The condition of Hawaii state corrections facilities — overcrowded and outdated — has been a source of discussion for years. But before real money is spent on rebuilding, those discussions about the capacity and purpose of jails and prison structures must come to a conclusion.
Even within the realm of current expenditures and budgeting, $1 million still qualifies as “real money.”
That’s why it would be best to table the proposal by the Department of Public Safety to ask lawmakers for $1 million to commission a study of public-
private partnerships as a potential model for a prison modernization plan.
This week Nolan Espinda, the department’s director, offered that proposal in pursuit of “professional advice” about using partnerships to design, build and possibly finance prison or jail projects.
He said such arrangements have been tried in other states, to contract with a private company to build the prison or jail and then lease it back to the state.
It might make sense to apply that model to projects such as the construction of a new Maui jail, the expansion of the Women’s Community Correctional Center or the relocation of the Oahu Community Correctional Center, Espinda said.
Whether or not he is correct about that, however, depends on answers the state first should get from two task forces convened to explore Hawaii’s correctional policies and programs.
One is a legislative task force chaired by Hawaii Supreme Court Associate Justice Michael Wilson. A final report is expected early in the next legislative session, and that will outline a broad plan for reforming the state’s correctional system.
The second, the Criminal Pretrial Task Force, is a panel chaired by state Circuit Court Judge Rom Trader. That one, which is looking at ways to reduce the jailing of those awaiting trial at OCCC, is likely to take another year, said state Sen. Clarence Nishihara, Senate Public Safety Committee chairman.
Nishihara, who sits on both task forces, said the results of these formalized discussions is likely to determine the correctional needs that will shape the planning for new jail and prison facilities. The Criminal Pretrial Task Force, for example, may recommend ways to restrain low-risk offenders outside the confines of a jail, and could dramatically cut the size of a replacement for OCCC, he said.
These details matter, he said, especially where a plan to involve private partners is concerned: Changes could affect what kind of design-build and leasing arrangements can be made.
This shouldn’t preclude, meanwhile, the Department of Public Safety from exploring in further detail what public-private innovations have been made elsewhere.
Researching the successes and shortcomings of partnerships tried in California, Arizona and Ohio, for instance, is something the department can do on its own, especially if it’s informed by the results of the correctional reformation task force.
Espinda said that he is not looking to any specific program elsewhere as a model for Hawaii. Perhaps he should look for precisely that kind of information, and weigh in on what the department sees as the one with the best potential for success.
There are already other signs that lawmakers are dubious about the $1 million study proposal. State Rep. Sylvia Luke, House Finance Committee chairwoman, correctly observed that the state must determine what the target inmate population should be.
“Before building a new prison and getting into this new public-private partnership, we need to figure out what the census is,” Luke said.
The state policy has been moving toward finding alternatives to incarceration as part of criminal justice reform. That has to remain the focus now, rather than prematurely planning construction, and possibly wasting taxpayer funds.
