Building Community Support for New Jail Construction · Building community support for new jail construction is not a popular topic among poli-cymakers or between policymakers and

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

NEW

JAIL

PLA

NN

ING

Bul

leti

nF

rom

the

Jails

Div

isio

nof

the

Nat

iona

lIn

stit

ute

ofC

orre

ctio

ns

MAY 2006

Building Community Supportfor New Jail Construction

BY GAIL ELIAS

D uring the 20 or so years that theNational Institute of Corrections(NIC) has offered the Planning

of New Institutions (PONI) program,“How can we sell the jail?” has been aconstant theme. The process of buildingcommunity support for a new jail hasthree essential elements: information,involvement, and methods. Support-building efforts that ignore any of theseelements are likely to experience signif-icant setbacks, if not failure.

The Challenge

Jail construction projects present chal-lenges from onset to occupancy. Amongthe most significant are those related to

FROM THE DIRECTORBuilding community support for new jail construction is not a popular topic among poli-cymakers or between policymakers and their local constituents. Nevertheless, local gov-ernments have a public obligation to build and maintain jails that are safe and secure,hold inmates accountable, and provide services necessary for inmates to reenter thecommunity successfully.

The local jail plays a critical role in the community. The intent of this bulletin is to guidepolicymakers and local stakeholders in a direction that will help them build support fortheir local jail and dispel the myths surrounding local jail construction.

Morris L. Thigpen, Sr., DirectorNational Institute of Corrections

building support for the project. Al-though people often talk about this issueas “selling the project,” it is much morethan a marketing or sales problem. At theheart of the issue is the harsh reality thatjails have few natural constituencies, andthose that do exist may have relativelylittle political influence. Think about thedifference between jail and school con-struction projects. A school project hasbroad, natural constituencies (parents,teachers) and very sympathetic benefici-aries (children). A jail project can counton jail staff as supporters, but their numbers are relatively small, and manypeople do not feel particularly sympa-thetic to the inmate population.

Why Jail Projects NeedCommunity Support

Most jail projects, even thosethat are fully funded, needsupporters. Why?

■ Being a good neighbor. Manyjails are located in governmentcenters, industrial areas, andmixed-use areas. A jail may benext to other public and privatefacilities, and it may have resi-dential neighbors. Withoutsupport from the jail’s newneighbors, siting problems areinevitable.

■ Competing for resources.Every jurisdiction must makechoices regarding the best useof available capital and operat-ing dollars. To ensure adequateresources to address the jail’sproblems, elected officialsmust be encouraged to supportwhat is often perceived as a“politically unpopular” causeand make a commitment thatmay mean deferring expendi-tures on more popular projects.

■ Gaining voters’ support.Many jurisdictions do not havethe financial or legal means toconstruct a jail without passinga bond issue. The public may have to choose among manyinitiatives on the ballot, andthe general economic climatemay affect their choices. Pro-ponents of the jail project willneed to build support thattranslates into approval in thevoting booth.

■ Conveying necessity. Even iffunding is not an issue, mostelected officials will not wantto end their political careersby supporting an unpopularproject. The public must agreethat the jail is necessary; theymust be convinced of the“rightness” of the project.

All of these scenarios relateto the basic need for support,although each may result in asomewhat different approach.How the need for support isperceived can shape the approachtaken. Is the purpose to…

■ Sell the project? As con-sumers, people have differentreactions to “selling.” All proj-ects need strong advocateswho are willing to speak up forthe project in public. These ad-vocates must also be willing tolisten to their audience.

■ Educate people about theproject? Education should fo-cus on the need, the options,and the solutions. The assump-tion is that rational people willsupport the project once theyparticipate in an educationalprocess. Adults often learn bet-ter through interaction and dis-cussion rather than lectures.

■ Inform people about the project? As with education,the assumption is that peoplewill support the project oncethey know the facts. However,the information must not flowjust one way: problems arise

when people feel they have aconsiderable stake in theoutcome but no opportunityfor input.

■ Involve people in the proj-ect? Involving people impliesan interactive relationship inwhich interested parties haveopportunities to express opin-ions and potentially have inputinto the process. People tendto support what they help tocreate, even if they disagreewith some of the results.

Building support for a project in-volves all of the above—in differ-ent degrees at different stages ofthe project. Although the “right”approach varies from jurisdictionto jurisdiction, education and in-formation are the foundation forbuilding stronger levels of supportfor any project, and any approachis more likely to succeed if it em-phasizes two-way communication.

In This Bulletin

This bulletin provides an overviewof a support-building process thatcan be adapted to any jail project.The bulletin discusses methods forbuilding support and getting theword out. It addresses both strate-gies (broad approaches, such aseducation and involvement) andtactics (means of implementing astrategy, such as community meet-ings and jail tours). It also pro-vides examples of how severaldiverse communities used thisprocess.

2

NEW JAIL PLANNING

Raising the Issue

Jail construction projects beginin a variety of ways. An outsideevent (e.g., litigation, escalatingpressure from inspectors) may setthings in motion. The trigger maybe a serious incident or crowding,perhaps combined with the costsof boarding inmates in other jails.Typically, a few people come torealize that something has to bedone, and a small group begins to talk about the issue. This conversation starts inside theagency that operates the jail butsoon spreads to other parts of thejustice system and local govern-ment. At this point, the problem’sscope is undefined and its impactis unknown. Strategies may beginto surface but they are not evaluat-ed. Liability concerns may makepeople reluctant to acknowledgethe problem (see below), but thesmall group who initiated the con-versation share the realization thatthe problem is unlikely to goaway on its own.

At this time, the project is like apebble dropped in a lake. There isonly a slight disturbance where ithits the water. What may be wide-ly known inside the operatingagency is barely a topic of conver-sation in local government offices.Unless a serious incident triggeredthe conversation, it is “no news”in the local media and not yet a“blip” on the community’s radar

screen. Unless those who have astake in the outcome take action,that is how things will remain.

Overcoming Inertia

People often regard jails as neces-sary evils and do not have muchinterest in (or knowledge of)them. Many think of jails andprisons as the same thing. Publicperceptions of jails often arebased on television and movieportrayals that do not reflect con-temporary jail operations or

design. These fictional accountsalso tend to focus on the sensa-tional, which can increase com-munity fears about jails.

Before people can be convinced tocare about the jail, they first needto understand the jail’s critical rolein the justice system and the com-munity. For the justice system, thejail serves two key functions:

■ Pretrial detention, ensuring adefendant’s availability forcourt processing if bond is notused.

3

Building Community Support for New Jail Construction

Increasing Public Awareness

Key Questions for Early Community Discussions

■ What would happen if there was no jail?

• What options would the courts have to sanction people who don’t obey the law?

• Where would we hold potentially dangerous people while they go through the court process?

■ What is the responsibility of the jail:

• To the community?

• To inmates?

• To staff?

• To the justice system?

(One can also ask the reverse of all these questions.)

Video Tool From NIC

The National Institute of Corrections has developed a 20-minutefilm, “Beyond the Myths: The Jail in Your Community,” which pro-vides information about jails in general and the importance ofcommunity interest in the jail. This video is an excellent vehicle forcommunity discussions about the local jail and the critical role itplays in public safety. For more information about the video, go tohttp://nicic.org/Library/018696.

■ Short-term sentences, when thecourt orders some form of in-carceration for a convicted of-fender who is not eligible for aprison sentence.

Jails are also part of a larger “so-cial contract” between govern-ment and the governed. For thecommunity, the jail is part of apublic safety system that:

■ Manages the behavior of in-mates in the institution and potentially in the community—most immediately by separat-ing them from the communityfor a period of time and per-haps by offering programs andservices that may affect theirfuture behavior.

■ Holds defendants accountablefor the behavior that triggeredtheir incarceration.

If the jail cannot carry out thesefunctions, it may become theweakest link in the chain, compro-mising the other organizations thatplay a role in public safety. Forexample, the police may not beable to arrest certain types of of-fenders, and the courts may not beable to use jail incarceration as asanction.

At the beginning of a jail planningproject, the small group of con-cerned officials needs to raisepublic awareness about the impor-tance of the jail’s relationship tothe community. One way to dothis is to discuss questions about

the responsibility of the jail to itsvarious constituencies (and viceversa). These discussions can beheld in formal settings (e.g., com-munity meetings or focus groups)and informally (e.g., over coffee ata local gathering place).

Acknowledging the Problem

Some people within the agency orin local government may be reluc-tant to acknowledge that a prob-lem exists. As the small group ofconcerned officials begins its ef-forts to raise public awarenessabout the jail, it may also need toaddress this reluctance. It is help-ful to keep in mind that (1) peopledo not want to change until thepain associated with changing isless than the pain associated withnot changing, and (2) people willneither care about nor support asolution until they understandsomething about the problem andwhy action is preferable to doingnothing.

Some officials who are responsi-ble for the local jail may not want to acknowledge a problembecause they think doing so willsomehow increase their liability.However, ignoring a problem doesnot eliminate liability (the phrase“knew or should have known” iscommon in litigation), and themost likely litigants—inmates—are well aware of the problemfirsthand.

Additionally, people who work inlaw enforcement or jail environ-ments often think of themselves asproblem solvers and may not wantto admit that the solution to the“jail problem” is not entirely with-in their control. Even though it isoften difficult for those closest tothe problem not to move immedi-ately to a solution, that is exactlywhat is called for in the earlystages of the process. Shared un-derstanding of the nature and con-sequences of the problem is aprerequisite for a consensus aboutits solution. Arriving at that sharedunderstanding may take a longtime, but it is the foundation forwhat comes later.

Developing a Strategy ToGet the Message Out

The Core Group

Once the problem is acknowl-edged, the jurisdiction mayconsider moving from an infor-mal group (e.g., representatives ofthe jail-operating agency and localgovernment) to a more formalgroup such as a criminal justicecoordinating or advisory commit-tee. This committee, or “coregroup,” should include representa-tives from key elements of the jus-tice system and key constituencieswithin the community.

Before appointing the formalcommittee, the core group shouldhave a direct conversation witheach potential committee member,

4

NEW JAIL PLANNING

covering the committee’s re-sponsibility and authority, theresources available to it, andgeneral expectations. It will benecessary to actively seek outthese participants. Communitymembers may be reluctant tovolunteer—particularly if theyhave concerns about governmentalinvolvement in this process.

This core group may become theproject’s information highway intothe community, so it is importantto think strategically in determin-ing its members. Members should

be people who (1) have a stake ina successful outcome for the proj-ect and (2) hold key positions ingroups whose policies and prac-tices can affect jail capacity.

Keeping in mind that this is thefirst opportunity to build a sup-port infrastructure for theproject, planners should make alist of all groups that:

■ Have a stake in the outcome of the project.

■ Are likely to support theproject.

■ Are likely to oppose theproject.

■ Are influential in the community.

The local league of women voters,council of churches, and law en-forcement and corrections unionsare a few examples of suchgroups. Even if some of thesegroups are not invited to partici-pate at this point, planners shouldkeep the list for later use.

The committee’s initial activitiesoften predate formal project plan-ning efforts. Committee membersfirst need to understand the role of the jail and the nature of theproblem. A tour of the current fa-cility is a good start. The “tourguide” must be able to point out deficiencies and problems,because committee members whoare unfamiliar with jails areunlikely to understand the impli-cations of what they are seeing.They may also be processing whatthey see in the context of theirown inaccurate perceptions ofjails.

5


For More Information

Additional information onworking with criminal justiceadvisory groups is availablethrough NIC’s InformationCenter (www.nicic.org).

Going Public With the Problem

At this point in the process, the jail project will probably still be“operating below the radar.” It may be possible to use the occasionof establishing the core group to announce the problem to thelarger community. Some jurisdictions use press releases or other“resolutions” to raise the issue.

The Focus

The focus at this stage should be:

■ What is the problem?

■ What resources do we havenow (i.e., facilities and alternatives)?

■ What is wrong with what wehave?

■ Why should we change?

■ What are some of the options?

This phase is educational and in-formational. It focuses on theproblem, not the solutions. How-ever, this phase probably will raisemany questions (e.g., What do weneed? What are the options?) thatpush the planning group towardsolutions. It is important not torespond to these questions prema-turely, but rather to record thequestions and begin the process ofgetting the information needed toanswer them.

This “consciousness-raising”phase usually leads to a more for-mal needs assessment and poten-tially a master plan. Then theproject is ready to move to thenext level of support-buildingactivities.

Building a Case for Support

This part of the process beginswith a clear statement of the problem and ends with a tentative

solution. It involves gathering in-formation, assessing need, explor-ing options, and developing astrategy for widening the base ofsupport for the project.

Gathering Information and Assessing Need

Because jails are so expensive toconstruct and operate, few newjails are built without first explor-ing other ways of solving theproblem. Jurisdictions build jailsfor three reasons:

■ The existing jail structure isdamaged, worn out, or other-wise no longer suitable. Thejurisdiction may decide to im-prove, modify, or replace thejail.

■ The existing jail no longer“fits” the jurisdiction’s need(e.g., the jail is crowded). It isimportant to understand thatbuilding a new jail is not theonly option for solving thiskind of problem.

■ The existing building cannotbe operated efficiently anddoes not provide for effectiveinmate supervision. For exam-ple, inappropriately sizedhousing units result in staffinginefficiencies and linear-styledesign makes supervision difficult.

Regardless of the reason for con-sidering a new jail, planners must

thoroughly analyze the facts: in-formation about the physicalplant, requirements of currentstandards and case law, contempo-rary jail practices, and data aboutthe inmate population.

During this information-gatheringand needs assessment process,planners will develop a contextfor the project, describe how thejail is currently used, documentexisting conditions and analyzeissues, and determine long-termimplications.

Context

The jail does not exist in a vacu-um; it is part of the criminal jus-tice system, which in turn is partof the community. The jail’sproblems probably did not occurovernight, and people will want to know what led to the currentsituation. A good analysis oftrends will reveal the factors thatcontributed to the problems. Inconducting this analysis, the coreplanning group may ask the fol-lowing questions:

■ Does the physical plant haveproblems? What are they?

■ Are maintenance issues in-creasing? (Consider the ageof the facility and the implica-tions of 24–7 operations as apart of the context.)

■ Has the average daily inmatepopulation increased to the

6

NEW JAIL PLANNING

extent that inmates are boardedout? How does this changerelate to the length of stay andadmissions?

■ What factors led to thesechanges?

Current Use

This type of information is re-ferred to as an “inmate profile.”It should do more than simply de-scribe the demographic character-istics and criminal background of the jail population. It needs awider perspective that includes thejustice system’s alternatives formanaging the population that“uses” jail space. Such a perspec-tive will help planners define thetype of beds, programs, and/orprocedural changes needed.

Conditions and Issues

Documenting the existing jail’scapacity shortfalls and problemswith the physical plant can be acomplicated process. The follow-ing sources of information areuseful:

■ Jail inspection reports. If is-sues are well documented injail inspection reports, plannerscan chart the inspectors’ areasof concern. It is important tolook back far enough to showpatterns and determine howlong the problems have existed.

■ Legal documents. If issueshave led to litigation and/or aconsent judgment, the relateddocuments will be informative.

■ Facilities department records.Records from the facilities de-partment can show the impactof a problem on costs and otheraspects of jail operations. Plan-ners may also want to obtain anengineer’s review of the currentfacilities. Showing cost impactsis always a good idea, but plan-ners must be prepared to ex-plain why the proposed changeis more cost effective than justcontinuing to “fix” things.

■ Records on boarding inmates.If crowding is part of the prob-lem, planners should obtain financial information on thecosts of boarding inmates (in-cluding transportation costs).Approaching this task as a mar-ket analysis—i.e., determiningfor how long reasonably con-venient boarding beds will beavailable to the jurisdiction at aprice it is willing to pay—maybe helpful.

Long-Term Implications

Planners need to determine thelong-term implications of thephysical plant issues and the vari-ous trends identified in theinformation-gathering process.This task commonly involvesdeveloping jail populationforecasts. Planners need to ask:

■ What will the jail population bein the future if the local crimi-nal justice system continues itscurrent policies and practices?What will it be if the policiesand practices change?

■ How far into the future can werealistically plan?

■ How long can we realisticallyexpect the new facility, as built,to meet the community’sneeds?

At this point in the process, plan-ners typically can estimate howbig the facility should be and howlong it should last. They can an-swer the first big project question:How much capacity is needed?That relates to the second bigquestion: How much will it cost?

7


A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words

Actually showing jail conditions can have more impact than describ-ing them. Digital photography and video can be used to create“video tours” for presentations. Some jurisdictions have placed “vir-tual tours” on their Web site. Speeding up a time-lapse video of acongested area (e.g., a sallyport) can show traffic problems withoutjeopardizing privacy or security.

Using Findings From theNeeds Assessment

The information gathered duringthe needs assessment constitutesthe basic elements. More detailedinformation will be developed aspotential solutions are explored.Typically, this more detailed infor-mation goes first to a key group of policymakers—the core groupappointed earlier. At this stage ofthe support-building process, acritical task for the core group isto determine how to take thisinformation to the wider commu-nity. This is the second oppor-tunity to build support for theproject. Planners should go backto the list of potential supportersgenerated earlier and invite thosewhose participation is needed inthis phase of the process.

At this point, planners need to be aware of a myth about jail projects: that a project has justone “public information cam-paign” and that planners mustwait until they have all of the an-swers before taking the project tothe public. More often, the cam-paign has two phases. The first fo-cuses on identifying problems anddocumenting needs, the second onexamining options. Although, asmentioned earlier, it is a mistaketo respond to questions premature-ly, it is also counterproductive towait too long to bring the publicinto the process.

Part 1: Share the Problems andFindings

When the needs assessment hasbeen completed, planners willhave a great deal of informationand a good idea of what should bedone to address the problem. Theymust, however, continue to resistthe temptation to leap into the so-lution. Starting the campaign withthe solution may make people feelthat they have not had an opportu-nity for input, and this can back-fire later in the project.

Regardless of the tactics chosenfor taking project information tothe public, the information mustmove beyond the core group atthis point. How planners approachthis task is critical and can shapethe kind of support the project receives.

The focus at this stage is:

■ What is the problem with theexisting jail?

■ Why should people care aboutthis problem?

■ What is known about the cur-rent situation?

■ What is needed?

■ What options are available foraddressing the problem?

It is important during this stage todevelop a statement of the prob-lem, not the solution. The overallstrategy should be a blend of in-formation, education, involve-ment, and participation. Asplanners take the information tothe public, they should ask peoplefor their thoughts, input, andquestions. Planners are not askingpeople for the solution. Rather,they want to encourage discussionand find out what people need toknow to support the project. Forexample, planners might ask:

■ What is your reaction to whatwe’ve presented about the situation?

8

NEW JAIL PLANNING

Going Public With the Information

■ Use the personal touch. Plan campaign events as you would plana party. Send invitations. Call people and invite them personally.A small notice in the newspaper is not enough. The campaignwill need telephone and clerical support to ensure that the peo-ple who should be involved in the project are there, at the table,when they are needed.

■ Speak carefully. People will remember the first things you sayabout the project for a long time. Speakers should not say morethan they know, and they should be willing to simply say “I don’tknow” if that is the case. They should avoid using “jail jargon.”

■ What responsibility does thejail have to the community—and the community to the jail?

■ What does the community want to achieve by incarcerat-ing people?

■ What approaches should weconsider to address the prob-lems we’ve described?

■ What criteria should we use inevaluating the options?

This phase will probably generatea list of questions that plannerscannot yet answer. The list, whichwill help to focus the next stageof work and the support-buildingcampaign, is likely to include thebig project questions:

■ What will it cost to build thejail?

■ What will it cost to operate it?

■ What will it look like?

■ Where will it be located?

■ Which option is the “best fit”for the community?

Planners must not “shoot from thehip” to answer these questions.They should explain that they willfind answers and create opportuni-ties for sharing them with the pub-lic. Regardless of what plannersthink about the options suggestedby the public, they should list allof them and develop evaluationsthat address them. Presenting re-sponses to these questions at a

later date can be another opportu-nity to bring people into theprocess. A number of new poten-tial supporters may emerge duringthis stage, and planners shouldconsider inviting them to becomemore involved by joining the plan-ning team, attending planningwork sessions, or following theproject’s progress via a newsletter,a Web site, or another medium. (Asign-in sheet should be used at allgatherings to get names, address-es, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for a mailing list.)

Part 2: Look for the Solution

Moving from the needs assess-ment phase to a specific plan formeeting those needs requiresbringing three elements into bal-ance: (1) what the facts say shouldbe done, (2) what people’s valuesmake them want to do, and (3)what the available resources saycan be done. It means dealingwith economic feasibility and adetailed cost/benefit analysis ofeach option. It requires developinga prearchitectural program forphysical plant solutions andanalyzing the operating costsassociated with each option. Thecosts of alternatives to jail con-finement need to be part of theequation. Several repetitions ofthis cycle may be necessary toachieve an appropriate balance.

Framing the options effectively isimportant. “Doing nothing”

should be included as an option,to demonstrate what will happenif the problem is ignored. It is use-ful to develop general options thatcan apply to more than one sug-gestion (e.g., “expand capacity byrenovating an existing building”can apply to various locations).Now is the time to evaluate thelaundry list of suggestions fromthe public.

At this point in the process, thecore group is one of the greatestresources. The group can helpplanners anticipate questions andissues as they prepare for thenext public event, where they willpresent their initial evaluationsand encourage further discussionof the options. Planners will needto develop the quantitative,cost/benefit portion of each op-tion before the event. Membersof the public who participate inthe event can be asked what theysee as the strengths and weak-nesses of each option, so theirviews can be incorporated intothe final recommendation for apreferred option.

If the forum used in Part 1 workedwell, it can be used again for thisevent. If not, alternatives shouldbe considered. Media strategiesshould be in place at this point.Planners should talk to the editori-al board of the local newspaper, aswell as the reporter who usuallycovers county government. Nowis the time to strengthen or repair

9


relationships with the media, be-cause the project will need theirhelp later. Now is also the time toreview the list of potential sup-porters and opponents created ear-lier and re-extend the invitation tobecome involved.

In most jurisdictions, the decisionto adopt a particular solution ulti-mately falls to the elected offi-cials. The work of the coregroup—to which the public hashad access and input—leads to arecommendation. The mechanismfor making the recommendationvaries:

■ It may come from the coregroup, county administration,or a consultant.

■ It may be in the form of a mo-tion by a member of the countycommission or other body ofelected officials.

■ It may be in the form of a rec-ommendation from a subcom-mittee (in jurisdictions with alarger group of electedofficials).

Articulating and Refiningthe Message

A “case for support,” mentionedin the title of this section, is a con-cept borrowed from the world ofnonprofit organizations, whichrely on individual, corporate, andfoundation funding for much oftheir revenue. In that context, a

case for support is a documentthat explains why people shouldcontribute their resources to theorganization, allowing it to carryout its mission. In the context oflocal government, a case for sup-port may not be a written docu-ment, but it has a similar intent.When planners build a case forsupport for new jail construction,they are asking the public to allowtax dollars to be applied to helpcarry out a specific mission, andsometimes they are asking thepublic to show that support byvoting on an initiative.

All of the elements of a case forsupport have been developed dur-ing the planning process, whichtypically takes months or evenyears. A great deal of informationhas been assembled and much

group work has been done. Plan-ners have held public meetingsand made presentations. All ofthis is the groundwork for whatcomes next: reducing this infor-mation to its essence and shapingthe message to be taken to thebroader community. For the restof the support-building campaign,the message is the focus. A varietyof tactics will be used to get themessage out, and all details of theproject must be kept current andavailable for use as questionsarise.

Developing CampaignStrategies

Information-gathering and otheractivities up to this point createa kind of infrastructure for the

10

NEW JAIL PLANNING

Elements of a Case for Support

■ Mission. Why the community has a jail and how the current fa-cility contributes to the mission. (The current jail may actuallybe a barrier.)

■ Impact on the environment. The big picture. How does the cur-rent facility influence the community and other elements of thejustice system?

■ Problem statement. What has to change. The problem statementshould include both logical components and emotional or value-based components. Different audiences will gravitate to differentcomponents.

■ Options and answers. What options have been considered andwhat has been identified as the best solution for the community.

■ How you can help. How citizens can help with this problem.

support-building campaign tocome—a two-way pipeline thattakes information from the coregroup to the wider communityand then brings the community’sreactions and input back to thecore group. Planners now need touse that infrastructure to buildbroader support within thecommunity.

Jail projects usually need morethan one support-building strategy.One approach to choosing strate-gies is to identify potential targetgroups and then match strategiesto the project’s likely impact oneach target group and to the leveland kind of support needed fromeach group.

Identifying Target Groups:Whose Support Is Needed?

The many groups and individualswhose support is required over thelife of the project are known as“stakeholders.” If project planninghas been under way for a while,the list of stakeholders is probablyquite long.

Planners should guard against thetendency to lump together a num-ber of stakeholders into a singlegroup, “the public.” The public isfar from unified. Furthermore, notidentifying specific stakeholderscan cause planners to overlook in-fluential groups, including onesthat could stop or significantly de-lay the project. Again, the core

11


group can help identify peoplewhose support the project needs.

Although planners may not yetbe able to identify every groupwhose support they will need,now is the time to start thinkingabout details. (For example,“groups that represent particularsegments of the community”might include the Chamber ofCommerce, labor organizations,senior citizens’ groups, socialactivists, and church groups.)Identifying potential opponentswithin these target groups is es-sential; ignoring potential oppo-nents can place the project ingreat peril, as a number of juris-dictions have learned the hardway.

Matching Strategy to theLevel of Impact

A jail construction project’s im-pact on a particular target groupmay be high, moderate, minimal,or none at all. The level of impactis an important factor in choosingstrategies for building support.Planners should consider the po-tential impact of the project on:

■ The immediate neighborhood.

■ People who work in the facility.

■ People who work in other jus-tice system agencies.

■ The jurisdiction in which thefacility will be located, espe-cially if this is changing.

■ Taxpayers, especially thosewho may be disproportionatelyaffected.

In assessing potential impact,planners need to be aware of thetarget group’s perception of theimpact. Planners’ familiarity with jails can get in the way of

Potential Stakeholders

■ Groups in localgovernment.

■ Groups in the justice system.

■ Regulators (of any aspect of the project).

■ Agencies that serve the jail’sclientele.

■ Agencies that use the jail’sservices.

■ “Movers and shakers” inthe community.

■ Voter groups.

■ Groups that representparticular segments of thecommunity.

■ Groups with a potentialaffinity for the jail’s mission.

■ Groups (organized or not) that could block theproject.

■ Neighbors.

This list is not exhaustive;planners need to identify thestakeholders in their owncommunity.

accurately assessing how othersmight react to the project. There-fore, it may make sense to simplyask people if and how they thinkthe project will affect them.

The rule of thumb for matchingsupport-building strategy to level

of impact is: The greater the po-tential impact of the project on atarget group, the more the strategyshould emphasize the active involvement of target group mem-bers. When in doubt, assume ahigher level of impact.

12

NEW JAIL PLANNING

Case Study: When Impact AssessmentsGo Right…and Wrong

The location selected by County A for its new jail facility was morethan a mile from the nearest community, except for one large luxu-ry home right next door. Planners ran into problems because theymiscalculated the project’s impact.

The project team correctly identified the potential impact on theneighbor. Elected officials met with the neighbor, using a strategythat asked for the neighbor’s input and participation in areas ofconcern. They illustrated how the project could actually help theneighbor and then made those things happen. As a result, theneighbor became a strong supporter of the project.

On the other hand, planners initially thought the project would not have much impact on the community—the jail would be barelyvisible from the nearest homes. But community residents, who re-ceived only general information about the project, reacted basedon how they perceived the jail would affect them, responding froman emotional perspective rather than a factual one. Worried aboutproperty values, the safety of children walking to school, and thepresence of released inmates in the community, residents organizedand then began a campaign to stop the project. The situation be-came a major local news story.

The project team quickly increased opportunities for community input—“listening meetings” for residents, and meetings with or-ganized neighborhood groups, the local press, and the city council.The project team encouraged residents to e-mail their questionsand concerns and then responded to every concern voiced. Resis-tance to the project decreased, and the “stop the project” cam-paign ended. One year after the new jail opened, the local paperran a full-page story under the headline “County A Kept ItsPromise.”

Matching Strategy to theLevel of Support Needed

The greater the level of supportneeded from a specific targetgroup, the more planners willneed to use strategies that emphasize the active involvementof potential supporters. At thevery least, these potential support-ers will need:

■ Information to help them makeinformed decisions.

■ An opportunity to express theirconcerns.

■ Assurance that their concernshave been considered by projectdecisionmakers.

■ Access to a forum in whichthey can participate if theywish.

Matching Strategy to theKind of Support Needed

Jail construction projects needmany different kinds of sup-port. One more way to choose asupport-building strategy is tothink about the kind of supportneeded. Planners should considerthe following questions:

■ Do we need this group to takean action? How much effortwill be required? Example: Weneed the public to vote to sup-port this project.

■ Do we need this group to ap-prove all or a portion of the

project? Example: We need thejail inspection agency to ap-prove a request for a variance.

■ Will the needed action cost thisgroup something, either finan-cially or nonfinancially? Howhigh is that cost? Example: Weneed the city council to changea practice so that it would allowthe jail to connect to a watertreatment plant.

■ Do we need this group to re-frain from acting? Example: Weneed the church across thestreet from the preferred sitenot to seek an injunction stop-ping acquisition of the property.

■ Is the nature of support politi-cal? Financial? An approval?Moral? Spiritual?

In the “County C” case study, thejail project team clearly neededpolitical support from the com-missioners. They also neededsupport from “the public”—justnot the kind of support theythought they would need. Some-times public support is more thana willingness to vote for the proj-ect. It can include verbal andwritten support from key con-stituencies and something thatseems very much like “moralsupport” for the project.

County C’s experience also illus-trates how strategies that workwhen planners need the most di-rect action and the highest level ofsupport can be equally effective

13


Case Study: A Multilevel Strategy for a Complex Situation

Geographically large and sparsely populated, County B needed anew jail. The jail would be funded by a special sales tax, to be ap-proved in a countywide referendum. Each city council in the countyhad to pass a resolution to put the tax initiative on the county bal-lot. The jail project team planned a two-phase support-buildingcampaign to convince first the city officials and then the voters.

County B’s large city, the county seat, had a somewhat contentiousrelationship with the smaller cities, which included many agricultur-al communities and a “free-thinking” resort town. Nevertheless, thecounty had a history of successful capital project initiatives built onnegotiation. For the jail project, that meant offering the cities in-centives in the form of local projects to be included on the county-wide ballot; the local projects had to be relatively small, though, tobalance the cost of the jail.

The jail project team put together an education program, present-ing their case for support to all of the city councils and to organizedgroups in each city. Meanwhile, the county commissioners negotiat-ed with the mayors to define the local projects to be included onthe referendum. After much negotiation, the municipalities ap-proved the initiative.

Then the project team created an easy-to-use presentation and tookit anywhere they could—senior centers, church groups, the countyfair—more than 100 presentations in all. The capital projects taxpassed with 63 percent of the vote.

PROJECT IMPACT ON THE TARGET

NONE MINIMAL MODERATE HIGH

STRATEGY

NONE EDUCATION INPUT PARTICIPATION

LEVEL OF PROJECT SUPPORT NEEDED

NONE MINIMAL MODERATE HIGH

INFORMATION

Support Targets, Strategies, and Tactics

when the situation calls for lessdirect action. County C opted forthe highest level of education andinvolvement and obtained supportfor its project.

This section has discussed strate-gies local jurisdictions can use tobuild community support for jailprojects. As noted earlier, whereasstrategies are general approaches,tactics are the actions taken to car-ry out strategies. Tactics should beconscious choices that reflect theenvironment in which planners areoperating.

Tactics

Support-building tactics fall intotwo categories: (1) informationdissemination and (2) input and

participation. In reality, however,the same tactic may serve bothpurposes; the distinction is in theintent. (For example, plannersmay send out a mailing to informthe public about the options theyconsidered in choosing a site.Their purpose may be to justifythe choice or to open a public dia-log about it.)

Information DisseminationTactics

There are many ways for jail proj-ects to get the word out. Thissection discusses three broadcategories—the written word, thespoken word, and images. (Sometactics may combine all three.)The section also notes additionaltools (jail tours, radio and televi-

sion, and Web sites) and high-lights some points to keep in mindwhen developing information dis-semination tactics.

The Written Word

All projects use some form of thewritten word. These forms includeproject documents, fact sheets,and newspaper articles, editorials,and letters to the editor.

Project documents such as theneeds assessment, master plan, orfeasibility study are the source ofchoice for people who want toknow the details of the project.Make sure the documents are at-tractive and readable. If they arelengthy, provide a summary.These documents are public infor-mation, so make it easy for people

14

NEW JAIL PLANNING

Case Study: A Cautious Approach to an Unusual Situation

County C had no jail—only a small holding facility. Its arrangement of boarding inmates in three other jurisdictions had worked fairly well, but costs were rising, the jail that held most of the inmates was becoming crowded, and a new court order meant the county had to start a shuttle service for work-release inmates.

County C had the capacity and authority to issue a jail construction bond without asking voters for approval. The three county commissioners agreed that building a jail made sense, but they were con-cerned about the political consequences of either proceeding without a referendum or holding a referendum, being turned down by the voters, and then having to build the jail anyway.

The commissioners chose to undertake an extensive public education campaign before deciding whetherto put the issue up for a vote. They held several large public meetings, asking all participants how theythought the county should proceed. Participants were concerned about the potential cost of the project,but they were more concerned about the costs of failing to address the issue. At one of the meetings, a resident said that the commissioners were elected to make these hard decisions and, if the facts wereas clear as presented, they had little choice. “Why put it on the ballot if you know you have to do it anyway?” Ultimately, the commissioners came to the same conclusion. All of the commissioners were re-elected.

to access them (e.g., post the doc-uments on the project Web site ina downloadable format).

Fact sheets provide the essentialfacts about the project, typicallyas a bifold or trifold brochure or asingle sheet of paper that can bemailed or used as a handout. Thefact sheet should summarize infor-mation such as jail size, cost,capacity, and key features. Somejurisdictions use a question-and-answer format to present theinformation.

Newspapers can inform the com-munity about any aspect of theproject. Although a full discussionof media relations is beyond thescope of this bulletin, plannersshould be aware of some basicconsiderations:

■ Articles. In many jurisdictions,jail projects have worked withreporters who routinely coverthe police or courthouse beat todo stories about the jail. Thesestories can be an excellent wayof describing the problem, theconsequences of inaction, andthe options. Planners shouldtry to get reporters interested in writing about the jail beforethe time for key decisions arrives. They should rememberthat controversy means morecoverage, but it also shifts thecoverage away from the facts:Ideally, articles focus on theproject, not the people involved.

■ Editorials. Editorials are espe-cially important if the projectwill require a vote. The projectteam should meet with the edi-torial board to make a case forsupport. The team should try toanticipate issues the editorialboard members may raise andshould listen carefully to theirviews.

■ Letters to the editor. Mostnewspapers print letters to theeditor on topics of local inter-est. Government officials maynot be in a position to writeletters on behalf of the jail proj-ect, but private citizens whosupport the project can do so.

The Spoken Word

The spoken word may be the mostpowerful form of information dis-semination; it can either buildsupport or create obstacles. Oneunderrated but important aspect ofbuilding support is the willingnessof people who are involved with

the project to speak up for it.Project participants can share theirknowledge with friends and fami-ly and influence them to becomeadvocates for the project.

Project “insiders” must alwaysspeak with one voice. This doesnot mean becoming “yes men”who never challenge options andpositions in private. It does mean,however, sticking with a decisiononce it is made. Nothing is moredetrimental to a project (or abigger story for the press) thandivision within the ranks.

The spoken word includes bothformal presentations and informalconversation. Both are importantto the success of the project.

Formal presentations can occurin a variety of settings:

■ Presentations to elected offi-cials. These usually occur asproject milestones are achieved(e.g., completion of the needs

15


Case Study: Preparing To Meet the Editorial Board

County D’s relationship with the local press was generally good.However, several months before the jail project team’s plannedmeeting with the editorial board of the daily paper, the county hadmoved its legal notices to a smaller weekly paper as a cost-savingmeasure. The team, correctly anticipating that the daily paperwould not be happy about this, decided to acknowledge the situa-tion in their meeting with the board.

The team also reviewed current themes in the paper’s editorials.One theme that emerged was consolidation of government services.In its case for support to the editorial board, the team emphasizedaspects of the project that were consistent with this theme.

assessment) and may be largelyceremonial. If the project teamis working well, there should beno surprises. These presenta-tions are opportunities to bringthe project to the attention ofthe media and of an audiencewho may be attending themeeting for other purposes.

■ Community meetings. If ameeting is purely informational,make sure participants leavewith a written summary (e.g.,the project fact sheet). Peopleoften do not remember much ofwhat they hear, and having thefacts in writing guards againstdifferent versions emergingfrom the same presentation. Re-inforce the spoken word withphotographs or other images.

■ Speakers bureaus. Creatinga “speakers bureau”—a groupof knowledgeable people whoare prepared to speak about theproject—is a tried-and-true

way of getting the word out.The project team should active-ly seek out target groups whosesupport the project needs andask if they are looking forluncheon speakers. Speakersmust be consistent in theirpresentations:

● Use a script. These presenta-tions will be brief, typically20 minutes or less. Speakersshould use an outline. If atall possible, they should incorporate a video or an au-tomated visual presentation(such as PowerPoint) to sum-marize key points.

● Develop a list of questionsand answers. All presenta-tions are likely to include aquestion-and-answer period.The project’s core groupshould try to anticipate ques-tions and prepare speakers toanswer them. Speakers mustalso be prepared to say “I’mnot sure, but I’ll find out and

get back to you” or “We’reworking on that and we’llhave an answer at a latertime.” Each speaker shouldcontribute to a list of ques-tions asked and answersgiven, to keep informationcurrent and consistent.

Informal conversations can beone of the most effective waysof sharing information about theproject. Every community has itsplaces where people congregatefor morning coffee or after-worksocializing. Keeping in mind thecaveats (consistency, etc.) for for-mal presentations, project insidersshould take advantage of these op-portunities to talk about the proj-ect. This approach, particularlywhen combined with active listen-ing, can give the project team agood feel for what the communityis thinking.

Images

Pictures can be worth a thousandwords—if they convey the intend-ed message. They can also combatmisinformation about the natureof jails as institutions and as pub-lic buildings. Photographs andvideos are useful for describingproblems in the existing jail andshowing what the new jail will belike. Digital technology makes iteasy to create “before-and-after”images. Charts and graphsmake statistical information aboutthe project clearer and give itgreater impact.

16

NEW JAIL PLANNING

Tours

Although virtual tours are a goodway to generate interest in andsupport for a project, there isnothing like an actual tour of theexisting jail. Keep in mind that thetour guide is familiar with the jailbut the “guests” are not. Theguide needs to point out thingsand explain why they are impor-tant or a problem. Consider usinga script with key points to empha-size during tours, and set expecta-tions for “tour guides.”

Radio and Television

Most media outlets are required toprovide some public service pro-gramming, and some jurisdictionshave access to their own stations.At key points in the campaign,talk shows can be a useful wayto inform the public. Participantsshould know topics and questionsin advance. They should also con-sider the show’s audience and beprepared for call-in questions.Round table discussions are an-other potentially useful format.These discussions can be eitherscripted or freeform but alwaysneed a focus.

At times, the project may attractmainstream media coverage.The project team should have anumber of 20-second sound bitesprepared for these occasions,which are good opportunities tobe “on message” and to interestpeople in learning more about theproject by coming to communitymeetings, calling a hotline, or vis-iting a Web site.

Web Sites

Web sites can potentially combinemost of the informational mediadiscussed in this section and serveas a vehicle for input from thecommunity (e.g., online surveys,question-and-answer pages).However, jail projects need to beaware of two critical aspects ofWeb sites:

■ Development and mainte-nance costs. Good Web sitesrequire considerable effort todevelop and maintain. Informa-tion must be updated regularly.If a project lasts several years,this can involve considerableinvestment of time and effort.

■ Getting people to use the site.Web sites are generally passive;they do not seek their own au-diences. The team will need astrategy for sending people tothe site.

17


Case Study: Outreach via Public Access Television

County F’s public television station was always looking for things tofill air time. The jail project team scripted and filmed four presenta-tions on key project topics. Each segment included information, dis-cussion by team members and interested citizens, and relatedimages. The segments ended with an invitation to call the project’shotline and come to its regularly scheduled public meetings. Whenthe station ran the presentations prior to the meetings, hotline callsincreased and “new faces” appeared at the meetings.

Case Study: UsingVideo To Contrast theOld and the New

County E’s jail was more than100 years old. The exteriorblended with the nearbycourthouse and administrationbuilding, but inside, the struc-ture had all the problems of a19th-century building in the21st century. The project teamdocumented these problemsin a digital video, which theyshot, edited, and producedthemselves. The team used thevideo in a presentation thatbegan with NIC’s “Beyond theMyths” video (see sidebar,page 3), which includesfootage of contemporary facil-ities and provides many im-ages of functional areas.County E’s video used imagesof the same areas in the oldjail, creating a clear contrast.

Points To Keep in Mind

Jail project teams should keepseveral things in mind as theychoose and implement informa-tion dissemination tactics, espe-cially when ballot initiatives areinvolved.

■ The overall campaign. Mostprojects use many differentmethods to get the word out.Information dissemination tac-tics should be part of an overallcampaign that is timed to theproject’s schedule and keyevents.

■ Project cycles. Projects havenatural cycles. Periods of quiet

work and preparation alternatewith periods of intense publicactivity, but planners alwaysneed to keep the project in thepublic eye.

■ Timing. The project teamshould carefully consider thetiming of announcements andpresentations. (Timing is alsoan issue in scheduling the ballotinitiative itself. Should it bepart of an off-year election?Should it be a special election?What other initiatives are likelyto be on the ballot? Who islikely to vote in the election be-ing considered?)

■ Signs and slogans. Theseshould reflect the project’s mes-sage and be readily identifiable.The language should be clear(ballot language often is not).

■ Opinion pieces. Elected offi-cials and citizen organizations(e.g., League of Women Voters)usually put out pro-and-conmailings on each initiative in anelection. This is also an oppor-tunity for the jail project teamto state its case.

■ Legal issues. In many states,it is illegal for a local govern-ment to advocate for a ballotinitiative. Governments usuallycan provide information, butnot money, for advertising,signs, etc. The project teamshould know the rules in itsjurisdiction.

■ The target audience. The proj-ect team should match each information dissemination tac-tic to the intended audience.This requires an awareness ofthe kinds of things the commu-nity responds to.

Input and ParticipationTactics

Any of the information dissemina-tion tactics in the previous sectioncan become a means for inputand participation, if the audienceis encouraged to become activelyinvolved in the exchange of infor-mation. The project team shouldbe aware of opportunities for in-put and participation in two con-texts: (1) the organized groupsthat are directly involved in theproject and (2) the general public.

Organized Groups

Jurisdictions often establish aplanning group during both themaster planning and prearchitec-tural programming phases of a jailproject. An earlier section dis-cussed the role of the project’score group—people who have ahigh stake in the outcome of theproject and were involved in get-ting it started. However, plannersshould also seek input from jailstaff (e.g., the person currentlyresponsible for booking can helpplan how that function will workin the new jail). In addition tocontributing valuable information

18

NEW JAIL PLANNING

Case Study: Promotingthe Project Web Site

To get people to check itsWeb site more regularly,County G’s jail project teamadded a live-time daily featurethat showed how many in-mates were boarded out andthe costs to date, and aphoto/video series that typical-ly showed time-lapse imagesof key areas of the jail (e.g.,the vehicle sallyport). Theteam also found a sponsor topurchase pens, pencils, and in-expensive computer gear withthe project’s Web address.These items were distributedat every presentation. TheWeb site was also featured onthe title page of all projectdocuments.

to the planning process, these in-dividuals can advocate for theproject with their peers.

An earlier section discussed thepotential use of advisory groupsas a means of involving a broaderspectrum of the community in thejail project. These groups, withtheir outsider’s perspective (i.e.,outside the criminal justice sys-tem), can also provide a “sense”test for the project team: if theproject makes sense to them, it islikely to make sense to the com-munity members they represent.Advisory groups can also add le-gitimacy to the project and mayactually become part of the teamthat takes the project to the public.

The General Public

Jail projects can use a number ofdifferent approaches to encourag-ing the active involvement ofcommunity members:

■ Public hearings. All local gov-ernments are familiar with thesehighly structured events. Achairperson runs the meeting,attendees must register tospeak, speaking times are limit-ed, and there is no opportunityfor dialog (the convening grouptakes comments under advise-ment and acts at a later date).

■ Listening meetings. At thesemeetings, the convening offi-cials simply listen to citizens.Less formal than a public

hearing, a listening meeting isparticularly useful in helpingofficials learn what the publicsees as the issues in acontroversy.

■ Surveys. These may be tradi-tional public opinion surveys inwhich the jurisdiction polls ascientific sample of citizens todetermine their opinions or theextent of support for an initia-tive. Less formal surveys canalso be useful.

■ Focus groups. Focus groupsare smaller meetings in whichparticipants interact with a fa-cilitator and each other. Partici-pants may be selected randomlyor from specific subgroups of

the community. These sessionsprovide more of an opportunityfor dialog and can give theproject team a deeper under-standing of public perceptionson a particular topic. A recordof the discussion is kept for ref-erence purposes.

■ Community meetings. Alsoknown as public forums, thesegatherings are likely to involvelarger numbers of people. Tra-ditionally, they have been usedto disseminate information;with a little effort, they can be-come a vehicle for input andparticipation. This usually re-quires more than simply askingfor questions at the end of apresentation. One approach isto use structured small-groupdiscussions with a “report out”from a group representative.These discussions focus on aspecific task, such as respond-ing to questions relevant to thecurrent stage of the project. Inaddition to announcing meet-ings in the local paper and otheroutlets, the project team shouldkeep lists of attendees and per-sonally invite them to futuremeetings.

■ Neighborhood or specialgroup meetings. The projectteam should actively seek outtwo kinds of groups: (1) thosemost affected by the project and(2) those whose support is es-sential. The team should be

19


Case Study: Surveys asTwo-Way InformationPipelines

The project team in County Hthought that residents neededa better understanding ofwhat the jail does. The teamassembled a public safety“test,” which included ques-tions about the jail (includinghow it differs from a prison).The test was distributed to asmany groups as possible (in-cluding shoppers at the localmall), along with answers thatprovided critical informationabout the jail. This processalso gave team members op-portunities to discuss the com-munity’s jail problem.

proactive, taking the project tothe group rather than waitingfor the group to make the firstmove. Team members shouldattend regularly scheduledmeetings of any group in thesetwo categories.

Putting It Together:One Community’s Experience

One community’s experience withbuilding support for a jail projectillustrates how the elements dis-cussed in this bulletin can worktogether in a winning strategy. Italso illustrates how small thingscan influence outcomes and howprojects can learn from failures.

The Initial Campaign

County X knew it had a problemwith its 100-year-old, 120-bed

jail, which was crowded, ineffi-cient to operate, and becomingdifficult to maintain. The sheriff,county board, and county admin-istrator agreed that a “quick fix”would not work this time. (Just 5years earlier, the county had con-verted a former warehouse into an80-bed minimum-security facility,solving its bedspace problem at areasonable cost. But the jail popu-lation increased again, and nowthe county was boarding inmatesin other jails.) The county hired anarchitect and a consultant to helpplan a new jail.

Believing that the best approachwould be to develop a good solu-tion and then educate the publicabout it prior to the required refer-endum, the county worked withthe consultants to complete a pop-ulation forecast, a prearchitecturalprogram, and a schematic designfor a 6-story, 600-bed jail on thesame site as the current jail. Thecounty established a $50 millionbudget for the project and devel-oped a presentation that highlight-ed the problem, the rationale forthe solution, and what the new fa-cility would look like. The sheriffand other county representatives,along with the architect, mademore than 200 presentations tocommunity groups in a public ed-ucation campaign.

The Obstacle

Officials believed they had madethe best choice and had put to-gether a strong case for support.However, one segment of thecommunity strongly disagreed andwas highly motivated to do some-thing about it.

As the shape of the new jail facili-ty emerged, a group of homeown-ers who lived on the bluff abovethe jail became concerned that the new structure would blocktheir view of the river. This neighborhood group attended pub-lic presentations and spoke outabout issues that resonated withthe rest of the community. (Oneopponent later said the group pur-posely used the cost issue to de-feat the project rather than relyingon the more parochial issue of thefacility’s height.) The group foundfinancial supporters and placedprominent “NO” signs in yards.

The county tried various strategiesto counter the neighborhoodgroup’s influence, but it lost thereferendum by more than 10 per-centage points. Unfortunately, thejail problem remained.

Learning From Experience

County X policymakers decidedto ask residents why they had notsupported the referendum. Withthe help of a professional plan-ning consultant, the county held a

20

NEW JAIL PLANNING

Case Study: Makingthe Most of a Community Meeting

At its community meeting, theCounty I jail project seatedparticipants at round tablesfor eight, with an advisorygroup member at each table.After the formal presentation,each table developed criteriafor evaluating options to ad-dress the jail problem. Thesecriteria were eventuallygrouped into the evaluationtool used by the project team.

community summit at which allresidents—not just the mostvocal—had input.

Several issues emerged:

■ The project was seen as too ex-pensive and too large.

■ No other options (e.g., alterna-tives to incarceration, increasedefficiency in the justice system)had been considered.

■ Community members had notbeen invited to participate inthe process.

After the summit, the county es-tablished a strategically named ad-visory group—the CommunityJail and Alternatives AdvisoryCommittee (CJAAC)—consistingof representatives from the crimi-nal justice system and the commu-nity (including residents who hadopposed the project). CJAACworked with system efficienciesfor about a year and concludedthat the county still had a facilityproblem. It made two recommen-dations that shaped the course ofthe project:

■ The consultant would workwith CJAAC in an open, publicprocess.

■ The consultant would addresssystem issues and alternativesbefore moving toward a facilitysolution (i.e., building a newjail).

Starting Over

The first support-building cam-paign had focused on publiceducation. The second focusedinstead on public involvementin the planning process (andtherefore lasted about three timesas long). The county and CJAACwere determined to address all ofthe issues identified at the summitand to listen carefully for new issues that emerged during thepublic planning process. As a re-sult, the second support-buildingcampaign ran parallel to the plan-ning process.

Planning

County X completed a needs as-sessment that focused on describ-ing the problem and examininghow the justice system functioned.Working with the consultant,CJAAC identified two projecttracks:

■ The program track. New pro-gram approaches to manage thejail population and reduce re-cidivism (substance abuse andmental health interventions, aprogram for sentenced misde-meanor offenders, and en-hanced educational/vocationalservices for jail inmates) wereidentified and tested. As aresult, potential providers be-came involved in the processand began to speak for it in thecommunity. The project wasnow seen as more than “just ajail.”

■ The facility track. Once thenew programs were developed,CJAAC determined that thecounty needed 375 jail beds,rather than the 600 initially pro-posed. It identified four options:continuing to board prisoners inother locations, adding a thirdfacility, expanding/renovatingone of the existing facilities,and replacing one of the facilities.

21


Responding to Public Input

The input: At County X’s community summits, one participant askedwhy the county hadn’t considered renovating an abandoned hotelto house inmates, and another asked about joining with surround-ing counties to develop a new jail facility.

The response: In developing its facility options, the county workedout the extra staffing costs that would be involved in adding thehotel facility, and the consultant did a “market analysis” that ad-dressed the potential of regionalization. This information was pre-sented at the next community summit.

Building Support

County X, recognizing that it stillneeded a high level of public sup-port, chose a strategy that includ-ed education but focused onparticipation and involvement. Toimplement its strategy, the countyused many of the tactics describedin this bulletin.

During the needs assessment,CJAAC hosted a second com-munity summit. This summit usedstructured groups (participantsseated at round tables with aCJAAC facilitator) to engage participants in defining the jail’smission statement and choosingcriteria for evaluating options.

In the program track phase,CJAAC expanded the project’ssupport infrastructure by creatingstakeholder groups for each of thefour programmatic interventionsbeing developed. These groups,which included community members, service providers, andcriminal justice officials, devel-oped recommendations for thecounty’s Board of Supervisors.During this phase, more than 60community members became in-volved in the planning process.

During the facility track phase,issues raised during the two com-munity summits shaped the op-tions developed by planners, whothen presented the options at a

third community summit. Smallgroups seated at tables withCJAAC representatives discussedthe options and, using the criteriadeveloped at the second summit,selected the top two. In an open-mike forum, a facilitator gatheredinformation from the groups andcreated a prioritized ranking. Par-ticipants then completed a “strawvote” (the ballot had space forcomments/questions), and the re-sults were tabulated and shared.(Interestingly, three of the optionswere very close in lifecycle cost,and all made some use of existingfacilities.)

The Final Campaign

Once recommendations had beensubmitted to the County Board ofSupervisors, CJAAC started thefinal phase of the support-buildingcampaign. Although the publichad been involved throughout theprocess, success at the polls re-quired a broader approach.

Again, County X used many ofthe tactics described in this bul-letin. The Sheriff’s Office hostedmore than 100 jail tours. Theproject’s speakers bureau usedsummit materials in presentationsto community groups. Efforts toaddress concerns raised by the ed-itorial board of the local paper re-sulted in the paper’s endorsementof the project.

Political Developments

As an alternative to achieving therequired 60-percent vote in anoth-er referendum for the jail facility,County X explored the idea of de-veloping a joint-use facility withanother governmental entity. Sucha facility could be approved by asimple majority (more than 50percent). There were obstacles toovercome:

■ The state legislature had to passa minor legislative change.

■ County X had a problematic re-lationship with the likely part-ner, City Y.

■ City Y was planning a new po-lice facility—a good candidatefor joint use. But that projectwas moving forward rapidly.

County X worked with local rep-resentatives and other counties toget the needed legislative change.City Y elected a new mayor andcity council, providing an oppor-tunity for County X to exploreshared interests. The county andcity determined that both wouldbenefit from consolidating someof the jail and police functions(e.g., communications, evidenceand property management, park-ing). They decided to connect thetwo facilities, while maintainingenough separation to allow eachproject to move forward on itsown timetable.

22

NEW JAIL PLANNING

The Outcome

The ballot initiative for the newjail passed by a 58-percent margin.Clearly, the political developmentsincreased the odds of success:Without the joint-facility ap-proach, County X could havedone everything right in itssupport-building efforts and stillfailed. But without CJAAC’s 3-year public planning effort, wouldthe city and county have been ableto collaborate on what could havebeen viewed as an unpopular project?

Conclusion

For a jail project to succeed, proj-ect officials cannot depend on oth-ers to carry the ball. Consultantsand staff can help develop theinformation and structure theprocess, but success requires thepersonal involvement, commit-ment, and leadership of those incharge.

In defining what they can do toincrease the potential for success,project leaders should askthemselves:

■ Am I willing to be associatedwith this project?

■ Will I advocate for an “unpopu-lar” cause?

■ Will I work to transform thatcause into something the com-munity understands and cansupport?

If the answer to all of these ques-tions is yes, now is the time to be-gin working with others on theproject team to build a strong casefor support and a consistent mes-sage. Rather than waiting untilevery question is answered and asolution is selected, the teamshould start right away to buildthe support the project needs totransform it from plan to reality.

23


About the Author

As vice president of a criminaljustice consulting firm, GailElias provides consulting serv-ices in areas such as masterplanning, prearchitectural programming, and transitioninto new facilities. She has authored publications on anumber of criminal justicetopics. Previously, Ms. Eliaswas employed by the BoulderCounty (Colorado) Sheriff’sDepartment as Director of Administration. She holds amaster’s degree in public ad-ministration from the Univer-sity of Colorado, where she iscurrently a doctoral candidate.

This document was prepared underCooperative Agreement Number04J35GJC7 from the National Insti-tute of Corrections, U.S. Departmentof Justice. Points of view or opinionsin this document are those of theauthor and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position orpolicies of the National Instituteof Corrections or the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice.

The National Institute of Corrections re-

serves the right to reproduce, publish,

translate, or otherwise use, and to au-

thorize others to publish and use, all or

part of the copyrighted materials con-

tained in this publication.

NIC Accession Number 021328

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are extended to Virginia Hutchinson, chief of NIC’sJails Division, for her support and to Alan Richardson, Jails Divi-sion Technical Assistance Manager, for his expert guidance andtechnical expertise in bringing this project to fruition. Thanks alsoto Lynn Marble and Amy Salsbury of Lockheed Martin InformationTechnology/Aspen Systems Corporation for their editorial sugges-tions and design expertise.

U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

Washington, DC 20534

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Department of JusticePermit No. G–231

www.nicic.org

Documents

Building Community Support for New Jail Construction · Building community support for new jail construction is not a popular topic among poli-cymakers or between policymakers and