Roadmap to Zero

With a majority of voters saying “no” to the latest proposal for a new $94.5 million jail and sheriff’s office, and the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Brad Kunkel unsure of what’s next, we should talk about what the community wants. Or at least what I want.

It’s always dangerous to try drawing a clear meaning from a yes-or-no ballot measure, but with a majority of voters rejecting the latest proposal, some introspection is warranted on the part of county leaders.

As someone who knocked doors, I know some of it was cost1, some of it was size2, some of it was location3, some of it was the connection to ICE, some of it was just the idea of a tax increase4. 

There were plenty of political missteps as part of the work, too. Holding a man on an ICE detainer for five extra days in the run-up to voting, for example, and advocates refusing to grant a single criticism only played into the anti-jail narrative, while many opponents disarmed the advocates’ “but we have to” messaging by simply granting the premise that nothing wasn’t an option forever. 

Kunkel and other advocates also rejected compromise throughout the process:

  • Speaking against a diversion program that would dispatch trained mediators to help settle non-violent disputes. 
  • Ending a partnership with CommUnity Crisis Services and bringing the mental health liaison in-house, eliminating a firewall between law enforcement and the mental health worker and cutting off a network of resources. 
  • Walking away from a joint facility with Iowa City, which would have lowered the voter threshold to a simple majority, because it meant compromise with three jail opponents on the Iowa City Council who everyone paying attention could have predicted going in. 
  • And less than a month before the election, when I visited the jail with a University of Iowa class, Kunkel refused me entry on the tour.

Some opponents argued this was just a building voters should view it in that light, but what a jail is simply cannot be ignored.5 Jails are a key part of a system that disproportionately harms Black and brown folks, trans folks, immigrants, unhoused folks, and low-income folks. And, no matter how hard we try, they are not humane.6

So what would I see that might allow me to stand down? 

The start must be a wholistic plan that commits to a countywide goal of zero incarceration, which would frame next steps while also recognizing current state law and other realities make this an aspirational goal akin to other goals of zero we accept. And it must include a position, outside the County Attorney and Sheriff’s offices, to oversee county diversion and prevention programs with its own budget and oversight power. 

Things I would like to see in a proposal:

  • Direct outside views from cells
  • Access to outdoor exercise 
  • Contact visitation
  • Sheriff’s offices in a remodeled, preexisting building
  • Community co-design, including input from people who have been incarcerated in the Johnson County Jail and their families, public defenders and defense attorneys, and other service providers, facilitated by someone who has an interest and incentive to proposal a smaller jail
  • The elimination of third-party, for-profit communication tools for incarcerated people
  • Commitments to outside partnerships, including moving money currently used for transportation and out-of-county incarceration into diversion programs with metrics and goals
  • No contracts with outside agencies, such as ICE or other counties 
  • Disposal of the MRAP
  • Policies that protect the people under the county’s care and offer real accountability when they’re violated
  • 300 permanent supportive homes to functionally end homelessness in Johnson County

None of these are wild.

  1. The mailers from advocates didn’t even mention it, they were so afraid of cost ↩︎
  2. The proposal would have doubled the current capacity and laid the groundwork for doubling the incarceration capacity in the future. ↩︎
  3. The edge of town right next to a previously rejected site of the Historic Poor Farm was too on the nose or too far away. ↩︎
  4. The fact sheet and calculator actually showed the impact as about twice as high as what it would have cost residential property owners ↩︎
  5. The initial Shive-Hattery report also tells the lie, originally framing the building as a “civic landmark” that can “evoke community pride” and “instill a sense of safety and security.” ↩︎
  6. Yes, even with “trauma-informed design” bullshit ↩︎