Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:26 pm
Time: 10:26 pm
Results for county jails
6 results foundAuthor: Deitch, Michele Title: Conditions for Certified Juveniles in Texas County Jails Summary: The majority of juveniles who are accused of committing crimes in Texas are tried in juvenile courts, however, each year a small number of youth are transferred to the adult criminal justice system for trial. This process is referred to as certification. Until September 2011, Texas law required that all juveniles certified to be tried as adults were housed in adult county jails while they awaited their trials. In 2011, the 82nd Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1209 (SB 1209), which provided local juvenile boards the option to adopt a policy allowing for certified juveniles to be confined in juvenile detention centers rather than adult county jails. If the juvenile board adopts such a policy, the final decision as to where a particular youth would be housed would be up to the juvenile judge conducting the certification hearing. Although SB 1209 allows juvenile boards to create an option for certified youth to be confined in juvenile detention centers, until now there has been little information about the conditions for certified juveniles who are awaiting trial in county jails across the state. Without this information, it may be difficult for juvenile boards to determine whether juvenile detention centers or county jails are best suited to house certified youth, and to adopt an appropriate policy in response to SB 1209. To gather more information about the conditions for certified juveniles in Texas county jails, we worked with the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS) to conduct a survey of county jails in Texas that have experience housing certified juveniles. The survey focused on five key areas: housing, contact with adults, out-of-cell time, educational programming, and other programming. This report aims to provide a clearer picture of the conditions for certified juveniles in county jails based on the findings of this survey. The report provides a comprehensive assessment of how certified juveniles are housed in county jails in Texas, and the challenges faced by jail administrators when they confine certified youth. This information should help inform juvenile boards as they consider how to implement SB 1209, and can also inform policy makers, state and county agencies, and advocates in future discussions about the most appropriate way to manage the confinement of certified juveniles. Details: Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, 2012. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/Conditions%20for%20Certified%20Juveniles%20in%20Texas%20County%20Jails-FINAL-3.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.utexas.edu/lbj/sites/default/files/file/news/Conditions%20for%20Certified%20Juveniles%20in%20Texas%20County%20Jails-FINAL-3.pdf Shelf Number: 125233 Keywords: County JailsJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Texas)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Zajac, Gary Title: An Examination of Pennsylvania's Rural County Prison Systems Summary: This study explores issues surrounding the operation of the 44 rural county jails in Pennsylvania. County jails house two primary categories of inmates - presentenced detainees and sentenced inmates. Presentenced detainees are inmates who have not made bail or have not yet been sentenced (and may or may not yet have been convicted of an offense). Some of these presentenced detainees may be bailed at any moment, and, thus, are in custody for widely varying lengths of time. At any given time, over half of a county jail's population may be presentenced detainees. Sentenced inmates are those who have been convicted and are serving their sentence in a county facility. Sentenced inmates in county jails nationwide typically have sentences of less than one year, but in Pennsylvania they can serve up to two years or more. County jails in general face a unique set of challenges, including large numbers of inmates who spend only a very short time in custody, difficulty in classifying and assessing a short-term inmate population, challenges in providing treatment services to inmates who may be in custody for only a short period, and financial issues related inmate medical costs and strained county budgets. County jails are often quite small, in some cases housing just over 20 inmates, making it difficult to maintain specialized staff positions to deliver needed services to inmates. In Pennsylvania, county jails in recent years have begun to serve as a relief valve for the increasingly strained state prison system. The state system has transferred hundreds of inmates to county jails since 2009, as many of these jails have excess capacity. The current study examines trends in rural county jail populations and demographics, jail capacity, capital projects and development (undertaken and planned), budgets, and staffing over the period 2004 through 2011. This study also documents types of treatment programs and services being offered at the jails and compares them to what is known about effective offender rehabilitation practices. Finally, this study also explores fiscal and other challenges facing the 44 rural county jails. Details: Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2012. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2014 at: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/documents/JailsFinalReportJusticeCenterversion.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/documents/JailsFinalReportJusticeCenterversion.pdf Shelf Number: 131699 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCounty JailsInmatesOffender RehabilitationPrisonersPrisonsRural AreasTreatment Programs |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: Court-Ordered Population Caps in California County Jails Summary: California is in the midst of a reform era that is unprecedented both in depth and in scope. Public Safety Realignment, passed and implemented in 2011, has shifted thousands of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders from state-level jurisdiction to county-level jurisdiction. Arguably, California's county jail systems have been one of the most significantly altered components of the criminal justice system and Realignment is exacerbating some of the biggest challenges facing jails prior to October 2011 when Realignment began. Since the start of Realignment county jails have experienced increased pressure to house larger populations. In the quarter preceding the start of Realignment the average daily population (ADP) for California's jails was 71,293 (see Figure 1). By the first quarter of 2014, ADP had increased to 82,527, an additional 11,234 individuals compared to pre-Realignment. The diversity of California's counties means that the way in which these increased pressures manifest in each county varies greatly and is based on a multitude of factors such as the extent to which the county previously sent people to state prison, the local jail incarceration rate, the operating capacity of the jail, and whether the county jail system is operating under a court-ordered population cap. This report focuses on court-ordered population caps. Understanding some of the history and current context of existing court-ordered population caps can be helpful as the effects of Realignment continue to unfold. First, as will be discussed below, county court-ordered population caps have generally been in place for decades, long before Plata v. Brown and the Public Safety Realignment Act. Are the population caps forcing, or perhaps even allowing, counties to with caps to respond in notably different ways than counties without caps? Second, there is concern that Plata v. Brown has the potential to lead to "county-level Platas" as a result of increased attention to jail conditions in the context of these growing populations. Some believe that Realignment has created an environment where 58 counties are at risk of developing jail conditions that are unconstitutional and lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding may be on the horizon. In fact, lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding have been filed in several counties since the start of Realignment: Alameda, Fresno, Monterey and Riverside. Can counties at risk of new litigation - or even at risk of a revival of "orphaned jail cases" learn from past experiences? Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2015 at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Shelf Number: 137060 Keywords: County JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail OvercrowdingJailsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Minnesota. Office of the Legislative Auditor. Program Evaluation Division Title: Mental Health Services in County Jails Summary: We found that when police encounter a person who may be suffering from a mental illness, services available in jails and in communities are often inadequate. In addition, many persons deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial do not receive treatment in a sufficiently timely manner, if at all. We make recommendations to address these deficiencies. Implementing them will require action by the Legislature, state executives, local officials, and judicial officials. Key Facts and Findings: - Problems with service availability in Minnesota's adult mental health system have persisted for years, limiting peace officers' options for referring persons with mental illness they take into custody. (p. 26) - The Department of Corrections has not collected reliable data from jails on the number of inmates assessed for mental illness. However, our surveys of sheriffs suggest that one-third of jail inmates may be on medications for a mental illness. (pp. 20, 21) - State rules do not adequately address some important areas of jail-based services, including mental health assessment of inmates following admission to jail. (pp. 46, 55) - Most sheriffs and county human services directors believe that jail inmates should have better access to psychiatric services, counseling, and case management than they now have. (p. 46) In addition, these officials widely believe that the number of beds in Minnesota's mental health facilities-particularly secure inpatient beds-is inadequate to meet current needs. (p. 29) - There is limited compliance with a state law that requires discharge planning for sentenced jail inmates with mental illness. (p. 66) - Contrary to law, some Minnesota defendants deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial remain in jail while awaiting court action on their possible civil commitment to competency treatment. Many incompetent defendants do not ultimately receive treatment to restore their competency. (pp. 83, 88) - A 2013 law (the "48-hour law") that gives jail inmates priority for placement into Department of Human Services (DHS) facilities has not always worked as intended, and it has limited the access of other patients to the Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center. (pp. 92-94) Details: St. Paul, MN: Office of the Legislative Auditor, 2016. 123p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2016 at: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/mhjails.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/mhjails.pdf Shelf Number: 138121 Keywords: County JailsJail InmatesMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: Managing Jail Populations to Enhance Public Safety: Assessing and Managing Risk in the Post-Realignment Era Summary: Just 20 months after Public Safety Realignment began, the effects of the legislation on California's criminal justice system are unprecedented both in depth and in scope. And they are still taking shape. Arguably, county jail systems have been one of the most significantly altered components of the criminal justice system. The management of county jail systems in California is a challenging, dynamic, and complex undertaking. Realignment is exacerbating some of the challenges and accelerating some of the changes that county jails were facing before October 2011 when Realignment began. The number of individuals in jail has been growing; the status of individuals held in jail custody has been changing; and the length of time individuals stay in jail is getting longer. In short, almost every aspect of California's jail population has been in a state of flux since Realignment was implemented. An examination of all of the contributing factors and criminal justice tools related to jail management is beyond the scope of this effort. The focus here is on a handful of selected topics that 1) are considered to play an important role in the management of jails, 2) have been directly affected by AB 109 or have newly emerged as a result of the new regime, and 3) are thought to be ripe subjects for law and policy debate and reform. We approach these topics by breaking down jail populations into two groups (non-sentenced versus sentenced) and the issue into two stages (assessment of risk and management of risk). The first section presents an overview of who is in jail in California based on the most recently available data. The second section examines how the risk profiles of defendants are assessed during the pretrial phase, and what we know from research to be the most effective approaches to addressing risk. Next, risk management options in the form of detention, bail release, own recognizance release, and pretrial services supervision are discussed. The attention then shifts to the sentenced population in California jails and some of the tools available to criminal justice practitioners to manage jail populations, including, split sentences, electronic monitoring, and early release. This paper is intended to help lay the foundation for the first meeting of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center's Executive Session on the Front-End Issues of Public Safety Realignment (see sidebar). The first of these four, day-long meetings will focus on issues related to jail management. A group of experts from across California representing a variety of perspectives will be convened to discuss some of the pressing issues related to Realignment's effect on jails. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2016 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/440504/doc/slspublic/Paper%20on%20jail%20mgmt%20July%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/440504/doc/slspublic/Paper%20on%20jail%20mgmt%20July%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 138635 Keywords: County JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail PopulationPretrial ServicesPublic Safety RealignmentRisk Assessment |
Author: Grattet, Ryken Title: California' County Jails in the Era of Reform Summary: California's county jails have been profoundly affected by several reforms over the last decade. Most importantly, in 2011, public safety realignment shifted responsibility for large numbers of non-serious, non-violent, and non-sexual offenders from state prisons to county correctional systems. This lowered the state prison population - allowing prisons to prioritize beds for more serious offenders - but increased county jail populations. Three years later, Proposition 47 downgraded a range of drug and property offenses from potential felonies to misdemeanors. The reduced population pressure has allowed jails to prioritize beds for more serious drug and property offenders who are no longer eligible for prison. Despite the growing importance of jails, little is known about the basic characteristics of jail populations. In this report, we analyze state and local data on individuals moving through county correctional systems. Using data from 11 counties, we find that: Reforms altered the offender composition of the jail population, especially among those held on drug and property crimes. After three years under realignment, the number of drug and property offenders in jails increased by 55 percent and 40 percent, respectively. One year after the passage of Proposition 47, the number of drug and property offenders fell by 35 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Length of stay for felony drug and property offenders increased after realignment. For example, median time served for felony drug offenders released in October 2011 was 45 days, compared to 98 days for those released in October 2015. However, length of stay for people who served time for misdemeanors and felony crimes against persons has remained stable. Releases due to overcapacity rose under realignment and dropped after Proposition 47, when jail population pressure eased. The demographic composition of jails has largely remained stable. But the age distribution does show modest signs of change: the share of those ages 18-21 in jail has decreased slightly, as the share of those in their 30s has increased. As jail populations shift toward more serious drug and property offenders, counties and the state will need to consider how jail security and rehabilitative programs might be made more effective. While researchers and policymakers continue to examine the longer-term effects of realignment and Proposition 47, it is also important to keep in mind that the recent reprioritization of jail beds may have implications for crime and recidivism. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2017 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_916RGR.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_916RGR.pdf Shelf Number: 145661 Keywords: California RealignmentCounty JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail InmatesJails |