Current Conditions
28°F - SNOW
(1939) (786) (677) (630) (302) (270) (223) (23) (9) (4) (2)
The purpose of the facility, it was told, would be to house and train eligible prisoners who would work in community jobs.
Those jobs would provide inmates with a wage they could use to pay for part of their room and board, as well as fines and restitution to victims. The inmates also would learn the skills they need for a productive life when they return to the community.
The board took no action on the proposal for the facility, for which no site has been identified.
Chairman Scott Martin, one of the three county commissioners on the board, said that the board wants to get public input.
The board could take action at its December meeting, by forwarding a recommendation to the commissioners, or it could table the proposal for additional discussion.
The proposal got mixed reactions from prison board members.
Commissioner Craig Lehman said he supports expanding the county's work-release programs but wondered if the county could do that via a leased facility.
A new work-release facility would be used to extend the life of the current prison, which Lehman thinks is folly.
Instead, the county needs to come to grips with what to do with that "functionally obsolete" building, he said.
"Sooner or later, that jail on King Street is going to make us all go broke," he said. "It should have been closed 20 years ago."
District Attorney Craig Stedman noted that a new building will not solve complex problems.
Inmates, he said, often lack both education and motivation. Some are unwilling to even show up for simple appointments.
"That's the hesitancy I have," he said.
But prison Warden Vincent Guarini said that the new facility would provide the training and the guidance needed by inmates.
"It's the combination of everything," he said. "It's an organized approach."
The proposal is the latest of several the board has examined in its quest to address overcrowding at Lancaster County Prison, 625 E. King St., which was designed to house 658 inmates but holds as many as 1,200.
In January, the board heard another report that included several options.
One option was to build a new, 2,158-bed prison that would cost $169.4 million.
Another option was a dual plan featuring the construction of a new, $115.2 million 1,262-bed prison for women, work-release prisoners and re-entry programs, which would leave the current prison to house 529 "hardened offenders."
This spring, the board formed a work group to explore other options.
While Thursday's proposal was less expensive than previous options, the price tag does not include the cost of a 15- to 20-acre site that would be needed for the facility. It also does not include staffing costs.
The work group was looking for something "new and different," said Martin, a member.
Another member, Mark Wilson, the county's director of adult probation and parole, told the board, "We were looking at the facility to sort of be the next step in what we are doing here."
Under work release, prisoners are allowed to work outside the prison at jobs in the community, but must return to a secured facility when they are not working.
The county prison currently can handle only about 60 people at a time in its work-release program. That means while many prisoners are made eligible for work release, many don't have access to it.
And even if they do, many don't actually have a job, or even the job skills, necessary to make it feasible.
The proposed Community Corrections and Re-Entry Center would use community resources, such as the Lancaster Employment & Training Agency, to provide job training and referrals.
The one-story facility could house 288 men and 84 women, in separate dormitories. They would have access to computers, job training and job counseling.
The inmates would pay a portion of their paychecks for room and board, in addition to paying for child support, fines, costs and restitution.
They would do their own personal laundry and house their work gear in their own lockers.
People who violate the terms of the work-release program would be returned to prison.
Some of the dozen or so people at Thursday's meeting were supportive of the proposal, saying community job training programs could make the facility work.
Finding willing employers, who could have access to someone if they have problems with workers, also would help, some suggested.
The board paid $15,000 for the proposal, from Kimball, a Cambria County-based engineering and architectural firm. The proposal provided a rationale for the facility, programs, goals, an estimated cost and a detailed floor plan.
Kimball, in association with Carter Goble Lee, also prepared the earlier proposals for the prison board.
