Centre County officials say outdoor rec isn’t feasible at the jail. Advocates keep pushing
A small group worked Thursday morning near the entrance of the Centre County Correctional Facility to prepare for a cookout in recognition of Corrections Employee Week.
It was partly sunny with a daytime high of 77 degrees, but only those employed there — not those incarcerated, nearly half of whom have not been sentenced — got outside that day.
That rankled some human rights advocates who have for months pressed the board that oversees the jail to give inmates what they consider actual time outdoors.
“(Corrections employees) do some incredible work and they deserve something like that — having a barbecue outside,” Irvin Moore told the board. “We’re not asking for a barbecue.”
The county’s prison board of inspectors again rebuffed Thursday the pursuit of a feasibility study that would offer detailed estimates about the added cost that’d come with expanding outdoor recreation opportunities.
Most of the jail’s inmates do not feel direct sunlight, save for those who participate in the work release program, CentrePeace or when they’re transporting to court hearings.
A garage-like door and a mesh-covered window inside the jail’s walls passes muster with state law. Inmates do not have an opportunity for exercise in an open field.
The setup is not abnormal in Pennsylvania.
About three-fourths of the 62 county jails in the state have urban recreation areas. Eighteen, including the Centre County jail, are covered and only allow natural light and fresh air through designed portals.
Only about one-fifth of the state’s county jails have exterior recreation areas. Eight consecutive biennial inspections from a branch of the state Department of Corrections found the approach complies with state law.
“I’m optimistic that the board will entertain in the future a motion for a study,” county resident Mark Kissling wrote in an email Friday. “We’re not demanding a massive construction project; we’re asking for an expert study to assess the situation and the possibilities.”
The seven-person board — which includes the county’s commissioners, president judge and district attorney — has not expressed an appetite for major changes to the facility, including potential construction of outdoor recreation yards.
A feasibility study could provide formal estimates on everything from construction costs to staffing changes, but the jail’s former warden offered a glimpse in November of what it may take.
A minimum of nine to 15 full-time corrections officers would need to be hired, which he said could be a tall task for a jail that’s fought to stay above minimum staffing levels.
“We wouldn’t be running outside rec right now as it is. It wouldn’t be feasible because we don’t have staff,” former Warden Chris Schell said in November. “We would have a rec yard just be sitting there. Practically, I don’t see that feasible here at the county level.”
More than a dozen county residents spoke at Thursday’s meeting, including a business owner, a retired physician, an environmental psychologist and environmental engineer.
Josh Helke, the owner of Rush Township-based outdoor and sporting goods company Organic Climbing, said it’s “super embarrassing” that no major initiatives have gained traction.
Planning for the jail dates back about two decades; it opened in 2005 and remains one of the newest county jails in the state. The three newest county jails have similar designs, Deputy Warden Melanie Gordon said in November.
“As one of the more wealthy counties in the state, we have the ability — if we choose to exercise it — to deploy some of that resource toward solving this problem,” longtime county resident Jeff Davidson said. “There was a problem that occurred, frankly, when this facility was designed, but now we need to own that problem. It’s a problem every day that we continue it. It was a problem that happened then, but it’s not an irreconcilable problem. It’s one that we can go back and address.”
The board’s next meeting is scheduled for June 8.