Enlarging the jail is not supported by the public, by facts, and does not prevent crime (my letter to Sacramento Supervisors)

Dear Public Servants,

Your recent moves to expand the County's jail remind me of a Russian sentiment that things are never so bad they can't get worse. The US incarcerates at five times the world's per-capita average--seven times the Canadian per-capita rate. So...is Canadian crime worse than US crime? Nope. About the same. Incarceration doesn't prevent crime.

The recent Mays decision condemning Sacramento's treatment of prisoners is just the tip of the iceberg. True, the jail is full, but that does not mean it needs to be expanded. 60% - 80% of its inmates are not convicted of anything worse than being unable to afford bail. That's right, it's not "innocent until proven guilty" in Sacramento County, it's "guilty until proven wealthy."

Is there any attempt to provide alternatives to cash bail in Sacramento County? Not that I've seen. Yet it's been successful elsewhere: "The nation’s capital is often cited as a leading example of the success of bail reform. 

"Since 1992, the court system in Washington, D.C., has operated under a mandate to limit pretrial detention by emphasizing the release of people under the least restrictive conditions that still ensure they see their cases through and don’t commit new crimes.

"While cash bail is not completely prohibited, it has not been the status quo there for three decades. It can only be imposed for those deemed at risk of fleeing the jurisdiction and cannot exceed a person’s ability to pay. 

"In a report examining the last five years of data, the district’s Pretrial Services Agency found that 83% of people were released to the community at their first court appearance. Most of them were released with certain conditions, like electronic monitoring or supervision by the courts. 

"Of the remaining 17%, more than half were released after subsequent hearings to determine special conditions and only 7% remained behind bars.

"Those who are released can be connected to mental health services and substance abuse treatment if their case warrants it. 

"The approach [that avoids bail] appears to be working. [emphasis added]

"In the five-year analysis, 88% of defendants were not arrested for another crime. Of those who were, less than 2% were alleged to have committed a violent crime. 

"The appearance rate for defendants has remained similarly high, with 89% of defendants showing up for court." (from the Chicago Sun-Times)

Pre-trial detention further impoverishes poor people too. Who can keep a job if they have to be incarcerated while waiting for the courts?

The incarceration problem is systemic, related to, for example, homelessness. "In Denver, a five-year randomized control trial of a program that provides housing subsidies to those at risk of being unhoused found a 40 percent reduction in arrests among participants. These kinds of results are why localities from New Jersey to New Mexico are restructuring their local governments to invest in the social determinants of health and safety...

"If you want policies that actually work, you have to change the political conversation from 'tough candidates punishing bad people' to 'strong communities keeping everyone safe.' Candidates who care about solving a problem pay attention to what caused it. Imagine a plumber who tells you to get more absorbent flooring but does not look for the leak." (from "The Root Cause of Violent Crime Is Not What We Think It Is," NY Times)

Despite the massive investment in Hollywood's propaganda that says police solve all crimes and only bad people go to jail, police solve only 15% of crimes in California and less than 50% of murders. To isolate one community's experience, from 2010 to 2021, San Francisco's police budget increased by 15%, yet total arrests declined by 41%, and although reported offenses were up (+28%) crimes cleared (-33%) and total arrests (-41%) both declined. Knowing this should make the public skeptical of the effectiveness of those massive investments in punishment.

You don't have to convince me you're anti-crime. You have to convince me that you're pro-effective action.

--Your constituent,

--Mark Dempsey

Here are the agenda Item numbers and arguments against continuing your misguided attempt to manage crime with incarceration:

ITEM #48: 2:15 PM -- Contract No. 81554, Approve Second Amendment To Agreement With Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc., For Professional Architectural Services On The “Main Jail Intake And Health Services Facility Criteria Architect Services” Project To Amend The Scope Of Work And To Increase The Contract Authority From $7,027,135 To $7,032,661 (General Services)

The Nacht & Lewis Contract Should Be Canceled

Sacramento County's community made clear that they did not want an expensive jail expansion, and yet the county re-started this previously canceled project, relying on recommendations from a biased architectural firm, Nacht & Lewis. If Sacramento County leadership values integrity in their decision-making process, they will cancel the contract with this architectural firm, and reevaluate the validity of their recommendations before moving forward with this project.

The reversal of your decision to cancel this project (in March of 2021) was based primarily on the opinions of Nacht & Lewis who were asked by county staff, without Board approval, to determine the feasibility of meeting the Mays v. Sacramento consent decree without a building expansion, a project which they were (and are) under contract to complete.

The county’s “peer review” of one of Nacht & Lewis' studies is simply a list of professional activities and qualifications of the individuals who performed the study, and the peer reviewer Wendy Still. The document is not a review of the content or validity of the findings and does not address the conflicts of interest that precipitated the request for a peer review.

County staff are promising one thing while doing another: Rick Heyer, Supervising Deputy County Counsel, told the board on September 14th, 2022 that “Nacht & Lewis…will not be eligible to participate in any future construction, design, or build—because of their work here, will be excluded from that.”

We urgently ask you to uphold integrity and accountability in county decision-making by canceling the Nacht & Lewis contract for the “Main Jail Intake and Health Services Facility” project and by stopping the use of any existing recommendations or designs from N&L for this project to avoid continued conflicts of interest.

Background

Nacht & Lewis (N&L) was hired in April 2020 to design a new “Correctional Health & Mental Health Facility” annex of the downtown jail

In March of 2021, the BOS canceled this project with a 4 to 1 vote after years of advocacy convinced them that this project was unnecessary, but the N&L contract was never fully canceled.

A few months later, in June of  2021, County executive staff changed the scope of work of the original N&L contract. They tasked N&L to perform a study on “how to meet the Mays consent decree,” in other words, how to justify the need for a new jail annex.

Sacramento County executives have long used the Mays lawsuit as an excuse for jail expansion, even though it highlights the need for jail population reduction and community-based alternatives.

County executives tasked N&L, an architecture firm with extensive experience with building jails, with determining the number of people the Main Jail can house to comply with the consent decree.

They were not, however, chosen by the Board of Supervisors themselves to determine how the county can meet the Mays consent decree without a new jail building. This is simply not their expertise.

In 2022, the community called out the corruption: the fact that the county was hiring the firm that was set to profit off this project to justify its need.

Of course, N&L are going to recommend the construction of an addition to the jail to meet compliance - they stand to profit from this project.

County executive staff claimed N&L would no longer be involved in the project, but have yet to follow through on this ethical commitment.

Rick Heyer: “N&L who, whatever happens, will not be eligible to participate in any future construction, design, or build—because of their work here, will be excluded from that” (https://agendanet.saccounty.gov/BoardOfSupervisors/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=7624&doctype=1) 4:35min in, @ 6:39 pm

The Nacht & Lewis study did not explore how the jail could be retrofitted if the population was reduced.

Mays Class Counsel has said: “At the core of this crisis is the oversized jail population, which the County has failed to manage in a humane or lawful manner.”

Nacht & Lewis’ studies claim there is no way to reduce the jail population enough to result in enough space in the main jail for constitutional ADA and HIPAA renovations, despite numerous reports from court-appointed experts showing in great detail how the county can meet the consent decree without a new jail.

So far, over $2 Million has been spent on this project. We demand that the contract be canceled and the remaining $5+ million be spent on reducing the jail population and funding community-based alternatives.

ITEM #49: 2:30 PM -- Contract No. 81675, “Construction Management Services For Sacramento County Main Jail Intake And Health Services Facility,” Approve Agreement With Kitchell/CEM, Inc., In The Maximum Amount Of $18,897,168 And Adopting A Resolution Declaring The Official Intent Of The County Of Sacramento To Reimburse Itself For Certain Capital Expenditures From The Proceeds Of Indebtedness (General Services)

Kitchell/CEM, Inc is the same firm that the BOS voted against in March of 2021 when they effectively canceled this jail expansion project. No new Request for Proposals (RFP)/bid process has been issued since then.

This item also includes a resolution “Declaring The Official Intent Of The County Of Sacramento To Reimburse Itself For Certain Capital Expenditures From The Proceeds Of Indebtedness”, essentially meaning that they will start the process of getting a $650Million Bond which will sink the county into unimaginable debt with at least $50Million a year in interest alone. The impacts of this financial decision on the rest of county services cannot be understated—we have to stop this.

Questions:

What fiscal year does the County intend to reimburse itself with bond proceeds?

Why didn’t the county issue a new Request for Proposals (RFP) for this project?

Stop the Bond/Loan:

The $650 million dollar loan would sink the county into unimaginable debt, and lock the county into prioritizing this project over critical health services.

The $650 Million dollar Lease Revenue Bond would come with many strings attached.