Editorials / Opinions

In this final installment, explaining the closure of the Susquehanna County Jail, we conclude a discussion that began with inmate population trends and facility conditions, and now focus on the financial, operational, and long-term considerations that led to this difficult but necessary decision.

As discussed in Part 1, the jail was constructed to house more than 100 inmates but has never reached full capacity. Over many years, the inmate population steadily declined. This reduction can be attributed to a statewide decrease in crime, changes in sentencing guidelines, probation reforms, and the expansion of diversionary programs.

Programs such as Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) have been expanded, and more individuals are now entering addiction treatment and mental health programs rather than serving extended jail time. Additionally, nineteen individuals are currently participating in Drug Court. Many of these services, however, are not available within Susquehanna County, highlighting a significant gap in local mental health and addiction treatment resources.

In Part 2, we addressed the condition of the facility itself. Built in 1994, the jail has experienced ongoing structural and mechanical issues. Independent experts evaluated the building and determined that the facility was far from meeting modern operational standards. Major systems – including heating, cooling, electrical infrastructure, kitchen equipment, ventilation, and intake and medical areas – were either failing or at the end of their useful life. Engineers ultimately concluded that renovating the existing structure would not be cost-effective and recommended constructing a new facility instead.

The County carefully evaluated its options.

One proposal involved building a regional jail in partnership with neighboring counties. This would have distributed construction and operational costs across multiple jurisdictions. Unfortunately, there was no interest from surrounding counties in pursuing this option.

The second option was to construct a new jail facility at an estimated cost of $75 million. Financing such a project would have required issuing bonds for 20 to 30 years, ultimately exceeding $100 million in principal and interest. Taking on that level of long-term debt would have imposed a significant financial burden on county taxpayers.

After weighing all factors, the County determined that closing the jail and housing inmates in other counties was the most responsible course of action.

For inmates, placement in other facilities provides greater access to mental health and addiction services not available locally. Healthcare costs at the Susquehanna County Jail had also become a major concern. The County is legally obligated to provide healthcare to inmates at taxpayer expense. After years of seeking competitive providers, only one provider was willing to serve the facility, and projected healthcare costs were expected to approach $600,000 in 2026.

Operational costs were equally concerning. The projected 2026 jail budget exceeded $5 million annually. With approximately 20 inmates, this equated to roughly $250,000 per inmate per year. By housing inmates in other counties, taxpayers save more than $200,000 annually per inmate.

There are also liability considerations. Jail operations carry significant legal and financial risks. Employee errors or operational failures can result in costly litigation, sometimes reaching into the millions of dollars. Staffing challenges further compounded the issue. While compensation was competitive for a county of this size – with senior corrections officers earning approximately $85,000 in base salary and potentially exceeding $100,000 with overtime – recruitment and retention remained difficult. County employees also receive pensions after meeting age and service requirements, creating long-term financial obligations.

Concerns have been raised about the transportation of inmates. However, the majority of arraignments are now conducted via video, reducing transport needs. Additionally, the Sheriff’s Department is fully staffed and capable of meeting current transportation requirements.

This decision may not be appropriate for every county. Each jurisdiction faces different circumstances and variables. However, Susquehanna County is not alone. Six counties of similar size either do not operate a jail or are in the process of closing theirs.

While the elimination of some county positions is regrettable, fiscal responsibility to taxpayers must remain the priority. Ultimately, if the system functions properly, the physical location of the jail becomes secondary to ensuring public safety, appropriate inmate services, reduced risk, and sound financial stewardship.

The bottom line: inmates receive improved services, taxpayers realize substantial savings, and the County reduces long-term financial and legal risk.

Sincerely,

Susquehanna County Commissioners

The Epstein Files Transparency Act is a law passed by the 119th US Congress and signed by Donald Trump on November 19, 2025. It requires the US Attorney General to “make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format” all the "Epstein Files pertaining to the prosecution of the deceased child sex offender Jeffery Epstein within 30 days of passage, and then to give the Judiciary Committees in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate an unredacted “list of all government officials and politically exposed persons” named in the files. On December 19, the US Department of Justice released a very small batch of Epstein files, violating US law in failing to release all the files by that day. We are still waiting!!!

Now what- Congress passed the statute requiring release of documents, then the Department of Justice has the Legal duty to comply. The President has supervisory responsibility over DOJ and Congress has oversight and enforcement authority. This isn’t only about Mr. Epstein, it’s about whether: laws bind the powerful the same way they bind ordinary citizens and if transparency is real or selective and if our institutions protect reputations instead of enforcing accountability. How else do we protect the victims?

So contact your members of the US House of Representatives and the United States Senate who have oversight authority over the Department of Justice and ask specifically whether they are enforcing compliance with the law and request public hearings or updates on the Epstein files. We the people need to demand oversight pressure on our elected officials, thus our democracy continues. Get to work people, our democracy depends on it. No one is above the Law.

Sincerely,

Joan Reading, Union Dale, PA