Dutchess County Jail Study

= =========================================
R I C C I G R E E N E A S S O C I A T E S
A RC HI TEC TURE P L A N N I N G

=======================

C OUNTY OF DUTC HESS

VALIDATION STUDY OF THE DUTC HESS C OUNTY
C RIMINAL J USTIC E SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Ma y 28, 2013
V a l i d a t i o n S t u d y o f t h e D u t c h e s s C o u n t y
C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e N e e d s A s s e s s m e n t
=
TABLE OF CONTENTS


1.0 INTRODUCTIONANDOVERVIEW
1.1 ProjectBackground
1.2 ProjectDescription
1.3 ProjectApproach
1.4 Methods
2.0 SYSTEMFACTORSANDALTERNATIVESTOINCARCERATION
2.1 SummaryoftheCJCReport
2.2 ConsultantsEvaluationandFindings
2.3 ConclusionsandRecommendations

3.0 JAILPOPULATIONFORECASTINGANDBEDSPACENEEDS
3.1 MethodsandObjective
3.2 ReviewoftheCJCReport
3.3 ConsultantsEvaluationandFindings
3.4 ConclusionsandRecommendations
4.0 JAILFACILITYSITEANDJAILMODEL
4.1 SummaryoftheCJCReport
4.2 EvaluationandFindings
4.3.NextSteps

APPENDICES
A ReviewedDocuments
B SiteVisitSessionSignInSheets
C StaffingChart
D JailSiteEvaluationGraphics
E SpaceProgram

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S y s t e m N e e d s A s s e s s m e n t
=
1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

R I C C I G R E E N E A S S O C I A T E S 11

1.1. Project Background The DuIchess CounIy JaIl, consIrucIed In Iwo phases, comprIses an
orIgInal 184 acIlIIy and a 1S addIIIon. The IoIal desIgn capacIIy Is
22 beds, and, wIIh an operaIIonal margIn o o-10%, approxImaIely 2S7
InmaIes are housed In Ihe Iwo acIlIIIes daIly. The jaIl average daIly
populaIIon (ADF) In DuIchess CounIy has exceeded boIh Ihe uncIIonal
and Ihe desIgn capacIIy o Ihe exIsIIng acIlIIy or years, and currenIly
over 200 InmaIes are housed ouI Io surroundIng counIIes on a gIven
day. RecognIzIng IhaI jaIl bedspace needs are noI solely dependenI on
arresI raIes and admIssIons, buI resulI rom sysIem-wIde polIcIes and
pracIIces, Ihe CounIy ExecuIIve Iasked Ihe DuIchess CounIy CrImInal
JusIIce CouncIl (CJC) wIIh conducIIng a comprehensIve needs
assessmenI o Ihe CounIys CrImInal JusIIce SysIem, aImed aI
IdenIIyIng a holIsIIc plan or solvIng Ihe exIensIve housIng ouI o
InmaIes and Ihe IdenIIIed acIlIIy concerns.

On November 1
sI
, 2012, Ihe DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce CouncIl
(CJC) presenIed Ihe CrImInal JusIIce SysIem Needs AssessmenI SIudy,
aImed aI provIdIng a beIIer undersIandIng o Ihe enIIre DuIchess
CounIy crImInal jusIIce sysIem, IncludIng acIlIIy-relaIed needs or Ihe
jaIl over Ihe nexI 20 years and Ihe ImpacI and role o ATIs and oIher
communIIy based InIervenIIons." The assessmenI culmInaIed In a
recommendaIIon or Ihe consIrucIIon o a new, S00-oS0 bed,
IransIIIonal jaIl acIlIIy on an IdenIIIed new sIIe. ThIs envIsIoned
acIlIIy Is noI only seen as a soluIIon Io overcrowdIng, buI II Is
envIsIoned as a campus sIyle jaIl seIIIng" wIIh varIous co-locaIed
servIces supporIIng a sIrong conIInuum o servIces, In lIne wIIh Ihe
CounIys embraced phIlosophy o leasI resIrIcIIve, evIdence-based
crImInal jusIIce pracIIces.

The research and analyses, conducIed by Ihree unIque subcommIIIees,
and Ihe subsequenI recommendaIIons can be broadly dIvIded InIo Ihree
secIIons:
1) SysIem FracIIces}ATIs,
2) JaIl FopulaIIon FrojecIIons} Bedspace Needs and
3) JaIl EacIlIIy ConsIderaIIons.

SysIem FracIIces} AlIernaIIves Io IncarceraIIon (ATI)
WhIle Ihe CJC recognIzed Ihe exIensIve and successul work Ihe CounIy
does In servIng approxImaIely o00 IndIvIduals (a parI o a IoIal
populaIIon o over 3000 under some sorI o FrobaIIon supervIsIon) In
AlIernaIIves Io IncarceraIIon daIly, Ihe Needs AssessmenI ouIlIned a
=

12 R I C C I G R E E N E A S S O C I A T E S
number o ImmedIaIe, shorI- and long-Ierm recommendaIIons Io
address IdenIIIed gaps or IneIcIencIes sysIem-wIde. The CJC noIed
IhaI expansIon o exIsIIng programs and Ihe InIroducIIon o addIIIonal
ATI servIces Is lIkely Io ImpacI jaIl populaIIon and reduce bedspace
needs, and Is a crucIal consIderaIIon In plannIng a new jaIl. ThIs
consIderaIIon, however, dId noI seem Io exIend InIo Ihe consequenI
populaIIon projecIIons and Ihe managemenI o uIure bedspace demand
a concern IhIs sIudy aImed Io address.

JaIl FopulaIIon FrojecIIons} Bedspace Needs
The CJC used an earlIer sIudys jaIl populaIIon projecIIons as Ihe
baselIne or IIs populaIIon analyses, whIch show a conIInued upward
Irend, wIIh Ihe jaIl ADF IncreasIng rom Ihe 2011 annual ADF o 38o Io
a projecIed S40 InmaIes In 2030. WIIh consIderaIIon o jaIl
classIIcaIIon requIremenIs, Ihe CJC recommendaIIons call or a new
acIlIIy IhaI can accommodaIe beIween S00-oS0 InmaIes.

JaIl EacIlIIy ConsIderaIIons
CurrenI acIlIIy condIIIons
The Iwo exIsIIng acIlIIIes IhaI make up Ihe currenI DuIchess CounIy JaIl
were assessed In Ierms o physIcal condIIIon and operaIIonal}housIng
capacIIy. Beyond lImIIed bedspace Io accommodaIe Ihe local
correcIIonal needs, Ihe CJC reporI descrIbed a dearIh o programmaIIc,
admInIsIraIIve, medIcal and supporIIve space and, parIIcularly In Ihe
184 acIlIIy, dIlapIdaIed condIIIons and exIreme sIaIng IneIcIency.

JaIl Model ConsIderaIIons
The CJC was presenIed wIIh a number o poIenIIal acIlIIy soluIIons or
Ihe housIng ouI Issue. Several suggesIed acIlIIIes were deemed
uneasIble, eIIher due Io hIgh cosIs or logIsIIcal obsIacles. As such, Ihe
consIrucIIon o a compleIely new jaIl and Ihe expansIon o Ihe currenI
jaIl were opIIons IhaI were examIned urIher.

SIIe ConsIderaIIons
The CJC recommends Ihe buIldIng o a jaIl acIlIIy aI a new sIIe, as
expansIon aI Ihe currenI sIIe Is vIewed as cosI prohIbIIIve." The reporI
ound IhaI buIldIng new provIdes greaIer lexIbIlIIy, allowIng or a
modern, cosI eIcIenI desIgn IhaI can be sIa eIcIenI and In lIne wIIh
Ihe CounIys plan or a campus-sIyle" acIlIIy.

An alIernaIIve sIIe was IdenIIIed as a parI o Ihe CJC assessmenI, wIIh
noIed need or urIher sIIe analyses and comparIsons o Ihe new and
=

exIsIIng sIIes. The CJC belIeves IhaI Ihe alIernaIe sIIe Is approprIaIely
locaIed and can be made avaIlable, and aI roughly IwIce Ihe sIze o Ihe
currenI sIIe II Is seen as beIng able Io accommodaIe Ihe planned uIure
re-locaIIon o varIous servIces and programs, In addIIIon Io Ihe maIn
jaIl.

1.2. Project Description WhIle Ihe CJC reporI ouIlIned a clear recommendaIIon wIIh regard Io
Ihe needed bedspace and Ihe Iwo alIernaIIve jaIl sIIes, Ihe Needs
AssessmenI dId noI resulI In a consensus on Ihe besI soluIIon Io
DuIchess CounIys jaIl problem. To supporI Ihe CounIy In IIs decIsIon
makIng and In IakIng Ihe nexI sIeps Ioward a new jaIl, RIccIGreene
AssocIaIes was reIaIned Io examIne Ihe IndIngs and recommendaIIons
presenIed In Ihe CJC reporI, evaluaIIng Ihe underlyIng assumpIIons and
analyses used In Ihe exIsIIng needs assessmenI. The InIenI o IhIs
ValIdaIIon SIudy Is Io provIde an empIrIcally supporIed, more deIaIled
analysIs o poIenIIal sysIem ImprovemenIs, IheIr ImpacI on updaIed
populaIIon orecasIs, and Ihe II o Ihe Iwo IdenIIIed sIIes In Ierms o
Ihe needed new acIlIIy. RecognIzIng IhaI experI uIIlIzaIIon Is key In
beIng able Io Ihoroughly address Ihe sIudys specIalIzed key elemenIs,
RIccIGreene AssocIaIes worked wIIh consulIanIs KevIn WarwIck o
AlIernaIIve SoluIIons Inc. and Joshua SImons o SUNY New FalIz,
CRREO Io revIew and evaluaIe ATI subjecI maIIer and populaIIon
projecIIons, respecIIvely.

A comprehensIve CrImInal JusIIce SysIem needs assessmenI was noI parI
o Ihe scope o IhIs sIudy, buI Ihe goal was raIher Io IdenIIy possIble
InconsIsIencIes or gaps In Ihe CJC assessmenI and provIde any needed
updaIes Io supporI Ihe recommended nexI sIages In Ihe process o
buIldIng more jaIl space.

CommendIng Ihe CJC on Ihe exIensIve and comprehensIve research
and assessmenI II has done, Ihe consulIanI Ieam revIewed and evaluaIed
Ihe Inal CJC reporI, IncludIng necessary amIlIarIzaIIon and evaluaIIon
o used prevIous sIudIes and supporIIve documenIs as well as Ihe
acquIrIng o addIIIonal InormaIIon Ihrough dIrecI communIcaIIon wIIh
Ihe CJC and key sIakeholders. The consulIanIs revIewed and evaluaIed
Ihe IndIngs and recommendaIIons ound In Ihe CJC AssessmenI wIIh
regard Io: SysIem-wIde opporIunIIIes and changes, AlIernaIIves Io
IncarceraIIon (ATI), FopulaIIon projecIIons or orecasIIng, and Ihe need
Io expand Ihe CounIys jaIl acIlIIy or consIrucI a new campus-sIyle
IransIIIonal cenIer." ThIs sIudy provIdes a more exIensIve comparIson
o Ihe Iwo sIIe opIIons, seIIIng Ihe sIage or a deIaIled deInIIIon o Ihe
=

14 R I C C I G R E E N E A S S O C I A T E S
proposed jaIl projecI In Ihe nexI phase. ThroughouI, IhIs sIudy
maInIaIned Ihe CJCs chosen sysIems-approach and was cognIzanI o Ihe
CounIys commIImenI Io evIdence-based pracIIces and Increased publIc
saeIy.

1.3. Project Approach Goals
The ollowIng were IdenIIIed as Ihe prIncIpal objecIIves o IhIs projecI:
RevIew and evaluaIIon o Ihe DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce
SysIem Needs AssessmenI, IncludIng:
o SysIem FracIIces} AlIernaIIves Io IncarceraIIon
o Bedspace FrojecIIons} EorecasIIng
o JaIl EacIlIIy ConsIderaIIons
FrovIsIon o IndIngs and recommendaIIons
o New acIlIIy needs and locaIIon

Project Activities
The ollowIng charI IllusIraIes Ihe examIned key componenIs o Ihe
sIudy, IncludIng Ihe InIIIal revIew o Ihe CJC assessmenI, Ihe
consequenI updaIed analyses and IndIngs, and Ihe Inal
recommendaIIons wIIh regard Io Ihe Ihree key subjecI areas.

1.4. Methods The meIhodology or Ihe currenI sIudy was developed In response Io Ihe
need Io compleIe and delIver Ihe compleIe producI and IndIngs In a
compressed IImerame. MIndul o Ihe CounIys emphasIs on
collaboraIIve eorIs and In lIne wIIh a sysIems approach, Ihe revIew o
Ihe CJC Needs AssessmenI reporI was supporIed by sIakeholder meeIIngs
and InpuI durIng Ihe consulIanIs sIIe vIsII. AddIIIonal InsIghI was
=

gaIned Ihrough revIewIng prevIously provIded sIudIes, crImInal jusIIce
sysIem daIa and oIher requesIed InormaIIon regardIng Ihe jaIl, Ihe
alIernaIIve sIIe, Ihe DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce SysIem and Ihe
CJC assessmenI. A lIsI o revIewed documenIs Is Included In AppendIx
A.

Eour sessIons were held durIng Ihe consulIanI Ieams sIIe vIsII on March
27
Ih
, 2013, IncludIng a kIck-o meeIIng}roundIable, a populaIIon
projecIIons meeIIng, an AlIernaIIves Io IncarceraIIon meeIIng, and sIIe
vIsIIs Io boIh Ihe exIsIIng sIIe and acIlIIy and Ihe CJC IdenIIIed
alIernaIe sIIe. The purpose o Ihe sIIe vIsII and meeIIngs was Iwo-old, II
provIded Ihe consulIanI Ieam wIIh necessary InormaIIon regardIng Ihe
assumpIIons and IacIIcs underlyIng Ihe CJC IndIngs and allowed or
sIakeholder InpuI Io help IdenIIy Ihe CounIys prIorIIIes and vIsIon
wIIh regard Io Ihe planned jaIl and sysIem-wIde ImprovemenIs.
FarIIcIpanI selecIIon or Ihe sessIons was coordInaIed In collaboraIIon
wIIh Ihe CounIys projecI manager, and II soughI Io acIlIIaIe Ihe sIIe
vIsIIs objecIIve o Inormed, yeI ocused dIscussIon (See AppendIx B or
sIgn-In sheeIs rom each sessIon). The revIew, evaluaIIon and IndIngs
wIIhIn IhIs sIudy are, Ihus, relecIIve o Ihe collaboraIIve eorIs o Ihe
consulIanI Ieam, Ihe CJC, and Ihe IdenIIIed key sIakeholders Io Ind Ihe
besI answer Io DuIchess CounIys jaIl needs. The resulIIng
recommendaIIons are a synIhesIs o Ihe Iasks and acIIvIIIes IhaI
preceded Ihem, and relecI Ihe CounIys expressed programmaIIc
objecIIves and Ihe emphasIs on evIdence-based, collaboraIIve, and leasI
resIrIcIIve sysIem-wIde pracIIces.

ReporI OrganIzaIIon
The ValIdaIIon SIudy reporI Is organIzed around Ihe Ihree IdenIIIed
major areas o evaluaIIon, namely 1.) SysIem FracIIces and AlIernaIIves
Io IncarceraIIon (ATI), 2.) FopulaIIon EorecasIIng and Bedspace Needs
and 3.) JaIl EacIlIIy ConsIderaIIons.

2.0 SYSTEM FACTORS AND ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION
=
2. SYSTEM FACTORS AND ALTERNATIVES
TO INCARCERATION

2.1. Summary of the CJC
Report TwenIy years ago, Ihe DuIchess CounIy LegIslaIure had Ihe oresIghI Io
enacI Ihe esIablIshmenI o a CrImInal JusIIce CouncIl (CJC) IhaI serves In an
advIsory capacIIy Io Ihe CounIy ExecuIIve and LegIslaIure In maIIers
perIaInIng Io Ihe crImInal jusIIce sysIem and serves as Ihe local AlIernaIIves
Io IncarceraIIon (ATI) Board, as mandaIed by Ihe SIaIe. In evaluaIIng Ihe
needs o Ihe DuIchess counIy jaIl In Ihe ace o Ihe currenI housIng ouI and
acIlIIy Issues, Ihe CJC was Iasked wIIh IdenIIyIng sysIems Issues,
parIIcularly alIernaIIves Io IncarceraIIon (ATIs), IhaI could ImpacI currenI
jaIl uIIlIzaIIon.

The reporI on sysIem Issues and ATIs recognIzed IhaI prevIous sIudIes have
been compleIed. Such sIudIes, underIaken by IhIs CouncIl, and IechnIcal
assIsIance rom varIous resources, IncludIng Ihe NaIIonal InsIIIuIe o
CorrecIIons, have IllumInaIed several areas whIch, I ImplemenIed, could
posIIIvely ImpacI Ihe average daIly populaIIon o IndIvIduals under Ihe
jurIsdIcIIon o DuIchess CounIy or IncarceraIIon and}or supervIsIon. The
CJC reporI noIed IhaI o00 oenders are already ouI on varIous ATI
programs, and Ihe CounIy has many servIces and programs already In place,
buI recognIzed IhaI Ihere are sIIll cerIaIn gaps In Ihe sysIem, and room or
ImprovemenI remaIns. The CJC recommendaIIons Included:
Use vIdeoconerencIng, when possIble, as soon as possIble, unIIl housIng
ouI Is subsIanIIally reduced or IermInaIed.
Use pre-pleas, when approprIaIe, so IhaI InormaIIon abouI rIsk level
and crImInogenIc needs becomes avaIlable earlIer In Ihe crImInal jusIIce
process Io Inorm decIsIon makIng by prosecuIors, deense aIIorneys and
judges.
Increased use o InIerIm probaIIon senIences where approprIaIe.
UIIlIzaIIon o Ihe AcceleraIed Release and Re-EnIry Frogram (ARRF).
ARRF wIll acIlIIaIe preIrIal release as approprIaIe, provIde InIervenIIons
accordIng Io crImInogenIc rIsk}needs, expedIIe case processIng rom
arresI Ihrough dIsposIIIon, lInk jaIl and communIIy programmIng and
coordInaIIon o servIces, assIsIIng In pre-plea case processIng.
FrovIsIon o IraInIng or crImInal jusIIce agencIes regardIng menIal
healIh and subsIance abuse Issues.
AnalysIs o daIa compIled rom InIake assessmenIs (FROXY) Io
deIermIne rIsk level o InmaIes and probaIIons and deIermInaIIon o
placIng IndIvIduals aI Ihe proper level o cusIody and supervIsIon.
RenIal o Iemporary housIng pods aI Ihe jaIl sIIe, Io reIurn housed ouI"
InmaIes
DevelopmenI o alIernaIIve housIng opIIons, IncludIng a 24-hour
menIal healIh crIsIs cenIer jaIl alIernaIIve, expansIon o beds or
=
TO INCARCERATION
22R I C C I G R E E N E A S S O C I A T E S
chemIcally dependenI InmaIes, and housIng Io address specIIc
populaIIons, such as youIh, emales, specIal needs InmaIes, and
IndIvIduals wIIh menIal healIh Issues.

The lasI recommendaIIon was based on CJC IndIngs IhaI Ihe vasI majorIIy
o Ihe InmaIe populaIIon In Ihe DuIchess CounIy jaIl alls InIo one or
anoIher specIal populaIIon caIegory. Surveys showed IhaI more Ihan 80% o
InmaIes had a hIsIory o IreaImenI or a subsIance abuse dIsorder, a menIal
healIh dIsorder, or boIh prIor Io IncarceraIIon. In lookIng aI Ihe jaIl
populaIIon, II was ound IhaI aI any gIven IIme, more Ihan 20% o Ihe
InmaIes were receIvIng psychIaIrIc care. The populaIIon less Ihan 21 years o
age can make up as much as 1S% o Ihe IoIal InmaIe populaIIon, and
emales, on average, represenI 10% o Ihe InmaIe populaIIon.

The CJC reporI IdenIIIed sIrucIural and processIng reorms IhaI are needed
Io supporI Ihe eorIs Io maxImIze alIernaIIve programmIng. EvIdence o
IhIs need has been ound Ihrough:
Delays In courI cases beIng processed
Delays In orensIc assessmenI, whIch precedes assIgnmenI Io IreaImenI
WaIIIng lIsIs or IreaImenI beds
LImIIed resources or meeIIng programmaIIc needs o Ihe InmaIes
Lack o IncenIIves or deendanIs}InmaIes Io parIIcIpaIe In programmIng
Gaps In coordInaIIon eorIs beIween jaIl and communIIy IreaImenI
agencIes

The CJC reporI noIed IhaI Ihese shorI-comIngs can be addressed In Ihe
ollowIng ways:
Fre-arresI dIversIon programs should be uIIlIzed whenever possIble.
All IncarceraIed IndIvIduals should receIve an early assessmenI o rIsk
and IdenIIIcaIIon o crImInogenIc needs.
The level and naIure o preIrIal supervIsIon and IreaImenI should be
based on and guIded by an objecIIve assessmenI InsIrumenI.
IncenIIves should be buIlI-In or expedIIIous resoluIIon o cases.
TargeIed InIervenIIons should be developed and IncenIIvIzed Io address
Ihe crImInogenIc needs IhaI have been IdenIIIed.
Increased uIIlIzaIIon o specIalIy courIs, or aI leasI ImplemenIaIIon o
sIraIegIes assocIaIed wIIh Ihese courIs, should Iake place Io address Ihe
specIIc needs o each specIal needs populaIIon.

The lack o resources or youIh and women could be aIIended Io In Ihe
ollowIng ways:
A separaIe 12 bed acIlIIy or crImInal jusIIce Involved youIh could be
used boIh as a crIsIs resIdence and as an alIernaIIve Io IncarceraIIon
=
TO INCARCERATION
SIaIe legIslaIIon removIng 1o and 17 year olds rom crImInal sysIem Io
specIalIzed courIs should be monIIored and approprIaIe
recommendaIIons or programmIng made.
A new unII could be creaIed, so IhaI women would no longer be housed
ouI and so IhaI Ihey can parIIcIpaIe In Ihe programs aI Ihe DuIchess
CounIy JaIl.
A 12-bed communIIy resIdenIIal acIlIIy or women should be creaIed.
The currenI TransIIIonal House could Ihen become an all-male acIlIIy.

The CJC reporI hIghlIghIed IhaI Ihe specIal needs o Ihe menIally Ill need Io
be Iaken InIo consIderaIIon whIle Ihey remaIn In jaIl. SpecIIcally,
dIscussIons need Io Iake place beIween sIaIe menIal healIh oIcIals,
communIIy menIal healIh provIders and Ihe jaIl medIcal sIa regardIng
pharmacologIcal ormulary Issues. Too oIen, as an IndIvIdual IransIIIons
rom Ihe communIIy Io jaIl Io sIaIe hospIIal and Ihen back Io Ihe jaIl,
psychIaIrIc medIcaIIon prescrIbed Is changed sImply because Ihe varIous
acIlIIIes have dIerenI permIIIed ormularIes." The CJC sIaIed IhaI severe
problems or boIh Ihe InmaIe and Ihe jaIl can resulI rom unnecessary
changes In medIcaIIon. AddIIIonally, crImInal populaIIons alIcIed wIIh
menIal Illness need Io be programmed and assIgned based upon known besI
pracIIces, guIded by valIdaIed screenIng or rIsk and assessmenI o
crImInogenIc needs. The IndIngs o Ihe CrImInal JusIIce SysIem Needs
AssessmenI have done a greaI job o IdenIIyIng Ihe major needs In Ihe
communIIy, urIher poInIIng Io sIgnIIcanI sysIem-wIde eorIs Io work
Ioward creaIIng ATI programs IhaI can reduce Ihe uIure need or jaIl beds.

2.2. Consultants Evaluation
And Findings DuIchess CounIy should be commended or developIng a range o evIdence-
based assessmenIs and ATI programs. The CounIy Is consIdered a naIIonal
leader In Ihe Ield In Ihe developmenI o evIdence-based approaches Io
dealIng wIIh hIgh rIsk correcIIonal and probaIIon populaIIons. The CounIy
has conIInuously developed new sIraIegIes Io sIrengIhen and Improve IheIr
sysIem. The CJCs revIew o sysIem-pracIIces and AlIernaIIves Io
IncarceraIIon was Ihorough and IhoughIul. By evaluaIIng sysIem-pracIIces
and resources across Ihe crImInal jusIIce low, Ihe CommIIIee IdenIIIed
sIrengIhs and gaps aI every poInI In Ihe process. ThIs approach Is
commendable.

As noIed prevIously, Ihe CounIy dIverIs an ImpressIve number (o00
IndIvIduals) daIly by means o varIous AlIernaIIves Io IncarceraIIon. These
dIversIon programs and servIces are oered or boIh non-senIenced and
senIenced IndIvIduals, wIIh opIIons varyIng In Iype and resIrIcIIveness o
=
TO INCARCERATION
seIIIng. ThIs Is ar more Ihan mosI jurIsdIcIIons are dIverIIng Ihrough a
varIeIy o ATI opIIons. The CJC reporI had recommendaIIons or each
componenI along Ihe crImInal jusIIce sysIem conIInuum, however, Ihe
recommendaIIons were noI clearly prIorIIIzed In Ierms o ImpacI on jaIl
uIIlIzaIIon and easIbIlIIy o ImplemenIaIIon. As a resulI, ImmedIaIe, shorI
Ierm and long Ierm recommendaIIons provIded broad Ihresholds, buI an
acIIon plan Is needed Io ImplemenI Ihese sIraIegIes.

A meeIIng was held on March 27
Ih
Io dIscuss Ihe CJCs proposed acIIons and
alIernaIIves along Ihe ollowIng elemenIs:

ResIdenIIal programs } housIng are needed or dIerenI populaIIons
Who are Ihese populaIIons7 How are Ihey IdenIIIed and assIgned7
Where In Ihe conIInuum would Ihey be7
How mIghI IhIs ImpacI jaIl uIIlIzaIIon7

Increased emphasIs on and use o early assessmenIs and pre-IrIal dIversIon
WhaI Iypes o servIces are needed7 How are Ihey assIgned and based
upon whaI assessmenI7
Where In Ihe sysIem would Ihey be developed7
How does IhIs ImpacI jaIl uIIlIzaIIon7

ImplemenIaIIon o Ihe AcceleraIed Release and Re-EnIry Frogram (ARRF)
WhaI Iypes o servIces are needed7
How are elIgIble InmaIes IdenIIIed and assIgned7

FrovIdIng or menIal healIh servIces boIh In jaIl and In Ihe communIIy
How wIll IreaImenI or crImInogenIc needs be InIegraIed wIIh menIal
healIh servIces7

DevelopIng separaIe 12 bed resIdenIIal acIlIIIes or jusIIce Involved youIh
and women
How wIll youIh be IdenIIIed and assIgned7

=
TO INCARCERATION
The parIIcIpaIIng sIakeholder represenIaIIves IdenIIIed Ihe prIorIIy-
recommendaIIons conIaIned In Ihe Inal secIIon o IhIs chapIer Ihrough
consIderaIIon o Ihe ollowIng quesIIons:

Are Ihere approprIaIe screenIng and assessmenI pracIIces avaIlable and
uIIlIzed or all crImInal jusIIce populaIIons7
Is Ihere consensus wIIh key sIakeholders regardIng Ihe need and
ImplemenIaIIon o recommended acIIons or ATIs7
Do we have Ihe capacIIy Io ImplemenI Ihese7
How close are Ihese opIIons Io beIng ImplemenIed7
WhaI Iypes o resources are needed7
I you were Io prIorIIIze Ihese, whIch would be mosI crIIIcal7

Findings
Early ScreenIng and AssessmenI
ATIs have Ihe greaIesI ImpacI on jaIl populaIIon when Ihey are avaIlable
aI an early sIage In Ihe process. As such, provIdIng comprehensIve
screenIng and assessmenI o arresIees early In Ihe crImInal jusIIce
process Is IdenIIIed as a key prIorIIy wIIh regard Io sysIem-processes and
ATIs. Early rIsk-assessmenI supporIs beIIer conIInuIIy o care across Ihe
sysIem and IdenIIIes hIgh rIsk oenders or beIIer IargeIed IreaImenI
servIces. FrobaIIon currenIly provIdes assessmenIs or Ihe judIcIary,
however, I Ihe assessmenIs were more broadly used by Ihe DIsIrIcI
AIIorney, FublIc Deender, and deense aIIorneys In a more ormal
process, we would expecI Io see a reducIIon In deIaInee lengIh o sIay.
ComprehensIve assessmenIs are currenIly conducIed aI Ihe IIme o pre-
senIencIng InvesIIgaIIon, delayIng rIsk-level consIderaIIons and
avaIlabIlIIy o IargeIed programmaIIc InIervenIIons.
UsIng acIuarIal and evIdence-based screenIng and assessmenI
InsIrumenIs and programmIng has been key Io successul dIversIon and
servIces In Ihe probaIIon and communIIy correcIIons programmIng.
Ferhaps a combInaIIon o Ihese Iools and oIher specIIc menIal healIh
Iools, IogeIher wIIh orensIc assessmenIs conducIed by Ihe deparImenI
o menIal hygIene, wIll yIeld more expedIIIous and beIIer program
placemenI resulIs.
Early decIsIon-makIng ImpacIs ALOS, as Ihe dIverIIble, lower-rIsk
populaIIon wIll be ouI sooner and Ihe hIgher rIsk populaIIon IhaI wIll
remaIn deIaIned wIll receIve more ocused legal servIces and
programmIng. DuIchess CounIy sIaIIsIIcs supporI IhIs IndIng, however,
housIng ouI InmaIes Is an ImpedImenI Io IhIs process.
ConsIderaIIon should be gIven Io enIry o an early plea, where an
oender may opI or dIversIon and IargeIed servIces In lIeu o goIng
Ihrough Ihe ull crImInal proceedIngs. Early assessmenI could be
=
TO INCARCERATION
complemenIed by plea-bargaInIng aI an earlIer sIage, allowIng or a
clearer paIh Io IangIble IncenIIves.
The CIIy o FoughkeepsIe CourI Is currenIly Ihe only courI Io conducI
assessmenIs aI an early sIage.

As menIIoned In Ihe CJC reporI, cenIralIzed arraIgnmenI could be a vehIcle
or supporI or earlIer InIervenIIon and asIer provIsIon o needed servIces.
A new jaIl could allow Ihe CounIy Io explore Ihe creaIIon o a cenIralIzed
arraIgnmenI componenI IncludIng courI space, chambers, holdIng cells, eIc.
A orm o cenIralIzed arraIgnmenI exIsIs In Ihe CIIy o FoughkeepsIe CourI,
where a clInIcal worker Is sIaIIoned daIly, and sImIlar opIIons are sIIll
explored on a wIder scale. ThIs opIIon was urIher dIscussed In Ihe meeIIng
on March 27
Ih
, where Ihe parIIcIpaIIng group IdenIIIed a number o barrIers
IhaI currenIly Impede such a change:
A judge wIIh counIy-wIde jurIsdIcIIon would need Io hold courI, and,
whIle CIIy CourI judges can be made acIIng CounIy Judges, Ihere
appears Io be lImIIed enIhusIasm or such a change.
The oIce o Ihe DIsIrIcI AIIorney does noI eel Ihey are sIaed Io run
uncIIons IhaI would resulI rom a change Io an arraIgnmenI courI.
CurrenIly, Ihe jaIl does noI house IndIvIduals pre-arraIgnmenI, and,
whIle a seemIng requIremenI or Ihe ImplemenIaIIon o cenIralIzed
arraIgnmenI, such a change Is noI seen as cosI-eecIIve

DuIchess CounIy Is commIIIed Io expandIng Ihe early screenIng and
assessmenI IhaI Is currenIly In place. Such expanded use, allowIng or earlIer
access Io programmIng and more eecIIve IargeIIng o servIces and
InIervenIIons sysIem-wIde, Is a key componenI o a sIrong conIInuum o
care and servIces IhroughouI an IndIvIduals InvolvemenI wIIh Ihe crImInal
jusIIce sysIem. The developmenI o a ull conIInuum o servIces, ollowIng a
sIep-down model Io re-enIry, Is a goal o Ihe DuIchess CounIy CJC, and Is
recognIzed as besI pracIIce naIIon-wIde.

SpecIal Needs FopulaIIons
IncarceraIed subsIance abusIng (SA) and MenIal HealIh (MH) populaIIons are
In need o beIIer servIces.
There Is a need or a 24-hour, no reuse" crIsIs cenIer, parIIcularly or
Ihe MH populaIIon
A relapse crIsIs cenIer or Ihe SA populaIIon exIsIs, buI beds
have recenIly been dIIculI Io Ind
Over Ihe years, Ihe CounIy has developed a 24-hour crIsIs help-lIne and
a mobIle crIsIs InIervenIIon Ieam Io deal wIIh dIversIons In lIeu o arresI.
ThIs InIIIaIIve can be reInorced by creaIIng a more robusI menIal healIh
unII In Ihe proposed new jaIl.
=
TO INCARCERATION
CurrenIly, Ihe jaIl oIen serves as Ihe housIng soluIIon or menIally Ill
IndIvIduals, and Ihe need or supporIIve, sIabIlIzIng housIng Is
recognIzed as a cenIral need.
A specIalIzed MH courI Is only seen as an opIIon I II could uncIIon In a
cenIralIzed courI, whIch would requIre Ihe approval o Ihe Ihe OIce o
CourI AdmInIsIraIIon (OCA).

TargeIed, gender-specIIc programmIng or women Is needed, boIh wIIh
regard Io IransIIIonal housIng and programs aI large. AI presenI, Ihere Is one
resIdenIIal program or men and women, and Ihe abIlIIy Io have a separaIe
house or women would be an ImporIanI acIor Io consIder. SImIlarly, hIgh-
rIsk}hIgh-need youIh musI be unIquely addressed as a parI o Ihe planned
conIInuum o servIces, as IhIs populaIIon Is oIen Ihe mosI dIIculI Io deal
wIIh boIh wIIhIn correcIIons and Ihe IreaImenI seIIIng.

EmphasIs on EvIdence-Based FracIIces
EvIdence-based and well-planned assessmenI and programmIng wIll ensure
IhaI any exIsIIng and}or new beds are Illed expedIIIously and approprIaIely,
by Ihose who wIll mosI beneII rom Ihem. By doIng so, Ihe abIlIIy Io
choose Ihe mosI approprIaIe candIdaIes or scarce resIdenIIal housIng beds
would lead Io beIIer ouIcomes. AI presenI Ihe jaIl has moved rom evIdence-
based assessmenI and programmIng Io programmIng IhaI Is noI drIven by
rIsk}need scores and evIdence-based currIcula, and IhIs a crIIIcal need or
DuIchess CounIy movIng orward. ReIurnIng Io and emphasIzIng evIdence-
based pracIIces IhroughouI Ihe sysIem would noI only ensure IargeIed
servIces Io address each unIque populaIIons rIsks and needs, buI II would
supporI a beIIer conIInuum o servIces across Ihe sysIem.

2.3. Conclusions and
Recommendations The consulIanI Ieam concurs wIIh Ihe key IndIngs In Ihe CJC reporI.
However, alIhough Ihe Needs AssessmenI resulIed In a number o key
recommendaIIons, Ihere was lImIIed prIorIIIzIng o Ihe recommended
acIIons In Ierms o IheIr ImporIance, currenI easIbIlIIy, and ImpacI on jaIl
bedspace needs. The currenI sIudy soughI Io address IhIs Issue by arrIvIng aI
a consensus wIIh Ihe group aIIendIng Ihe on-sIIe meeIIngs on March 27
Ih
,
2013, IncludIng Ihe consulIanI Ieam, wIIh regard Io prImary poInIs o
currenI ocus. The ollowIng recommendaIIons were IdenIIIed:

1. Early InIervenIIon and screenIng}assessmenI: II Is crIIIcal IhaI Ihere Is
an early screenIng and assessmenI process Io IargeI hIgh rIsk oenders In
all parIs o Ihe sysIem. ThIs Includes IdenIIyIng low rIsk oenders, who
can be consIdered or alIernaIIve programs, and provIdIng InIensIve
=
TO INCARCERATION
IreaImenI servIces aI Ihe jaIl. ThIs process musI guIde IreaImenI and
placemenI o all Iypes. The ollowIng acIIons were IdenIIIed as
necessary In order Io move assessmenI and dIversIon servIces Io Ihe
ronI-end o Ihe crImInal jusIIce process:
DIsIrIcI AIIorney and judIcIary musI agree on a change lIke IhIs.
CenIralIzed arraIgnmenI would provIde Ihe opIImal vehIcle or early
assessmenI. However, II Is recognIzed IhaI IhIs would be a
sIgnIIcanI deparIure rom currenI pracIIce, requIrIng buy-In rom
key sIakeholders and Ihe developmenI o a specIIc plan o acIIon.

2. DevelopmenI o a ull conIInuum o care sysIem: There Is a need Io
develop a ull conIInuum o care sysIem or oenders - oerIng
assessmenIs and IargeIIng servIces or hIgher rIsk oenders. ThIs model
currenIly exIsIs wIIhIn Ihe DeparImenI o FrobaIIon.

The jaIl presenIly houses ouI boIh low and hIgh rIsk oenders Io oIher
acIlIIIes, makIng II dIIculI Io provIde a ull range o InIervenIIons
eecIIvely. To ImplemenI a sysIem wIde conIInuum o care, jaIl based
programmIng and IransIIIon Io communIIy based supervIsIon, IncludIng
probaIIon run programs and Ihe resIdenIIal}nonresIdenIIal programs
operaIed by prIvaIe provIders, musI all be Included. InmaIe assIgnmenI
should be based on Ihe rIsk-level and needs o Ihe oender, noI on
bedspace dIsIrIbuIIon. ConsIderIng Ihe presenI sIIuaIIon, Ihe CounIy
could consIder a rIsk needs assessmenI prIor Io Iransers Io ouI o counIy
acIlIIIes. ThIs aspecI o assessmenI needs may, however, be resolved
wIIh Ihe erecIIon o Iemporary sprung housIng Io acIlIIaIe Ihe reIurn o
200 housed ouI InmaIes, as Is beIng consIdered by Ihe CounIy.

II Is crucIal Io recognIze IhaI menIal healIh IreaImenI In Ihe crImInal
jusIIce populaIIon musI always be coupled wIIh addressIng cognIIIve
and crImInogenIc Issues. ThIs acIor musI be consIdered when
recommendIng and plannIng servIces. Based on IhIs conIInuum, a good
rule o Ihumb plannIng assumpIIon or DuIchess CounIy would be IhaI
Iwo IhIrds o Ihe InmaIes would be housed In IradIIIonal jaIl beds, whIle
one IhIrd would be placed In mInImum -securIIy, re-enIry and}or specIal
needs beds.

3. Re-ocusIng on evIdence-based programmIng and classes, parIIcularly
wIIhIn Ihe jaIl. An evIdence-based currIculum was In place In 2007,
durIng a sIIe vIsII or Ihe NIC TransIIIon rom JaIl Io CommunIIy
projecI, ImplyIng IhaI organIzaIIonal knowledge abouI how Io
ImplemenI such pracIIces exIsIs. EvIdence-based programmIng, such as
ThInkIng or a Change, needs Io be ImplemenIed Io have an eecI on
=
TO INCARCERATION
hIgh rIsk oenders. CoordInaIIng Ihese evIdence-based servIces or all
hIgh rIsk oenders and coordInaIIng a release plan, allowIng or a beIIer
conIInuum o care upon re-enIry InIo Ihe communIIy or Ihese
oenders, Is an essenIIal parI o Ihe process. Beyond Ihe jaIl, servIces
across Ihe crImInal jusIIce sysIem should sIem rom evIdence-based,
known besI pracIIces. The new jaIl wIll provIde dedIcaIed spaces or
Ihese programs.

4. ExpansIon o communIIy resIdenIIal beds: The CJC recommendaIIon Io
expand resIdenIIal beds would Ill a crIIIcal gap In Ihe DuIchess CounIy
sysIem. However, unIIl Ihe oIher elemenIs o assessIng and IargeIIng
Ihe rIsks and needs o oenders In every phase o Ihe sysIem are In
place, Ihe abIlIIy Io selecI Ihe rIghI oenders or any new beds wIll be a
major challenge. Expanded bedspace beyond Ihe jaIl Is recommended
or juvenIle oenders, menIal healIh clIenIs, and women, as dIscussed In
Ihe CJC reporI.

ApproprIaIe assessmenI and programmIng, IogeIher wIIh Increased
educaIIon o correcIIonal sIa on Ihe unIque needs o specIal
populaIIons, can begIn Io address IhIs sysIem gap In Ihe shorI Ierm,
prIor Io any expansIon In bedspace and programmIng IakIng place.

The recommendaIIon or earlIer screenIng, renewed jaIl-based evIdence-
based pracIIces, and a conIInuum o resIdenIIal beds or specIal need
populaIIons wIll enhance Ihe solId sysIem already In place. These InIIIaIIves
relecI evIdence-based pracIIces, whIch supporI successul jaIl-Io-communIIy
IransIIIon and promoIe reduced recIdIvIsm In Ihe long Ierm.

3.0 J AIL POPULATION FORECASTING AND BEDSPACE NEEDS
=
3. J AIL POPULATION FORECASTING AND
BEDSPACE NEEDS

3.1. Methods and Objective ThIs secIIon analyzes Ihe meIhodology and assumpIIons upon whIch Ihe
CJC orecasI Is based, modIyIng II where needed. The resulI, consIraIned by
IIme lImIIs and daIa avaIlabIlIIy, Is a slIghIly more reIned orecasI o Ihe
IncarceraIIon needs o DuIchess CounIy.

3.2. Review of the CJC
Report The 2012 DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce CouncIls CrImInal JusIIce
SysIem Needs AssessmenI SIudy conIaIned a descrIpIIon o Ihe currenI jaIl
and an assessmenI o Ihe demand or IncarceraIIon In Ihe uIure. II showed
IhaI Ihe currenI 22-bed acIlIIy Is InadequaIe Io meeI Ihe IncarceraIIon
needs o Ihe CounIy, due Io boIh Ihe sIze o Ihe acIlIIy and Ihe condIIIon o
Ihe exIsIIng jaIl. The DuIchess CounIy JaIl currenIly has Iwo secIIons, a
secIIon buIlI In 184 and anoIher buIlI In 1S. The 184 secIIon o Ihe jaIl
comprIses o 174 beds. ThIs parI o Ihe acIlIIy uIIlIzes an ouIdaIed and sIa
InIensIve orm o supervIsIon, and has physIcally deIerIoraIed over Ihe years.
The 1S secIIon o Ihe jaIl Increased Ihe capacIIy o Ihe jaIl Io 22 beds,
and has generally held up well. The 2012 reporI also deIaIls complaInIs
abouI oIher shorIcomIngs o Ihe acIlIIy, IncludIng: InadequaIe space or Ihe
kIIchen, laundry, medIcal acIlIIIes, bookIng, vIsIIIng areas, program delIvery,
sIorage, and Ihe adequaIe accommodaIIon o supporI sIa.

Projected Bedspace Needs for the New Facility
The CJC Needs assessmenI also soughI Io deIaIl Ihe currenI and projecIed
demand or IncarceraIIon In Ihe CounIy. In 2011, Ihe Average DaIly
FopulaIIon (ADF) o Ihe jaIl was 417 InmaIes. Due Io resIrIcIIons Imposed
by Ihe classIIcaIIon requIremenIs o Ihe jaIl, and oIher consIderaIIons, Ihe
uncIIonal capacIIy o Ihe jaIl Is 2S7 InmaIes, meanIng IhaI, on average,
DuIchess CounIy needed Io board-ouI 1o0 InmaIes per day. ThaI number
grew In 2012 Io 1S InmaIes per day. The reporI also orecasIed IhaI by
2030, gIven Ihe raIe o growIh o Ihe ADF sInce 180, DuIchess CounIy JaIl
wIll reach an ADF o S40 InmaIes.

=
BEDSPACE NEEDS
3.3. Consultants Evaluation
And Findings Underlying Assumptions and Analyses
The CJC orecasI Is a lInear projecIIon based upon Ihe annual ADF daIa o
Ihe jaIl rom 180 Io 2011 (See graph below). The assumpIIon embedded In
such a projecIIon Is IhaI hIsIorIcal Irends wIll predIcI uIure needs, and IhaI
Ihese needs wIll (In IhIs case) always Increase, and Increase aI Ihe same raIe.
ThIs meIhodology does noI Iake InIo accounI Ihe changIng demographIcs o
Ihe CounIy or oIher germane acIors.

A IIghI deadlIne and daIa lImIIaIIons precluded Ihe use here o mIcro-
sImulaIIon modelIng or sImIlar IechnIques. ThIs analysIs wIll recreaIe Ihe
meIhodology uIIlIzed In Ihe CJC Needs AssessmenI (lInear Irend analysIs),
buI wIll augmenI II wIIh oIher Irends, IncludIng admIssIons, average lengIh
o sIay, and age demographIcs.

CJC Needs Assessment ADP Forecast
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

InIIIal ADF EorecasI: The IrsI orecasI, modIIed rom IhaI In Ihe CJC
assessmenI, wIll serve as a base-lIne (See graph above). II Is a lInear Irend
projecIIon o Ihe jaIls ADF, buI uses: 1) MonIhly ADF In order Io vIsualIze
Ihe dynamIc naIure o jaIl populaIIons (and Ihereore accounI or swIngs In
Ihe orecasI), and 2) daIa rom 187 Io 2012, Ihe IIme perIod or whIch we
had monIhly ADF daIa. ThIs ADF FrojecIIon dIers slIghIly rom Ihe CJC
orecasI, due Io Ihe range o daIes used and Ihe use o monIhly ADF, buI Is
subsIanIIally sImIlar. II should be noIed IhaI or IhIs orecasI monIhly ADFs
were noI avaIlable or 1 and 2000, requIrIng Ihe use o Ihe yearly ADF or
Ihe monIhs In Ihose years.

AdmIssIons and Average LengIh o SIay: VarIances Issued by Ihe SIaIe
CommIssIon on CorrecIIons allow a jurIsdIcIIon Io IemporarIly and
condIIIonally exceed IIs jaIls raIed capacIIy. DuIchess CounIy had such a
varIance Io house an addIIIonal 7S InmaIes In Ihe gym, however, IhIs
Dutchess County Jail Initial ADP Forecast
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS
varIance was revoked In 2007. The precIpIIous rIse In Ihe ADF o Ihe jaIl
sInce Ihe varIance was revoked by Ihe SIaIe CommIssIon on CorrecIIons
(SCOC) Is sIrIkIng. AI IIs low poInI In December o 2007 Ihe ADF o Ihe jaIl
was 2S3 InmaIes. By OcIober o 2012 Ihe ADF had nearly doubled Io S01
InmaIes. ThIs rIse In ADF has been drIven prImarIly by Ihe Increase In Ihe
Average LengIh o SIay (ALOS). RecenI analysIs has revealed a sIrong
correlaIIon o hIgher rIsk assessmenI wIIh longer lengIhs o sIay. WhIle
recenI jaIl admIssIons have remaIned relaIIvely laI (an Increase o 4So
InmaIes per year, or 1.3 InmaIes per day, rom 2007 Io 2012), Ihe ALOS has
rIsen 2S percenI In Ive years, rom 3o days In 2007 Io 4S days In 2012. The
resulI Is IhaI In 2008, or Ihe IrsI IIme sInce 1, Ihe DuIchess CounIy JaIl
admIIIed more InmaIes over Ihe course o Ihe year Ihan II released.

Dutchess County Jail Average Length of Stay: 1999-2012
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

DemographIcs: One o Ihe weaknesses o Ihe lInear projecIIon model used
Io orecasI Ihe needs or IncarceraIIon In DuIchess Is IhaI II does noI Iake
InIo accounI demographIc changes wIIhIn Ihe CounIy, noI how Ihose Irends
could ImpacI Ihe jaIl populaIIon. ThIs secIIon wIll augmenI Ihe lInear
projecIIon uIIlIzed above, Io accounI or Ihe anIIcIpaIed demographIc shIIs
wIIhIn Ihe counIy, ocusIng specIIcally on Ihe age o counIy resIdenIs.
FopulaIIon predIcIIons or DuIchess CounIy IndIcaIe IhaI Ihe agIng o Ihe
baby-boom generaIIon and Increased lIe expecIancIes wIll resulI In a larger
proporIIon o Ihe populaIIon beIng older. TradIIIonally Ihe oS+ populaIIon
Is IhoughI Io be aI a lower rIsk o IncarceraIIon.

Dutchess County Age Demographic Predictions
Source: Cornell University Program on Applied Demographics
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

We assume IhaI DuIchess CounIy Is lIkely Io experIence age demographIc
shIIs sImIlar Io Ihe UnIIed SIaIes as a whole. ThIs was necessary Io ensure
comparable age ranges beIween Ihe known percenIages, as reporIed by Ihe
Census, and Ihe predIcIed ranges. ThIs was done by comparIng Ihe
predIcIIons made or DuIchess CounIy by Ihe Cornell UnIversIIy Frogram on
ApplIed DemographIcs Io Ihe FercenI DIsIrIbuIIon o Ihe FrojecIed
FopulaIIon by SelecIed Age Groups and Sex o Ihe UnIIed SIaIes: 201S Io
20o0, reporIed In 2012 by Ihe UnIIed SIaIes Census Bureau. EorIunaIely
Ihese predIcIIons maIched closely, IndIcaIIng IhaI DuIchess CounIy Is lIkely
Io experIence age demographIc shIIs sImIlar Io Ihe UnIIed SIaIes as a whole.

NexI, Ihe degree Io whIch demographIc shIIs In Ihe counIy are represenIed
In Ihe jaIl populaIIon was esIablIshed. ThIs was done usIng Ihe decennIal
census daIa rom 10, 2000, and 2010, and comparIng II Io Ihe admIssIons
daIa, broken down by age, rom Ihe same IIme perIod. As anIIcIpaIed, Ihe
populaIIon Irends In Ihe jaIl ollow Ihe populaIIon Irends o Ihe counIy,
wIIh Ihe excepIIon o Ihe oS+ age range. ThIs demographIc makes up a very
small porIIon o Ihe jaIl populaIIon, despIIe IIs Increase over IIme Ihe
proporIIon o people In IhIs group who are jaIled remaIns laI.

=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

SInce Ihe age demographIc Irends o Ihe jaIl (wIIh Ihe excepIIon o Ihe oS+
age range) Irack closely wIIh Ihe age demographIc Irends o Ihe counIy, a
orecasI o Ihe sIze o Ihe jaIl populaIIon was creaIed by applyIng Ihe
percenIage Increases and decreases In each age group Io Ihe expecIed
presence o IhaI age-group wIIhIn Ihe counIy jaIl populaIIon. Though II Is
reasonable Io assume IhaI Ihe oS+ age demographIc makeup o Ihe counIy
jaIl wIll remaIn laI, as II has hIsIorIcally, IhIs percenIage was Increased Io
.S% or all years Io add a buer Io Ihe predIcIIon. (A oS+ age demographIc o
.S% would represenI a oo.7% Increase In IhaI age ranges makeup.)

CountyandJailAgeDemographicsandPopulationPredictions
County:
1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Population 259,500 280,200 297,500 307,800 320,300 333,200 346,100
1824 11.1% 9.4% 10.9% 9.6% 9.0% 8.7% 8.5%
2544 34.0% 30.2% 24.0% 26.2% 26.5% 26.5% 26.2%
4564 19.6% 23.2% 29.3% 26.1% 24.9% 23.4% 22.6%
65+ 11.4% 12.0% 13.5% 14.8% 16.8% 18.8% 20.3%
DemographicBasedADPPrediction
1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
ADP 239 288 386
1824 30.6% 31.4% 31.3% 30.0% 29.4% 29.1% 28.9%
2544 60.2% 54.5% 49.3% 51.5% 51.8% 51.8% 51.5%
4564 4.8% 8.4% 15.8% 12.6% 11.4% 9.9% 9.1%
65+ 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

NexI, Io use Ihese age demographIc predIcIIons or Ihe jaIl Io ormulaIe an
ADF orecasI, an analysIs o Ihe IncarceraIIon raIe was uIIlIzed, and IIed Io
Ihe populaIIon predIcIIons or Ihe counIy as a whole. ThIs allows or a dIrecI
comparIson Io Ihe ADF predIcIIons. In order Io perorm IhIs calculaIIon, a
rudImenIary Irend analysIs o Ihe counIys IncarceraIIon raIe rom 10 Io
2010 was perormed In order Io calculaIe an esIImaIed IncarceraIIon raIe Io
apply Io Ihe predIcIed populaIIon o DuIchess CounIy. II should be noIed
IhaI due In parI Io Ihe exIensIve sysIem o AlIernaIIves Io IncarceraIIon
(ATIs) IhaI DuIchess CounIy uIIlIzes, II has an IncarceraIIon raIe o 1S2
InmaIes per 100,000 people, well below Ihe naIIonal raIe o 243 InmaIes In
counIy jaIls per 100,000 people.
1

The esIImaIed IncarceraIIon raIes, predIcIed age demographIc percenIages,
and census predIcIed populaIIons were Ihen used Io orecasI Ihe ADF In S-
year IncremenIs rom 201S Io 2030. EIrsI Ihe age demographIc percenIages
were added IogeIher or each year, yIeldIng a percenIage o Ihe IoIal
populaIIon relecIed In Ihe jaIl populaIIon. These percenIages do noI
Include Ihe porIIons o Ihe populaIIon under Ihe age o 18 (more on IhIs
laIer), and represenI a very small porIIon o Ihe populaIIon IhaI Is oS years
old or older (0.S%). The sum percenIage Is Ihen applIed Io Ihe predIcIed
populaIIon, yIeldIng Ihe populaIIon Io whIch Ihe IncarceraIIon raIe wIll be
applIed. The esIImaIed IncarceraIIon raIe was Ihen applIed Io Ihe age
adjusIed populaIIon, resulIIng In an age adjusIed ADF.

1
Calculated using data fromthe US Bureau of J ustice Statistics: J ail Inmates at Midyear 2011 Statistical Tables and the 2010 US Census
Population.
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

DemographIc Based ADF FredIcIIon
10 2000 2010 201S 2020 202S 2030
ADF 23 288 38o
18 - 24 30.o% 31.4% 31.3% 30.0% 2.4% 2.1% 28.%
2S - 44 o0.2% S4.S% 4.3% S1.S% S1.8% S1.8% S1.S%
4S - o4 4.8% 8.4% 1S.8% 12.o% 11.4% .% .1%
oS+ 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.S% 0.S% 0.S% 0.S%
Sum % S.8% 4.4% o.7% 4.o% 3.1% 1.3% 0.0%
IncarceraIIon RaIe 0.00021 0.001028 0.00127 0.0013o4 0.0014S8 0.001SS2 0.001o4o
Sum DemographIc % ApplIed Io CounIy FopulaIIon 21,17 28,1 304,212 311,40
FrojecIed ADF 37 43S 472 S13

The age adjusIed orecasI (see graph below), whIle lower Ihan Ihe InIIIal
orecasI, Is relaIIvely close Io II, sIrengIhenIng Ihe case or a orecasIed ADF
In IhIs range, especIally consIderIng IhIs orecasI dId noI Iake InIo accounI
1o and 17 year old InmaIes.

=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

MInors as a ForIIon o Ihe InmaIe FopulaIIon: In IhIs conIexI, mInors reer
Io InmaIes IhaI are housed aI Ihe DuIchess CounIy JaIl, and are beIween 1o
and 18 years o age. ThIs age group has IradIIIonally been a relaIIvely small
porIIon o Ihe InmaIe populaIIon. However, due Io classIIcaIIon
segregaIIons wIIhIn Ihe jaIl, IhIs small populaIIon can demand Ihe use o
more space Ihan InmaIes In Ihe general populaIIon. JaIl admIssIons daIa
sInce 10 IndIcaIes IhaI IhIs porIIon o Ihe InmaIe populaIIon Is declInIng
as a percenIage o Ihe IoIal InmaIe populaIIon. Moreover, Ihe 18 year olds
In IhIs populaIIon have already been consIdered In Ihe age adjusIed ADF
orecasI above.

W

When we look specIIcally aI Ihe 1o-17 year old as a percenIage o
admIssIons, II appears IhaI IhIs poIIon o admIssIons Is droppIng even asIer
(see graph below).
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

Eemales as a FercenIage o ToIal AdmIssIons: SInce 10, emale InmaIes as a percenIage o Ihe

Eemales as a FercenIage o ToIal AdmIssIons: sInce 10, emale InmaIes, as
a percenIage o Ihe IoIal admIssIons Io Ihe jaIl, have Increased rom 14.7% In
10 Io 18.2% In 2012. I hIsIorIc Irends hold, emale InmaIes wIll conIInue
Io make up a larger porIIon o Ihe InmaIe populaIIon.

In plannIng a new acIlIIy, II wIll be necessary Io accommodaIe Ihe
segregaIIon requIremenIs and specIal needs o IhIs populaIIon. II Is
ImporIanI Io noIe IhaI Ihe percenIage o admIssIons o IhIs populaIIon
dIers rom IIs proporIIon o Ihe ADF. In 2007 or InsIance, emales made
up 17.7% o IoIal admIssIons, buI only 10.1% o Ihe ADF.

=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

Average LengIh o SIay (ALOS) In Ihe EuIure: All o Ihe prevIous analysIs Is
based upon Ihe assumpIIon IhaI hIsIorIc Irends predIcI uIure ouIcomes.
ThIs means, or InsIance, IhaI Ihe ALOS Is goIng Io conIInue Io Increase aI
Ihe same raIe as II has In Ihe pasI. II Is conceIvable IhaI Ihe Increases In Ihe
ALOS, parIIcularly Ihe 10-day Increase sInce Ihe jaIls varIance was revoked
In 2007, are a resulI o Ihe logIsIIcal dIIculIIes Incurred as a resulI o
housIng ouI a large percenIage o Ihe InmaIe populaIIon. II Is also
conceIvable IhaI by buIldIng a new jaIl acIlIIy IhaI would noI requIre Ihe
counIy Io house ouI InmaIes, In conjuncIIon wIIh Ihe robusI sysIem o ATIs
already In place and Ihe expansIon o pre-IrIal screenIng and rIsk evaluaIIon,
Ihe ALOS may decrease In uIure years. WhIle Ihe ImpacIs o programmaIIc
changes and logIsIIcal eIcIencIes cannoI be predIcIed wIIhouI usIng a
sophIsIIcaIed mIcro-sImulaIIon model, whIch Is beyond Ihe scope o IhIs
sIudy, Ihe ollowIng analysIs wIll provIde an example o how a decreased
ALOS would ImpacI Ihe IncarceraIIon needs o Ihe counIy.

The IradIIIonal ormula or ADF Is (AdmIssIons * ALOS) } 3oS. I admIssIons
and ALOS are predIcIed usIng Ihe same meIhod as we dId wIIh Ihe ADF In
Ihe IrsI orecasI, and a orecasIed ADF Is calculaIed based upon Ihe resulI, a
IhIrd ADF orecasI Is achIeved. ThIs orecasI uIIlIzes daIa rom 1o (Ihe IrsI
ull year o operaIIon or Ihe newesI porIIon o Ihe jaIl) Io 2012.

=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

The resulI Is lower Ihan Ihe prevIous Iwo, buI Is sIIll aIrly close. II can be
consIdered Ihe low end o Ihe orecasIs. II also assumes IhaI AdmIssIons wIll
noI Increase, IhaI ALOS wIll noI decrease, and IhaI Ihe hIsIorIc Irends wIll
hold. II can also be used as a basIs o comparIson, or an example, o whaI
Ihe IncarceraIIon demands o Ihe counIy would look lIke In Ihe evenI ALOS
could be decreased. In Ihe ollowIng orecasI, Ihe same Irend analysIs Is
used, buI Ihe ALOS orecasI Is decreased by S days or each o Ihe years
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS
orecasIed, resulIIng In an ALOS o S1.41 days by 2030 InsIead o So.41 as Is
seen In Ihe charI above.

ThIs Is noI Io Imply IhaI Ihe CounIy should base IIs decIsIon regardIng Ihe
scope o Ihe new acIlIIy based upon IhIs example. To assume a drasIIc
reducIIon In ALOS and IIs ImpacI upon Ihe uIure ADF o Ihe jaIl would rIsk
buIldIng a acIlIIy IhaI Is aI capacIIy Ihe momenI II opens, and Ihus resulI In
an ImmedIaIe crIsIs In IncarceraIIon aIer buIldIng a new acIlIIy. ThIs
example was provIded Io demonsIraIe Ihe drasIIc ImpacI IhaI ALOS has on
Ihe demand or space In Ihe counIy jaIl, and Io hIghlIghI Ihe need Io address
II Ihrough eIcIencIes In Ihe courIs and expansIon o ATIs and sIep down
programs.

ATIs ImpacI on ADF: One InIIIal crIIIcIsm o Ihe CJC needs assessmenI Is
IhaI II dId noI IIe expansIons In ATIs Io Ihe projecIed demand or space.
DuIchess CounIy already employs one o Ihe mosI comprehensIve sysIems
o ATIs In Ihe counIry. The resulI o IhIs Is IhaI Ihe low hangIng ruII" has
already been achIeved. The expansIons o Ihe use o ATIs suggesIed In Ihe
CJC reporI are noI lIkely Io have ImmedIaIe eecIs. They wIll Iake
consIderable IIme and eorI Io ImplemenI, and II Is dIIculI Io gauge whaI
IheIr ImpacI on Ihe jaIls ADF wIll be. The porIIons IhaI have Ihe poIenIIal
Io have Ihe greaIesI ImpacI on ADF, such as Ihe cenIralIzed bookIng and
arraIgnmenI courI, are Ihe mosI dIIculI Io ImplemenI, and oIen requIre
buy-In rom Ihe courIs. OIher measures, such as anII-recIdIvIsm programs,
wIll have an ImpacI over Ihe course o many years, buI lIIIle calculable eecI
In Ihe shorI-Ierm. ATIs can cerIaInly ImpacI jaIl ADF, parIIcularly Ihrough
Ihe reducIIon o Ihe ALOS, buI Ihe goals o Ihe ATIs should noI be ocused
on Ihe jaIl, buI raIher on ensurIng a conIInuum o supervIsIon IhaI ensures
IhaI oenders can be rehabIlIIaIed In a manner consIsIenI wIIh IheIr
crImInogenIc needs.
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

3.6 Conclusions and
Recommendations The Ihree dIerenI orecasIs provIded here augmenI Ihe InIIIal CJC needs
analysIs, buI valIdaIe Ihe need or Increased capacIIy or Ihe DuIchess
CounIy jaIl. Based upon a mosaIc o Ihe ADF orecasIs (See graph below), II
Is recommended IhaI DuIchess CounIy expand IIs IncarceraIIon capacIIy Io
beIween 47S and S2S beds.

The ADF projecIIons do noI In and o Ihemselves accounI or an operaIIonal
margIn o 10% Io accounI or IneIcIencIes InherenI In Ihe classIIcaIIon and
segregaIIon o sub-populaIIons o InmaIes. ThaI beIng saId, Ihe ADF
orecasIs are calculaIed by Irends drIven up by Ihe currenI crIsIs In
IncarceraIIon. I Ihe currenI Irend o decreased crIme raIes holds as
predIcIed, and Ihe number o admIssIons Io Ihe jaIl remaIns relaIIvely laI, II
Is noI lIkely IhaI Ihe peak demand or IncarceraIIon In Ihe CounIy JaIl wIll
exceed S00 beds, gIvIng Ihe jaIl a comorIable operaIIng margIn.

DuIchess CounIy needs a acIlIIy IhaI Is capable o meeIIng IIs currenI
demand or IncarceraIIon. The currenI acIlIIy has noI been able Io meeI Ihe
demand or IncarceraIIon, and wIIhIn Ihe lasI decade IhIs InabIlIIy has
creaIed a crIsIs.

WIIh regards Io Ihe Iype o beds requIred, II Is recommended IhaI Ihe desIgn
o Ihe jaIl Iake InIo accounI Ihe Increase In emale InmaIes as a percenIage o
IoIal jaIl admIssIons Io avoId IneIcIencIes creaIed by classIIcaIIon and
segregaIIon, and Io eIcIenIly provIde specIalIzed servIces Io IhIs segmenI o
Ihe jaIl populaIIon.
=
BEDSPACE NEEDS

4.0 J AIL FACILITY SITE AND J AIL MODEL

4. JAIL FACILITY SITE AND JAIL MODEL

R I C C I G R E E N E A S S O C I A T E S 4 - 1
A R C H I T E C T U R E P L A N N I N G
4.1. Summary of the CJC
Report The CJC Jail Models Subcommittee generated 20-year inmate population
and bedspace projections for the Dutchess County jail, and compared
and contrasted differing jail models, considering options for either
expansion of the current facility or construction of a new jail. After a
review of a number of suggested facility options, the CJC considered two
models in more detail: expansion at the current jail site and the
construction of a new facility at an identified site, previously a part of
the Hudson River Psychiatric Center. In line with the projected jail
population trends in the CJC report, the consideration of each site was
based on a capacity of 500-650 inmates, with estimated construction
costs between $78 million and $184 million. The cost estimates were
based on an assumed range of 630-690 square feet per inmate and a cost
of $250-450 per square foot.

Central to the Committees evaluation of each model was solving the
current housing out issue and returning the approximately 200
inmates housed out-of-county back to the Dutchess County Jail. Not
only was housing out deemed as problematic because of the limiting
effects it has on family visitations, case processing and access to
programming and services, but the annual cost of $6-7 million
continues to escalate, severely impacting operational costs at the jail.

Existing Facility and Site
The current Dutchess County jail lies on a 7.84 acre site in a City of
Poughkeepsie neighborhood and consists of two separate, but
connected, facilities: the original 1984 building and a 1995 addition.
With total maximum capacity of 292 beds, the jail maintains an ADP of
about 257 beds. This provides an operating margin of approximately 6-
10% for classification purposes. In addition to the main site, a small
piece of land lies on the west side of the CSX ROW. The report does not
include any discussion of the current, potential or intended occupancy
for this parcel of land as it relates to jail space requirements. Currently,
the property is zoned l-1 (Light Industrial), which does not permit for
residential uses. The CJC does not believe the site or property has any
historic status.

The report described the 1984 facility as aging and outdated, with
numerous required upgrades (e.g. sprinkler systems, meeting fire
protection codes, fixture/equipment replacement). Additionally, small
housing units, some of which are noted as having a rated capacity of
only four to 15 beds, render the old jail staff intensive. The 1995


4 - 2 R I C C I G R E E N E A S S O C I A T E S
addition and renovations provided some measure of improvement by
combining existing housing units and expanding the facility with two
new 50-bed units, a pre-classification unit of ten beds, and an eight-bed
medical unit. The 1995 expansion increased overall capacity, but did
not include additional program and support space, requiring inmate
movement between the two sections on a daily basis.

As such, high operating costs were identified in the report as a point of
central concern. With a reported staff-to-inmate ratio of 1:1.3 and a total
of 233 uniform FTE staff, the facility is highly staff intensive, especially
when compared to new facilities in neighboring counties. In addition, it
was noted that nearly 20% of the $35 million jail operating budget goes
to housing out overflow inmates, with additional staffing costs
associated with transportation runs and staging activities.

Alternative Site
As noted above, the CJC considered a range of potential facility
solutions for the established need for more correctional bedspace within
the County. With overall costs and efficiency and the Countys noted
programmatic objectives for a new facility in mind, the CJC
recommended new construction on the site of the Hudson River
Psychiatric Center. This recommendation took into account the
examination and evaluation of the current facility and site, as well as
several suggested site options and jail models - including the potential
for refurbishing existing properties for jail use.

The Hudson River Psychiatric Center site was determined to be a viable
option for the construction of a new jail for the following reasons:
It is large enough to accommodate the projected 500-650 beds
needed, providing a planned campus-style facility with a
continuum of co-located services,
Its proximity to downtown Poughkeepsie and the County and
City Courts,
It is owned by the State, rather than a private owner,
It is not considered prime property, and is likely to ignite less
potential opposition from the public,
Construction at the site does not remove an existing building
from the tax rolls.

The CJC report recognized that further fit and cost analyses are required,
in addition to ensuring the availability of this state-owned property.



CJC Recommendations
The CJCs recommendation of constructing a new facility on the
Alternate site was supported by several assumptions:
1) The belief that greater staffing efficiencies and lower operational
costs could only be attained by building a new jail, given the
present staff-to-inmate ratio of 1:1.3. Three New York County
facilities with a new design were used as comparisons with regard
to staffing efficiencies, namely Broome, Ulster, and Warren
Counties. Broome, with the highest (most efficient) staff-to-inmate
ratio of 1:3.4, was chosen as the benchmark for Dutchess Countys
new facility, based on similarities in county demographics and jail
facility goals. The Committee reported that a new design might be
able to approach the staff efficiencies achieved in Broome County,
providing significant annual operating cost savings.

2) Building a new facility at the new site was further described as
providing greater design opportunities for a modern facility to
accommodate the recommended campus-style model - supporting
a step down approach for jail to community transition, in line with
evidence-based practices. This model presumes that the transitional
housing component would be a stand-alone facility, with a separate
identity from its jail counterpart.

3) The CJC reported that a new building would yield lower per square
foot costs, noting that the lower end of the projected construction
costs ($250-450/sq ft.) could be realized when constructing new,
rather than rehabilitati[ng] an existing facility.

4) Finally, the CJC described substantial cost savings achieved by
bringing back housed out inmates, and housing them in
temporary pods to be erected at the expansion zone on the existing
jail site. The presumption was that this scenario could occur
immediately and simultaneous to construction at the new site an
option that was not deemed viable if expansion/construction were
to take place at the current jail.

4.2. Evaluation and Findings Existing Jail Facility and Site
The consultant team toured the existing jail facility on March 27
th
, 2013,
together with the Jail Administrator, George Krom, and corrections
lieutenant, Gregory Gale. The tour and companion meetings confirmed


several of the concerns and shortcomings presented in the CJC report,
and provided some additional information regarding specific challenges
and opportunities at the present jail site.

The facility currently houses approximately 257 inmates, with
classification requirements keeping the ADP below the maximum
capacity of 292. With January 2013 ADP at 480 and the average ADP for
2012 at 457, approximately 200 inmates are housed out to surrounding
counties daily. This practice has required repurposing the pre-
classification unit to accommodate transport staging needs, and
continuous transportation of inmates to and from out-of-county jails
further exacerbates staffing and overtime costs. Jail officials also noted
the impact that housing out has on the in-county jail population. Not
only is the jail population in a constant state of flux, but the inmates
that remain housed in are typically higher risk and in need of more
special services than those housed out.

We concur with the CJCs recommendation that housed out inmates are
adding cost and inefficiencies to jail operations (and system impacts),
and that a temporary housing solution is warranted until permanent
housing capacity can be provided.

During the tour of the current jail site, the Jail Administrator noted that
the County is moving forward with the plan to erect temporary housing
pods for the approximately 200 housed out inmates to the existing jail.
Erection of the temporary units was mentioned in the CJC report within
the context of construction at the recommended alternate site, and
while it was initially perceived that SCOC would not approve temporary
pods until a plan for a new facility is in place, jail officials reported that
preliminary SCOC approval has now been obtained, while the new
facility plan is still being shaped. The Jail Administrator is currently in
the process of researching vendors for modular housing rentals,
including costs and location (with the parking area at the back of the
1995 addition in mind).

Our tour of the facility, supplemented with conversations about staff
deployment, confirm the CJCs findings that the 1984 facility is highly
staff intensive, including 13 relatively small units, almost all of which
require several officer posts per shift. Certain units hold as little as ten,
at times only five, inmates, further impacting both staffing and
classification practices, and the supervision and management of State-


mandated Constant Supervision cases within the constraints of the
existing facility was also noted as highly staff intensive.

The facility requires several hall posts and officers to escort inmates to
centralized programs and services that are remote from the housing
units. While efforts have been made to reduce staffing by posting
officers directly in selected units, rather than in control rooms, it was
noted that SCOC dictates staffing, including specifications for
mandatory and non-mandatory posts throughout the facility. Overall,
Dutchess County jail staffing requirements remain among the highest in
the State, according to Sheriffs officials. This is further exacerbated by
the excessive staff required to stage and transport inmates who are
housed out in other counties.
1

While the original 1984 facility shows clear signs of aging, and a number
of concerns need to be addressed, the units in the 1995 addition are
well-kept and remain in good condition. The two 50-bed units in the
1995 facility are currently being used as transitional housing to prepare
inmates for release, although release-readiness programming is limited
and provided by correctional staff.

There is currently no separate programming room or services for
females, and no capacity for it. ADP data from the last three years shows
that females make up an average of 11.7% of the total population, with
a high of 14.4% in October of 2012 and showing a slightly increasing
overall trend (0.85% annually). The jail is hoping to expand on
programming for women, but currently most women are housed out to
ease the effects of classification needs on housing capacity. Housing
out is seen as particularly difficult for women, due to separation from
children and other family.

The medical unit has seven cells in operable condition, and does not
meet the facilitys current needs, according to jail officials. With the
plan to return 200 housed out inmates to the existing site through the
use of temporary housing, it was noted that additional space for both
medical beds and the on-site pharmacy will be needed. Similar space-
needs are evident in the kitchen and laundry facilities, although the
latter may be addressed by adding an additional shift of operations.

1
The Jail Administrator reported, that post coverage for both Constant Supervision cases and the transportation
associated with housing out is achieved predominantly through the use of overtime.


During an exterior tour at the existing jail, the consultant explored
potential opportunities for expanding at the existing jail site.
Recognizing the shortcomings of the original building, it was noted that
expansion in place would be predicated on demolition of the 1984
building. The 1995 facility provides opportunities for some cost savings,
as the two 50-bed housing units could remain, with some additional
repurposing of the original booking area, intake and medical units. A
phased approach would be required for achieving requirements on the
existing site, including the purchase of some adjacent properties. The
consultant also noted that the temporary housing units could be erected
relatively quickly on the current jail site with a location to be
determined.

It was noted that additional capacity could be provided by obtaining a
privately owned property at the north end of the current site, presenting
some expansion alternatives/opportunities worth considering. Similarly,
expansion to a site across Hamilton Street could be explored, particularly
in the light of the Countys desire to co-locate a number of services
along the criminal justice services spectrum, and to provide a separate
identity for the transitional housing component. As noted in the CJC
report, these adjacent areas are zoned R-3A (Medium Density
Residential), which allows for agency group homes under special
permitted uses.

Alternative Site
A walk-through of the proposed alternative jail site at the Hudson River
Psychiatric Center was conducted on March 27
th
, 2013, supplementing
the information provided in the CJC Needs Assessment with first-hand
understanding of visible site conditions.

Noted key characteristics of the Hudson River Psychiatric Center site
include:
Undulating topography,
A drop in elevation of about 100 feet across the length of the
site,
The presence of bedrock beneath a thin soil layer,
A stream crossing the site, and
The proximity of private homes along the Northern edge of the
site.

As noted in the CJC report, the alternative site is owned by the State of
New York, and it could provide 25 acres - adequate for the building of a


new jail facility in the projected range of beds. The site is large enough
to provide adequate space for the relocation of the Sheriffs Office, as
envisioned.

Comparison of Options
The purpose of the current analyses is to review the assumptions
underlying the CJC findings and recommendations, providing a more
detailed assessment of the two identified sites. Within the scope of this
study, cost considerations with regard to site purchase, preparation, and
utilities between the two sites will be provided. Estimated timelines and
phasing needs, as well as accessibility, the size and other characteristics
of each site with regard to the planned campus-style facility will be
considered. It is beyond the scope of this study to conduct a site search
or examine sites other than the two discussed here.
In addition to this more technical evaluation, the selected option must
achieve the Countys goals and requirements regarding Bedspace
Capacity, Programmatic Mission, and Staffing Efficiency. As a context
for the evaluation of the two sites, each of these objectives is described
in more detail below.
Bedspace Capacity
The bedspace requirements presented in the CJC report range from 500-
650 beds, to meet year 2030 needs. This range reflected the calculated
ADP growth and some margin for classification utilization.
As contained in Chapter 3 of this report, the forecasting sub-consultant
factored additional considerations into the forecasting model which
resulted in projected requirements ranging from 475 525 beds. A
classification utilization factor was not applied to the ADP projections,
noting that the higher end of the range should be sufficient if length of
stay is reduced, crime rates continue to decrease, and admissions remain
relatively flat into the future.
These findings were shared with County and jail officials, with each
expressing some concern about the growth assumptions. For example, it
was noted that inmate counts have topped 400 currently, with peaks
even higher. There was a strong argument to incorporate a utilization
factor, over the ADP, for peaking and classification purposes, as using
this method in translating ADP to bedspace is typical for jail planning
purposes. County officials also suggested that, for planning purposes,


the higher bedspace scenario should be used, to ensure that site
testing is based on high end space needs. As such, the consultant
suggested adding a 10% utilization factor to the ADP forecasts, for an
adjusted bedspace range of 523 578 beds to meet year 2030 needs.
Some design assumptions must be applied during early planning stages,
when the building requirements are tested for site fit. For planning
purposes, the consultant assumed that the jail would be predominantly
comprised of 64-bed housing units, and the transitional housing would
include 50-bed dormitories. Applying these geometric assumptions to
the projections, in order to fix the number of housing units in both the
jail and the transitional housing facilities, results in a planning
assumption of approximately 626 beds for the high end of the projected
range. It is recommended that the exact number and size of housing
units is refined during the detailed programming exercises conducted in
the next phase preceding design, particularly in terms of the number of
female and special risk/need beds to be accommodated, as it is expected
that the final number may be adjusted downward somewhat when this
is more thoroughly analyzed.
The planning assumption utilized in these analyses and scenarios is
that two thirds of the needed beds will be located in the main jail
facility, and one third of the jail population will be appropriate for
transitional housing in the new facility, for a total of approximately
426 jail beds and 200 transition beds. This is based on the ATI sub-
consultants assessment of current system alternatives, future
objectives, present transitional housing complement, and general
industry comparisons for similar jail systems and ATI programs. It
was noted that on average approximately 10-15% of the current
population is sentenced, emphasizing the need to focus on
achieving a quicker transition of defendants from pre-trial to
sentenced status, as discussed in Chapter 2.
Programmatic Mission
The programmatic vision and operational mission for the Dutchess
County correctional system was articulated in the CJC report and
discussed with the consultant in on-site meetings and subsequent phone
conversations. Irrespective of which option is selected, the new Dutchess
County jail must be designed and operated in accordance with State
standards and modern jail practices.



Step Down Model for Community Transition
Officials envision a facility that includes diversion to appropriate
programs and services, and uses evidence-based practices that support
jail to community transition. This includes a step-down model
approach, with transitional housing that prepares inmates for gradual
release back to the community. Currently, the 1995 housing units are
designated for transitional housing, with limited programs being offered
by uniformed jail staff. The new transitional housing component is
envisioned as a facility with a separate identity from the secure
component of the jail, and one that has extensive programs and services
that are delivered by probation professionals. These would be consistent
with current probation program curriculum and objectives, and could
include release readiness offerings such as independent living skills, job
readiness, anger management, and the like. Supervision of the housing
units would be provided by uniform staff.
Housing units would be dormitory style, and the construction can be of
a lesser security grade than the main jail, based on the classification of
the transitional housing unit residents. In keeping with the concept of
separate identity, it is envisioned that the Transitional Housing
component would have its own entry, administration space, visitation,
dining, and program space, including capacity for group and individual
counseling, and larger congregate training activities (multipurpose
space). Intake, medical, food, and laundry services would be provided
from the main jail facility so as not to duplicate core service spaces.
Four dormitory units of 50 beds each are envisioned for planning
purposes, with one officer posted in each unit and shared float staff.
Assuming that one of the dorms is designated for females, it is noted
that the actual number of beds required may be less than 50 (given the
current proportion of females at approximately 10-15% of the total jail
population). Noting that the percentage of female admissions is rising,
this is an example of the bedspace refinement that would need to occur
prior to actual design. It was also noted that there has been some
discussion of designating some transitional housing beds for the ARRP
program, to be used in lieu of probation revocation.
Based on this programmatic mission and preliminary operational
program, the transitional housing component is expected to be in the
range of 55,000 gsf.
Main Jail Facility
The programmatic assumptions for the main jail (as well as for the
transitional housing component) are based on discussions with the Jail


Administrator regarding housing unit size and configuration, program
and services assumptions, and general security operations. It is
presumed that the majority of the population can be accommodated in
64-bed housing units, based on the concepts of direct supervision design
and management. In a direct supervision housing unit, single cells are
arranged around a dayroom with one officer posted directly in the
dayroom rather than a remote or enclosed officer station, and float
officers rotating between units. This configuration is much more staff
efficient than the existing 1984 facility. A mezzanine style
configuration is acceptable.
Housing Plan
With good classification and assessment, those inmates posing high risk
or need and not appropriate for direct supervision are identified and
assigned to special units. Based on current usage assumptions, a 32-bed
infirmary and a 10-bed Special Housing Unit are envisioned. A total of
six 64-bed units are assumed, one of which is for pre-classification
(intake unit), and one for females, for a total of 426 jail beds. Expansion
at the existing jail site utilizes the two 50-bed housing units in the 1995
jail; providing four 64-bed units and two 50 bed units, as compared to
above. This yields a total of 398 jail beds in this option.
Double-bunking Considerations
In the next phase, in addition to confirming the number of beds, we will
also look at whether double-bunking might be of value, for certain
inmates, based on a more detailed inmate profile and classification
analysis.

The County intends to examine the benefits and drawbacks of
potentially double-bunking at certain housing units. Double bunking
where two inmates occupy one cell and share toilet and lavatory but
have separate bunks - has the potential to save the construction of one
cell per two inmates. However all other areas (dayroom, recreation,
program, etc.) have to be sized to accommodate the full population.
Savings in capital costs will have to be calculated and weighed against
operational considerations, chief among them being those raised by the
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), concerning the universal safety and
security of all inmates and staff. A number of design strategies will be
studied to determine which approach provides the optimal mix of
safety, classification categories, sightlines, and potential expansion.



Service Delivery Model
A decentralized program and service delivery approach is envisioned.
This means that the majority of programs and services are located at, or
immediately adjacent to, the housing unit level. This includes interview
and multi-purpose program space, medical triage, dining, and outdoor
recreation, reducing inmate circulation and officer escort requirements
for basic, daily activities.
Centralized programs and services include contact visitation with family
members, professional visits, classrooms, and medical clinic when
consultation with the physician is deemed necessary. Because the
outdoor recreation areas at the housing unit level will be designed to
shield from inclement weather, a gymnasium is not envisioned,
according to the Jail Administrator.
Building Services and Support
The main jail is expected to provide full services and support for the full
facility (jail and transitional housing components). In addition to those
described above, these spaces include:
Executive and Custody Administration
Staff Support (lockers, muster, training, etc)
Central Control
Intake, Reception and Discharge
Food Services
Laundry
Maintenance
Parking
Based on this programmatic mission and preliminary operational
program, the jail is expected to be in the range of 175,000 gsf.

Staffing Efficiency
The housing out of inmates to other counties adds to staffing
inefficiencies in the current facility because of the high level of
manpower required to manage, stage, and transport this population.
This is in addition to the per diem cost for housing out inmates, which
has approached $6 7 million dollars annually. Resolving the housing
out issue will provide immediate relief to the County in both per diem
payments to receptor counties and staff costs associated with the daily
transport and management logistics for this growing sub population.


That being said, the typical day-to-day operations in the current facility
are extremely staff intensive, due primarily to the small housing units in
the old jail, the mandated supervision of Special Case Supervision
inmates (currently at one officer for every two inmates), and the far
proximity of programs to housing units, requiring excessive escort and
hall post coverage.
With a total of 233 FTE uniformed officers and a design capacity of 292
inmates, the staff-to-inmate ratio has been calculated to be 1:1.3. When
operational capacity is taken into account (257 inmates), the ratio
becomes even more inefficient at 1:1.1.
The CJC committee looked at three NY county jails with staff-to-inmate
ratios ranging from 1:2.5 to 1:3.4, and reported that a new facility could
be in the range of the highest benchmark (Broome County at 1:3.4). It
should be noted that staff-to-inmate ratios alone are not a measurement
of adequate staffing, post coverage, or supervision of inmates. In fact,
the National Institute of Corrections notes that there are simply too
many variables such as physical plant design, level of security, level of
programs and activities, state and local standard and statutes, etc. to
recommend a specific officer to inmate ratio. In addition, in New York,
county jail staffing coverage is determined in large part by the SCOC,
who establishes mandated and non-mandated post requirements based
on a review of facility layout and operations.
A more efficient staff-to-inmate ratio is a reasonable assumption, when
new facility operations and design assumptions are compared to the
current facility. This assumption was validated through a review of
current post coverage across all three shifts, supplemented with
discussions with the Jail Administrator to better understand the present
staff deployment and to confirm future assumptions moving forward.
Rather than backing into a staffing number based on a desired ratio, a
staffing worksheet was developed to create assumptions about posts and
coverage for each functional component in the facility, assuming
modern jail design concepts, including the following major drivers:
64-bed housing units (main jail) with one post per shift, and a
float officer shared per every 2-3 units
50-bed dormitory units (transitional housing) with one post per
shift, and a float officer shared per every 2-3 units
Decentralized program and service delivery model in each
component


Shared core services (kitchen, laundry, medical clinic, intake,
admin) between both components
1:4 ratio for Close Supervision cases
Adequate float/escort officers for daily coverage of activities,
movement, emergency response, transport
Elimination of housed out inmates and associated
transportation and management manpower requirements
Coverage for mandated and other daily operations, e.g.
training, canine, intake, central control, shift supervision,
custody administration, etc.
Based on this informed assessment of post coverage and staff
deployment, the new facility uniformed staff compliment could be +/-
200 FTEs. When applied to an assumed design capacity of 575 - 625
beds, the staff-to-ratio would be in the range of about 3 inmates for
every uniformed FTE staff (approximate 1:3 staff-to-inmate ratio). This
ratio, and the supporting worksheet in Appendix C, is an informed
assumption based on operational and design goals to date. While actual
staffing requirements should be further developed as operations and
physical layout are further defined (and SCOC review is factored in), it is
not unrealistic to assume that the staffing ratio achieved in a new,
modern facility will far exceed that which is required in the existing
facility, with the potential staff savings of about 50 FTE positions over
current FTE allocations.
Assuming that both sites can support modern jail operations and design,
no significant differential is envisioned between the existing jail site and
the alternate jail site.



NORTH HAMILTON STREET SITE
Existing Jail Site

Ownership
The County of Dutchess owns the existing 7.5 acre jail site
A private party owns two adjacent parcels to the north: one is 1.96 acres
immediately adjacent to the jail site; the other along Parker Avenue is
2.236 acres. Combining the current jail property with the additional
properties yields a total of 11.7 acres.

Site preparation
The sites are flat; the subsurface appears suitable for spread footings. No
unusual geotechnical considerations are foreseen.

Phasing
According to the County, housed-out inmates will be returning to the
Hamilton Street site soon, to be housed in temporary modular housing
units located at the rear of the 1995 jail and connected by an all-weather
corridor. Future expansion proposed under the above scenario can
proceed without disrupting the modular units.

A conceptual phasing scenario is illustrated in the diagrams that follow.
This scenario would require the County to purchase two parcels: 183
North Hamilton adjacent to the north of the sheriffs building and 108
Parker Ave. This scenario begins by installing the temporary modular jail
facilities immediately, on the site of the existing under-utilized
gymnasium, in order to relieve the need for housing out inmates. The
phases indicated below are identified for claritys sake; certain actions
could be taken simultaneously in order to shorten the schedule towards
final completion. Also note that the diagrams indicate the number of
beds on-site.

Phase 1:
Demolish Gymnasium

Phase 2:
Remove commercial building along Parker Ave
Build two temporary Modular Jail (200 beds) on site of old gym

Phase 3:
Build new facility for the sheriffs Dept. on the Parker Ave site
Sheriff moves into new facility



Phase 4:
Demolish old Sheriffs building and gym

Phase 5:
Build Transitional Housing on site of old sheriffs building
Build 195 parking spaces

Phase 6:
Construct portion of New Jail
- Food services, laundry, maintenance, building support
- Keep Lock unit and female housing unit
Renovate 1
st
floor of 1995 jail as required

Phase 7:
Demolish 1984 jail

Phase 8:
Construct remainder of New Jail

Phase 9
Remove temporary modular units

Phase 10
Build staff parking (80 spaces)
Making a total of 275 new spaces




NORTH HAMILTON STREET SITE


















Space Requirements
We developed a model departmental space program for the two new jail
scenarios.

The North Hamilton site will require 152,000 gsf of new construction,
40,000 gsf of renovation and 54,000 gsf of transitional housing.
Both scenarios assume 50,000 gsf for the new Sheriffs facilities.

Construction costs

Based on our firms recent experience with corrections and detention
facilities in the Northeast we forecast that a modern jail currently will
cost in the range of $ 450 to $550 per gsf for a new facility, including
normal site preparation costs, contractor overhead and profit, Wicks
Law bidding to at least four prime contractors. Cost premiums at this
site would include demolition of existing buildings and escalation across
several years due to multiple phases. Other project costs include A/E.
and legal fees, furniture. Renovation costs we anticipate to be currently
in the range of $ 250 to $350 per gsf. No extraordinary construction
costs for earth-moving, or utilities are anticipated at the North
Hamilton/Parker Ave site.

Construction costs will likely be in the range of
$ 68M to $84M for new jail construction;
$ 10M to$22M for jail renovation
;$16M to $20M for transitional housing;
$15M to $20 M for sheriffs offices
$5M to $ 8M for demolition.
Total construction costs would be in the range of $114M to
$154M
Total Project Costs including contingency; escalation due
to multiple phases; fees; furniture would be in the range of
$165M to $205M.
More definitive calculations will be developed during
Project Definition phase based on increased information
and clarification of numerous variables.




Utilities
Public utilities (gas, water, power, sewer) are available in the bed of
North Hamilton Street

Environmental Issues
An Environmental Impact Statement was conducted for the 1995 facility
in order to address concerns about property values, traffic and noise. We
recommend performing an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in
order to determine whether a full-blown Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is required. Community anxieties about correctional
facilities in their midst can often be intense, even when the jail has been
a good neighbor for all these years.




ALTERNATE SITE: HUDSON RIVER PSYCHIATRIC CENTER

Site Ownership
The site is owned by the State of New York.

Site Work
Excavation/earthmoving
This site is challenging: its surface undulates in a series of hillocks from
the north to the south; the high point at the north is more than 100 feet
higher than at the low point to the south; subsurface is probably
bedrock beneath a layer of soil. The USGS soil survey for the area notes
rock to be as shallow as 1.5 ft below the surface on the site (TBD); an
active stream (Class C) bisects the site.

The quantities of cut and fill have been calculated by our civil
engineering consultant, Langan Engineers, based on conceptual
footprint diagrams prepared by RicciGreene Associates.( See below).
We prepared three options:
1. Option 1
The new jail is arranged on one level. This option requires more
cut than fill and would incur the cost of extracting and
disposing of the additional material.
2. Option 2
This concept balances cut and fill. To accomplish this the new
jail housing is arranged on two levels. Controlled blast or
mechanical drilling will be used to cut the rock (60,000 cy)
Crushed rock will serve as fill (60,000cy) to create building pads
at various elevations
3. Option 3
This option arranges the new buildings so as to avoid disturbing
the Class C stream thereby avoiding Army Corps of Engineers
permit requirements.

Retaining walls


The retaining wall between the new sheriff office and jail (Option 2)
would be approximately 90 LF with a maximum height of
approximately 11 feet. The wall face would be approximately 1,000 SF.
The other wall near the property line would be about 40 LF with a
maximum height of approximately 5 feet. The wall face would be
approximately 200 SF.

Schedule
Construction of the new sheriffs facility and the new jail can begin
simultaneously on this site.

No need to phase construction since the existing Hamilton Street jail
will continue to serve until the new facility is complete.

Space Requirements
We developed a model departmental space program for the two new jail
scenarios. The Hudson River Hospital site will require 178,000 gsf of new
construction, and 54,000 gsf of transitional housing. Both scenarios
assume 50,000 gsf for the new Sheriffs facilities.

Construction costs
Based on our firms recent experience with corrections and detention
facilities in the Northeast we forecast that a modern jail currently will
cost in the range of $ 450 to $550 per gsf for a new facility, including
normal site preparation costs, contractor overhead and profit, Wicks
Law bidding to at least four prime contractors. Cost premiums at this
site would include extensive rock cut and fill and possible other site
mitigation measures. Other project costs include A/E. and legal fees,
furniture.

Construction costs will likely be in the range of
$ 80M to $98MM for new jail construction;
;$16M to $20M for transitional housing;
$15M to $20 M for sheriffs offices
$5M to $ 8M for site work. (Note: This figure remains
to be verified)
Total construction costs would be in the range of $116M to
$146M
Total Project Costs including contingency; escalation due
to multiple phases; fees; furniture would be in the range of
$150M to $190M.


More definitive calculations will be developed during
Project Definition phase based on increased information
and clarification of numerous variables.

Campus-style Facility/ Co-located Service Continuum
The site configuration lends itself to creating a campus of stand-alone
buildings that can accommodate the co-located facilities.

Waste water
The Superintendent of Sewers for the Town of Poughkeepsie confirmed
that the property is with the Town of Poughkeepsies jurisdiction. The
site is tributary to the City of Poughkeepsie Wastewater Treatment plant.
Please note there is a Town and a City of Poughkeepsie and they each
have their own government and sewer departments. Of the capacity in
the city wastewater plant the town is entitled to 35%. He did confirm
that the town can accept 100,000 GPD from a new facility.

He thinks there are 8 sewer mains running throughout the property
which were installed during the 1940s with the original state hospital.
The 8 mains flow down to a Town owned flow meter on the state
property near Route 9. From there they connect to an 18 sewer main in
Route 9 which flows to the city.
Under the current NYSDEC 1988 guidance for the flows would be as
follows:

Jails (Institutions other than Hospitals)
728 inmates and staff x 125 GPD = 91,000 GPD
Visitors are excluded in design flows.

Sheriff Building (Office building)
50,400 SF x 0.1 GPD/SF = 5,040 GPD
Total: 96,040 GPD

Under the 2012 draft guidance which should be in effect sometime in
2013 the flows would be as follows:

Jails
628 inmates x 150 GPD = 94,200 GPD
100 Staff x 15 GPD = 1,500 GPD
Visitors are excluded in design flows.


If there is a kitchen in the facility there would be additional flow. If food
is delivered for every meal from an offsite facility then no additional
flow.

Sheriff Building
50 x 15 GPD = 750 GPD (add another 250 GPD if there are showers in
the building)

Total: 96,450 GPD (or 96,700 GPD with showers)

The town confirmed that 100,000 GPD is available and they gave the
impression that they had plenty of available capacity.

Environmental (SEQRA)
Based on our experience in Orange County, Niagara County and
elsewhere, we might expect community resistance to locating the new
jail on the Hudson River Psychiatric Center site, based on fear of
negative affect on nearby residential property values (several private
homes along the site boundary to the north) and based on the financial
impact on the local fire -fighting services as well as increased traffic.
Studies (conducted by the consultant and others) have shown that
modern jails do not affect property values).

Phase One Report
We are awaiting the Phase One Environmental Assessment to be
published by the Countys consultant which will shed light on the
environmental aspects of the site. For example, identifying wetlands is
not a required item for Phase I ESAs per ASTM standards. They are
optional/included at the discretion of the preparer. The same holds true
for other potential natural resource issues (i.e. regulated streams,
threatened or endangered species, etc.)

Wetlands
Identifying wetlands is not a required item for Phase I ESAs per ASTM
standards. They are optional/included at the discretion of the preparer.
At this point we have not seen the Countys consultants Phase One
Environmental assessment.
While current maps show wetlands adjacent to the site, these may be
State DEC designated wetlands. Federal designated wetlands are typically


smaller in footprint and may be present on the site. Identifying wetlands
is beyond the scope of this assignment.

Watercourse
The stream is indicated as a class C stream on the NYS DEC database;
class AA being the highest quality and class D the lowest.

Class C streams do not require protection (buffers) or even a permit from
the NYS DEC to alter the stream. If the stream is considered a waterway
of the United States it would fall under the jurisdiction of Army Corps.

On-site Storm water detention
Based on an additional +/-9.5 Ac. of impervious area it is estimated that
4 Ac-Ft of storage will be required. The conceptual site plan indicates a 5
foot deep basin to the south of the main jail building.




HUDSON RIVER PSYCHIATRIC CENTER




HUDSON RIVER PSYCHIATRIC CENTER









SITE CRITERIA

NORTH
HAMILTON STREET
HUDSON RIVER
PSYCHIATRIC CENTER
Location Civil Office (must be
housed in the county
seat)

Site Size 11.7 acres 25 acres
Site Ownership County
State
Private

Multi-level Jail and
Transitional

Zoning Requires re-zoning or
override

Water and sewer lines

Permits required In/near wetlands
Army Corps
NY DEC

Site Work Excavation
Fill
Storm-water
Detention
Retaining Walls

Demolition

SEQRA

Multi-Year Phasing

YES
NO
TBD



4.3. Next Steps The CJC model provides a valid overview of the facility development
process and points the way for Dutchess County to develop a modern
corrections campus. As a result of the Consultants technical and test fit
exercise, it remains clear that both sites can accommodate a modern jail
and associated facilities, and that the costs of developing at either site
are fairly comparable. More detailed technical and design studies are
needed in order to provide decision-makers with more information on
schedule, phasing, environmental and cost issues.

Next step: project definition
We recommend that the County move forward into the Project
Definition phase so that decision-makers will have answers to seven key
questions;

1. How will the new jail and campus work?
operational narrative
security narrative
materials, systems, technology
2. How big will the new Jail be?
detailed list of spaces
stacking and blocking
departmental floor plans
3. Where will the new jail be located?
Finalize site studies
Permits
4. What will the new jail look like?
preliminary sketches and views
show roof lines, materials and character
5. How much will the new jail cost?
Finish schedule
Detailed Cost Estimate
6. When will the new jail open?
Schedule
Phasing (if applicable)
7. What will happen to the old jail?

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. REVIEWED DOCUMENTS

=
AnImals, FlanIs, AquaIIc LIe. NYS DepI. o EnvIronmenIal ConservaIIon.

BuIldIng SysIems AssessmenI: Energy EIcIency and ConservaIIon SIudy.
SepIember 2010.
CernIglIa & SwarIz}VIIeIIa ReporI or Ihe DuIchess CounIy JaIl ExpansIon
and RenovaIIon SIudy. March 2003.
ChrIsIensen, G., JanneIIa, J., & Buck WIllIson, J. TransIIIon rom JaIl Io
CommunIIy InIIIaIIve FracIIce BrIe: The Role o ScreenIng and
AssessmenI In JaIl ReenIry. AprIl, 2012.
DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce CouncIl 2012 Annual ReporI.
DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce CouncIl: AlIernaIIves Io IncarceraIIon,
SupporI ServIces, and BaIl OpIIons Manual, 2
nd
EdIIIon. May, 2007.
DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce CouncIl: CrImInal JusIIce SysIem Needs
AssessmenI. November 2012.
DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce CouncIl ExecuIIve CommIIIee. BrIeIng Io
Ihe CounIy ExecuIIve, LegIslaIure, and SherI. Eebruary 10
Ih
, 200S.
DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce CouncIl ExecuIIve CommIIIee.
Memorandum: ATI CosI AnalysIs o Eebruary 10, 200S ReporI.
DuIchess CounIy CrImInal JusIIce CouncIl MeeIIng MInuIes rom Ihe
ollowIng daIes: May 8
Ih
, 2012, July 17
Ih
, 2012, SepIember 18
Ih
, 2012.
DuIchess CounIy JaIl daIa, provIded by Ihe JaIl AdmInIsIraIor.
DuIchess CounIy oIce o FrobaIIon and CommunIIy CorrecIIons Annual
ReporI (2011).
DuIchess CounIy EacIlIIIes: Energy AudII ReporI or: SherIs BuIldIng. 2010.
DuIchess CounIy SherrIs BuIldIng Energy SIudy Summary.
DuIchess CounIy Web MappIng. GeoAccess V2 DuIchess CounIy Web
MappIng.
Eormer Hudson RIver FsychIaIrIc CenIer SIIe: Froposed EasemenIs. Map o
Survey o Lands Io be AcquIred by Hudson HerIIage, LLC. May 14
Ih
,
2004.
OIcIal WebsIIe o DuIchess CounIy GovernmenI, New York.
hIIp:}}duIchessny.gov}
RIccI, K. JaIl SIIe EvaluaIIon and SelecIIon, 2
nd
EdIIIon. U.S. DeparImenI o
SIaIe}NaIIonal InsIIIuIe o CorrecIIons. SepIember, 2004.
RIccI, K. JaIl SIIe EvaluaIIon and SelecIIon. New JaIl FlannIng: BulleIIn rom
Ihe JaIls DIvIsIon o Ihe NaIIonal InsIIIuIe o CorrecIIons. AprIl, 200o.
=
ThInkIng or a Change
The NaIIonal InsIIIuIe o CorrecIIons and Urban InsIIIuIe TransIIIon rom
JaIl Io CommunIIy onlIne learnIng IoolkII. ReIrIeved rom:
hIIp:}}www.urban.org}projecIs}Ijc}ToolkII}
WarwIck, K., Dodd, H., & NeusIeIer, S.R. TransIIIon rom JaIl Io CommunIIy
InIIIaIIve FracIIce BrIe: Case ManagemenI SIraIegIes or Successul JaIl
ReenIry. SepIember, 2012.
Web SoIl Survey. Wev SoIl Survey Home.

APPENDIX B. SITE VISIT SESSION SIGN-IN SHEETS
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
n S t u d y o f t h
J u s t i c e N e e d

e D u t c h e s s C
s A s s e s s m e n t

==
=
C o u n t y

APPENDIX B. SITE VVISIT SESSSION SIGNN-IN SHEETS
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
n S t u d y o f t h

e D u t c h e s s C

=
=
C o u n t y

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
n S t u d y o f t h

e D u t c h e s s C

=
C o u n t y

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
n S t u d y o f t h

e D u t c h e s s C

=
C o u n t y

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
n S t u d y o f t h

e D u t c h e s s C

C o u n t y


APPENDIX C. STAFFING CHART

=
APPENDIX C. STAFFING CHART
Dutchess County Jail

Uniform Staffing Assumptions
Days Notes/Comments:
Staff Posi ti on Manned Ni ght Day Eve Rel i ef Total Ni ght Day Eve Rel i ef Total
Prop'd Shi ft Shi ft Shi ft Factor FTE Shi ft Shi ft Shi ft Factor FTE
1. Publ i c Entrance and Lobby
Corrections Officer 5 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4
Subtotal 3.4 3.4
2. Executi ve Admi ni strati on
J ail Administrator 5 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0
Administrative Major 5 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0
Administrative Captain 5 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0
QC Officer 5 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0
Subtotal 4.0 4.0
3. Custody Admi ni strati on
Administrative Lieutenant 5 - 2.0 - 1.0 2.0 - 2.0 - 1.0 2.0
Watch Commander 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1
Supervisor 7 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.7 13.6 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.7 13.6
Subtotal 20.7 20.7
4. Staff Support Servi ces
Training Sergeant 5 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0
Subtotal 1.0 1.0
5. Central Control
Central Control Officer 7 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 10.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 10.2
Subtotal 10.2 10.2
6. Recei vi ng, Di scharge and Transport
Supervisor (Sergeant) 7 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 1.0
Booking Officer 7 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.7 11.9 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.7 11.9
Property Officer 7 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4
Classification Officer 5 - 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 - 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
Subtotal 18.3 18.3
7. Jai l Housi ng (di rect supervi si on)
General Population (Male) Existing site: 2 units at 50 beds +2 units at 64 beds
Corrections Officer 7 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.7 20.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.7 20.4 Alternate site: 4 units at 64 beds
General Population (Female)
Corrections Officer 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1 unit at 64 beds
Medical / Infirmary
Corrections Officer 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 32 beds; Medical unit will also accommodate CS cases, with a 1:4 supervision rat
CS-officers 7 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.7 20.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.7 20.4
Keep-Lock (SHU)
Corrections Officer 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 Stand-alone unit at 10 beds
Pre-Classification
Corrections Officer 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1 unit at 64 beds; size assumption allows for potential sub-classification needs.
Unit Float Officers 7 - 3.0 3.0 1.7 10.2 - 3.0 3.0 1.7 10.2 1 float per 3 housing units; 1 float for Medical/Keep-Lock
Subtotal 56.1 56.1
8. Inmate Programs and Servi ces
ProgramSupervision 5 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4
Subtotal 3.4 3.4
Days
Staff Posi ti on Manned Ni ght Day Eve Shi ft Total Ni ght Day Eve Shi ft Total
Prop'd Shi ft Shi ft Shi ft Rel i ef FTE Shi ft Shi ft Shi ft Rel i ef FTE
9. Ki tchen/Laundry/Mai ntenance
Work CrewSupervisor 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 Night-shift officers used for maintenance duties;
Subtotal 5.1 5.1
10. Transport Detai l 5 - 10.0 4.0 1.7 23.8 - 10.0 4.0 1.7 23.8 Minimum2 officers/van and multiple court-runs assumed
J uvenile transport
Court transport
Hospital/emergency transport
Subtotal 23.8 23.8
11. Escort Offi cers/ Other
Inmate Movement (internal) 7 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4 Fire inspections, and other not consistent posts accounted for by relief factor.
Visitation 7 - 3.0 - 1.7 5.1 - 3.0 - 1.7 5.1
Disturbance Response (CERT) 7 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 10.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 10.2
Investigations 5 - 2.0 - 1.0 2.0 - 2.0 - 1.0 2.0
Canine 5 - 2.0 - 1.0 2.0 - 2.0 - 1.0 2.0
Subtotal 22.7 22.7
10. Transi ti onal Housi ng
Transitional/Step-down Housing (Male)
Corrections Officer 7 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.7 15.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.7 15.3 3 dormitory-style units at 50 beds
Transitional/Step-down Housing (Female)
Corrections Officer 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 5.1 1 dormitory-style unit at 50 beds
Float Officer 7 2.0 2.0 1.7 6.8 - 2.0 2.0 1.7 6.8
ProgramSupervision
Corrections Officer 7 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4
Check-in/Screening Officer 7 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4 - 1.0 1.0 1.7 3.4
Subtotal 34.0 34.0
Uni form Staff on Duty 26.0 65.0 43.0 26.0 65.0 43.0
Total FTE
Number of inmates per staff (inmate-to-staff ratio) 3.0 3.09
Proposed Faci l i ty - Exi sti ng Si te
Proposed Faci l i ty - Exi sti ng Si te
202.7
Proposed Faci l i ty - Al ternate Si te
Proposed Faci l i ty - Al ternate Si te
202.7

APPENDIX D. J AIL SITE EVALUATION GRAPHICS

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

R I C C

= =
=
=
=
=
=
=
n S t u d y o f t h

C I G R E

====
e D u t c h e s s C

E N E A

=
C o u n t y

APPEN
S S O C I
A RC HI TEC TURE

DIX D. J A
A T E S
E P L A N N I N G
AIL SITE EVVALUATIO
North Ha
ON GRAPH

amilton Stree
HICS

et Site
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

n S t u d y o f t h

e D u t c h e s s C

C o u n t y

APPEN
R

DIX D. J A
I C C I G
AIL SITE EV
G R E E N
VALUATIO
E A S S O
A RC HI
ON GRAPH
O C I A T
TEC TURE P L A
HICS
E S
N N I N G
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

R I C C

n S t u d y o f t h
J u s t i c e S y s t e

C I G R E
e D u t c h e s s C
m N e e d s A s s e

E N E A
C o u n t y
e s s m e n t
APPEN
S S O C I
A RC HI TEC TUR
DIX D. J A
A T E S
E P L A N N I N G
AIL SITE EV

VALUATIOON GRAPHHICS
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

R I C C

=
n S t u d y o f t h

C I G R E

e D u t c h e s s C

E N E A

=
C o u n t y

APPEN
S S O C I
A RC HI TEC TURE
DIX D. J A
A T E S
E P L A N N I N G
AIL SITE EVVALUATIOON GRAPH

HICS

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
n S t u d y o f t h

e D u t c h e s s C

C o u n t y

APPEN
R
DIX D. J A
I C C I G

AIL SITE EV
G R E E N
VALUATIO
E A S S O
A RC HI
ON GRAPH
O C I A T
TEC TURE P L A
HICS
E S
N N I N G
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

R I C C

=
n S t u d y o f t h

C I G R E

e D u t c h e s s C

E N E A

=
C o u n t y

APPEN
S S O C I
A RC HI TEC TURE
DIX D. J A
A T E S
E P L A N N I N G

HICS

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
n S t u d y o f t h

=
e D u t c h e s s C

=

=
C o u n t y

APPEN
R
DIX D. J A
I C C I G

AIL SITE EV
G R E E N
Hu
VALUATIO
E A S S O
A RC HI
dson River P
ON GRAPH
O C I A T
TEC TURE P L A
Psychiatric C
HICS
E S
N N I N G
Center

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

R I C C

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
n S t u d y o f t h

C I G R E

e D u t c h e s s C

E N E A

C o u n t y

APPEN
S S O C I
A RC HI TEC TURE
DIX D. J A
A T E S
E P L A N N I N G

Site Ma
HICS

ark-up=
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
n S t u d y o f t h

e D u t c h e s s C

C o u n t y

APPEN
R
DIX D. J A
I C C I G

AIL SITE EV
G R E E N
VALUATIO
E A S S O
A RC HI
ON GRAPH
O C I A T
TEC TURE P L A
Grading Co
HICS
E S
N N I N G
ncept=

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

R I C C

=

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
n S t u d y o f t h

C I G R E

e D u t c h e s s C

E N E A

=
C o u n t y

APPEN
S S O C I
A RC HI TEC TURE
DIX D. J A
A T E S
E P L A N N I N G

HICS

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
=
n S t u d y o f t h

e D u t c h e s s C

=
C o u n t y

APPEN
R
DIX D. J A
I C C I G

AIL SITE EV
G R E E N
VALUATIO
E A S S O
A RC HI
ON GRAPH
O C I A T
TEC TURE P L A
HICS
E S
N N I N G
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

R I C C

=
n S t u d y o f t h

C I G R E

e D u t c h e s s C

E N E A

=
C o u n t y

APPEN
S S O C I
A RC HI TEC TURE
DIX D. J A
A T E S
E P L A N N I N G

HICS

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

=
n S t u d y o f t h

e D u t c h e s s C

=
C o u n t y

APPEN
R
DIX D. J A
I C C I G

AIL SITE EV
G R E E N
VALUATIO
E A S S O
A RC HI
ON GRAPH
O C I A T
TEC TURE P L A
HICS
E S
N N I N G
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=

R I C C

Siol Map:
=
==
=
=
=
n S t u d y o f t h

C I G R E

: Dutchess C
e D u t c h e s s C

E N E A

County, New
C o u n t y

APPEN
S S O C I
A RC HI TEC TURE
York
DIX D. J A
A T E S
E P L A N N I N G

HICS

APPENDIX E. SPACE PROGRAM

V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=
R I C C

n S t u d y o f t h
C I G R E
e D u t c h e s s C

E N E A
C o u n t y

S S O C I
A RC HI TEC TUR
A
A T E S
E P L A N N I N G
APPENDIX

X E. SPACCE PROGRRAM
V a l i d a t i o
C r i m i n a l J
=
n S t u d y o f t h
e D u t c h e s s C

C o u n t y

R

A
I C C I G
APPENDIX
G R E E N
X E. SPAC
E A S S O
A RC HI
CE PROGR
O C I A T
TEC TURE P L A
RAM
E S
N N I N G
=
APPENDIX E. SPACE PROGRAM
=


Dutchess County Jail Study

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Dutchess County Jail Study

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

= =========================================

AnImals, FlanIs, AquaIIc LIe. NYS DepI. o EnvIronmenIal ConservaIIon.

Dutchess County Jail

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi