Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:27 am
Time: 2:27 am
Results for jail overcrowding
11 results foundAuthor: Walsh, Nastassia Title: Baltimore Behind Bars: How to Reduce the Jail Population, Save Money and Improve Public Safety Summary: This report details Baltimore's complex system of city policing practices and court and bail processes that contribute to a high percentage of city residents being detained in jail, often unneccessarily. The report also finds that the courts are clogged with too many cases, which further contributes to people being held pre-trial for extended periods of time. The report details how more than half of the prople arrested in Baltimore are locked up in jail to await trial, with more than half of those in jail not being offered bail. The State of Maryland, which owns and operates the jail complex, is currently planning two new jail facilities in Baltimore at an estimated cost of $280 million. The report notes that while these facilities will be an improvement over aging facilities, they may needlessly increase the number of people incarcerated in the jails. Increasing the number of jail beds, and improving facilities, may create a disincentive to finding effective alternatives to pretrial detention, leading to more people in jail instead of less. The report recommends that by implementing effective solutions to reduce the number of people in the current jail, money could be re-directed towards services like education, employment support and treatment. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2010. 73p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119132 Keywords: BailJail OvercrowdingJailsPretrial Detention (Baltimore) |
Author: Yanez-Correa, Ana Title: Costly Confinement and Sensible Solutions: Jail Overcrowding in Texas Summary: This report provides a snapshot of county jails in Texas. Part 1 details the demographics, funding sources, and budgetary expenditures for local jails. Part 2 specifies the financial, public safety, and public health ramifications of jail overcrowding. Part 3 provides the major contributors to jail overcrowding in Texas, as well as comprehensive information on strategies that can assist system stakeholders in reducing the flow of individuals into county jails. Part 4 summarizes the various recommendations for each system stakeholder, and offers additional suggestions that fall outside the scope of the major contributors outlined in Part 3. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2010. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2011 at: http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1011051632088-32/TCJC+Jail+Overcrowding+Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1011051632088-32/TCJC+Jail+Overcrowding+Report.pdf Shelf Number: 121106 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeJail OvercrowdingJails (Texas) |
Author: Steadman, Steven R. Title: Mesa County Work Release and Jail Detention Programming Study Summary: This report presents the findings of a study undertaken by Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) of the Mesa County criminal justice system. The study had three main purposes: (1) identify methods in the criminal justice system to reduce present and future jail usage; (2) enhance the use of alternatives to incarceration; and (3) develop an implementation plan for changes in the processes and policies of the courts and various criminal justice agencies to achieve the first two goals. Mesa County will be approaching these issues from a position of strength. PSI staff have seldom been in a county where the levels of innovation, cooperation, and collaboration have been so strong. The strength and vitality of the branches of government and the individuals that serve within them is far and away the greatest asset that the county can have as it faces difficult decisions about the direction of the justice system in Mesa County. During two site visits and numerous interviews PSI staff learned that: There is a very high degree of justice system collaboration among the courts and probation, law enforcement, the district attorney, public defender, and other agencies; There is a very high degree of cooperation between county government and the justice system; There are numerous long established well run jail alternative programs already in operation; and The jail is well-designed and expertly operated by capable managers and motivated and dedicated staff. We recognize, however, that these goals can only be met as long as the community believes that it is being adequately protected from crime. In particular, all aspects of the methamphetamine drug abuse problem were cited as a major cause of jail overcrowding and a challenge to the combined resources of the county and justice system. Any solutions to jail overcrowding must enable the county to deal with the methamphetamine problem and its ramifications. The most difficult issue that Mesa County decision makers need to make is what combination of increased jail capacity and jail alternative programming will keep the citizens of the county safe and most rationally expend resources. The decisions that will eventually be reached will involve finding an acceptable level of shared risk (it is probably inevitable that some individuals will fail in the programs to which they are assigned) and cost effectiveness (Mesa County cannot build itself out of its present circumstances). In order to understand the costs and benefits of incarceration as opposed to alternatives, it is important to understand the following: • Most individuals who are in jail will eventually return to society, so the primary issue is not who will get out but what kind of people they will be when they get out; • For many offenders, public safety is better served by placing them in treatment programs rather than jail; • There are people who may actually consider a small amount of jail time as less punitive than home detention or having to work; and • Part of the cost of incarceration is the potential cost to the county if the offender is rendered unable to support his or her family during incarceration. This study and the recommendations generated by it are based on the following principles of jail usage for pre-trial detention and convicted offenders, as reflected in nationally accepted criminal justice best practices. Details: Denver, CO: Policy Studies Inc., 2005. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://www.centerforpublicpolicy.org/index.php?s=16415 Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.centerforpublicpolicy.org/index.php?s=16415 Shelf Number: 122348 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug OffendersJail OvercrowdingJailsWork Release |
Author: Shubik-Richards, Claire Title: Philadelphia's Less Crowded, Less Costly Jails: Taking Stock of a Year of Change and the Challenges That Remain Summary: A new study from The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Philadelphia Research Initiative finds that Philadelphia’s jail population decreased dramatically last year due to reductions among both the number of individuals held pretrial and those held for alleged violations of their probation or parole. Join the Philadelphia Research Initiative for a Webinar to learn more about our latest analysis of the city's inmate population, including the factors that have contributed to its decline, the policies and practices that impact its size and what it means for the city's bottom line. Details: Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia Research Initiative, 2011. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2011 at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/Philadelphia-Jail-Population.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research_Initiative/Philadelphia-Jail-Population.pdf Shelf Number: 122571 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJail OvercrowdingJails (Philadelphia)Pretrial Detention |
Author: John Howard Association of Illinois Title: Crowding and Conditions of Confinement at the Cook County Department of Corrections and Compliance with the Consent Decree Summary: This is the twenty-sixth in a series of reports by the John Howard Association of Illinois on inmate population, crowding and conditions at the Cook County Department of Corrections (CCDOC) as these factors relate to the provisions of the Consent Decree in this litigation. The format of this Court Monitor’s Report is similar to that of previous reports. In Section I we describe the jail population and capacity including admissions and length of stay, release mechanisms or alternatives to incarceration, and facilities status and planning issues. In Section II, we describe conditions of confinement at the jail. Subsections in this section include Environmental Health, Personal Hygiene, Food Service, Staffing, Overcrowding, Access to Law Libraries and Other Programs and Services, Visiting, Health Issues and Services, Grievance Procedures, and Disciplinary Procedures. These subsections address the principal provisions of the Consent Decree in this case. Several of the subsections of this report pertaining to compliance with the Consent Decree begin with the text of relevant provisions of the Consent Decree. The information used in the preparation of this report consists of observations made during more than 25 visits to the jail complex and analysis of data derived from logs, documents, and other records provided by CCDOC administrators, staff and other sources. Information obtained during meetings with CCDOC, other Cook County officials and other parties is also included. Details: Chicago: John Howard Association of Illinois, 2010. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed September 3, 2011 at: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/Duran_Report_1_15_2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.thejha.org/sites/default/files/Duran_Report_1_15_2010.pdf Shelf Number: 122635 Keywords: Correctional Institutions(Chicago, Illinois)Jail OvercrowdingJails |
Author: Vera Institute of Justice. Center on Sentencing and Corrections Title: Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction Project: Final Report Summary: Los Angeles County (County) operates the world’s largest jail system. The County’s criminal justice system is extraordinarily complex, involving 88 municipalities, 47 law enforcement agencies, more than 30 criminal courthouses, and eight jail facilities. In mid-2011, the nature and scope of the problems facing the L.A. County criminal justice system and its jails have grown in ways few could have foreseen two years ago: First, County revenues in Los Angeles—as in most counties in the country—have shrunk dramatically. Although the jail population has dropped to approximately 15,000, attributable largely to early release policies that the Sheriff implemented because of budget reductions, the ability of the County government to invest in new efforts to combat jail crowding is now limited. Second, and perhaps more alarming, the State of California has passed legislation to move some of what are now state-prison-bound offenders to local jails and some parolees to County supervision. With these recent developments, jail overcrowding in Los Angeles has become a looming crisis with dramatic implications for the safety of its residents. While the County has already made serious efforts to streamline its processes (for example, using electronic subpoenas, video arraignments, and an early disposition program) and create programs responsive to problematic subpopulations (such as day reporting for probationers at risk of violation and the Women’s Reentry Court), these new challenges call for a more far-reaching effort that fully engages all parts of the system. In summary, Vera offers the following observations: 1. The County’s jails are a resource: limited, useful, and expensive. While the CCJCC’s Jail Overcrowding Subcommittee is charged with finding ways to reduce the population, there seems to be no overall agreement on the priorities for the use of the jail. Law enforcement wants a place to bring those who might be a danger to themselves or others; the Court wants to ensure that defendants are secure and can readily be brought to court when needed; prosecutors want to make sure defendants will not flee or intimidate witnesses; and probation officers want a place to put non-compliant probationers. While these are legitimate interests, they are not of equal merit in the use of a limited resource. • Los Angeles County must find a way to create consensus among stakeholders on the most critical uses of the jail and find alternatives for the others. 2. It is no one entity’s fault that the jail is too crowded. The agencies that use it are independent, many led by elected officials, and each one is trying to fulfill its own mandate. Sometimes the interests and priorities of the agencies and their mandates seem to be competing, and often contradicting. • The County must encourage and reward the efforts of the criminal justice system stakeholders to work cooperatively around the issue of jail use. Vera’s analysis has identified many points at which changes, big and small, could produce a measureable impact on the daily population of the jail. The analysis affirms that there is no one part of the system that owns the problem or the solution. Every agency—from law enforcement through the Probation Department—is touched by these findings and recommendations. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. 289p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 27, 2012 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3381/LA%2520County%2520Jail%2520Overcrowding%2520Reduction%2520Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3381/LA%2520County%2520Jail%2520Overcrowding%2520Reduction%2520Report.pdf Shelf Number: 123786 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCounty Jails (Los Angeles)Jail Overcrowding |
Author: Krahl, David E. Title: An Analysis of the Financial Impact of Surety Bonding on Aggregate and Average Detention Costs and Cost Savings in the State of Florida for 2008 by a Single Florida Insurance Company: A Follow-Up Study to Earlier Research Summary: In the twenty-first century world and in light of a sub-optimally performing economy, counties and local governments are attempting to find cost-effective and financially pragmatic ways to contain costs. The edict of "doing more with less" has been the perpetual mantra of local and county government officials when seeking to provide government services without increasing the size or the costs of the bureaucratic infrastructure. This has been particularly true when it comes to the issue of jail overcrowding, and the question of how to reduce the costs of jail operations. Today's jails are filled with defendants who are awaiting trial, those who are awaiting sentencing or who are actually serving sentences, those who are awaiting transportation to state prison facilities, illegal immigrants who have been apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and those who are detained to civil commitment orders. One pragmatic and workable solution to the problem of jail overcrowding and that oftentimes is routinely ignored by government officials is the use of surety bonding as a way to effectuate the pretrial release of those defendants who are awaiting trial. To say the least, the use of surety bonding has a rich tradition in the United States. One of the distinct advantages of surety bonding is that it functions as cost-effective mechanism to provide for the pretrial release of defendants at an absolute zero-cost to taxpayers. Because the surety bonding industry operates in the private sector, surety bonding is a strategy that does not increase either the size of the government's bureaucracy or the expense of its operation. Government-funded pretrial release programs are unable to make either of these claims; nor can they substantiate the cost-efficiency of their performance through the use of empirical data. This research is a follow-up study to one conducted last year which documents the cost-savings associated with surety bonding as a pretrial release mechanism for one surety bonding company in the state of Florida. This study also discusses the implications of these findings relative to the operation of the process of pretrial release. It also calls for more extensive research to further address the problems posed by government-sponsored pretrial release programs in terms of burgeoning costs to taxpayers and increasing the size of government infrastructure. Details: Tampa, Florida: Department of Criminology, University of Tampa, 2009. 65p. Source: Library Resource: Accessible at Don M. Gottfredson Library of Criminal Justice. Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 127260 Keywords: BailBail BondsmenCorrectional OperationsCorrections (Florida)Costs of Criminal Justice (Florida)Jail OvercrowdingPretrial Release |
Author: Natapoff, Alexandra Title: Misdemeanor Decriminalization Summary: As the U.S. rethinks its stance on mass incarceration, misdemeanor decriminalization is an increasingly popular reform. Seen as a potential cure for crowded jails and an overburdened defense bar, many states are eliminating jail time for minor offenses such as marijuana possession and driving violations, and replacing those crimes with so-called "nonjailable" or "fine-only" offenses. This form of reclassification is widely perceived as a way of saving millions of state dollars - nonjailable offenses do not trigger the right to counsel - while easing the punitive impact on defendants, and it has strong support from progressives and conservatives alike. But decriminalization has a little-known dark side. Unlike full legalization, decriminalization preserves many of the punitive features and collateral consequences of the criminal misdemeanor experience, even as it strips defendants of counsel and other procedural protections. It actually expands the reach of the criminal apparatus by making it easier - both logistically and normatively - to impose fines and supervision on an ever-widening population, a population who ironically often ends up incarcerated anyway when they cannot afford the fines or comply with the supervisory conditions. The turn to fine-only offenses and supervision, moreover, has distributive implications. It captures poor, underemployed, drug-dependent, and other disadvantaged defendants for whom fines and supervision are especially burdensome, while permitting well-resourced offenders to exit the process quickly and relatively unscathed. Finally, as courts turn increasingly to fines and fees to fund their own operations, decriminalization threatens to become a kind of regressive tax, turning the poorest populations into funding fodder for the judiciary and other government budgets. In sum, while decriminalization appears to offer relief from the punitive legacy of overcriminalization and mass incarceration, upon closer inspection it turns out to be a highly conflicted regulatory strategy that preserves and even strengthens some of the most problematic aspects of the massive U.S. penal system. Details: Los Angeles: Loyola Los Angeles School of Law, 2014. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2014-43 : Accessed September 11, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2494414 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2494414 Shelf Number: 133276 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDecriminalizationJail OvercrowdingMass IncarcerationMisdemeanors (U.S.)Prison OvercrowdingPunishment |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Montana Title: Locked in the Past: Montana's Jails in Crisis Summary: Despite heralding itself as a champion of freedom and human liberty, the United States has the second highest incarceration rate in the world, taking second only to the African nation of Seychelles. Of the incarcerated, statistics suggest that as many as 38% are being held in county detention centers and many of those inmates are held pre-trial. These pre-trial prisoners-an estimated 21.6% of all incarcerated Americans-are detained before guilt is proven in a court of law, weakening the proud American axiom that our citizens are "innocent until proven guilty." Problematically, many county detention centers lack adequate funding and struggle to effectively manage the incarcerated. The impacts these often-deplorable conditions can have on individuals and society as a whole are extremely far reaching. Neglect in county detention centers, coupled with a prevalence of mental illness, leads to a high rate of recidivism, which turns the justice system into a revolving door that is a blight on county, state, and federal budgets. Incarceration rates have started to decrease for the first time in decades, albeit at a glacial pace. The reduction of the incarceration rate is largely fueled by the financial realities and burdens of housing an historic number of prisoners at local, state, and federal levels. County detention centers play a unique role in this process in that they often house people on the front-end of the criminal justice system, such as pretrial detention, and can thus be addressed with different measures than state or federal prisons. County detention centers can improve through coercion, such as litigation, or through collaboration between entities with shared goals. The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana (ACLU) is eager to work with counties to improve detention center conditions, streamline local criminal justice policies, and help make counties more effective at screening, prosecuting, and housing the accused and convicted at local levels. The ACLU of Montana has worked collaboratively with counties throughout the state. For example, the ACLU helped Custer County officials come to grips with their deplorable and antiquated facility by passing a successful bond measure to renovate its facilities. The ACLU is currently working with Lewis & Clark County to assess options for pretrial release and other options for reducing their chronically over crowded facility. The ACLU of Montana is working statewide on substantive criminal justice reform that will allow the courts to respond to the unique needs of the accused on a path to rehabilitation, rather than warehousing them in county detention centers. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive overview that identifies conditions of confinement in county detention centers throughout Montana and provide recommendations regarding how we might improve those conditions. The study utilized a three-prong methodology, including touring jails, interviewing administrators and prisoners, and sending a mixed-method questionnaire to all jail inmates in the state. We identified several overarching trends, including: - Overuse of solitary confinement for individuals with mental illness - Inadequate numbers of detention staff - Lack of access to fresh air - Lack of access to natural light and exercise - Inadequate medical and mental health care - Overcrowding - Lack of basic necessities such as underwear, socks, and bras - Unconstitutional prohibitions on visitation from minors and non-family members - Lack of access to law libraries - Inadequate or unworkable grievance procedures - Sub-par physical plant issues Details: Helena, MT: ACLU of Montana, 2015. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2015 at: http://aclumontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-ACLU-Jail-Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://aclumontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-ACLU-Jail-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134754 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsDetention CentersJail OvercrowdingJails (Montana)Pretrial Detention |
Author: Guidry, Sarah R. Title: A Blueprint for Criminal Justice Policy Solutions in Harris County Summary: On any given day, Texas county jails house approximately 65,000 people. More than half of these individuals are typically awaiting trial, not yet having been convicted. Many others are misdemeanants or serving terms for nonviolent offenses. And sadly, some individuals have repeatedly returned to jail, trapped in a continuous cycle of recidivism, unprepared for a life outside of the criminal justice system without access to post-release treatment and programming. As more and more individuals are incarcerated or otherwise involved in the criminal justice system, the fiscal and human costs increase: Individuals with criminal records have difficulty finding stable employment and housing, leading to re-offending; the expenses associated with managing bloated jail populations can be extensive; and public safety and health are likewise compromised when crowded jails fail to meet the needs of incoming and exiting individuals. Despite being home to the largest jail in Texas (and third largest in the United States), Harris County has nonetheless struggled with jail overcrowding for the past four decades. In 1974, a group of inmates filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff and County Commissioners that challenged the conditions of their confinement; it culminated in a federal court order condemning the overcrowded conditions in the Harris County jail, and it provided jurisdiction to the federal court to ensure steps were taken to bring the conditions of the jail within constitutionally protected standards. For nearly two decades, that court wielded its oversight power heavily, frequently intervening to prevent conditions at the Harris County jail from deteriorating further. And yet, following the termination of the court's oversight in the mid-1990's, the Harris County jail population once again swelled. By the late 2000's, Harris County's jail population was exceeding the design capacity of the jail facilities by almost 2,000 inmates and exceeding the target figure for safe operation of the jail by more than 2,400 inmates. The large number of inmates forced the County to outsource approximately 1,000 inmates each month to jail facilities in Louisiana; additionally, the County housed approximately 2,100 inmates in jail facilities in other Texas counties. Unsafe and unsanitary crowding conditions prompted new federal oversight in the form of a 2008 investigation by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Facing a county budget burdened by the fiscal costs associated with such a large number of jail inmates, the Harris County Commissioners Court contracted with the Justice Management Institute (JMI) to conduct a study on improving the County's criminal justice system and addressing the County's jail crowding problem. The release of the JMI report in 2009 and the ongoing DOJ investigation inspired the formation of the Harris County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (HCCJCC), a panel of county officials and stakeholders, as the first step in a concerted effort to solve the County's jail population issues. Since then, various strategies have been implemented to address specialized populations, including those with substance abuse and mental health problems who too frequently end up behind bars. The County has implemented emergency response teams that provide assistance to those in mental health crisis, and District Attorney Devon Anderson has implemented a policy in regard to nonviolent individuals charged with a low-level drug offense who have a history of drug or alcohol dependency; rather than sentencing the person under 12.44(a), the defendant is offered intensive rehabilitation with community supervision to address the addiction issue. Additionally, in October 2014, District Attorney Anderson's office initiated the First Chance Intervention Program, a pilot diversion program offered to first-time offenders who would otherwise be charged with Class B possession of marijuana (2 ounces or less). Harris County Probation Director Teresa May has worked ardently with judges to drastically reduce technical violations among those being supervised, and Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia has expanded the use of legally permitted "good time" credit for eligible jail inmates who exhibit positive behavior. We are now seeing a reduction in Harris County's jail population, which has been below its operating capacity since October 2011. Sustaining that initial success would prove difficult, however, and an influx of inmates in the fall of 2013 nearly drove the jail population over its operating capacity. Similar influxes have, at times, necessitated Harris County to make requests to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards for additional jail beds through temporary variances (See Appendix 1). Absent further jail population reduction strategies, more variances may become necessary in the future, and further county resources may be expended on confinement. Those costs are not insubstantial. In fiscal year 2013, following a rise in the County's jail population, taxpayers spent nearly a half-million dollars per day operating the jail. Harris County stakeholders - including law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, jailers, County Commissioners, county budget staff, and treatment providers - must collaborate to deliver cost-savings to county taxpayers through jail population management strategies and through a more public health response to drug use and mental illness. Ultimately, where possible, low-risk, nonviolent individuals should be diverted and handled outside of already overburdened court and jail systems, rather than forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for their pretrial detention and later confinement; meanwhile, those who are exiting jail should have access to post-release assistance to stay on the right path. Smart-on-crime strategies can ensure that funds needed for social services and programs are not unnecessarily diverted to criminal justice oversight. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2015 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/publications/Blueprint%20for%20Criminal%20Justice%20Policy%20Solutions%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/publications/Blueprint%20for%20Criminal%20Justice%20Policy%20Solutions%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 135637 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice SystemsDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersGood Time CreditsInmatesJail OvercrowdingJailsPretrial Detention |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: Court-Ordered Population Caps in California County Jails Summary: California is in the midst of a reform era that is unprecedented both in depth and in scope. Public Safety Realignment, passed and implemented in 2011, has shifted thousands of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders from state-level jurisdiction to county-level jurisdiction. Arguably, California's county jail systems have been one of the most significantly altered components of the criminal justice system and Realignment is exacerbating some of the biggest challenges facing jails prior to October 2011 when Realignment began. Since the start of Realignment county jails have experienced increased pressure to house larger populations. In the quarter preceding the start of Realignment the average daily population (ADP) for California's jails was 71,293 (see Figure 1). By the first quarter of 2014, ADP had increased to 82,527, an additional 11,234 individuals compared to pre-Realignment. The diversity of California's counties means that the way in which these increased pressures manifest in each county varies greatly and is based on a multitude of factors such as the extent to which the county previously sent people to state prison, the local jail incarceration rate, the operating capacity of the jail, and whether the county jail system is operating under a court-ordered population cap. This report focuses on court-ordered population caps. Understanding some of the history and current context of existing court-ordered population caps can be helpful as the effects of Realignment continue to unfold. First, as will be discussed below, county court-ordered population caps have generally been in place for decades, long before Plata v. Brown and the Public Safety Realignment Act. Are the population caps forcing, or perhaps even allowing, counties to with caps to respond in notably different ways than counties without caps? Second, there is concern that Plata v. Brown has the potential to lead to "county-level Platas" as a result of increased attention to jail conditions in the context of these growing populations. Some believe that Realignment has created an environment where 58 counties are at risk of developing jail conditions that are unconstitutional and lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding may be on the horizon. In fact, lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding have been filed in several counties since the start of Realignment: Alameda, Fresno, Monterey and Riverside. Can counties at risk of new litigation - or even at risk of a revival of "orphaned jail cases" learn from past experiences? Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2015 at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Shelf Number: 137060 Keywords: County JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail OvercrowdingJailsPublic Safety Realignment |