11/15/1989 ,
1 I • . .
1 + Q
0 Q
+ + V
1
+ t e
I
1 + + + + i;'
1
+ + + + + D a n t
+
o 4
1 o
+ + + + +
1
U In,15
II
+ y • + + + + + +
1 d
CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
f
1 Monroe County Key West, Florida
I
+ + + + + + +
I
I
November 15, 1989
I
+ + + + + + +
I HANSEN LIND MEYER, INC. • GONZALEZ ARCHITECTS • CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES, INC. E '
1
I
1
1
Executive Summary 1.0
Needs Assessement 2.0
Existing Facility 3.0
1 Principles of a Detention Facility 4.0
. Facility Mission
Design Standards
. Facility Component Program Statement
. Spatial Allocations
Master Plan Options 5.0
Recommended Master Plan 6.0
1
1
E
1
D X
IN 1
�� °'
4
.o I
1
4 a .
a
1 . ,
O a 1 IP
Y
d i
; 0 cf o 'ri
1 • • e, Pe 40 P 0 6/.
,t o i
i
O
1 I
� ° I
1
b a °' � c
1 o �
e• o,4;41
o
1 f
s
1
1
1
1 i
1 E xecutive Summary 1.0 1
F
1
The Monroe County Citizen's Jail Advisory and Planning Committee and County officials,
1 along with Hansen Lind Meyer, Gonzalez Architects and Carter Goble Associates have
been meeting to assess the building and program needs for the Monroe County Correctional
system. The policy decisions and recommendations made by this group will influence the
1 criminal justice system in Monroe County well into the 21st century.
This study has been prepared to assist those persons responsible for long -range criminal
1 justice planning to make cost effective and operationally sound decisions. The
recommendations for a Master Plan responds to short- and long -term needs that can be
1 developed in 3 phases over a period of 15 years. The Plan addresses key issues of jail
planning such as size of the facility, estimated capital cost, site requirements, and the
operational concept of a direct supervision detention facility.
1
No building program should be undertaken without giving thoughtful consideration to the
operational goals of the correctional system and to the type of inmate detained within.
1
Monroe County's goals emphasize therapy, behavioral modifications, reduction in recidivism,
and a humane environment within a secure setting.
1
The complexity of managing and housing a wide range of deviate personalities requires a
1 diversity in architectural design. The proposed Master Plan incorporates the unique designs
1 olutions necessary to comply with standards and maintain the operational philosophy
adopted by the County for the detention facility.
1
1
1
1
It is important to note that Monroe County is making every possible effort to manage
growth of the prison population. It considers alternatives to incarceration and consistently
brings detainess to trial quickly. Even so, the justice system is hindered by lack of bedspace
1 for detainees and virtually no provisions for sentenced inmates. There is currently a "cap"
of 220 inmates on the existing Monroe County jail.
1
1 The Master Plan and study addresses the following issues; projected bedspace needs
through 2005 in the Lower, Middle and Upper Keys; the condition of the existing detention
1 facility and its 1984 addition; the mission statement, legally required standards, program and
space allocations for both the building and site for new construction projects; Master Plan
options and the recommended Master Plan. The Executive Summary does summarize key
ideas, but for a complete discussion on each topic, we urge you to consult the text of this
book.
1
1 Chapter 2 assesses jail population growth and jail admissions and forecasts bedspace needs
to the year 2005. This part of the study recommends that the County adopt a phased
1 approach to building its needed detention capacity.
1
Phase I would address the needs through the year 1995, when 770 bedspaces would be
1 needed; 570 for pretrial and 200 for sentenced inmates.
1
2
1
Phase II would raise the total bedspace capacity to 1,047 for the year 2000; 797 for pretrial
1 and 250 for sentenced inmates.
Phase III would require an additional 227 pretrial and 100 more sentenced beds aces to
q P bedspaces
meet the County's need of 1,374 beds by the year 2005.
It is recommended that the County locate Phase I in the Lower Keys and Phase II and III
1 in the Upper Keys, along with expansion of the Lower Key site and the construction of a
sheriff's sub - station.
1
Chapter 3 provides an assessment of the existing Monroe County Jail site and facility for
compliance with legal code requirements and assesses its capability for renovation and
1 expansion.
The on -site evaluation by the architect and engineering team revealed that much of the
1 1984 addition is in fair condition but that the original structure is not. The facility contains
numerous code violations that potentially endanger its inhabitants and staff and liable the
County. A complete list of findings is detailed in Chapter 3.
1
In addition, a list of tasks that identify proposals for alleviating overcrowded conditions in
the jail is included. However, with the capacity decreased to an acceptable level, the facility
1 should be restricted for the purpose of housing low risk inmates. The present design
3
1
creates conditions that require a staff - intensive operation if the jail is to be used to confine
1 maximum security inmates.
Chapter 4 discusses the principles of a detention facility and how the treatment philosophy
1 of the Monroe County Correctional System relates to the physical building design needed
to support its programs. In this chapter, important policy decisions made by the Monroe
County Jail Advisory Committee have been outlined. For the purpose of pre - architectural
1 planning and cost estimation, the facility has been subdivided into eight major components
identified as facility administration, staff services /security operations, inmate processing,
1 inmate programs, dietary services, medical services, facility management, and inmate
1 housing. For purposes of discussion, a 1000 bed correctional facility program is presented.
1 The components of the new facility are noted with space allocations and cost estimates.
The architectural design and construction response to the philosophy of rewards and self-
1 help should recognize a variety of housing unit choices. Inmates can progress through a
hierarchy of units due to improved behavior and participation in a variety of counseling,
educational, and life skills g
rams ro . The ultimate goal will be to release a detainee who
P g
1 will not need to be incarcerated again.
Chapter 5 presents four alternative Master Plans. In addition to correctional planning
1 issues, there are specific challenges presented by building in the Keys such as assembling
10 acres for development, height restrictions, and site utilization ratios.
1
1 4
1
1
The Needs Assessment also recommends the development of a second jail site, preferably
1 located in the Middle or Upper Keys. The Consultant recommends that the existing jail
should be vacated as soon as possible. Data comparing renovation of the existing jail to
new construction indicates the County will spend $1,000,000 a year more running the
tY P Y g
1 existing jail vs. the same operation incorporated in a new facility. In approximately seven
years this additional operating cost in the old jail could pay for a new facility that is
responsive to the needs of Monroe County.
1
Chapter 6 presents the recommended master plan for the Monroe County Correctional
1 System. It incorporates the following requirements and projections: a facility mission
1 statement; policy decisions made by the Monroe County Citizen Advisory Committee;
phasing of the projected inmate bed space needs to the year 2005; and projected
1 operational and construction requirements of the recommended master plan concept.
The following is a brief summary of key policy decisions follows made by the Committee:
1
A 1995 bed capacity of 570 pretrial beds will be provided.
A 2005 bed capacity of 1024 pretrial beds will be provided.
P Y P P
1 A core size to support 1024 beds will be provided.
Phase I Lower Key will include utilization of the existing jail until 1995.
Phase II Upper Key will incorporate the sheriff's satellite station..
1 Bed space will be categorized: general population, intake, disciplinary/special
custody, pretrial misdemeanant, and treatment.
1
1 5
1
111
Recognized Florida and national design standards will be followed.
1 Staff training and physical fitness equipment will be provided.
Intake areas and the kitchen will be sized for the year 2005 requirements.
Pretrial hearing space and closed - circuit TV hearing space will be provided in the
g P g P P
1 jail.
Legal and general library space will be provided.
Space will be provided for dietary service, culinary training and other vocational
1 training programs.
A warehouse storage space for food and maintenance supplies will be provided.
1 Space for physical and dental examinations will be provided.
Cell and dayroom sizes were determined to be 90 sq. ft. per double occupancy cells;
70 sq. ft. per cell in the dayroom when double bunking is planned; 70 sq. ft. per
1 single occupancy cell; reuse of existing relocatable modules is recommended.
One of the primary objectives for Monroe County is to build a cost effective, safe and
1 constitutional jail. Historically many jails have been constructed that meet the requirement
of accepted design and operational standards. Yet each facility is unique in its design. A
study of 15 different designs with similar capacities for direct supervision revealed that the
1 square footage in each of the designs varied from about 250 sq. ft. per inmate to over 600
sq. ft. per inmate. The program developed for Monroe County requires approximately 350
1 sq. ft. per inmate. The space allocations are driven by policy decisions made by the
q P P Y P cY Y
1 Citizens' Jail Advisory and Planning Committee and by the consultant's experience in
designing direct supervision detention facilities.
1
1 6
1
1
1 The proposed architectural space program will be used as a benchmark for directing the
design of the new detention facility. The final design involving the detention facility staff
1 will be developed on operational efficiencies and developing post descriptions that will
P P P gP P
1 effect the staff efficiency component of the design.
The design objectives for this project are to develop a facility that is operationally efficient
g objectives P J P tY P Y
1 and to comply with the mission statement of the facility and all regulatory standards.
The operational philosophy of a jail is reflected in its design. When a facility is designed
1 to meet the absolute minimum standards, it usually becomes operationally staff intensive.
Studies of direct supervision facilities have shown that when activities such as recreation and
1 visiting are provided adjacent to the housing unit, the housing staff is able to control the
living areas as well as the adjacent activity. The adjacencies provide better control and
1
management of inmates. One of the advantages of having functions adjacent to the housing
1 units is the elimination of the problem of scheduling inmate activities and requiring
additional transportation staff for moving inmates from one activity area to another.
1 Other variables are unique to Monroe County for designing a jail. Some of the more
critical constraints are logistics considering the remoteness of Key West which could effect
1 the size of storage facilities. Site restriction will also impact the design of the facility, i.e.,
1 height of building, percent of land usage by building footprint, and amount of available land
and accessibility to the site.
1
1
1
1
1 The Schematic Design (SD) phase of this project will consider all the variables for
developing an efficient design with the missions and the goal of the detention facility. It
1 is in the SD hase where the determination is made regarding what function can be
P g g
1 consolidated into multi -use space. Once the design is developed, the cost estimates will be
adjusted to fit the approved design.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 8
1
1
� 4
.
a
1
0
0
o P
1 /
O e
• e
• e P Q 4, ,f •
,s o 1,
' e , '• Q o
• .
' o
CO
b 00
ge o
•
•
1
1
1
1
Needs Assessement 2.0
1
1
1
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents an analysis of the recent trends in the Monroe County jail population
1 and discusses the factors which have led to the growth in the inmate population since 1981.
The analysis is followed by forecasts of future inmate populations and projections of
bedspace requirements for future detention facilities in Monroe County.
1
For the analysis and forecasting, data were collected from a variety of sources at the state
1 and local levels. Monthly data were collected on the jail population to ensure a more
1 precise analysis of the trends in inmate population. Various statistical analyses were
performed on the data described below. In addition, interviews were held with local justice
1 system officials to gain insights necessary for the interpretation of the results of the
quantitative analysis.
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
1
HISTORICAL TREND -- MONROE COUNTY JAIL POPULATION
1
Figure 1 shows the monthly and yearly averages for the inmate population of the Monroe
Coun ty January Jail from Janua of 1981 to June of 1989. The raw data values for the Monroe
1 County Jail average daily population (ADP), from which the graph in Figure 1 was
generated, are given in Table 1. It should be noted that the records in the Monroe County
Sheriff's Department provide inmate population data only from 1985 to the present. The
1 data from 1981 were obtained from a report done as a part of a statewide correctional
study in 1982.
1
1 Over the entire period (1981 through mid -1989) ADP increased significantly -- a total of
55.6 percent. This represents an average increase of 7.4 percent per year. Eighty -nine
inmates were added during this time frame, so that the jail population was growing an
1 average of 11.9 inmates per year. At the same time the incarceration rate increased from
2.49 inmates per 1,000 County population to 3.18 inmates per 1,000. It appears, however,
1 that this growth was not evenly distributed across the decade.
As it has been previously noted, data are missing for a three year period from January of
1982 to December of 1984. However, the inmate population levels from the year before
this period (1981) and the two years following the period (1985 -86) appear remarkably
1 similar. Compared to 1981, the ADP of 1985 showed eighteen less inmates for that year
�j (i.e.. annual ADP dropped from 160 to 142). To further illustrate the point, the 1986 ADP
■ barely exceeded the ADP of 1981. Indeed, of the three years, 1981, 1985, and 1986, the
1 10
1
1
1
highest monthly ADP occurred in August of 1981. Local officials also commented that
1 during the three year period for which data are missing, the inmate population remained
fairly constant, averaging around 150 detainees.
1 The rapid, sustained growth in the inmate population began in 1986 and has continued to
the present. During this period, ADP increased 53.7 percent (21.5 percent per year). As
a consequence, there were an additional 87 inmates by mid -1989. In both 1987 and 1988,
1 the annual average ADP has reached or exceeded the level of the previous year's Hi
Month. For example, the Hi Month in 1986 was 176 inmates while the Annual Average
ADP for 1987 was 205 inmates; while the annual average ADP for 1988 matched the 1987
1 Hi Month of 235 inmates. The incarceration rate has increased by over 50 percent between
1985 and 1988, going from about 2 inmates per 1,000 population to more than 3 per 1,000.
1 From 1986 to mid -1989, the statewide incarceration rate for local jails increased from 1.9
to 2.4 inmates per 1,000 population. This comparison is not, however, altogether fair. As
will be shown below, the official county population estimates significantly underestimate the
1 true population of Monroe County, yielding an inflated incarceration rate statistic for the
County.
1 FACTORS AFFECTING THE GROWTH OF THE JAIL POPULATION
of Like any institutional population, the size of the jail population is a function o t w two primary
ry
1 factors -- how many people are put into jail and how long they are kept there. In other
words, admissions and average length of stay (ALOS) control the size of the average daily
11
1
111
population (ADP). If both of these factors are increasing in size, the jail population will
1 grow rapidly. If just one of these factors is increasing while the other remains fairly
constant, the size of the jail population will still go up, although not as rapidly.
1 Figure 2 contains a plot of the monthly admissions to the Monroe County Jail and shows
the annual average for monthly admissions from 1981 through mid -1989. Figure 3 contains
a similar trend line for the average length of stay (ALOS) statistic. The actual values for
1 monthly admissions and ALOS are contained in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.
1 Monthly admissions have increased 414 percent (or 55 percent per year) between 1981 and
1 the first half of 1989. In essence, there was an addition of 863 admissions per month during
this period. As with the ADP, the historical data series is broken by a period of missing
data. For jail admissions, the period of missing data is from January of 1982 through the
third quarter of 1985. In 1981, monthly admissions ranged between 151 and 281 in 1981,
but by the last quarter of 1985, admissions varied between 450 and almost 500 per month.
1 In the years that ADP experienced significant growth (1986- 1989), admissions grew 79
percent (or 32 percent per year) and gained a total of 472 admissions per month. Indeed,
1 an examination of the trend line in Figure 2 suggests that there has been a fairly stead
� gg Y Y
1 growth in the rate of admissions through the decade of the 1980's.
In n r ALOS decreased percent falling from high of v
co t ast, OS dec eased 76 pe cent between 1981 and 1989 fal g o a over
g o o e
24 days in 1981 to a low of 7.05 days in 1989, a decrease of almost 17 days. From the last
quarter of 1985 through the first half of 1989, ALOS declined slightly more than 2 days.
1
12
1
During this period, the ALOS for the Monroe County jail population has remained
1 consistently below the national average of 12.5 days.
o
The relative impact of admissions and ALOS on the Monroe County jail population has
1 changed during the decade of the 1980's. From 1981 to 1985, the apparent steady rise in
admissions was offset by a sharp decline in -ALOS, with the result that the ADP remained
relatively constant. Since the last quarter of 1985, the ALOS has remained fairly constant;
1 however, admissions have continued their steady growth upward, with the result that the
ADP has grown steadily since 1985.
1
Regression analyses were performed using the monthly jail data described above to provide
a more precise determination of the relative impacts of admissions and ALOS on ADP.
The results of these regression analyses are summarized by the R statistic, which measures
the extent to which changes in the independent variables (in this case, admissions and
ALOS) are directly i.e. statistically) related to changes in the dependent variable (ADP).
( � Y) . g P ( )
The regression analysis of ADP on admissions indicates that admissions accounts for 65
percent of the change in ADP. When regressing ADP on ALOS, the results conclude that
only 11 percent of the variation in ADP is attributable to changes in ALOS. In other
Y P g
words, changes in the rate of admissions have had substantially more impact on the growth
of the inmate population than has ALOS.
1
1
13
1
1
FACTORS AFFECTING JAIL ADMISSIONS
1
Population growth and law enforcement trends, e.g. patterns in reported crime and arrest
rates for various es of crime, are the primary determinants of changes in the admissions
tYP P rY g
1 rate to a local jail. Table 4 shows estimates of County population and the trend data for
various law enforcement factors in Monroe County during the 1980's decade. It should be
noted that 1987 data is the last year for which complete law enforcement data are available.
1
According to the official estimates, the population of Monroe county has been growing at
a rate in excess of two percent per year; thus, contributing to the growth in admissions.
However, the primary factors leading to the increases in admissions appear to be the growth
trends in the area of law enforcement. (See below for a discussion of the limitations of
using demographic data to analyze and forecast growth dynamics in the Monroe County
criminal justice system and its corrections component.)
1 With respect to law enforcement trends, the total number of reported Part I Offenses has
increased between 1980 and 1987; but the ratio of the number of offenses per 1,000 county
has declined somewhat during this period. It appears that arrest
population g P PP atterns have patterns
had the primary impact on the growth in admissions. Every dimension of arrest activity
reported in Table 1.4 (e.g. total arrests, Part I arrests, Part II arrests, etc.) has shown
increases during the decade of the 1980's, and this growth has outpaced the rise in reported
1 offenses. Part I Arrests increased 69 percent, while Part II Arrest increased 45 percent.
In particular, Part II Drug Related Arrests grew 84 percent.
14
1
1
When measured as a ratio to the size of the county population, the growth trends have been
1 even more significant. The personnel data reported at the bottom of Table 1.4 indicate that
the increases in arrest activity are a direct result of the growth in the size and efficiency of
I law enforcement. The number of sworn officers in Monroe Coun ty has increased over 50
I percent since 1980. Furthermore, between 1985 and 1987 (the last year for which complete
data are available), the number of arrests per sworn officer increased almost 25 percent,
I further contributing the growth in admissions to the jail.
1
I FACTORS AFFECTING THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY
1
The average length of stay (ALOS) for a county jail population is influenced primarily by
1 two factors. The first of these is the rate at which the judiciary processes cases to final
I disposition. This factor, of course, can only affect the ALOS for those inmates who are in
pretrial status. The second factor involves the availability and use of programs to provide
1 alternatives to incarceration. The alternatives can affect both the pretrial and sentenced
components of a jail population.
1 Table 5 shows the annual criminal filings and dispositions for the Circuit Court from 1978
to 1988. Table 6 contains the same type of filing and disposition data for the County Court.
I There has been a remarkable reversal in the disposition rate for the Circuit Court over the
1 last eleven years. From the late 1970's through the early 1980's, the Circuit Court was
experiencing a substantial backlog in criminal cases. Since 1982, the Circuit Court has
1 15
1
consistently disposed of more cases than were filed, with the exception of 1987. This same
1 pattern can be seen in examining the pending caseload data in Table 7 for the Circuit
Court. According to the American Bar Association standards, 90 percent of felony cases
1 should be disposed of within 180 days, leaving only 10 percent of the cases active after the
1 180 day mark. Since the first quarter of 1987, the Monroe County Circuit Court has
consistently outperformed this standard.
Clearly, the performance of the Circuit Court since the early 1980's has contributed to the
drastic lowering of the ALOS for the Monroe County jail population. ALOS was at its
1 highest (24.07 days) in 1981 when the disposition rate was at an exceptionally low 58
1 percent. When ALOS had dropped to 7.91 days in 1988, the rate was 115.07 percent. The
data in Table 6 indicate that the County Court has not shown the same high disposition
rates as the Circuit Court; however, this has not adversely affected the inmate population
since the County Court handles cases with less serious charges involving individuals who are
usually not incarcerated while awaiting trial.
a .
1
The other factor which can impact on the ALOS of an inmate population is the availability
and use of alternatives to incarceration. In the Monroe Coun ty correctional system, the
1 issue of alternatives relates primarily to pretrial detainees since less than 5 percent of the
jail population consists of sentenced inmates. In early 1988, a Pretrial Services Program was
instituted in Monroe County to provide for diversion of pretrial inmates from the County
1 jail. This program screens pretrial detainees and can make recommendations to the Court
on bond reduction, release on recognizance (ROR), or release under supervision by the
16
1
Pretrial Services staff. By the end of the first quarter of 1989, the Pretrial Services program
1 had approximately 300 persons on release while awaiting trial. This new program has also
helped to maintain the relatively low ALOS for the Monroe County jail population.
1
LIMITS OF GROWTH
1
Two concepts merit special consideration because of their implications for the assumptions
used in developing the inmate population forecasts for Monroe County. The first is the
1 issue of the "limits of growth" which is discussed in this section. The second concept, the
1 role of jail population growth management in Monroe County, is discussed in the section
which follows.
1
Since 1970, the official population of Monroe County has been growing at a rate in excess
of 2 ercent per year. As the amount of land available for future development is exhausted,
P P Y P
however, it has been suggested that population growth will diminish in future years. Indeed,
the latest official estimates from the Monroe County Planning Department indicate that the
growth in the resident population will decline to slightly more than 1 percent per year
during the 1990's and then further decline to less than 1 percent per year during the first
decade of the 21st century. Accordingly to this line of reasoning, as population growth
tapers off, so too will the growth in the demand for County services, including the demand
1 for criminal justice services.
17
1
It should be noted, however, that the County Planning Department estimates for the
1 seasonal population show an increasing growth trend. Through the year 2005, the seasonal
population is expected to grow 4 percent per year -- a rate four times faster than the
resident o ulation. During the 25 year period from 1980 through 2005, while the resident
P P g Y P g
1 population is expected to grow from 63,188 to 88,900 persons, the seasonal population will
more than double from 37,096 to 77,000 persons. In the opinion of some local experts, the
"true" population of Monroe County, including permanent residents, part -time residents,
tourists, transients, and the like, has already reached a level twice as large as the official
estimate of 78,040 persons.
1 The size of the seasonal population and its projected growth have important consequences
for the County's criminal justice system and its correctional component. 35 percent of the
arrests made by the Key West Police Department and 25 percent of the arrests made by
the Monroe County Sheriff's Department involve non - residents. Further, 28 percent of the
persons booked into the Monroe County jail are non - residents. These proportions are as
1 much as 100 percent higher than the non - resident rates found in most other counties.
Thus, placing too strong a reliance on the growth dynamics anticipated in the official
1 population estimates would yield an underestimate of future demands on the County's
• criminal justice system and its corrections component. This point can be further illustrate
by examining the comparison of growth rates shown in Table 8. The figures in this Table
1 compare the average annual percentage increases in various dimensions of criminal justice
system with the average annual percentage increase in the County's official population
18
1
estimates during the 1985 to 1987/88 period. The various components of the County's
1 criminal justice system shown in this Table have grown anywhere from 7 times (total Part
II arrests) to 25 times (arrests for sale or possession of drugs) faster than the growth in the
official P opulation.
1
® Another way to illustrate the limitations of the "limits of growth" thesis for forecasting
i future correctional system needs is to utilize a simple population ratio model to determine
1 an estimate of the future inmate population. For 1988, Monroe County had an
Incarceration Rate of 3.09 inmates per 1,000 persons in the "official" County population
1 estimate. Applying this Incarceration Rate of 3.09 inmates/ 1,000 population to the year
2005 "official" County population estimate of 88,900 yields an inmate population estimate
of 275 inmates for that year. This appears to be an unrealistically low estimate in light of
the fact that during the period January-June of 1989 the inmate population of the Monroe
County jail averaged 249 inmates.
1 Given the anomalies in the official demographic statistics, the analyses and forecasts in this
Report rely on data series which are not directly dependent on official population counts.
These include trend indicators such as actual arrests, jail admissions, and court filings,
� s g,
1 irrespective of whether the persons involved are permanent residents and therefore a part
of the official County population estimate or non - residents who are not included in that
population count.
■
1
19
1
JAIL POPULATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT
I
In planning for the future of a county's corrections system, it is important to determine the
potential impact which jail population growth management ement strategies can have on the P J P P g g
1 growth of the inmate population. Where opportunities exist to implement policy and
program initiatives to affect the rate of admissions or the ALOS, the county criminal justice
system can help to reduce the historical rate of growth of the inmate population. In the
1 case of Monroe County, it appears that there are limited opportunities for further
reductions of the inmate population as a result of the steps already taken by County
1 officials. Indeed, the challenge for Monroe County will be to maintain the progress which
1 has already been achieved.
1 As noted earlier, the County's jail population shows a very low average length of stay as a
result of the efficiency of the Circuit Court and the implementation of the Pretrial Services
Program. While the Circuit Court has been able to maintain an impressive disposition rate,
1 the caseloads for the State Attorney's and the Public Defender's Offices have experienced
steady growth (see Tables 9 and 10). If this growth continues and additional increases in
staffing resources are not forthcoming, could lead to a slow down in case processing
g, P g
and a reduction of the disposition rate for the courts.
The development of the Pretrial Services Program was described earlier. The success which
P g
1 this program achieved led County officials to fund a significant increase in staff early in
1989. However, as the Program has grown, the remaining proportion of the inmate
20
1
population who are potential candidates for pretrial release has simultaneously been
1 reduced. This situation has been underscored as a result of the court ordered "cap" of 220
inmates which was imposed on the Monroe County jail in November of 1988.
1 In response to the judge's order, the County established a CAP Committee composed of
various officials from the County criminal justice system. Since last November, the CAP
Committee has met regularly to review the records of inmates to determine which inmates
1 would be good candidates for release in order to meet the 220 cap. Through the first two
months of its existence, the Committee was generally successful in meeting this target, but
1 by February of this year, the inmate population was exceeding the cap on most days. Since
early April the jail population has been averaging 250 inmates, and on May 1, 1989, the
inmate population count was 300. This situation reflects the judgement by the Committee
1 members that these inmates can not be released without posing a threat to community
1 safety.
1 There is no potential for implementing sentencing alternatives to reduce jail population
since there are virtually no sentenced inmates in the Monroe County jail. Indeed, the
forecasts presented below will reflect the recommendation of the Monroe County Citizen's
Jail Advisory and Planning Committee that future detention facilities for the County include
sufficient capacity to enable the court's to reestablish sentencing practices. This could
include alternative forms of incarceration particularly for inmates which can be properly
1 managed under minimum custody conditions.
1
21
1
It has also been suggested by several officials that the County should make efforts to
1 upgrade the resources available for probation services to provide more effective supervision
and thereby reduce recidivism among county probationers. It is doubtful, however, that
such a move could significantly impact of future jail population growth. As noted above,
g Y P J P P g
there is a strong sentiment within the community to expand the numbers of persons given
jail sentences rather than probation. This would include persons who would be sentenced
to treatment programs for substance abuse, a large segment of the recidivist population.
1 Furthermore, even intensive supervision has its limitations in dealing with the large numbers
of transient clientele characteristic of the Monroe County criminal justice system.
1
In summary, the inmate population in the Monroe County jail currently has an average
length of stay (ALOS) of approximately 7 days. This very low ALOS is a function of the
efficiency of case processing by the judiciary, a maximum pretrial diversion effort (especially
with the impact of the CAP Committee process), and virtually no sentenced inmates. It is
difficult to conceive of any circumstances in which the County could further repress the
Y tY P
1 factors leading to the growth in the inmate population. Again, the real challenge for the
County will be to maintain its current efforts into the future.
INMATE POPULATION FORECASTS AND BEDSPACE PROJECTIONS
1 It has been noted earlier that there is a very limited amount of historical trend data
available for the Monroe County jail population. The limited number of available data
1
22
1
points coupled with the drastic changes which have occurred recently in the size of the
1 inmate population make it inappropriate to use regression models as a forecasting
technique. Furthermore, the incarceration rate growth models are inappropriate due to the
limitations in the official county population estimates described above. In light of these
constraints, historical ADP growth models and admissions /ALOS growth models were
utilized to generate the inmate population forecasts for the Monroe County corrections
system. These forecasts apply only to the pretrial inmate population since there are
1 virtually no sentenced inmates in the Monroe County jail. Projections for sentenced
capacity were generated separately.
1
1 In developing the planning estimates which serve as the basis for the correctional system
master plan, a consensus forecasting approach was used. Various growth scenarios for ADP
1 and admission /ALOS were identified based on the analysis of historical patterns in the
County's criminal justice system and its correctional component. Estimates of the future
pretrial inmate population were generated using these models. The models, their
1 assumptions, and the forecast results over the planning horizon of this study were reviewed
with County officials and members of the Monroe County Citizens Jail Advisory and
Planning Committee. These reviews involved several iterations over a four month period.
g P
Based on this review process, a set of forecast models were identified and planning
estimates of the pretrial inmate population and bedspace requirements for that population
1 were derived. These models and the planning estimates are shown in Table 11. A
combination of percentage growth and actual number increase models for the historical
23
1
inmate population were used to generate two inmate population estimates (Models A and
B) for each of the forecast years. Similarly, a combination of percentage growth and actual
number increase models were used to generate estimates of future admissions to the
Monroe County jail (Models C1 and C2). The average of Models C1 and C2 was
tY J ( g
calculated to derive an estimate of future admissions for the planning period, as shown in
Model C. The inmate population estimates in Model C were calculated based on these
admission estimates and based on the assumption that ALOS will remain constant at 7 days
1 across the planning horizon.
1 The planning estimate for the pretrial inmate population was derived by averaging the
1 population estimates for Models A, B, and C. The bedspace requirements shown in Table
11 were derived by adding a peaking factor and a classification factor to the pretrial inmate
population estimates. The peaking factor used was 10 percent based on the historical
fluctuations in the Monroe County jail population illustrated in Figure 1. The classification
factor was a conservative 10 percent. This classification factor is used to account for special
1 segments of the inmate population, such as male /female, pretrial /sentenced, medical or
mental health conditions, or special custody circumstances, which require segregation and
separate housing of inmates.
P g
An examination of the numbers in Table 11 shows that the planning estimates for the
pretrial population track very closely the inmate population estimates shown for Model C.
P o PP rY Y o PP
It was pointed out in the review process that these estimates represent a very conservative
forecast of future pretrial population growth since they assume that the County will
24
1
maintain its very low ALOS of 7 days for the next decade and a half. While this outcome
1 is not impossible to achieve, it will require that criminal justice officials in Monroe County
continue their strong efforts at jail population growth management over this entire period.
If the County is unsuccessful in maintaining the ALOS at 7 days, the pretrial inmate
1 population could grow at a much faster rate than indicated in the planning estimate. At
the bottom of Table 11 two alternative growth scenarios show the expected size of the
pretrial inmate population in the event that the ALOS increases to either 9 or 12 days over
1 the forecast period.
With respect to projections of bedspace need for sentenced inmates, it was not possible to
utilize historical growth models. Since there are virtually no sentenced inmates in the
Monroe County jail, there is no historical data to model this component of the inmate
population. In order to arrive at an estimate of sentenced capacity, discussions were held
with judges and other relevant County officials. Based on an evaluation of the current
inmate o ulation and the nature of the charges in cases being processed in the Monroe
P P g gP
County courts, it was estimated that 50 beds of sentenced capacity could be used at the
present time, and that this need would rise to approximately 200 beds during the 1990's.
These bedspace estimates are added to the bedspace projections for the pretrial population
1 to yield total estimates of future capacity requirements for the Monroe County corrections
system as described in the next section.
1
25
1
PLANNING BASIS FOR NEW CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
As the basis for planning the detention capacity needed to meet Monroe County's future
correctional system needs, it is recommended that the County adopt a phased approach to
Y Y P P PP
1 building its needed detention capacity. Three phases are summarized below and described
in more detail in Chapter 5 on "Master Plan Options."
1 Phase I would address the capacity requirements through the year 1995. This phase
would consist of approximately 570 beds of pretrial housing capacity with an
1 additional 200 beds of sentenced capacity for a total of 770 bedspaces.
1
Phase II would raise the total bedspace capacity of the corrections system to
approximately 1,047 beds, consisting of 797 pretrial beds and 250 sentenced beds to
meet the projected need for the year 2000. This would require the addition of 227
pretrial beds and 50 sentenced bedspaces.
1
Phase III would call for an additional 227 pretrial and 100 sentenced bedspaces to
meet the County's projected need of 1,374 beds by the year 2005. This would consist
Y P J Y Y
of 1,024 pretrial beds and 350 sentenced beds.
A hased building approach will allow p g app oac allo County officials time to monitor changes in
1 admissions and ALOS for the pretrial population as the County enters the 1990's to
determine how closely the growth patterns match the assumptions of the forecast models
26
1
and the planning estimates in Table 11. At the same time, the County can monitor the
1 growth in the sentenced portion of the inmate population. Decisions to commit to
additional capacity beyond Phase I would be based on actual developments in the growth
1 of the County correctional system over time.
1
The bedspace projections summarized above reflect the overall size of future correctional
1 capacity needed by the County. As a basis for programming and design of new correctional
1 facilities, it is necessary to disaggregate the total number of projected bedspaces to reflect
the major components of the inmate population. Table 12 shows the breakdown of 770
1 bedspaces proposed for Phase I development. Like virtually all overcrowded jail facilities,
the corrections staff has neither the resources nor the time to maintain detailed
classification records on the persons detained in the Monroe County jail. However, the
1 Pretrial Services Program has been maintaining an inventory of the inmate population in
support of the CAP Committee review process. This inventory assessment was reviewed
1 with the corrections and Pretrial Services Program staff as the basis for the disa re ation
g gg g
1 of bedspaces shown in Table 12.
A final aspect of the planning basis for future Monroe County f ili i inv involves
p g o oe Cou ty ac t es o es
the issue of location. Because of Monroe County's unique geo- political configuration, many
County programs and services are decentralized into facilities located in the Upper, Middle,
and Lower Keys. Historically, however, the County's detention capacity has been
1 centralized in Key West. With the continue growth of the County's criminal justice system
and its corrections component it is appropriate for the County to consider locating detention
27
1
1
capacity in more than one site in the Keys.
1
Table 13 contains data describing the relative distribution of workload and activity for the
1 courts and the jail across the three geographical segments of the Monroe County island
g P
chain. Somewhat more than 50 percent of the jail admissions and releases and the court
filings take place in the Lower Keys. The balance of the activity is fairly equally distributed
between the Middle and the Upper Keys.
1
Table 14 shows the official County population estimates for the Lower, the Middle, and the
1 Upper Keys through the year 2005. In percentage terms, it appears that there will be less
than one percentage point difference in the relative distribution of the official County
population among the three geographical segments over the next decade and a half. These
1 official population estimates do not, of course, account for the growth in the seasonal
population. It is anticipated that the Lower Keys will continue to host the bulk of the
seasonal population within the County.
1
Given these growth projections, it is recommended that the County locate most of the Phase
I detention capacity in the Lower Keys. Subsequent phases of detention capacity could be
P Y Y q P P Y
located in the Middle or the Upper Keys. The decisions as to the exact timing and location
for these future building requirements should be based on continued monitoring of
population growth patterns and patterns in the growth of the criminal justice system across
the three geographical segments of the Florida Keys.
■ 28
1
1
FIGURE 1: MONROE COUNTY JAIL - AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
1
1 270
260 —
1 250 — DATA +
240 — UNAVAILABLE
1 230 —
a�
F 220 -
210 —
z +
200 —
a.
C
190 —
180 —
II 2 170 —
160 —
1
\t ilf\
50 —
140 —
130 —
1 20 1111I11111111ii11111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIll111! 1111IIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111
1 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
MONTHLY AVG. + YEARLY AVG.
1
1
29
1
1
1
1
TABLE 1: MONROE COUNTY JAIL - AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION
1
YEARS 1981 1985 , 1988 > 1987 1988 1989 AVERAGE
MONTHS
1 JANUARY 157 145 169 191 231 228 187
FEBRUARY 150 164 160 212 239 229 192
I MARCH 141 149 148 207 230 246 187
APRIL 149 144 160 188 214 261 186
MAY 168 139 153 197 230 270 193
JUNE 165 130 166 199 241 260 193
I JULY 171 122 176 185 238 178
AUGUST 179 157 158 192 248 187
SEPTEMBER 162 131 163 209 252 183
I OCTOBER 157 142 164 216 247 185
NOVEMBER 170 147 156 232 232 187
DECEMBER 150 134 167 235 218 181
1 AVERAGE ADP 160 142 162 , 205 235 249
HI MONTH 179 164 176 235 252 270
LOW MONTH 141 122 148 185 214 228
I PEAKING FACTOR 12% 15% 9% 14% 7% 8%
COUNTY POPULATION 64168 70729 72532 _74523 - ,77003' 78222
INCARCERATION RATE/1000 POP. 2.49 2.01 2.23 2.75 3.05 3.18
I SOURCES: 1991 DATA ARE FROM LOCAL CORRECTIONAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT' REPORT (SEPTEMBER 1982). 1i85 TO 9/85 ARE FROM
NIC WORKSHEETS. 1065 TO 4437 ARE FROM FLDOC MONTHLY REPORTS. S87 TO 689 ARE FROM MONROE COUNTY
SHERIFFS OFFICE REPORTS.
1 CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES. INC. LAST DATE REVISED: 07/2489
1
1
1
1
1 30
1
1
1 FIGURE 2: MONROE COUNTY JAIL - ADMISSIONS
1
1
1 1.2
..\-
1.1
1 1
0.9 -
1 2
c�
C 0.8 -
1
z ti DATA
'\\
c e 0 .7 - UNAVAILABLE
a
a P., 0.8
al •—• A'Ar\./■.
M 0.5 -"
a
Z
0.4
0.3
1 0.2 - +
I 0.1 111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111T
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989
MONTHLY AVG. + YEARLY AVG:
1
1
1
31
1
1
FIGURE 3: MONROE COUNTY JAIL - AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY
•
1
32
30 - 1 28
26 - DATA
UNAVAILABLE
24 + 1
22
20
w 18 -
] 16
14
12 _
10
8 -
1 6 iiiiiiiii11111111111111111miliiiiiiii1111111111111111111111111w1111111111111H11111111111111111111111111
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
1 MONTHLY AVG. + YEARLY AVG.
1
1
1
32
1
1
1
1
TABLE 2: MONROE COUNTY JAIL - ADMISSIONS
111 YEARS 1981 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 AVERAGE
MONTHS
1 JANUARY 216 580 565 825 1039 645
FEBRUARY 159 412 616 937 946 614
I MARCH 151 599 542 985 1192 694
APRIL 187 592 508 832 1195 663
MAY 203 671 771 903 1079 725
JUNE 188 591 662 744 974 632
I JULY 167 654 587 872 570
AUGUST 225 655 750 966 649
SEPTEMBER 211 668 765 926 643
I OCTOBER 271 468 520 613 975 569
NOVEMBER 241 453 481 787 968 586
DECEMBER 281 492 766 774 1003 663
1 AVERAGE ADMISSIONS 208 471 599 662 911 1071
HI MONTH 281 492 766 787 1003 1195
LOW MONTH 151 453 412 508 744 946
1 PEAKING FACTOR 35% 4% 28% 19% 10% 12%
1 SOURCES: 1981 DATA ARE FROM tOCAL CORRECTIONAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT REPORT (SEPTEMBER. 19821
10 TO 12418 ARE FROM NC WORKSHEETS. 1O TO 689 ARE FROA1 MONROE COUNTY SFERFFS OFFICE REPORTS.
1 CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES, AVC. LAST DATE REVISED: 07/24/49
1
1
1
1
1 33
1
1
1
1 TABLE 3: MONROE COUNTY JAIL - AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY (IN DAYS)
1 YEARS 1981 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 AVERAGE
MONTHS
I JANUARY 22.53 9.03 10.48 8.67 6.80 11.50
FEBRUARY 26.42 10.87 9.64 7.39 6.78 12.22
MARCH 28.95 7.66 11.84 7.25 6.40 12.42
I APRIL
MAY 23.90 8.11 11.10 7.73 6.55 11.48
25.66 7.07 7.93 7.90 7.76 11.26
JUNE 26.33 8.43 9.00 9.71 8.01 12.29
JULY 31.74 8.34 9.74 8.45 14.57
I AUGUST 24.66 7.48 7.94 7.95 12.01
SEPTEMBER 23.03 7.32 8.21 8.15 11.68
OCTOBER 17.96 9.41 9.78 10.90 7.84 11.18
I NOVEMBER 21.16 9.74 9.73 8.84 7.18 11.33
DECEMBER 16.55 8.44 6.76 9.40 6.74 9.58
1 AVERAGE 24.07 9.19 8.38 9.58 7.91 7.05
1
I NOTE: AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY IS EQUAL TO THE AVERAGE GAILY POPULATION TIMES THE NUMBER OF DAYS
IN THE MONTH DIVIDED BY MONTHLY ADMISSIONS.
CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES. INC. LAST DATE REVISED: 0724189
1
1
1
1
1
34
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4: MONROE COUNTY - LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA
I YEARS 1980 1981 1992 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 % CHANGE % CH N66
1980 -1987 PER YEAR
COUNTY POPULATION 62798 64168 65748 66605 68752 70729 72532 74523 18.7% 2.7%
I OFFENSE DATA
TOTAL PART I OFFENSES 6793 6198 7107 6233 6353 7131 7532 7813 15.0% 2.1%
RATE/1000 POPULATION 108.2 96.6 108.1 93.6 92.4 100.8 103.8 104.8 -3.1% -0.4%
ARREST DATA
I TOTAL ARRESTS 4550 4428 4684 4632 5331 5120 5667 6781 49.0% 7.0%
RATE/1000 POPULATION 72.5 69.0 712 69.5 77.5 72.4 78.1 91.0 25.6% 3.7%
ADULTS 4320 4334 4603 4589 5175 4988 5484 6466 49.7% 7.1%
JUVENILES 230 94 81 43 156 132 183 315 37.0% 5.3%
I TOTAL PART I ARRESTS 833 907 1056 924 814 927 1035 1406 68.8% 0 8%
RATE/1000 POPULATION 13.3 14.1 16.1 13.9 11.8 13.1 14.3 18.9 42.2% 6.0%
TOTAL PART 11 ARRESTS 3717 3521 3628 3708 4517 4193 4632 5375 44.6% 6.4%
RATE/1003 POPULATION 592 54.9 552 55.7 65.7 59.3 63.9 72.1 21.9% 3.1%
I PART II ARRESTS - DRUG RELATED 338 337 281 310 317 306 472 622 84.0% 12.0%
RATE/1000 POPULATION 5.4 5.3 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.3 6.5 8.3 55.1% 7.9%
PART 11 ARRESTS - ALCHOHOL RELATED 527 721 802 1056 613 550 638 889 68.7% 9.8%
RATE/1000 POPULATION 8.4 112 122 15.9 8.9 7.8 8.8 11.9 42.1% 6.0%
I PART 1I ARRESTS - OTHER
RATE/1000 POPULATION 2852 2463 2545 2342 3587 3337 3522 3864 35.5% 5.1%
45.4 38.4 38.7 352 522 47.2 48.6 51.8 142% 2.0%
LAW ENFORCEMENT
TOTAL SWORN PERSONNEL 123 128 148 137 144 178 185 189 53.71/4 7.7%
I RATE /1000 POPULATION 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.5 29.5% 4296
PART I ARRESTS/SWORN OFFICER 6.8 7.1 7.1 6.7 5.7 52 5.6 7.4 9.8% 1.4%
PART I1 ARRESTS/SWORN OFFICER 302 27.5 24.5 27.1 31.4 23.6 25.0 28.4 -5.9% -0.8%
TOTAL ARRESTS /SWORN OFFICER 37.0 34.6 31.6 33.8 37.0 28.8 30.6 35.9 -3.0% -0.4%
1 NOTES:
1. TOTAL PART I ARRESTS AND OFFENSES INCLUDE MURDER, FORCIBLE RAPE, ROBBERY, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, B&E- BURGLARY,
LARCENY, AND MV THEFT.
I 2. ADDITIONALLY, TOTAL PART I ARRESTS INCLUDES MANSLAUGHTER AND ARSON.
3. PART 11 ARRESTS - DRUG RELATED INCLUDES NARCOTICS POSSESSION & NARCOTICS SALES.
4. PART I - ALCHOHOL RELATED INCLUDES DUI, LIOUER LAWS, AND DISORDERLY INTOXICATION.
I SOURCE: CRIME IN FLORIDA REPORTS.
CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES, INC. 052&89
1
1
1
1 35
1
1
1
1
TABLE 5: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS
1
YEAR FILINGS DISPOSITIONS BACKLOG DISPOSITION RATE
1978 1182 911 271 77.07%
1979 1564 721 843 46.10%
I
1980 2284 944 1340 41.33%
1981 1947 1120 827 57.52%
1982 2000 1709 291 85.45%
I 1983
1984 1766 1983 -217 112.29%
1682 1957 -275 116.35%
1985 1960 2223 -263 113.42%
1986 1700 2125 -425 125.00%
I 1987 1496 1305 191 87.23%
1988 1566 1802 -236 115.07%
1 SUMMARY STATISTICS ON DISPOSITION RATE:
PERCENTAGE CHANGE, 1978 -1988: 49.30%
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE, 1978 - 1988: 4.93%
I AVERAGE DISPOSITION RATE: 88.80%
SOURCE. MONROE COUNTY COURT EXECUTIVE AND 'LOCAL CORRECTIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROJECT' REPORT (SEPTEMBER. 1982).
NOTES. (1) BACKLOG IS EQUAL TO FILINGS MINUS DISPOSITIONS
(2) DISPOSITION RATE IS CALCULATED BY DIVIDING DISPOSITIONS BY FILINGS
1 (31 1988 DATA ARE ESTIMATES.
CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES. INC. LAST DATE REVISED. OSr3OB9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I TABLE 6: MONROE COUNTY COURT - CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS
i YEAR FILINGS DISPOSITIONS BACKLOG DISPOSITION RATE
I 1978 5738 4366 1372 76.09%
1979 6369 5378 991 84.44%
1980 5694 5741 -47 100.83%
I 1981 5278 4456 822 84.43%
1982 7012 6075 937 86.64%
1983 7350 6325 1025 86.05%
I 1984 8035 7061 974 87.88%
1985 7772 6998 774 90.04%
1986 8233 6606 1627 80.24%
I 1987 4.316 3700 616 85.73%
1988 5458 5472 -14 100.26%
I SUMMARY STATISTICS ON DISPOSITION RATE
PERCENTAGE CHANGE, 1978 - 1988: 31.76%
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE, 1978 - 1988: 3.18%
I AVERAGE DISPOSITION RATE: 87.51%
SOURCE: MONROE COUNTY COURT EXECUTIVE AND 'LOCAL CORRECTIONAL ASSISTANCE
I PROJECT' REPORT (SEPTEMBER, 1982).
NOTES. (1) BACKLOG IS EQUAL TD FILINGS MINUS DISPOSITIONS.
(2) DISPOSITION RATE IS CALCULATED BY DIVIDING DISPOSITIONS BY FILINGS.
(3) 1988 DATA ARE ESTIMATES.
GARTER GOBLE ASSOCLI TES, INC. LAST DATE REVISED: 059089
1
1
1
37
1
1
1
1
TABLE 7: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PENDING CRIMINAL CASELOAD REPORT
QUARTERS NUMBER OVER STANDARD PERCENT OVER STANDARD
1
FIRST -1987 14 4.00%
SECOND - 1987 8 2.16%
THIRD - 1987 10 2.76%
FOURTH -1987 7 1.53%
FIRST - 1988 4 1.05%
SECOND - 1988 12 3.23%
THIRD - 1988 26 5.41%
1 SOURCE. MONROE GOWN. COURT EXECUTIVE
CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES INC. LAST DATE REVISED: 05
1
1
1
1
38
1
TABLE 8: MONROE COUNTY (FL) -- COMPARISON OF GROWTH RATES
1
Annual Avg.
Pct. Increase
Trend Factor 1985- 1987/88
1
Resident County population 2 % /yr.
1 Total Arrests 16.2 % /yr.
Part I Arrests 26.7 % /yr.
1
Part II Arrests 14.1 % /yr.
1 Sale /Possession of Drug Arrests 51.6 % /yr.
Alcohol Related Arrests 30.8 % /yr.
Jail Admissions 31.1 % /yr.
1 Jail Population 24.3 % /yr.
Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc.
39
1
1
1
TABLE 9: MONROE COUNTY - STATE ATTORNEY CASELOAD
I CASELOAD STAFFING
MISDEMEANORS/ NUMBER OF CASELOAD
YEARS FELONIES CRIMINAL TRAFFIC JUVENILE TOTAL ATTORNEYS PER ATTORNEY
I 1984 1,681 3,418 311 5,410 11 492
1985 1,766 3,255 321 5,342 12 445
1986 2,130 3,853 292 6,275 13 483 ..
1987 2,398 4,273 440 7,111 14 508
1 1988 2,567 5,061 558 8,186 16 512
1 ANNUAL % INCREASE, 1984 -1988: 12.83% 1.01 %
1 SOLACE; SL TEENTH JUDICIAL C RCUff STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE_
I CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES. NC. UST DATE REVISE 05/3669
1
1
1
1
1
40
1
TABLE 10: MONROE COUNTY - PUBLIC DEFENDER CASELOAD
TOTAL NUMBER ASSISTANT CASELOAD
FISCAL YEAR OF CASES PUBLIC DEFENDERS PER PUBLIC DEFENDER
1
1984 -1985 2204 10 220
1985 -1986 2218 10 222
/I 1986 -1987 2969 10 297
1987 -1988 3689 10 369
1988 -1989 4572 11 416
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE
INCREASE. 1984-1989: 21.49% 17.72%
NOTE. CASELOAD DATA FOR 1968 -1989 ARE ESTIMATES BASED ON THE FOIST FIVE
MONTHS OF THE FISCAL YEAR
SOURCE: SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CROW PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE.
CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES. AC LAST DATE REVISED: 0.&2689
1
41
TABLE 11: MONROE COUNTY
PRETRIAL INMATE FORECASTS AND
BEDSPACE PROJECTIONS
............................
A
T MO
.1.......A i:: v iii; :!!:
'::::::::i::ii iiiiii:.....::::iiiiii......... iii :............. iii.....i }: is is ii• iiiiiiiiiiiii ?iii:•:::::•:•:::i:::::i::::
Si'i ij:' ii: :i:i:::::i::::i::::i:::'::::'': iii:::::::: i:::;: j;::;: i' : }:::: iii:': iv: :::'::::iiiiiiiiiiii::i::::i:'i (:;::::::::::}::::::. .....: � •. �:.1 / v:. .
:::: is :::::•:iiiiiiiiii::ii:::•i:�:ii iiiiiiiii:ii:::::i': iii:i4iiiiiiijiii:':':v: : :::i::i::::i::i::i:i:::::ii.:•i iii: iiiiiiii::::. .�. •::.:::::: isv:' ::..................... .........�....�................ .......... ...........
ADP GROWTH MODELS
Based on 1985 -1989 Growth Trends
from a Base of 250 Inmates
(the 1989 YTD ADP)
Model A:
Percent Inc.: 18.8 %/year 267 344 391 438 485 532 767 1 002
Model B:
Actual No. Inc: 27/year 277 304 331 358 385 412 547 682
ADM /ALOS GROWTH MODELS
Based on Growth Trends from 1985 -86
to 1988 -89 from a Base of 1070 Admis. /mo.
(the 1989 YTD avg.)
Model C1:
Percent Inc: 21 .3 %/year 1298 1526 1754 1982 2209 2437 3577 4717
Model C2:
Actual No. Inc.: 114/year 1184 1298 1 41 2 1526 1640 1754 2324 2894
Model C:
Monthly Admission Estimates (Avg. of
Models 01 and C2:) 1241 1 41 2 1583 1754 1925 2096 2951 3806
ALOS constant at 7 days
Inmate Population Estimate: 286 325 364 404 443 482 679 876
PLANNI:NC ESTLMAT>?S :::.:: .:
Pre
trlai Inmafe Po UIat1Qn
267 324 362 4�� 43$
475:g +l�64> 883
Bedspace Requlremente:
344 339 436 484 525 S7G 797; 1024
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS:
PRETRIAL INMATE POPULATION
ESTI MATES
Based on Monthly Admission
in Model C, assuming that...
-ALOS rises to 9 days 367 418 468 519 569 620 873 1126
-ALOS rises to 12 days 490 557 624 692 759 827 1164 1501
1
42
1
TABLE 12: DISAGGREGATION OF BEDSPACE REQUIREMENTS
FOR PROPOSED PHASE I DEVELOPMENT
I
I
No. of % of
Profile of Pretrial Bedspaces Beds Total
1 Females 57 10%
Males
1 - Intake housing 51 9%
- Disciplinary segregation /special custody 62 11%
- 48 bed dormitories 103 18%
(VOP's; Pretrial misdemeanants)
- Treatment groups 128 22%
(drugs; alcohol; mental health)
- General population 169 30%
Total: 570 100%
Profile of Sentenced Bedspaces
1 Females: would be housed with pretrial female inmates.
Males: estimated number of beds: 200
% of Male No. of
1 Beds Beds
- Single cell 15% 30
- Other* 85% 170
*work release; road gang; treatment groups
Sources: Monroe County Sheriff's Department and 16th Judicial Circuit Pretrial
ty p et l a
Services Program
1
1 43
TABLE 13: DISTRIBUTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WORKLOAD
IN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Comparison of Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys
,Tail Trends -- July, 1987, thru March, 1989
Admissions Releases
Lower Keys 56.9% 57.0%
Middle Keys 20.5 21.4
Upper Keys 22.6 21.6
100.0% 100.0%
Criminal Case Filings -- 1988
Circuit Court County Court
Lower Keys 58.8% 50.6%
Middle Keys 21.0 23.6
x
Upper Keys 20.2 25.8
100.0% 100.0%
1 Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc.
44
TABLE 14: MONROE COUNTY -- RESIDENT POPULATION ESTIMATES
1980 1987 2005
Upper Keys 14,460 (28.6 %) 16,192 (22.8 %) 19,924 (23.4 %)
Middle Keys 11,342 (17.7 %) 12,602 (17.7 %) 15,398 (18.1 %)
Lower Keys 38,275 (59.7 %) 42,358 (59.5 %) 49,856 (58.5 %)
(Key West) (24,382/38.6 %) (26,680/35.8 %) (29,576/32.5 %)
County Total 64,077 71,152 85,178
Sources: Monroe County Planning Department and Monroe County
Statistical Abstract
1
45
„: 1 ' ,
1
0 p•
. ea
, 1 s .. .
1
i , .
Q O
1
I o
1 o 9
I
1 P S °• ° 1
4 • f
.to
1
1
I 0 o
I e
e i::9 Cli 1
b o f� 1
•
o 1
1 f
i
I
1 e
I , ,
Existing Facility 3.0
1 44
k
3
1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an assessment of the existing Monroe
County Jail facility and site for compliance to code standards and capabilities for
tY P P
1 renovation and expansion. This analysis includes a review of planning issues, site
considerations, and the physical and functional deficiencies of the building
envelope. It includes an evaluation of all its mechanical, electrical and structural
systems. This study will provide information in determining the feasibility of
continued or adapted reuse of the existing facility.
On December 15, 1988, HLM conducted the physical evaluation of the facility after
plans of the original facility and recent additions were reviewed. The following is
the result of the on -site evaluation and the review of available drawings.
PHYSICAL EVALUATION:
A facility tour was conducted by Monroe County Department of Corrections
Y Y tY P
Officer Lt. Richard Conrady. The tour started at the vehicle sallyport, proceeded
through the intake area, and continued to the outdoor exercise yard located on the
roof. The tour took the same route used by inmates as they are processed through
1 the facility.
46
1
FIRST FLOOR
1
The majority of the first floor space used for inmate intake /holding, processing and
visitation was added by the 1984 addition and appears to be in fair condition.
1 During the facility tour, alterations were being made to the visitation booths
located near the central control room. Correctional staff mentioned that
1 alterations were planned for the current search and processing rooms to enable it
to be used for holding cells.
The central control room located at the vehicle sallyport provides limited counter
1 and floor space.
The kitchen located in the original portion of the first floor was crowded and
provided poor circulation.
Overall, the floor plan provided poor circulation for inmates, staff and visitors.
Administrative support space, records storage and property storage are all
inadequate.
1
SECOND FLOOR
1
1 The facility tour continued on the second floor in the original portion of the
building where the steel plate and grating cells are located. This space was very
47
1
1
cramped and in need of repair. p epa r. Plumbing fixtures were inoperable or missing and
1 the lighting level was very poor. The laundry room equipment is currently
inoperable and this space is being used for storage. The original portion of the
second floor offers poor circulation and is in oor condition and in need of repair.
P p
The four open dormitories and the medical ward was added during the 1984
addition. Overall, this area appeared to be in good condition.
THIRD FLOOR
The third floor consists of open dormitories similar to those on the second floor.
This area was recently added and appeared to be in good condition.
ROOF /EXERCISE AREA
The roof exercise area, divided off by chain link fence and surrounded by
concertina wire, was added when the third floor addition was built. It appears to
be in good condition.
48
1
STRUCTURAL EVALUATION
1
Original Building - A review of existing plans was made and the following field
observations were noted. Soft rock is one to two feet under existing grade. Soil
pressure used was 3,000 PSF. The slab on grade is on compacted fill. The
building frame is of concrete columns, beams and pan joist floor system. The
structure is in good condition. Vertical expansion is not possible, but horizontal
expansion is structurally feasible if so desired.
1 1984 Addition - The basic structural frame is load bearing masonry, grout filled,
with 6" to 10" concrete floor slabs. The footing bearing pressure used was 5,000
PSF. During past remodeling projects it was discovered that the grout in the
masonry walls was not solid. This type of construction limits the flexibility of
interior room changes. This addition has no visible structural problems and could
support horizontal expansion if it However, p odes desired. Ho ever, vertical expansion is not
1 possible.
CODE REVIEW
EVIEW
A code review of NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, the Standard Building Code,
American National Standards Institute Handicap Code and the rules of the
1 Department of Corrections, Chapter 33 -8 was made. The following requirements
of the codes appeared to be in violation:
49
1
1
1
1 1. Artificial lighting of at least 20 foot candles at 30" above the floor for
reading purposes is required.
2. Ventilation which circulates at least 10 cubic feet of fresh air or P urified
1 air per minute per person in inmate spaces is needed. Other staff spaces
� were reported to be uncomfortable also.
3. Shower facilities in the ratio of a minimum of 1 to 16 inmates is required.
4. Correctional officer posts shall be located to permit officers to hear and
respond promptly to calls for help.
1 5. Juveniles shall be supervised and monitored by an officer at all times
during confinement.
6. Dead end corridors in cell areas and the kitchen are a code violation.
7. Stair doors locked by deadbolts are a violation.
8. Windowless buildings shall be provided with vent openings, smoke shafts
or an engineered smoke control system to provide ventilation for each
windowless smoke compartment.
9. Proper smoke /fire compartmentation with appropriate doors and hardware
are required.
10. Obstructions in means of egress are not permitted.
1
Although not required of existing buildings, the following handicap accessible items
are recommended for public spaces:
50
t
1
1 1. Building entrance
2. Toilet rooms
3. Drinkin g fountains
4. Elevator controls
1
MECHANICAL /ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
1 1. The domestic water supply and distribution system appears to be adequate.
2. Domestic hot water heating in the 1984 addition appears to be adequate.
Unfortunately, it does not appear to be integrated into the system in the
1 original jail since both the heater and the storage tank in the original
portion of the building appear to be undersized. The heater installation
also violates the code requiring gas fired heaters to be provided with high
and low ducted connections directly to the outside of the building for
combustion air.
3. The tray type dishwasher in the kitchen does not appear to have any
YP PP Y
facilities for providing a final sanitizing rinse which is required by code.
4. The fire extinguishing systems appear to meet code requirements.
5. The existing jail air conditioning system is a system employing fan -coil units
which do not have provisions for the introduction of outside air. Any
outside air that is used Leaks into the building via a running exhaust system.
51
1
We believe this to be a violation of the state law governing correctional
facilities.
6. The 1984 addition air conditioning system has a similar violation, although
there is a ducted ath for the outside air to enter the building from a roof
P g
1 intake to the air handling unit and the various fan -coil units throughout the
addition. Unless there is an exhaust system running in the immediate
vicinity of each one of these units no outside air is delivered to the air
handling unit.
7. There is an inadequate provision of replacement air for the kitchen range
hood exhausts.
8. Plumbing, domestic hot water and air conditioning systems do not appear
to be capable of expansion.
9. The fire extinguishing system might be capable of expanding vertically but
not horizontally.
10. The electrical systems appear to be adequate and in compliance with the
1 1984 NFPA National Electrical Code except for the fire pump wiring.
The National Electrical Code requires wiring to be direct connected
without over current P rotections.
11. The electrical service and emergency generator do not appear to be
capable of expansion without major renovation.
1
1 52
1
1
SECURITY SYSTEMS
1
Numerous problems, which on the surface appear minor but in fact can be
extremely expensive to correct, appear to exist in this facility. During the walk -
P PP Y g
through assessment tour the following over -all problems were observed:
1. Security screws in glazing and hardward applications are lacking in both
old and new construction. (Security violation)
2. Present equipment is poorly maintained. (Security violation)
1 3. Control equipment is outdated. (Security violation)
4. It appears that the outdated cell layout results in non - compliance with the
required 80 square foot per inmate space in the sleeping and dayroom
1 areas. (Code violation)
5. Wall construction is suspect. The staff informed us that the facility was
originally built without proper grouting and reinforcing but was later
1 inspected and renovated to correct this situation. The likelihood of
correcting all deficient areas in this manner is unlikely since vertical #4
rebars at 16" O.C. and 3,000 PDT concrete is required in exterior walls.
1 6. All bar grillage, security hollow metal, security doors and access panels
appeared adequate for present if they are properly maintained.
1
53
1
A security survey /inventory of existing systems and equipment was made. The
following was noted:
FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEM:
1
This is a standard independent fire alarm system with a zone enunciator panel in
the central control room.
CCTV SURVEILLANCE:
1
This system does not exist.
1 ELEVATOR CONTROL:
Elevators are controlled from both main and local control rooms. Key control is
also possible within the cab.
DURESS SYSTEM:
There is no duress system.
1
1
54
1
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS:
A limited number of walkie - talkies are used.
1 1
INTERCOM /PAGING:
This system exists in limited areas, but not throughout the facility.
GLAZING:
1
Most security glazing used in this facility is ordinary multi -pane laminated glass.
While this may be fine for bullet resistance, it is not as secure as glass clad
1 polycarbinate security glass when subjected to assault, as in a riot situation.
It was also noted that non-security screws were in
y s e e use throughout the facility. The
danger of glass removal by inmates is increased with the use of these screws.
ELECTRIC LOCKS:
The main electric lock type used in this facility is a Brinks 3020 cam lock which is
generally considered a minimum to medium security lock. In this facility the Brinks
1 3020 cam lock appears in maximum security areas such as the main sallyport
55
1
1
entrance. Several of the locks viewed were in need of maintenance to replace
1 missing screws and tighten loose parts.
DETENTION LOCKS:
1
Most of the detention locks viewed were products of Southern Steel Corporation.
These manual locks are in average condition for their age. Most of the holding
cell areas are controlled by manual detention locks or manual sliding devices.
Manual devices present a staffing problem because a staff member is needed to
move inmates.
1
BUILDING CENTRAL CONTROL:
1
The present central control room is a compilation of mismatched out -dated and
malfunctioning equipment. The door control cabinet functioned only in the off
1 position, while in the off position, it is impossible to show the security level status
of the controlled doors. During the tour it appeared that the door interlock
function (only one door opening at a time) was not operational.
General disorder was apparent throughout the room. This room is improperly
equipped to perform as a true central control room. It also functions as an
1 intake /holding control point. A central control must be the main nerve center of
the complex with the capability of controlling and /or monitoring all systems within
1 56
1
the e facility. It is imperative that this room be planned with an understanding of
1 facility operation and a knowledge of how staff members do their job.
SECOND FLOOR SUB - CONTROL:
1
This control room is responsible for the movement within the second floor housing
areas, including the operation of the elevator. There is very little door control and
no intercom communication from this room. Basically, this control room is little
more than a guard's booth or lounge. Very little control can actually be
accomplished from this station.
1
THIRD FLOOR SUB- CONTROL:
1
This control room is responsible for the movement within the third floor holding
areas, including the operation of the elevator.
g p There is a new electric door control
1 panel in operation which appears to be functioning well. The only problem
reported was that of improper door adjustments causing operation malfunctions.
The intercom station is totally malfunctional and needs replacement.
1
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHORT TERM USE OF EXISTING FACILITY
1
1 It is our professional opinion that this facility, in the short term, would best be
utilized by removing all low escape risk inmates and at the same time starting a
1 57
1
1
program of correcting security and code deficiencies.
1
The low -risk inmates could be housed off -site in temporary buildings, or if
warranted, ut on early release. This would relieve the facility's overcrowding, Y tY g, a
1 major cause of stress and tension, and at the same time allow for an orderly
construction program of corrective measures.
Based on the aforementioned findings of our physical evaluation, as well as our
experience in numerous other facilities, we recommend the following corrective
1 modifications to this facility be made in order to provide the security, code and
Life Safety requirements necessary to house a medium to high escape risk
population.
SECURITY
1. Present floor control panels are not safe. They do not tell the officer if
the doors are secure or not. All existing floor control panels should be
replaced with new graphic control systems, fully integrated between control
1 P g P Y � Y g
points and with the capability of central control taking command during
emergencies.
2. At present the lack of a sound system causes considerable inefficiencies in
1 operation, plus reduced officer and inmate safety. Without a sound system
the buildling fails to meet code.
58
1
1
1 It is recommended that an entire sound system be installed to provide this
facility with paging; communication between officer stations, control room
and inmates; and controlled doors and elevators to the control rooms.
1
3. At present the lack of a duress system in this facility puts officers and staff
in potentially dangerous situations with no means of summoning help.
It is recommended that the entire facility be equipped with a reliable
1 duress system as soon as possible.
4. The glass used in this facility in such areas as control rooms and cell areas
1 is standard laminated bullet resistant glass. If attacked, this glass would
not protect occupants of control rooms, nor keep rioting inmates confined.
It is recommended that all security areas with glass be replaced with glass
1 clad polycarbinate glazing (min. 11/16" thick).
5. Door hardware and glass stops in this facility are put together with a
P Y P g
variety of screw types. Most of these could be easily removed by inmates.
It is recommended that all such screws be replaced as soon as possible
with security type screws, such as "Torx with Peg ".
1 59
1
11
I
6. The present floor plan of this facility causes numerous blindspots which are
1 not within view of control officers.
1 To meet code, and for the safety and security of officers and inmates, it is
1 tY tY ,
recommended the entire facility be equipped with a multi - plex CCTV
system. Controls and monitors should be located in each floor's sub -
1 control room and the central control room should be able to monitor every
1 area.
1
1 CODE AND LIFE SAFETY
1 1. The lighting system in the housing area should provide a minimum of 20
I foot candles at 30" above the floor for reading purposes. This is required
by F D OC 33 -8.0 1
y OS( 0)(b)1. Light fixtures should be repaired or
1 replaced to provide a proper light level.
1 2. The HVAC system in the housing area should provide ventilation which
Y g P
1 circulates at least 10 cubic feet of fresh or purified air per minute per
person as required by FL DOC 33- 8.005(10)(b) 2. The system currently
I does not meet these requirements and because of age, poor condition and
1 the inability to be retrofitted to present standards it should be replaced.
1
1 60
1
1
3. It was observed that minimum requirements for plumbing fixtures was not
1 provided in all housing areas per FL DOC 33- 8.005(10)(b) 3 and 4. The
only corrective measures would be to decrease inmate population or
provide additional plumbing fixtures.
P P g
4. Multiple occupancy cells are required to provide a minimum of 45 square
feet of floor space per inmate in sleeping areas. A minimum of 35 square
1 fee per inmate of dayroom floor space is required for each inmate. In
open dormitory or reduced custody housing units 80 square feet of floor
1 space per inmate is required for the combination of sleeping and dayroom
areas. This is in accordance with FL DOC 33- 8.015(8)(i),(j) and (k). The
only solution to this violation is to decrease inmate population.
1
5. Exterior masonry walls are required to be reinforced with #K steel
reinforcing bars at 16" O.C. vertically and filled with 3,000 PSI concrete
from top to bottom per FL DOC 33 8.015(8)(d). It is our recommendation
that the exterior walls be inspected and if found to be of improper
construction, than corrective measures should be taken to provide proper
1 reinforcing.
6. Stairwell doors were noted to be locked by deadbolts. If the
1 recommendation for a new door control system is followed, this would
provide monitoring and remote release capabilities as required by NFPA
1 61
1
101 Life Safety Code.
1
7. Windowless buildings shall be provided with vent openings, smoke shafts
or an engineered smoke control provide stem to ventilation for each
Y
1 windowless smoke compartment. Replacement of the HVAC system with
engineered smoke control would meet the requirements of NFPA 101 Life
1 Safety Code.
1
8. Correctional officer posts should be provided to achieve sight and sound
1 observation of inmates at all times per FL DOC 33- 8.001(17) and NFPA
101 Life Safety Code.
1
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LONG TERM USE:
1 Our recommendation is that this facility become an area to house low risk and /or
work released or weekend sentenced inmates because operational deficiencies exist
1 that make operation as a maximum medium security / YJ ail too staff intensive.
1
We also recommend that no further expansion of this facility be considered because
1 efficient expansion is not possible.
1 The short term physical improvements as well as the removal of 50 to 100 inmates
to temporary housing in another location would:
1 62
1
1
1 a. Relieve the tensions of the overcrowded facility.
b. Provide needed additional capacity to the Monroe county Correctional
System.
1 c. Provide the CAP Committee additional classification and housing
opportunities.
d. Allow flexibility within the existing jail for construction to make short term
1 physical improvements to take place while still operating the jail.
e. Allow the County the additional time to locate a site, develop a design and
1 construct a proper detention facility to meet the long range requirements.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
63
1
• a
.O
1 b
1
Q
1
1
O e
• 0'e9" 40 04 1,
• '
a, •
o
`• O0
•
0
1
1 .
1
1
Pr of a Detention FaciIity 4.0
1
1
INTRODUCTION
1
The needs assessment chapter of this report assessed existing pre- and post -trial
alternatives that influence the population of the Monroe County Detention Facility.
1 Some of these programs, including court delay reduction, pre -trial intervention, and
post -trial sentencing alternatives have had a measurable impact on controlling the
average daily population. It will be necessary for the County and the various
1 components of the justice system to continue this aggressive use of programs to
manage the anticipated growth in average daily population.
1
In this chapter, a discussion of the type of facility that will support the Monroe
County Detention Centers' operational goals emphasizing therapy, behavioral
1 modifications, reduction in recidivism, and normalized environment will be
1 presented in coordination with a general architectural program statement for a new
facility. Each of the major components of the facility (facility administration,
1 security services, program services, support services, and housing) will be discussed
in terms of its specific mission and architectural implications.
1
FACILITY MISSION
1
1 To develop, incorporate and implement a Monroe County Correctional System
Master Plan that provides the most cost effective and operationally efficient
1
1 64
1
1
methodology h '
to resolve the County's jail overcrowding and staffing problems.
1
The plan will also provide for solutions to the problems inherent in detaining or
incarcerating juveniles, females, sentenced and unsentenced misdemeanants,
1 intoxicants, alcoholics, drug abusers and mental deficients.
The architectural design and construction response to this overall philosophy of
1 rewards and self -help should yield a variety of housing unit choices.
1 For example, the majority of the inmates will be offered the opportunity to reside
in "normalized" housing units that provide regular supervised access to outdoor
recreation, indoor activities, visitation, counseling, and a variety of programs.
1 Inmates living in these housing units will experience more than 12 hours per day
out -of -cell time.
1 A few inmates that are not able to make personal choices that allow their living
within these housing units will be confined in high security, maximum custody type
living environments. Inmates within maximum custody areas will be afforded a
1 minimal out -of -cell time each day for recreation and personal hygiene.
A final group of selected inmates will be offered the opportunity to live outside of
1 the security compound of the facility in treatment and sentenced housing units.
These inmates will have qualified for special housing due to their behavior and
1
1 65
1
1
I
participation in a variety of counseling, educational, and life skills programs.
1 In effect, it is the desire of the administration to return inmates to society after
their incarceration in the new facility better prepared to make personal choices and
I to understand the consequences of their actions. This concept will require a
q P q
1 combination of programs and the appropriate design response to this philosophy.
1 The new facility will provide the central intake function for the Lower Keys until
1 a facility is built to accommodate the Upper Keys. A pre -trial court processing that
involves incarceration will be located at the new facility. The central booking
1 function will assign needed inmates to a series of programs and housing
1 environments anticipated throughout the length of stay. For those inmates to be
incarcerated for a short period of time, their entire experience within the County
1 . detention system may be in the intake housing unit. It takes 72 hours to complete
I the intake process. Forty -eight beds will be needed for this purpose.
1 Many of the inmates will be released through pre -trial programs directly from the
I intake housing component. During their time of incarceration within these housing
units, a complete program for their stay in the facility will be developed. For
1 those inmates that are not released from the intake housing area, assignments will
be made to other housing environments within the correctional facility. According
I to the inmate program, inmates will be afforded an opportunity to progress through
1 the various custody levels of housing units to a final assignment prior to their
release. This housing classification is outside the secure compound of the facility.
1
1 66
1
1
The management of the new facility will combine both centralized and
1 decentralized functions. Overall facility administration will be provided from a
central location within the institution, supplemented by decentralized administrative
control at the housing unit level.
1
Due to the desire for interaction between the staff and inmate, the design of the
housing units and the support spaces should be as barrier -free as possible within
1 a secure setting. Within the inmate living environment, the officer /counselor and
inmate should interact face -to -face, and should not interact in control rooms and
1 other areas that hinder the communication process. For the most part, face-to-
face communication between inmates and staff will occur within the dayroom
environment. However, at each of the living units, private counseling rooms will
1 be provided for the population, when required. The counseling activities will range
from staff instruction or reprimands to group sessions involving eight to twelve
inmates. The counseling staff will be drawn both from centralized areas within the
1 facility and be assigned directly at the housing unit level.
A large portion of the inmate services, such as visitation, dining, recreation, and
1 counseling should be decentralized to the housing unit. Inmates should have access
to as many services from the dayroom environment as feasible to provide the
opportunity for maximum staff efficiency.
1
1
67
1
nvir possible Although the facility intends to provide as normal an environment as poss b e to
1 encourage inmate and staff interaction, security will not be compromised. The
emphasis will be upon secure design and system concepts that reinforce the staffs
responsibilities, but do not substitute technology for personnel. Assuming an
1 adequately sized site, the facility should be enclosed in a secure fence with
appropriate electronic detection and personnel response capabilities. All intake,
maximum, and medium custody housing units will be enclosed within the secure
1 perimeter. Provisions will be made for the minimum and treatment transition
housing units to be located outside the secure perimeter, but with a direct access
1 to programs and services within the secure compound.
1
The second major component of the physical security program will be the design,
1 construction, and management of the housing units. These areas should be
concentrated so as to minimize the opportunity for escape or vandalism. All areas
that are inmate accessible, not under direct constant will m l
s e, yet of u de d ect co sta t e p oy
1 the use of high security construction techniques, locking devices, and equipment.
For example, it is anticipated that a combination of closed- circuit television, body
alarms, "knock -off' telephones, and portable radios will be essential components of
1 the security system. While the facility will utilize technology to support the security
concept, the basic principle will be staff and inmate interaction within housing units
and a combination of direct and casual supervision of inmates throughout other
1 program and support areas of the facility.
68
1
1
DETENTION FACILITY DESIGN STANDARDS
1
The information in this section was developed to assist the Monroe County Jail
Advisory Committee in making policy decisions regarding the design of the new
1 detention facilities. The County is obligated to comply with the Rules of the State
of Florida Department of Corrections, Chapter 33 -8 County and Municipal
Detention Facilities, when renovation or construction of a new county jail is
1 anticipated. Although there are design criteria regarding inmate housing areas,
specifics for facilitating services in many cases are non - existent.
1
Where Chapter 33 -8 is void in specific design standards, the consultants and
architects will adhere to the standards set forth in the "American Correctional
1 Association Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities (Second Edition)" for
the design philosophy of the Monroe County Jail. The minimum space
requirements in this report are based on the necessary functions and personnel
q P rY P
1 required to administer and operate a safe and secure detention facility.
The following format identifies standards and conditions relative to major building
1 components that require a policy decision from the Jail Advisory Committee. The
response to each Policy Decision reflects the resolutions made by the committee
on July 26 and August 10, 1989. Each decision was made with the intent to stay
1 within the framework of the Mission Statement for the proposed detention facility
and not compromise the security of the facility or community. The consultant
69
1
1
provided information to the committee that reflected the cost implications lications and P
1 consequences of each decision.
1
1 #1 Policy Issue: Bed Space Required
The Monroe County Jail Advisory Committee agreed with the need for effective
inmate population management programs to control the need for additional bed
space beyond the capacity adopted by the committee:
1
Decision:
1995 Capacity 570 beds pre -trial
2005 Capacity 1024 beds pre -trial
1 1
#2 Policy Issue: Size of Core Support
The Monroe County Jail Committee agrees with the need to provide adequate
1 space to carry out the basic functions required to administer a detention facility.
Such areas include administrative offices, conference rooms, clerical support,
storage, etc. In the absence of specific standards for designated areas, the
1 Consultant will rely on experience and proven space standards for similar activities
in other institutions.
70
1
1
Decision:
Core size should be designed to support a 1024 bed capacity facility.
1
1 #3 Policy Issue: Location
Geographic constraints dictate that one central location for a detention facility will
not adequately serve the communities in Monroe County.
Decision:
Phase I Lower Key (which includes utilization of existing jail until the year
2000).
Phase II Upper Key (which incorporates the Sheriffs satellite station).
1
1 #4 Policy Issue: Classification of Bed Space
Proper classification of bed space will minimize the need for maximum security
Y
type construction without compromising the security of the facility and community.
Decision:
General Population
Intake housing 10% (small cells and multiple occupancy cells).
71
1
1
Disciplinary Segregation/Special Custod 12% sin
P rY Custody single cells. g
1 48 Bed dormitories (V.O.P.'S, Pretrial Misdemeanant) 20% dorms (48
Beds)
Treatment groups (drugs; alcohol; mental health) 25% single cells
1 w /capability for double bunking.
1
Standards to be used for the Study
#5 Policy Issue: Design Standards
1
The County is obligated to provide a constitutional jail to house county inmates.
1 Therefore, standards should be utilized to direct design decisions for the proposed
new detention facility.
1 Decision:
Standards to be used for this study will be:
Rules of the State of Florida Department of Corrections, Chapter 33 -8
1 County and Municipal Detention Facilities.
American Correctional Association Standards for Adult Local Detention
Facilities (Second Edition)
1
72
1
1
1
#6 Policy Issue: Staff Training
1 Chapter 33 -8 is void of specific design criteria or suggestions regarding staff
services and operations. The Board of Commissioners will need to decide to what
extent the County will address staff services. Current design practices include
1 amenities such as lounge or break areas, staff dining, day care centers for staff
children, exercise and training facilities. When agencies have provided these
amenities the morale has improved and employee turnover rate has decreased
1 substantially. The result reflects a reduction in operational cost.
Decision:
1 Provide training facilities
Provide physical fitness center
1
Inmate Processing
1 Vehicular Area
Police Booking
Arrival Processing
1 Court /Transfer /Discharge
Public Area
1
73
i
1
1
#7 Policy Issue: Capacity of Inmate Process Area
1
Chapter 33 -8 mentions these areas but is not specific on area requirements. The
consultants will design the Inmate Processing area as per the American
1 Correctional Standards and examine the admission profiles of inmates processed
into the jail to determine the functional spaces needed for a safe and secure jail.
Decision:
The inmate processing area should be sized for a 1024 capacity facility.
1
#8 Policy Issue: Capacity of Kitchen
1 Should the dietary facilities be designed to accommodate the ultimate capacity of
111 the detention facility?
Decision:
Design dietary services for a 1024 capacity facility.
Magistrate's Suite
Pre -trial Services Unit
1 Hearing Room
1 Chapter 33 -8 does not address specific design standards for pre -trial release
services or judicial hearing services in a detention facility.
74
1
■
#9 Policy Issue: Court Facilities h
# y Co es at the Jail
1
If Monore County does not provide space in the proposed new County jail for
judicial hearings, then the County must make provisions for transporting inmates
1 to and from the courts building or other designated court facilities. Transportation
of inmates to and from jail and courts increases operational cost for extra transport
officiers and increases risk for inmate escapes.
1
Decision:
1 The County will provide Pre -trial hearing facilities in the jail.
The County will provide space for close circuit television hearings.
Library
1 "33 -8.009 Programs
(10) Each facility shall provide every inmate who is unable to obtain the
1 assistance of counsel reasonable access to legal materials."
"33 -8.010 Privileges
(2)(b) A reading or library services shall be available to the inmates who are held
1 beyond first appearance. Such service should be established with the local
county or city library and via the purchase of periodicals for use in the jail."
1
1
75
1
1
#10 Policy Issue: Library Requirements
Y rY q
1 If a library and legal library is not provided in the detention facility, then provisions
must be made to have library services delivered to the jail to comply with above
1 standards.
1
Decision:
I The County will provide a Legal Library in the jail.
1
1 #11 Polcy Issue: Medical Space
1
If the County does not provide an infirmary in the detention facility then the
1 County will have to contract for medical services and infirmary care which will
include transporting inmates to and from local hospital facilities. The County will
I continue to absorb the cost of transportation and extra security for hospitalized
1 inmates.
1 Decision:
1 The County will contract all infirmary care services and provide only clinic
care in the jail. (entry examinations, sick call, first aid)
I The County will provide the basic dental care for all inmates and provide
1 in -house examination.
1
1 76
1
1
Vocational /Educatinal Programs for Inmates
33 -8.009
#12 Policy Issue: Vocational Programs
1
Should the county decide to incorporate inmate vocational training programs, space
should be dedicated for that purpose in the new facility.
Decision:
The County will provide a multi - purpose room in the dietary service area
for culinary training and other vocational training programs.
1
#13 Policy Issue: Warehouse Space
The County must provide warehouse space for the new detention facility either in
1 existing warehouses or provide the space at the new jail compound.
Decision:
1 The County will provide warehouse space on site for food storage and maintenance
supplies.
1
1
1
77
1
1
Inmate Housing
1 33 -8.015 Minimum Construction Standards
(12) - The Department recommends all single occupancy type facilities; however,
1 this is not a requirement.
1
#14 Policy Decision
1 Should the County decide to anticipate internal expansion by double bunking cells
for future growth, then the Florida Department of Correction recommends building
1 cells with 90 square feet and providing additional square footage in dayroom and
personal hygiene facilities to accommodate the internal expansion.
1 Decision:
1 Cell and Dayroom Size
90 sq. ft. per double occupancy cells.
1 70 sq. ft. cell in dayroom space when double bunking is planned.
Re -use of Existing Relocatable Modules (50 bed modules).
1
1
1
1
1 78
1
1
COMPONENT PROGRAM STATEMENT
1
The population forecasts indicate that Monroe County needs to construct facilities
1 of approximately 1,000 beds to meet the County's needs during the next 20 years.
1 A first phase construction program is proposed of approximately 576 bedspaces,
providing maximum, medium, and minimum custody housing options. In the
1 following paragraphs, a discussion of the general component responsibilities for a
1,000 -bed correctional facility is presented.
1 For the purpose of pre - architectural planning and cost estimation, the facility has
been subdivided into eight major components, identified as follows:
1 Facility Administration
Staff Services /Security Operations
1 Inmate Processing
1 Inmate Programs
Dietary Services
Medical Services
1 Facility Management
Inmate Housing
1
1 The basic function of each of these components, along with general design criteria,
is presented in the following pages.
1
1 79
1
1
FACILITY ADMINISTRATION
1
The role of the Facility Administration Component is to provide a central location
1 for the administration of the entire facility and to house personnel and records that
support the management of the facility.
1
FACILITY DIRECTORS AREA
1 Within the secure area of the facility, the Facility Director and supporting staff
1 should be provided space that maximizes the opportunity for interaction with each
other, yet is secure from areas having direct inmate access. Although the Director
1 will regularly visit housing units, program areas, and support areas, the office suite
for the Director should be located so as to be directly accessible by staff, rather
1 than inmates. The Director area will involve a waiting area, secretary,
ry,
1 administrative assistant, and Director office. Access to this area should be
controlled by a receptionist or secretary.
1
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
1
1 The operation of the correctional facility will require support personnel, such as
recruitment, financial, inmate records, data processing, and clerical workers. The
1
1 80
1
1
general public and institutional staff will require regular access to this area.
1 Inmates will not have access to this area, except under direct escort and
supervision.
1
1
INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION
1
1 The individual having direct responsibility for programs, operations, and security
should be located in close proximity to the Director.
1
FACILITY ADMINISTRATION - SUMMARY
1
1 The overall Facility Administration Component should be in close proximity to the
Security Services and Program Services Components. Physical connections between
1 the Facility Administration Component and the Security and Program Services
Components can be accomplished through a combination of sally ports, corridors,
and controlled exterior circulation.
1
The overall Facility Administration area should be programmed to provide a 1,000
square foot central core space.
1
1
1 81
1
1
STAFF SERVICES
1
Staff lockers, an exercise room, and a lounge should be located within this area.
Access to the staff
areas will be limited to authorized personnel. However, the
1 immediate family members of selected staff may have access to the exercise area.
1
TRAINING AREA
- The correctional staff will provide initial and continuin g training trainin services to all
1 security and support personnel. A training room should be provided that offers a
multiple use of the space for shift roll -call functions and training activities. This
1 flexible space should provide the opportunities for both classroom type seating and
special training activities.
1
SECURITY SERVICES
1 The control of inmate movement and the assurance of a secure operation of the
institution, will to a large degree be dependent upon the location and design of the
1 Security Services Component. Within the Security Services area, P y a ea, the central
1 technological and personnel nerve center of the institution will be located. In
addition, intake and release processing for all inmates and staff will occur here.
82
1
1
I
Spaces that support the security staff functions, as well as enhance the adjudication
1 process (such as a preliminary hearing room), will be located within this
component.
1
COMMAND CENTER -
1
1 This space, located as near to the entrance of the facility as possible, will house the
personnel that have direct responsibility for the operation of the correctional
1 facility on each of the three shifts. Staff will frequent this area on a regular basis
1 for meetings, instructions, and a variety of security activities. While the offices
within this area can be of normal construction, access to the area should be strictly
1 controlled.
1
1 VISITATION
I
The processing of visitors, except for those inmates located outside of the secure
1 compound, will occur at the reception building described under the Facility
Administration Component. Visitation to the minimum custody housing modules
I outside of the security compound will occur at the housing Y P s g unit. All other visitors,
1 once completing the screening and processing steps, will be allowed to move in a
separate corridor to visitation booths located directly off of the housing unit
1
1 83
1
1
1
dayroom. A minimum of one non - contact visit room per 12 beds should be
1 provided. In addition to the non - contact visit rooms, one contact legal visit room
should be provided directly adjacent to the dayroom. The construction of the non-
' contact visit room should assure complete separation p p on of the inmate from the visitor.
1 Various design approaches to enhancing voice communication, while eliminating
the potential for passage of contraband, should be explored. Inmates and visitors
1 in the minimum custody housing unit will be allowed contact visits in a multi -
1 purpose space to be closely supervised by security and /or counseling staff.
Visitation in these housing units will be an integral part of the inmate self -
improvement program.
1
1 CENTRAL CONTROL
i
All life - safety and security monitoring systems will be displayed within the central
1 control room. The design of this area should employ the highest level of security
construction techniques and equipment. Access to this area is strictly limited to
authorized personnel. If ossible the central control
P room should be located so
1 as to provide direct visual and electronic control of the facility entrance. Although
during daylight shifts, the primary entrance to the facility may be controlled by a
I receptionist, the central control should have a view of the receptionist desk and the
1 front entrance of the facility. Depending upon the design approach, the central
control room staff may also be able to operate selected doors throughout the
1
84
1
1
institution through a combination of voice command and visual surveillance. The
1 central control room should also have a primary responsibility of monitoring the
electronic enunciation devices associated with the perimeter security system.
•
SECURITY SERVICES - SUMMARY
1
1 In terms of functional adjacencies, the Security Services Component should be in
close promimity to both the Facility Administration and Medical Services areas.
1 Certain areas within the Security Services Component should have direct access
from a secure vehicle sallyport. Other areas, such as the judicial hearing room,
must be provided access from the intake processing area and must have a secure
1 entry to the correctional facility. With the exception of the training room, staff
support and judicial hearing areas; most of the spaces within the Security Services
Component should be constructed using high security techniques.
1
The total square feet suggested for the spaces within this component meet the
ultimate needs of a 1,000-bed
correctional facility.
1
1
1
1
85
1
t
INMATE PROCESSING
1
The design of this area is particularly important in supporting the overall mission
and hiloso h of the Monroe County Detention P P Y ty to tion Facility. All inmates will pass
1 through this area both during the intake and the release process. It is in this area
that a program of rewards and choices based upon behavior and program
participation will be outlined. The architectural design of this area should also
1 reinforce the importance of choice in the inmate behavior.
1 The area should be designed to provide a variety of holding areas, ranging from
open lounge seating to single high security cells. A total of 48 holding spaces,
including a combination of open area seating and multiple - occupancy and
1 individual cells should be provided. This area should be designed to provide a
combination of high security, vandal- resistant spaces; and areas that also reflect as
normal an environment as possible. Access to this area will be through the vehicle
1 sally port, and movement from this area to other parts of the institution will be
strictly controlled by the central control room.
1
JUDICIAL HEARING
1
1 In an attempt to reduce the transport of inmates to court facilities and to expedite
the preliminary hearing and arraignment process, space should be provided for a
1
86
1
1
judicial hearing room. This space should be designed for the use of closed - circuit
1 television for bond - setting, bond review, and arraignment. This area, designed to
reflect the dignity of a courtroom, should also provide support spaces for a judge
and judicial clerk. In addition, space for pre- J p p e and post-trial counselor offices
1 should be located within the judicial hearing area. When not used for judicial
functions, the hearing room could also be used for community meetings regarding
correctional system activities and for lectures rovided as a part of the staff training
P g
programs.
1
INMATE PROGRAMS
1 This component of the facility provides spaces for a variety of inmate activities
oriented toward opportunities for self- improvement, group interaction, recreation,
and educational training. Although it is proposed to decentralize some of the
1 individual counseling and multi - purpose spaces to the housing unit, the largest
percentage of group programs and activities will be centralized here. While
security procedures must be carefully Y P fu y addressed in the Program Services
Component, the design objective of this area is to achieve a setting similar to an
educational environment.
1
1
87
1
LIBRARY
/LEARNING RESOURCES
1
The Learning Resources Center should consist primarily of general and law
libraries. Programs will be developed between the County library system P ty ry y and the
1 Monroe County Correctional Facility. Selected inmates will be given an
opportunity to carry library cards so that they can broaden their access to reading
1 materails from the County library system. Within the correctional facility, inmates
will be allowed access to the Learning Resources Center by using a pass system.
Space should be provided for a minimum of ten volumes per inmate. Separate
1 reading and study areas should be provided. The law library should provide a
combination of stacks and study carols, equipped with typewriters. This area,
similar to the educational classrooms, should provide a maximum of glazed surfaces
1 to promote casual supervision of the classrooms and library areas by other staff and
security officers.
1
COUNSELING
1 A variety of types of counseling will occur both at the housing units and at a
centralized location. Each dayroom environment should include a counseling room
1 suitable for individual and group counseling. At a central location, spaces should
1 be provided for a combination of staff and volunteer counseling activities. A group
room suitable for up to 50 inmates should be provided. This room should be able
88
1
to be subdivided into smaller rooms for small group counseling sessions. In
addition, this room can provide space for religious services.
1
EDUCATION
The educational area should provide classrooms for up to 15 inmates working at
either tables or chairs or at desk -type furniture. It is recommended that at least
one of the classrooms be dedicated to life - skills training, with two additional multi -
1 purpose classrooms capable of a variety of educational activities including
computer -based learning programs. A teacher's workroom should be provided in
close proximity to the classrooms.
1
RECREATION
1
Recreation will combine both indoor and outdoor activities. To the extent possible,
each dayroom should have ave an outdoor recreation area directly adjacent to the
housing unit. This space will be supervised by the housing unit officer. In addition,
a centralized recreation area should include a multi - purpose space large enough for
two half -court basketball ames to be played simultaneously. g p y s y. Due to the favorable
1 climate in Southern Florida, it is anticipated that the gymnasium component can
89
1
1
be constructed as a covered outdoor area. Associated with this area should be
spaces for exercise equipment and a recreational coordinator's office.
1
1 PROGRAM SERVICES • SUMMARY
The areas contained within the Program Services Component should be in as close
1 proximity to inmate housing units as possible. Inmates living outside of the secure
compound will have access to this area through controlled entrances. While it will
1 be necessary for the inmates to move to the centralized Program Services activities,
care should be given in the design of the facility to encourage the maximum use
of these areas with minimal staffing requirements. This area should be designed
to meet the needs of a 1,000 -bed institution.
1
1 SUPPORT SERVICES
A number of areas should be provided for the services necessary to assure the
1 maximum operational efficiency of the facility. Spaces for food, laundry, medical,
and maintenance services should be provided with a basic objective of efficient
operation within the areas that are likely to house expensive equipment
Y P that is used
1 and operated by inmate workers. These areas will also provide an opportunity for
job training of inmates under the direct supervision of staff. While security is a
1 90
concern, the design of most of the Support Services areas can be institutional,
1 rather than correctional, in form and construction approach.
1
DIETARY SERVICES
Food should be reared at
p p a central location and served to the inmate population
1 within the housing units. In the maximum and medium custody housing units, a
1 nutritional center should be provided that offers beverage service and a staging
area for the distribution and collection of food trays. Within the minimum custody
housing areas, a more normalized kitchen environment should be provided that
offers the inmates an opportunity to learn basic food preparation skills. The
central food preparation areas should be designed following a determination by the
County of the desired food preparation approach. Careful attention should be
given to the potential space savings associated with techniques such as the quick -
chill approach. While security within the food preparation area is a major concern,
the actual layout and equipment within this area should reflect that of an
institutional commercial kitchen. Again, this g , t s area will be used by inmates to learn
1 basic culinary art procedures as a job preparation program. In addition to bulk,
refrigerated and freezer storage areas, the food preparation area should provide
space for food receiving and arba e compaction. Although separate from g g P g p o the food
1 preparation area, a staff dining room should be provided to allow staff to
91
1
participate in meals at the correctional facility and to provide another opportunity
1 for inmates to be trained in food service activities.
1
MEDICAL SERVICES
The medical services area provides clinical services only. Daily sick -call will
Y y be
1 conducted within the clinical area. Examination rooms, a pharmacy, and medical
staff offices should be provided. To the extent possible, the medical area should
1 be located in close proximity to the intake processing area. Since medical
screening and examination is a part of the intake process, the close proximity
should maximize staff efficiency. Twenty -four hour health care staff coverage will
1 be necessary within the medical component.
1
t GENERAL WAREHOUSE
A variety of es and sizes of storage Y types o age areas should be provided throughout the
1 institution. In addition, careful consideration should be given to the use of a bulk
storage warehouse outside the secure compound of the facility. Within this
warehouse area, storage should be rovided for operational p p supplies, repair
materials, inmate property, dead file storage, and other general requirements.
Access to this building should be carefully controlled. Within the correctional
1
92
facility, a variety of storage areas within each of the major facility components
1 should be provided.
1
1 MAINTENANCE
A major goal of the maintenance ro ram of the Monroe County Detention
g y i ton
Facility will be to conduct preventive maintenance to assure the optimium use of
furnishings, equipment, and surfaces. Careful consideration should be given in
1 the selection of construction techniques, equipment, and furnishings to extend the
life of the facility. The maintenance program will involve the combined use of
trained staff and inmates. A variety of shops for carpentry, metal work, HVAC
repair, and electronic devices repair should be provided. Access to these areas
should be strictly controlled and any inmates assigned to this area will be under the
direct
supervision of maintenance staff. Careful attention should be given to
1 securing tools, parts, and materials.
LAUNDRY
All laundry services for personal inmate articles and linens will be rovid
p edata
1 central location. The laundry will provide work opportunities for two to six
inmates. The location of the central laundry should be near to the food services
1
93
1
area. If possible, there should be a direct physical linkage between the inmate
1 property storage and the laundry. In addition to a centralized laundry,
institutional grade washing and drying machines should be provided at each of the
housing units to allow inmates to wash ersonal items terns as desired.
1
SUPPORT SERVICES - SUMMARY
The Support Services Component is designed to meet the needs of a 1,000 -bed
institution. The majority of this space is dedicated to the food and medical services
areas. It is not necessary, nor desirable, to co- locate all of the various areas
associated with the Support Services Component. Of the areas previously
discussed, food preparation, laundry, and commissary can provide a logical grouping
to maximize staffing efficiency and aggregate areas to which inmate workers will
have access.
1
HOUSING UNITS
1
The determination of bed capacity in initial and subsequent phases is the single
most difficult datum in jail planning. Jails tend to be "capacity driven"
S p ty ; that is,
1 forces in the community and the justice system will inevitably fill any available beds
through, for instance, less stringent bonding or probation guidelines. Control of
94
incarceration rates, average length of stay, etc., require the concerted effort of all
1 elements of a complex justice system.
For the u ose of analysis, p rp ys s, a capacity of 576 beds has been used. This figure was
1 used to reflect certain classifications of inmates in anticipated percentages and to
optimize site impacts if, in fact, this size is eventually determined for Phase I. If
current and proposed policies designed to hold the line on inmate ate populations are
1 enforced, projections included in this report suggest an initial new construction
capacity of 576.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
95
1
MONROE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
I PROPOSED INMATE HOUSING BREAKDOWN
•
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III
1 No. No. No. No. No. No.
Housing Cluster Beds Units Beds Units Beds Units
1 Intake (Male) 48 1 .
General population (Male) with
1 capability to double bunk 288 3 192 2 96 1
General Population (Female)
1 with capability to double bunk 96 1
Segregation /Special Pop 48 1 48 1
1
Treatment (Dorm) 50 1 50 1 100 2
1 Total New Facility 530 7 242 3 244 4
I
Note: Dorm Modular 50 bed unit in Upper Keys is not included in the above bed count.
1
Inmates incarcerated within the sentenced and treatment (transition) housing areas
1 will be afforded the highest degree of accessibility to program, support, and
visitation services.
1 The overall concept of this housing area is to provide a normal environment to
promote direct interaction of staff and inmates and to decentralize a number of the
I major services and ro rams that will minimize inmate P g ate movement.
1
1
1 96
1
It is r
ecommended that the County give serious consideration to sizing the single
cells for a minimum of 90 square feet. Although this is higher than the
recommended standard for local detention facilities, as stated in Section 33 -8 of the
Florida Administration Code, the additional space allows p o s for more flexibility in
1 housing assignments to eliminate overcrowding.
1 With the exception of the maximum sercurity and segregation units, the fixtures and
furniture within the cells should be as normal and low -cost as possible. The use
of porcelain enamel water closets and lavatory fixtures is encouraged. All other
1 furniture should emphasize comfort and low maintenance requirements.
Access to the dayroom and /or multi - purpose room should be controlled through
a combination of the housing unit officer /counselor and the central control room
personnel.
1 All other spaces for individual or group counseling and visitation should be within
direct view of a housing unit staff person.
1 The following is a brief explanation of the types of housing environments to be
provided within the correctional facility.
1
1
97
GENERAL HOUSING /INTAKE
Inmates in the first 72 hours of their confinement will be held in the intake housing
area. One 48 -bed module is recommended for the housing of inmates in the intake
1 processing stage. The housing unit design should be similar to a typical 48 -bed pre-
trial module. While the design and construction of this area is comparable to other
1 pre -trial housing modules, classification and counseling staff will frequent the intake
housing area regularly to complete the intake process. It is important that the
overall mission of the facility be to offer inmates the opportunity to understand
choices related to behavior and participation in programs and be reflected in the
design and configuration of this housing unit.
GENERAL PRE - TRIAL HOUSING (MALE)
1 Four 48 -bed housing modules comprise the largest single component of the
correctional facility. These housing units should be normal in design and house
those inmates who are awaiting trial. The normal ormal process would be to evaluate an
inmate during the intake housing stage and upon completion of the intake
processing, and the assign the inmate to one of the general pre -trial housing units.
Within this environment, the inmates will have maximum opportunity
to earn
participation in other programs and housing areas. An inmate, even though pre-
trial in status, may earn the right to be assigned from the general pre -trial housing
98
area to the minimum custody housing area proposed to be located outside the
1 secure compound of the facility.
1
FEMALE HOUSING
The two 48 -bed housing modules should be subdivided d to provide individualized
dayrooms for intake, pre - trial, sentenced and segregated females. All single cells
should be used in the female housing module. Female inmates who demonstrate
1 constructive behavior and who participate in self -help programs may be assigned
to a special area within the minimum custody units outside the secure compound.
SEGREGATION /HOUSING
1 As a part of the overall management program for the Monroe County Detention
Facility, a maximum security/segregation custody area will be provided for those
inmates who cannot live within the management g t philosophy of the facility. Inmates
1 that require a higher level of supervision and a more restrictive confinement policy
due to behavioral or security risk problems will be confined in this 48 -bed unit.
1 Separate from the other typical housing unit configurations, the g gu maximum
1 custody /segregation unit should use a combination of direct and indirect
supervision. Doors to the cells should be controlled in the housing unit control
1 99
room and supervised by the officer located in the dayroom. The fixtures and
1 furniture within the cells should be of a high security type. Inmates may be
assigned to this housing for as brief as 24 hours, or up to the entire duration of
their confinement. Inmates however, be allowed to earn the right to be
1 incarcerated in lesser custody environments based upon their behavior within the
high security unit.
1
1
SPECIAL CUSTODY HOUSING
1
This area could house inmates requiring protective custody, mental health
observation, juveniles, or those requiring a high degree of staff supervision. Two
1 48 -bed modules are proposed that could be subdivided into 12 and 24 -bed
components. While the inmates assigned to the special observation area may not
all exhibit disruptive behavior, they may be of an age that warrants a higher level
1 of supervision. Maximum opportunity should be provided for a high degree of staff
and inmate interaction within the special observation housing area; therefore,
emphasis should be upon an
P p extensive use of counseling rooms and the elimination
1 of barriers to staff and inmate communication. All furniture, fixtures, and locking
devices can be of a conventional construction approach within this area.
1
1 100
1
TREATMENT HOUSING
1
Just as the maximum custody housing unit reflects one end of the choices that
inmates may make with regard to their behavior within the facility, the transition
1 housing area reflects the other end of the spectrum. Inmates that have earned,
through their participation in programs and behavior, the right to live within
minimum custody housing, will be incarcerated cerated within living areas outside of the
1 secure compound of the facility. Within this area, inmates will have maximum
access to programs, recreation, and services.
1
Inmates will participate in services decentralized to the housing unit, as well as in
centralized functions, such as recreation and religious programs, within the secure
1 component.
1 The housing areas will be supported by a variety of program and inmate activity
concepts. For example, a module may be dedicated to inmates that are
participating in special job skill training and work programs associated with the
institution
Another module could be dedicated to pre -trial inmates who have
1 earned the status of honor inmates through their behavior and participation in
programs within the correctional facility. The final assignment of inmates to the
minimum custody housing g unit will be based upon more extensive development
1 of the inmate programs. A combination of multi - purpose rooms, counseling rooms,
and study areas should be provided within the area. Consideration should be given
1
1 101
to the "
use of "dry cells with centrally located showers and toilets. The intent of
this area is to reflect through architectural design and inmate programming the
rewards that are associated with acceptable behavior and self- improvement.
SUMMARY SPATIAL ALLOCATIONS AND BASE COST ESTIMATES
FOR THE MONROE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
The following summary chart was developed from the inmate capacity forecast for
Monroe County. Each departmental component of the facility is listed with the
estimated gross square footage and construction cost. The guidelines for space
assignments were developed from the "American Correctional Association
Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities" Third Addition and the Florida
Chapter 33 -8. In the Master Plan Option Chapter of this report the base cost
figures are applied pp ied to each option for new construction and escalated to reflect
1 construction cost conditions within Monroe County.
1
1
1
1
1
1 102
6
�
,o
• a •
•
f
o �
o
• %e 4 ,4 is
,s o i
♦ , •• o
• v , D
O
0
!=
C%
o"
•
•
Master PIan O 5.0
The Monroe County Correctional System Master Plan has thus far established
planning data in three areas; inmate capacities, conditions of the existing jail, and
square footage requirements. This information will now form the basis for
developing alternative Master Plans.
1
In addition to other planning issues, there are specific challenges that planning any
project in the Keys present. Height restrictions to a maximum of 35', site
1 utilization ratios of 30% building area and 70% open space, and the nearly
impossible task of assembling any more than 10 acres for development all play a
1 major part in selecting a final Master Plan. Considering these issues the alternative
Master Plans in this section illustrate four options. These options are prepared on
1
what appears to be an available parcel of property and one that certainly typifies
1 property in the Lower Keys. Each option deals with degrees of variances and the
resulting buildable square footage and inmate capacities.
1
Option #1 (8.86A)
1 30% Floor Area (115,785 sq. ft.)
. 70% Open Space
1 35' Height Limitation (single story)
300 Ultimate Inmate Capacity
1
1 106
1
Option #2 (8.86A)
1
. 30% Floor Area (231,570 sq. ft.)
. 40% Open Space
1 45' Height Limitation (two story)
. 600 Ultimate Inmate Capacity
1
1
Option #3 (8.86A)
1
1 40% Floor Area (308,760 sq. ft.)
. 60% Open Space
1 45' Height Limitation (two story)
. 800 Ultimate Inmate Capacity
1
Option #4 (8.86A)
1
1 50% Floor Area (385,950 sq. ft..)
. 50% Open Space
45' Height Limitation (two story)
1000 Ultimate Inmate Capacity
1
107
1
1
1
The ultimate inmate capacities were calculated based on the inmate to area ratio
1 of 380 sq. ft. /inmate as was determined in Section 4: Spatial Allocations and the
adopted policy decisions which developed the space standards.
1 In order to achieve the desired capacity of 570 beds by the year 1995 and 1024
beds by the year 2005 (see Table 11: Monroe County - Pretrial Inmate Forecasts
I and Bedspace Projections in Section 2) it is clear that floor area and height
1 variances will be required and it is recommended that these variances be as defined
in Option #4. In addition, the final Master Plan and schematic designs will need
1 to maximize net to gross efficiencies, even exceeding those established in the space
1 program.
1 The Needs Assessment also recommends the concurrent development of a second
I jail site, preferably located in the Middle or Upper Key area. The inmate
projections, especially when considering the need for sentenced inmate housing and
1 the geographic constraints of Monroe County, would alone make the development
of a second site a strong recommendation. However, in addition there is a need
I to maintain the use of a recently purchased modular unit and the need for a new
1 Sheriff's sub - station. The development of a second jail site would focus initially on
the need for sentenced inmate housing with the continued use of the modular unit
I and draw upon the staff support of the incorporated Sheriff sub - station. Long
1 term, this second site (also recommended at + 10 acres) would or could be
developed similar to the first jail site. The Site Phasing Illustration presents a
1
1 108
possibility for the concurrent development of two sites and the flexibility to meet
P tY P Y
the bed space needs as they will actually develop.
Flexibility will primarily be achieved by designing the 48 cell typical unit per
Florida 33 -8 standards to permit either single or double bunking. The following
Design Projections and Area Requirements define the flexibility in terms of both
1 design capacity and emergency capacities.
1
DESIGN PROJECTIONS
1
Projections 48 Units Des. Capacity Emerg. Cap.
1 Female @ 57 1 62 (1 @ 62) 96 (1 @ 96)
Intake @ 51 1 62 (1 @ 62) 96 (1 @ 96)
1 Seg. /Spec @ 62 1 48 (1 @ 42) 96 (1 @ 96)
1 Treatment @ 128 2 124 (2 @ 62) 192 (2 @ 96)
Gen. Pop @ 169 3 186 (3 (ai 62) 288 (3 Ci 96)
1 467 8 482 768
1 Dorm @ 103 2 100 (2 (cry 50) 100 (2 (& 50)
1 Total 570 10 582 (pretrial) 868
1
1 109
1
1
Space required to construct the 482 design p q struct t e 82 bed des g capacity is 293,363 sq. ft.
1 Allowances also need to be made for an additional 10,000 sq. ft. for (2) 50 bed
dorms. The resulting area would be 303,363 sq. ft. This figure certainly within the
I limits of area defined in Master Plan Option 4 of 385,950 sq. ft. However, if space
1 allocations for future housing at 188,040 are applied, the build out total area would
be 491,403 sq. ft. or 105,453 sq. ft. over allowable construction. This excess of 27%
1 area can be recovered by: pressing the efficiency of the design beyond the limits
I of net to gross assumptions defined in the space allocation program; and by
considering outdoor exercise area as open space. The following is a re- calculation
1 of space allocations to achieve future expansion within the limits of allowable
1 building area:
Space Allocations
1
. Subtotal Detention Facility 231,969
1 . Building Circulation 10% vs. 20% 23,197
(design for exterior circulation)
. Outdoor Recreation -0-
1 (considered open space)
Subtotal Area (482 capacity) 255,166 (vs. 293,363)
1
. Allowance for (2) 50 bed dorms 10,000
I . Future Inmate Housing
(8) 48 cell modules at 15,000 s.f. ea. 120.000
1 . Total Area Required for Ultimate
Design of 1,064 Beds 385,166 sq. ft.
1
. Allowable Building Area Rep. 385,950 sq. ft.
(Master Plan Option 4)
1 110
1
1
1
For purposes of comparison, if the site variances were pushed to 40% open area
1 and 60% construction on two levels the allowable area for construction would be
463,141 sq. ft. This area, although closer to program, is assumed to be an
I unobtainable variance.
1
Another factor in the site phasing process is the existing jail. Ultimately this -
I facility should be phased out of existence as a permanent incarceration facility.
1 The condition of the existing jail, particularly security and life safety problems, will
continue to burden the county with high operational costs and liabilities. The
1 illustration of New Housing vs. Existing Jail Housing compares new construction
1 and operational costs with anticipated renovations and operational costs.
1
New Housing vs. Existing Housing
1 New Housing (172 beds /2 units 62 and 1 unit 48
g( / @ @ 48)
1 . Required Area
(3) Housing Units @ 15,000 sq. ft. $ 45,000
1 (1) Program Center 6.000
Total Square Feet 51,000
1 Cost per sq. ft. $ 125
Required Construction Cost $6,375,000
I . Staffing
(4) posts = 20 officers x $27,000 /yr $ 540,000 /yr
1
1
1 111
1
1
1
Existing Housing (180 Beds /Multi - Floors)
1 . Estimated Construction Cost for $1,000,000
Security and Life Safety Corrections
1 . Staffing
60 officers x $27,000 /yr $1,620,000
1 Amortization (Estimating Construction $ spent by 1993)
1 Year New Housing Existing Housing
1993 6,375,000 1,000,000
I 1994 6,915,000 (.540) 2,620,000 (1.62)
1995 7,471,000 (.556) 4,290,000 (1.67)
1996 8,044,000 (.573) 6,010,000 (1.72)
I 1997 8,634,000 (.590) 7,780,000 (1.77)
1998 9,242,000 (.608) 9,600,000 (1.82)
1
Abandoning the existing jail should not be a question of "if' but rather "when ". It
1 is the consultants recommendation that as soon as possible inmates not be housed
I in the existing jail and improvements be kept to only the essential. As the New
Housing to Existing Housing comparison shows, the County will spend $1,000,000
1 a year more running the existing jail vs. the same capacity incorporated in a new
facility, and in several years this additional operating cost could pay for an all new
I facility.
1
Regardless of the option chosen or the phasing strategy adopted there will be
I certain constraints when establishing project costs, such as:
1
1
1 112
1
. Construction costs in the Keys ranges from 25% to 30% more than industry
standards.
• Site costs can dramatically be effected by environmental, utility and acquisition
costs.
1 . Ultimate square footage will be determined after the approved Master Plan
is developed through schematic design.
. Cost per square foot will vary until final levels of finishes and security are
determined.
. Design, Legal, Survey and Soils investigation fees will total 6% to 10% of
construction costs.
1 . Design and construction contingencies should be budgeted between 5% and
8% of construction costs.
1
However, knowing the estimated area requirements to meet Phase I, construction
of 582 beds is 303,365 sq. ft., and applying $125 er s . ft. ($100 x 1.25
per q 1.25) a base
1 construction budget of $37,920,625 can be projected for the Phase I shown on the
Site Phasing illustration. Options to further reduce this cost would involve phasing
of the core building and a reliance on emergency capacity in the housing areas.
1 For example:
1
1
113
1
(5) units @ 96 = 480 beds
(1) units @ 48 = 48 beds
(2) dorms @ 50 = 100 beds
628 beds
•
1 x 380 sq. ft. /inmate
$ 238,640 sq. ft.
1 x 125 sq. ft.
1 $29,830,000
1
' Finally, combining the previous planning data with the master plan options
considered in this section we offer the following as direction in preparation of the
1 recommended Monroe County Correctional System Master Plan:
a. Sites in both the Lower Upper s and the U er Ke s of 8 to 10 acres be
Keys
purchased.
b. Site variances to allow 45' height and 50% open space allowances be
1 obtained so as to permit ultimate construction of 380,000 sq. ft.
1 c. The existing jail be phased out for pretrial holding once Phase I: Lower Key
Site Construction is complete.
1 d. Essential life safety and security problems be authorized for corrective
1 action as soon as possible on the existing jail.
1 114
1
e. Housing units be based on 48 cells per unit, with flexibility to double occupy
in emergency (per Florida Jail Standards).
f. Further program and budget criteria be established for the new Sheriff's
Sub - Station.
1 g. Budget guidelines be developed to determine ultimate square footage and
housing capacities.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
115
1
1
B /
1 t
•
CANA... r
1
1 FIFTH •\\ E. ENTRANCE
1
j::z::r:::;:; 1 .................•.•.
.................•.•.•.•
............ .••
.............•......•
......:::,:.. :::::::::::::::::::::::::..... ...: . :- /
•
. SINGLE
f i..2:..- S
1 .. TORY
300 : COMPLEX
': »: » ":: ; : U TIMA E i : W/ 2 TIER
•
1 / OE ; .. PACI Y I HOUSING
E1 �1 • I : •
• I •
• •
1 .... •
III
PREVIOUS is
.xliEtglifiltV.11#0 V. SHORE LII}
•
•
.
/tMETSOF SI TE .
1
.
..........
1 SITE Q 30020.0 300 UTILIZATION
_ � , 8.86 Acres (385,950 s.f )
R ESTRICTIONS
I -
35' Height Limitation
30% Floor Area (115,735 s.f )
70 °% Open Space
• ... • -: ,•:•:•:-.. : ••. .:::-.,..-:•:•:•:•.:-::::.:.:::.:::::' L
1 Monroe County
Correctional System 116
1 Master Plan Option 1
1
s •
L_ . __ ____ ._ . T : : :: ::;:/ - -1 /
�1 ... r -
C A.'sAI f •
1
1 -, , 4
FIFTH A\.',E. _. ENTRANCE
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•
j 4tt±i •
,': i • i / • • 2 STORY
( • COMPLEX
.:..:.:.:. 600 i •
• TI MA E
•
•
•
1 PR vi l • •
•
•
-1...:::::SHOTZE:......tiNE-:-.)y:::............... •
•
1
• ........7 ...... ..--
•
: :PE3ZI
• ETE ::
Lk# k T S . . E . .. ST :
1
/ �I
1 ss l'0:0::1:00 SITE UTILIZATION
< .. {{ : 8.86 Acres (385,950 s.f.) c r ,
RES TRICTIONS -c
I 45' Height Limitation <
30 Floor Area (115,785 s.f )
70% Open Space
1 Monroe County
Correctional System 11"1
1 Master Plan Option 2
1
. ` CA Nr.L : . •
/
i J•,: .'...
,' ;
FIFTH AVE. ENTRANCE • ... , • 2 STOIRY
t •
• I ; COM LEX
•
• I=
• . .: . ' • 800 1 ": •
A EA ? Ir < >` : .:\ ULTIMATE
•
I~IL€. �' CAPACITY / . •
•
•
• •.
•
•
•• 7 T 7 6
:,..........:....:......:..,-....::::::....::::::::.:..:............:......:::::!;;:::::::::............:....... -. N-,4tfr
.. .... /1MITSOE S E
. RM .... . . . • \
SET i 6 Acr'
......
. . . . . . . . ..
.. .. .
{ SITE UTILIZATION 1
} ? 8.86 Acres (385,950 s. `�
t RESTRICTIONS
45 Height Limitation ^—'
40 °o Floor Area (308,760 s.f.) z
f
60% Open Space
Monroe County
Correctional System 118
1 Master Plan Option 3
E
E ► ."'
1 \ '''
`
C a..... .".• ... ........ . . _ _.... 1 .. 1 I
I
I � I
I
�' I - I
-k '
FIFTH :AVE. ENTRANCE
t
- j V •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••:
j . ...... • . •••.
_
0 . .... 7 • --- . -------.- 2 STORY . i S I
_ COMPLEX i. . : ;
1 J
I • 1000 .
ULTIMATE ,
>`
IAREA OF \., ... % : r • 1 CAPACITY
FILL �� •
1 PREVIOUS 1 ••• `',fi •
SHORE LINEl ••. '~ • .. : .. _ •• '.f /-
1
' • • •*
' - SECURE :.
1 PERIMETE
NNNNN NN
LIMITS OF SITE
• a 86 Acres 1 _
1
i
1 p 104 200 300
SITE UTILIZATION ,.._
I I I I I
' 8.86 Acres (385,950 s.f.) r
I
RESTRICTIONS
ink I 45' Height Limitation ev
50% Floor Area (385,950 s.f.) <
1 NW 50% Open Space `
i
II Monroe County
Correctional System
119
1 Master Plan Option 4
E .
PHASE I (812 BEDS @ 1993)
..
•. • E @ 10001 SHERRIFF SUB STATION—.
4 UNITS -CT ... 4 UNITS Li
1 TWO ST Y O STORY
�1 r r(�1 '7 r"-t
' 1119 .
1995 PROJECTIO L I � � 11 4' LJ 2 RMS 50 BED
I MODULAR
PRETRIAL - 570
SENTENCED - 200 48 UTURE BEDS
770
1 - 50% OPEN SPACE � EXISTING .• - ---- -{
SITE 1 (8.86 A) JAIL SITE 2 ( ±10 A)
582 DESIGN (303,365 S.F.) 180 DESIGN 50 BED MODULAR
(868 EMERGENCY)
1 10 HOUSING UNITS
PHASE II (1040 BEDS @ 2000)
EXISTING 5 825 1 (2) @ 62.124 B DS
1 \
c OUT I
I RE EXISTING NEW
I ION S
2000 PRO ECT 1314 / 24 BEDS
5 B
J
PRETRIAL -797 � D RM 50 BED
DORM
SENTENCED n'. 250 , 234 BFOS L___I •
1047 \ EXISTING L___-
1 SITE 1 (8.86 A) 50% OPEN SPACE JAIL SITE 2 ( ±10 A)
816 DESIGN (343,365 S.F.) 224 DESIGN
1 14 UNITS 4 UNITS
PHASE III (1412 BEDS @ 2005) 224 EXISTI BEDS
L I. . _. (2) @ 62 - 124
C.....1
1 LI LinfriL;3 .
1 c3
2005 PRO 1 ECTI I
SENTE I NCED = 10 50 A.. 248 BEDS I i
1374 \ '- 5 0 % OPEN SPACE
I SITE 1 (8.86 A) ..
/ l 1
1064 DESIGN (385,166 S.F.) �J SITE 2 (±10 A)
18 UNITS 348 DESIGN 6 UNITS
1 Monroe County
Correctional System
1 Site Phasing 120
I w
1
D
l;I. o•
1 %°
o
4
,O
e
1 o
1
p O
0
1
c:,
P
1
O e
1
1 •
0
O
i CO 0
e FO
1
"'
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
Recommended Master Plan 6.0
1
1
The recommended master plan for the Monroe County Correctional System incorporates
the following requirements and projections:
1 a) Facility Mission Statement
b) Policy decisions made by the Monroe County Citizen Advisory Committee
c) Concept phasing of the projected inmate bed space needs to the year 2005.
1 d) Projected operational and construction requirements of the recommended master
plan concept.
1
The foundation of the recommended master plan begins with an understanding of the key
elements of the "mission statement ". These elements are as follows:
1
Provide the most cost effective and operationally efficient method for resolving the
jail overcrowding and staffing problems.
1
Detain or incarcerate juveniles, females, males, sentenced and unsentenced
misdemeanants, intoxicants, alcohol and drug abusers and mental deficients.
Provide a constitutional and safe environment for detainees.
1
121
1
Provide maximum security for problem and high -risk inmates.
Provide qualified inmates with educational and life skills programs.
Return inmates to society better prepared to make personal choices.
Provide direct supervision except for maximum custody inmates.
1
Critical in determining the appropriate square footage and budget requirements is the
evaluation of each policy decision made by the Citizens' Advisory Committee. These policy
1 decisions provide detail to the goals of the mission statement and are summarized as
follows:
1
#1 Policy Issue: Bed Space Required
Decision:
1 Provide for 1995 capacity = 570 beds (pretrial)
Provide for 2005 capacity = 1024 beds (pretrial)
1
#2 Policy Issue: Size of Core Support
1 Decision:
1 Provide core size designed to support 1024 beds
1
1
1
122
1
#3 Policy Issue: Location
Decision:
Phase I Lower Key (which includes utilization of existing jail until 1995).
Phase II Upper Key (which incorporates the sheriff's satellite station).
1
#4 Policy Issue: Classification of Bed Space
Decision:
Provide general population space: 33% double occupancy
Provide intake space: 10% single or double occupancy
Provide disciplinary segregation /special custody space: 12% single occupancy
Provide pretrial misdemeanant space: 20% dormitory occupancy
1 Provide treatment space: 25% single or double occupancy
1
#5 Policy Issue: Design Standards
Decision:
1 Follow rules of the State of Florida Department of Corrections, Chapter 33 -8 County
and Municipal Facilities.
Follow American Correctional Association Standards for Adult and Local Detention
1 Facilities (second edition).
1
123
1
#6 Policy Issue: Staff Training
Decision:
Provide training facilities.
Provide physical fitness equipment.
1
#7 Policy Issue: Capacity of Inmate Process Area
1 Decision:
Provide inmate processing area sized initially for the ultimate build -out capacity of
the detention center.
1
#8 Policy Issue: Capacity of Kitchen
Decision:
Provide area allocations for inmate dietary services sized initiall
• rY initially for the ultimate
1 build -out capacity of the detention center.
1
#9 Policy Issue: Court Facilities at the Jail
Decision:
1 Provide pretrial hearings in the jail.
Provide space for closed- circuit television hearings in the jail.
124
1
#10 Policy Issue: Library Requirements
Decision:
Provide legal library in the jail.
Provide general library in the jail.
#11 Policy Issue: Medical Space
Decision:
The County will contract all infirmary care services and provide only clinic care in
the jail, such as entry examinations, sick call and first aid.
1 The County will provide the basic dental care for all inmates' in -house examination.
1
#12 Policy Issue: Vocational Programs
Decision:
1 The County will provide a multi - purpose room in the dietary service area for culinary
training and other vocational training programs.
1
#13 Policy Issue: Warehouse Space
1 Decision:
The County will provide warehouse space on site for food storage and maintenance
supplies.
125
1
#14 Policy Issue: Cell and Dayroom Size
Decision:
90 sq. ft. per double occupancy cells.
70 sq. ft. per cell in dayroom space when double bunking is planned.
1 . 70 sq. ft. per single occupancy cell.
Re -use of existing relocatable module.
The combination of the facility mission statement and the above adopted policy decisions
translates into program specific area requirements by phase for new construction of a
1 detention facility in the Lower Keys.
Phase I @ 530 beds = 230,038 SF
1 Phase II @ 772 beds = 281,815 SF
Phase III @ 1016 beds = 355,338 SF
Refer to the "Spatial Allocations and Cost Estimates for the Monroe County Detention
Facility" in this chapter for a detailed breakdown of the above summary.
1
Capacity requirements for the Upper Key facility areas follows:
Phase I @ 50 beds (re -use of existing module)
1 Phase II @ 242 beds (coordinated with sheriff substation)
Phase III @ 342 beds (coordinated with sheriff substation)
111
126
1
The existing jail is anticipated to continue thru Phase I construction at a capacity of 180
beds. Given the current staffing patterns of the existing jail, it is projected that when
compared with new construction of 180 beds in conjunction with a new detention center,
the existing jail will cost approximately $1 million /year more to operate than a new facility
with comparable capacity. Therefore, it is recommended to phase out the existing jail
facility. .
1 New construction for inmate housing would be one of three types of prototypical housing,
consistent with Policy Decision #14 and graphically presented in this chapter on both the
"Required Types of Housing" and the "Concept Phasing" illustrations. Further diagrams in
this chapter present the progressive development of Phase I, II and III. The "Project
Schedule" provides a traditional time frame during which each phase of construction and
staffing would occur. -
The staffing requirements are carefully outlined in this chapter for each phase of the Lower
Key site development.
Further data is required on the program for the Sheriff's Operation Center to accurately
P g P Y
project the staffing requirements on the Upper Key site. It is assumed that the current
staffing of the existing jail will remain until it is phased out. Summarizing the staff
requirements for the Lower Key site and basing projections on the concept diagram of the
Recommended Master Plan, the County can anticipate the following staff needs:
1
127
1
1
Phase I: 530 beds /170 staff (1:3.1)
Phase II: 772 beds /197 staff (1:3.9)
Phase III: 1016 beds /243 staff (1:4.2)
Budgetary requirements for construction are outlined for each phase on a dollar per sq. ft.
cost. The base construction cost of Phase I is $22,166,670.00. However, unique
construction conditions exist in Key West. In addition, these will be additional costs due
to inflation if the project is not bid until 1991. At that time the estimated construction cost
could be $28,539,587 for a Phase I Lower Key Detention Center with a capacity of 530 beds
and a core support for 1,016 beds.
1
In summary, over the last several months the County has benefitted from the input of the
Citizen Advisory Committee meetings and from two separate public hearings on the master
plan's fundamental issues of size, cost and location. What has developed is a recommended
1 master , lan which responds to short and long-term needs, is flexible in how it can develop,
P g P
1 and realistic in meeting the requirements of operating a 21st century direct supervision
correctional system in Monroe County.
1
1
1
1
128
1
E
1,..
�1JNCEPT PHASING
Monroe County Correctional System Master Plan
PHASE I: 580 Beds PHASE 0: 772 Beds PHASE 10: 1018 Beds
PROJECTIONS 1995 Need = 570 (Prelriall 2000 Need = 792 (Prelriall 2005 Need = 1024 (Pretriall
1
Design Design Design
. Classification Type Redd % nits Capacity Read % Units Capacity Req'd Units Cawaty
General Pop. 33% Double 188 2 @ 96 192 263 3 @ 96 288 338 4 @ 96 384
1 Intake 10% Single or Dbl. 57 1 @ 96 96 80 1 @ 96 96 102 1 @ 96 96
DIsc.Seg/Sp. 12% Singie 68 2 @ 48 96 96 2 @ 48 96 123 3 @ 48 144
I Dorm 20% Dorm 114 2 @ 50 100 159 2 @ 50 100 205 4 @ 50 200
Trealment /5,96 Single or Dbl. 1143 1 @ 96 96 199 @ 96 192 256 2 @ 96 92
570 8 units 580 797 10 uts 772 1024 14 units 1016
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
129
1
1
1 - O c
.
E - E L k C M e
= C N
1 a" ^ u —
~ .et GU " 4--J a ft C —
p � � cv CL 0
_ _ .
\ L
^, N N V1 I- y N r
CU
W Q� C
111 CO
11- L7 U V m � � (V
2 # i tariff/ • • - -
`. � V u
i 5 N ^..., tk . . _
U E
1
m 7_ '...
fil VI
i t it Z R , . 2
I VI
Li D 4 c .
0 0
1 o
- =
t . ._ c L_ ..
t co
vA A ■ \ D ; 2 6.6-
U U LAN
1 0
e.
rz
Q rz U
` n U
W Q� c c x itt =
•O ,F,- cn v
1 i..11 • ._.
A 11, S 16 , f
U cu
Q C
cu
1 LW
Cd 7:3
GJ
CU N
CD
m
1 0'
W c.) L
1 CG d Alir ....,
1 130
SUMMARY SPATIAL ALLOCATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES FOR
1 THE MONROE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
Facility Administration
1.100 Directors Area 840 1.35 1,134 $ 75.00 $ 85,050
1.200 Administrative Support 1,320 1.35 1,782 $ 75.00 $ 133,650
1.300 Internal Administrative 1,450 1.35 1,957 $ 75.00 $ 146,775
Total- Facility Administration 3,610 4,873 $ 365,475
Staff Services /Security Services
I 2.100 Staff Services 2,820 1.35 3,807 $ 75.00 $ 285,525
2.200 Operations 4,160 1.35 5,616 $125.00 $ 702,000
Total -Staff Services/
1 Security Services 6,980 9,423 $ 987,525
Inmate Processing
I 3.100 Arrival Processing 6,180 1.50 9,270 $125.00 $ 1,158,750
3.200 Intake Processing 3.020 1.50 4,530 $125.00 $ 566,250
3.300 Pre -Trial Release Services 415 1.50 622 5125.00 5 77,750
1 3.400 Judicial Hearing 1.810 1 .50 2.715 5115.00 5 312,225
3.500 Bonding Sc Attorney Visiting 390 1.25 488 5115.00 $ 56,120
Total - Inmate Processing 11,815 17,625 $ 2,171,095
1
1
1
1
1
1
131
1
E .
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
Inmate Programs
4.100 Library /Learning Services 800 1.35 1,080 $100.00 $ 108,000
4.200 Legal Library 600 1.35 810 $100.00 $ 81,000
4.300 Counseling 860 1.35 1,161 $100.00 $ 116,100
4.400 Culinary Training. 400 1.35 540 $100.00 $ 54,000
4.500 Multi- Purpose /Recreation 9,000 1.20 10,800 $ 30.00 S 324,000
Total Inmate Programs 11,660 14,391 $ 683,100
Dietary Services
5.100 Central Kitchen 7,585 1.30 9,861 $120.00 $ 1,183,320
Medical Services
1 6.100 Administrative /Support 640 1.35 864 $100.00 $ 86,400
6.200 Clinic 2,570 1.65 4,240 $130.00 $ 551,200
1 Total - Medical Services 3.210 5,104 $ 637,600
Facility Management
1 7.100 Warehouse 7,000 1.25 8,750 $ 60.00 $ 525,000
7.200 Maintenance 2,670 1.25 3,338 $ 60.00 $ 200,280
7.300 Building Equipment 8,000 1.25 10,000 $ 75.00 $ 750,000
I Total - Facility Management 17,670 22,088 $ 1,475,280
1 TOTAL SUPPORT CORE 62,530 83,365 $ 7,503,395
1
1
1
1
132
1
1
1
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
Inmate Housing
I 8.100 Unit Activity Center (X2) 5,220 1.35 7,047 $125.00 $ 880,875
8.200 Intake (Male) (X1) 6,790 1.70 11,543 $125.00 $ 1,442,875
8.300 General Population/
Male (X3) 28,290 1.70 48,093 5125.00 5 6,011,625
8.400 General Population/
Female (X1) 9,430 1.70 16,031 5125.00 S 2,003,875
8.500 Segregation Special
I POP (X1) 6,790 1.70 11,543 5125.00
8,086 5100.00 $ 1,442,875
8.600 Treatment Unit 5,990 1.35 $ 808,650
Total- Inmate Housing 62,510 102,343 512,590,775
I
Subtotal Detention Facility 185,708 520,094,170
1 Building Circulation 37,130 5 50.00 5 1,856,500
20% of GSF
I Multi- Purpose /Outdoor
Recreation 6,000 1.20 7,200 $ 30.00 $ 216,000
111 GRAND TOTAL PHASE I 230,038 522,166,670
1
1
1
1
1
1
133
1
SUMMARY SPATIAL ALLOCATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES FOR
THE MONROE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY - PHASE II
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
Inmate Housing
8.300 General POP
(male) (X2 @ 96) 18,860 1.70 32,062 $125.00 $ 4,007,750
8.600 Treatment (male)
(dorm) 5,990 1.35 8,086 $100.00 S 808,600
Total- Inmate Housing 24,850 40,148 $ 4,816,350
Building Circulation
20% of GSF 8,029 $ 50.00 $ 401,450
Multi- Purpose /Outdoor
Recreation 3,000 1.20 3,600 $ 30.00 $ 108,000
TOTAL PHASE II ADDITIONS 51,777 $ 5,325,800
Assume 3% inflation rate per year from 1990 to
year 2000 for Phase II - $5,325,880 x 30% $ 6,924,000
1
1
1
1
1
1
134
1
1
1
SUMMARY SPATIAL ALLOCATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES FOR
THE MONROE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY - PHASE III
FUTURE EXPANSION REQUIREMENTS
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square . Construction
E Feet Feet Cost Cost
Facility Administration
il 1.000 Admin. Offices 320 1.35 432 $ 75.00 $ 32,400
1.200 Admin. Support 200 1.35 270 $ 75.00 $ 20,250
1.300 Internal Administrative 980 1.35 1,323 $ 75.00 $ 99,225
Total- Facility Administration 1,500 2,025 $ 151,875
Staff Services /Security Services
1 2.100 Staff Services 1,690 1.35 2,281 $ 75.00 $ 171,075
1 Facility Management
7.100 Warehouse 2,000 1.25 2,500 $ 60.00 $ 150,000
III Inmate Housing
I 8.100 Activity Center (X1) 2,610 1.35 3,523 5125.00 $ 440,375
8.300 General POP (X1) 9,430 1.70 16,031 $125.00 5 2,003,875
8.500 Segregation Special
POP (X1) 6,790 1.70 11,543 $125.00 5 1,442,875
I 8.600 Treatment Dorm 11,980 1.70 20,366 5100.00 S 2,036,600
Total- Inmate Housing 30,810 51,463 $ 6,396,675
1 Subtotal 36,000 58.269 S 6,396,675
I Building Circulation
20% of GSF 1 1,654 $ 50.00 $ 582,700
Multi- Purpose /Outdoor Recreation 3,000 1.20 3,600 $ 30.00 $ 108,000
I GRAND TOTAL PHASE III 73,523 $ 7,087,375
I Assume 3% inflation rate per year from 1990 to
year 2005 for Phase III - 57,087,375 x 45% $ 10,276,694
1
1
135
1
1
PHASE I
SPATIAL ALLOCATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES FOR
THE MONROE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
1
Facility Administration
1.100 Directors Area
- Directors office
- Secretary
- Conference
- Ancillary space
840 1.35 1,134 S 75.00 $ 85,050
1.200 Administrative /Support
- Fiscal Admin.
- Records Manager
- Records area
I - Personnel coordinator
- Employee work room
- Clerical support
- Ancillary space
1 1.320 1.35 1,782 S 75.00 $ 133.650
I 1.300 Internal Administrative
- Deputy Director
- Secretary
- Asst. Dir. /operations
I -Asst. Dir. !support
- Work release coordinator
- Training officer
- Clerical
I - Conference
- Ancillary space
1,450 1.35 1,957 S 75.00 $ 146.775
1 Total- Facility Administration 3,610 4,873 $ 365,475
1
1
1
1 136
1
1
Component Net Gross Gross
Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost/ Square Construction
1 Feet Feet Cost Cost
Staff Services /Security Services
1 2.100 Staff Services
I - Training facilities
- Locker rooms
-Staff lounge
- Mail room
I - Fitness center
- Ancillary space
2,820 1.35 3.807 S 75.00 $ 285,525
1 2.200 Operations
- Command center
- Communications
I - Visitor processing
- Central control
- Evidence storage
- Records
I - Ancillary space
4.160 1.35 5.616 S125.00 S 702.000
Total -Staff Services/
1 Security Operations 6,980 9,423 $ 987,525
1
1
1
1
1
1
137
1
1
Component
Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
I Inmate Processing
3.100 Arrival Processing
- Vehicle sally port
- Bookings
- Interview rooms
- Property storage
- Clothing issue
- Ancillary space
6,180 1.50 9,270 S125.00 S 1,158,750
1 3.200 Intake Processing
I - Holding cells
(intake &
processing)
- Identification
I - Ancillary space
3.020 1.50 4.530 S125.00 S 566.250
3.300 Pre -Trial Release Services
I - Interview rooms
- Waiting areas
- Clerical
I - Ancillary space
415 1.50 622 S125.00 $ 77,750
1 3.400 Judicial Hearing
- Judges chambers
I - Public meeting
- Hearing room
- Line -up room
- Clerical
I - Ancillary space
1,810 1.50 2,715 $115.00 $ 312,225
3.500 Bonding & Attorney Visiting
1 - Visiting booth 390 1.25 488 $115.00 $ 56,120
1 Total- Inmate Processing 11,815 17,625 $ 2,171,095
138
1
1
1
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
Inmate Programs
4.100 Library /Learning Resources
- Librarian
- Reading area
- Ancillary space
800 1.35 1,080 S100.00 S 108,000
4.200 Legal Library
- Reading area
I -Study carrels
600 1.35 810 S100.00 S 81,000
4.300 Counseling
1 - Counselor
- Caseworkers
- Teachers
I - Ancillary space
860 1.35 1,161 S100.00 $ 116,100
4.400 Culinary Training
1 - Classroom 400 1.35 540 $100.00 $ 54,000
I 4.500 Multi- Purpose /
Recreation 9,000 1.20 10,800 $ 30.00 $ 324,000
1 Total- Inmate Program 11,660 14,391 $ 683,100
1
1
1
139
1
1
L
1
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
Support Services
I Dietary Services
5.100 Central Kitchen
- Central kitchen
- Cold storage
I -Dry storage
- Processing area
- Dishwashing
- Garbage
I - Administration
- Loading dock
- Ancillary space
1 Total - Dietary Services 7,585 1.30 9,861 S120.00 S 1,183,320
Medical Services
1 6.100 Administrative /Support
- Doctor's office
I -Chief nurse
- Conference
- Records
- Ancillary space
I 640 1.35 864 S100.00 S 86,400
6.200 Clinic
I - Waiting area
- Pharmacy
- Radiology
-Exam room
I - Special procedure /exam room
- Dental
- Medical records
- Nursing station
I - Ancillary space
2,570 1.65 4,240 S130.00 S 551,200
Total- Medical Services 3,210 5,104 S 637,600
1
140
1
1
1
. Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
Facility Management
7.100 Warehouse
- Administration office
- Records
-Open bay storage
7,000 1.25 8,750 S 60.00 $ 525,000
7.200 Maintenance
- Plumbing
- Carpentry
- Electricity
- Masonry
- Paint
2.670 1.25 3.338 S 60.00 S 200.280
7.300 Building Equipment
- Boiler room
- Chiller room
8.000 1.25 10.000 S 75.00 S 750.000
7.400 Laundry
- Drying
- Washing
- Storage
1,000 1.25 1,250 S 60.00 $ 75,000
1 Total- Facility Management 17,670 22,088 $ 1,475,280
Total Support Core Phase I 62,530 83,365 $ 7,503,395
1
1
1
141
1
1
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
1 Inmate Housing
8.100 Unit Activity Center (X 2)
- Unit manager
-Case manager
- Conference room
- Multi- purpose room
I - Classroom
- Commissary
- Barber shop
- Administrative support
I - Ancillary space
5.220 1.35 7,047 5125.00 $ 880,875
8.200 Intake (Male)
I (X1)
- Cells
- Dayroom
- Counseling
I - Officers' station
- Visiting
- Attorney visiting
I - Triage
- Ancillary space
6,790 1.70 11,543 5125.00 $ 1,442,875
I 8.300 General
Population /Male (X 3)
- Typical housing 28,290 1.70 48,093 5125.00 5 6,011,625
I 8.400 General
Population /Female
(X 1)
- Typical housing 9,430 1.70 16,031 5125.00 $ 2,003,875
I 8.500 Segregation
Special - POP - - 1)
I - Typical housing 6,790 1.70 11,543 5125.00 $ 1,442,875
1
1
112
1
1
1
1
1
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
1 Feet Feet Cost Cost
I 8.600 Treatment Unit (dorm)
Typical
- Sleeping area
- Dayroom
- Laundry
- Commissary
- Counseling
- Multi- purpose room
I -Visiting
- Ancillary space
5.990 1.35 8,086 S 100.00 S 808.650
1 Total- Inmate Housing 62,510 102,343 512,590,775
I Subtotal 185,708 520.094,170
Building Circulation
20% of GSF 37,130 S 50.00 S 1.856,500
1 Multi- Purpose /Outdoor
Recreation 6,000 1.20 7,200 S 30.00 5 216,000
I GRAND TOTAL PHASE I 230,038 522,166,670
Assume 3% Inflation Rate (1991 Bid) 522,831,670
III Anticipated Key West Factor @ 25% 528,539,587
1
1
1
1
1
143
1
1
1
r Monroe County Detention Facility Preliminary Staffing - Phase I •
Shift
Component 1st 2nd 3rd Relief Total
Facility Administration
stration
E _ Director 1.0 __ __ -- 1.0
- Deputy Director 1.0 1.0
- Secretary 2.0 -- -- -- 2.0
- Clerk 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
- Director of Training 1.0 - -- -- 1.0
- Records Manager 1.0 -- __
-- 1 0
- Records Clerk 2.0 -- -- -- 2.0
Personnel Coordinator 1.0 1.0
- Fiscal Admin. /Supply Manager 1.0 -- _ 1.0
- Switchboard Operator 1.0 1.0 1.4 3.4
- Inmate Accounts Clerk 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
1 Total - Facility Administration 13.0 1.0 - 1.4 15.4
I Operations
- Assistant Director /Operations 1.0 -- -- -- 1
- Shift Commander 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0
I - Court Services Coordinator 1.0 1 0
Clerk 1.0 -- 1.0
- Mailroom Clerk 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
I Intake /Release
- Intake Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0
- Booking Officer- -Male 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 10.2
I - Booking Officer -- Female 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0
- Property Supervisor 1.0 -- - -- 1.0
- Property Officer 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0
- Property Clerk 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
I - Escort (Booking) 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 8.5
- Central Control CO's 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 10.2
1
1
144
1
t
1
Monroe County Detention Facility Preliminary Staffing
Y tY rY 9
Shift
Component 1st 2nd 3rd Relief Total
E
Intake /Release continue
(continued)
- Visitor Processing 1.0 2.0 -- 2.0 5.0
- Internal Escort CO's 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.5 8.5
Total- Operations 18.0 14.0 11.0 25.4 68.4
Medical Services
- Medical /Nurse Administrator 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
- Physician 0.5 -- -- _- 0.5
- Secretary 1.0 1.0
Ambulatory Care
- Registered Nurse (Triage) 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
I - Licensed Practitioner Nurse 1.0 -- -- - 1.0
Mental Health Staff
- Psychologist 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
I - Psychiatric Registered Nurse 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
Total - Medical Services 6.5 -- -- -- 6.5
1 Support Services
- Asst. Director /Support Services 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
I - Electricians/HVAC /Plumber /Locksmith 1.0 __ -- _- 1.0
- Commissary Clerk 1.0 1.0
- Laundry Supervisors 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
I Bookkeeping Clerk 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
- Warehouse Supervisor 1.0 - -- 1.0
- Receiving/Supply 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
I Subtotal 8.0 - - -- 8
1
1
145
1
1 •
1
1
Monroe County Detention Facility Preliminary Staffing
Shift
Component 1st 2nd 3rd Relief Total
Food Services
- Food Services Supervisor 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
E _ Cooks 2.0 2.0 __ 1 -6 5.6
Inventory Clerk 1.0 1.0
Subtotal 4.0 2.0 - 1.6 7.6
1 Total- Support Services 12.0 2.0 - 1.6 15.6
Program Services
I - Assistant Director /Programs 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
- Recreation Supervisor 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
I - Volunteer Coordinator 1.0 -- -- 1.0
Education
- Work - Release Coordinator 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
I - Education Supervisor 1.0 1.0
Clerk 1.0 1.0
Librarian 1.0 1.0
1 Total- Program Services 7.0 -- -- •- 7.0
Inmate Housing
I Activity Center
(X 2)
- Unit Manager 2.0 -- -- -- 2.0
- Unit Clerk 2.0 -- -- -- 2.0
I - Case Manager Supervisor 2.0 -- __ 2.0 --
--
Data Input Clerk 2.0 2.0
- Escort Officers 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.6 13.6
1 Subtotal 11.0 3.0 2.0 5.6 21.6
1
1
146
c
1
E
Monroe County Detention Facility Preliminary Staffing
E Shift
Component 1st 2nd 3rd Relief Total
Intake (Male) C.O.'s 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 5.1
General Population/Male C.O.'s 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.3 15.3
General Population/Female C.O.'s 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 5.1
Segregation Special POP C.O. 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 5.1
Treatment Unit 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 5.1
Subtotal 7.0 7.0 7.0 14.7 35.7
I Total Inmate Housing 18.0 10.0 9.0 20.3 57.3
GRAND TOTAL PHASE I STAFF 74.5 27.0 20.0 48.7 170.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
147
1
1
1
, .
..
1 _ ....
e..... ,..*2
• 1. 17.1--' C U C
,SC v+ O
L ` , X CO +I _ ...._,
E f
(.,,
E r .i.,
>._
. ,,,,,)
,_
....
,L_.:_ L.
E .
,„.
• ac
IA
w _ O C
w
•
V
U
c; U
1 fl
►\ .J
V U
a+
I U Q
Ild +I
QT
lin t1) N 1 1 - ■
CT
II II 11
C tC = O
QV
CD
s: - u i r, 11:1 O t\ N
C.. t/7 t 5 ,..+
C. 8...... � F°- d
148
L
1
PHASE II
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost/ Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
Inmate Housing
8.300 General POP
(male)(X 2 @ 96)
- Typical housing - 18,860 1.70 32,062 $125.00 S 4,007,750
8.600 Treatment
(male)(dorm)
- Typical dorm 5,990 1.35 8,086 $100.00 $ 808,600
Total Inmate Housing 24,850 40,148 $ 4,816,350
Building Circulation
20% of GSF 8,029 $ 50.00 $ 401,450
Multi - purpose /outdoor
recreation 3,000 1.20 3,600 $ 30.00 $ 108,000
1 Total Phase II Additions 51,777 $ 5,325,800
Assume 3% inflation rate per year from 1990 to
year 2000 for Phase 11 - S5,325,880 x 30% $ 6,924,000
1
1
1
1
149
1
1
1
1
Monroe County Detention Facility Preliminary Staffing - Phase 11
1 Shift
Component 1st 2nd 3rd Relief Total
Inmate Housing
Activity Center
- . Unit Manager 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
E _ Case Managers 2.0 2.0 -- -- 4.0
- Escort Officers 2.0 2.0 -- 2.8 6.8
Subtotal 5.0 4.0 -- 2.8 11.8
1 Housing Units
- General POP C.O.'s 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 . 10.2
- Treatment 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 5.1
1 Subtotal 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.3 15.3
1 Total Staff Addition for Phase 11 8.0 7.0 3.0 9.1 27.1
1
1 .
1
1
1
150
IE
L. .
i
1
I • .
I
c
u' E
��
: 4_,
_ _
4, . X
O L c W
a c cn , 0 +
C ^`
c C N 4—)
E.) �C I c
G vi S C
•- ^ X • = - J
U W W cl, Q`
oc ` _
C N o c_
. 0 CPS L
1 .X N 4
W
I L
U
1 1 u cf1
1 1 W N
1 1 73 W v E
tn
1 1 Eft y i--.
c C N M
N .E i n .�+ --
0 V _
r N 1— e
N ` 0) C
W
tfl et
e .
O W � c L
o �z V
l °
N Xc
W u°
c
re x o oc c '
II N C J
(n V _ O E y
c_ X U
W ,_ X
C W W ^ ��
• U O
L Q1
C
r Q ^ L' -H
O o N. c ILL.' E �+
ON ryl� Cr)
1 _. t II II it •
v, y cis N +-+
IZ N C 7- W on W ,4
CU
N
X X
W N C W
1
•
151
1
1
PHASE III
1 Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
Feet Feet Cost Cost
Facility Administration
1.000 Admin. offices 320 1.35 432 $ 75.00 $ 32,400
1.200 Administrative Support
- Expansion Office 200 1.35 270 S 75.00 $ 20,250
1.300 Internal Administration
-Asst. Dir. Programs
-Asst. Dir. Training
II -Academic/Vocational
Coordinator
- Clerical
980 1.35 1,323 $ 75.00 $ 99,225
I Total- Facility Administration
Phase 11I Additions 1,500 2,025 $ 151,875
1 Staff Services /Security Services
2.100 Staff Services
I - Training
- Locker rooms
- Showers
1,690 1.35 2,281 $ 75.00 $ 171,075
1
1
1
1
1
152
1
1
1
Component Net Gross Gross Estimated Estimated
Square Factor Square Cost /Square Construction
E Feet Feet Cost Cost
Facility Management
7.100 Warehouse 2,000 1.25 2,500 $ 60.00 $ 150,000
Inmate Housing
8.100 Activity Center
(X1) Typical 2,610 1.35 3,523 S125.00 $ 440,375
8.300 General POP (X1)
Typical Housing Unit 9,430 1.70 16,031 S125.00 5 2,003,875
8.500 Segregation
I Special POP (X1)
Typical Housing Unit 6,790 1.70 11,543 5125.00 $ 1,442,875
8.600 Treatment Dorm
I (1 ea. male & 1 ea.
female)
Typical Dorm 11,980 1.70 20,366 5100.00 $ 2,036,600
1 Total - Inmate Housing 30,810 51,463 $ 5,923,725
Subtotal 36,000 58,269 S 6,396,675
I Building Circulation
20% of GSF 11,654 $ 50.00 S 582,700
I Multi- Purpose
Outdoor Rec. 3,000 1.20 3,600 S 30.00 S 108,000
Total Phase 111 Addition 72,661 $ 7,087,375
I Assume 3% inflation rate per year from 1990 to
year 2005 for Phase I11 - 57,087,375 x 45% $10,276,694
1
1
1
1
153
1
1
1
1
1
Monroe County Detention Facility Preliminary Staffing - Phase 111
1 Shift
Component 1st 2nd 3rd Relief Total
• Facility Administration
- Institutional Investigator 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
- Training Officers 2.0 -- -- -- 2.0
E _ Chaplain 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
Subtotal 4.0 -- -- - 4.0
1 Operations
- Court Services Coordinator 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
- Mail Room Clerk 1.0 -- - 1.0
Subtotal 2.0 - -- -- 2.0
Medical Services
- Registered Nurse 1.0 1.0 -- -- 2.0
- Licensed Practical Nurse 1.0 1.0 -- -- 2.0
Psychologist 1.0 -- - - 1.0
I -
Subtotal 3.0 2.0 -- -- 5.0
1 Support Services
- Locksmith 1.0 1.0
- Fire /Safety 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
1 - Plumber 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
Subtotal 3.0 - -- - 3.0
1
1
1
1
15.1
1
1
1
1
Monroe County Detention Facility Preliminary Staffing - Phase III
1 Shift
Component 1st 2nd 3rd Relief Total
E
Program Services
E _ AcademicNocational 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
Subtotal 1.0 -- -- -- 1.0
Inmate Housing
Activity Center
I - Case Managers 2.0 2.0 -- 2.0
- Escort Officer 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.5 8.5
Subtotal 4.0 4.0 1.0 3.5 10.5
Housing Units
I - General POP C.O.'s 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 5.1
- Special POP C.O.'s 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 5.1
- Treatment (X2 dorms) C.O.'s 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.2 10.2
1 Subtotal 4.0 4.0 4.0 8.4 20.4
Total Staff Additions for Phase III 21.0 10.0 5.0 11.9 45.9
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
155
1
1
1
•
,.
1
,-
te Q
W Q7
c X CU
C N r0 ' .)
CL � I m V�
W in
o
X
>,
:.,.) .
N tw
c.: us -, t E.: .
C ^, ......,
C W ^
E {----; D L.,_1 7,
..} •- X , Q..
N
•
1 m C 4-) N C
nc M r '
,. - O
W J
w r t
W f : rim C L
O.0 C 0 d O
1 Ln NW V
C C
A ro ti
^\ X Ot W W
CV c
c.,_,
1`) w C �D OC
C X O
J Li.) L..) LA
D
, pj] L'S ,- ,-- +1
c
1 to O r a.+
te
O O O N M - It L)
:A W
II - N r r C N 6L
MB
Nom II II 7‹ V)'VI c/)
A t %i M J
1
156
1 __.J._ .......... 1.- :,
i ,
= 1
_ 1
,,.1) _
,r, 1
rz _ _
_ _
, . :.
,..... 1-,- _ .,
_ _ _
E , _ ,..., ,.., .,...._
..., x 1 ...._ : i.....
_ .*. - 1
.r _ _ ____ ___ _ _
E r
-- I
ti _ ,
1
E 1 _ _ ______ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
c.) .....
_,
_ 4 -.=
E ^ V ' x
x 2
Y
T
E
r. >■ a)
- - - --
w T U
-- - -- - _
v
J I._ I v
Z - -
V
W u
t cc
1, 0
W )-
1 = F-"
V z
cn
1 i•-• v s
V u..1 c
E
v� = O
W ° °'
u _ a u L)
_ _ i G J y L O S O L 0 y C G1 y a pv� a.0 =U =U < = x m
• •
1 157