N A A T A P

Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Project

PROJECT GUIDE:
Site Selection

Part of A Series of Guides for Planning, Designing

and Constructing Adult and Juvenile Correctional and
Detention Facilities on Tribal Lands
 The Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Project
(NAATAP) was created pursuant to an interagency agreement
between the National Institute of Corrections and the Bureau of Purpose
Justice Assistance.
The purpose of each NAATAP Guide is to communicate substantive
information concerning a range of subjects that are relevant to the
development of adult and juvenile detention and correctional facilities
in Indian Country. This series of guides grew out of a recognition
that there were common concerns and questions being raised by Tribes
National Institute of Corrections and consultants developing new correctional facilities on Native lands
throughout the country. The guides seek to provide research and
Morris Thigpen, Director information on issues of common concern to the Tribes. These guides
Larry Solomon, Deputy Director also seek to document the knowledge and experience gained by Justice
Planners International LLC (JPI) while providing technical assistance
320 First Street, NW to tribes engaged in the facility development process.
Washington, DC 20534
(800) 995-6423
Acknowledge m e nts
Bureau of Justice Assistance JPI acknowledges the assistance of the many consultants who con-
tributed their expertise in the preparation of this series of guides.
Domingo S. Herraiz, Director
These materials were developed and reviewed by individuals with
Mark Roscoe, Branch Chief
diverse backgrounds, expertise and experience in planning and design
of juvenile and adult correctional and detention facilities, as well as
810 Seventh Street NW
analysis, design and operation of justice programs, facilities and sys-
Fourth Floor
tems on a local, state and national level.
Washington, DC 20531
(202) 616-6500
Points of view and opinions in this document are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the
U.S. Department of Justice or affiliated agencies. The information is
not to be taken as a warranty or representation for which JPI assumes
legal responsibility. Any use of this information must be determined
Prepared under National Institute of Corrections Cooperative by the user to be in accordance with the policies of the user’s organiza-
Agreement 04S07GIU2 with Justice Planners International LLC (JPI), tion and with applicable federal, state and tribal laws and regulations.
29 Donnybrook Drive, Demarest, NJ 07627 and 1179 Clifton Road,
Atlanta, GA 30307. principals: Shelley Zavlek and Mark Goldman.
 N A A T A P
Native American and Alaskan Technical Assistance Project

PROJECT GUIDE:
Site Selection

Author

Paul DeFrancis and Justice Planners International LLC (JPI)

JPI Project Staff: Shelley Zavlek and Mark Goldman, Principals;

Anthony H. Jones and Joshua LeFrancois, Associates
Identifying Potential Sites
Selecting a suitable site for a new facility can be an extremely difficult
process. Project team members may be presented with a site and told to
“make it work,” or interested parties will put forward multiple poten-
tial sites and encourage your decision makers to accept them. Ideally,
Tribal leaders will support an objective process that results in the selec-
tion of the best site possible to meet the Tribe’s needs and criteria.

Sometimes sites are identified before objective site selection criteria are
developed. The danger with this is that knowledge about identified
sites may influence the criteria. For example, perhaps analyses of
objective criteria show that at least seven acres are needed to have ade-
quate space for initial needs and future expansion. If Tribal leaders
suggest a particular four-acre site, then the committee may attempt to
make that site “work,” although it clearly has significant shortcomings.

Ideally, site selection criteria should be developed before sites are iden-
tified. With criteria in hand, the site selection committee can then
identify sites that appear to best meet the established criteria.

Selecting the Team to find the Site

To foster an objective process, it helps to have a site selection team in place
with members that represent the various stakeholders in the new facility
and that have various expertise to evaluate issues relevant to the site selec-
tion process (“Site Selection Committee). The Site Selection Committee
should consist of all or most of the following people, depending upon avail-
ability of local and consultant resources:

■ A public official/Tribal representative

■ A community representative
■ The Facility Director (jail administrator or juvenile correctional facil-
ities administrator)
■ The Tribe’s Project Manager
■ A civil engineer – Tribal, if available
■ The facility’s planner
■ The architect, if selected; or another local architect
■ A representative of another agency occupying the facility – if non-

7
 correctional functions will be collocated in the new building or site should be sized for the projected expanded capacity). Thus
■ A Public Works or maintenance administrator expansion may need to occur in multiple directions (e.g. adja-
■ A Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) representative cent to the kitchen, next to juvenile classrooms, and next to the
adult work release unit)

Developing Site Evaluation Criteria The team should create a list of objectives/needs/criteria to assist in the
evaluation of each site. Many of these objectives/needs/criteria will
The Site Selection Committee should be in place with adequate repre- come from planning and facility programming efforts and resulting
sentation during the facility planning and programming phase of the studies and reports. If site selection precedes facility programming,
project so that the Committee understands the building requirements then estimates of items, such as square footage, will be needed. The list
that will influence the site selection. During planning and program- of objectives/needs/criteria will enable the team to objectively rate
ming, discussions that will determine many of the site’s requirements each site.
will be conducted, including the following:
The site evaluation criteria should include main objectives or headings,
■ Square footage of enclosed space which may consist of Site Location, Distance from Services, Site Access,
■ Height: whether the facility will be one or two stories, or one Site Availability, Site Acquisition and Costs, Utility Availability, and
story with a mezzanine Community Support. Each main heading will have a number of sub-
■ Parking: number of parking spaces needed to accommodate elements that should reflect your Tribe’s needs and considerations.
staff (most detention facilities require parking spaces to accom-
modate all staff on the two most staff-intensive shifts, usually See the “Sample Site Criteria and Evaluation Checklist” included at
day-shift and evening shift), visitors, law enforcement, and, the end of this Guide.
work releasees, if applicable. If the site will accommodate
other functions, such as Tribal courts, a halfway house or a jus-
tice center, either initially or in the future, parking for these
functions should be figured in site requirements.
■ Outdoor recreation area(s)
■ Security zoning, fencing and “no man’s land” (e.g. land sepa-
rating the building and usable outdoor areas from neighboring
properties)
■ Inmate loading/unloading area (next to Intake)
■ Law enforcement staging (may be part of inmate loading)
■ Service loading/unloading area (next to the kitchen), large
enough for trucks
■ Other justice system functions that may be added later – such
as courts, day reporting programs, attorneys offices, probation
offices
■ Expansion of capacity for adults and/or juveniles. Note that
depending upon the magnitude of the increased capacity, this
may require expansion of support and program areas as well as
adding more housing units (although, ideally, support areas

8 SITE SELECTION N ATIVE AM E RICA N A ND ALASKA N TECH N ICAL ASSISTANCE PRO JECT (N AATAP ) 9
Developing the Site Checklist Sample Site Criteria and Evaluation Checklist
Negotiable? Ratings for Sites 1
The following site checklist contains many common criteria. Each Importance
1 to 5
Tribe should modify the checklist to incorporate local issues, such as a Yes No Site A Site B Site C

desire to gradually build a new government complex with the correc-

Site Location
tional facility being the first phase, or locating the facility adjacent to
Central geographic location
an existing treatment facility. Also, criteria related to geographical on the Reservation
conditions particular to each Reservation (i.e. away from flood plains; Centrally located with regard
quick access to tribal snow removal equipment) should be incorporated to population density
into the site checklist. Centrally located with regard
to point of arrest frequency
(closest to where most
There should be two ratings for each objective. The first rating is on arrests are made)
whether that objective is negotiable. For instance if the team deter- Use consistent with current
mines that the site has to be in-town/downtown adjacent to the judi- zoning and/or tribal land use

cial complex, it would not make sense to evaluate sites far outside of (Consider adding others here)
town. If the team determines that the site has to be a minimum of Distance from Services
eight acres, it would not make sense to evaluate a site of five acres in No more than 5 minutes from
the hopes that the design will change to high-rise. fire responder.

No more than 10 minutes

The second rating is on a scale of 1 - 5 measuring the importance your from hospital, clinic or EMS.

team places on each element (with 1 being least important and 5 being No more than 5 minutes from
(or adjacent to) court
most important). It is suggested that the Site Selection Committee first
No more than 5 minutes from
discuss and reach consensus on each criteria, and then follow the same (or adjacent to) Tribal Police
process to determine the relative importance of each item. If, for Dept.
example, the Committee decides that “Near Tribal Offices” is of medi- Near (or adjacent to)
Probation Dept.
um importance, it would be assigned a “3.” Then, each site that is near
Tribal offices would get a 3; those that are not near Tribal offices would Near (or adjacent to)
Attorneys’ Offices
get a “0.”
Near (or adjacent to) service
agencies. (Substance
The sample checklist below is derived from the U.S. Department of the Abuse/Mental Health)

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Planning of New Institutions Near Tribal Offices
P.O.N.I. Program. (Consider adding others here)

Site Access
On or near main road

Has high snow removal prior-

ity (IF snow is an issue in your
location)

Regularly maintained road

1
Note: may be as few as two, or more than three Continued

10 SITE SELECTION N ATIVE AM E RICA N A ND ALASKA N TECH N ICAL ASSISTANCE PRO JECT (N AATAP ) 11
 Negotiable? Ratings for Sites 1 Negotiable? Ratings for Sites 1
Importance Importance
Yes No 1 to 5 Site A Site B Site C Yes No 1 to 5 Site A Site B Site C

Access roads adequate for Not significant historically or

increased traffic archaeologically

Access not blocked for more (Consider adding others here)

than 5 minutes due to traffic,
trains, bridges or other reasons Site Acquisition and Costs
Access not blocked by natural Currently available
factors such as floods
Owned by Tribe or low cost
Has more than one means of
access. Ownership is uncontested

(Consider adding others here) No long hearing or negotiation

process required
Site Characteristics and Size
Minimal development costs for
Enough buildable area to demolition, grading, utilities,
meet space needs landscaping, etc.

Allows for future expansion (Consider adding others here)

(Note: this is a BIA
requirement) Suppor t

Adequate land for parking for Community supports the loca-

staff and visitors – initially tion of the site
and once expanded- for cor-
Tribal Council and (if exists)
rectional and other functions
Business Committee supports
(if other functions may be
this use of the site
added later)
BIA supports this use of the site
Space for law enforcement
vehicles, emergency vehicles, No significant public opposi-
service and delivery vehicles tion to the site is likely
Adequate land for recreation (Consider adding others here)
areas
Cultural and TraditionalValues
Soil will support building of
this size Appropriate from cultural and
historical perspectives
Slope/topography suitable
for building, parking, recre- (Consider adding others here)
ation, etc.

Good radio reception and Utilities

transmission Telephone extends to the prop-
No environmental hazards or erty line.
issues that are time-consum- Water main, large enough to
ing or costly to remedy handle the load, extends to the
Good “fit “ with the property line.
neighborhood Sewer line is adequate in size
Not ecologically sensitive and extends to the property
environment line

Continued Continued

12 SITE SELECTION N ATIVE AM E RICA N A ND ALASKA N TECH N ICAL ASSISTANCE PRO JECT (N AATAP ) 13
 Negotiable? Ratings for Sites 1
Importance
Yes No 1 to 5 Site A Site B Site C

Natural gas extends to the

property line.

Refuse service, if required,

extends to the property line.

(Consider adding others here)

Other Issues Important to

Your Tribe

(fill in)

(fill in)

(fill in)

Total

Evaluating Sites
To foster objective evaluations, all committee members should com-
plete checklists separately. Differences in scores are to be expected and
should be discussed and, if feasible, resolved. When consensus cannot
be reached on scores, numbers should be averaged.

Selecting the Site

Once the Committee agrees on the scores for each site – or averages the
different scores – one site will emerge as the one that best meets the
Tribe’s criteria. If the Tribe owns it, then the federally required envi-
ronmental assessment should begin. If others own it, then negotiations
should begin, but purchase should not take place unless/until it is
found environmentally acceptable. If the site proves too expensive or
does not pass environmental scrutiny, then the Committee should fol-
low the same steps (environmental assessment, negotiation with owner
if not tribal property) with the site that scored second best.

14 SITE SELECTION
 ALSO AVAILABLE:

Project Guide: Adult Correctional Facility Design Resources

Project Guide: Alternatives to Incarceration of Offenders
Project Guide: Assessment of Project Status
& Technical Assistance Needs
Project Guide: Best Practices - In-Custody Programs
for Juveniles and Adults
Project Guide: Design Review
Project Guide: Existing Facility Evaluations
Project Guide: Juvenile Facility Design
Project Guide: Objective Classification Analysis
Project Guide: Population Profiles, Population Projections
and Bed Needs Projections
Project Guide: Selecting an Architect-Developing
RFQs and RFPs
Project Guide: Site Selection
Project Guide: The NEPA Land Use Process for Proposed
Development of Correctional Facilities in Indian Country
Project Guide: Tribal Justice System Assessment