Ten community members stood before the Pima County Board of Supervisors at their meeting Tuesday to thank county officials for not supporting proposals to build a new jail.
Tiera Rainey, the Executive Director of the Tucson Bail Fund, who has been against building a new jail, expressed her support to County Administrator Jan Lesher for “slowing this reactionary process down and looking to incorporate more community stakeholders” into discussions about the future of the Pima County jail.
The county has not yet made a final decision about what to do regarding the current jail. However, county supervisors seemed more intent on finding ways to reduce the jail population than building a new facility.
No community members during the call to audience session spoke in favor of building a new jail, though a recent public survey showed that a plurality of respondents, about 19%, were in favor of building a new jail. About 65% of respondents either work at the jail, formerly worked at the jail or work in law enforcement.
The supervisors’ conversation is coming after the Pima County Adult Detention Center Blue Ribbon Commission, which had been studying over the past year the need and feasibility of building a new jail, delivered its final report to county supervisors on Jan. 31.
Potential next steps, as outlined by Lesher in a Feb. 13 memo and called for by various supervisors at the Feb. 20 meeting, would be further study of the infrastructure of the jail, a detailed assessment of the costs of providing health care in the jail, and how to potentially reduce the jail population. The board may also initiate a new commission to more broadly study who ends up in the jail and why.
Supervisor Matt Heinz (District 2) suggested that the county should set a goal of cutting the population of the jail to about half of where it stands today. He said the goal should be to have 1,000 people or fewer detained in the jail by 2030.
“There are too many people in the jail,” Heinz said. “There are too many Black and Brown people particularly.”
Heinz added that none of the current problems in the jail “can really be addressed until we address the underlying problem with the overpopulation of the jail.”
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos told Arizona Luminaria in an interview later Tuesday that he respects Lesher’s approach to evaluating the current state of the jail. “Let’s get some experts in there,” Nanos said. He said that the county already did that to an extent with the commission, but that now they need to take a deeper look.
Nanos also suggested that the highest estimates of building a new jail may be too high.
“Did anyone look to find someone to do this at a cheaper rate?” he asked.
Lack of data
Supervisor Rex Scott (District 1) said it is hard to properly address the future management of the jail without understanding how many people are held in the jail simply because they can’t afford to pay their bail fee.
Scott noted that he requested Lesher ask Pima County’s Presiding Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Bergin at the beginning of the year for more data to understand how the court imposes bonds and how much those bonds are. Scott lamented the fact that Bergin has not responded to his request.
Scott and Heinz were both seeking ways to reduce the jail population, but expressed frustration that the superior court hasn’t yet provided information to understand who was going to jail and why. Heinz suggested, given that the board of supervisors controls the budget of the court, they could potentially begin funding the court on a month-to-month basis.
“Dark and oppressive”
Board Chair Adelita Grijalva (District 5) said she wants people who work in the jail, who are impacted by the jail, and who have been detained in the jail to be at the table during further county assessments.
“It’s critical we have people serving that population and who have been a part of those programs to let us know what is relevant, what is working and what isn’t working,” Grijalva said.
While touring the jail Grijalva said she saw “definite signs of deferred maintenance.” She also noted the jail is a “very dark and oppressive space. I can’t imagine the mental health for those either working at the jail or people detained there.”
Grijalva said she doesn’t want to automatically increase funding for healthcare in the jail, which was one of the recommendations made by Lesher in her Feb. 13 memo.
“I want to understand how you’re utilizing the funding you already have before we invest more,” Grijalva said.
Grijalva said the jail sees people who may not have visited a doctor in years and who come in with preexisting health conditions. She emphasized the need to partner with outside service providers, like El Rio Community Health Center.
Physical and mental healthcare in the jail has been widely criticized for being delayed and deficient. The county itself has docked the for-profit healthcare provider, NaphCare, for understaffing and failing to meet contractually obligated performance standards.
What was the point of Blue Ribbon Commission?
Supervisor Steve Christy (District 4) questioned what the point of the county’s Blue Ribbon Commission was if they were unable to offer a final recommendation.
“If they can’t come up with a recommendation, what was the purpose of the commission?” Christy asked.
He was referring to the two feasible options the commission laid out in their final report. Those options included:
• Renovating the main part of the jail and constructing a new 1,132-bed housing unit for the price of $623 million;
• or building an entirely new 3,162-bed jail for the price of $858 million.
Christy said that calling for yet further study was “the proverbial kick the can down the road.” The broader questions the other supervisors are now asking should have been assessed with the original commission, he said.
“Reduction of beds, reduction of sentences, more programs — who is responsible for running the jail?” Christy asked. He then answered himself: “The sheriff, not the Board of Supervisors.”
“Why are we trying to tell the sheriff how to run his jail?” Christy said.
The supervisors have a fiduciary responsibility to manage taxpayer dollars and oversee budgets for various county entities, including the jail.
Responding to Christy’s statement, Nanos told Arizona Luminaria, “I’m glad he sees that it’s my job to run the jail.” The sheriff mentioned that for any supervisor who has not already toured the jail, he would welcome them to do so and “see it with their own eyes.”
After each of the supervisors weighed in, the board decided Lesher would come back to the next meeting, on March 5, with details about finalizing next steps. She said she would provide more “financial granularity” about how much further assessments of the jail’s physical condition, as well as a broader study of the county’s approach to criminal justice, would cost.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
