PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

COPING WITH JAIL OVERCROWDING IN CHARLESTON SC

In Trying to cope with jail overcrowding Charleston Watch filed the report pasted hereinbelow on the May 15, 2007 Charleston County Council meeting. We have said it before and we will say it again--one reason that our jails are so overcrowded is that we spend so much of our limited resources building jails and incarcerating people who get behind on their child support rather than trying to develop programs to either help them avoid being jailed for non-support or to get out of jail once they have been incarcerated for non-support. While it may appeal to some folks' sense of moral outrage to punish those who are in arrears on their child support, this approach does not appear to be cost-effective. And we are having to release convicts before their sentences have been completed because so many of the jail cells are occupied by fathers who fall behind on their support.

While on the subject of innovative programs to relieve jail overcrowding, we would like to call our readers' attention to this article.

________________________________________________________

Some of the Council members expressed surprise at the $4.5 million request to fund housing for the overflow from the County’s crowded jail. They were also surprised at the magnitude of the spending – to provide two 64 bed units - and wondered whether it really was necessary. Council member Thurmond had never heard of the need and was alarmed at a cost that seemed to be 50% above estimates.

In summary there seemed to be two issues. The first was whether the temporary housing was really necessary and second, whether it could be achieved at a lesser cost. Council member Thurmond thought that some help from the court benches in terms of sentencing could alleviate the problem of overcrowding. He also suggested that the County end its policy of taking criminals prosecuted in Federal Courts. Council member Condon also thought there were more “soft” options. Council member Thurmond suggested that the contract be again put out to bidding. Only one bidder was in the final line-up when the contract was awarded.

Most of the other Council members aired their views and all were in favor of proceeding though with varying degrees of enthusiasm. But perhaps the strongest comment came from County Administrator Canterbury who exclaimed the urgency of the situation. As Council member McKeown pointed out earlier, the capacity of the jail is about 660 persons but is now housing about 1700. This is severe overcrowding and did not take into account a possible need to house even a higher number in the near future. The Administrator noted that some of the suggestions made by Council members had been made in the past and they were uncertain and temporary solutions. The County was in a liability situation, and it had to move now.

Mr. Canterbury did not note the potential liabilities relating to the overcrowding. We understand that the County is at risk from both State and Federal authorities. The reluctance of the State to prosecute may reflect the fact that if it did, it would have to house many of the inmates now in the County jail and it does not have capacity to do so, The Federal Authorities may be in a similar position. But we understand that if the County runs foul of the Federal Authorities, the initiative to build a new jail with pass to the Federal Government and the County may have little say as to the location and size. It will also be obliged to pick of the cost which is likely to be well above that projected for the new jail now under consideration. So as Mr. Canterbury didn’t say, the liability is very real.

And as far as the cost, Mr.Canterbury said the $4.5 million is above the $3 million previously assumed. The cost was originally estimated to be higher but was revised downward to $3 million, though we did not hear when this revision was made. He noted that the figures were an estimate. Staff said that a number of firms had been invited to bid on the project. But only two made bids. One was disqualified ultimately because it failed to provide certain completed forms. Why there were so few bids is conjectural. Staff opined that there was enough time allowed in the bidding process. To reopen the bidding would add about 2 months to the timetable. And as this time the County could ill afford such an extension.