Report: Tough-on-crime policies could push prison construction costs as high as $2.1 billion
The Project Prison Reset group meets on April 3, 2025, at the Military Heritage Alliance in Sioux Falls. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)
South Dakota will need a third more prison space than it has now by 2036, and lawmakers' choice to pass a so-called truth in sentencing bill in 2023 is a major reason why.
That's among the takeaways from a new report on the state's prison infrastructure that says the state would need to spend between $1.9 billion and $2.1 billion on new prisons to deal with an inmate population that's projected to swell in spite of the state's decreasing crime rate.
The state needs a 1,700-bed men's prison immediately, the report from Arrington Watkins says. Even then, it says, another 1,500 beds for men will be necessary in a little more than 10 years, when it projects a prison population of more than 5,000 people.
South Dakota corrections work group formally backs need for new prison
The state signed a $729,000 contract with the Phoenix-based firm as part of 'Project Prison Reset,' a work group formed by gubernatorial fiat in the face of state lawmakers' refusal to back an $850 million, 1,500-bed men's prison in Lincoln County in February.
Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen, chairman of the work group, said the report supports the group's first official vote last month, which was to conclude that the state does need at least one new prison.
Venhuizen was quick to point out that the $2 billion price tag would only apply if the state followed the consultant's guidance to the letter and built two large prisons, but said the population projections lay bare the stakes of South Dakota's current approach to criminal justice.
The work group's job is not to address the drivers of prison population growth, he said. But he also said he's glad the report took note of those driving forces.
The truth in sentencing bill, SB 146, requires people convicted of violent offenses to serve between 85% and 100% of their sentences, depending on the category of their crime.
As a legislator in 2023, Venhuizen voted against SB 146, and its potential to impact prison populations 'was part of the reason why.'
'Those decisions are not free. You have to strike a balance there,' Venhuizen said. 'If you're sending people to prison for longer, there is a cost to that.'
The bill's author and prime sponsor, Republican former Sen. Brent Hoffman, has a different take on the legislation's impact on South Dakota's correctional needs.
'The real issue isn't SB 146, which protects the public by requiring violent criminals to serve their sentences,' said Hoffman, a supporter of term limits who served one term and opted against running for a second in 2024. 'The underlying, systemic problems are recidivism rates, wasteful spending, misguided priorities and incompetence, and those problems won't be solved by any consultant's report or politician's rhetoric.'
Every correctional facility in South Dakota is beyond its capacity now. The South Dakota State Penitentiary was built in 1881 to house one inmate per cell, but holds twice as many.
The proposed 1,500-bed facility in Lincoln County, mired in controversy over cost and necessity and still tied up in litigation over its location, was meant to replace the penitentiary.
There are two other housing units on the penitentiary campus in Sioux Falls, however, and each of those faces its own issues with overcrowding.
The maximum-security Jameson Annex, for example, is overbooked because it houses not only maximum security inmates, but those in disciplinary segregation and those with serious mental health needs. It's also the sorting zone for every new male inmate in the state system, where inmates stay as they're assessed for longer-term placement.
With $50 million spent already, state hires new consultant to restart prison planning
The Sioux Falls Minimum Center, meanwhile, holds 245 men in a building designed for 96.
Even with a large but temporary drop during the COVID-19 pandemic, new admissions to Department of Corrections custody grew an average of 3.2% a year between 2015 and 2024, the report says.
That's in spite of a crime rate in South Dakota that's lower than the national average and on the decline. The state's total population has gone the other direction, increasing by 0.9% a year since 2010.
Much of the long-term factors built into the new report were present for its predecessor, a report from Omaha's DLR group that pointed to a 1,500-bed men's facility as one of several necessary projects for the DOC.
Senate Bill 146 is a wrinkle that didn't exist for the DLR group, some portions of which were used by Arrington Watkins in its expedited, two-month repeat assessment.
SB 146 ropes in fewer than 10% of the state's inmates, the report notes – drug offenses are the most common charge for which South Dakotans are imprisoned – but the inability of those convicted of violent offenses to be released before serving at least 85% of their sentence will have a long-term impact on prison population growth.
'Roughly half' of the 1,246 more inmates the report anticipates South Dakota will have by 2036 is attributable to SB 146.
Parole violations are another driver of population growth, the report notes. About 45% of new admissions to the DOC came by way of parole violations in 2024, the report says, and 84% of those violations 'were technical in nature rather than new criminal charges.'
Minnehaha County State's Attorney Daniel Haggar cautioned that technical parole violations often involve serious misbehavior, however. Technical violations include drug use, he said, as well as absconding – losing touch with a parole officer altogether.
'When those offenders are violent offenders or sex offenders this is a threat to public safety,' he said in an email to South Dakota Searchlight on Friday.
The state has already spent more than $50 million on the Lincoln County site, although a share of that money could be clawed back by selling land or reusing aspects of the now-stalled prison's design.
Governor relents, appoints task force to reset prison talks after legislative loss
The new report's top recommendation is a 1,700-bed, Level V facility, built within 30 miles of the existing penitentiary to relieve crowding across the entirety of the men's prison system. It also recommends demolishing the 1881 penitentiary.
'Level V' is correctional nomenclature for maximum security.
Former penitentiary warden Doug Weber wrote seven letters to lawmakers during the 2025 session urging them to say no to the 1,500-bed facility in Lincoln County, essentially a smaller version of what the new report says is necessary.
The focus on the factors driving the state's prison population growth raises important questions, Weber told South Dakota Searchlight on Friday, but he disagrees strongly with its conclusions on how to remedy the situation.
'There's nobody in South Dakota, in my opinion, except a handful of people, maybe in Pierre, that would be comfortable spending $2.1 billion on buildings for the Department of Corrections,' said Weber. 'There are much better ways to spend money.'
Weber called a Level V facility unnecessary and too expensive in a state where the number of maximum security inmates hovers around 200.
He also bristles at the idea of knocking down the pen. Millions have been spent to maintain it in recent years, including for air conditioning less than five years ago, and Weber said it could easily serve as a minimum security facility by removing the cell doors and putting a single person in each cell.
Republican Speaker of the House Jon Hansen, a work group member and candidate for governor in 2026, said 'there's absolutely no way that I will support spending that much money on prisons.'
'If we needed to be building new facilities, we should be looking at the current location in Sioux Falls for a lot less money,' Hansen said.
Prison work group peppered with public testimony in first Sioux Falls meeting
Madeline Voegeli, one of the neighbors to the Lincoln County site who sued the state over the issue, said in an email to Searchlight that the group has serious doubts about the veracity of the report's population projections.
The DLR report, completed in 2022, suggested a 1,300-bed men's prison at a cost of around $608 million.
Now, she wrote, 'we're being told to swallow a nearly quadrupled cost of up to $2.1 billion, largely driven by SB 146 and questionable population projections.'
Voegeli accused the state of engaging in a 'pattern of inflating proposals to make a billion-dollar plan' – the original Lincoln County proposal – 'appear reasonable.'
Venhuizen said arguments suggesting that the Lincoln County plan's supporters tried to tip the scale in the consultant's report are misplaced.
'It's not a strong position to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is being dishonest,' Venhuizen said. 'If you're doing that, you should probably examine the strength of your own arguments.'
Rep. Karla Lems, a Canton Republican who's both a work group member and an avowed opponent of the Lincoln County proposal, said Friday that she's skeptical of the conclusions, as well.
The work group is meant to deliver its recommendations to a special legislative session in July. The state, she said, needs to spend more time thinking about reducing repeat offenses before it decides what to build.
Rep. Brian Mulder, R-Sioux Falls, is also a work group member. He said the state needs to think 'innovatively' on how to reduce prison populations, and that the report is a clear sign of how necessary that is. Mulder was one of the prime sponsors of a bill to change the penalty for first- and second-offense drug ingestion from a felony to a misdemeanor during the 2025 session.
Too few prisoners are getting drug treatment, Mulder said, and he feels the state ought to consider partnering with nonprofits to extend treatment's reach both inside the prison and outside, for parolees.
He also has questions about parole supervision practices.
'I would ask 'what's going on now with things like remote monitoring,'' Mulder said. 'It's a lot more effective for the state for someone so they can continue to be held accountable, but be held at home.'
Mulder supported truth in sentencing and continues to, though. He said parole reforms make more sense.
Reforms to truth in sentencing laws ought to be up for consideration, though, according to Zoë Towns, executive director of a bipartisan think tank called Fwd.Us.
Her group pushes for changes to criminal justice and immigration policy. The knock-on effects of incarceration for families and communities are heavy, Towns said, and the returns for public safety diminish significantly when inmates don't have a chance to earn credit for good behavior – even when the people earning them committed violent offenses.
'What we should be asking is 'how long is incapacitation actually helpful?'' Towns said. 'What are the policies that are most likely to help people, when they come home, to contribute to their communities and local economies?'
Addressing behavioral health needs and addiction early on are more effective ways to deal with crime than incarceration, she said, but other strategies are even further removed from criminal justice.
Towns pointed to research from places like the Brookings Institute that suggest investments in youth education and public health offer long-term returns for public safety.
'It's literally after school and public school programs,' Towns said. 'That has a stronger homicide reduction rate than policing does. I'm not saying there's not a role for policing. I'm saying that actually, factually, in evidence, has a stronger return than sleeping in prison.'
The next Project Prison Reset meeting is June 3 in Pierre.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about inspections of Iran's nuclear program by the IAEA ahead of a key board vote
VIENNA (AP) — Iran's nuclear program remains a top focus for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, particularly as any possible deal between Tehran and the United States over the program would likely rely on the agency long known as the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. This week, Western nations will push for a measure at the IAEA's Board of Governors censuring Iran over its noncompliance with inspectors, pushing the matter before the U.N. Security Council. Barring any deal with Washington, Iran then could face what's known as 'snapback' — the reimposition of all U.N. sanctions on it originally lifted by Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, if one of its Western parties declares the Islamic Republic is out of compliance with it. All this sets the stage for a renewed confrontation with Iran as the Mideast remains inflamed by Israel's war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip . And the IAEA's work in any case will make the Vienna-based agency a key player. Here's more to know about the IAEA, its inspections of Iran and the deals — and dangers — at play. Atoms for peace The IAEA was created in 1957. The idea for it grew out of a 1953 speech given by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the U.N., in which he urged the creation of an agency to monitor the world's nuclear stockpiles to ensure that 'the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.' Broadly speaking, the agency verifies the reported stockpiles of member nations. Those nations are divided into three categories. The vast majority are nations with so-called 'comprehensive safeguards agreements' with the IAEA, states without nuclear weapons that allow IAE monitoring over all nuclear material and activities. Then there's the 'voluntary offer agreements' with the world's original nuclear weapons states — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — typically for civilian sites. Finally, the IAEA has 'item-specific agreements' with India, Israel and Pakistan — nuclear-armed countries that haven't signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That treaty has countries agree not to build or obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea, which is also nuclear armed, said it has withdrawn from the treaty, though that's disputed by some experts. The collapse of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, negotiated under then-President Barack Obama, allowed Iran to enrich uranium to 3.67% — enough to fuel a nuclear power plant but far below the threshold of 90% needed for weapons-grade uranium. It also drastically reduced Iran's stockpile of uranium, limited its use of centrifuges and relied on the IAEA to oversee Tehran's compliance through additional oversight. But President Donald Trump in his first term in 2018 unilaterally withdrew America from the accord , insisting it wasn't tough enough and didn't address Iran's missile program or its support for militant groups in the wider Mideast. That set in motion years of tensions, including attacks at sea and on land . Iran now enriches up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels. It also has enough of a stockpile to build multiple nuclear bombs, should it choose to do so. Iran has long insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the IAEA, Western intelligence agencies and others say Tehran had an organized weapons program up until 2003. IAEA inspections and Iran Under the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to allow the IAEA even greater access to its nuclear program. That included permanently installing cameras and sensors at nuclear sites. Those cameras, inside of metal housings sprayed with a special blue paint that shows any attempt to tamper with it, took still images of sensitive sites. Other devices, known as online enrichment monitors, measured the uranium enrichment level at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. The IAEA also regularly sent inspectors into Iranian sites to conduct surveys, sometimes collecting environmental samples with cotton clothes and swabs that would be tested at IAEA labs back in Austria. Others monitor Iranian sites via satellite images. In the years since Trump's 2018 decision, Iran has limited IAEA inspections and stopped the agency from accessing camera footage . It's also removed cameras . At one point, Iran accused an IAEA inspector of testing positive for explosive nitrates , something the agency disputed. The IAEA has engaged in years of negotiations with Iran to restore full access for its inspectors. While Tehran hasn't granted that, it also hasn't entirely thrown inspectors out. Analysts view this as part of Iran's wider strategy to use its nuclear program as a bargaining chip with the West. What happens next Iran and the U.S. have gone through five rounds of negotiations over a possible deal, with talks mediated by the sultanate of Oman . Iran appears poised to reject an American proposal over a deal this week, potentially as soon as Tuesday. Without a deal with the U.S., Iran's long-ailing economy could enter a freefall that could worsen the simmering unrest at home. Israel or the U.S. might carry out long-threatened airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. Experts fear Tehran in response could decide to fully end its cooperation with the IAEA, abandon the the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and rush toward a bomb. If a deal is reached — or at least a tentative understanding between the two sides — that likely will take the pressure off for an immediate military strike by the U.S. Gulf Arab states, which opposed Obama's negotiations with Iran in 2015, now welcome the talks under Trump. Any agreement would require the IAEA's inspectors to verify Iran's compliance. But Israel, which has struck at Iranian-backed militants across the region, remains a wildcard on what it could do. Last year, it carried out its first military airstrikes on Iran — and has warned it is willing to take action alone to target Tehran's program, like it has in the past in Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007. ___ Associated Press writer Stephanie Liechtenstein contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation . The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Loaded weapon': editors decry Hungary bill targeting media
The Hungarian government's decision to delay a vote on a controversial bill which penalises "foreign-funded" media and NGOs does not mean that the danger to freedom of the press is over, top editors warn. The government is still committed to a "campaign to shut down, destroy or discredit certain media outlets, NGOs or people", Peter Uj, editor-in-chief of news site 444, told AFP. Critics say the bill, which they compare to Russia's foreign agent legislation, is the latest attempt by nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban to tighten his control over the central European country of 9.5 million people since his return to power in 2010. Tens of thousands have protested against the bill in Budapest, with another rally to take place on Tuesday. The European Commission has also called on Hungary to withdraw the draft, while representatives of more than 80 media outlets from 22 countries -- including Britain's The Guardian and France's Liberation -- have slammed it. The bill was introduced last month and a vote was scheduled for this week, but the ruling coalition last week put it off, saying that debate would continue in the autumn and that it wanted to review "substantive comments received" from "serious organisations" other than those protesting. - 'Devious' - The legislation would blacklist organisations that "threaten the sovereignty of Hungary by using foreign funding to influence public life". Any kind of support from non-Hungarian citizens, EU funds, or even advertising revenues from companies based abroad constitutes foreign funding, according to commonly accepted legal interpretations. Blacklisted groups would need permission to receive foreign funds. They would also be barred from receiving donations through a Hungarian income tax contribution scheme, an important source of revenue for non-profits. The legal changes could affect any independent Hungarian media outlets, with 444, internet TV Partizan and news site Telex explicitly targeted. Partizan editor-in-chief Marton Gulyas, 39, described the new bill as "devious". "The law would create economic tools to make it impossible for listed organisations to function," he told AFP. The online channel, which was founded in 2018 and has a staff of 70, was the top beneficiary last year of the income tax contribution scheme, receiving more than one million euros ($1.1 million) from over 35,000 supporters. Gulyas rejected the notion that Partizan is "foreign-funded", stressing that the channel had only applied for EU-based grants in the past two years. "Hungary has been a part of the European Union since 2004. There are no borders or customs, yet this money is now being treated as if there could be some kind of criminality involved," he said. - 'Will not back down' - Telex editor-in-chief Tamas Nemet, 44, said that advertising and reader support make up 92 percent of the outlet's revenue. "But the law would now make those unviable" through various legal hurdles and administrative burdens, according to Nemet. One of Hungary's most popular news sources with a staff of around 100, Telex was established in 2021, after Nemet and his colleagues resigned en masse from the country's then-top news site, over alleged political interference. "We can see quite clearly what those in power want, the weapon is loaded and on the table," he said, adding that the "truth cannot be banned". "We will not back down," he said, vowing to "overcome whatever they come up with to hinder our operations". Orban says the law is needed to fight the alleged spread of foreign interference and disinformation. Uj of 444, along with his colleagues from Telex and Partizan, described the bill as "absurd" and "a political weapon designed to keep independent media in constant fear and to take us out". He decried rules "worded in such a way they are impossible to comply with". The 53-year-old Uj and colleagues set up the news site in 2013. It employs about 35 journalists and has broken several stories, including a child abuse pardon scandal, which last year led to the resignation of then-president Katalin Novak, a key Orban ally. AFP partners with its sister site Lakmusz for fact-checking. ros/jza/gv/bc
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NY judge censured for throwing a fit at school board over his son not being named class valedictorian
A Nassau County judge was censured by a state commission after he threw a fit and publicly chastised a school board for not naming his straight-A son the valedictorian of his graduating high school class last year. Long Beach City Court Judge Corey E. Klein was censured — or written up for misconduct — by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Albany-based group announced Monday, noting the judge agreed to the censure. Klein stormed into an April 2024 public school board meeting, seeking to challenge its decision and policies that led to his son not being designated top of the class, according to the commission. When the school district lawyer Christopher Powers tried to interrupt Klein's tirade, the judge told him not to 'try to outlawyer me' and pressed on, the group said. Members of the board continued to try and stop Klein's nonsensical rant and even turned off his microphone. Yet he continued to shout, his voice booming as he apparently grew tired of Powers' continued reference to him as 'Counsel.' 'You can refer to me, Counsel, as judge,' Klein said, according to the commission. 'If you are going to try to be a lawyer, then refer to me by my title as well, okay. Thank you,' he added after his microphone was turned back on. As board members tried to explain that the public meeting — which was also streamed online — was not a proper setting to appeal the decision on his son's viability for valedictorian, Klein started to shout over them, the commission said. 'I'm gonna stay up here now and I'm going to continue speaking,' Klein stubbornly insisted. 'Your Honor. We are not in court at this point,' Powers tried to interject, but to no avail as Klein steamrolled over him. 'The fact that I'd have the audacity, okay, because it's the end of my kid's career, to come up here and question a decision that you made, okay, so you try to sic your pit bull attorney on me. It's beyond reproach that you don't do something like that, okay,' Klein eventually concluded after his heated back-and-forth with the board, the commission said. The ranting judge was also accused of helping a professional acquaintance get out of $500 worth of unpaid parking tickets, according to his censure. The person's car was booted as a result of the unpaid tickets, and Klein reached out to numerous police departments to have it removed. Officers, thinking Klein was acting within his capacity as a judge, removed the boot and the acquaintance eventually paid the tickets, according to the commission. 'It corrodes public confidence in the judiciary when a judge lends the prestige of judicial office to advance a private benefit. Doing so impulsively, in an unseemly public argument over who should be a high school's honoree, or as a favor to a parking ticket scofflaw, is especially irresponsible,' Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian said in a statement. Klein has been a Long Beach judge since 2015. His term doesn't expire until the end of 2034, according to the commission.