Washington County study projects hundreds more jail beds by 2055; board seeks working assumptions before design

Washington County commissioners heard a presentation Aug. 12 on a jail and community corrections center capacity study that projects substantially more secure jail beds will be needed by mid-century and lays out program and design choices the county will face.

The county's assistant administrator, Erin Calvert, summarized the report and told the board the study "project[ed] a need for between 751 and 947 jail beds by the year 2055." Calvert and Matrix Consulting, the firm that prepared the assessment, stressed the projection is a baseline for further policy, programming and funding discussions.

Why it matters: commissioners said the numbers will drive design choices, operating-cost estimates and financing strategy. Chair Catherine Harrington and others said they want a short additional review step that records the board's working assumptions about minimum capacity, program space and booking/courtroom needs before the county hires an architectural/design firm for predesign work.

Key findings and current conditions - Design capacity and current operation: the existing jail is designed for 572 beds but has had multiple housing units closed for critical infrastructure repairs. Sheriff Caprice Massey said that while the jail "when we're fully functioning with 572 beds, we are the second smallest jail per capita in Oregon," the closure of three housing units has made the facility substantially smaller in practice. Calvert and staff said current operational bed availability has been nearer to about 380 beds while repairs continue. - Projection ranges and methods: Matrix's baseline projection (using 2015–2024 historic data and several statistical models) produced an average-daily-population (ADP) projection of roughly 709 inmates in 2055; with standard peaking and classification factors applied this translated to planning totals in the 800–900 range (Matrix presented several related summary numbers including 851 and an 896 configuration tied to a 48-bed modular unit design). The consultants ran 11 models and presented four alternate scenarios that varied assumptions about COVID-era anomalies, diversion expansion and cite-and-release practices. - Community corrections center (CCC): the county's CCC physical capacity was listed at 215 beds, but state funding reductions have capped reimbursable capacity at 167. Matrix reported that, under current intake policies, the CCC’s built capacity could meet projected need for many years if operational funding and staffing were available; however, current staffing and facility limits mean the center is operating below its physical maximum.

Drivers and constraints cited in the presentation - Case mix and length of stay: speakers said the jail population includes a larger share of people with severe behavioral-health and medical needs than in prior decades, and that Measure 11 and restoration-to-competency cases can create very long stays. Calvert explained that Oregon law limits county jail confinement generally to sentences of 12 months or less, but when multiple consecutive county sentences are imposed a person can remain in county custody for several years. - System backlogs and staffing: the report and Sheriff Massey linked rising ADP and longer stays to court backlogs and a shortage of defense attorneys, which can keep people in custody longer. Staff also flagged weekly "forced releases"—releases the jail makes when it cannot safely hold people because of capacity—as a recurring operational problem. - Classification and operational buffers: Matrix recommended planners assume a 10% operational cushion and incorporate a peaking/classification factor (Matrix used a 20% peaking factor in several calculations) so the facility has flexibility to separate people by security level, gender, medical/behavioral-health need and other classification factors.

Design and program recommendations - Unit size and flexibility: Matrix recommended moving away from very large dormitory-style pods toward smaller, subdividable housing units (the consultant said 48-bed units with 12–24-bed subunits represented a practical modern approach). The firm proposed a facility program that emphasized single and double-occupancy cells, dedicated medical and mental-health beds (the report listed a substantial dedicated mental-health bed count in its illustrative design), segregation and step-down/transition beds to support programming and reentry. - Programming and out-of-cell time: consultants and county staff emphasized that modern designs prioritize safe out-of-cell time and onsite program space to limit movement around a facility and reduce security risks.

Board direction and next steps Commissioners asked staff and Matrix to return with a short, visible record of the board's working assumptions before the county issues a competitive solicitation for a design firm. Commissioner Jason Snyder requested an alternative projection that excludes pandemic and Measure 110-era anomalies; Matrix said that alternate historic baseline had been produced and that different scenarios change projected bed counts by tens of beds to more than 90 beds depending on assumptions.

Chair Catherine Harrington and other commissioners stressed the need to align facility planning with courthouse planning and with financing options, and they asked staff to bring back an updated timeline and a clear set of the policy and operational assumptions the board should endorse before the design contract is signed. County facilities staff told the board the critical repairs are scheduled to be completed in December 2026; commissioners said they want to preserve momentum but avoid locking into schematic design without the memorialized working assumptions.

What commissioners and staff flagged as outstanding issues - Funding and operating costs: commissioners emphasized that both capital funding and sustainable operating revenue (staffing, medical and program services) must be addressed in parallel. The slide deck noted potential funding paths including a local public-safety or general obligation ballot measure and other local revenue options. - Data gaps and scope limits: commissioners and the consultant noted the study's scope focused on physical capacity and did not include an exhaustive national best-practices benchmarking or a broad community outreach program; commissioners asked staff to expand stakeholder engagement (city leaders, defense and prosecuting attorneys, service providers) in the next phase.

Ending County staff and Matrix will update the study materials and return with a short package that memorializes the board’s working assumptions, refines the timeline and details the next procurement step for a design team. Commissioners signaled support for that additional touchpoint before authorizing predesign and schematic work and before the county advances any ballot or financing decisions.