Jackson County Jail.

A survey of 400 Jackson County voters in key demographics showed pockets of support for a proposed law enforcement tax district that would fund the construction and operation of a new jail — and the possibility that the measure could pass by a narrow margin.

According to the survey conducted by nonpartisan firm DHM Research, 43% of voters surveyed favored a measure to form a district when provided nothing but a ballot title, “Shall district be formed in Jackson County for construction and operation of a jail with rate up to $1.57 per $1,000?”

Another 42% were opposed, and 16% were undecided, DHM Research Vice President John Horvick told Jackson County Commissioners during a Tuesday morning work session.

The survey is an early step toward gauging whether there is enough voter interest for the county to go through the expense of a ballot measure that would fund a new jail facility to replace the one at 787 W. Eighth St.

Horvick told commissioners at the meeting that the nonpartisan survey firm is more confident in recommending a ballot measure when the level of support is closer to 50%.

“We’d love to be closer to 60%,” Horvick said, adding that it is “not a hard and fast rule.”

Sheriff Nathan Sickler said that any margin favorable to a new jail — even just 1% — is a significant improvement over the last jail proposal. In May 2020, 70.87% of Jackson County voters rejected a similar law enforcement district.

“To me that’s a pretty big swing,” Sickler said after the meeting.

Sickler said the survey results make him more optimistic. 

“I think the community is more open to the idea. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s going to pass, I can’t say that for certain,” Sickler said. “I think this survey gives us the justification to put this matter before the voters.” 

The tax rate of $1.57 per $1,000 of assessed value floated in the survey is a rough estimate, and exact numbers are many steps away from being finalized. For instance, the rate assumes that all city councils in Jackson County vote to participate in the district.

“I have no doubt there are a couple that will be tough,” county Administrator Danny Jordan said at the meeting.

The survey was designed to get a reading of voter support and opposition to a proposal to replace the aging and undersized jail facility. The county population when the jail was built in 1981 was 132,456 and, as of 2022, had grown to 221,644, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The current jail has a capacity of roughly 300 inmates, although capacity is typically capped at 280 to give corrections deputies the flexibility to separate and move around inmates as needed.

The survey included 43% nonaffiliated voters, 30% registered Republicans and 26% registered Democrats. Some 36% of respondents lived in Medford, 10% in Ashland, 45% in the rest of the county and 9% in other areas. 

Support for the measure decreased after voters learned more about the cost per year for a typical household, the survey results showed. According to slides Horvick presented to county commissioners and Sheriff Sickler, support by those in favor dropped by six points to 37%, while opposition grew 13 points to 55%.

Results also showed that frequent voters — those who participated in at least three of the last four elections — were slightly more supportive of the proposal at 41% compared to the general support of 37%. Horvick said the measure could fare slightly better in a low-turnout or primary election.

He hedged the insight, however, telling commissioners, “I can’t promise that.”

The survey worked to identify the most effective messages to generate support, as well as the core concerns of those opposed.

In survey participants’ own words, about 54% of supporters described overcrowding and the need for a bigger jail. Relatedly, according to Horvick, about 15% said a new jail would help reduce early releases, while 18% believed it would make the community safer.

The survey was designed to show support and resistance to the proposal from different segments of the community. For instance, the survey showed stronger support from residents of Medford, older voters, higher-income voters, renters and registered Republicans.

“That is unusual for a tax measure, but it fits given the circumstances,” Horvick said.

Among those opposed, about 42% said the proposal is too expensive and that taxes are already too high. It determined that demographics more likely to be opposed to the law enforcement tax district include those living outside Medford, lower- and middle-income voters, younger voters, homeowners and registered Democrats.

When participants were asked what they would be willing to pay for a new jail, the median was $295.

Commissioners intend to discuss the jail survey’s findings and general concerns again at a work session Tuesday. A core discussion will likely surround a follow-up question in the survey, which asked voters if they would be more likely to support the measure if it included “adding a non-custodial addiction and mental health treatment facility for non-violent offenders.”

A plurality of voters surveyed, 42%, said it would make them more likely to support the measure, but Jordan and Health & Human Services Director Stacy Brubaker each took issue with the survey question.

Jordan said the question risks setting an unrealistic expectation. All the county has done in its tentative plan is set aside land allowing for an independent behavioral health or treatment provider to set up on a campus; no such provider has expressed interest, however. 

“This paints it like it’s a supplement to the jail,” Jordan said, expressing concerns about a false narrative. “There’s no budget for this.” 

Even if a treatment provider were to participate, calling it as a facility available for nonviolent offenders would be misleading, Jordan said. Admission would be at the provider’s discretion, not law enforcement or the county’s. 

“We don’t get to control who they take in,” Jordan said. 

Brubaker attended the meeting by Zoom to express concerns that a behavioral health treatment facility on a jail campus would be a barrier for the larger population of people needing behavioral health treatment — the bulk of whom have no run-ins with the law. She voiced concerns that patients would avoid getting treatment at a place where jail inmates come and go.

“We could miss a whole population that’s not criminally involved,” Brubaker said.

Horvick defended the question and the survey result, saying, “This is one small piece.”

“It swings the numbers a lot,” Jordan said.  “I’m just worried we’re going to make a decision based on data that seems to be manipulated.”

Commissioners Rick Dyer and Dave Dotterrer said the question needed to be asked. Dyer described the question as “aspirational,” but likened the idea to how the current jail is just down the street from the county health and human services building.

Describing the question as one hard to fully capture, Dyer said, “We certainly could have done a better job.”

Sheriff Sickler described efforts at the meeting to better incorporate mental health treatment into the proposal compared to the last one. He mentioned that he was touring a facility in Bend later that day that could help serve as a model. He said he believes there’s support for a strong criminal justice system that better integrates with social services. 

“We’re just interested in how they deliver service through this facility,” Sickler said.