The Most Cost-effective Option for Improving Men’s Prison Facilities in South Dakota

The regional improvements option

The South Dakota legislature is holding a special session on Tuesday, 23 September in Pierre, the purpose of which is to decide on the best option for resolving longstanding issues associated with men’s prison facilities in South Dakota. These include the age of existing infrastructure, overcrowding, logistics and transportation requirements, and various security and manning constraints.

The current momentum appears to be toward a new centralized 1,500-bed facility at a location off Benson Road in northeast Sioux Falls, as a result of a 22-0 vote by the governor’s “Prison Task Force,” who conducted several public meetings in Sioux Falls, Springfield, and Pierre as part of their fact-finding and analysis. The South Dakota version of the legacy media has been an echo chamber in propagating that the proposed central prison site is a “done deal,” including some pot-sweetening by the contractors who would build the facility, as reported on 19 September by the Dakota Scout:

Executives from Henry Carlson Construction and JE Dunn Construction Group — the joint venture leading the Department of Corrections’ long-debated penitentiary replacement — sent a letter to the governor promising to keep their bill for a 1,500-bed correctional facility within [the $650 million] budget.

Despite assurances from Governor Rhoden’s office and other spokesmen (here and here), a number of legislators and many members of the public are convinced that investment in the largest construction project (and largest single financial obligation to be incurred to date) in state history is NOT the best course of action. These dissenters are concerned that the total cost-benefit associated with such an ambitious project is unwarranted, and that there are options that should be pursued to meet the requirements at considerably less cost to South Dakota taxpayers.

A group of Republican Party county chairmen submitted a letter to the task force back in June that described their concerns and a preferred way-ahead. Below are some excerpts from that letter that remain valid and unaddressed.

Assumptions. The following are assumptions derived from various studies and consensus reached about key drivers in the decision-making process:

• Current prison capacities:

o The Hill plus Jameson Annex plus Sioux Falls Minimum: 840 + 665 + 245 = 1,750

o Mike Durfree (Springfield): 1,100

o Yankton Minimum: 330

o Rapid City Minimum: 420

o Total men’s prison population capacity (state facilities): ~3,600

• All existing facilities are operating at or over design capacity (~800 total over capacity)

• South Dakota recidivism rate is over 40%, which contributes to prison population growth projections over the next decade plus, potentially totally an additional 1,200 inmates; new facilities are needed to reduce overcrowding and accommodate that projected growth, as well as to provide for prison infrastructure improvements needed to support prisoner pathways for developing useful civilian skills, to better treat mental illness and drug and alcohol addition, and to reduce recidivism.

• Maximum security bed requirements have never exceeded 200 beds in state history; the existing Jameson facility was designed to hold 540 maximum security prisoners, and thus no new maximum security cells are needed.

• Studies to date have been open-ended in terms of requirements and costs, with the assumption that taxpayers will pay the freight on whatever is decided; the latest $2 billion study result is unaffordable.

Preferred Option. The original DLR analysis and Master Plan (updated in March 2025) contained viable options to accommodate prison population growth without the need for an expensive new centralized facility. If implemented over time through a series of smaller projects, the following would obviate the perceived need for a new centralized facility and meet the requirements contained in the above assumptions. The costs to implement would be considerably less than those contained in the $2 billion Arrington Watkins (AZ) study and could be implemented incrementally and modified as requirements and assumptions change (as is virtually inevitable):

• Build new facility at the SF Community Work Center (Project 4.B between The Hill and Jameson annex): 300 beds

• Add the second floor to the SFCWC D-Pod: 192 beds (already designed for this growth)

• Add two 300-bed units (low to medium security) at Mike Durfree State Prison: 600 beds (no need for new intake/administration personnel; second unit could be phased in as needed)

• Add new facility at Rapid City Minimum Center: 200 beds (reduces transportation costs to Yankton facility)

• Implement new facility at the Yankton Human Services Center: 200 beds (expands mental health treatment and drug and alcohol rehab capabilities)

• Build new facility at Industrial Park north of the Hill: 540 beds (phased in over time, as need, with the timing consistent with the scheduled 2029 decommissioning of runway at Joe Foss Field to avoid safety-of-flight constraints)

• Remodel the intake area of the Jameson Annex (consolidation of manpower costs for reception and administration to accommodate new facilities)

• Implement Project 2.B of the Jameson Annex courtyard (new classrooms and rehab facilities)

• Total new beds delivered: 2,032 beds

Benefits of Recommended Option. The following is a list of important benefits of this option:

• Achieves goals of accommodating prison population growth and reducing overcrowding

• No new land purchases needed

• Expands on existing infrastructure (reduced utilities costs)

• Leverages current manpower for intake and administration

• Accommodates maximum security cell requirements within the existing footprint (reduced overall costs)

• Minimizes public pushback on a new centralized facility (for location and total cost)

• Provides flexibility in implementation over time (priorities to be determined)

• The most cost-effective approach that can be managed over time in increments to meet changing requirements, permitting maximum public oversight

Summary. The phased plan laid out above – or a variation on its theme – will deliver a cost-effective approach that reduces overcrowding in existing men’s correctional facilities in our state, as well as accommodates projected prison population growth in the future (i.e., eliminates overcrowding and adds 1,200 new beds over time). The plan meets all requirements, provides an incremental approach that extends existing facilities, leverages current manpower at those facilities, and facilitates public oversight of each project that is funded over time.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Concerns about the apparent rush toward the proposed Benson Rd facility include the following:

• Who in South Dakota government has ever successfully managed a project of similar size and complexity?

• The contractors’ cost promises are non-binding. And what has been trimmed on the requirements side to keep the costs at $650 million that will need to be completed later?

• Where will the funds come from to address upgrades needed at existing prison facilities in the state? And for the necessary job skills training capabilities (i.e., trade school equivalents) that are the best way to reduce recidivism rates over time?

• Projected recidivism rates and increases in prison population, including the number of required maximum security cells, are SWAGs at best. What if those numbers are inflated/wrong (or based on faulty assumptions)?

• A projected $80 million would need to be transferred from the state’s General Revenue Replacement Fund to complete the project (the rest would come from the dedicated Incarceration Construction Fund). That’s $80 million that can’t be spent on other needed projects around the state.

No one disputes the pressing need for additional prison space, especially South Dakota’s law enforcement community who are dealing with increasingly lax parole policies that release prisoners to “solve-by-policy” the prison capacity and overcrowding problem. We certainly need more prison cells! But that doesn’t mean that the best solution HAS to be a new large central facility.

The end.