Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:11 pm
Time: 8:11 pm
Results for jail administration
9 results foundAuthor: Schwartz, Jeffrey A. Title: A Guide to Preparing for and Responding to Jail Emergencies: Self-Audit Checklists, Resource Materials, Case Studies. Summary: A Guide to Preparing for and Responding to Jail Emergencies: Self-Audit Checklists, Resource Materials, Case Studies Cover This guide "will be broadly useful to U.S. jails in planning for crises, emergencies, and natural disasters and in developing the appropriate response capacities to cope with these events where they cannot be prevented" (p. vi). Six sections are contained in this publication: introduction; conducting an audit; Emergency Preparedness Self-Audit Checklist for Smaller Jails; Emergency Preparedness Self-Audit Checklist for Larger Jails; resource materials-leadership issues during crises, prevention of jail emergencies, and emergency teams; and case studies for the Maury County Jail fire, disturbance and escape at the Rensselaer County Jail (a new direct supervision jail in Troy, NY), Hurricane Andrew and the Florida Department of Corrections, and riots at Camp Hill (PA) State Correctional Institution. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2009. 180p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://nicic.gov/guide-preparing-and-responding-jail-emergencies-self-audit-checklists-resource-materials-case Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://nicic.gov/guide-preparing-and-responding-jail-emergencies-self-audit-checklists-resource-materials-case Shelf Number: 117140 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationEmergency PlanningJail AdministrationJail SupervisionJails |
Author: Bogard, David Title: Direct Supervision Jails: The Role of the Administrator Summary: This guide is intended to provide jail administrators the necessary information needed to effectively perform their jobs. It addresses the following issues: recruiting, hiring, and promoting staff; supervision of staff; determining the number of inmates one officer can supervise effectively; staff assignments; assessing direct supervision operations; strategies for managing a direct supervision housing unit, and other administrative issues. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2010. 66p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118175 Keywords: Jail AdministrationJails |
Author: Hoke, Scott Title: Inmate Behavior Management: Guide to Meeting Basic Needs Summary: Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public. Jail environments are one of the few environments in our communities where this type of behavior is expected and accepted. The environment created by these behaviors should not be considered acceptable and it is the jail administrators’ responsibility to operate their facilities in a way that prevents these behaviors from occurring. Relatively few resources make it challenging to provide assistance and detailed direction to administrators on how best to operate such a complex organization. National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has introduced an initiative designed to: teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to manage inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization (Hutchinson, Keller, and Reid 2009): 1 Assessing risks and needs 2 Assigning inmates to housing 3 Meeting inmates’ basic needs 4 Defining and conveying expectations for inmates 5 Supervising inmates 6 Keeping inmates productively occupied 7 Defining and conveying expectations is one in a series of documents or tools for jails practitioners to use as they implement this management strategy A Guide to Meeting Basic Needs offers practical information and guidance on implementing element three — meeting inmates’ basic needs. One important aspect of managing inmate behavior is to understand what motivates human behavior. Experience has shown that if a jail does not meet the basic human needs of inmates, the inmates will find a way to satisfy their needs in ways that may be unfavorable to the orderly operation of the jail. Understanding what motivates human behavior provides jail administrators with a very useful tool for managing inmates since it helps explain both good inmate behavior and bad. This document not only provides guidance to jail practitioners as they implement this element, but it also provides self-assessment checklists to determine how well the jail is doing in the delivery of basic needs and suggestions for area of improvement. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2014 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027704.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027704.pdf Shelf Number: 132577 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationInmate DisciplineInmatesJail AdministrationJailsPrison AdministrationPrison ViolencePrisoners |
Author: Hoke, Scott Title: Inmate Behavior Management: Northampton County Jail Case Study Summary: Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public. Jail environments are one of the few environments in our communities where this type of behavior is expected and accepted. The environment created by these behaviors should not be considered acceptable, and it is jail administrators' responsibility to operate their facilities in a way that prevents these behaviors from occurring. Effectively managing inmate behavior creates a safer environment for the inmates and staff and allows the jail to provide a valuable service to the public. Community safety is enhanced by strong jail management and facilities should aspire to create environments where compliance, respect, and cooperation are fostered. In an attempt to create a system of strong management, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) introduced an initiative that was designed to teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to control inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization (Hutchinson, Keller, and Reid 2009): 1 Assessing risks and needs 2 Assigning inmates to housing 3 Meeting inmates' basic needs 4 Defining and conveying expectations for inmates 5 Supervising inmates 6 Keeping inmates productively occupied Inmate Behavior Management: Northampton County Jail Case Study provides an example of how one facility planned and implemented the IBM management system and transitioned to a philosophy that refused to accept negative behavior as a natural result of the process of confinement. The experiences and results detailed in this report can be considered a valuable resource for any jail administrator who wants to make similar changes. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027702.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027702.pdf Shelf Number: 133014 Keywords: Correctional Administration Inmate Discipline Inmates Jail Administration JailsPrison Administration Prison Violence Prisoners |
Author: Hoke, Scott Title: Inmate Behavior Management: Brazos County Jail Case Study Summary: Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the public. Jail environments are one of the few environments in our communities where this type of behavior is expected and accepted. The environment created by these behaviors should not be considered acceptable, and it is jail administrators' responsibility to operate their facilities in a way that prevents these behaviors from occurring. Effectively managing inmate behavior creates a safer environment for inmates and staff and allows the jail to provide a valuable service to the public. Community safety is enhanced by strong jail management, and facilities should aspire to create environments where compliance, respect, and cooperation are fostered. In an attempt to create a system of strong management, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) introduced an initiative that was designed to teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to control inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization (Hutchinson, Keller, and Reid 2009): 1 Assessing risks and needs 2 Assigning inmates to housing 3 Meeting inmates' basic needs 4 Defining and conveying expectations for inmates 5 Supervising inmates 6 Keeping inmates productively occupied Inmate Behavior Management: Brazos County Jail Case Study provides an example of how one facility planned and implemented the IBM management system and transitioned to a philosophy that refused to accept negative behavior as a natural result of the process of confinement. The experiences and results detailed in this report can be considered a valuable resource for any jail administrator who wants to make similar changes. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2014. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027703.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027703.pdf Shelf Number: 133021 Keywords: Correctional Administration Inmate Discipline Inmates Jail Administration JailsPrison Administration Prison Violence Prisoners |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Title: CRIPA Investigation of the New York City Department of Correction Jails on Rikers Island Summary: Attorney General Eric Holder and United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara announced today the completion of the Justice Department's multi-year civil investigation pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA") into the conditions of confinement of adolescent male inmates on Rikers Island. The investigation, which focused on use of force by staff, inmate-on-inmate violence, and use of punitive segregation during the period 2011-2013, concluded that there is a pattern and practice of conduct at Rikers Island that violates the rights of adolescents protected by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The investigation found that adolescent inmates are not adequately protected from physical harm due to the rampant use of unnecessary and excessive force by New York City Department of Correction ("DOC") staff and violence inflicted by other inmates. In addition, the investigation found that DOC relies too heavily on punitive segregation as a disciplinary measure, placing adolescent inmates in what amounts to solitary confinement at an alarming rate and for excessive periods of time. Many of the adolescent inmates are particularly vulnerable because they suffer from mental illness. Details: New York: United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, 2014. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/August14/RikersReportPR/SDNY%20Rikers%20Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/August14/RikersReportPR/SDNY%20Rikers%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 133871 Keywords: AdolescentsCorrectional AdministrationInmate ViolenceJail AdministrationJails (New York City)Prison ViolencePrisoner AbusePrisonersRikers IslandSegregation |
Author: Ortiz, Natalie Rose Title: County Jails at a Crossroads: An Examination of the Jail Population and Pretrial Release Summary: County governments provide essential services to create healthy, safe, vibrant and economically resilient communities. Maintaining safe and secure communities is one of the most important functions of county governments. Most counties are involved in almost every aspect of law enforcement and crime prevention, including policing, judicial and legal services and corrections. Counties own 87 percent of all jails in the United States through which they provide supervision, detention and other correctional services to more than 700,000 persons in an effort to protect public safety and reduce recidivism. Effective jail management along with fair justice system policies and practices results in strategic management of the jail population and prudent county spending on the corrections system. One way to effectively manage the jail population is to improve the pretrial release process. Pretrial policies and practices involve defendants awaiting resolution to their case. Using the results of a 2015 NACo survey of county jails, an examination of the pretrial population in jail and policies impacting pretrial release in county jails finds: THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFINED COUNTY JAIL POPULATION IS PRETRIAL AND LOW RISK. Two-thirds of the confined population in county jails is pretrial and the proportion reaches three-quarters in almost half of county jails. This trend is more pronounced in jails located in small counties - with less than 50,000 residents - and medium-sized counties - with populations between 50,000 and 250,000 residents. Forty (40) percent of responding county jails use a validated risk assessment at booking. Most often, these jails identify a majority of their confined jail population as low risk. Because these tools are used at booking, when defendants are admitted to jail after arrest, jails are identifying most of their pretrial population as low risk. COUNTY JAILS ARE CAUGHT BETWEEN COURTS' DECISION-MAKING AND INCREASES IN THE JAIL POPULATION AND JAIL COSTS. Pretrial release decision-making is a product of the court. Understanding the impact of courts' decision-making, especially during pretrial, on the jail population is important for counties with rapidly rising jail populations and costs. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the jail population increased by 20 percent between 2000 and 2012 with the pretrial population comprising a rising share, while county corrections costs soared by 74 percent. Forty-four (44) percent of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey report that managing jail costs is one of their top challenges. Reducing the jail population - especially the number of people with mental illnesses - is a priority for almost three quarters of responding jails. More than 65 percent of county jails report that their county boards are willing to collaborate on reducing the jail population and jail costs. Counties can act as conveners, bringing together the court and jail to discuss and implement strategies that may effectively address the pretrial population in jail. SOME COUNTY JAILS SUPERVISE PRETRIAL DETAINEES OUTSIDE OF CONFINEMENT. A third of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey release pretrial detainees from custody and supervise them in the community through different types of community based programs, depending on the needs of the detainees. These programs may be focused specifically on pretrial supervision - where the type of supervision used varies on a case-by-case basis - or deal with both pretrial and convicted populations through health treatment, electronic monitoring, home arrest and work release. Most county jails have more than one type of program. Pretrial supervision programs focus overwhelmingly on the pretrial population (95 percent of their population), followed by physical health care and behavioral health treatment programs in which close to half of the supervised population is pretrial. Overall, few pretrial detainees are placed in these programs. Only 28 percent of the detainees released by respondent jails in 2014 were pretrial. The county jail programs that supervise pretrial persons are just one part of the larger county pretrial system that includes formal pretrial services agencies that provide information on defendants to judges for the pretrial release decision; policies that force release pretrial detainees when the jail population reaches a certain capacity; and bond review practices. County jails are at a crossroads, confronting increasing pressure on their physical capacity and rising jail costs, while lacking the decision-making for pretrial release. The courts decide who is released pretrial, affecting the size of county jail population and, consequently, jail costs. Reducing the jail population and costs is a priority for jail administrators and county boards. Some counties fund programs that would release pretrial detainees from confinement and supervise them in the community, but the pretrial population accounts for a small share of who is released and supervised in the community. Through coordination and collaboration across the county justice system, counties are in a strong position to lead the way in pretrial release, developing strategies and leveraging resources that assist in managing the county jail population and safeguarding public safety. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Counties, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Shelf Number: 136139 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsJail AdministrationJail PopulationJailsOffender SupervisionPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: San Francisco. Office of the Controller. City Services Auditor Title: County Jail Needs Assessment: Hall of Justice Replacement Jail Summary: The San Francisco Sheriff's Department ("Sheriff's Department") manages six jails in San Francisco and San Mateo County. Two of the jails, County Jail #3 and County Jail #4, are located in the Hall of Justice alongside the Superior Court, Police Headquarters, the District Attorney's Office, and other City agencies. Opened in 1961, the Hall of Justice has since been found to be susceptible to severe structural damage in the event of an earthquake. The City and County of San Francisco ("City") has determined that these inadequacies cannot be remedied outside of a significant capital improvement effort. In addition, the antiquated design and space constraints of County Jail #3 and County Jail #4 create safety concerns and limit the Sheriff's Department's ability to offer in-custody programs to inmates. As a result of these existing needs, the City plans to replace County Jails #3 and #4 with a new facility ("Replacement Jail"). As part of the planning process for the Replacement Jail, the Sheriff's Department and the Jail Planning Working Group asked the San Francisco Controller's Office to complete a needs assessment of facility characteristics that would best meet incarceration needs. For this analysis, the Controller's Office interviewed 25 key stakeholders, reviewed documentation provided by the Sheriff's Department, and analyzed data on demographic and criminal justice trends in the San Francisco jail population and the City and County of San Francisco. This report forecasts future jail bed needs, discusses salient jail design features, and documents elements of the jail system such as current facilities, program offerings, and characteristics of the inmate population. Key Findings The Controller's Office forecasts the need for a 481-688 bed Replacement Jail in 2019. The projection is based on forecasts by two external consultants and internal data on the impacts of state realignment. A podular jail design similar to County Jail #5 has many advantages over the current linear design of County Jails #3 and #4 including improved visual supervision, increased program space, and shared areas connected to the pods (e.g. exercise area, day room, exam area, etc.) to minimize the need for inmate escort throughout the jail. The Sheriff's Department offers robust offender programming throughout the jail system, including the newly opened re-entry pod which provides intensive services to state realignment inmates. The Sheriff's Department plans to continue the use of programs in the Replacement Jail, and therefore, the new jail will need to be constructed with more space than is currently available in County Jails #3 and #4. The Sheriff's Department should continue to increase outcome measurement and strategic planning for its system of programs. The design of County Jails #3 and #4 does not allow special populations such as gang dropouts and civil commitments to be housed efficiently. For example, "Sexually Violent Predators" (SVP) are civil commitments that must be housed separately from the general population. On January 29, 2013, four SVPs were housed in a 28-bed unit, leaving 24 empty beds that could only be occupied by other SVPs. The Sheriff's Department should consider jail design strategies that will mitigate these issues and increase housing flexibility. The San Francisco Sheriff's Department ("Sheriff's Department") manages six jails in San Francisco and San Mateo County. Two of the jails, County Jail #3 and County Jail #4, are Type II1 facilities located in the Hall of Justice alongside the Superior Court, Police Headquarters, the District Attorney's Office, and other City agencies. Opened in 1961, the Hall of Justice has since been found to be susceptible to severe structural damage in the event of an earthquake. The City and County of San Francisco ("City") has determined that these inadequacies cannot be remedied outside of a significant capital improvement effort. In addition, the antiquated design and space constraints of County Jail #3 and County Jail #4 create safety concerns and limit the Sheriff's Department's ability to offer in-custody programs to inmates. As a result of these existing needs, the City plans to replace County Jails #3 and #4. The Hall of Justice Replacement Jail ("Replacement Jail") has been part of the City and County of San Francisco's 10 Year Capital Plan since the beginning of the Capital Planning Program in FY2006-2007. The City has determined that the Replacement Jail facility should be constructed adjacent to existing Superior Court facilities at the Hall of Justice for safety, security and cost reasons. This would allow inmates in the Replacement Jail to be transported to court appearances in a timely fashion through secure elevators and corridors. The Sheriff's Department found in a 2011 estimate that the Department would need to spend at least $6 million in one-time costs and more than $11 million in ongoing annual costs to transport inmates to court if the Hall of Justice Replacement Jail was constructed near other San Francisco county jails in San Mateo County, California. As part of the planning process for the Replacement Jail, the Sheriff's Department and the Jail Planning Working Group asked the San Francisco Controller's Office to complete a needs assessment of facility characteristics that would best meet incarceration needs. For this analysis, the Controller's Office interviewed 25 stakeholders including, but not limited to, representatives from the Sheriff's Department, the Superior Court of California, Adult Probation, Jail Health Services, and Five Keys Charter School. The Controller's Office also reviewed documentation provided by the Sheriff's Department and other stakeholders, and analyzed data on demographic and criminal justice trends in the San Francisco jail population and the City and County of San Francisco. This report documents elements of the jail system including current facilities, programs, classification system, staffing, and inmate population, as well as needs for a Replacement Jail. Details: San Francisco: Office of the Controller, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2017 at: http://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/10.2013%20Jail%20Needs%20Assessment_Controller.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/10.2013%20Jail%20Needs%20Assessment_Controller.pdf Shelf Number: 147590 Keywords: Jail AdministrationJailsSheriffs |
Author: Armstrong, Andrea Title: The Impact of 300 Years of Jail Conditions. The New Orleans Prosperity Index: Tricentennial Edition, March 2018 Summary: New Orleans has jailed people for almost as long as the city has existed. Beginning from the first incarnation of Orleans Parish Prison in 1721 by Jean-Baptiste de Bienville at Jackson Square to its current iteration under federal court supervision near the criminal courthouse at Tulane Avenue and Broad Street, the jail has imposed inhumane conditions on the people detained there. But the conditions in the jail not only affect those detained, but our community as well. Modern accounts of Orleans Parish Prison (OPP), recently renamed the Orleans Justice Center, have focused on the impact of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and its aftermath, with little attention to centuries of detention that came before. This article links the current conditions in the jail to the jail's historical role in New Orleans to explore the extent to which detention in the New Orleans jail has contributed to racial inequality in New Orleans today. A historical account of the jail is important to understand the centuries of inhumane conditions imposed overwhelmingly on African American members of our community. Written accounts from the 1800s to present describe dangerous, unsanitary, and torturous conditions for Orleans parish detainees. As recently as 2013, Federal District Court Judge Lance Africk described the conditions in the jail as "an indelible stain on the community." These dehumanizing conditions are disproportionately imposed on African Americans. Local, state, and federal legislative reforms of criminal justice policies have focused on the drivers and outputs of incarceration, but have largely ignored the conditions of confinement themselves. In so doing, these reform efforts ignore the devastating and lifelong effects on detained individuals and our community. This essay concludes by highlighting the importance of community engagement in improving conditions at the jail. Details: New Orleans: Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, 2018. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series 2018-05: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3152415 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3152415 Shelf Number: 149875 Keywords: Civil RightsJail AdministrationJailsPrison ConditionsPrison LawPrisoners |