Gloucester County votes to ship its prisoners elsewhere

Gloucester County is outsourcing its prisoners. And some residents aren't happy about it.

The Board of Freeholders voted, 6-1, Wednesday to ship the county's 270 male inmates to Cumberland and Salem Counties. Gloucester would become the first county in the state to vacate its jail, if Cumberland and Salem Counties approve.

The county would reduce its corrections staff from about 150 uniformed officers and supporting staff to 33, and says it will ultimately save $10 million a year through reductions in salaries, operating expenses, insurance, and other areas. Housing the inmates costs $28 million, or about 13 percent of the county's budget, County Administrator Chad Bruner said.

The changes, part of a 30-year shared-services agreement, would take effect July 1. Cumberland and Salem Counties would share annual payments from Gloucester County of about $8 million this year and $10 million thereafter.

The move follows the county's decision in 2009 and 2010 to enter into shared-services agreements with Camden, Salem, and Cumberland Counties to house juvenile and female inmates. Those agreements have each saved $1.8 million annually, according to the county.

Freeholder Director Robert M. Damminger said before the vote that the measure was necessary because of budget constraints and reduced revenues.

"We have a proven track record of regionalizing detention services," he said. "Public safety will not be diminished in any way."

He added that the board would try to avoid layoffs and that it was searching for positions in other counties for employees to fill.

Freeholder Vincent H. Nestore Jr. cast the lone vote against the plan, saying: "It's more than just about money. It's about people's lives."

Freeholders in Cumberland and Salem Counties also considered the measure Wednesday. Damminger said Cumberland's freeholders approved it. It was unclear how Salem's freeholders voted.

In front of at least 150 residents at the county courthouse in Woodbury, corrections officers and residents urged the board to at least table the measure and negotiate with the unions, which learned of the plan Saturday.

They said they were skeptical that the Sheriff's Department, which would take arrested people to Cumberland County, was adequately staffed to handle that responsibility on a daily basis. They said the decision jeopardized public safety, and they predicted imminent layoffs.

"This is a dangerous and important decision," said Stephen Bajewicz, a corrections officer, pointing to and naming each freeholder. "We are Gloucester County. And we are voters."

Chris Davis, also a corrections officer, spoke about the prospect of losing his job. Looking at his 10-year-old son standing next to him, he said, "This is going to break his heart."

One officer inquired about Bruner's salary, which Damminger said was $196,000. The audience erupted in anger.

Damminger responded to the criticism by citing "record losses in revenue." He added: "We had to make a decision. We had to look everywhere we could to make a cut."

Cumberland County's jail in Bridgeton has a capacity of 550 and currently holds about 400 inmates, said Ken Mecouch, the county's administrator. Cumberland anticipates revenue of more than $2.5 million per 100 inmates, the minimum number it would take off Gloucester's hands.

After the vote, Bajewicz led an exodus from the meeting as the freeholders moved on to another resolution, shouting: "They turned their back on us, turn your back on them!"

The county jail would not be mothballed but would likely be used for storage. Remaining corrections staffers would transport prisoners to and from court.

"Usually in my experience, in New York state, the boarding-out of inmates is a course of last resort brought on by overpopulation in a jail," said Joshua Simons, a senior research assistant at the Center for Research, Regional Education, and Outreach at the State University of New York at New Paltz who has written extensively about regional collaboration among county jails.

He said that although some counties outsource specific populations such as juveniles to control costs, he had never heard of a county that outsourced all of its prisoners.

The move can be attractive, Simons said, because while the costs of maintaining a jail such as benefits and retirement may rise over time, the costs of a shared services agreement do not fluctuate.