As the recent
respect to any such facility by State (1980), the SCOC found
2000 2001 2002 2003
YEAR
2004 2005 2006 2007 efforts in Tompkins County show,
the commission.” (New York State “overcrowding, antiquated Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections this strategy is still attractive to
Corrections Law, Article III, §45) In the facilities, inappropriate county governments.)
Hudson Valley, the closing of the incarceration, marginal use of
Putnam County jail prompted the alternatives, and lack of financial Nevertheless, bolstered by state
and national statistics documenting
page 5
 Most county elected leaders count its efforts to require them For the provision of county jail services,
to spend on prisons near the top of the list of unfunded the opportunity for such a shift is now.
state mandates that drive up local government capital and The shift? thinking regionally,
operating costs and therefore property taxes. not county-by-county.

Sullivan County Jail:

increased demand, the SCOC From the SCOC point of view the
Putnam County Jail:
240
Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 3 used a combination of its powers Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 5 modernization of county jails and
250

236 238 with remarkable persistence over 231 addition of capacity has been a
220
231
years and even decades to push, positive outcome, indeed a singular
207 207 212 207 207 207 pull, induce and – some county 200 achievement. James Lawrence,
200 207 officials would say – coerce – Director of Operations for the
202 170
202
196 counties to spend their resources agency wrote with pride in the New
149 149
180
190 188 189 189 191
to construct new facilities 150
135 York State Association of Counties

INMATES
124 128
designed to meet current and Newsletter (2006) that eighteen
INMATES

124 124 124 124 124

111 130

160
170 171 171
projected jailing needs. When jail 101
108 104 105 122
100 county jail projects totaling 4936
164 100 108
159 capacity is reached, variances are 77
82 82 86
78 beds had been completed between
156 145
* 145 74

140
137 given for limited time periods, 67 67
1994 and 2004, three of these in the
74
124
Potential Peak conditional on commitments to 50 36 Potential Peak Hudson Valley (Orange:800 beds,
Average Daily Population
120
118 116 Design Capacity progress toward new construction. Average Daily Population
Design Capacity
Dutchess:100 and Westchester
111 Potential Low
If county commitments are Potential Low
Penitentiary:436). Moreover,
* Data not available

100
not met, variances are denied, 0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Lawrence said, over $1 billion in
2000 2001 2002 2003
YEAR
2004 2005 2006 2007
forcing them to “board out” YEAR additional projects were in various
Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections
inmates at considerable expense. Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections
phases of planning and completion,
But “boarding out” also needs in eighteen other counties,
Columbia County Jail: commission approval, which is including five in the Hudson Valley
Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 4 Orange County Jail:
180 granted on a limited basis. If local Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 6 (Ulster:400 beds, Delaware:100,
resistance persists, “boarding out”
800
167 Putnam:24, Sullivan:400 and
753 753 753 753
may be made inconvenient, with 750 738 Greene:100).
160 712 710
150
154
inmates required to be transported 700
689
146 148 147
144
141 relatively long distances at 653
672
The Ulster County project was
140 136 135 135 increased cost. One recent review 650
621
completed amidst massive cost
135 600
concludes that since the creation 596 590 591 overruns and opened in 2007. But
INMATES

124 124 124 123 600

568 565
of its New Institutions Technical many of the other counties on this

INMATES
120
122 121 550
117 117 119 118 Assistance Program in 1993 “the 521
503 506 list (and some, like Dutchess, not
499
111
107 SCOC has been responsible for 500 477 501 472 480 even on the list) continue to resist
100
92 92 mandating the size and timetable 450
446 the SCOC’s pressure to build.
88
82 80
86
of nearly every new jail project in 408 Most county elected leaders (not
422
80 74 Potential Peak
Average Daily Population
New York State while providing 400
373 377 Potential Peak
Average Daily Population
all, the SCOC finds some support
353
67 Design Capacity no financial support or alternative 350
348 Design Capacity among sheriffs), count its efforts
Potential Low Potential Low

60 solutions to incarceration to local to require them to spend on jails

300
2000 2001 2002 2003
YEAR
2004 2005 2006 2007
counties.” (Center for Constitutional 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 near the top of the list of unfunded
YEAR
Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections
Rights, 2007, p.5). Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections

page 6 page 7
 state mandates that drive up local
government capital and operating What we wanted to show — and do show – is that
Ulster County Jail:
Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 7
costs and therefore property taxes.
even using the very same methodology that the
SCOC uses, but on a regional not a county basis,
450
426 Counties also argue that jail
censuses are increased by the
the argument that hundreds more cells are needed
400
requirement that they house state
353 parole violators. Frequently before
in the Hudson Valley region
350 343 343
336
317
a new facility there was built, Ulster
306
officials say, the number of state-
300 292
281
ready inmates in the county jail is not sustainable.
INMATES

278
270
261
254 248 251 257
equaled or exceeded the number
250
222 boarded out. And to add insult to
213 241 241 241 241
injury, state reimbursement did not
200 186 213 212
185 208 204 cover the costs of this imposition.
190
184 177
184 Potential Peak Additionally, counties’ debt capacity
150 Average Daily Population
Design Capacity is constitutionally limited; the
Potential Low
ability to borrow for other pressing
purposes is thus diminished when Hudson Valley Region:
100
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
YEAR priority is given to financing jail Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 9
2500
Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections
construction. Certainly as the 2398 2395
2459
economy worsens, jail building is
2350
2320
low on the list of priorities of county 2300
2226
officials with enormous capital and
service demands upon them. 2114
2087 2086
Rockland County Jail: 2100 2090
Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 8 2062 2005
340 2059
327 2028
1945 1896
320
308 308 311 Switching the Paradigm: 1900 1963

300
299
291 Regional Thinking About Jails 1860
284 284 284 284 1718

INMATES
1730 1772
280 1700
284 284 282 279 263 Almost a half century ago Thomas 1648
258
260
244
251 Kuhn, the philosopher of science, 1603
240 1558
240 234 famously observed in his book The 1500
1475
INMATES

225 240
Structure of Scientific Revolutions 1355
220
208 1331 1442
203
199
203
197
that people almost all of the time do 1400
196 1300
200
187 not challenge existing paradigms, 1311
180
193
that is, established frameworks for 1222
Potential Peak
doing things. They prefer to work 1152 Average Daily Population
160 151
Potential Peak 1100
148 Average Daily Population Design Capacity
Design Capacity within them. As a result, change
Potential Low
140 Potential Low
tends to be slow and incremental.
900
120 But sometimes, for reasons not
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
YEAR always clear – perhaps a particularly
YEAR
Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections
charismatic leader, perhaps a Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections
scandal, perhaps a major shock
to the existing system – like the
economic and fiscal crisis we now

page 8 page 9
 Northern Sub-Region Jails:
Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low CHART 10 We don’t yet know how this all might net out.
But in such parlous times as these,
1100

1000 1025
1040
1001
there is surely enough evidence in this
976
938
972
preliminary report to give the regional idea a
900

876
907 903 detailed, serious look.
800 780 774
INMATES

759 744
733
713 750
692
700 719 718 718
706
677
649 650 601
600
554 563
541 548 549
518
509 Southern Sub-Region Jails:
Potential Peak CHART 11
500 Design Capacity, Actual Population, Potential Peak and Potential Low
Average Daily Population
Design Capacity 1600
Potential Low
1487
400 1500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1417
YEAR
1400 1373 1368
1353
Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections
1368 1372
1355 1349
1300 1268
1254
1219
1186 1250

INMATES
1200
1116 1111
1098 1176
1100

face – there is the chance for a the National Institute of Corrections and Rockland in the Hudson Valley 1080 1013
985
1000
“paradigm shift,” defined (in the to assess current and future needs, had sufficient jail capacity in 2007.2 935 926
Encarta World English Dictionary) the actual average daily demand for (Charts 1-8) 911
900 888
as “a radical change…in jail space in Dutchess and Greene 909
assumptions about or approach Counties has regularly exceeded However, when the eight Hudson 800 783
799 792
770
to something.” design capacity since 2001. In Valley counties are considered as a
704
Sullivan, the demand has recently single unit it is clear that the region 700
Potential Peak
Average Daily Population
For the provision of county jail been so close to the design capacity has sufficient jail capacity to meet 643
Design Capacity
services, the opportunity for such as to raise concerns. In Columbia, actual current needs, and regularly 600 Potential Low
a shift is now. The shift? thinking average daily jail population has over the past seven years has fallen 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
regionally, not county-by-county. recently been at about 87% of only slightly short of meeting YEAR

design capacity. In Putnam, the hypothetical potential peak needs. Data Source: New York State Comission of Corrections

Thinking county-by-county, as the percentage has been 77. When (Chart 9)

Commission on Corrections does, potential worst-case jail demand
and using a formula developed by is considered, only Orange, Ulster This is also true if we divided the

2
B ecause of the need to separately house different classes of prisoners, and for special segregation of some prisoners, jail professionals claim that facilities operating at in
excess of 80% of capacity are stressed.

page 10 page 11

Distance From Beacon to County Jails
* Dutchess County Jail
Putnam County Jail
Orange County Jail
Rockland County Jail
Ulster County Jail
Sullivan County Jail
Greene County Jail
Columbia County Jail
0 10
* Indicates county in which Beacon is located.
Distance From Pine Plains to County Jails
Columbia County Jail
Greene County Jail
Ulster County Jail
* Dutchess County Jail
Putnam County Jail
Orange County Jail
Sullivan County Jail
Rockland County Jail
0 10 20
* MILES
Indicates county in which Pine Plains is located.
page 12
eight counties in the valley into
two groups; we’ve labeled them
Chart 12 the northern and southern sub-
17.0 regions. The northern sub-region,
Ulster, Greene, Columbia and
Dutchess, follows a pattern similar
26.3
to the entire region: sufficient
jail capacity to meet current
29.0 needs, but somewhat short of
meeting potential peak needs. In
32.0 the southern sub-region, Orange,
Sullivan, Rockland and Putnam,
jail capacity in place now exceeds
42.0
both actual and potential peak
needs. (Charts 10 and 11)
50.8
No one has a crystal ball. In this
50.9 area of policy, as in all others, there
is always room for debate about
59.9 what future needs will likely be.
We are in fact sympathetic to some
20 30 40 50 60 of the counties’ criticisms of how
MILES the Commission on Corrections
arrives at its estimates of need for
Chart 13 jail cells in the future. But for the
25.4 purposes of this analysis we do not
seek to contest the Commission on
25.8 Corrections’ planning assumptions.
What we wanted to show – and do
30.1 show – is that even using the very
same methodology that the SCOC
31.0
uses, but on a regional not a county
basis, the argument that hundreds
51.7 more cells are needed in the Hudson
Valley region is not sustainable.
76.1
Let’s give credit to the SCOC
79.9
where credit is due. There is
currently sufficient regional
capacity to meet the Hudson
82.2
Valley’s current and future jailing
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 needs because two of our counties
– Orange and Ulster – acceded
to the Commission’s pressure to
build new jails. The new Ulster
County jail, opened in 2007, can
house 426 inmates; its average
daily population in 2007 was 257,
and hypothetical peak population
was 343. The latest addition to
the Orange County jail was built
in 2004-2005; that facility’s
capacity is 753, while its average
daily population in 2007 was 565
and hypothetical peak population
was 672. Actions induced by the
SCOC and taken in the Hudson
Valley under the county-by-county
paradigm now enable us to consider
whether this old paradigm is still
best.
Further Exploring
Regionalism
Changing from a county-based
to multi-county, collaborative,
regionally-based approach to
jailing will take political will, and
a lot of work by a lot of people.
Laws will have to be amended,
and regulations revised. Formal
intergovernmental agreements
among counties will have to
be developed and approved by
legislatures and county executives.
Usual ways of doing business
within and across counties will
have to be reconsidered, not only
by Sheriffs and their deputies
but by a host of others working
throughout the entire local criminal
justice system.
The availability of enough cells
in the region to house the number
of inmates we are likely to need
to house is not sufficient basis
upon which to take such major
steps. Jails house several classes
of inmates, male and female;
adolescent and adult; sentenced
and un-sentenced; addicted or
not; healthy or not (physically
or mentally). Attempts to save
money in one area – financing
new facilities, for example –
may increase costs in another –
transporting inmates. We don’t yet
know how this all might net out.
But in such parlous times as these,
there is surely enough evidence in
this preliminary report to justify
giving the regional idea a detailed,
serious look.
Some Things to Consider
Continuing County Responsibility
Nothing in a collaborative regional
approach to jailing should diminish
counties’ responsibility for this
function. Financial responsibility
for persons arrested and
incarcerated within a county would
remain with that particular county.
Intergovernmental payments would
still flow from a county sending an
inmate to another for jailing. The
change will be that these actions
would occur as a matter of routine
practice within a mutually agreed
upon regional framework.
Reining in Capital Costs and
Operating Costs
Jails are not cheap. As noted, when
all is said and done, the newest
facility built in the Hudson Valley
region, the Ulster County jail,
will have cost over $95 million
to construct (including litigation
costs) and another $47.7 million to
finance. It will also, over time, cost
millions more to operate. Ulster
County’s costs may not be a good
guide; overruns experienced during
its construction caused a major
scandal. Moreover, construction
and borrowing costs shift with
changes in the economy, and
estimates used for advocacy in
specific counties on both sides, pro-
and anti-jail construction, may not
be completely reliable.
What is certain is that building
three or more new jails in the
Hudson Valley will cost tens of
millions of dollars, and this is
without considering increased
operating costs. New York State
and its localities are in a deep fiscal
crisis that is not likely to go away
soon. Property taxes in our state
are, on average, the highest in the
nation. If we could avoid at least
some of the cost of additional jail
construction by thinking and acting
regionally, doesn’t it make some
sense to give consideration to
this idea?
Restoring Local Choice
The Sullivan County jail is the
oldest in the state in current use; it
was originally brought into service
in 1896. The Greene County jail
celebrated its centennial this year.
(Both have had additions, Sullivan
in 2002 and Greene in 1978.)
Officials in both of these counties
acknowledge the need for more
modern jail facilities. If these
are built within the framework
of a collaboratively organized
regional network, however, their
size, character and cost may be
left to a far greater extent to local
choice and will therefore be far
more likely to be within local
governments’ means.
page 13
 Achieving Economies of Scale
Systematic, structured regional
collaboration might allow counties
to regularly achieve better prices
in purchasing essential goods and
services, thus lowering the cost
of government. (Note: the State
Sheriffs’ Association is already
working on the idea of collectively
purchasing drugs to lower this cost
for jails.)
Looking at Real Not Hypothetical
Costs
It has often been argued that
increased transportation costs
would offset any gains made from
a regional approach to jailing. This
point requires examination, and
must be considered on the basis of
actual experience. Our preliminary
work shows, for example, that
population concentrations in one
county are often equidistant or
near equidistant from jails in two
or more counties (Charts 12 and
13). This suggests that the actual
costs of a collaborative regional
approach might not be greater than
current costs. We need to look at
actual experience to find out.
Examining the Idea Within the
Frame of the Entire System
Jailing is only one part of each
county’s criminal justice system.
Other parts of the system would
not be regionalized. We have to
make sure that regionalization of
jails may properly be coordinated
with other elements of the system
within each county, and with other
proposed reforms, for example
electronic court appearances
proposed by Putnam County Sheriff
Donald B. Smith and others.
page 14
Further Harness Technology
Electronic technology may allow
meeting mandated requirements
that now limit reform trough
regionalization. For example
family visits and reentry programs
may also be achieved, at least in
some measure, through the use of
interactive video technology.
Specialization to Achieve Greater
Efficiency
Classification requirements often
result in counties using their
facilities less efficiently than they
might. Under a system of regional
collaboration one class or another
of inmates – women, for example –
might be concentrated in one or two
facilities, allowing more efficient
use of all facilities. Additionally,
services specially needed for
specific populations – health
services for women, to extend the
point – might be delivered more
effectively, and at lower cost.
Specialization to Achieve Better
Outcomes
For example, jails are required to
provide education for adolescent
inmates. Concentration of persons
in this category in some facilities
might allow better and more cost
effective delivery of this mandated
service.
Broader Program Availability to
Targeted Populations
Some jails in the region have
acknowledged best practices
programs targeted for specific sub-
groups of inmates. Other jails in
the region might be of insufficient
size, or have insufficient numbers
of inmates in the target group,
to sustain such programs. A
collaborative regional approach
might assure that such programs
are available to all who are best
enrolled in them, benefiting both
the inmate and the community.
Consider Change
Times are hard.
Money is in short supply.
We ask:
Should we continue to do local
government in the twenty-first
century the way we did for most of
the nineteenth century and all of the
twentieth century?
We answer:
Maybe, maybe not.
But surely, let’s take a hard look at
some alternatives.
Should we continue to do local government
in the twenty-first century
the way we did for most
of the nineteenth century and all of the twentieth century?
Data Comment The Center for Research,
Data for this paper was provided To comment, write to CRREO at Regional Education and
by the New York State Commission CRREO@newpaltz.edu. Outreach (CRREO) conducts
of Correction and Office of the New studies on topics of regional inter-
York State Comptroller, Division Thanks est; brings visibility and focus to
of Local Government and School To K.T. Tobin Flusser of our office, these matters; fosters communities
Accountability. Probation Director Bob Sudlow of working together to better serve
Ulster County and John Traylor citizenry; and advances the public
Sources and his colleagues at the interest in our region.
For a complete list of sources for Comptroller’s Office for their
this paper please reference the review of and comments upon The State University of New York
electronic version on the SUNY earlier drafts. at New Paltz was named “Hottest
New Paltz CRREO website: http:// Small State School” in the 2008
www.newpaltz.edu/crreo/ This Discussion Brief is part of Kaplan/Newsweek Hot To Get Into
an ongoing project to consider Colleges Guide, which identifies
Citation regional approaches to jailing America’s 25 Hottest Schools. The
Benjamin, Gerald and Simons, undertaken in collaboration with guide features schools that all offer
Joshua. (2009) A Collaborative, Pattern for Progress and Orange, top academic programs and are
Regional Approach to Jailing in the Sullivan and Ulster county making their mark in the competi-
Hudson Valley (CRREO Discussion governments. tive world of higher education.
Brief #2, Spring 2009). New Paltz,
NY: SUNY New Paltz Center for New Paltz is a highly selective
Research, Regional Education and college of about 8,000 undergradu-
Outreach. ate and graduate students located
in the Mid-Hudson Valley between
New York City and Albany. Degrees
are offered in the liberal arts and
sciences, which serve as a core for
professional programs in the fine
and performing arts, education,
healthcare, business and
engineering.
page 15
Independently and in collaboration with

New Paltz, NY 12561

1 Hawk Drive
Center for Research, Regional Education and Outreach

910350
local governments, business and not-
for-profits across the Hudson Valley,
CRREO: conducts independent research
on topics of regional interest; brings
visibility and focus to these matters;
fosters communities working together
to better serve the citizenry; and seeks
to advance the public interest in
our region.