Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:08 pm
Time: 10:08 pm
Results for jail inmates
54 results foundAuthor: Shanahan, Ryan Title: Close to Home: Building on Family Support for People Leaving Jail Summary: Most research and programming about incarcerated people and their family support systems focus on prison settings. Because jail is substantially different from prison — most notably, time served there is usually shorter — it is not clear that policies and practices that work in prisons can be applied successfully in jails. This report describes the Family Justice Program’s Close to Home project, which implemented the Relational Inquiry Tool (RIT) — a series of questions originally designed for and tested in prisons to stimulate incarcerated people’s thinking about supportive family members as a resource — in three jails in Maryland and Wisconsin. The report also discusses the results from qualitative and quantitative research at the three facilities, aimed at gauging the attitudes of jail staff, incarcerated men and women, and family members toward the RIT. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3377/Close%2520to%2520home_report_v.5.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3377/Close%2520to%2520home_report_v.5.pdf Shelf Number: 123190 Keywords: Families of InmatesJail InmatesPrisoner ReentryPrisoners |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Process and Systems Change Evaluation Findings from the Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Summary: In 2007, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) partnered with the Urban Institute (UI) to develop and test an innovative, comprehensive model for effective jail-to-community transition. Designed to address the unique challenges and opportunities surrounding jail reentry, the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative and TJC model advance systems-level change through collaborative and coordinated relationships between jails and local communities to address reentry. Enhanced public safety, reduced recidivism, and improved individual reintegration outcomes are the overarching goals of the TJC model. Two pilot sites, Denver, Colorado, and Douglas County, Kansas, were invited to be learning sites implementing the TJC model in September 2008, with four additional learning sites—Davidson County, Tennessee; Kent County, Michigan; La Crosse County, Wisconsin; and Orange County, California—selected to join them in August 2009. The TJC initiative provided all six sites with intensive, targeted technical assistance to implement the key elements of the model, and each was engaged in a systems change evaluation conducted by the Urban Institute. The primary objective of the cross-site systems change evaluation was to test the viability of the TJC model and to document factors which facilitated or inhibited its successful implementation. In doing so, the initiative sought to expand the knowledge base regarding effective jail transition practice. The implementation and systems change evaluation will be followed by an outcome and sustainability analysis commencing in 2012. A participatory action research framework guided the cross-site implementation and systems change evaluations. Evaluation activities supported measurement of systems change and generated relevant and timely information for the sites that would inform planning and implementation, as well as promote monitoring and sustainability. Evaluation-related technical assistance focused on building site capacity for self-assessment and outcome analysis activities; a performance measurement framework formed the core of the initiative’s strategy to build local capabilities for ongoing self-assessment. Regular stakeholder interviews, site visits, analysis of administrative data, and multiple waves of stakeholder survey data informed the evaluation and this report. This report examines implementation of the TJC model across the six learning sites, including key activities, site accomplishments and challenges, and lessons learned both about the TJC model and the technical assistance provided. Key findings from the implementation and cross-site systems change evaluations are presented, following a brief overview of the TJC model and description of the sites’ TJC strategies. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 143p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Shelf Number: 126649 Keywords: Jail InmatesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Program Implementation |
Author: Sandwick, Talia Title: Making The Transition: Rethinking Jail Reentry in Los Angeles County Summary: Jail and prison reentry services are designed to help people who are released into the community and are associated with lower rates of repeat criminal activity and reincarceration as well as improved public safety. However, providing reentry programs in corrections settings is challenging—particularly in jails, where stays are typically short and turnover is high. In 2010, with support from The California Endowment, the Vera Institute of Justice partnered with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and community-based organizations to assess reentry services for people leaving the L.A. County Jail. Vera researchers examined existing services, analyzed their strengths and weaknesses, and recommended changes that could increase the efficacy of interventions. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 15, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/making-the-transition-technical-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/making-the-transition-technical-report.pdf Shelf Number: 127635 Keywords: Jail InmatesJailsPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Lynch, Shannon M. Title: Women’s Pathways to Jail: Examining Mental Health, Trauma, and Substance Use Summary: The rate of incarceration of women has increased substantially in recent decades, with a 31 percent increase between 2000 and 2011 (Minton, 2012). Female offenders appear to have different risk factors for offending than do male offenders. In particular, female offenders report greater incidence of mental health problems and serious mental illness (SMI) than do male offenders (James and Glaze, 2006; Steadman et al., 2009). Female offenders also report higher rates of substance dependence as well as greater incidence of past physical and sexual abuse (James and Glaze, 2006). Other researchers also have noted elevated rates of experiences of interpersonal trauma, substance dependence, and associated symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in female offenders (Green et al., 2005; Lynch et al., 2012). This multisite study addresses critical gaps in the literature by assessing the prevalence of SMI, PTSD, and substance use disorders (SUD) in women in jail, and the pathways to jail for women with and without SMI. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2013. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: BJA Policiy Brief: Accessed April 18, 2013 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/WomensPathwaysToJail.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/WomensPathwaysToJail.pdf Shelf Number: 128414 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeFemale InmatesFemale Offenders (U.S.)Jail InmatesMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Moushey, Bill Title: Stories of Transition: Men and Women in the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative’s Reentry Program Summary: The Allegheny County Jail’s Reentry Program is one of a set of initiatives of the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative, a partnership among the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, the Allegheny County Jail, the Allegheny County Department of Human Services, the Allegheny County Health Department, community organizations and civic leaders. The Jail Collaborative was created in 2000 in an effort to identify creative ways to improve public safety and reduce recidivism. More than 200 people have completed the Reentry Program since its start in 2010, and the Jail Collaborative knows from the outcomes that the program is reducing recidivism. Sophisticated evaluations will tell us more about why it is working and what we can do to make the program better. The Jail Collaborative wants to understand what the experience of reentry is like for the people behind the statistics — the men and women who are in the midst of their transition from jail. It needs to hear their stories, including the struggles, their reflections and their advice for others. To do this, the Jail Collaborative commissioned award-winning journalist Bill Moushey to interview participants in the Reentry Program and write their stories of transition. Moushey, who was an investigative reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and winner of the National Press Club’s Freedom of Information Award, agreed to this assignment on one condition: that he be permitted to write in his unvarnished way. These are the first two of Bill Moushey’s reports about men and women in transition. Their memories of their experiences in jail are still fresh, and they spoke openly with Moushey about the help they received and the challenges they faced during jail and since their release. Their names have been changed to protect their privacy. Details: Pittsburgh, OH: The Allegheny County Department of Human Services, 2013. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2013 at: http://www.alleghenycounty.us/uploadedFiles/DHS/About_DHS/Report_and_Evaluation/13-ACDHS-03_StoriesOfTransition_052813.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.alleghenycounty.us/uploadedFiles/DHS/About_DHS/Report_and_Evaluation/13-ACDHS-03_StoriesOfTransition_052813.pdf Shelf Number: 129216 Keywords: Jail InmatesPrisoner Reentry (Ohio, U.S.)Recidivism |
Author: Hickert, Audrey O. Title: Pretrial Release Risk Study, Validation, & Scoring: Final Report Summary: The objective of this study was to validate the PRI being piloted by Salt Lake County to determine which items are significantly related to pretrial risk (as measured by FTA and recidivism). The study measures construct validity, whether the tool measures the concept it was intended to measure, new arrests during the pretrial period and failures to appear (FTA), and identifies cut-points for low, medium, and high risk offenders. These findings will be used to create a tool that will be used at the Salt Lake County jail to help inform release decisions. Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/PretrialRisk_UpdatedFinalReport_v052013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/PretrialRisk_UpdatedFinalReport_v052013.pdf Shelf Number: 129526 Keywords: BailJail InmatesPretrial Release (Utah)Risk Assessment |
Author: Flowers, Shawn M. Title: Baltimore City Jail Reentry Strategies Project: Final Report Summary: Choice Research Associates (CRA) was engaged by the Office of Human Services, Office of the Mayor, Baltimore MD to develop strategies to meet the needs of three primary offender populations at the Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) and Baltimore City Central Booking and Intake Center (BCBIC): 1) Individuals detained in Central Booking for short periods (e.g., 24 to 48 hours); 2) Detainees housed for longer periods (e.g., up to 1 month); and 3) Populations who remain in the facility for several months (31 days or more). The objective of the Baltimore City Jail Reentry Strategies project was to work collaboratively with the Mayor's Office, representatives from the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS), and to review the extant literature to incorporate evidence based strategies in the proposed reentry model. Multiple sources of data were utilized to inform this project including Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) official criminal history data, arrestee self-report of the Proxy Risk Assessment Tool, Offender Case Management System (OCMS) data providing release time and dates and release status, survey data from the Window Replication Project, and LSI-R assessment data of BCDC inmates and detainees. One of the challenges in jail reentry is to target those most in need of services. The key to overcoming this challenge in formulating this reentry strategy was to gain a better understanding of the population that flows in and out of the BCBIC and BCDC by conducting a pilot of the proxy risk assessment tool. The proxy is a screening tool currently used by a number of jails involved in National Institutes of Corrections/Urban Institute Transitions from Jail to the Community study. The proxy provides a rough proximate of risk level for designation of an arrestee for provision of information, additional assessment, and reentry services. The proxy risk assessment tool consists of 3 questions: 1) what is your current age?; 2) how old were you the first time you were arrested?; and 3) how many prior arrests do you have? (both questions including juvenile arrests). A total score is developed from that information which ranges from 2 to 8, with higher scores indicating an individual is a greater risk for recidivism. Over the week of October 21 to October 28, 2012, 1,028 individuals were arrested and booked in Baltimore City. Of those, 577 completed the proxy, of which 37% scored from 2 to 4 points and were categorized as low risk; 45% scored 5 to 6 points so were medium risk, and 18% scored 7 or 8, and labeled high risk. The State Identification (SID) numbers of the 1,028 individuals arrested that week were then submitted to be matched to CJIS records and 956 (93%) had records in CJIS. The criminal history data were combined with demographic data to provide a descriptive portrait. Arrestees were on average 33.56 years old, 79% were male, 83% were African American and 16% were Caucasian. The most common type of offender is a person offender (56%), followed by drug (34%), sex offender (5%), and property (4%), based on most serious conviction. On average, arrestees had been criminally involved over 10 years, with an average of 9 arrests (ranging from 1 to 74), 3.7 prior convictions and an average conviction rate of 33% overall. Data from CJIS were also used to compare the population by risk level. In general, those in the low and medium risk groups were older (which is expected given that older offenders score lower on the proxy than younger offenders). There were also more women in the low risk group compared to the medium or high risk groups. Further, as it takes time to accrue a criminal career, the low and medium risk populations had longer criminal careers than the high risk group. However, the high risk group as a whole consisted of more serious offenders with a higher average incarceration rate and more felony charges and convictions than the low risk group. The low risk group also had fewer weapons charges than the other groups and was more likely to be convicted of crimes classified as "other" - principally nuisance or quality of life type offenses such as rogue and vagabond, pandering, urination in public, trespassing, and consuming alcohol in public. It is also important to note that among the high risk group are low-level habitual misdemeanor offenders (HMOs). HMOs fall into the high risk group due to their repeated cycling in and out of the jail. The inability of the proxy tool to distinguish between the HMO and other high risk individuals supports the contention that those who are classified as high risk should be triggered to complete a more comprehensive assessment tool because HMOs likely need different and/or additional services to address the causes of their repeated offending than others in the high risk group. The next step was to incorporate CJIS data with release data from the Offender Case Management System (OCMS) to calculate the length of stay in the facility and to further inform the reentry plan based on the flow of individuals out of the facility (e.g., when and what time released; whether released on bond, from court, etc) and further define the population. Not surprisingly, the population and criminal history characteristics of those detained for up to 48 hours were significantly different than those in the facility for longer periods of time on a number of factors. For example, those held more than 31 days in the facility had significantly more serious criminal careers overall. They had longer criminal careers (averaging 12 vs. 10 years); a higher total number of prior arrests (12.06 compared to 8.29 for those released within 48 hours); higher career conviction rates (42% vs. 30%); incarceration rates (72% vs. 49%); and the number of times incarcerated for more than 1 day (5.3 vs. 2.9). In addition, there were significantly fewer women detained in the facility for 3 or more days. Specifically, in the first 48 hours after arrest, the population was 77% male and 23% female; beyond 48 hours, 92% of the population was male and 8% of the population was female. Further, by incorporating both the risk level assignment and release data, the length of stay is consistent with what one would expect -- more low risk individuals are released, and released at an earlier time, than those who are medium and/or high risk. Another concern with providing reentry services in a jail setting is that individuals may be released at any time of the day or night, particularly within the first 48 hours. This is a barrier for service providers who wish to connect with individuals as they are leaving the facility. Using OCMS data, the day and time of release were examined for those leaving the facility in the first 48 hours. Those results indicate that if service providers wish to staff an information booth at the Eager Street lobby, they should have staff present from 6 PM to Midnight on Sunday, Monday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, when the highest percentage of those released within 48 hours will leave the facility. Over half (54%) of those released on Sunday leave in this time frame 38% leave during these hours on Saturday, as do approximately 33% of those on Monday, Thursday and Friday. Providers might also consider keeping staff available at the jail until 3 AM as the majority of individuals (94%) released after 31 days are released between 9 PM and 3 AM. OCMS data was then explored by length of stay and by risk level to specifically observe release patterns for medium and high risk individuals. These individuals may be of the most interest to service providers, particularly for those who have begun to establish a relationship through in-reach, and wish to engage the individual immediately into services. The data show that the best times to staff the jail are between 9 PM and 3 AM, when 60% of medium and high risk individuals are released. Further, the best days to staff the Eager Street Lobby would be Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday evenings. Self-report data from the Window Replication Study and LSI-R assessments provided specific information on self-defined needs and criminogenic risks of those in BCDC. Data from the Window Replication Study included two populations - 142 individuals surveyed within hours of release from the Eager Street Lobby and Jail Industries Building, and among 200 male detainees housed in the Jail Industries Building in 2009. The 142 individuals in the release sample were on average 35 years old (ranging in age from 16 to 71), 86% were male, 82% were Black, and 16% White. The average length of stay for the release sample (from date of arrest to date of the survey) was 32 days, ranging from 1 to 325 days, with the majority (71%) released either on bond or own recognizance; 27% left time served; and 2% had charges dropped. The release population self-defined needs were then examined by length of stay. Among the 76 individuals pending release after 48 hours in the facility, transportation was ranked as the most useful service (42%). This was followed by employment (33%), job training (30%) and education/GED (24%). Housing was the next useful service (18%), then food (16%), drug treatment (16%), legal services (12%), mental health care (11%), and basic health care (9%). The 200 male detainee respondents were on average 39 years old (ranging in age from 18 to 62), 84% were Black, 11% White and 5% identified as other. The majority of detainees (59%) were single, never married; and 75% were fathers. The average length of stay for the detainee sample (from date of arrest to date of the survey) was 67 days, ranging from 1 to 1,024 days. The Window Replication detainee survey also contained the 3 proxy risk assessment questions, allowing categorization of self-defined needs by risk level. While the suggested reentry strategy is to focus resources on medium and high risk individuals, the data helps to inform which services and/or service providers should be targeted for kiosk and/or resource wall materials provided to all those processed and released in Baltimore City. For example, among the 62 individuals classified as low risk, 38 (61%) wanted housing, 34 (55%) employment and 29 (47%) cited dental care. Community organizations providing these and other services such as transportation, food banks, basic health care, and clothing should be the primary target for obtaining and disseminating resource information. For the medium to high risk individuals, community organizations that provide employment and job training services, housing, dental and basic health care, applying for TANF, food stamps, and health care benefits, food, and transportation should be engaged to conduct in-reach sessions. Details: Greenbelt, MD: Choice Research Associates, 2013. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 5, 2014 at: http://www.choiceresearchassoc.com/documents/final_jail_reentry_strategies_report_09_01_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.choiceresearchassoc.com/documents/final_jail_reentry_strategies_report_09_01_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 132249 Keywords: Jail InmatesPrisoner ReentryRisk Assessment |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Title: A Way Forward: Diverting People with Mental Illness from Inhumane and Expensive Jails into Community-Based Treatment that Works Summary: Jails have become warehouses for people with mental illness. Nationwide, nearly half a million inmates with mental illness are in local jails, and an estimated 10-25% have a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia. In Los Angeles County alone, at least 3,200 inmates with a diagnosed severe mental illness crowd the jails on a typical day, which constitutes about 17% of the jail population. These numbers capture only the number of inmates with a diagnosed severe mental illness: the actual number may well be higher. Former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has called L.A.'s jail system "the nation's largest mental hospital." The war on drugs and other law enforcement policies have resulted in mass incarceration of low-level drug and other non-violent offenders, many of whom are arrested for behaviors related to a mental illness. In L.A., roughly 1,100 inmates with mental illness are behind bars on an average night for charges or convictions for nonviolent offenses. And many of the behaviors that lead to such charges are rooted in mental illness. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, drug offenses make up the largest portion of charges for this inmate population, nearly 27%. "Mental illness frequently becomes de facto criminalized when those affected by it use illegal drugs, sometimes as a form of self-medication, or engage in behaviors that draw attention and police response." After drug crimes, status offenses, administrative offenses, and parole violations are the most common charges or convictions for which people with mental illness are held in L.A.'s jails. For those with mental illness, incarceration causes needless suffering and even death. Not only does the lack of adequate care in jails and prisons exacerbate the symptoms of mental illness, but also overcrowding and other conditions of confinement make it harder to successfully treat prisoners with mental illness. Prisoners with mental illness are far more likely to suffer sexual and physical abuse at the hands of jail staff or other inmates than are inmates who do not have a mental illness. The Los Angeles County jails have been rife with such abuse for decades. Incarceration can also imperil the very lives of those with mental illness: suicide is the leading cause of death in jails, and inmates with mental illness commit suicide at much higher rates than people with mental illness living in the community.13 Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently sent a letter to Los Angeles County stating that it had found that the County was violating the constitutional rights of inmates with mental illness, noting the ten suicides by inmates in 2013, and finding that the Sheriff's Department and Department of Mental Health had failed to take adequate steps to "protect prisoners from serious harm and risk of harm at the Jails due to inadequate suicide prevention practices.' Upon release, inmates with mental illness find it even more difficult to get a job and find housing than before their incarceration because they now have a criminal record. And families suffer when their loved ones are imprisoned. Widespread incarceration of people with mental illness harms not only them and their families but also wastes precious taxpayer resources. It costs far more to incarcerate inmates with mental illness than those without mental illness, and it is far less costly to supervise them in community settings than in jail. Many communities are beginning to address the warehousing of people with mental illness in jails through collaborations between the criminal justice system and the public mental health system that "divert" people with mental illness from incarceration. Effective diversion programs ensure that people with mental illness who are arrested or end up in jail are connected to effective community-based treatment programs. Diversion can occur at any stage of the criminal process, including pre-arrest, pre-and post-booking, pre-trial, and pre-sentencing. The key to success is relying on treatment services, including Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and supportive housing, with demonstrated success in reducing recidivism (re-offending), improving mental health outcomes, and lowering costs. Diversion programs not only improve public safety and public health, but they are also consistent with the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and with the landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), in which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the ADA prohibits the needless institutionalization of people with mental disabilities. The DOJ has been actively promoting community-based services, especially ACT and supportive housing, as a means of preventing the needless institutionalization of people with mental illness in jails. Details: Los Angeles: ACLU of Southern California, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2015 at: https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/JAILS-REPORT.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclusocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/JAILS-REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 135721 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsDiversionJail InmatesJailsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Liebowitz, Sarah Title: Sheriff Baca's Strike Force: Deputy Violence and Head Injuries of Inmates in LA County Jails Summary: Correctional officers should strike inmates' heads only as a matter of last resort. But in the Los Angeles County Jails, that is not the reality. As explained below, there is clear evidence that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ("LASD") deputies have used head strikes with alarming regularity in the Los Angeles County jails. In many of those incidents the head strikes have caused significant injuries. The manner and frequency of such head strikes strongly suggests an inappropriate use of force by deputies. In recent years, Los Angeles Sheriff's deputies have stomped on inmates' heads, even after shackling those inmates' hands. They have bashed inmates' faces into concrete walls. They have fractured inmates' facial bones - noses, jaws, cheekbones, or eye sockets. The ACLU is aware of least 11 inmates who have had their facial bones broken by LASD deputies in the past three years. One inmate has lost vision in one eye. Others have undergone surgery. Sixty-four people have made sworn statements describing incidents in which deputies targeted inmates' heads for attack between 2009 and 2012. These are not mere unsubstantiated complaints. The ACLU has corroborated 12 of these allegations of head injuries with secondary evidence, such as medical records, photographic documentation, or civilian reports. In several other instances, inmate witnesses have corroborated reports of deputy-on-inmate head strikes. Details: Los Angeles: ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU National Prison Project, and Paul Hastings LLP, 2012. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2015 at: http://nationinside.org/images/pdf/107082827-sheriff-baca_s-strike-force-deputy-violence-and-head-injuries-of-inmates-in-la-county-jails.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://nationinside.org/images/pdf/107082827-sheriff-baca_s-strike-force-deputy-violence-and-head-injuries-of-inmates-in-la-county-jails.pdf Shelf Number: 135722 Keywords: Corrections OfficersJail InmatesPrison GuardsPrisoner Maltreatment |
Author: Liebowitz, Sarah Title: Cruel and Usual Punishment: How A Savage Gang Of Deputies Controls LA County Jails Summary: To be an inmate in the Los Angeles County jails is to fear deputy attacks. In the past year, deputies have assaulted scores of non-resisting inmates, according to reports from jail chaplains, civilians, and inmates. Deputies have attacked inmates for complaining about property missing from their cells. They have beaten inmates for asking for medical treatment, for the nature of their alleged offenses, and for the color of their skin. They have beaten inmates in wheelchairs. They have beaten an inmate, paraded him naked down a jail module, and placed him in a cell to be sexually assaulted.6 Many attacks are unprovoked. Nearly all go unpunished: these acts of violence are covered up by a department that refuses to acknowledge the pervasiveness of deputy violence in the jail system. Deputies act with such impunity that in the past year even civilians have begun coming forward with eyewitness accounts of deputies beating non-resisting inmates in the jails. These civilian accounts support the seventy inmate declarations describing deputy-on-inmate beatings and deputy-instigated inmate-on-inmate violence and deputy threats of assaults against inmates that the ACLU Foundation of Southern California (ACLU/SC) has collected in the past year, as well as the myriad inmate declarations the ACLU/SC has collected over the years. The violence that takes place in the Los Angeles County jails is far from normal. These are not average jails with isolated or sporadic incidents of deputy misbehavior. Thomas Parker, a former FBI Agent and Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau's Los Angeles Field Office, reviewed inmate, former inmate, chaplain and civilian declarations, reports, correspondence, media articles, and legal filings, and found: "Of all the jails I have had the occasion to visit, tour, or conduct investigations within, domestically and internationally, I have never experienced any facility exhibiting the volume and repetitive patterns of violence, misfeasance, and malfeasance impacting the Los Angeles County jail system. ..." "There is at least a two decade history of corruption within the ranks of the Los Angeles Sherriff's Department (LASD). In most of those cases, lower level deputies and civilian employees were prosecuted, but no one at the command level responsible for those employees appears to have been held accountable and appropriately punished for failure to properly supervise and manage their subordinate personnel and resources. In my opinion, this has provided the 'seedbe' for continued lax supervision, violence, and corruption within LASD and the county jails it administers," Mr. Parker concluded. Details: Los Angeles: ACLU National Prison Project; ACLU of Southern California, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 20, 2015 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/78162_aclu_jails_r2_lr.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/78162_aclu_jails_r2_lr.pdf Shelf Number: 135724 Keywords: Corrections OfficersJail InmatesJailsPrison GuardsPrisoner Maltreatment |
Author: County of Los Angeles. Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence Title: Report of the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence Summary: There has been a persistent pattern of unreasonable force in the Los Angeles County jails that dates back many years. Notwithstanding a litany of reports and recommendations to address the problem of violence in the County jails issued by multiple bodies over more than two decades, it was only recently that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ("LASD" or the "Department") began to implement changes that significantly reduced the level of force used by Deputy Sheriffs in the jails. Both the responsibility for, and the solutions to, the problem of excessive force in the County jails lies with the Department's leadership. Significantly, the Department failed to identify, monitor and address force problems until the Sheriff began to take action last year in the wake of a series of scathing reports, the glare of adverse publicity, actions by the County Board of Supervisors (the "Board") including creating the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence (the "Commission" or "CCJV"), and a series of public hearings by both the Commission and the Board. As a result of the recent attention of the Sheriff and the reforms he instituted, the number of force incidents, and in particular Significant Force incidents, in the jails has dropped dramatically. Yet even with these recent reductions, troubling indicia of a force problem remain. Whether recent force reductions will be sustained over time when public attention recedes, and whether the entire Department is truly committed to the Sheriff's stated vision for the jails and the implementation of these reforms, remains to be seen. The Department provides a myriad of services and is a very complex organization with 17,000 sworn and non-sworn civilian employees. It patrols the unincorporated areas of one of the largest counties in the United States with a population of over 9.8 million, provides police services to over 40 cities in Los Angeles County plus unincorporated areas, operates the Los Angeles Regional Crime Laboratory, provides security for the courts throughout the County, and runs the largest jail system in the country. The jail system includes eight geographically distant facilities that house some of the most dangerous and violent inmates and rival gang members in the nation. In addition to operating the jails, the Department transports prisoners to and from the courts and runs the Custody facilities in the courts. The Los Angeles County jail system has been plagued by many problems over the years, from overcrowded and substandard jail conditions to allegations that deputies used excessive or unnecessary force on inmates and facilitated inmate on inmate violence. These problems have been the subject of numerous reports, starting with the Kolts Report in 1992, and detailed in periodic reports by Special Counsel Merrick Bobb and the Office of Independent Review ("OIR"). Last fall, the American Civil Liberties Union (the "ACLU") issued a scathing report entitled "Cruel and Unusual Punishment: How a Savage Gang of Deputies Control LA County Jails" detailing mounting concerns with violence in the jails. It was soon followed by a critical report from OIR, stating in no uncertain terms that "deputies sometimes use unnecessary force against inmates in the jails, to either exact punishment or to retaliate for something the inmate is perceived to have done" and expressed concern that "the times in which deputies 'get away' with using excessive force may be on the rise." At the same time, the Los Angeles Times published a series of articles recounting allegations of excessive force, a "code of silence" among Custody deputies, deputy misconduct in the jails, and the existence of an on-going federal criminal investigation into abuses in the jails. With a bright spotlight placed squarely on the Department and its jails, the Sheriff created a Commander Management Task Force ("CMTF" or the "Task Force") last fall to "[t]ransform the culture of our custody facilities into a safe and secure learning environment for staff and inmates, and provide a level of service and professionalism consistent with our Core Values." At the same time, the Board of Supervisors created this Commission with a mandate "to conduct a review of the nature, depth and cause of the problem of inappropriate deputy use of force in the jails, and to recommend corrective action as necessary."The Board also directed the Commission to "hold[] this Board and the Sheriff accountable for their speedy and effective implementation" of necessary reforms. Details: Los Angeles: The Commission, 2012. 205p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://www.lacounty.gov/files/CCJV-Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.lacounty.gov/files/CCJV-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 129784 Keywords: Inmate MisconductInmate ViolenceJail InmatesJail ViolenceJailsPrison GangsPrisoner Maltreatment |
Author: Steinberg, Darrell Title: When did prisons become acceptable mental healthcare facilities? Summary: We can no longer ignore the massive oppression we are inflicting upon the mentally ill throughout the United States. Over a century ago, Dorothea Dix began a movement to improve the deplorable conditions of mentally ill prisoners. Despite her success in changing the country's perception and treatment of the mentally ill in prison, we are now right back where we started in the nineteenth century. Although deinstitutionalization was originally understood as a humane way to offer more suitable services to the mentally ill in community-based settings, some politicians seized upon it as a way to save money by shutting down institutions without providing any meaningful treatment alternatives. This callousness has created a one-way road to prison for massive numbers of impaired individuals and the inhumane warehousing of thousands of mentally ill people. We have created conditions that make criminal behavior all but inevitable for many of our brothers and sisters who are mentally ill. Instead of treating them, we are imprisoning them. And then, when they have completed their sentences, we release them with minimal or no support system in place, just counting the days until they are behind bars once again. This practice of seeking to save money on the backs of this population comes with huge moral and fiscal cost. It is ineffective because we spend far more on imprisonment of the mentally ill than we would otherwise spend on treatment and support. It is immoral because writing off another human being's life is utterly contrary to our collective values and principles. The numbers are staggering: over the past 15 years, the number of mentally ill people in prison in California has almost doubled. Today, 45 percent of state prison inmates have been treated for severe mental illness within the past year. The Los Angeles County Jail is "the largest mental health provider in the county," according to the former official in charge of the facility. California was at the forefront of the spiral towards imprisonment rather than treatment, when it turned its back on community based mental health programs. As usual, what started in California spread throughout the country. In 1971 there were 20,000 people in California prisons; by 2010 the population had increased to 162,000 people, of which 45 percent are estimated to be mentally ill. We in California now have an opportunity to lead again - this time to show that there is a better approach. We can begin a counter-revolution by setting a new standard for how we deal with people whose mental illness manifests through criminal activity. We will prove to the country that there is another, better approach - an approach that saves money and saves lives from being forsaken. Details: Palo Alto, CA: Stanford law School, Three Strikes Project, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/632655/doc/slspublic/Report_v12.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/632655/doc/slspublic/Report_v12.pdf Shelf Number: 136255 Keywords: Jail InmatesMental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill InmatesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Title: Jail-Based Substance Abuse Programs Summary: The Virginia Compensation Board conducts a survey of jails each year to gather information on inmates with mental illness. Some information on inmates with substance abuse disorders is also gathered, and included in the annual report. The most common treatment provided for inmates with substance abuse disorders is group substance abuse treatment, which the Compensation Board's 2013 Mental Illness in Jails Report defines as: "Meeting of a group of individuals with a substance abuse clinician for the purpose of providing psycho education about various substance abuse topics and/or to provide group feedback and support with regard to substance abuse issues. Examples could include AA meeting, NA meeting, or relapse prevention groups." In July 2013, for the 58 (out of 64) local and regional jails that responded to the Compensation Board's survey, 30.7% of the jail population had a known or suspected substance abuse disorder, almost of half of whom had a co-occurring mental illness. Unfortunately, according to the Compensation Board survey results, only about 20% of inmates with a substance abuse disorder receive group substance abuse treatment. It may be that others are receiving other services not counted in this survey; group substance abuse treatment is the only substance abuse service included in the Compensation Board survey. To provide additional data on jail substance abuse programs, DCJS is currently surveying jails regarding their substance abuse populations and treatment services. Data from this survey are not ready at this time, but the results will be published when the study is complete. Details: Richmond: Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, 2014. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: https://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/research/documents/Kingdom%20Life%20Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/research/documents/Kingdom%20Life%20Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 136677 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrugs and CrimeJail InmatesMental IllnessMentally Ill OffendersSubstance AbuseSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: VWI: Voting While Incarcerated: A Tool Kit for Advocates Seeking to Register, and Facilitate Voting by, Eligible People in Jail Summary: At midyear 2004, there were close to 714,000 people detained in our nation's jails. Most were being held under pretrial detention or serving time for misdemeanors or for non-disfranchising felonies, and the majority were eligible to register and vote. Most states disfranchise people with felony convictions for at least some period of time - while they are serving their sentence in prison (in all states except Maine and Vermont), and often while they are on probation or parole as well. Several states indefinitely disfranchise people with felony convictions, but Alabama and Mississippi permit some felons to vote. (See "The Law in Your State," page 34.) However, people detained in jail who are awaiting trial or are serving time for a misdemeanor or a non-disfranchising felony have the right to vote in every state. This is at least theoretically true. And this is where advocacy efforts come in. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than half the people in jail in 2004 were racial or ethnic minorities. African Americans were five times more likely than whites and almost three times more likely than Latinos to be in jail. The United States has a long history of deliberately denying people of color the right to participate in the democratic process by voting. Even after the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870 guaranteeing all (male) citizens the right to vote regardless of race or nationality, many states continued to create obstacles such as literacy tests and poll taxes to deter African Americans and other people of color from voting. Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made these practices illegal, most states employ felony disfranchisement laws that effectively silence large numbers of voters of color, especially African-American men, according to The Sentencing Project. These figures are estimates as of August 2005: But there is a hidden population of over 700,000 people in our jails who are disproportionately poor and of color who are eligible to vote now. Pretrial detainees in jail are usually there only because they cannot afford bail. People with financial resources are able to post bail and are therefore able to vote freely outside the jailhouse walls that contain the poor. Another reason to focus on jail systems is that while state elected officials determine who is and isn't eligible to vote in each state, with the authority to enact or repeal felony disfranchisement laws, local officials (often county executives or mayors and their appointed administrators) control jail systems. Local elected officials have influence over local election boards. Where state officials refuse to take action, local corrections and elections officials may be interested in ensuring that all eligible residents in their jurisdiction, including people in jail, are registered and provided the opportunity to cast a ballot. The San Francisco Department of Elections, for example, is taking steps to inform people in jail (and those who have completed their sentences) that they are eligible to vote under California law. The director has implemented the plan as a way to increase voter registration while honoring inmates' right to vote. The department's informational campaign includes a useful Web page on "Inmate Voting": see http://www.sfgov.org/site/election_ index.asp?id=33704. Local elected officials may also control other corrections agencies, including probation offices. Many of the recommendations in this tool kit with respect to the institutionalization of jail-based voter education and registration also apply to probation and other corrections agencies. HOW THIS TOOL KIT CAN HELP This tool kit outlines the steps you can take to implement a two-part process inside your local jails to (1) register voters, and (2) ensure that eligible people can vote from jail. The act of registration is important in and of itself, but there must be follow-up to ensure that people also have the opportunity to exercise the right to vote. There are many ways to approach this work, and the method you choose should be based on the unique set of circumstances that prevail in your community. We have included models with step-by-step instructions and sample materials you can use to create educational flyers and other relevant items. To give these models some context, we offer profiles of jail-based voter registration and get-out-the- vote efforts in seven localities across the country. Details: New York: ACLU and Right to Vote, 2005. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2015 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/votingrights/votingwhileincarc_20051123.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/votingrights/votingwhileincarc_20051123.pdf Shelf Number: 136998 Keywords: Jail InmatesPrisoners RightsVoter Registration |
Author: New Mexico Sentencing Commission Title: Assessment Of The Second Judicial District Court Pretrial Services Office Summary: According to the American Probation and Parole Association and the Pretrial Justice Institute, in perhaps no more than 15% (460) of the nation's 3,065 counties, judicial officers are aided by pretrial services programs in the balancing act between the presumption of innocence and public safety (APPA, 2010). At midyear 2011, about 6 in 10 jail inmates were not convicted, but were in jail awaiting court action on a current charge - a rate unchanged since 2005 (Minton, 2012). U.S. jails over the past two decades have become largely occupied by individuals awaiting trial, with only a minority of inmates serving out convictions. Before the mid-1990s, jail populations historically were evenly split between pretrial and sentenced prisoners. Since 1996, however, pretrial inmates have grown in numbers and at a faster rate than sentenced inmates, even though crime rates have been falling (Bechtel, et al, 2012). During the 2012 regular session of the New Mexico State Legislative session, the Legislature passed House Joint Memorial 20 (HJM 20) "Bernalillo Case Management Pilot Project." HJM 20 lists a series of conditions justifying the passage of the memorial; a shortage of incarceration options; $30 million to house felony arrestees; the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) has exceeded its design capacity for years; opportunities to alleviate burdens on county jails, but the opportunities were too difficult to implement; and the old Bernalillo County Detention Center could be renovated into a treatment center. HJM 20 resolves that the Bernalillo County Commissioners create a pilot project that will streamline case management, evaluate and expand treatment and diversion programs, create an alternative incarceration facility, as well as start new mental health and substance abuse treatment options, alternative incarceration, transitional living, and reintegration programs. The major stakeholders of the Bernalillo County criminal justice system should be represented in the pilot project. Additionally, HJM20 requests the NM Sentencing Commission (NMSC) collect jail population data, research case management practices, and evaluate the viability and effectiveness of the proposed pilot project. In response to HJM 20, NMSC entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Bernalillo County. The scope of work was, "evaluate the effectiveness of the expanded pretrial services program operated by the [Second Judicial District Court (SJDC)] - [also evaluate] new or expanded treatment programs and diversionary programs [if time and budget allow]." Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2014. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2015 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2014/assessment-of-the-second-judicial-district-court-pretrial-services-office.pdf Shelf Number: 137239 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCase ManagementDiversionJail InmatesMental Health ServicesPretrial ServicesSubstance Abuse TreatmentTreatment Programs |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Title: In Jail & In Debt: Ohio's Pay-to-Stay Fees Summary: The ACLU of Ohio is the first to collect and analyze pay-to-stay policies statewide with the report In Jail & In Debt: Ohio's Pay-to-Stay Fees. Pay-to-stay jail fees are the fees charged by local jails to people while they are incarcerated. This report takes a comprehensive look at jails across the state, compares policies, documents impact, and proposes new recommendations to stop locking people in cycles of incarceration and debt. Our statewide investigation analyzes policies at 75 facilities representing 74 counties across Ohio. More than half of jails, 40 of the 75, charge people for their incarceration through a booking fee, a daily fee, or both. Ohioans are getting billed up to $66.09 a day to be in jail. It is a follow up to the 2013 report Adding It Up: The Financial Realities of Ohio's Pay-To-Stay Policies, which explored the financial impacts of pay-to-stay policies in Ohio. This report analyzed how local governments were trying to generate revenue from people in jail, but pay-to-stay fees created more problems than they solved. We suggested counties follow the law and assess for indigence, eliminate costly collections agency contracts, and consider the impact on families. Details: Cleveland, OH: ACLU of Ohio, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/InJailInDebt.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/InJailInDebt.pdf Shelf Number: 137326 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCriminal Fees Criminal FinesCriminal Justice Debt Financial SanctionsJail FeesJail Inmates |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: In Our Own Backyard: Confronting Growth and Disparities in American Jails Summary: The fact that the United States-with less than 5 percent of the world's population but nearly 25 percent of the world's prisoners-has a serious problem with mass incarceration is by now well beyond partisan debate. In recent years, lawmakers, policymakers, and criminal justice practitioners from across the political spectrum have joined forces to pursue efforts, large and small, to reduce the number of people we send to and hold in state and federal prisons. Jails-with 11 million admissions annually and a third of all Americans behind bars on a given day-are increasingly recognized as a key engine of mass incarceration. Yet research and data about jail use are scarce. (See "What is Jail?" below.) Moreover, much information about incarceration either conflates prison and jail incarceration, excludes jail incarceration entirely, or inadequately examines how local justice systems have contributed to the overuse of incarceration in the United States over time. Few counties publicly report their own jail population and admissions data.4 And while federal data on jails do exist and are publicly available, the ways in which the data are collected and stored make it difficult to answer even simple questions about jail use in a given county or discern similarities or differences across the approximately 3,000 counties in the United States. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2016 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/incarceration-trends-in-our-own-backyard.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/incarceration-trends-in-our-own-backyard.pdf Shelf Number: 137475 Keywords: Jail InmatesJailsMass IncarcerationRacial Disparities |
Author: Minton, Todd D. Title: Census of Jails: Population Changes, 1999-2013 Summary: Presents state-level estimates of the number of inmates confined in local jails at year end 2013, by sex, race, and Hispanic origin. This report provides information on changes in the incarceration rate, average daily population, admissions, expected length of stay, rated capacity, percent of capacity occupied, and inmate-to-correctional officer ratios. It also includes statistics, by jurisdiction size, on the number of inmates confined to jail and persons admitted to jail during 2013. It features a special section on the 12 facilities that functioned as jails for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Highlights: From 1999 to 2013, the number of inmates in local jails increased by 21%, from 605,943 to 731,570. During this period, the growth in the jail population was not steady, as the jail confined population peaked in 2008 at 785,533 then declined to its 2013 level. The adult jail incarceration rates changed slightly between midyear 1999 (304) and year-end 2013 (310). Nearly half (46%) of all local jail inmates were confined in jurisdictions holding 1,000 or more inmates in 2013, down slightly from 50% in 2006. Between 1999 and year-end 2013, the female inmate population increased by 48%, from approximately 68,100 to 100,940. The male inmate population increased by 17%, from approximately 537,800 to 630,620. The juvenile population (persons age 17 or younger) held in adult jail facilities in 2013 (4,420) decreased by more than half from its peak in 1999 (9,458). Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2016 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cjpc9913.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cjpc9913.pdf Shelf Number: 137654 Keywords: Correctional PopulationsJail InmatesJails |
Author: Bronson, Jennifer Title: Veterans in Prison and Jail, 2011-2012 Summary: Presents counts and rates of veterans in state and federal prison and local jail in 2011 and 2012. This report describes incarcerated veterans by demographic characteristics, military characteristics, and disability and mental health status. It describes current offense, sentencing, and criminal history characteristics by veteran status. It also examines combat experience associated with lifetime mental health disorders among incarcerated veterans. Findings are based on data from the National Inmate Survey, conducted between February 2011 and May 2012. Data from previous BJS surveys of inmates in prison and jail are used to establish historical trends regarding incarcerated veterans. Highlights: The number of veterans incarcerated in state and federal prison and local jail decreased from 203,000 in 2004 to 181,500 in 201112. The total incarceration rate in 201112 for veterans (855 per 100,000 veterans in the United States) was lower than the rate for nonveterans (968 per 100,000 U.S. residents). Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic inmates made up a significantly smaller proportion of incarcerated veterans (38% in prison and 44% in jail), compared to incarcerated non-Hispanic black and Hispanic nonveterans (63% in prison and 59% in jail). A greater percentage of veterans (64%) than nonveterans (48%) were sentenced for violent offenses. An estimated 43% of veterans and 55% of nonveterans in prison had four or more prior arrests. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vpj1112.pdf Shelf Number: 137800 Keywords: Jail InmatesMilitaryPrison InmatesPrisonersVeterans |
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: Human Rights Watch Title: Paying the Price: Failure to Deliver HIV Services in Louisiana Parish Jails Summary: In 2011, the United States, in concert with countries around the world, announced the "beginning of the end of AIDS." Defeating AIDS would be a stunning public health achievement. But doing so requires addressing HIV in correctional systems-and nowhere more so than in Louisiana, which leads the nation in new HIV infections and incarceration rates. The same socio-economic factors that place people at risk for HIV-poverty, homelessness, drug dependence, mental illness- are also associated with higher rates of incarceration. For heavily policed groups, the overlap of HIV and imprisonment is not a coincidence. Going to jail tends to make people poorer, less stably housed, and more likely to be jailed again-factors known to play a part in HIV prevention and outcomes. Repeated incarceration, often for minor crimes, can have serious health consequences for people living with HIV. Paying the Price presents the voices of people living with HIV who have been detained in parish jails across Louisiana, where HIV services are limited, sporadic, and often non-existent. HIV testing is limited to a handful of facilities; treatment for HIV in parish jails is delayed, interrupted, and sometimes denied altogether. Despite the importance of continuity of care to people with HIV, those who leave most parish jails in Louisiana endure a haphazard process, including leftover medications, a list of HIV providers, and in some cases nothing at all. Federal, state, and local governments should immediately increase inmates' access to HIV testing, treatment, and linkage to care upon release from Louisiana parish jails. Louisiana should continue to press forward criminal justice reforms that promote alternatives to incarceration. Details: New York: HRW, 2016. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2016 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/usaids0316web.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/usaids0316web.pdf Shelf Number: 138592 Keywords: Health CareHIV(Viruses)Jail InmatesMedical Care |
Author: Caudill, Jonathan W. Title: Breaking Ground: Preliminary Report of Butte County Sheriff's Alternative Custody Supervision Program Summary: In January 2012, Sally Parker organized, at the request of Jon Caudill, a meeting between them, Undersheriff Kory Honea, Captain Andy Duch, Lt. Brian Flicker, and Ryan Patten. Recent AB 109 developments, including creation of the Butte County Sheriff's Office Alternative Custody Supervision (ACS) Program, led the legislated shift of prisoners from the state prison system to the county jail systems to the center stage across the state. From the meeting originated a research agreement between the Principle Investigator, Jonathan Caudill, and the Butte County Sheriff's Office (BCSO) including three specific projects: a) identify county prisoner inmate needs, b) establish a recidivism measure, and c) evaluate implementation of the ACS Program. These specific projects, however, also relate to a general philosophy of managing the jail population and improving public safety, while providing offenders with appropriate tools for success. The balance between public safety, managing jail resources, and offender treatment has been the focus of many discussions and the focal point of the BCSO Executive Command. The key to balancing these foci is understanding their interconnectedness. The overarching goals of these projects have been to understand this interconnectedness and identify specific adjustments. As explained in the findings section, we found some anticipated and some unexpected results. First and as expected, we found that many of the surveyed inmates expressed a desire for services while incarcerated and continued assistance during reentry. Several theoretical frameworks may explain these findings; however, the underlying desire for a continuum of services remains. While these are preliminary findings and should be interpreted as such, these findings are commonsensical as we know that approximately two-thirds of inmates were unemployed when arrested. If an individual is unemployed prior to a new felony conviction and incarceration, they are even less employable afterwards. Given these findings, we recommend the BCSO staff conduct a supervision and treatment plan for all potential ACS eligible inmates. Implemented correctly, this strategy will increase treatment accuracy and gauge supervision needs. Our second expected finding was the limitations of the current data collection strategy and offender management system. We knew at the onset that intensive community supervision was a new concept for the BCSO and, therefore, they lacked appropriate software. The BCSO, at the time of this report, has an active jail information management system request for proposal and requested that this study's PI consult in the proposal scoring process. We recommend that the BCSO continue their search for an appropriate offender management system that has the capacity to store historical data and network with other county systems. Third, we discovered that the BCSO implemented the ACS Program in an efficient manner and is now prepared to proceed to the formalization phase. In fact, the projected one-year recidivism estimation suggested the ACS program has a lower recidivism rate than the most recent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) one-year recidivism rate. Our analyses revealed the current ACS six-month recidivism rate just below 20 percent (0.19). Based on this number and previous time-to-recidivism research, we estimated the ACS program one-year recidivism rate at 0.327, while the most recent CDCR recidivism estimate for property and drug offenders was 0.492. Additionally, the data suggest that officers are maintaining a service orientation (67 percent of all officer-participant encounters were service, as opposed to enforcement). This trend, however, has the potential to wane once the program newness expires. New programs produce excitement and enthusiasm, but the natural conflict accompanying offender management can generate "burnout" and depersonalization. Depersonalization can hinder service provision and supervision strategies. To protect ACS officers from unnecessary occupational stress, we recommend that the BCSO further formalize the ACS program, to include additional officer training and a comprehensive, evidence-based supervision strategy. Beyond the anticipated preliminary findings, we also discovered two unanticipated findings. First, both the logistic regression model and survival analysis revealed an opportunity to make the ACS risk assessment tool more efficient. Although the estimated coefficients were in the appropriate direction (positive correlation between risk scores and recidivism), the unadjusted risk scores lacked consistency across time (see Graph 1 for a visual representation of risk scores regressed on time to failure). These findings suggest that the BCSO can use proper data, a comprehensive understanding of crime and its correlates, and advanced statistics to improve public safety through recidivism reduction and resource management. To improve the risk assessment tool, we recommend that the BCSO explore a population-validated risk assessment tool. Our last two findings are of methodological concerns. We discovered during the preliminary analysis that the inmate needs survey design and delivery required adjustment. Specifically, the results suggest two previous treatment questions produced poor response rates and at least one current needs question confused interview sessions. The research team is considering both of these issues and they anticipate a new version of the inmate needs survey. Related to survey delivery, there remains confusion among jail staff and inmates as to the project goals, thereby making this process somewhat inefficient. The research team implemented an alternative survey strategy and, after evaluation of the response rates, they may recommend further data collection adjustments. The second methodological concern focuses mainly on evaluation resources. The preliminary results provide several interesting outcomes and important corollary projects. The additional pressures of county prison on the BCSO jail have generated further interest in resource management strategies and efficient alternative custody programs. For example, the BCSO administrative staff approved an experimental research design assessing the efficiencies of flash incarceration as an intermediate sanction. Unfortunately, the research team lacks resources beyond the current evaluation plan to conduct this study given their other professional demands. Based on the gravity and complexity of AB 109 legislation and the innovative strategy spearheaded by the BCSO in response to resource re-alignment, we recommend the BCSO work proactively to prioritize research projects promoting public safety and resource management. Related, the BCSO has the potential to move from a state best-practices model6 to a national model of best practices, but this may require additional evaluation resources. Based on this logic, the BCSO should continue external funding activities that include evaluation resources. Collectively, the preliminary findings are positive for BCSO's goal of balancing public safety, jail resources, and offender treatment. The American Civil Liberties Union of California recently released a county-level analysis of best practices, Public Safety Realignment: California at a Crossroads. The terminology "at a crossroads" suggests what occurs now will have a profound influence on the future of offender management. We find value in this idea, but also assert that offender management is dynamic and requires recursive evidence-based program models. The BCSO is breaking ground with an unparalleled, innovative approach to public safety, jail resource management, and offender treatment. For the BCSO, the next logical step is to utilize these preliminary findings as a guidepost for program development. Details: Chico, CA: California State University, Chico, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2016 at: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/breaking-ground-final-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.csuchico.edu/pols/documents/breaking-ground-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139275 Keywords: Corrections OfficersCriminal Justice ReformJail InmatesJailsOffender SupervisionPublic Safety RealignmentRecidivismUnemployment and Crime |
Author: Olson, David E. Title: Population Dynamics and the Characteristics of Inmates in the Cook County Jail Summary: HIGHLIGHTS - The average daily population of the Cook County Jail in 2011 was 8,896, but ranged from an average of 8,514 during March to 9,199 in November (page 2). - Despite a 25.9% decrease in admissions between 2007 and 2011 (page 3), as a result of lengths of stay in the Cook County Jail increasing 13.0% (page 7), the jail's average daily population fell by only 9.5% from 2007 to 2011. - The characteristics of those admitted to the Cook County Jail in 2011 continued to consist primarily of African-American (66.9%) males (86.5%) between the ages of 21 and 30 (36%), from Chicago's south and west sides (page 4). - The current charges against those admitted to the Cook County Jail were distributed across all general crime categories, with violent crimes accounting for 28.7% of all admissions, followed by drug-law violations (26.9%), property offenses (17.9%), driving-related offenses, including DUI (15.4%), and other offenses. Almost one out of every 7 inmates (12.7%) admitted to the jail were charged with domestic battery (page 5). - The majority of those admitted to the Cook County Jail are pre-trial detainees, which are admitted with either an amount of bail necessary for their release or an order of "no bond," meaning they cannot be released on bail. Among those admitted in 2011, 20% had bail amounts of $6,000 or less, with 77% of these detainees being able to post the necessarily bail The remaining 23% stayed in jail until their case was disposed of (page 6). Details: Chicago: Cook County Sheriff's Reentry Council, 2012. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 9, 2016 at: http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=criminaljustice_facpubs Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=criminaljustice_facpubs Shelf Number: 139351 Keywords: Inmate CharacteristicsJail InmatesJailsPretrial Detention |
Author: Yamatani, Hide Title: Overview Report of Allegheny County Jail Collaborative Evaluation Findings Summary: Allegheny County is a national leader in formulating and implementing a collaboration-based jail inmate reintegration program called the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative. This unique human service system is co-chaired by the Director of the Department of Human Services, the Warden of the Allegheny County Jail (ACJ), and Director of the Department of Health. Researchers from the Center on Race and Social Problems, housed in the School of Social Work University of Pittsburgh, evaluated the ACJ Collaborative. The major purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the Collaborative achieved successful community reentry goals among released male jail inmates. On a typical day, over 700,000 individuals are incarcerated in US jails. Yet potential benefits of the investment in best practice reintegration and crime reduction interventions are relatively unknown. Evaluation Findings. The three-year evaluation study findings reflect the ACJ Collaborative's capacity to generate impressive positive results including: (a) a significantly lower recidivism rate among inmate participants; (b) similar service benefits across racial groups; and (c) successful reintegration into community life among a high majority of participants. More specifically, major outcome findings are as follows: 1. Allegheny County is saving over $5.3 million annually by the ACJ Collaborative serving 300 inmates per year; 2. The greatest cost-savings generated by ACJ Collaborative is in areas of public safety and reduced victimization among county residents; 3. Cost-savings ratio is approximately 6 to 1 (i.e., for a dollar investment to the ACJ Collaborative, the cost-savings return is approximately $6); 4. At 12 months post-release the Collaborative inmates are achieving a 50% lower recidivism rate compared to matched comparison group (i.e., 16.5% vs. 33.1%, respectively); 5. In contrast to historical trends nationally, there were no statistically significant differences in the recidivism rate between Black and White Collaborative inmate participants. The findings shown above were derived using a cost-savings analysis strategy selected by the Urban Institute (Roman & Chalfin, 2006). This strategy includes estimates of (1) cost of jail stay; (2) cost of processing offenders in the criminal justice system; (3) costs of crime victimization; (4) cost of providing services at the jail; and (5) cost savings associated with Collaborative participants' recidivism reduction. The differential recidivism rate was derived based on a stratified and matched sample group comparison method. During the 12 months after release from ACJ, intermediary process outcomes among Collaborative consumer inmates showed positive transitions to community life including: (a) higher enrollment in various community-based service organizations; (b) improved housing obtainment for both racial groups; and (c) increased employment rates among former White offenders. Other areas that remained relatively unchanged (but did not significantly deteriorate) included drug and alcohol usage rate, Black employment rates, and mental and physical health treatment needs. Details: Pittsburgh: Center on Race and Social Problems, School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, 2008. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2016 at: http://www.crsp.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/ACJ_Report.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.crsp.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/ACJ_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 139535 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCosts of CorrectionsJail InmatesJailsPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Ward, Kyle C. Title: Rural Jail Reentry: Perceptions of Offender Needs and Challenges in Pennsylvania Summary: Research on prison and jail reentry related barriers typically addresses employment, housing, mental health, and substance abuse issues associated with returning prison inmates. Historically, these challenges are discussed from the perspective of offenders returning to urban areas. This dissertation explored challenges inmates experience leaving jail and returning to rural areas. Utilizing a mixed-method approach, this study examined the challenges associated with rural jail reentry perceived by probation/parole officers (N = 411), current inmates (N = 200), and treatment staff (N = 21). Survey methodology was employed for the probation/parole and inmate samples, and semi-structured interviews were utilized for treatment staff. Results showed that consistent with prior research, returning rural inmates face challenges related to employment, housing, transportation, substance abuse, and mental health treatment. There is some evidence that inmates and practitioners differ in their priorities of reentry. Inmates view structural barriers (e.g., ability to pay fines or court fees, low wages, limited employment opportunities, lack of transportation, and finding housing) to be the most challenging, while practitioners found the biggest challenges to be within the inmates themselves (e.g., poor work ethic, lack of motivation, return to substance abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, associating with the wrong people/peer pressure). Policy implications and recommendations for future research are also included. Details: Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2015. 243p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 14, 2016 at: https://dspace.iup.edu/handle/2069/2383 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://dspace.iup.edu/handle/2069/2383 Shelf Number: 147866 Keywords: Jail InmatesJailsPrisoner Reentry |
Author: Lore Joplin Consulting Title: Multnomah County Feasibility Assessment: Mental Health Jail Diversion Project Summary: This report was prepared in response to a Multnomah County Board of Commissioners fiscal year 2015 budget note to investigate the need and feasibility of enhancing diversion opportunities for people in county jails who have a mental illness. The budget note was proposed by Commissioner Judy Shiprack following a trip taken by a small group of county stakeholders to visit and observe the nationally recognized jail diversion program in Bexar County, Texas. Nationally, an estimated 15 to 17 percent of people booked into jail have active symptoms of serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder. This is three times the proportion among the general public. People in jail who have mental illness typically also have high rates of substance abuse disorders (up to 80 percent, according to some estimates3), they often are poor and/or homeless, and many have been repeatedly sexually and physically abused.4 They commonly have chronic physical health problems that will shorten their lifespan (by 13 to 30 years).5 Although people with serious mental illness often are stereotyped as aggressive, their criminality typically is limited to low-level nuisance crimes. When their behavior does include violent crimes, it is usually related not to their mental illness but to other factors, such as substance abuse.6 Once in jail, people who have a serious mental illness are vulnerable to intimidation and assault. Because the jail environment tends to exacerbate symptoms of mental illness, inmates with mental illness may act out or break jail rules, thus prolonging their incarceration.7 They also have high rates of recidivism—more than 70 percent in some jurisdictions.8 Clearly, diverting more of these individuals from jail to community-based services has the potential to cut criminal justice system costs, reduce recidivism, and provide more effective mental health treatment for offenders. It also would represent a more humane response to individuals in jail who have a mental health disorder. This report is intended to help Multnomah County better understand the population of people with mental illness in its jails and what opportunities there might be to divert more of them to community-based services. It explores topics such as how many people with mental illness there are in jail locally, what they are like, the reasons they are there, the strengths and weaknesses of the current jail diversion system, and the challenges of estimating the costs associated with detention and diversion. The report also presents recommendations that incorporate stakeholder input. Information in this report comes from four sources: a literature review, interviews with 23 local stakeholders, records on individuals in county jails who have a mental health disorder, and the results of a prioritization process completed by a stakeholder group. A range of stakeholders participated in the project, including elected officials, representatives of the local medical and social service systems, and employees of many departments and divisions of Multnomah County. Details: no data: Lore Jopling Consulting, 2015. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 21, 2016 at: https://multco.us/file/38259/download Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://multco.us/file/38259/download Shelf Number: 147900 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion ProgramsJail InmatesJailsMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Noonan, Margaret E. Title: Mortality in Local Jails, 2000-2014 - Statistical Tables Summary: Describes national and state-level data on inmate deaths that occurred in local jails from 2000 to 2014 and includes a preliminary count of inmate deaths in local jails in 2015. Mortality data include the number of deaths and mortality rates by year, cause of death, selected decedent characteristics, and the state where the death occurred. Data are from BJS's Deaths in Custody Reporting Program, which was initiated under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-297). Highlights: Heart disease was the second leading cause of death in local jails, accounting for 23% of deaths between 2000 and 2014. ƒThe suicide rate in local jails in 2014 was 50 per 100,000 local jail inmates. This is the highest suicide rate observed in local jails since 2000. More than a third (425 of 1,053 deaths, or 40%) of inmate deaths occurred within the first 7 days of admission. ƒMore than a third of inmates who died of homicide (137 of 327) were being held for a violent offense in 2014. Almost half (47%) of suicides occurred in general housing within jails between 2000 and 2014. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2016 at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5865 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5865 Shelf Number: 146006 Keywords: Deaths in CustodyHealth CareInmatesJail InmatesJailsSuicide |
Author: Haneberg, Rise Title: Reducing the Number of People with Mental Illnesses in Jail: Six Questions County Leaders Need to Ask Summary: Not long ago the observation that the Los Angeles County Jail serves more people with mental illnesses than any single mental health facility in the United States elicited gasps among elected officials. Today, most county leaders are quick to point out that the large number of people with mental illnesses in their jails is nothing short of a public health crisis, and doing something about it is a top priority. Over the past decade, police, judges, corrections administrators, public defenders, prosecutors, community-based service providers, and advocates have mobilized to better respond to people with mental illnesses. Most large urban counties, and many smaller counties, have created specialized police response programs, established programs to divert people with mental illnesses charged with low-level crimes from the justice system, launched specialized courts to meet the unique needs of defendants with mental illnesses, and embedded mental health professionals in the jail to improve the likelihood that people with mental illnesses are connected to community-based services. Despite these tremendous efforts, the problem persists. By some measures, it is more acute today than it was ten years ago, as counties report a greater number of people with mental illnesses in local jails than ever before Details: New York: Council of State Governments, Justice Center, Stepping Up Initiative, 2017. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2017 at: https://stepuptogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Reducing-the-Number-of-People-with-Mental-Illnesses-in-Jail_Six-Questions.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://stepuptogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Reducing-the-Number-of-People-with-Mental-Illnesses-in-Jail_Six-Questions.pdf Shelf Number: 146413 Keywords: Jail InmatesJailsMental HealthMental IllnessMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Huntsman, Max Title: Overview and Policy Analysis of Tethering in Los Angeles County Jails Summary: On July 9, 2015, Sheriff Jim McDonnell was notified of a disturbing prisoner complaint suggesting that a prisoner had been restrained for approximately thirty two hours without any food, only one cup of water, and no opportunity to use a restroom. Sheriff McDonnell took action against the individuals responsible and relieved ten jail personnel of duty. The personnel included two lieutenants, one sergeant, one senior deputy, four deputies and two custody assistants. In addition, a number of other personnel were reassigned to other duties pending further investigation. This event, however, is not an isolated incident. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is aware of at least three other incidents involving similar conduct. In each, prisoners have been secured with a restraint device (i.e. waist chains, handcuffs, hobble etc.) to a fixed object for a prolonged period of time in a manner that subjected them to a substantial risk of mental and/or physical harm. All four of the incidents appear to involve possible violations of the Department's own policies, procedures and state laws. In fact, one of the incidents has since resulted in criminal misdemeanor filings by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. Of particular significance is that the incidents were known to or directed by supervisory personnel. This report provides an overview of each of the four incidents including the Department's response to each incident through Corrective Action Plans and new directives. The OIG has not conducted an independent investigation of these incidents. The facts of each incident cited in this report are based on documents provided to the OIG by the Sheriff's Department, media reports, as well as the OIG's limited review of video surveillance of some, but not all, of the incidents. As a result of these incidents, the OIG has worked closely with the Department to propose new policies and procedures regarding the tethering (hereinafter "fixed restraint") of prisoners. The goal of this collaboration has been to provide deputies reasonable tools to control prisoners while building in safeguards to ensure proper supervision that will limit potential abuse. Details: Los Angeles: Office of Inspector General County of Los Angeles, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2017 at: https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/Overview%20and%20Policy%20Analysis%20of%20Tethering%20in%20Los%20Angeles%20County%20Jails.pdf?ver=2017-02-21-071752-200 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/Overview%20and%20Policy%20Analysis%20of%20Tethering%20in%20Los%20Angeles%20County%20Jails.pdf?ver=2017-02-21-071752-200 Shelf Number: 145211 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationInmate RestraintJail InmatesJailsPrisoner RestraintTethering |
Author: University of Texas. Austin School of Law. Civil Rights Clinic Title: Preventable Tragedies: How to Reduce Mental Health-Related Deaths in Texas Jails Summary: The first section of this report tells the stories of ten tragic and preventable deaths in Texas jails. These ten people suffered from mental disorders and related health needs, and died unexpectedly in jail as a result of neglect or treatment failures. The second section of this report sets forth widely accepted policy recommendations based on national standards and best practices to improve diversion and treatment of persons with mental illness and related health needs who are incarcerated in Texas county jails. RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: INCREASE JAIL DIVERSION FOR LOW-RISK PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS. As state and local stakeholders develop pretrial diversion programs, they should ensure that mental illness is factored in, and not as a barrier to pretrial release. In addition, the Legislature and counties should find new ways to reduce warrants and arrests for low-level misdemeanors, to prevent the use of jails for low-risk arrestees. RECOMMENDATION NO. 2: IMPROVE SCREENING. As counties implement the revised mental health screening instrument, they should train correctional officers to recognize signs of mental illness and suicide risk, and explore partnerships with their local mental health authority (LMHA) to have mental health professionals from the LMHA assist with intake screening. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: INCREASE COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. CODE CRIM. P. §§ 16.22 AND 17.032. The legislature should clarify the law to increase compliance with the requirement that magistrates be notified of an arrestee's mental illness or suicide risk, so as to enable pretrial diversion into mental health treatment when appropriate. Counties should implement the law's requirements, using partnerships with LMHAs if needed. RECOMMENDATION NO. 4: STRENGTHEN SUICIDE PREVENTION. Counties should make their suicide prevention plans more effective by: (1) increasing training and promoting culture change; (2) providing for ongoing suicide risk assessment throughout an inmate's stay in the jail; (3) avoiding housing at-risk inmates alone; (4) designating suicide-resistant cells; and (5) having mental health professionals assist with the assessment of suicide risk. RECOMMENDATION NO. 5: COLLABORATE WITH LOCAL MENTAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES. County jails should form broad - and preferably formal - partnerships with their area LMHAs, and work to place LMHA staff in the jail full-time. The Legislature should fund LMHAs to add capacity to provide more services in jails. RECOMMENDATION NO. 6: BOLSTER FORMULARIES. County jails should promote continuity of mental health care by (1) including in their formulary the medications listed in the local mental health authority's formulary and (2) contracting with outside providers to quickly acquire any medication not kept in stock. RECOMMENDATION NO. 7: PROMOTE MEDICATION CONTINUITY. County jails should promote continuity of care by allowing inmates to continue taking prescribed medication that the inmate had been taking prior to booking, after taking certain precautions. Specifically, county jails should replace policies of denying access to prescribed medications with more flexible alternatives. RECOMMENDATION NO. 8: DEVELOP AND UPDATE DETOX PROTOCOLS. Each county jail's health service plan should include a detoxification protocol for supporting withdrawal from alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines, and other commonly used substances, in conformance with current national standards. RECOMMENDATION NO. 9: ADD FORENSIC PEER SUPPORT. County jails should strengthen their mental health care services by implementing a forensic peer support program. RECOMMENDATION NO. 10: IMPROVE MONITORING. Counties should promote more effective monitoring of inmates by: (1) requiring jail staff to proactively engage inmates and take action during regular observation; (2) increasing the frequency of observation for at-risk inmates and setting irregular monitoring intervals; (3) ensuring adequate staffing; (4) using technology along with personal interaction to make observation more accountable; and (5) using technology to alert staff of inmate crises. RECOMMENDATION NO. 11: REDUCE THE USE OF RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION. County jails should (1) set an explicit goal to reduce the use of restraint and seclusion, with an eye toward eliminating them altogether; (2) abolish the most dangerous restraint and seclusion practices; and (3) train officers to reduce reliance on restraint and seclusion, and collect data to evaluate performance. The Texas Legislature should require stricter regulation of seclusion that mirrors its strict regulation of restraint. RECOMMENDATION NO. 12: LIMIT THE USE OF FORCE. County jails should strengthen their policies and training on use of force, explicitly address use of force against inmates with mental health needs, promote the goals of eliminating excessive use of force, and use force only as a last resort. Details: Austin: University of Texas School of law Civil Rights Clinic, 2016. 107p. Source: Internet Resources: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2016/11/2016-11-CVRC-Preventable-Tragedies.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2016/11/2016-11-CVRC-Preventable-Tragedies.pdf Shelf Number: 145336 Keywords: Deaths in Custody Jail InmatesMental Health CareMental Health ServicesMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersSuicides |
Author: Little, Cheryl Title: Cries for Help: Medical Care at Krome Service Processing Center and in Florida's County Jails Summary: The Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center had issues a report outlining allegations of unsanitary and unsafe conditions inside the Public Health Service at Krome. The report states that conditions at the medical center have worsened in the past three years as the population of detainees has grown by about 40 percent, from about 400 to 562 detainees. Details: Miami, FL: Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, 1999. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2017 at: http://www.aijustice.org/cries_for_help Year: 1999 Country: United States URL: http://www.aijustice.org/cries_for_help Shelf Number: 145359 Keywords: Health CareHealth ServicesJail InmatesJails |
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 |
Author: Rempel, Michael Title: Jail in New York City: Evidence-Based Opportunities for Reform Summary: This report lays out a series of reforms to significantly reduce New York City's jail population, a move that would also cut costs substantially. To identify ways to safely reduce the use of jail, the New York City Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice commissioned research on the path of criminal cases from arrest through bail decisions to sentencing. Among the report's findings: -Of those detained awaiting trial because of an inability to make bail, the majority posed no significant risk to public safety. -An improved bail payment system would allow large numbers of defendants to avoid short-term jail stays. -The city could make more use of early diversion before cases enter the court system, especially in the case of young, misdemeanor defendants. -The reliance on short sentences in misdemeanor cases may be counter-productive inasmuch as research shows even brief jail stays increase the risk of future criminal behavior while providing no benefit to public safety. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation and Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/NYC_Path_Analysis_Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/NYC_Path_Analysis_Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 146435 Keywords: Jail InmatesJail ReformJails |
Author: New York (City). Mayor's Task Force on Behavioral Health and Criminal Justice Title: First Status Report Summary: December of 2014, the de Blasio administration released the action plan developed by the Mayor's Task Force on Behavioral Health and the Criminal Justice System. The action plan outlines a comprehensive blueprint to continue to drive down crime while also reducing the number of people with behavioral health issues who cycle through the criminal justice system. The recommendations of the Task Force focus on ensuring that, when appropriate, individuals with behavioral health disorders: - do not enter the criminal justice system in the first place; - if they do enter, that they are treated outside of a jail setting; - if they are in jail, that they receive treatment that is therapeutic rather than punitive in approach; and - upon release, they are connected to effective services. Over the last twenty years, New York City has experienced the sharpest drop in crime anywhere in the nation. As crime has fallen so has the City's jail population - on the last day of 2014, there were fewer than 10,000 individuals detained at Rikers for the first time since 1984. New York City has one of the lowest jail detention rates of any city in the country: 1.15 per every 1,000 residents. Despite our success in reducing the overall jail population, the number of people with behavioral health issues has stayed largely constant, with individuals with behavioral health issues comprising a bigger and bigger percentage of the total number incarcerated. While in FY 2010, people with mental illness were only 29% of the NYC jail population, today they represent 38% of the overall jail population; approximately 7% of the jail population is made up of individuals with serious mental illness, and approximately 46% of inmates in the NYC jail system report that they are active substance users, although we believe the actual prevalence of substance use to be much higher. Many justice-involved individuals with behavioral health needs cycle through the system over and over again, often for low-level offenses. For example, approximately 400 individuals have been admitted to jail more than 18 times in the last five years. This same group accounted for more than 10,000 jail admissions and a collective 300,000 days in jail. ii While we have been demonstrably successful in reducing crime and incarceration in many areas, the issue of how to address the needs of people with behavioral health issues remains a stubborn question that the Task Force set out to solve. The Task Force worked to ensure that we establish the systems to address appropriately the risk and needs this population presents. Over 100 days, the Task Force developed 24 interlocking public health and public safety strategies that address each point in the criminal justice system and the overlap among those points. Recognizing the interdependent and intersecting nature of the behavioral health and criminal justice systems, the Task Force identified five major points of contact: on the street, from arrest through disposition, inside jail, during release and re-entry, and back in the community. The comprehensive strategy developed by the Task Force is backed by evidence and informed by widespread expertise. These are complicated issues, and while some of the elements of this action plan represent immediate steps, they are the first steps of a broader strategy that is long-term and ongoing. It will ensure that we continue to drive New York City's crime rate even lower by reliably assessing who poses a public safety risk and ensuring that we appropriately address - not just at arrest, but well before and well after - the behavioral health issues that have led many into contact with the criminal justice system. Details: New York: The Task Force, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2017 at: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/criminaljustice/downloads/pdfs/BHTF_StatusReport.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/criminaljustice/downloads/pdfs/BHTF_StatusReport.pdf Shelf Number: 146596 Keywords: Jail InmatesMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersMentally Ill Persons |
Author: Goldstein, Brian Title: The Effect of Immigration Detainers in a Post-Relignment California Summary: On October 1, 2011, California implemented AB 109 Public Safety Realignment, which transferred state responsibility for individuals who commit non-violent, non-serious, and non-sexual offenses to the 58 counties and their local jurisdictions. Since then, each county has responded differently to Realignment, with some seizing on this unique opportunity to adopt innovative community corrections programming and rehabilitative services. Other counties continue to depend on the state system to manage individuals who have committed low-level offenses (CJCJ, 2013). Some counties struggle with jail capacity issues while failing to adopt necessary alternative sentencing practices (PPIC, 2013). On August 2, 2013, the United States Supreme Court denied Governor Jerry Brown's attempt to delay reducing the state prison system by approximately 10,000 individuals, as required by federal litigation that resulted in AB 109. The state must now work diligently to deemphasize the unnecessary use of incarceration in order to preserve resources for more crucial priorities. Amid varying county responses to Realignment, fiscal constraints, and capacity issues, county jail facilities also hold significant numbers of undocumented immigrants who do not have serious criminal histories, other than potentially violating federal civil immigration laws. For ease of reference, these individuals are here termed "non-criminal ICE holds" given that they have no recorded criminal history. These non-criminal ICE holds are held under ICE Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ACCESS), an umbrella encompassing enforcement programs that specifically target immigrants who make contact with the criminal justice system including the Secure Communities and Criminal Alien Program (ICE, 2008). After identifying individuals under ACCESS, ICE can issue an immigration detainer to law enforcement agencies, which is a non-binding request that an immigrant of interest be detained for up to 48 hours, excluding weekends and federal holidays, so that ICE can assume federal custody to initiate deportation proceedings. This publication studies the impact of non-criminal ICE holds on California's criminal justice system, specifically the effect on county jail capacity, including the significant fiscal cost. It concludes that 89 percent of said detentions in California are held in local jails and facilities. These detentions cost taxpayers approximately $16.3 million for local jail holds during the 30-month period studied. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2017 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/immigrant_detainers_in_a_post_realignment_ca.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/immigrant_detainers_in_a_post_realignment_ca.pdf Shelf Number: 130014 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementJail InmatesPublic Safety AlignmentUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: New York City. Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice Title: The Jail Population: Recent declines and opportunities for further reductions Summary: Jails hold up a mirror to the fair functioning of society. Who goes in and how long they stay are the two barometers of the size of a jail population and reflect how the many different parts of the criminal justice system, and New Yorkers themselves, act. How many people commit offenses? What decisions do police officers make about arrest? How do prosecutors weigh the evidence? What determinations do judges make about bail and what options do they have to release or detain? Do New Yorkers serve as jurors or testify as witnesses? How quickly do courts, district attorneys and defenders move a case to conclusion? These are just some of the factors that affect the size and composition of our jail population. The complexity of reducing the jail population while ensuring the public is safe is deepened by the absence of any one "boss" of the criminal justice system and the intentional independence of various parts of government. The court system operates as a separate branch of state government. The District Attorneys-one for each county in New York City-are elected. The Police Department and the Department of Correction are Mayoral agencies. Defenders are dedicated by ethical canon to the zealous defense of their clients. Despite these complexities, New York, singularly among the nation's large cities, has been successful in both keeping crime rates low and reducing the size of the jail population. Over the span of more than 20 years, crime has declined by 76% while the jail population has dropped by half. Over the last three years that trend has accelerated due to the partnership and focus of all the parts of the criminal justice system: as crime has gone down by 9%, the jail population has reduced by 18%, the single biggest drop since 2001. In the last three years-because of deliberate efforts to rethink policing strategy, expand alternatives to jail, and reduce case delay-fewer people are entering city jails and those who do enter are staying for less time. This has led to steep declines for some people admitted to jail: those detained on bail under $2,000, down 36%; detainees facing misdemeanor charges, down 25%; those serving city sentences, down 34%; people under 21, down 18%; and mental health service users, down 7%. And for the first time in decades, the average length of a Supreme Court case in New York City has shrunk by 18 days. How much further can we reduce the jail population? That is the question of the moment. Over the past twenty years, the number of people held on violent offenses has increased by 56%, while lower level offenses (in particular drug offenses) have dropped 51%. Today 91% of the pretrial population at Rikers is held on a felony charge (49% on violent felony charges), over half of the jail population is facing multiple cases and 69% are at medium or high risk of failing to appear in court, the primary basis on which a New York State judge can hold a defendant. As we look to the future, further reductions will depend upon the actions of New Yorkers themselves in reducing crime and on every part of the criminal justice system working together to ensure that we use jail as parsimoniously as possible while ensuring public safety Details: New York: Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, 2017. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Justice Brief: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/criminaljustice/downloads/pdfs/justice_brief_jailpopulation.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/criminaljustice/downloads/pdfs/justice_brief_jailpopulation.pdf Shelf Number: 146711 Keywords: Jail InmatesJails |
Author: Radcliffe, Sarah Title: A Merry Go Round that Never Stops: Mental Illness in the Multnomah County Detention Center Summary: Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) has released a new report, "A Merry Go Round That Never Stops: Mental Illness in the Multnomah County Detention Center." Staff attorney Sarah Radcliffe authored the report following an extensive investigation. The report finds that, in many ways, prisoners at the local jail are punished for having a mental illness. Treatment and conditions are traumatizing, dangerous, and even life threatening. The report offers recommendations to help jails and community providers successfully meet the needs of Oregonians with severe mental illness. - Offer treatment for mental illness, rather than criminalize it - End solitary confinement for people with serious mental illness - Strengthen supports for people with mental health issues in custody - Create a new protocol for responding to mental health related behavior in jail - Improve oversight and accountability to remedy systemic race and disability disparities, and prevent staff misconduct Details: Portland, OR: Disability Rights Oregon, 2017. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2017 at: https://droregon.org/wp-content/uploads/A_Merry_Go_Round_That_Never_Stops_Mental_Illness_in_the_Multnomah_County_Detention_Center.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://droregon.org/wp-content/uploads/A_Merry_Go_Round_That_Never_Stops_Mental_Illness_in_the_Multnomah_County_Detention_Center.pdf Shelf Number: 146744 Keywords: Jail INmatesMental Health Services Mentally Ill Inmates Mentally Ill Offenders Mentally Ill Prisoners |
Author: Minton, Todd D. Title: American Indian And Alaska Native Inmates In Local Jails, 1999-2014 Summary: Describes the American Indian and Alaska Natives (AIAN) population held in local jails, including national and state level estimates, characteristics of adult AIAN inmates, and comparisons to all other races and Hispanic origin. The report also presents data on AIAN inmates confined in Indian country jails and state and federal prisons. Findings are based on data from BJS's Annual Survey of Jails (2000-14), Census of Jails (1999, 2005, and 2013), National Inmate Survey (2011-12), Survey of Jails in Indian Country (1999 and 2014), and the National Prisoner Statistics program (1999, 2005, and 2014). Highlights: At midyear 2014, an estimated 10,400 American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) inmates were held in local jails, nearly double the number held in 1999 (5,500). From 1999 to 2014, the number of AIAN jail inmates increased by an average of 4.3% per year, compared to an increase of 1.4% per year for all other races combined. Between 1999 and 2013, the AIAN jail incarceration rate increased from 288 to 398 AIAN inmates per 100,000 AIAN U.S. residents. An estimated 71% of adult AIAN jail inmates were age 39 or younger. Nearly a quarter (24%) of AIAN jail inmates were held for a violent offense. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2017. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2017 at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aianlj9914.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aianlj9914.pdf Shelf Number: 147146 Keywords: American Indians Inmates Jail InmatesNative Americans |
Author: Bronson, Jennifer Title: Drug Use, Dependence, and Abuse Among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007-2009 Summary: Presents prevalence estimates of drug use, drug use disorders, and participation in drug treatment programs among state prisoners and sentenced jail inmates, including trends in drug use over time by demographics and most serious offense, drug use at the time of offense and whether an inmate committed the offense to obtain drugs, and comparisons to the general population. Data are from BJS's National Inmate Survey, conducted in 2007 and 2008-09. Comparisons to the general population are based on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Highlights: During 2007-09, an estimated 58% of state prisoners and 63% of sentenced jail inmates met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for drug dependence or abuse. Among prisoners and jail inmates, prevalence estimates for those who met the criteria for dependence were two to three times higher than for abuse. The percentage of inmates who met the DSM-IV criteria was higher for those held for property offenses than those held for violent or other public order offenses. Lifetime drug use among the incarcerated populations was unchanged from 2002 to 2009. During 2007-09, prisoners (77%) and jail inmates (78%) reported having ever used marijuana/hashish, more than any other drug. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2017. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 11, 2017 at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudaspji0709.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudaspji0709.pdf Shelf Number: 147212 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug OffendersJail InmatesPrisoners |
Author: MacDonald, Scott Title: Justice System Change Initiative-Riverside County Jail Utilization Report Summary: The Justice System Change Initiative. This report presents information developed by a collaboration between the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and CA Fwd's Justice System Change Initiative (J-SCI). California Forward is an independent, bipartisan governance reform organization that promotes political, fiscal and organizational reform to improve the impact of public programs. J-SCI was developed to build the capacity and skills of counties to transform justice systems through data-driven policy and fiscal decisions. The scope of this initiative includes identifying more effective, evidence-based services that support individual behavior change; as well as promoting new justice system policies and practices that better align resources to promote public safety. J-SCI provides a team of subject matter experts to initiate a collaborative review of current policy and practice. This includes the collection and analysis of complex cross-system data; facilitation of the local discussion regarding data findings and opportunities for more effective practice; and, the development of local systems and capacity for ongoing analysis and policy development. The result is a sustainable, locally driven review, analysis and reform that provides local policymakers greater choice and confidence in the priorities and programs they oversee. The Purpose of the Jail Utilization Study. Incarceration represents one of the costliest elements of the criminal justice system. Nationwide, the use of incarceration to respond to crime increased more than fivefold in recent decades, with the accompanying costs of building and staffing this tremendous expansion of jail and prison capacity. Now that a bipartisan consensus is mounting to reexamine this trend, it becomes clear that most communities lack meaningful data about their jails. Who is in jail? How did they get there? How long do they stay and how often do they return? Without knowing some of these basic facts, leaders are understandably reluctant to endorse changes. Riverside county jails have faced federally imposed population caps based on significant crowding issues. Jail expansion and construction has not been sufficient to address the growth of the jail population and leaders in Riverside understand that building new jail space, alone will not be sufficient to address these problems. Understanding jail utilization is an essential starting point, and provides an initial map for system change. The J-SCI team worked in collaboration with system stakeholders in Riverside County to compile and analyze data regarding local jail utilization. After an initial kickoff in October 2014, the J-SCI executive steering committee showed interest in better understanding the county's use of one of their most limited and expensive resources. Working directly with the jail's staff, JSCI team developed a data analysis approach that engaged county experts in the jail's Headcount Management Unit (HMU) to better understand the issues and opportunities facing the jail. The resulting data was analyzed to identify key areas for further study and consideration. The observations and recommendations of this report are a starting point for further examination and discussion among all system partners. The end discussions will be policy recommendations that are founded in data and supported by a broad consensus. The Structure of this Report. To help organize the key variables of the jail population, this report characterizes the major pathways or "doors" into and out of jail. The "front door" entries are those entering jail as the result of a new crime; the "side door" are those already in the system who enter for probation violations, warrants, court commitments or factors other than arrest for a new law violation. Jail exits are the "back door," and those who recidivate are described as being in the "revolving door." The data also characterizes some of the trends inside the doors: the average daily population, jail programming, the key variable of length of stay, and the calculation of total "bed days" consumed by individuals. Finally, two areas of special concern are addressed: jail use by mentally ill offenders and the impact of Proposition 47. The report concludes with observations and recommendations for further study and policy consideration. result of such Details: Sacramento: California Forward, 2015. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2017 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/COMIO/Uploadfile/pdfs/2016/Sept14/JusticeSystemChangeInitiativeReport.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/COMIO/Uploadfile/pdfs/2016/Sept14/JusticeSystemChangeInitiativeReport.pdf Shelf Number: 147342 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformJail InmatesJailsProposition 47 |
Author: San Francisco. Office of the Controller. City Services Auditor Title: San Francisco County Jail Programs Survey: An analysis of survey responses from inmates participating in the Sheriff Department's in‐custody programs Summary: This report discusses the results of a survey that the City Performance Unit of the Controller's City Services Auditor (CSA) conducted with inmates participating in the following Sheriff in‐custody programs; - Community of Veterans Engaged in Recovery (COVER): This program is offered to male inmates in CJ #5. It offers employment training and connects participants with services offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs - Resolve to Stop the Violence (RSVP): This program is offered to male inmates in CJ #5 to reduce violent behaviors and recidivism related to violent crimes. - Roads to Recovery (ROADS): This program is offered to male inmates in CJ #5 and offers substance abuse prevention and treatment services. - Sisters in Sober Treatment Empowered in Recovery (SISTERS): This program is offered to female inmates in CJ #2 and includes counseling services related to trauma, domestic violence, and relapse prevention. The purpose of this survey was to seek feedback regarding the strengths and weaknesses of current programs to help the Sheriff's Department examine the effectiveness of the services they provide. The Sheriff's Department has limited information about program performance and would like to better understand how to optimally coordinate and deliver a system of programs for incarcerated individuals, with the ultimate goal of positively impacting inmate outcomes including recidivism. Details: San Francisco: Office of the Controller, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2017 at: http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/6423-SF%20County%20Jail%20Programs%20Survey.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/6423-SF%20County%20Jail%20Programs%20Survey.pdf Shelf Number: 147430 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsFemale InmatesJail InmatesJail ProgramsJailsMilitary VeteransViolence PreventionViolent Offenders |
Author: AbuDagga, Azza Title: Individuals With Serious Mental Illnesses in County Jails: A Survey of Jail Staff's Perspectives Summary: Background - Incarceration has largely replaced hospitalization for thousands of individuals with serious mental illnesses in the U.S., with state prisons and county jails holding as many as 10 times more of these individuals than state psychiatric hospitals. Because individuals with serious mental illnesses are predisposed to committing minor crimes due to their illnesses, many end up being detained in county jails with limited or no mental health treatment until a state hospital bed becomes available for them. Some have even been jailed in the absence of any criminal charges. Purposes - The purpose of our survey was to understand the perspectives of county jail sheriffs, deputies, and other staff with respect to individuals with serious mental illnesses in jails. Specifically, we aimed to address the following objectives: (1) explore jail staffs' experiences with seriously mentally ill inmates; (2) understand the training provided to sheriffs' deputies and other jail staff on effective ways to handle seriously mentally ill inmates; and (3) describe the kind of treatment types and resources available to treat seriously mentally ill inmates in county jails. Methods - We developed our survey instrument (a 22-item questionnaire) with input from subject matter experts and sheriffs. Our questionnaire defined serious mental illnesses as including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness), and related conditions, excluding suicidal thoughts or behavior without other symptoms, and alcohol and drug abuse in the absence of serious mental illnesses. Survey responses were obtained from September 23, 2011, through November 28, 2011. To identify our sample, we obtained a 25% random sample of a nationwide list of sheriffs' departments from the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA). Because the NSA had no information regarding which sheriffs' departments operate county jails or detention centers, we invited this entire sample to participate in our online survey. We tried to identify ineligible sheriffs' departments by adding a screening question at the beginning of our survey questionnaire asking respondents to indicate whether they operated county jails or detention centers. We also asked this question during our survey reminder follow-up calls. Results - Our final sample comprised a total of 230 sheriffs' departments from 39 states that operated jail facilities or detention centers (henceforth referred to as jails), resulting in a response rate of 40.1%. The cumulative average daily inmate population across these jails during the year preceding the survey was approximately 68,000. Slightly more than a quarter (27.8%) of these jails were large (averaging 251 or more inmates), 39.6% were medium (averaging 51-250 inmates), and 30.9% were small (averaging 50 inmates or fewer). Jail size was not reported by 1.7% of the respondents. Ninety-three percent of the surveys were completed by experienced law enforcement staff who had been at their current jail for two or more years (60.9% had been there for 11 or more years); the median reported tenure at the current jails across all respondents was 13 years. Aside from their responses to our closed-ended survey questions, these respondents provided numerous valuable lengthy comments in response to open-ended questions about their experiences and the challenges they face as part of their jobs of handling inmates with serious mental illnesses in county jails. We used these comments throughout the report to supplement our findings. Our main findings were as follows: - Overall, the vast majority (95.7%) of the jails reported having some inmates with serious mental illnesses from September 1, 2010, to August 31, 2011. While 49 (21.3%) of all jails reported that 16% or more of their inmate population were seriously mentally ill, more large jails reported having such large proportions of these inmates. Specifically, 31.3% of large, 13.2% of medium and only 4.2% of small jails reported that 16% or more of their inmates were seriously mentally ill. - Per our adopted definition of a large seriously mentally ill inmate population (where seriously mentally ill inmates made up 6% or more of the population), more than a third (40.4%) of the jails reported having a large seriously mentally ill population. In contrast, more than half (58.3%) of the jails reported having a small seriously mentally ill population (i.e., seriously mentally ill inmates made up 5% or fewer of the population). - Three-quarters of the jails reported seeing more or far more numbers of seriously mentally ill inmates, compared to five to 10 years ago. - A third of the jails described the recidivism rate for these inmates as higher or much higher than that of the general inmate population. - Segregation of inmates with serious mental illnesses was reported in 68.7% of the jails, particularly in those with smaller percentages of inmates who were seriously mentally ill. - Most jails reported major problems with the seriously mentally ill inmates, including the necessity of watching them more closely for suicide, their need for additional attention, their disruption of normal jail activities, and their being abusive of, or abused by, other inmates. - Caring for the seriously mentally ill in county jails was particularly challenging for law enforcement staff, who have limited training in dealing with these inmates. Almost half of the jails reported that only 2% or less of the initial training they provide to their staff and sheriff's deputies was allotted to issues specifically dealing with seriously mentally ill inmates, and 60.4% reported that only two hours or less of annual training were allotted to such issues. x Despite the limited training, about a third of the jails reported that 11% or more of their staff and sheriff's deputies' time involved handling seriously mentally ill inmates. - Forty percent of the jails reported that 6% or more of their sheriffs deputies' time involved transporting seriously mentally ill inmates to medical treatment and mental health appointments outside the jail facility. - About half (54.4%) of the jails had implemented housing or staffing changes to accommodate the seriously mentally ill inmates. Specifically, - 33.9% reported sending mentally ill offenders to facilities other than jail; - 27.8% had implemented inmate housing-facility changes (such as increasing the number of beds reserved for people with mental illness); - 27.4% reported hiring full- or part-time non-law-enforcement staff members (including nurses, social workers, and psychiatrists); and - Only 3.5% reported hiring deputies with experience in dealing with seriously mentally ill people. - Resource and funding limitations were cited by numerous jails as major factors constraining their ability to offer mental health treatment and medications for seriously mentally ill inmates. Yet 45.2% of the jails reported offering some sort of mental health treatment for seriously mentally ill inmates inside the jail facilities. o 35.7% of the jails reported providing individual psychiatric care, and 9.6% reported providing group psychotherapy. - Even though medications are central to stabilizing people with serious mental illnesses, only 41.7% of the jails reported offering pharmacy services. - Less than a quarter of these jails offered a support system for mentally ill persons following release. Details: Washington, DC: Public Citizen's Health Research Group; Arlington, VA: Treatment Advocacy Center, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 4, 2017 at: http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/jail-survey-report-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/jail-survey-report-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 148033 Keywords: Jail InmatesJailsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: McLean, Rachel Title: The WINDOW Study: Release from Jail: Moment of Crisis or Window of Opportunity for Female Detainees in Baltimore City? Summary: The numbers of women in prisons and jails has increased substantially in the past decade. The rate at which women are incarcerated increases each year. Female prisoners face different challenges than male prisoners. Incarcerated women are more likely than incarcerated men to have suffered from sexual abuse, be HIV positive, have a history of substance use and/or mental health issues, to be mothers, and to be unemployed at the time of arrest. Women are most often arrested for non-violent offenses such as drug possession, theft and prostitution, which stem from drug use and poverty. Women's needs upon reentry to the community differ as well, with an emphasis on family reunification, housing, drug treatment and childcare often superseding employment. Just as women differ from men in terms of their needs in prison and upon release, so do women exiting short periods of detention in jails differ from those exiting prisons. Women in jail are less likely to have had the time to make use of in-house programming than women in prison or to have post-release supervision through parole. For this reason, community based resources are needed to provide services to women exiting jails to stabilize women's lives and prevent their re-arrest. Particular attention is needed for communities in Baltimore City to which a large number of prisoners and detainees return that lack the capacity to provide jobs, housing and social support. Little is known about the needs unique to women exiting jails. The Window Study sought to identify the needs unique to women detained in the Baltimore City Women's Detention Center. One hundred forty eight female detainees at WDC were anonymously interviewed by public health graduate students from the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health between January and March of 2005. The Window Study found high rates of mental illness, recent daily heroin and cocaine use, and commercial sex work among participants. Most women did not have insurance, and chronic diseases such as asthma, high blood pressure and diabetes were common. Five percent of female detainees interviewed reported being infected with HIV, and four percent reported being pregnant. Three quarters desired drug treatment upon release, and over half reported having been unable to afford drug treatment. Nearly half of detainees had no legal income prior to arrest, lacked a GED or high school diploma, and had no stable housing awaiting them upon release. An additional one fifth reported making less than $400/month. One quarter of women reported difficulties with literacy. Two-thirds did not have anyone to meet them at the moment of release. Thirty percent planned to walk or did not have a mode of transportation upon release. Eleven percent of women reported that there would be people using drugs or on probation at the place where they would be staying. Of the 80% of women with children, 58% had custody of at least one child. Women with strong family ties, insurance, and who lived in safe neighborhoods were more likely to have stable housing awaiting them upon release. Women with a history of sex work, and those who identified as bisexual or lesbian were less likely to have a place to stay upon release. The WINDOW Study identified a need for developing a continuum of care that addresses the immediate needs of women exiting pretrial detention, principally transportation, affordable housing, drug treatment, economic opportunity, assistance with entitlements and family reunification. Particular attention is needed for women struggling with addiction, lesbian and bisexual women, and those engaging in commercial sex work. Details: Baltimore, MD: Power Inside, 2005. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2017 at: http://www.realcostofprisons.org/pdfs/WINDOW%20ReportFinal.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.realcostofprisons.org/pdfs/WINDOW%20ReportFinal.pdf Shelf Number: 148060 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionFemale InmatesFemale OffendersFemale PrisonersJail InmatesSex Workers |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Divided Justice: Trends in Black and White Jail Incarceration, 1990-2013 Summary: The story of mass incarceration in the United States is a story about race. As incarceration rates soared in jails and prisons through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to reach historically unprecedented heights, the burdens of that growth did not fall equally on all communities. For black people in particular, the impact has been devastating, cutting a swath of destruction through the economic and social fabric of communities, ensuring the persistence of systemic inequality that undermines our country's bedrock values. Like all stories about race in America, however, the chronicle of incarceration's shifting path is a complicated one, and we are only just beginning to understand and reckon with it in full. This report sheds a bright new light on a key chapter of that story: the changing picture of race in America's local jails, the municipal and county facilities that hold, primarily, people who have been charged with offenses but have not yet been found guilty. Using the Vera Institute of Justice's (Vera) Incarceration Trends data tool, Vera staff analyzed jail incarceration trends by race nationally as well as by region and jurisdiction size. What we found is that black people continue to be vastly over-represented in the nation's jails, in every region of the country. This is despite declines in incarceration rates for black people in the past 10 years, most significantly in large urban and suburban areas. But this isn't the only story the data tells. In fact, a new headline is that white incarceration rates have increased, particularly in smaller jurisdictions. With the opioid crisis constantly in the news, it is tempting to assume that this epidemic, which has impacted white communities more so than others, explains the growth in jail incarceration for white people. And while it may be a contributing factor, we simply don't know the reasons underlying these trends. As this report notes, a number of understudied phenomena could be influencing the numbers. Is the misidentification of Latino people as white in some jurisdictions masking white incarceration trends? Are criminal justice reforms differently impacting jail incarceration rates for black and white people? Are jail capacity issues including the outsourcing of jail beds from one county to another- impacting racial trends in those areas? To answer these and other questions, researchers and policymakers will need more comprehensive data, because data about race and jails is incomplete, and its collection uneven across jurisdictions. Understanding the changing narrative about race in local justice systems -and how it varies from place to place - is a critical task not only for those who study the justice system and seek to improve it. It matters equally, or even more so, for those on the ground, inside and outside government, who care about equity, justice, and safety. The reasons for the differences in jail incarceration rates between white and black people are more likely because of the criminal justice policies and practices of particular localities. Community stakeholders need to ask how their local trends are measuring up, whether policy choices or practices may be contributing to racial disparities or changes in incarceration rates by race or ethnicity, and why. But to fully answer all of these questions goes beyond what current data can tell us. Further race data and analyses-including qualitative data to measure and understand the racial and ethnic impact of discretionary decision making along the criminal justice continuum-are needed to explain intergroup differences in jail incarceration trajectories. Because race and ethnicity play such a big role in the ways in which localities use their jails, overcoming these gaps in knowledge will be integral to criminal justice reform efforts aimed at reducing the overuse of jails and incarceration generally. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2018. 48p. Source: Internet Resosurce: accessed February 28, 2018 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/divided-justice-black-white-jail-incarceration/legacy_downloads/Divided-Justice-full-report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/divided-justice-black-white-jail-incarceration/legacy_downloads/Divided-Justice-full-report.pdf Shelf Number: 149284 Keywords: Jail InmatesMass IncarcerationRacial DiscriminationRacial Disparities |
Author: Betesh, Hannah Title: Internet Access for Pre-Release Job Search Training: Issue Brief - Early Lessons from LEAP Summary: Nov 02, 2016 Authors Hannah Betesh Key Findings: Given heightened Internet security restrictions in jails, jail-based American Job Centers (AJCs) had to be flexible to adapt their pre-release curricula for this environment. Planning for Internet installation soon after grant award was critical, given the inherent delays and complexity of establishing Internet access in previously unwired jail settings. Adequate budgeting for both equipment purchases and space upgrades was essential to support Internet installation and access in jails. Securing Internet access is a critical planning issue for the creation of a jail-based American Job Center (AJC). Community-based AJCs increasingly offer resources via the Internet, as the majority of job search activities and applications now occur online; however, correctional facilities often do not offer any Internet access for inmates due to security concerns. In jails where Internet access is available, it is generally for purposes unrelated to job search, such as legal research and distance learning, and in designated areas such as a law library or classroom. Arranging Internet access for the purpose of job search inside a jail-based AJC therefore represents a new and complex endeavor in the jail environment. This brief uses data from site visits to 8 of the 20 Linking to Employment Activities Pre-release (LEAP) sites to explore the role of Internet access in pre-release employment services as well as the resources, staffing, and infrastructure needed to establish Internet access for a jail-based AJC. Details: Princeton, NJ: Oakland, CA: Mathematica Policy Research and Social Policy Research Associates, 2016. 3p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2018 at: https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/publications/internet-access-for-pre-release-job-search-training Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/publications/internet-access-for-pre-release-job-search-training Shelf Number: 149461 Keywords: Employment ServicesEx-Offender EmploymentInternetJail InmatesJob Search |
Author: Henderson-Frakes, Jennifer Title: Structuring Employment-Based Services Within Jail Spaces and Schedules. Issue Brief - Early Lessons from LEAP Summary: Workforce development agencies must navigate jail spaces and inmate schedules to provide American Job Center (AJC) services effectively to inmates transitioning back to the community. The rules guiding the use of jail space and the scheduling of inmate activities can be complex and vary considerably based on each jail's structure, security level, reentry focus, and existing programming. This brief discusses how LEAP workforce development staff worked with jail administrators to gain access to jail space and their strategies for scheduling services inside the jail-based AJC. It relies on data gathered through site visits to eight LEAP sites during the planning period for LEAP, as well as tours of all 20 jail-based AJCs being implemented by grantees. Structuring Employment-Based Services Within Jail Spaces and Schedules Issue Brief-Early Lessons from LEAP Jennifer Henderson-Frakes, Social Policy Research Associates Key Findings - The particular facility or area within the facility where the jail-based AJC was located, along with its associated reentry focus and security level, significantly influenced the development of the AJC, the process for participants to access the space, and the negotiations around scheduling of AJC services. - Early onsite time with jail leadership and staff was critical for understanding space and scheduling parameters, assessing what was feasible, and making necessary adjustments. - Securing the buy-in of corrections officers was just as important as buy-in from jail administrative staff, given the considerable logistics involved with inmate movement and the complexity of daily jail schedules. Details: Princeton, NJ: Oakland, CA: Mathematica Policy Research and Social Policy Research Associates, 2016. 3p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2018 at: https://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/completed-studies/IB_MPR_SPR_LEAP_JailSpace.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/completed-studies/IB_MPR_SPR_LEAP_JailSpace.pdf Shelf Number: 149490 Keywords: Employment ServicesEx-Offender EmploymentJail InmatesJob Search |
Author: Huh, Kil Title: Jails: Inadvertent Health Care Providers. How county correctional facilities are playing a role in the safety net Summary: Every year, millions of people are booked into U.S. jails. During 2015, the latest year for which data are available, there were 10.9 million admissions to these correctional facilities, which hold individuals who are awaiting trial or serving short sentences. The government running the jail-usually a county-has a constitutional mandate to provide people booked into these facilities with necessary health care. Counties designing a jail health care program targeted to meet the needs of their incarcerated population have the opportunity to improve the health of people in jail and the broader community, spend public dollars more effectively, and, in some cases, reduce recidivism. Yet little is known about how jails administer their health care programs and whether these programs further county public health and safety goals. Research is limited on how counties organize their jail health care services, what care they make available and when, and how they ensure they receive value for their investment in health care. Despite growing awareness of the connection between community services for recently released individuals-especially those with mental illness or substance use disorders, collectively known as behavioral health disorders-and a reduction in recidivism, information about how to achieve this result is scarce. In an effort to give counties tools to improve delivery of services to an underserved population with high needs, The Pew Charitable Trusts, with the assistance of Community Oriented Correctional Health Services, reviewed 81 requests for proposals (RFPs) for contracted jail health care services and conducted in-depth case studies of three jurisdictions. (See the methodology for more detail.) This research revealed wide variation in the ways that counties arrange to provide health care in their jails and the information they supply to help vendors craft bids. Additionally, despite growing recognition of the health needs of those currently and formerly in jail, our analysis found varying approaches to whether and how jails prepare individuals to manage their health once released. The research found that: - Many jails contract with vendors to provide health care. In New York state, for example, 84 percent use vendors to provide at least some health care services. The arrangements that counties make with providers vary; for example, one vendor may be responsible for all services, or a county can use multiple vendors across types of health care services such as mental health and dentistry. Payment models can also vary: While some counties share financial risk for costly medical care with the contractor, others have their vendors assume all risk through a negotiated per-inmate, per-day rate. - The portion of a jail's budget spent on health care can vary widely by county. For instance, in Virginia, jails spend anywhere from 2.5 to 33 percent of their budgets on health care. - Although most jails conduct bookings 24 hours a day, many do not have medical or nursing staff on site to screen incoming individuals at all times. This can lead to delays in identifying and treating acute, possibly lifethreatening health problems, and missed opportunities to divert people with behavioral health disorders into treatment settings rather than jail. Jails with an average daily population (ADP) under 500 are less likely to offer round-the-clock clinical services than are larger ones, a situation probably driven by resource constraints. - Most of the RFPs that were examined look to national accrediting bodies such as the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care to guide how the jail offers health care services. Yet few RFPs laid out performance requirements and financial penalties or incentives that would hold contractors accountable for meeting service requirements. Details: New York: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2018. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2018 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/01/sfh_jails_inadvertent_health_care_providers.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/01/sfh_jails_inadvertent_health_care_providers.pdf Shelf Number: 149724 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsHealth CareJail InmatesMentally Ill Inmates |
Author: Clark, John Title: Enhancing Pretrial Justice in Cuyahoga County: Results From a Jail Population Analysis and Judicial Feedback Summary: To assist in its ongoing examination of the bail system in Cuyahoga County, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, in coordination with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, asked the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) to review elements of the Cuyahoga County pretrial justice system. PJI examined case filing trend data, analyzed data from a snapshot of persons released on a particular date from four facilities-the Cuyahoga County Jail plus three municipal jails-and solicited feedback from the Court of Common Pleas and municipal court benches regarding needed enhancements to the bail system. This report presents the findings from that effort. Here is a summary of the major findings and recommendations. Trend Data - Despite significant declines in the number of reported violent and property crimes in Cuyahoga County, and even larger declines in the number of criminal cases filed in both the municipal courts and the Court of Common Pleas, there has not been a commensurate reduction in the number of jail bookings or average daily populations. - The Cuyahoga County Jail has been operating, on average, at over 100% capacity in four out of the past five years. Jail Population Analysis - There were significant differences in the demographic characteristics, particularly regarding race, of those released from the three municipal jails on the date of the snapshot, June 1, 2017, compared to those released from the Cuyahoga County Jail. - Twenty-five percent of the felony pretrial population in the Cuyahoga County Jail sample remained detained throughout the pretrial period, with an average length of stay in pretrial detention of 104 days. Of the 75% who were released, whether by financial or non-financial means, the average length of stay was 17 days. - Thirty-eight percent of the Cuyahoga County jail population that was released on personal bond spent more than one week in pretrial detention before that release. - Twenty-eight percent of those with a bond of $5,000 or less never posted it and remained detained throughout the pretrial period. - There was a correlation between seriousness of charge and bond type and bond amounts in the Cuyahoga County Jail sample. Those charged with Felony 1 and 2 offenses were much more likely to get a secured money bond than those charged with Felony 4 and 5 offenses, and, of those receiving a secured bond, much more likely to receive a higher bond. Judicial Feedback PJI invited all Municipal and Common Pleas judges to participate in a voluntary questionnaire consisting of nine questions to identify areas of potential judicial education, stakeholder engagement, and process improvements. Here is a summary of the results: - Thirty-three judges completed the questionnaire. - Over 75% of the judges felt informed about the strengths and weaknesses of the bail system in their jurisdiction, and about ways that it might be improved. - 82% of the judges felt there is value in the Criminal Justice Committee examining the pretrial process in Cuyahoga County and its municipalities. - 79% felt it is important to provide judicial-specific education to understand possible ways to improve the bail system in the areas of actuarial risk assessment (87%) and research-informed risk management strategies (87%). - 13% felt uncertainty about the use of actuarial risk assessment tools with some concern that they may cause additional issues. - 84% of the respondents were "somewhat familiar with" to "not familiar with at all" the use of supervision matrices, while only 15% of the judges were "very familiar with" the uses of supervision matrices. Recommendations 1. Conduct a training on the fundamentals of pretrial justice for the judges of the Court of Common Pleas and of the municipal courts. 2. Conduct a one-to-two day summit of the judiciary in Cuyahoga County to identify a clear vision statement pertaining to pretrial practices within the county. 3. Pilot test 2-4 projects in both the Municipal and Common Pleas Court introducing research and evidenced-based practices in pretrial improvements. 4. Actively and consistently communicate the plans, progress, and outcomes of the pilot sites to the entire judiciary, as well as other key stakeholders, such as prosecutors, defenders, law enforcement, victim advocates, and the community at large. 5. Based on the results of the pilot sites, plan and implement an expansion of new practices system-wide. Details: Rockville, MD: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2017. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cuyahoga-County-Jail-Population-Analysis-Report-PJI-2017_final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cuyahoga-County-Jail-Population-Analysis-Report-PJI-2017_final.pdf Shelf Number: 149840 Keywords: BailJail InmatesJailsJudgesPretrial DetentionPretrial JusticeRisk Assessment |
Author: Kaeble, Danielle Title: Correctional Populations In The United States, 2016 Summary: Presents statistics on persons supervised by U.S. adult correctional systems at year-end 2016, including persons supervised in the community on probation or parole and those incarcerated in state or federal prison or local jail. The report describes the size and change in the total correctional population during 2016. Appendix tables provide statistics on other correctional populations and jurisdiction-level estimates of the total correctional population by correctional status for selected years. Highlights: In 2016, the number of persons supervised by U.S. adult correctional systems dropped for the ninth consecutive year. From 2007 to 2016, the portion of the adult population under supervision of U.S. correctional systems decreased by 18%, from 3,210 to 2,640 per 100,000 adult residents. The percentage of adults supervised by the U.S. correctional system was lower in 2016 than at any time since 1993. The incarceration rate has declined since 2009 and is currently at its lowest rate since 1996. On December 31, 2016, an estimated 6,613,500 persons were supervised by U.S. adult correctional systems, about 62,700 fewer persons than on January 1, 2016 Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 27, 2018 at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf Shelf Number: 119923 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsJail InmatesJailsPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Fischer, Aaron J. Title: Suicides in San Diego County Jail: A System Failing People with Mental Illness Summary: San Diego County faces a crisis in its jail system. It has the highest reported number of suicides in a California jail system over several years - more than 30 suicide deaths since 2010. The inmate suicide rate has been many times higher than the rate in similarly sized county jails in California, the State prison system, and jails nationally. This is a crisis demanding meaningful action. While the County reported just one inmate suicide in 2017, which is a welcome decrease compared to previous years, the system remains deeply challenged. The incidence of inmate suicide attempts and serious self-harm remains extremely high - a rate of approximately two (2) per week. The frequency of suicide attempts indicates that the County must improve its treatment of people with mental health needs. Recognition that San Diego County has a problem with suicides and other deaths at the jail is not new. There has been a steady drumbeat of calls to action, from the County's grand juries, the media, and people who have been incarcerated at the jail and their loved ones. As the designated protection and advocacy system charged with protecting the rights of people with disabilities in California, Disability Rights California (DRC) opened an investigation into conditions at the San Diego County jails in 2015. We conducted tours of the County's jail facilities, and completed extensive interviews with Sheriff's Department leadership, jail staff, and jail inmates. We have reviewed thousands of pages of relevant policies and procedures, Sheriff's Department records, and individual inmate records. Our investigation focuses on four interconnected aspects of San Diego's County jail and mental health systems. We provide specific Recommendations regarding each. Over-Incarceration of People with Mental Health Needs. First, we found that there is an extremely high number of jail inmates with significant mental health treatment needs. The County's mental health care system, both inside and outside of the jail, has long operated in a way that leads to the dangerous, costly, and counter-productive over-incarceration of people with mental health-related disabilities. This includes a historical failure to provide sufficient community-based mental health services and supports that help individuals with mental health needs to thrive and avoid entanglement with the criminal justice system and incarceration. There is an urgent need for a better approach. We found that the County's recently developed Mental Health Services Act Plan and related initiatives - including increased community based-services and diversion/reentry efforts - provide a reason for optimism. Of course, the County's efforts will be judged on outcomes in the months and years ahead. Deficiencies in Suicide Prevention. Second, our two subject matter experts, who reviewed inmate suicide cases as well as relevant policies, identified significant deficiencies in the County's suicide prevention practices. These experts, Karen Higgins, M.D., and Robert Canning, Ph.D., CCHP, have considerable expertise in suicide prevention and mental health treatment in detention facilities. They have completed a detailed written report (Appendix A), which identifies twenty-four (24) Key Deficiencies in the County's system and provides forty-six (46) Recommendations to address those deficiencies. While we are convinced that the Sheriff's Department has begun to take the issue of suicide prevention seriously, there remain many aspects of the system's treatment of people at risk of suicide that require urgent action. Failure to Provide Adequate Mental Health Treatment. Third, we found that the County's jail system subjects inmates with mental health needs to a grave risk of psychological and other harms by failing to provide adequate mental health treatment. Making matters worse, the County subjects inmates to dangerous solitary confinement conditions that take an enormous toll on individuals' mental health and well-being. A substantial number of the suicides in San Diego County's jails have occurred in designated segregation units and other units with solitary confinement conditions. Even with committed jail leadership and staff efforts to reduce solitary confinement and improve conditions, insufficient staffing and lack of other critical resources have caused these problems to persist. Lack of Meaningful, Independent Oversight. Fourth, we found that the existing systems of jail oversight have failed. The time has come for the County to create an independent and professional oversight entity to monitor jail conditions, suicide prevention and mental health treatment practices, and other jail operations. A truly effective independent oversight entity, building on the models developed in Los Angeles County, Santa Clara County, Sonoma County, and other jurisdictions across the country, would enhance the County's efforts to address its historical challenges in its jails, help to achieve and solidify system improvements, and strengthen the trust of the community through greater transparency. We have found that the County's jails have the great advantage of committed mental health staff and a number of strong leaders within the Sheriff's Department. They will need sustained investment and support from the County - along with true transparency and accountability - to achieve a durable solution to the inmate suicide crisis, the deficiencies in mental health treatment inside the jail, and the over-incarceration of people with mental health needs. Details: Sacramento: Disability Rights California, 2018. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/SDsuicideReport.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/SDsuicideReport.pdf Shelf Number: 150114 Keywords: Jail InmatesJail SuicidesMental Health ServicesMentally Ill InmatesMentally Ill PersonsSuicides |
Author: Peterson, Bryce Title: Inmate-, Incident-, And Facility-Level Factors Associated With Escapes From Custody And Violent Outcomes Summary: Introduction: Preventing escapes from custody is a critical function of prisons, jails, and the individuals who run these correctional facilities. Escapes are a popular topic in the news, among lawmakers, and in public discourse. Much of this interest stems from the widespread notion that escapees pose a serious threat to public safety, as well to the safety of correctional staff and law enforcement officers tasked with preventing and apprehending them. However, despite the importance of preventing escapes and minimizing violence, there has been very little empirical research on these issues in the past several decades. Extant research has also been limited in terms of its depth, breadth, and methodological rigor. Thus, the current dissertation seeks to address the following research questions: 1. What jail-level factors are related to escape-proneness? 2. What prison-level factors are related to escape-proneness? 3. What inmate-level characteristics are associated with escape behavior? 4. How often and at what point does violence occur during escapes? 5. What facility-level factors influence the likelihood of an escape being violent? 6. What incident-level variables influence the likelihood of an escape being violent? 7. What characteristics of the escapee influence the likelihood of an escape being violent? Methods: To address these research questions, this study explores the degree to which facility-, incident-, and inmate-level factors are associated with two overall outcomes: 1) escapes from custody and 2) violent escape outcomes. To accomplish this, a series of analyses were conducted using several different sources of data. Specifically, the first two analyses used data from the 2011 Annual Survey of Jails (n=366) to examine how jail-level variables impact the number of escapes and attempted escapes from jails, and from the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities (n=1821) to examine how prison-level variables impact the number of escapes and the number of walkaways from prisons. The third analysis used the 2008 and 2009 iterations of the National Corrections Reporting Program (n=7,300) to test whether relevant inmate-level characteristics were associated with the likelihood of an individual being an escapee. The final set of analyses examined the degree to which facility-, inmate-, and inmate-level factors were able to predict four violent escape outcomes: violence at the breakout, in the community, during recapture, and overall. These analyses used data from the Correctional Incident Database, 2009 (n=610). Findings: Several jail-level variables--including rated capacity, ethnic heterogeneity, percent noncitizens, and privately operated--were significantly associated with the number of escapes and escape attempts from jails. There were also many prison-level variables associated with the number of escapes and the number of walkaways from a facility, including measures related to the facilities' administration and management (e.g., rated capacity, percent capacity, inmate-staff ratio, inmates from other authorities, court order, secure perimeter, security level, region), inmate populations (e.g., percent male, percent noncitizens), and treatment and programming options (e.g., percent on work assignment, percent on work release, alcohol or drug treatment, inmates permitted to leave). At the individual-level, information about inmates' demographics (e.g., age, sex, race), criminal histories (e.g., prior time in prison and jail, prior escape), and current sentence (offense type and counts, sentence length, percent of sentence served) were associated with individual escape behavior. Finally, findings indicate that violence is, overall, a relatively rare outcome in escape incidents, though when it does occur it is precipitated by certain situational factors. Incident-level factors were the best indicators of violence, including whether the escape occurred in secure custody, the location of the incident, and the start time of the escape. The classification of the facilities was also associated with violence (i.e., escapees from higher security prisons and jails were more likely to use violence than escapees from minimum security facilities). Inmate-level factors were the least important for understanding when an escape would result in a violent outcome, though some of the findings indicate that young, male escapees, who were in custody for a violent offense and had a history of escaping, were more likely to use violence during their escapes than other escapees. Discussion and Implications: These findings demonstrated that opportunity- and place-based theories of criminal behavior, such as the situational crime prevention and routine activities frameworks, are most useful for understanding when escapes are likely to occur and when they are likely to result in violence. For example, higher security prison facilities had fewer escapes than lower security prisons, but prisons that permitted inmates to leave the facility (e.g., to study, participate in a rehabilitative program, or work) had a greater number of walkaways. At the individual level, inmates who were on community release were much more likely to have been escapees than those who were not on community release. Finally, inmates who escaped during transport were more likely to use violence than those who escaped under other circumstances. Based on these findings, this dissertation provided several recommendations for policy and practice. For example, it was recommended that correctional administrators adopt strategies for preventing escapes that are rooted in the situational crime prevention framework. These might include modifying the environment and enhancing certain types of security features, but could also include providing counseling to inmates, allowing more home visits and furloughs, offering more programming in the prison, and protecting inmates when their safety is threatened. It was also recommended that administrators identify and implement best practices for situations in which violence is most likely to occur, such as during inmate transport. Finally, given that most escapes are nonviolent and relatively minor incidents, it was recommended that administrators consider expanding their practice of punishing escapees internally rather than charging them with a new crime that could potentially add years to their sentence. Conclusion: Though there are several substantive and methodological limitations to the current dissertation, this research contributes to the literature by: analyzing the impact of a range of facility-, incident-, and inmate-level factors on escapes from custody and violence; examining a broader range of escapes from across the country; using more recent data and more rigorous analyses; clarifying some of the contradicting and confusing findings from previous studies; and providing a thorough analysis of the amount, scope, and predictors of violence escape outcomes. Details: New York: Graduate Center, City University of New York, 2015. 214p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 9, 2018 at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1605&context=gc_etds Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1605&context=gc_etds Shelf Number: 150783 Keywords: Correctional Administration Escapes Inmate Management Jail InmatesPrison Escapes Prisoners Situational Crime Prevention Violence |
Author: Austin, James Title: Evaluation of the Sacramento County Jail Inmate Classification and T-SEP Systems Summary: Dr. James Austin was asked to assess the Sacramento County Jail inmate classification system and the T-SEP (or Total Separation) housing system. The larger inmate classification system is used to house prisoners within the jail's general population. Inmates are typically scored on a number of objective factors that are related to the current charges/offenses, prior criminal record, escape history, prior institutional conduct, demographic (age and gender), and several stability factors (education, residency, employment). Inmates assigned to the T-SEP status are so assigned based on other security factors that are intended to identify and house inmates who pose a significant and on-going threat to other inmates, staff and perhaps themselves. There are two dominant jail classification systems that are operational within the U.S. One is referred to as the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Objective Jail Classification system (OJC). It is based on the NIC prison classification system, which is the dominant inmate classification system in the U.S. All but two state prison systems have a version of the NIC objective prison classification system. The NIC Objective Jail Classification is an additive point system that is used for both initial and reclassification purposes. A system of over-rides is used to depart from the scored system. Because the NIC system was developed by NIC, there is no cost to the agency to implement it. A correctional agency is also able to customize the factor's weights, scale, and over-ride factors. Versions can also be developed for male and female inmates based on validation results. The other jail classification system was designed by the Northpointe company and is known as the decision-tree model. While using many of the same factors found in the NIC system, the format for scoring an inmate is much different. As the name implies, rather than using an additive point format, the Northpointe system uses a decision-tree format. The important difference is all the scoring items are not used in each assessment. Rather, only those items needed for each security level are sequentially applied. The early version of the Northpointe system had no reclassification component. Finally, because the system is owned by Northpointe, the user is not allowed to make any changes or customize the instrument. Also, no models have been developed specifically adapted for female inmates. Part of the inmate classification and housing system is what is referred to as the T-SEP (or Total Separation) housing unit where inmates are confined to single cells for extensive periods of time. At the time that study was initiated on January 11, 2017, there were approximately 172 inmates assigned to TSEP at the Main Jail out of 3,948 inmates (or about 4%). Significantly, by the end of April 2017 the T-SEP population had declined to 120. There is a much smaller T-SEP unit at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) which houses about 15-16 T-SEP male inmates at any given time The concept of "T-SEP" is unique to Sacramento County. In other jail and prison systems, inmates who are classified as highly disruptive, a threat to other inmates or staff are typically assigned to the status of "administrative segregation". In this status, they are separated from the general population and receive limited access to recreation, showers, services, visits and other aspects afforded other inmates. The remainder of this report summarizes the evaluation results of these two separate, but closely related classification and housing systems. Details: Sacramento: Disability Rights California, 2017. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2018 at: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-6%5D_Exhibit_F-Austin_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-6%5D_Exhibit_F-Austin_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Shelf Number: 150993 Keywords: Administration SegregationDisabled InmatesInmate ClassificationIsolationJail InmatesJailsRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Vail, Eldon Title: Sacramento County Jail. Mentally Ill Prisoners and the Use of Segregation: Recommendations for Policy, Practice and Resources Summary: The use of segregation in the Sacramento County Jails is dramatically out of step with emerging national standards and practices and with what the research tells us about the dangers of segregation regarding placing mentally ill inmates in segregated housing. The SCSD jails make no provision to exclude the mentally ill from segregation despite the mounting evidence that this population is particularly vulnerable to serious risk of significant harm from such placement. The SCSD overuses segregation both for the mentally ill and the non-mentally ill. Because of the lack of sufficient out of cell time and programming opportunities, conditions in the jails for segregated inmates are very stark and unlikely to meet constitutional standards. Jail Psychiatric Services (JPS) provide mental health services in the SCSD jails. While JPS staff are dedicated and hard working, the authorized staffing levels are so meager that little treatment of the incarcerated mentally ill actually takes place. Services are primarily limited to medication management and crisis intervention. There is a near total lack of individual or group therapy, elements that in my experience as a correctional administrator over a state prison system are critical for the care of this vulnerable population. The level of custody staffing for both jails is startlingly and dangerously low for even their current operation and as a result they operate in a state of near perpetual emergency. Absent a significant reduction in the population of the jail, there is no way they could achieve compliance with the applicable standards for managing the mentally ill and segregated inmates with their current staffing levels. There must be a sizable increase in both mental health and custody staffing to properly provide treatment to the mentally ill and avoid what would likely be successful litigation should this matter go before the Federal court. The jail is in need of an updated Housing Plan. Currently, inmates with different custody levels and mental health needs are housed in units or pods that are not clearly defined by these important factors. It is possible that some of the recommended increases in custody staffing (included later in this report) could be reduced with a Housing Plan that houses maximum inmates with maximum inmates, medium with medium, etc. in the same pods or units. The same is true for levels of mental health acuity. Not all mentally ill inmates require maximum custody or restrictive housing. Some can do quite well in medium or minimum custody treatment units. It is recommended that the jail's classification system be reviewed and updated as part of establishing an improved Housing Plan. A complete list of recommendations is at the end of this report. Details: Sacramento: Disability Rights California, 2016. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2018 at: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-2%5D_Exhibit_B-Vail_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/system/files/file-attachments/%5B001-2%5D_Exhibit_B-Vail_Report_2018-07-31.pdf Shelf Number: 150997 Keywords: Administrative SegregationJail InmatesJailsMentally Ill InmatesRestrictive Housing |
Author: Harman, Jennifer J. Title: A Study of Homelessness in Seven Colorado Jails Summary: "A Study of Homelessness in Seven Colorado Jails" surveyed 507 inmates in jails in Arapahoe County, the City and County of Denver, El Paso County, Larimer County, Mesa County, and Pueblo County. The sites were chosen because they represent a good cross-section of jurisdictions in Colorado that experience the impacts of homeless populations. The Division of Criminal Justice commissioned Eris Enterprises to conduct the study to provide data that may help answer questions being raised by law enforcement, legislators and community members in relation to a reported increase in the homeless population in major Colorado jails and in Colorado in general. The study examined the prevalence of risk factors associated with homelessness, the types and number of crimes committed, home state origin, why non-native inmates moved to Colorado, and what services inmates need to transition out of jail. In particular, the study sought to provide insight on one frequently posed question: is Colorado seeing an increase in homeless people moving to Colorado for legal marijuana and then committing crimes? SUMMARY OF RESULTS The study found that the majority of homeless who ended up in Colorado jails moved here prior to legalization of marijuana, and most moved here to escape a problem or be with family. More than one third of the homeless who moved to Colorado after legalization in 2012 reported legal marijuana as a reason that drew them to Colorado. However, only two individuals selected legal marjiuana as the only factor that drew them to Colorado. The study also found that homeless inmates reported higher rates of mental illness and were charged with significantly fewer violent crimes but significantly more drug and trespassing crimes than non-homeless inmates. Details: Denver: ColoradoDivision of Criminal Justice, 2018. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2018 at:; https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018_Jail_Homelessness_Study.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018_Jail_Homelessness_Study.pdf Shelf Number: 151128 Keywords: Homeless PersonsHomelessnessHousingJail InmatesJailsLoiteringMentally Ill PersonsPanhandling Vagrants |