Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 18, 2024 Thu
Time: 5:35 am
Time: 5:35 am
Results for jails
107 results foundAuthor: Bennett, David M. Title: Jail Capacity Planning Guide: A Systems Approach Summary: This guide describes key population management strategies that have as their foundation the necessity of holding offenders accountable while making judicious use of detention resources. The guide also makes the case for the importance of identifying offenders who pose higher risks and targeting them for the most intensive correctional resources, making available a full continuum of alternatives to jail, relying on evidence based sanctions and quality treatments, and building in transition and stepdown options from jails. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2009. 81p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117698 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCorrectional InstitutionsJails |
Author: Robertson, James R. Title: Jail Planning and Expansion: Local Officials and Their Roles. 2nd ed. Summary: This document describes a process to help elected officials and other policymakers develop jail facilities. It outlines all participants' roles, the decisions they make, and the products they create. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2010. 49p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117742 Keywords: Jails |
Author: 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: 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: Hayes, Lindsay M. Title: National Study of Jail Suicide: 20 Years Later Summary: This report presents the most comprehensive updated information on the extent and distribution of inmate suicides throughout the country, including data on the changing face of suicide victims. Most important, the study challenges both jail and health-care officials and their respective staffs to remain diligent in identifying and managing suicidal inmates. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2010. 68p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119104 Keywords: Inmate SuicidesJail SuicideJailsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Inmates |
Author: Torrey, E. Fuller Title: More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States Summary: This study found that Americans with severe mental illnesses are three times more likely to be in jail or prison than in a psychiatric hospital. The odds of a seriously mentally ill individual being imprisoned rather than hospitalized are 3.2 to 1, state data shows. The report compares statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Bureau of Justice Statistics collected during 2004 and 2005, respectively. The report also found a very strong correlation between those states that have more mentally ill persons in jails and prisons and those states that are spending less money on mental health services. Details: Arlington, VA: Treatment Advocacy Center and the National Sheriffs' Association, 2010. 22p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118698 Keywords: JailsMental HealthMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPrisoners |
Author: Bharadwaj, Priti Title: Liberty at the Cost of Innocence: A Report on Jail Adalats in India Summary: The most striking characteristic of the Indian prisons is its high under-trial population. India stands at number 14 in the list of 195 countries across the world with the highest number of pre-trial detainees. More than 65 per cent of the prison inmates in India are awaiting trial. The accused can be released on bail if they or a person known to them executes a bond that guarantees their presence at trial. In some cases, bail may be denied if there are cogent reasons to believe that the accused may tamper with evidence or commit other offences while on bail. However, all persons in detention must be tried within a reasonable time period to avoid unnecessary hardship on those who are innocent and yet imprisoned. Policy makers in India have recognised the magnitude of the problem of high percentage of under-trial population in prisons. The legislature and the judiciary have both stepped in to ensure that the bail regime is liberalised, but the practice remains far removed from the intent. Disposal of cases still takes a long time. In fact so much systemic dysfunction has piled up that there is a growing justification for adopting “short-cut” mechanisms – that also dilute the ‘due process rights’ – so that the system can be seen to be functioning. Fast track courts, plea-bargaining, jail adalats are some of the institutionalised examples of this. Others include proposed ideas to allow police to record confessions, reduce the burden of proof from ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to the ‘subjective satisfaction’ of the judge. Translated literally as prison court, jail adalats see judges holding courts in prisons to dispose off cases of “petty” offenders who are willing to admit guilt. Devised as a strategy to deal with overcrowding and high under-trial population, jail adalats have not been able to address the problem. In fact, many argue that they have themselves become a part of the problem. Jail adalats have received repeated and consistent endorsement from Chief Justices8 of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as well as high powered committees set up by the judiciary. This alone makes a study of the mechanism useful. But combined with both, the complete lack of documentation on the subject and inconsistent procedure and practices, the study is particularly relevant. This study was undertaken to examine how the process is carried out in different states. One of the primary aims of the study was to identify good practices of holding jail adalats and examine whether these could be adopted in other states. This was based on the assumption that even though jail adalats are not the best way to reduce the number of under-trial prisoners, they can be used in the interim period while broader systemic criminal justice reforms are underway. It was assumed that though short on technical procedure, these adalats are perhaps a just way to deal with “petty ” offenders who, if willing to admit guilt, can be released from the prisons after recording a conviction. However, having conducted the study, these assumptions have been reconsidered (as shown by the findings in the report). This report seeks to encourage a debate on the use of short-cut mechanisms in the criminal justice system like the jail adalats. It brings to the fore, the problems that these hastily thought out “solutions” give rise to. The target audience for this report includes the prison and judicial officers who arrange and hold these adalats; the political leaders who may be induced into thinking that these adalats should be given statutory recognition without any further debate; other state agencies like the human rights commissions which recommend their use; and the civil society. Details: New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 2009. 83p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: India URL: Shelf Number: 119444 Keywords: BailCorrectionsJailsPretrial Detention (India) |
Author: English, Kim Title: Sexual Assault in Jail and Juvenile Facilities: Promising Practices for Prevention and Response: Final Report Summary: Public Law 108-79, the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (also known as PREA), issued a call for correctional agencies nationwide to address prisoner sexual assault. This groundbreaking legislation required correctional administrators to identify, prevent, intervene and prosecute these incidents, and to ensure programs and services to meet the complex needs of victims and perpetrators. Soon after the passage of PREA, the National Institute of Justice sponsored several research activities to examine prisoner sexual assault within the culture of correctional institutions, within state department of corrections, and within jails and juvenile correctional facilities (the current project). This report presents the findings from a descriptive study of promising practices to prevent and respond to inmate-on-inmate sexual assault in jails and resident-on-resident sexual assault in juvenile correctional facilities, including a comprehensive literature review of institutional sexual assault which is included as Appendix A. Descriptive studies set the stage for more elaborate investigation later. Details: Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Research and Statistics, 2010. 356p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119518 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsJailsPrison RapePrison ViolencePrisonersSexual Assault |
Author: Noonan, Margaret Title: Mortality in Local Jails, 2000 - 2007 Summary: This report describes the specific medical conditions causing deaths in jails nationwide during an eight-year period. For the leading medical causes of mortality, comparative estimates and mortality rates are presented by gender, age, race and Hispanic origin, and the length of time served in jail. The report includes detailed statistics on causes of death as well as more acute events such as suicides, homicides and accidents. Mortality as related to the size of the jail is also discussed. Jail inmate death rates are compared with rates in the general U.S. resident population using a direct standardization. Estimates and mortality rates for the top 50 jail jurisdictions in the United States are also presented. Highlights include the following: 1) From 2000 through 2007, local jail administrators reported 8,110 inmate deaths in custody. Deaths in jails increased each year, from 905 in 2000 to 1,103 in 2007; 2) The mortality rate per 100,000 local jail inmates declined from 152 deaths per 100,000 inmates to 141 per 100,000 between 2000 and 2007, while the jail inmate population increased 31% from 597,226 to 782,592; 3) Between 2000 and 2007, the suicide rates were higher in small jails than large jails. In jails holding 50 or fewer inmates, the suicide rate was 169 per 100,000; in the largest jails, the suicide rate was 27 per 100,000 inmates. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Deaths in Custody Reporting Program: Accessed August 20, 2010 at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/mlj07.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/mlj07.pdf Shelf Number: 119647 Keywords: Deaths in CustodyHealth CareInmate DeathsJail HomicidesJailsSuicides |
Author: Beck, Allen J. Title: Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-2009 Summary: This report resents data from the National Inmate Survey (NIS), 2008-09, conducted in 167 state and federal prisons, 286 local jails, and 10 special correctional facilities (operated by U.S. Armed Forces, Indian tribes, or the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) between October 2008 and December 2009, with a sample of 81,566 inmates ages 18 or older. The report provides a listing of facilities ranked according to the prevalence of sexual victimization, as required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79). The prevalence of victimization as reported by inmates during a personal interview is based on sexual activity in the 12 months prior to the interview or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. Included are estimates of nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, inmate-on-inmate and staff sexual misconduct, and level of coercion. The report also presents findings on reported sexual victimization by selected characteristics of inmates, including demographic characteristics, sexual history and orientation, and criminal justice status. It includes details on victims’ experiences and the circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual victimization. Highlights include the following: 1) An estimated 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months; 2) Female inmates in prison (4.7%) or jail (3.1%) were more than twice as likely as male inmates in prison (1.9%) or jail (1.3%) to report experiencing inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization; and 3) Among inmates who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 13% of male prison inmates and 19% of male jail inmates said they were victimized within the first 24 hours after admission, compared to 4% of female inmates in prison and jail. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2010 at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf Shelf Number: 119678 Keywords: InmatesJailsPrison RapePrisonsSex OffensesSexual AssaultsSexual Victimization |
Author: Crayton, Anna Title: Partnering with Jails to Improve Reentry: A Guidebook for Community-Based Organizations Summary: A wide variety of community organizations have the skills, resources, and motivation needed to address the challenges of jail reentry, including substance abuse treatment providers, homeless shelters, workforce development centers, neighborhood clinics, community colleges, and many others. This guidebook provides community-based organizations with an overview of jail reentry and concrete steps to develop and sustain a reentry partnership with their local jail. It also addresses difficulties that might arise, and provides examples of strong partnerships between CBOs and jails that serve as models. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2010. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2010 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412211-partner-with-jails.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412211-partner-with-jails.pdf Shelf Number: 119889 Keywords: Community ParticipationCommunity-Based OrganizationsJailsReentry |
Author: Martin, Mark D. Title: Programs and Activities: Tools for Managing Inmate Behavior Summary: Violence, vandalism, and unsanitary conditions prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the public. These conditions often result from insufficient attention to inmate behavior management, though over the past 25 years, important lessons about managing and controlling inmate behavior have emerged. One lesson is that a jail cannot control inmate behavior by focusing primarily on physical containment. Although physical security measures such as locks, steel doors, security glass, and alarm systems remain essential, a jail must actively manage inmate behavior to achieve a safe, clean, and secure environment. Keeping inmates productively occupied through inmate programming provides a powerful incentive for inmates to maintain positive behavior. Programs offer something constructive for inmates to do or learn, meaning there is less time for negative behaviors to become management problems for staff. Programs contribute to making staff work environments safer, with reduced threats of violence and hostility. They offer opportunities for self-improvement, possibly helping inmates function more productively in their communities upon release. Finally, there is likely to be a cost benefit: it can be less costly to implement programs in the long run than to constantly replace broken showerheads, repaint graffiti-ridden walls, or pay overtime for staff responding to inmate disturbances. Effective jail program planning integrates an assessment of jail and inmate needs with evidence-based programs. These programs fall into three distinct categories: activity-focused, reformative, and reintegration. Activity-focused programs further the primary goals of keeping inmates busy while they are in custody. Reformative programs provide inmates with knowledge and skills to address personal needs. Reintegration programs prepare inmates for their return to the community as productive citizens. This manual offers practical information and guidance on planning and implementing inmate programs. It provides a logic model for developing and assessing the programs. It includes activity-focused, reformative, and reintegrative program examples with varying levels of complexity and resources, including those that are free and easy to implement. In the manual, there are steps an administrator can take to provide leadership and support as well as overcome barriers to inmate programming. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 2010. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 10, 2010 at: http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/024368.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nicic.gov/Downloads/PDF/Library/024368.pdf Shelf Number: 120438 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCorrectional ProgramsInmatesJails |
Author: Guerino, Paul Title: Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2007-2008 Summary: This report examines 2007 and 2008 data from the Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV). Conducted since 2004, the SSV is an annual collection of official records on incidents of inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. This report presents counts of nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment reported to correctional authorities in adult prisons, jails, and other adult correctional facilities. Appendix tables include counts of sexual victimization, by type, for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, all state systems, and surveyed jail jurisdictions. An in-depth examination of substantiated incidents is also presented, covering the number and characteristics of victims and perpetrators, location, time of day, nature of the injuries, impact on the victims, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators. Highlights include the following: Correctional administrators reported 7,444 allegations of sexual victimization in 2008 and 7,374 allegations in 2007. About 54% of substantiated incidents of sexual victimization involved only inmates, while 46% of substantiated incidents involved staff with inmates. Female inmates were disproportionately victimized by both other inmates and staff in federal and state prisons, as well as local jails. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: BJS Special Report: Accessed February 2, 2011 at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svraca0708.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svraca0708.pdf Shelf Number: 120662 Keywords: InmatesJailsPrison RapePrisoners, Sexual VictimizationPrisonsSexual AssaultSexual Violence |
Author: Walsh, Nastassia Title: When More Is Less: How a Larger Women's Jail in Baltimore Will Reduce Public Safety and Diminish Resources for Positive Social Investment Summary: Despite declines in the number of women being held in the Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC, or “the jail”), the State of Maryland, which operates the jail, is planning a new women’s facility with twice the beds currently being used, with an ability to increase capacity to up to 1,024 women. Projections used for the planning of the new jail are based on old information and trends indicating an increase in crime, arrests and incarceration that never materialized. While the estimated operational costs for the new Women’s Detention Center are unavailable, the total project costs to plan and build it are estimated at $181 million, including planning and construction, to be completed in 2015. If Maryland insists on building a jail, instead of building a larger jail with the capacity to hold more than twice as many women as are currently detained, the State of Maryland and the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services should build a jail with fewer beds and more space for services and treatment, and develop a strategic plan for further reducing the number of women held pretrial in Baltimore City. As about nine out of 10 women in the Baltimore jail are still awaiting trial on the current offense, multiple options are available to help ensure that people return to court and receive any services or programs they need to avoid future involvement in the justice system. Through modest programs and interventions like reminder phone call systems, expanded and more substantive pretrial release supervision, and more justice system diversion, jail should be a rare last resort for women awaiting trial in Baltimore. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2011. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/11-01_REP_WhenMoreisLess_MD-AC.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/11-01_REP_WhenMoreisLess_MD-AC.pdf Shelf Number: 120706 Keywords: Female InmatesFemale Offenders (Baltimore)JailsPretrial Release |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: The Elected Official's Toolkit for Jail Reentry Summary: Nine million individuals are released from local jails each year, many struggling with mental illness, homelessness, and substance abuse. Jail reentry initiatives work to address these needs, thereby reducing both recidivism and criminal justice costs. The Elected Official's Toolkit for Jail Reentry provides information and resources for local elected officials interested in launching or expanding a jail reentry initiative. The Toolkit includes an overview of jail reentry, first steps for developing a context-appropriate jail reentry initiative, essential facts and data to engage stakeholders, sample legislation, profiles of elected officials who have championed jail reentry, and a guide to additional resources. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2011. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412287-Elected-Officials-Reentry-Toolkit.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412287-Elected-Officials-Reentry-Toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 120762 Keywords: JailsPrisoner Reentry |
Author: Hickert, Audrey O. Title: Evaluation of the Homeless Assistance Rental Program (HARP) Summary: In 2009 the Salt Lake County Community Resources and Development Division (CRDD) asked the Utah Criminal Justice Center (UCJC) to conduct a follow-up study to their 2007 evaluation of the Homeless Assistance Rental Program (HARP). Specifically, CRDD was interested in finding out whether or not the assumptions from the first HARP study remained true (e.g., reductions in jail use, increase in treatment compliance) and if HARP continued to fulfill its goals. The 2007 HARP study examined the first 102 clients in HARP. At that time most clients were referred to HARP from Substance Abuse Services (63%), had been booked into the jail in the year prior to housing (56%), and had received financial assistance from the Department of Workforce Services (DWS) in the two years prior to housing (90%). Only 13% had involvement with Valley Mental Health (VMH). HARP provided single-bedroom units to two-thirds (63%) of clients and a median rent contribution of $454 across all clients. Median time in housing was nine (9) months for exited clients, with 36% of clients having exited the program at the time of the evaluation, and six (6) months for active clients (ranged from 1 to 22 months). Exit status was 43% negative, 19% neutral, and 38% positive. Compared to the year prior to receiving HARP housing, jail bookings dropped from 56% to 33% in the year following housing start (new charge bookings dropped from 22% to 13%). The criminal justice cost benefit indicated a $2.64 return for every dollar invested in the program, primarily due to reduced future victimization. Recommendations included improving the administration and recording of client measures (case management, Self-Sufficiency and Housing First matrices) and continuing the process of collaborating and streamlining processes across partnering agencies. The current study examines all HARP clients from inception through August 1, 2009 (N = 222) and compares them to a comparison group of homeless individuals who received a similar type of supportive housing intervention (Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) through The Road Home Shelter, N = 231). The addition of a comparison group provides some context for the outcomes observed for the HARP clients. In addition, this follow-up study allows for a larger sample, longer follow-up period, and more complete records. Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2010. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2011 at: http://ucjc.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/HARP_Final_070810.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/HARP_Final_070810.pdf Shelf Number: 121089 Keywords: Homelessness (Utah)HousingJails |
Author: New Mexico Sentencing Commission Title: Cost of Housing Arrestees Held on Felony Charges: A Profile of Six New Mexico Detention Centers Summary: This report provides a count of individuals held on felony charges in six detention facilities in New Mexico on June 30, 2003 and estimates the annual cost of housing four categories of felony arrestees throughout the state. The estimated annual cost of housing arrestees using actual facility cost in NM detention facilities is $25.4 million. The following is the cost estimate for each category: • Sentenced to prison and awaiting transport to a state facility is $2.4 million. • Probation and parole violators sentenced to county facility is almost $4.3 million. • Sentenced to detention facility is almost $6.6 million. • Unsentenced probation and parole violators is $12.1 million. The cost per day for New Mexico detention centers ranged from $21 to $147. The average cost per day for all New Mexico detention facilities was $56. The six detention facilities in the study comprised 60% of all arrestees held in New Mexico detention facilities on June 30, 2003. 68.9% of arrestees held in the six selected detention facilities were charged with at least one felony charge. Of the 2,536 arrestees with felony charges held in the six detention facilities on June 30, 2003: • 33.2% fit one of the felony categories for which we calculated costs. • 66.8% were unsentenced with new charges or warrants other than probation or parole violation. In the future it would be beneficial to further refine the felony categories used to calculate cost estimates to separate parole violators from probation violators and report the number of prisoners from the Department of Corrections housed in detention facilities for court dates. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2005. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Shelf Number: 121214 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCost-AnalysisDetention (New Mexico)Felony OffendersInmatesJails |
Author: Guerin, Paul Title: Length of Stay for Arrestees Held on Felony Charges: A Profile of Six New Mexico Detention Facilities Summary: The goal of this report was to better understand how long felony arrestees stay in detention centers and the corresponding cost. Specifically, the report looks at the length of stay of felony arrestees in six New Mexico detention facilities. Highlights of the study include the following: 68.9% of the arrestees held in local New Mexico detention facilities were charged with at least one felony. More than 50% of arrestees held in detention centers spent almost 7 1/2 months in jail (224 days). Unsentenced probation violators (546 arrestees) spent more than two months in jail from the time they were booked to the time they were sentenced. Median length of stay varied from a low of 38 days in Eddy County to a high of 96 days in Dona Ana County. Reducing the length of stay of probation violators will reduce jail crowding. Unsentenced arrestees on new charges spent a median of 167 days in jail from the time they were booked to the time the case was closed by the District Court. According to an NIJ study, courts can exercise considerable control over how quickly cases move through the court system without sacrificing justice. Slightly more than 18% (459) of all arrestees in the sample were sentenced to prison. Between the date these individuals were sentenced and the date they were transported to prison they spent a median of 19 days in jail. This ranged from 13 days in Dona Ana County to 34 days in Eddy County. These individuals accounted for 8,721 bed days. Reducing the length of stay by 50% would save almost 4,500 bed days. Detention center administrators do not control jail admissions or length of stay and so cannot directly affect jail populations. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2005. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Shelf Number: 121215 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCost AnalysisDetention (New Mexico)Felony OffendersJails |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Title: Compendium of Tribal Crime Data, 2011 Summary: The Tribal Law and Order Act, 2010 (TLOA; Pub. L. No. 111-211, 124 Stat. 2258, Section 251(b)) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to establish and implement a tribal data collection system and to support tribal participation in national records and information systems. This is the first BJS report on the status of tribal data collection activities as required by the act. It describes BJS’s activities between July 2010 and June 2011 to improve tribal law enforcement reporting to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) and BJS’s direct collaboration with tribal criminal justice systems to collect data about tribal court systems. It summarizes data published by BJS on jails in Indian country, tribal law enforcement agencies, state prosecutors’ offices with jurisdiction in Indian country, tribal youth in the federal justice system, and reporting to the UCR. It describes activities and funding opportunities to improve tribal crime data collection through programs such as the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), Byrne/JAG funding, and UCR training. Details: Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2011 at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ctcd11.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ctcd11.pdf Shelf Number: 121956 Keywords: Crime Statistics (U.S.)Indians of North AmericaIndigenous PeoplesJailsTribal Law Enforcement |
Author: John Howard Society of Toronto Title: Homeless and Jailed: Jailed and Homeless Summary: Previous research has established that being homeless increases the likelihood of ending up in jail, while imprisonment increases the risk of homelessness and the length of time that homeless people spend in shelters. The number of homeless prisoners in Toronto area jails is increasing. And a small, but growing, number of men are caught in a revolving door between jails and shelters. This report explores the housing situation of adult men serving sentences in Toronto area jails, focusing on those who are homeless. These prisoners‘ housing plans on discharge, as well as their immediate and anticipated service needs in the months after release, are documented. Their residential locations are mapped in relation to selected neighbourhood characteristics. The survey results are based on interviews with 363 sentenced prisoners who have spent a minimum of five consecutive nights in custody and who are within days of scheduled release from one of four provincial correctional facilities in the Greater Toronto Area. Among this group, 22.9 percent, or roughly one of every five prisoners, was homeless when incarcerated, that is they were staying in a shelter, living on the street (in places considered unfit for human habitation), in a treatment facility, or staying at the home of a friend, paying no rent. The latter situation is a common form of hidden homelessness; if persons in that situation are excluded, in line with a more conservative definition of homelessness, a total of 19.3 percent were homeless. The average stay in custody was a little more than two months. Within days of discharge, the prisoners‘ housing plans indicate that their overall projected rate of homelessness would increase by 40 percent. Half of them plan to return to their pre-custody housing situation, even if it meant staying in a shelter, on the street, or using a friend‘s couch. Of those who were homeless before being incarcerated, the majority, 85.5 percent, anticipate being homeless again on discharge. Among prisoners who were housed before being incarcerated, 16.4 percent anticipate being homeless upon discharge. Thirteen percent of the survey respondents were homeless both before and after being incarcerated. Overall, 32.2 percent, or almost one of every three prisoners had plans upon discharge to go a shelter, live on the street, or couch-surf at the home of a friend. Another 12 percent of these prisoners are at risk of being homeless since they do not know where they will go. If these two groups are combined, a total of 44.6 percent are homeless or at risk of homelessness. This is a large, identifiable stream of people who should be targeted for assistance to reduce chronic homelessness. Analysts have pointed out repeatedly that relative to other homeless sub-groups, those who are chronically homeless have the greatest need for appropriate housing and services, an investment that would provide the largest social returns (Trypuc and Robinson 2009). Homeless prisoners are a vulnerable group – they tend to be older, 22.3 percent are 50 years of age or older. A high proportion of them, 43.3 percent, have severe health impairments. Most of them rely on income support programs, whose benefits they lose while in jail; in many cases, they must re-apply for these benefits after they are discharged. Homeless prisoners requested more types of service to deal with community re-entry than housed prisoners. Yet, almost all the prisoners (95 percent) said they needed various kinds of support. Overall, the survey respondents were only slightly more likely than the general population to have been living in low-income neighbourhoods that lack adequate services for the needs of residents. Homeless prisoners were most likely to have been living in downtown and City-designated priority neighbourhoods. Details: Toronto: John Howard Society of Toronto, 2010. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/ef/6e/a2fdc45d452d8cc6e23535371b07.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/ef/6e/a2fdc45d452d8cc6e23535371b07.pdf Shelf Number: 122110 Keywords: Homeless Persons (Toronto)HomelessnessHousingInmatesJailsPrisoners |
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: Harcourt, Bernard Title: Reducing Mass Incarceration: Lessons from the Deinstitutionalization of Mental Hospitals in the 1960s Summary: In 1963, President Kennedy outlined a federal program designed to reduce by half the number of persons in custody in mental hospitals. What followed was the biggest deinstitutionalization this country has ever seen. The historical record is complex and the contributing factors are several, but one simple fact remains: This country has deinstitutionalized before. As we think about reducing mass incarceration today, it may be useful to recall some lessons from the past. After tracing the historical background, this essay explores three potential avenues to reduce mass incarceration: First, improving mental health treatment to inmates and exploring the increased use of medication, on a voluntary basis, as an alternative to incarceration; in a similar vein, increasing the use of GPS monitoring and other biometric monitoring, and moving toward the legalization of lesser controlled substances. Second, encouraging federal leadership to create funding incentives for diversionary programs that would give states a financial motive to move prisoners out of the penitentiary and into community-based programs. Third, encouraging impact litigation of prison overcrowding, as well as documentaries of prison life, as a way to influence the public perception of prisoners. With regard to each of these strategies, however, it is crucial to avoid the further racialization of the prison population and merely transferring prisoners to equally problematic institutions. Details: Chicago: University of Chicago Law School, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 542 University of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 335: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1748796 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1748796 Shelf Number: 122414 Keywords: DeinstitutionalizationImprisonment (U.S.)JailsMass IncarcerationMental HealthMentally IllPrisons |
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: Burke, Cynthia Title: Adult Offenders in Local Custody and Under Community Supervision in San Diego County: Current Capacities and Future Needs Summary: Over the years, the Criminal Justice Clearinghouse at the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has periodically produced a report entitled “Local Detention Facilities in the San Diego Region.” Historically, this report has examined the number and characteristics of adults and juveniles detained locally in jails and other facilities by either the San Diego County Sheriff’s or Probation Departments. However, with crime and arrest rates steadily declining and jail populations also going down, the most recent report was published over a decade ago, in 1999. As such, despite the fact that crime remains at 30-year lows, it seemed timely to update this report, especially given the upcoming changes across the state that will significantly impact who is detained and supervised locally, as opposed to at the state level through Assembly Bill 109 (Segerblom) (AB 109). Since this realignment currently applies solely to adult offenders, this bulletin is likewise focused on adults who have been detained and under community supervision in 2006, 2009, and 2010. These data are summarized and presented to serve as a baseline for 2011 and future years when these significant shifts in public policy have been made and the local justice system has responded. The information presented here will be useful to regional stakeholders as a tool to prepare and plan for the new populations that will be supervised locally, document the effects of various policy changes, and determine where additional resources may be needed. Details: San Diego: SANDAG, Criminal Justice Research Division, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: CJ Bulletin: Accessed November 4, 2011 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1612_13431.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1612_13431.pdf Shelf Number: 123226 Keywords: Adult Offenders (California)Community SupervisionInmatesJails |
Author: Males, Mike Title: Jail Needs Assessment for San Mateo County: A preliminary analysis Summary: On April 5, 2011, Governor Edmund G. Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 109 (AB 109) codifying, one of history’s most sweeping reforms of California’s criminal justice system. This landmark legislation comes 35 years after then Governor Brown signed the Determinant Sentencing Law (DSL) of 1976, ushering in an era of unprecedented prison population expansion. Under the DSL, rehabilitation was eliminated as a goal of sentencing in California in favor of more punitive practices that emphasized incarceration. With the shift to more punitive policies, incarceration rates soared resulting in inevitable overcrowding and a deterioration of conditions within the state’s prisons and jails. As result present day criminal justice stakeholders in each of California’s 58 counties are addressing the challenge of how to serve an increased number of individuals under their supervision. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) produced this report at the request of San Mateo County’s Controller’s Office. The intention of the analysis is to explore San Mateo County’s current and historic criminal justice system trends and determine the future necessity of additional county jail construction. This report provides San Mateo County criminal justice stakeholders with a data-driven analysis that explores targeted areas to apply model interventions that reduce unnecessary incarceration while promoting public safety. San Mateo County is one of the most affluent counties in California, with 2010 median household incomes ($82,750) well above the state average ($57,700). Additionally, the percentage of residents with incomes below poverty thresholds (6.8%) is well below the state as a whole (15.8%). For every race and age level, San Mateo County residents have poverty levels less than half the state average. The county’s population has stabilized, with current and projected growth levels (1% to 1.5% per decade) that are much slower than California as a state (10%) (Demographic Research Unit, 2010). The county thus has (with a few exceptions) generally lower crime rates and social problems, as well as more resources available to apply to reducing them. However, within these apparently stabilizing factors lies great change. Like other major counties, San Mateo County has undergone a dramatic population shift in recent decades, with a significant increase in minority populations. Thirty years ago, three-fourths of the county’s adults age 18-69 was White, of European origin.1 After declines of 30% and 40% in the white and black populations respectively, a 260% rise in the Latino population, and a quadrupling in the Asian population, today there are 80,000 more San Mateo County adults than in 1980, 6 in 10 of whom are Asian, Hispanic, African-American, and other nonwhites. The state Demographic Research Unit (2011) projects continued slow population growth, with declining white populations offset by continued increases in Asians and Latinos. Details: San Francisco, California: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2011. 15p. Source: Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/San_Mateo_County_Sentencing_Practices_and_Trends.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/San_Mateo_County_Sentencing_Practices_and_Trends.pdf Shelf Number: 124171 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCorrections (California)JailsPrison Population |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania Title: Reproductive Health Locked Up - An Examination of Pennsylvania Jail Policies Summary: The number of women incarcerated in the United States is rapidly growing at the rate of 11.2% annually – twice the rate of incarceration for men. About 3,800 women are housed in Pennsylvania’s county correctional facilities. Similar to other states, approximately three-quarters are of reproductive age (ages 18–44). Most women in county jails are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes, are undereducated, come from minority groups, and fall below the poverty line. Incarcerated women experience disproportionately higher levels of abuse and have worse health status than their non-incarcerated counterparts. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long-standing commitments to the rights of women, the incarcerated, and reproductive freedom. These three interests led to our involvement in the successful Pennsylvania effort to ban shackling and other restraints for incarcerated women during the latter stages of pregnancy. However sweet the victory, eliminating restraints during pregnancy represents a mere sliver of the reproductive health concerns facing Pennsylvania’s incarcerated women. We decided to look at the issue more broadly with the goal of identifying other aspects of reproductive health care that could be improved through advocacy, legislation, or legal challenges. This report was compiled after reviewing the policies of the 57 county jails in Pennsylvania that house women. We focused on county jails rather than state prisons because the needs of women in these facilities have never been systematically explored. By identifying trends across the state and in individual counties, we aim to help advocates improve women’s reproductive health care behind bars. Using Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law, the state version of the federal Freedom of Information Act, the ACLU of Pennsylvania obtained county jail policies about reproductive health care for women, medical contracts, sick call procedures, and more. Requests were sent to every county correctional facility with a 100% response rate. Six county facilities do not house women, so the report covers the policies of 57 Pennsylvania county facilities that do house women. The policies were reviewed for information about routine gynecological care, contraception, pregnancy testing, abortion access, prenatal care, labor and delivery, postpartum care, mental health care following miscarriage and pregnancy termination, and testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. Our findings have a major limitation. They only report on the written policies of county facilities. Actual practices may vary significantly from written policies. In addition, having a written policy does not guarantee that the policy is followed. A county facility may have a detailed written policy about prenatal services that is not followed, while another county may lack a written policy, but women there actually receive high quality prenatal care. Ideally, counties will have good policies that are followed, leading to good practices. Overall, the policies at Pennsylvania jails are not meeting the reproductive health needs of incarcerated women. Policies were more detailed and prevalent where a state law or regulation requires care—such as health screenings, prenatal and postpartum care, and STD/HIV testing and treatment. Absent a law, policies were more likely to be non-existent or inadequate—like those for pregnancy testing, contraception, labor and delivery and, not surprisingly, abortion. The roots of this lie in the evolution of a jail population from one that was primarily male to one that houses an increasing number of women, along with punitive attitudes toward those in jail and a system of county jails that has little oversight. As the population of women in jail continues to grow, counties will increasingly be vulnerable to lawsuits brought by prisoners whose medical treatment or lack of treatment has caused them harm or violated their constitutional rights. The public will be harmed as women leaving jail re-enter the community with unaddressed health needs. And finally, we as a society are harmed when we squander the opportunity to help the most vulnerable among us. Details: Philadelphia, PA: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, 2012. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/RHLUrpt.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/RHLUrpt.pdf Shelf Number: 124187 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationHealth Care, ReproductiveJailsWomen Prisoners (Pennsylvania) |
Author: Appleman, Laura I. Title: Justice in the Shadowlands: Pretrial Detention, Punishment, & the Sixth Amendment Summary: In a criminal system that tips heavily to the side of wealth and power, we routinely detain the accused in often horrifying conditions, confined in jails while still maintaining the presumption of innocence. Here, in the rotting jail cells of impoverished defendants, are the Shadowlands of Justice, where the lack of criminal procedure has produced a darkness unrelieved by much scrutiny or concern on the part of the law. This article contends that our current system of pretrial detention lies in shambles, routinely incarcerating the accused in horrifying conditions often far worse than those convicted offenders existing in prisons. Due to these punitive conditions of incarceration, pretrial detainees appear to have a cognizable claim for the denial of their Sixth Amendment jury trial right, which, at its broadest, forbids punishment for any crime unless a cross-section of the offender’s community adjudicates his crime and finds him guilty. This article argues that the spirit of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right might apply to many pretrial detainees, due to both the punishment-like conditions of their incarceration and the unfair procedures surrounding bail grants, denials and revocations. In so arguing, I expose some of the worst abuses of current procedures surrounding bail and jail in both federal and state systems. Additionally, I also propose some much needed reforms in the pretrial release world, including better oversight of the surety bond system, reducing prison overcrowding by increasing electronic bail surveillance and revising the bail hearing procedure to permit a community “bail jury” to help decide the defendant’s danger to the community. Details: Unpublished paper, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2031196 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2031196 Shelf Number: 124819 Keywords: IncarcerationJailsPretrial DetentionPunishmentSixth Amendment |
Author: Minton, Todd D. Title: Jails in Indian Country, 2009 Summary: At midyear 2009, a total of 2,176 inmates were confined in Indian country jails, a 1.9% increase from the 2,135 inmates confined at midyear 2008 (figure 1). This count was based on data from 80 facilities, including jails, confinement facilities, detention centers, and other correctional facilities, that were in operation in Indian country at midyear 2009. For 2008, the number of inmates was based on data for 82 facilities in operation at midyear 2008. The number of inmates held in Indian country jails between 2004 and 2009 increased by 25% from 1,745 to 2,176. On June 30, 2009, the number of American Indians and Alaska Natives confined in jails outside of Indian country (9,400) was more than 4 times the number held in jails in Indian country. (See box on page 2.) The number of jails in Indian country has increased between 2004 and 2009 The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collected data from 68 correctional facilities in Indian country in 2004, from 79 in 2007, from 82 in 2008, and from 80 in 2009. The survey was not conducted in 2005 and 2006. Over the 5-year period, a number of facilities closed and new facilities became operational. Eleven facilities permanently closed between 2004 and 2009 and a total of 21 facilities were newly constructed. BJS estimated inmate population counts for 7 facilities in 2004 and 4 facilities in 2007 that did not respond to the surveys. All known operating facilities responded to the 2008 and 2009 surveys. See Methodology for additional details on facility counts and participation in the surveys. Details: Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011. 20p. Source: BJS Bulletin: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/jic09.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/jic09.pdf Shelf Number: 125205 Keywords: American IndiansCorrectional InstitutionsInmatesJailsNative Americans |
Author: Gilchrist-Scott, Douglas Title: Frequent Users of Jail and Shelter Systems in the District of Columbia: An Overview of the Potential for Supportive Housing Summary: Using available data describing 196 frequent users identified by the District of Columbia Frequent Users Service Enhancement Pilot Program, this brief provides an overview of the characteristics, needs, and jail and shelter use costs of frequent users in the District of Columbia (DC). UI estimates that, on average, each frequent user costs the DC government approximately $8,607 a year through their jail and shelter use alone. To inform future policies and practices, this brief presents the potential cost savings to the DC government of reducing jail and shelter use through supportive housing, based on the success of a supportive housing program based in another large city. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief: Accessed July 18, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412504-Frequent-Users-of-Jail-and-Shelter-Systems-in-the-District-of-Columbia.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412504-Frequent-Users-of-Jail-and-Shelter-Systems-in-the-District-of-Columbia.pdf Shelf Number: 125668 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeJailsSheltersSupportive Housing (U.S.) |
Author: Warwick, Kevin Title: Case Management Strategies for Successful Jail Reentry Summary: In 2007, the National Institute of Corrections partnered with the Urban Institute to develop and test a comprehensive Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) model for effective jail-to-community transition. The TJC model and initiative advance systems-level change and local reentry through collaborative, coordinated jail-community partnerships. This brief presents the TJC Initiative’s approach to case planning and community handoff, drawing upon the implementation experiences of six TJC learning sites, all of which implemented elements of the TJC case management process and were continuing to work toward a more seamless and integrated process at the close of the TJC technical assistance period. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute; National Institute of Corrections, 2012. 10p. Source: Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Practice Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412671-Case-Management-Strategies-for-Successful-Jail-Reentry.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412671-Case-Management-Strategies-for-Successful-Jail-Reentry.pdf Shelf Number: 126575 Keywords: JailsOffender ManagementOffender ReintegrationPrisoner ReentryReentry |
Author: Christensen, Gary Title: The Role of Screening and Assessment in Jail Reentry Summary: In 2007, the National Institute of Corrections partnered with the Urban Institute to develop and test the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) model for effective jail-to-community transition. The TJC model and initiative advance systems change and local reentry through collaborative, coordinated jail-community partnerships. This brief details the two-stage screening and assessment process to determine risk and need levels in the jail population. It describes the importance of screening and assessment in an evidence-based jail transition strategy, including: selecting screening and assessment instruments; implementing a screening and assessment process; and integrating risk and need information into comprehensive jail intervention strategies. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute; National Institute of Corrections, 2012. 11p. Source: Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Practice Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2012 at Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 126576 Keywords: Evidence-Based PracticesJailsPrisoner ReentryReentryRisk Assessment |
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 selfassessment 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 below, 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 24, 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: 126789 Keywords: Corrections - Community PartnershipsJailsPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Program Implementation |
Author: Freeman, Linda Title: Length of Stay in Detention Facilities: A Profile of Seven New Mexico Counties Summary: In 2004, the New Mexico Association of Counties (NMAC) contracted with the New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC) to conduct a study to estimate the cost of housing arrestees charged with felonies in New Mexico detention facilities. Fiscal impact was the primary focus of the study; however, a second report Length of Stay for Arrestees Held on Felony Charges: A Profile of Six New Mexico Detention Facilities was published that analyzed the amount of time arrestees charged with felonies spent in jail. In subsequent years, the cost estimate has been updated annually. The length of stay study had not been updated since 2005. In June 2011, NMAC contracted with NMSC to update the length of stay study. Rather than just look at arrestees with felony charges, the update includes arrestees charged with misdemeanor charges as well as collection of other data elements. Much of the conclusions from the 2005 report are still relevant. Jail population is a consequence of two factors: the number of jail admissions and the length of stay. Robert Cushman observes in a 2002 NIJ publication, Preventing Jail Crowding: A Practical Guide, that often times jail management is reactive rather than proactive. Many communities leave the jail population to seek its own level. Jail managers do not control how people get in or out so little is done to analyze the jail composition. However, an examination of the type and duration of the length of stay and the sources of admission can give jail managers the information to formulate policy and improve public protection. Variations exist in the length of stay by county. Efforts need to continue to be made to: Analyze the detention process in each county to determine efficiencies and positive externalities; Determine how county detention centers, courts, district attorneys, public defenders, and private attorneys can work together to reduce unsentenced length of stay; Work with county detention centers and sheriffs to reduce the delay in transferring arrestees to prison after the judgment and sentence is signed, and; Consider ways to hear probation revocations more quickly to reduce unsentenced length of stay for probation violators. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2012. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://nmsc.unm.edu/index.php/download_file/-/view/460/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/index.php/download_file/-/view/460/ Shelf Number: 126858 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCost AnalysisDetention (New Mexico)Felony OffendersJails |
Author: Lynch, Shannon M. Title: Women's Pathways to Jail: The Roles & Intersections of Serious Mental Illness & Trauma Summary: This multi-site study addressed critical gaps in the literature by assessing the prevalence of serious mental illness (SMI), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (SUD) in women in jail and pathways to offending for women with and without SMI. Using a randomly selected sample (N = 491) from rural and urban jails, this study employed a structured diagnostic interview to assess current and lifetime prevalence of SMI (e.g., major depression, bipolar, and psychotic spectrum disorders), PTSD, and SUD in women in jail. Women’s prior access to treatment and level of functional impairment in the past 12 months was also assessed. Next, qualitative Life History Calendar (LHC) interviews were conducted with a subset of the sample (N = 115) to examine how onset of different types of criminal activity and delinquency vary as a function of mental health status and trauma exposure. Finally, we also interviewed corrections staff members (N = 37) at participating jail sites to assess staff members’ perceptions about the prevalence of mental health difficulties in women in jail as well as staff beliefs about women’s pathways to jail. Notably, 43% of participants met criteria for a lifetime SMI, and 32% met SMI criteria in the past 12 months. Substance use disorders were the most commonly occurring disorders, with 82% of the sample meeting lifetime criteria for drug or alcohol abuse or dependence. Similarly, PTSD rates were high with just over half the sample (53%) meeting criteria for lifetime PTSD. Women also met criteria for multiple lifetime disorders at high rates. Finally, 30 to 45% of individuals who met criteria for a current disorder reported severely impaired functioning in the past year. Women with SMI reported greater rates of victimization and more extensive offending histories than women who did not meet criteria for lifetime SMI. In a test of our proposed model, experiences of childhood victimization and adult trauma did not directly predict offending histories; instead both forms of victimization increased the risk of poor mental health, and poor mental health predicted a greater offending history. Next, quantitative LHC data were analyzed to elucidate patterns of offending over the lifespan. SMI significantly increased women’s risk for onset of substance use, drug dealing/charges, property crime, fighting/assault, and running away. In addition, experiences of victimization predicted risk of offending. The third component of this study included interviews with corrections staff including supervisors, health practitioners, and corrections officers/deputies. These staff members indicated a general awareness that women’s experiences of victimization were linked with their entry into the criminal justice system. Further, many staff were aware of women’s mental health problems. In particular, they expressed concern that there were limited resources in jail for women struggling with mental illness, and that women were then released from jail with little to no assistance to support their attempts to change behavior and lifestyle. Understanding female offenders’ pathways to offending, including both risk for onset and risk for continued offending, helps elucidate the complexity of their experiences and identify key factors and intervening variables that may ameliorate or exacerbate risk. This type of research is critical to development of gender responsive programming, alternatives to incarceration, and problem-solving court initiatives. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2012. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/Women_Pathways_to_Jail.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/Women_Pathways_to_Jail.pdf Shelf Number: 127341 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeFemale Offenders (U.S.)JailsMentally Ill OffendersPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderSubstance Abuse and Crime |
Author: Council of State Governments. Justice Center Title: Improving Outcomes for People with Mental Illnesses Involved with New York City's Criminal Court and Correction Systems Summary: This report, commissioned by Mayor Bloomberg and completed with support from the United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Jacob & Valeria Langeloth Foundation, presents the results of an unprecedented analysis of the mental health needs, criminogenic risk, and risk of failure to appear in court for individuals admitted to the New York City Department of Correction. The report’s findings are based on tens of thousands of records from city, state, and nonprofit agencies and show important differences in outcomes for those with mental illnesses entering the New York City jail system. Based on the study’s findings and with the guidance of the Mayor’s Criminal Justice and Mental Health Initiative Steering Committee, the report also identifies a set of policy recommendations and strategies to determine the levels of risks and needs for individuals entering the jail system; to provide appropriate pretrial, plea, and sentencing options; and to establish centralized resource hubs for coordinating assessment information and community-based supervision and treatment options. As a result of this initiative, Mayor Bloomberg announced that New York City will create "Court-based Intervention and Resource Teams" (CIRTs) to serve over 3,000 clients with mental health needs annually. New York City now serves as a national model for how a large urban area can use data to develop policies to increase public safety, reduce jail costs, and help connect individuals with mental illnesses to effective community-based health services. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2012. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2013 at: http://consensusproject.org/jc_publications/improving-outcomes-nyc-criminal-justice-mental-health/FINAL_NYC_Report_12_22_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://consensusproject.org/jc_publications/improving-outcomes-nyc-criminal-justice-mental-health/FINAL_NYC_Report_12_22_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 127595 Keywords: JailsMental Health Care (New York City)Mentally Ill Offenders |
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: Noonan, Margaret E. Title: Mortality in Local Jails and State Prisons, 2000-2010 - Statistical Tables Summary: During 2010, 4,150 inmates died while in the custody of local jails and state prisons—a 5% decline from 2009. Local jails accounted for about a quarter of all inmate deaths, with 918 inmates who died in custody in 2010. The number of jail inmate deaths declined from 2009 to 2010 (down 3%), while the mortality rate remained relatively stable, from 128 deaths per 100,000 jail inmates in 2009 to 125 per 100,000 in 2010. The five leading causes of jail inmate deaths were suicide, heart disease, drug or alcohol intoxication, cancer, and liver disease. Most inmates who died in custody were serving time in state prisons (78%). In 2010, 3,232 state prison inmates died in custody—a 5% decline from 2009. The mortality rate in state prisons declined slightly, from 257 deaths per 100,000 prison inmates in 2009 to 245 per 100,000 in 2010. In 2010, the five leading causes of state prison inmate deaths were cancer, heart disease, liver disease, respiratory disease, and suicide. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2013 at: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mljsp0010st.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mljsp0010st.pdf Shelf Number: 128199 Keywords: Deaths in CustodyHealth CareInmatesJailsPrisoner HomicidesPrisoner Suicides |
Author: Kukorowski, Drew Title: Please Deposit All of Your Money: Kickbacks, Rates, and Hidden Fees in the Jail Phone Industry Summary: At a time when the cost of a phone call is approaching zero, one population is forced to pay astronomical sums to stay in touch: the families of incarcerated people. For a child to speak with her incarcerated parent, a family member or friend is forced to pay almost $1 per minute, plus a long list of other fees that easily double the total cost of the call. Faced with phone bills that can total hundreds of dollars, many families have to choose between paying for calls and paying for basic living expenses. Social science research shows that strong community ties are one of the best predictors of success after release from prison or jail, but the prison telephone market threatens those ties because it is uniquely structured to create a counter-productive cycle of exploitation: prison systems and local jails award the monopoly contracts to the phone company that will charge the highest rates and share the largest portion of the profits. The prisons and jails get their commissions, the phone industry gets the fees, and the families get the hefty bills. While previous research has documented the unjustifiably high calling rates in the prison phone industry, this report is the first to address in depth the many fees prison phone customers must pay. We find that meaningful regulation of the prison phone industry must stem from a comprehensive analysis of the customers' whole bills, rather than limiting the discussion to addressing the high per-minute calling rates alone. This report finds that fees have an enormous impact on prison phone bills, making up 38% of the $1 billion annual price of calling home. This report details the fees that prison phone companies charge for "services" such as: •accepting customers' money (deposit fees of up to $10/deposit) •holding on to customers' money (monthly account fees as high as $12) •closing customers' accounts (refund fees of up to $10) This report reveals that these fees are but the tip of the iceberg, though, as many other charges are far less transparent. For example, some companies operate "single call programs" that charge customers who do not have preexisting accounts up to $14.99 to receive a single call from a prison or jail. Some companies have hidden profit-sharing agreements with payment processors such as Western Union, which are not disclosed to the correctional systems that award contracts. Other companies give their fees government-sounding names, even though the fees are not required by the government and may not even be paid to the government. Unlike in most industries, bad customer service is a key source of revenue for prison phone companies. For example, most of the industry finds it economically advantageous to use poorly calibrated security systems to drop phone calls and trigger additional connection charges. Other companies show no hesitation to triple the cost of a call made to a local cellphone by charging consumers the more expensive long distance rate. Previous research has generally focused on the price to call home from state and federal prisons, but we find that limiting the scope to prisons only significantly understates the sheer number of families that must bear the burden of exorbitant phone bills. This report expands the discussion to also include the families and friends of the more than 12 million people who cycle through 3,000 local jails across the country every year. To our knowledge, almost no local jails refuse commission payments in order to make calling home more feasible. Because the opportunities for consumer exploitation in this broken marketplace are almost endless, regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the only permanent, nationwide solution that would remove the inherent conflicts of interest between the facilities that award monopoly contracts, the companies that execute them, and the families that pay the price. The FCC should craft a regulatory solution that is based on a comprehensive view of the prison phone industry, taking into account each of the components that contribute to customers' high bills, including fees. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2013: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/pleasedeposit.html Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/pleasedeposit.html Shelf Number: 128874 Keywords: Consumer FraudFamilies of InmatesJailsPrisoners (U.S.)Telephones |
Author: Tafoya, Sonya M. Title: Assessing the Impact of Bail on California’s Jail Population Summary: Advocates of bail reform have argued that increases in bail levels and wide variation across counties discriminate against indigent and poor defendants and lead to overcrowded jails. Bail reform gained new momentum in 2011 when the Public Safety Realignment Act (known as “realignment”) took effect. In shifting responsibility for lower-level offenders from the state to the counties, realignment has increased concerns about overcrowding in county jails. It has also sharpened the focus on bail reform’s potential to reduce the unsentenced jail population, reduce county jail costs, provide low-risk indigent or poor arrestees a nonfinancial means of securing pretrial release, and make the bail system more equitable without unduly compromising public safety. Over the past decade, California’s bail levels have increased by an average of 22 percent. But counties have not increased their bail schedules uniformly. In fact, some counties have not increased their bail schedules at all. This analysis estimates that a 31 percent drop in the statewide average bail level, which equates to a $10,000 decrease, would result in a 4 percentage point reduction in the share of unsentenced inmates. Given the statewide unsentenced average daily population (ADP) in the year before realignment (50,472), this would translate to 2,843 fewer unsentenced inmates statewide. An alternate measure, using the number of unsentenced inmates per 100,000 residents, yields similar results. The same 31 percent drop in bail would result in an estimated drop of 7 unsentenced inmates per 100,000 residents, or 2,666 inmates statewide. However, these results are driven largely by the most populous counties (and particularly Los Angeles). This suggests that legislative proposals aimed at reducing bail amounts and making them more uniform across the state for the purpose of reducing the number of unsentenced jail inmates may not be widely effective. Reductions in bail are most likely to be effective in counties that rely heavily on bail as a means of pretrial release and that adhere closely to the scheduled bail amounts. The analysis also finds wide variation in bail levels across counties. However, the variation is not correlated with the size of the unsentenced population. This supports the conclusion that reduction in bail amounts across the board may not be the most promising approach for addressing jail overcrowding statewide. But it also suggests that to the extent that judges default to the bail schedule rather than basing bail or pretrial release on an individualized evaluation of risk, reducing bail and increasing uniformity across the state could address pretrial release equity issues. However, these reforms might well achieve greater equity at the expense of public safety without the simultaneous expansion of pretrial programs that effectively identify low-risk defendants for reduced bail, own-recognizance release, or conditional release. Details: San Francisco: Public policy Institute of California, 2013. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 24, 2013 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613STR.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_613STR.pdf Shelf Number: 129501 Keywords: Bail (California, U.S.)JailsPretrial Release |
Author: Crout & Sida Criminal Justice Consultants Title: Orange County Jail Assessment Project Summary: On June 10, 2008, the Orange County Board of Supervisors appointed Sheriff Sandra Hutchens to lead the Orange County Sheriff's Department after the resignation of former Sheriff Michael Carona. The Orange County Sheriff's Department had been buffeted in recent years by allegations of mismanagement and with special notoriety attached to the homicide death of inmate, John Derek Chamberlain who was being held in the jail. Upon her appointment, Sheriff Hutchens, made an inquiry for the purpose of hiring an expert consultant to develop and complete a comprehensive assessment of the Orange County jails. Crout & Sida Criminal Justice Consultants (CSCJC) was subsequently selected by the Sheriff's Department and the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a study of the five separate jail facilities operated by the Sheriff's Department, along with an assessment of the court holding facilities, and jail programs. In accordance with the contract for consulting services, the final report was required to be completed within a 120 days in order to provide a timely and credible assessment of the jail system and enabling the Sheriff to quickly address operational issues, to effect course corrections in the jail, wherever necessary. In order to harvest objective and credible information, CSCJC developed a template containing evaluation criteria with which to conduct the audits, trained our team of consultants on the criteria, began onsite inspections and evaluations of the jail system in July 2008 and concluded them in November 2008. To enable immediate attention to deficiencies identified during the audits, CSCJC provided periodic executive reports to the Sheriff, executive staff and jail managers. Additionally, Interim Reports to the Sheriff's Department describing our findings for each facility/bureau and unit that was assessed was provided to the Custody Operations Command that contains detailed observations gleaned from the evaluation instruments developed for this project. Throughout the project, the CSCJC consulting team has made 115 recommendations and provided implementation-planning tools to OCSD jail managers for further action based upon the information provided in the reports. This OCJAP Final Report represents a compilation of data and observations made for each of the custody entities examined and is the comprehensive view of the findings and recommendations of the OCJAP. Details: Santa Ana, CA: Government of Orange County, 2008. 182p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2014 at: http://bos.ocgov.com/legacy5/newsletters/pdf/OCJAP_Final_Report-11-14-08.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://bos.ocgov.com/legacy5/newsletters/pdf/OCJAP_Final_Report-11-14-08.pdf Shelf Number: 131821 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional ProgramsJails |
Author: Beck, Allen J. Title: Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2009-2011 Summary: This report presents counts of nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment reported to correctional authorities in adult prisons, jails, and other adult correctional facilities in 2009, 2010, and 2011. An in-depth examination of substantiated incidents is also presented, covering the number and characteristics of victims and perpetrators, location, time of day, nature of the injuries, impact on the victims, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators. Companion tables in Survey of Sexual Violence in Adult Correctional Facilities, 2009-11 - Statistical Tables, include counts of types of sexual victimization reported for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, state prison systems, facilities operated by the U.S. military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, sampled jail jurisdictions, privately operated jails and prisons, and jails in Indian country. Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), which has annually collected official records on allegations and substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization since 2004. Highlights: Correctional administrators reported 8,763 allegations of sexual victimization in prisons, jails, and other adult correctional facilities in 2011, a statistically significant increase over the number of allegations reported in 2009 (7,855) and 2010 (8,404). About half of all allegations (51%) involved nonconsensual sexual acts (the most serious, including penetration) or abusive sexual contacts (less serious, including unwanted touching, grabbing, and groping) of inmates with other inmates. Nearly half (49%) involved staff sexual misconduct (any sexual act directed toward an inmate by staff) or sexual harassment (demeaning verbal statements of a sexual nature) directed toward inmates. In 2011, 902 allegations of sexual victimization (10%) were substantiated (i.e., determined to have occurred upon investigation). The total number of substantiated incidents has not changed significantly since 2005 (885). Victims were physically injured in 18% of substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, compared to less than 1% of incidents of staff-on-inmate victimization. More than half (54%) of all substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct and a quarter (26%) of all incidents of staff sexual harassment were committed by female staff. Overall, more than three-quarters (78%) of staff perpetrators were fired or resigned. Nearly half (45%) were arrested, referred for prosecution, or convicted. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 29, 2014 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svraca0911.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svraca0911.pdf Shelf Number: 132156 Keywords: InmatesJailsPrison RapePrisoners, Sexual VictimizationPrisonsSexual AssaultSexual HarassmentSexual Violence |
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: Gorton, Joe Title: Evaluation of the Black Hawk County Mental Health Jail Diversion Programs Summary: This study presents an evaluation of the First Judicial District Department of Correctional Services mental health jail diversion program. The analysis examines both program efficacy and cost-benefits. The evaluation is based on analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were collected from probation/parole and jail records of 482 offenders who participated in the program from 2007 through 2011. Qualitative data was derived from in-depth interviews of criminal justice officials and social service providers who are directly involved with the program. - Two-thirds of the inmates diverted into the mental health program were white males most of whom were younger than 30 years old. Women were under represented in the study population, however, they were significantly more likely to be placed in the diversion program. - For two-thirds of the diverted sample, the primary mental health diagnoses was a mood disorder (e.g., bi-polar, depressive, anxiety, etc.). Approximately one-fourth of the sample had a primary diagnoses of psychotic disorder. Schizophrenia, paranoid type was the most common psychotic condition. - Based on their LSI-R scores, 67.6 percent most of the diverted inmates were either a medium-high risk or high risk. For non-diverted inmates 61.9 percent were either medium-high risk or high risk. - Inmates with psychotic disorders were more likely to be diverted than offenders with less severe mental health problems. - Comparisons of arrest data for two years prior to being booked into jail and for two years of post-diversion indicate that the diversion program helps to reduce the likelihood of criminal recidivism. - Diverted inmates with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder were significantly less likely to be arrested than diverted inmates who did not have a psychotic disorder. - The totality of quantitative findings indicate that Black Hawk County's mental health diversion program is effective at reducing criminal recidivism among mentally ill inmates - We estimate that diverted inmates served 15 fewer days in jail than non-diverted inmates. - The total estimate for annual cost savings produced by the mental health jail diversion program is $237,509. The annual net fiscal benefit of the program (without cost estimates for prosecutions, prison confinement , and taxpayer funded victimization programs) is estimated at $137,509. Details: Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology, 2014. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2014 at: http://firstdcs.com/reports/2014.BHC%20MH%20Jail%20Diversion%20Program.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://firstdcs.com/reports/2014.BHC%20MH%20Jail%20Diversion%20Program.pdf Shelf Number: 133460 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDiversion ProgramsJailsMental Health ProgramsMentally Ill Offenders (Iowa) |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Evaluation of the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative Reentry Programs: Findings and Recommendations Summary: This study evaluates two of Allegheny County (PA)'s programs to improve the successful reintegration of jail inmates following their return to the community. Both programs were designed to reduce re-offending through the use of risk/needs assessment, coordinated reentry planning, and the use of evidence-based programs and practices. Urban researchers conducted process and outcome evaluations of these programs to answer critical questions about program performance and effectiveness. The process evaluation examined alignment with core correctional practices, while the outcome evaluation examined rearrests for reentry program participants and two comparison groups of offenders (total N=798). Analyses indicate that both reentry programs reduce rearrest and prolong time to rearrest. These findings are supported by ample evidence of strong program implementation. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2014. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2014 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413252-Evaluation-of-the-Allegheny-County-Jail-Collaborative-Reentry-Programs.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413252-Evaluation-of-the-Allegheny-County-Jail-Collaborative-Reentry-Programs.pdf Shelf Number: 133821 Keywords: Evidence-Based ProgramsJailsPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Austin, James Title: Contra Costa County: A Model for Managing Local Corrections Summary: Before and since Public Safety Realignment, an increasing number of California counties have faced litigation regarding overcrowding, including court-ordered population caps. In light of these pressures, it is important to note successful models for reducing jail populations, costs and recidivism rates. Contra Costa, California's ninth most populous county, offers such a model, especially since the County has crime and arrest rates similar to the rest of the state. Specifically: 1. In Contra Costa County, individuals are incarcerated and placed on probation and parole at a rate that is one-half the rest of the state of California. 2. Before Public Safety Realignment, the County sent only 13% of people convicted of a felony to prison, versus the statewide average of 20%. 3. Over a three-year period, people on felony probation in the County had a recidivism rate of 20% - far lower than the 60% or higher rates statewide found in other studies. 4. Contra Costa County has the state's highest rate of split sentences (when a judge divides a sentence between a jail term and supervised probation). The County splits nine out of 10 sentences (far higher than the 28% state average), which has effectively neutralized the impact of AB 109 on its jail population. 5. Unlike other jurisdictions, Contra Costa County issues shorter probation terms. For example, neighboring Alameda County typically gives a five-year probation term for individuals convicted of a felony crime. In Contra Costa, most probation terms are within the 24-36 month range, matching a growing body of evidence that longer terms can not only be unnecessary (for public safety gains) but actually can have negative effects. Details: Denver, CO: JFA Institute, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2014 at: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.jfa-associates.com/new%20from/JFA%20doc06.pdf Shelf Number: 134089 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCriminal Justice PolicyJailsPrisons (California)Public Safety Realignment |
Author: Jackson, Brian A. Title: Fostering Innovation in Community and Institutional Corrections: Identifying High-Priority Technology and Other Needs for the U.S. Correctional Sector Summary: The agencies of the U.S. corrections enterprise manage offenders confined in prisons and jails and those who have been released into the community on probation and parole. The enterprise is one of the three central pillars of the criminal justice system, along with police and the courts. Corrections agencies face major challenges from declining budgets, increasing populations under supervision, problems of equity and fairness in administrating justice, and other concerns. To better achieve its objectives and play its role within the criminal justice enterprise, the sector needs innovation in corrections technology, policy, and practice. This report draws on published literature and new structured deliberations of a practitioner Corrections Advisory Panel to frame an innovation agenda. It identifies and prioritizes potential improvements in technology, policy, and practice in both community and institutional corrections. Some of the top-tier needs identified by the panel and researchers include adapting transcription and translation tools for the corrections environment, developing training for officers on best practices for managing offenders with mental health needs, and changing visitation policies (for example, using video visitation) to reduce opportunities for visitors to bring contraband into jails and prisons. Such high-priority needs provide a menu of innovation options for addressing key problems or capitalizing on emerging opportunities in the corrections sector. This report is part of a larger effort to assess and prioritize technology and related needs across the criminal justice community for the National Institute of Justice's National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center system. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2015. 133p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 3, 2015 at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR820.html Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR820.html Shelf Number: 134524 Keywords: Computer TechnologyCorrectional Administration (U.S.)JailsPrisoner ReentryPrisons |
Author: Guenzburger, Gloriam Vanine Title: Differences Between Jail Sentences and Jail Terms Actually Served among DUI offenders In Selected California Counties Summary: Records of 32.7% of California's DUI offenders convicted in 2006, who received jail or a jail alternative sentence, were used to compare jail terms at sentencing to actual jail time served, and to describe used alternative sanctions to jail. County data systems' variation, tracking methods, quality and completeness of data, and lack of communication between Courts and Sheriff's Departments limited sample size and representativeness. Percentages of jail time served across participating counties ranged from 0 to 67% for 1st offenders, 0 to 47% for 2nd offenders, and 0 to 67% for 3rd offenders. Median percentages of jail sentences actually served across participating counties were 0%, 19%, and 38% for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd offenders, respectively. Alternative sentences were used more often on 1st DUI offenders, less so on 2nd offenders, and least often on 3rd offenders. The most popular alternative sentences in lieu of jail options were Sheriff's Work Program and Caltrans Work Program. Jail sentences reported to DMV greatly overstate amount of jail time actually served by DUI offenders. Further evaluation of effectiveness of jail time served by California DUI offenders is not possible at present because California's DUI Offender Tracking System does not keep good track of offenders. Recommendations are: results from previous California DMV studies and/or studies from other states showing jail terms as ineffective in reducing alcohol-involved crashes or DUI recidivism should be taken with caution; efforts should be made so California's DUI Offender Tracking System is consistent with NHTSA's 2006 guidelines; DMV's court abstract collection system should require jail terms keyed in, if disposition code "J" is present; DMV's JAG project to assess accuracy and timeliness of DUI conviction data sent to DMV should be finished, and its findings used in conjunction of this study's findings to enable the implementation of recommendations from NHTSA's 2011 California Traffic Records Assessment. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2012. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_5/S5-239.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_5/S5-239.pdf Shelf Number: 135229 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDriving Under the Influence (California)Drunk DrivingJailsSentencing |
Author: Flower, Shawn M. Title: Adjusting the Lens: A Window Into the Needs of Men in Jail Summary: This report summarizes the results of the self-reported survey of 200 men detained at the Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) conducted from May 2009 to July 2009, known as the Window Replication Project. Over 35,000 people are committed to BCDC annually, 86% of which are men. In general, jails contain a diverse population of individuals in varying stages of the criminal justice system - from pre-trial, post-conviction, and sentenced. Men and women in jail may be detained waiting for trial, and among those convicted, are awaiting sentencing or serving their sentence if the incarceration period is less than 12 to 18 months. In addition, a number of people in jail are in a transitional phase - those sentenced to longer terms may be awaiting transfer to a state prison while others may be held awaiting transfer to a federal, state or other local jurisdiction. Among jails, BCDC is unique in the respect that the facility is neither directed nor funded by Baltimore City. BCDC is part of the state correctional system run by the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS). BCDC is one of the twenty largest detention centers in the nation, with an average daily population of 3,997 at midyear 2009 and ranked third in holding the highest proportion of its population in jail when compared to similar institutions. It is important to note that such large, urban jails are faced with particular challenges due to the demographics and special needs of the population. For example, large urban jails typically have higher minority populations, disproportionate to community demographics, than rural jails. Moreover, mental illness, infectious disease and HIV are more prevalent at these jails. Emanating from a mutual desire to better understand the needs of men at BCDC, faith-based and community-based organizations and local government joined together to collaborate on the Window Replication Project. Catholic Charities of Baltimore and Choice Research Associates originated the inquiry and other key players subsequently joined, including the Baltimore City Mayor's Office on Criminal Justice representing the City of Baltimore, and Power Inside, a community-based organization. Power Inside shared its 2005 jail reentry needs assessment of 148 women detainees at BCDC6, The Window Study - Release from Jail: Moment of Crisis or Window of Opportunity for Female Detainees?, which formed the foundation of the Window Replication Project. Once the Window Replication Project partners were established in May 2008, the partnership obtained approval from the DPSCS Research Committee and signed a Memorandum of Understanding with DPSCS to conduct the survey. The partnership between the members of the Window Replication Project and DPSCS continues in the hope that the multiple needs of this population can be better met through the use of these study findings at both the programmatic and policy level. Overall, the survey results detailed below confirm what was suspected about the life experiences and level of need of men detained in BCDC. Details: Greenbelt, MD: Choice Research Associates, 2010. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2015 at: http://www.abell.org/sites/default/files/publications/cja_windows1110.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.abell.org/sites/default/files/publications/cja_windows1110.pdf Shelf Number: 135448 Keywords: Gender-Specific ResponsesJail Inmates (Baltimore)JailsMalesPre-trial 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: 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: 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: Henrichson, Christian Title: The Price of Jails: Measuring the Taxpayer Cost of Local Incarceration Summary: Jails-locally run facilities used primarily to detain persons arrested but not yet convicted of any crime-now hold more than 730,000 people on any given day, more than triple their population in 1983. These are the places where most arrested men and women land and where many remain as their cases wind through the criminal justice system. Bigger jail populations mean increased costs for staff and other expenses. The U.S. Department of Justice estimated that local communities spent $22.2 billion on jails in 2011. But as high as $22.2 billion sounds, it underestimates the actual price of jails, because other government agencies often bear a large share of jail costs not reflected in jail budgets. For example, in addition to the $1.1 billion spent by the City of New York Department of Correction in 2014, other city agencies spent an additional $1.3 billion for jail employee benefits, health care and education programs for incarcerated people, and administration, bringing the total cost to $2.4 billion. Because reported jail costs are too often incomplete, policymakers and the public are seldom aware of the full extent of their community's financial commitment to the jail. As policymakers focus on justice reform at the local level, they need to understand how much the community is actually spending. To this end, researchers at the Vera Institute of Justice developed a survey to help counties tally the actual price of their jails. The only way to safely reduce the cost of jail is to limit the number of people in the jail, because the cost largely comprises expenses for staff and the number of staff is dictated by the population of incarcerated people. In fact, the inmate population is such a key cost driver that it is possible for "expensive" jails (meaning those with a high average per-inmate cost) to be the least costly to taxpayers. Consider the example of two counties of similar size: Johnson County, Kansas, and Bernalillo, New Mexico. By comparing the average cost per inmate, the jail in Johnson County appears to be more than twice as expensive as the jail in Bernalillo County ($191.95 per day versus $85.63 per day in 2014). But taxpayers in Johnson County actually spend less on the jail than taxpayers in Bernalillo County do, because the incarceration rate in 2014 was more than three times lower (121 per 100,000 versus 369 per 100,000). As a result, the annual cost of jail in Johnson County is $49 million ($82 per county resident), versus $78 million ($113 per county resident) in Bernalillo County. Recognizing the urgent need to reduce the jail population, Bernalillo County formed the Criminal Justice Review Commission in 2013 to reduce jail overcrowding. Many of their initiatives have been implemented and, as a result, the jail population has already declined 39 percent since 2014. This decline, in turn, is yielding saving for taxpayers: The county spends less for out-of-county jail beds. And the jail has closed one housing unit and plans to close another later in the year-a striking turn of events in only a couple years made possible through the collaborative efforts of justice system stakeholders throughout the county. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-jails.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-jails.pdf Shelf Number: 135778 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJails |
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: New York City Department of Investigation Title: New York City Department of Investigation Report on the Recruiting and Hiring Process for New York City Correction Officers Summary: Department of Investigation (DOI) Commissioner Mark G. Peters today issued a comprehensive review of the Department of Correction's (DOC) hiring process for correction officers at Rikers Island, uncovering a deeply flawed system in which more than a third of officers were hired despite numerous corruption and safety hazards, including multiple prior arrests and convictions, prior associations with gang members, or relationships with inmates. Equally troubling, the Applicant Investigation Unit (AIU), responsible for screening potential recruits, relied on antiquated and haphazardly filed paper personnel documents and had little to no access to software necessary to perform basic background and credit checks. As a result, DOC has already replaced both its Director and Deputy Commissioner responsible for oversight of the AIU and responsible for the hiring of the applicants DOI reviewed, assigned additional staff to the screening process and committed to an aggressive set of reforms in this area. DOI Commissioner Mark G. Peters said, "DOI's latest investigation on Rikers Island exposes a shockingly inadequate screening system, which has led to the hiring of many officers that are underqualified and unfit for duty. Applicants with a history of violence or gang affiliations should not be patrolling our jails. Positions as law enforcement officers demand better. We are pleased DOC has listened to our recommendations and is taking the necessary steps, after a decade of neglect, to strengthen its recruitment to attract candidates with only the highest talent and character." DOC Commissioner Joseph Ponte said, "Improving staff recruitment, training and retention is a key part of my agenda of meaningful reform. My earliest actions as commissioner included providing new leadership for our staff recruiting and training operations. We have subsequently made significant changes to the Applicant Investigation Unit, including many based on recommendations from the DOI. Because at the end of the day, our performance is only as strong as the men and women who fill the posts that keep our facilities operating 24/7." This report is another piece of DOI's ongoing investigation into criminal activity and civil disorder at Rikers Island. As part of the probe, which began in early 2014, investigators spent over 200 hours interviewing staff, conducting site visits, and reviewing over 75,000 documents related to the hiring process. Details: New York: New York City Department of Investigation, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1502818/new-york-city-department-of-investigation-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1502818/new-york-city-department-of-investigation-report.pdf Shelf Number: 135830 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCorrections OfficersJailsPrisoner MaltreatmentRikers Island |
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: Tafoya, Sonya M. Title: Pretrial Detention and Jail Capacity in California Summary: California's persistently overcrowded jails are facing additional challenges now that public safety realignment has shifted many lower-level offenders from state prisons to county supervision. Jail capacity challenges are prompting a reconsideration of California's heavy reliance on holding unsentenced defendants in jail pending trial - known as pretrial detention. The legal rationale for pretrial detention is to ensure court appearances and preserve public safety. But California's high rates of pretrial detention have not been associated with lower rates of failure to appear or lower levels of felony rearrests. This report concludes that pretrial services programs - if properly implemented and embraced by the courts, probation, and the jails - could address jail overcrowding and improve the efficiency, equitability, and transparency of pretrial release decision making. Details: San Francisco: Public policy Institute of California, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_715STR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_715STR.pdf Shelf Number: 136337 Keywords: JailsPretrial DetentionPretrial Services |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far Summary: Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California's 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts: Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses. The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs. The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California. Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose. Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates. State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future. Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates. Details: San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_915MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 136925 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCrime RatesCriminal Justice Policy Criminal Justice Reform Jails Prison Overcrowding Public Safety Realignment Recidivism |
Author: Jones, Alexander Title: Exploring the Potential for Pretrial Innovation in Massachusetts Summary: Reducing the number of inmates awaiting trial in jail through data-informed decision-making is one of the most promising innovations that Justice Reinvestment presents. Housing, feeding, and providing security for detainees is expensive, and there are also large collateral consequences. The defendant will likely lose their job, their housing, and perhaps even their children if a jail stay is required. While incarcerated awaiting trial, few detainees receive services they may urgently need to address underlying problems. Recognizing that resources can be better spent elsewhere, a number of states are moving aggressively to keep low-risk defendants out of jail. States in the lead on adopting new pretrial procedures have been able to reduce their jail populations because they were holding a large number of defendants who did not present a danger or flight risk; these detainees were simply too poor to afford bail. In addition to lowering jail populations, improvements to the pretrial process have the potential to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration. Research has shown that pretrial detention is harmful to mounting a defense, and that more low-income and minority defendants are forced to await trial in jail because they cannot post the money required for their release. While data limitations make it difficult to determine how many low-risk defendants are awaiting trial in Massachusetts jails, the growth of the state's pretrial population at a time when arrest rates are falling is an indicator that the pretrial process may be operating inefficiently. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of arrests in Massachusetts fell by 10 percent; in contrast, the state's pretrial jail population rose by nearly 13 percent. The disparity is even larger when contrasted with the drop in the number of defendants sentenced annually to serve terms in state prisons and county Houses of Correction, which has fallen by 22 percent since 2008. This policy brief provides a short primer on the pretrial process in Massachusetts, highlights critical issues that suggest there are opportunities to improve the system, and offers an action plan for pretrial innovation in Massachusetts. Details: Boston: Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bail.brief_.3.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://massinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/bail.brief_.3.pdf Shelf Number: 136925 Keywords: BailJailsJustice ReinvestmentPretrial DetentionRisk Assessment |
Author: Lawrence, Sarah Title: Court-Ordered Population Caps in California County Jails Summary: California is in the midst of a reform era that is unprecedented both in depth and in scope. Public Safety Realignment, passed and implemented in 2011, has shifted thousands of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders from state-level jurisdiction to county-level jurisdiction. Arguably, California's county jail systems have been one of the most significantly altered components of the criminal justice system and Realignment is exacerbating some of the biggest challenges facing jails prior to October 2011 when Realignment began. Since the start of Realignment county jails have experienced increased pressure to house larger populations. In the quarter preceding the start of Realignment the average daily population (ADP) for California's jails was 71,293 (see Figure 1). By the first quarter of 2014, ADP had increased to 82,527, an additional 11,234 individuals compared to pre-Realignment. The diversity of California's counties means that the way in which these increased pressures manifest in each county varies greatly and is based on a multitude of factors such as the extent to which the county previously sent people to state prison, the local jail incarceration rate, the operating capacity of the jail, and whether the county jail system is operating under a court-ordered population cap. This report focuses on court-ordered population caps. Understanding some of the history and current context of existing court-ordered population caps can be helpful as the effects of Realignment continue to unfold. First, as will be discussed below, county court-ordered population caps have generally been in place for decades, long before Plata v. Brown and the Public Safety Realignment Act. Are the population caps forcing, or perhaps even allowing, counties to with caps to respond in notably different ways than counties without caps? Second, there is concern that Plata v. Brown has the potential to lead to "county-level Platas" as a result of increased attention to jail conditions in the context of these growing populations. Some believe that Realignment has created an environment where 58 counties are at risk of developing jail conditions that are unconstitutional and lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding may be on the horizon. In fact, lawsuits related to jail conditions and overcrowding have been filed in several counties since the start of Realignment: Alameda, Fresno, Monterey and Riverside. Can counties at risk of new litigation - or even at risk of a revival of "orphaned jail cases" learn from past experiences? Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Stanford Law School, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2015 at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Jail-popn-caps-1.15.15.pdf Shelf Number: 137060 Keywords: County JailsCriminal Justice ReformJail OvercrowdingJailsPublic Safety Realignment |
Author: Beck, Allen J. Title: Use of Restrictive Housing in U.S. Prisons and Jails, 2011-12 Summary: Presents data on the use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, based on inmate self-reports of time spent in disciplinary or administrative segregation or solitary confinement. The report provides the percentage of prison and jail inmates who were currently held in restrictive housing, those who had spent any time in restrictive housing in the last 12 months or since coming to the facility if shorter, and the total time spent in restrictive housing. It provides prevalence rates for inmates by selected demographic characteristics, criminal justice status and history, current and past mental health status, and indicators of misconduct while in the facility. It also describes the relationship between the use of restrictive housing and facility-level characteristics, including measures of facility disorder and facility composition. Data are from the National Inmate Survey (NIS), 2011-12, conducted in 233 state and federal prisons and 358 local jails, with a sample of 91,177 inmates nationwide. Highlights: Younger inmates, inmates without a high school diploma, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual inmates were more likely to have spent time in restrictive housing than older inmates, inmates with a high school diploma or more, and heterosexual inmates. Inmates held for a violent offense other than a sex offense and inmates with extensive arrest histories or prior incarcerations were more likely to have spent time in restrictive housing than inmates held for other offenses and inmates with no prior arrests or incarcerations. Use of restrictive housing was linked to inmate mental health problems: 29% of prison inmates and 22% of jail inmates with current symptoms of serious psychological distress had spent time in restrictive housing in the past 12 months. More than three-quarters of inmates in prisons and jails who had been written up for assaulting other inmates or facility staff had spent time in restrictive housing in the past 12 months. Among inmates who had spent 30 or more days in restrictive housing in the last 12 months or since coming to the facility, 54% of those in prison and 68% of those in jail had been in a fight or had been written up for assaulting other inmates or staff. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/urhuspj1112.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/urhuspj1112.pdf Shelf Number: 137148 Keywords: Administrative SegregationInmatesJailsPrisoner MisconductRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Johnson, Calvin Title: Justice in Katrina's Wake: Changing Course on Incarceration in New Orleans Summary: In 2005, New Orleans detained more people in its local jail per capita than any other urban jurisdiction in the country. The jaildesigned to hold people too great a risk to be released pretrialwas actually used to detain thousands of people too poor to pay a financial bond, with dramatic human and financial consequences. In the 10 years since Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans officials and community leaders have begun to depart from this legacy of over incarceration, leading to a 70 percent reduction in New Orleanss jail population. This report documents the groundbreaking reforms that the City of New Orleans has engaged in to safely decrease its use of detention, from reducing the physical size of its jail to implementing risk-based pretrial release practices. This text was originally published by the Data Center as part of a series of essays about New Orleanss progress since Hurricane Katrina. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/justice-in-katrinas-wake.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/justice-in-katrinas-wake.pdf Shelf Number: 137361 Keywords: Criminal Justice Reform Hurricane Katrina JailsNatural Disasters |
Author: Carceres-Monroy, Alejandro Title: Breaking the Silence: Civil and Human Rights Violations Resulting from Medical Neglect and Abuse of Women of Color in Los Angeles County Jails Summary: Women of color with mental health conditions in LA county jails and California prisons are exceptionally vulnerable to medical neglect and abuse that violate domestic civil rights law and regional and international human rights law. This Report by Dignity and Power Now ("DPN") documents how jail and prison officials violated the rights of seven women of color, and highlights the mental health consequences of the medical neglect and abuse these women suffered. It relies on the testimonies of these women, interviews with two former CRDF psychiatric social workers, and a growing literature on the unlawful treatment of incarcerated populations with mental health conditions across the United States of America. Although this Report's focus is the Century Regional Detention Facility ("CRDF"), an all-female facility operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ("LASD"), it includes violations against women at the LASD's Twin Towers facility and at the California Institution for Women ("CIW"), an all-female state prison. This Report documents how LASD Deputies and other personnel-including Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health personnel working in detention facilities-systematically denied the women interviewed vital mental and physical health care services. These officials forced women suffering from mental health conditions such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression to suffer - sometimes for months - without access to necessary medication. These Deputies verbally abused these women and rarely permitted them to leave their cells. These officials forced these women to lie in their own filth for days, and denied them access to adequate reproductive hygiene products such as tampons or pads, leaving these women to bleed on themselves. Women interviewed for this Report recounted how Deputies shackled pregnant women, and punished women with mental health conditions by placing them in solitary confinement. The experiences of these interviewees also reveal how, by medically neglecting and abusing women of color, Deputies and other personnel increased these women's risk of suicide. These abuses are unacceptable by any measure. That they occur at the hands of public employees entrusted with the humane care of these women - some of whom are our communities' most mentally and physically vulnerable - is heinous. In addition to detailing these women's stories, this Report demonstrates that the medical neglect and abuse of incarcerated women of color by LASD and other public officials violates domestic civil rights law, regional human rights law, and international human rights law. The violations this Report documents make clear the human cost of the growing trend of incarceration of women, a trend that is by no means mitigated by so-called gender responsive incarceration. In 2007 some California legislators proposed the construction of more incarceration facilities for women, and used a need for gender responsiveness as a justification for this expansion. A report by Californians United for a Responsible Budget, also released that year, explained that so-called gender responsive incarceration proposals used "the grave needs of people in women's prisons to manipulate public sentiment in favor of rehabilitation and services to expand a failing system." Even today, building more facilities will not prevent the gross human rights violations incarcerated women endure in Los Angeles County, or anywhere else in the United States. Details: Los Angeles, CA: Dignity and Power Now, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: http://dignityandpowernow.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/breaking_silence_report_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://dignityandpowernow.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/breaking_silence_report_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137456 Keywords: African AmericansFemale InmatesFemale OffendersFemale PrisonersJailsMedical CareMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
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: U.S. Department of Justice Title: Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing: Final Report Summary: In a July 14, 2015, speech at the NAACP National Convention, President Barack Obama announced that he had asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to conduct a review of "the overuse of solitary confinement across American prisons." The President directed that the purpose of the review be not simply to understand how, when, and why correctional facilities isolate certain prisoners from the general inmate population, but also to develop strategies for reducing the use of this practice throughout our nation's criminal justice system. Over the past several months, a team of senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice met regularly to study the issue of solitary confinement-or "restrictive housing," to use the more general corrections term-and formulate policy solutions. This Report is the culmination of the Department's review. The Justice Department embraced this opportunity to think deeply about the use of restrictive housing in America. The issue strikes at some of the most challenging questions facing correctional officials and criminologists: How should prisons and other correctional facilities manage their most violent and disruptive inmates? How can they best protect their most vulnerable and victimized ones? And what is the safest and most humane way to do so? These questions are of particular importance to the Justice Department. Not only does the Department oversee the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the nation's largest prison system, but it also provides funding and technical assistance to other correctional systems, through the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and enforces the constitutional and statutory rights of state and local inmates through the Department's Civil Rights Division. After extensive study, we have concluded that there are occasions when correctional officials have no choice but to segregate inmates from the general population, typically when it is the only way to ensure the safety of inmates, staff, and the public. But as a matter of policy, we believe strongly this practice should be used rarely, applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints. This Report includes a series of "Guiding Principles" that we believe should guide plans for limiting the use of restrictive housing across the American criminal justice system, as well as specific policy changes that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the Bureau) and other Department components could undertake to implement these principles. The stakes are high. Life in restrictive housing has been well-documented by inmates, advocates, and correctional officials. In some systems, the conditions can be severe; the social isolation, extreme. At its worst, and when applied without regard to basic standards of decency, restrictive housing can cause serious, long-lasting harm. It is the responsibility of all governments to ensure that this practice is used only as necessary-and never as a default solution. But just as we must consider the impact on inmates, so too must we consider the impact on correctional staff. These public servants work hard, often for long hours and under difficult conditions, and we must protect them from unreasonable danger. For years, the Bureau has been asked to do more and more, putting strain on its officers and other staff. Correctional officers need effective tools to manage the most challenging inmates and protect the most vulnerable. We do not believe that the humane treatment of inmates and the safety of correctional staff are mutually exclusive; indeed, neither is possible without the other. In recent years, numerous correctional systems have succeeded in safely lowering the number of inmates in restrictive housing, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which has reduced its total restrictive housing population by nearly 25% since January 2012. Under the leadership of its outgoing Director, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., the Bureau has also developed a range of progressive alternatives to restrictive housing-and has done so while supporting and enhancing staff safety. This Report includes a number of proposals that would help continue the downward trends in the Bureau's restrictive housing population, while also ensuring that those placed in segregation receive the support and rehabilitative services they need. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 27, 2016 at: http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/815551/download Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/815551/download Shelf Number: 137665 Keywords: Administrative SegregationInmatesIsolationJailsPrisoner MisconductRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: San Mateo County (California) Title: Can an Electronic Monitoring Program for Pre-Trial Detainees Help to Reduce Jail Overcrowding? Summary: The Maguire Correctional Facility (men's jail) located in Redwood City is populated beyond its State-rated capacity, and has been for many years. Since it appears that the jail facilities will continue to be overcrowded for the foreseeable future, the Grand Jury questioned whether electronic monitoring devices are being used for pre-trial detainees (PTDs) and if electronic monitoring devices can be used to alleviate overcrowding in our jail. From 2002 to 2007 approximately 50 percent of the male jail population consisted of pre-trial detainees. The other 50 percent were individuals who had received a trial or pled guilty and were serving a prescribed sentence. Since 2008, this ratio has steadily changed, with pre-trial detainees reaching about 76% of the jail population in 2011. The Grand Jury looked at the alternatives offered to this growing population of untried, unsentenced individuals to determine if there were opportunities to reduce the number of inmates awaiting trial. A potential alternative to serving time in jail awaiting trial is to release carefully selected persons into an Electronic Monitoring Program (EMP). The Grand Jury found that utilizing electronic monitoring devices for pre-trial detainees is not part of the current classification process in San Mateo County, no EMP exists for pre-trial detainees, and consequently no persons awaiting trial wear an electronic monitoring device. Several of those interviewed acknowledge that electronic monitoring devices for specific individuals could be a useful tool in reducing jail populations. Expanding EMP efforts to the pre-trial detainee population would require some investment in staff and training, as well as modification of eligibility guidelines. This investment could be partially or wholly offset by cost savings in reducing jail headcount. The Grand Jury found that significant daily cost savings of approximately $100 per inmate/per day are available if selected pre-trial detainees are released into an EMP. The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff's Office do the following: 1) conduct an objective analysis and issue a report regarding the feasibility of an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees; 2) should the objective analysis and the results of the report indicate that an EMP for selected pre-trial detainees be feasible, prepare an implementation plan to expand EMP for pre-trial detainees for full implementation within 12 months. The objective analysis would include a review of best-practices in adjoining counties and statewide to evaluate the impact and usefulness of electronic monitoring and its effect on the jail population. It would also include the introduction of a risk assessment tool, such as the Virginia Risk Assessment, for determining defendant eligibility for EMP for pre-trial detainees. Implementing a non-jail confinement program for some classes of pre-trial detainees could be an important contribution to addressing overcrowded conditions in the men's jail in San Mateo County at a cost savings to the taxpayer. Details: San Mateo, CA: San Mateo County, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2016 at: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2011/emp.pdf Shelf Number: 137927 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of CorrectionsElectronic MonitoringJailsPretrial DetentionPrison Overcrowding |
Author: Pierce-Danford, Kristy Title: Creating an Effective Pretrial Program: A Toolkit for Practitioners Summary: These are times of significant change for county jails and justice systems. Public Safety Realignment, the 2011 law that shifted management of people convicted of certain nonviolent, non-serious, non-sex offenses from state prisons and parole to county jails and probation, has had a major impact. More individuals are being sentenced to county jail instead of state prison, including people who violate conditions of their parole. Some county jails face limited capacity or strained resources. Combined with ongoing county budget challenges, more than ever, local leaders need effective strategies to safely manage their justice populations and reduce costs at the same time. On average, more than 60 percent of those in local jails in California are awaiting trial. They are being detained "pretrial" while their case goes through criminal proceedings. There are models of pretrial diversion and supervision programs that can effectively manage these individuals in a community setting. Reducing the number of pretrial detainees in jails or the length of their stay can conserve considerable resources and allow the jail to meet other public safety needs. In a post-Realignment California, assessing pretrial program options is both an opportunity and a necessity. Fortunately, pretrial program models have evolved considerably in recent decades, and there is evidence to show that they can be more successful than the money bail system at ensuring public safety and court appearance. There are many evidence-based options available to communities seeking to implement or strengthen pretrial programs. There is not one "correct" model for pretrial programs, and they can be successfully administered through the courts, probation departments, sheriff departments, county administration, independent agencies or any combination of these. Many counties are now exploring such programs, asking critical questions about whom among those awaiting trial needs to be in jail and who can be managed successfully in the community. This toolkit offers guidance to county officials on how to develop and operate these programs at the local level, building upon available literature on effective pretrial policies and practices. Specifically, officials will find: - Key information about the legal framework and national standards for pretrial programs; - How to implement a pretrial risk assessment; - Pretrial diversion and supervision advice; - How to assess your current system; and - Recommendations on using data to measure and enhance pretrial programs. Details: Oakland, CA: Californians for Safety and Justice, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 23, 2016 at: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/211/9f/a/223/CSJ_pretrial_toolkit.pdf Shelf Number: 137944 Keywords: BailJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial DiversionPretrial InterventionsPretrial ReleasePretrial SupervisionRisk Assessment |
Author: Minton, Todd D. Title: Jails in Indian Country, 2014 Summary: Presents findings from the 2014 Survey of Jails in Indian Country, an enumeration of 79 jails, confinement facilities, detention centers, and other correctional facilities operated by tribal authorities or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This report examines the trends from 2000 to 2014 in the number of adults and juveniles held, type of offense, number of persons confined on the last weekday in June, peak population, average daily population, admissions in June, and expected average length of stay in jail at admission. It also provides data on rated capacity, facility crowding, and jail staffing in June 2014. The report includes counts of inmate deaths and suicide attempts for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2014, along with comparisons to counts in prior years. Highlights: At midyear 2014, an estimated 2,380 inmates were confined in 79 Indian country jails a 4% increase from the 2,287 inmates confined at midyear 2013. The number of inmates admitted into Indian country jails during June 2014 (10,460) was nearly five times the size of the average daily population (2,170). For the 79 facilities operating in June 2014, the expected average length of stay at admission for inmates was about 6 days. Since 2010, about 3 in 10 inmates held in Indian country jails have been confined for a violent offense, a decline from about 4 in 10 since peaking in 2007. Domestic violence (12%) and aggravated or simple assault (9%) accounted for the largest percentage of violent offenders at midyear 2014, followed by unspecified violence (5%) and rape or sexual assault (2%). Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 25, 2016 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jic14.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/jic14.pdf Shelf Number: 137967 Keywords: American Indians Jail Inmates JailsNative Americans |
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: Chicago Appleseed Title: Pre-Trial Delay and Length of Stay in Cook County Jail: Observations and Recommendations from the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Summary: From 2007 to 2011, felony case filings in the Cook County Circuit Court fell by 17% and Cook County jail admissions dropped by 26%. Despite these shrinking caseloads and jail admissions, Cook County's average daily jail population decreased by just 9%. Why? People are staying in the jail for longer. And since the vast majority of people in jail are awaiting trial, it's reasonable to look to the pretrial process for sources of delay. From 2007 to 2011, the overall average length of stay increased 6.2 days, from 47.9 to 54.1 days in jail. Even small increases in average length of stay can significantly drive up the average daily jail population. This additional 6.2 days translates to a total of 454,888 additional jail bed days or, in other words, 1,246 additional inmates in the jail's average daily population. This report analyzes the pretrial process in search of causes and solutions to increasing pretrial detention. It draws on jail and court data analysis as well as stakeholder interviews and research literature. We describe the types of offenses and outcomes associated with longer jail stays, and describe how delay affects the justice system. In general, we find no "smoking gun" causing lengthier pretrial detention. Rather, there are a variety of issues that interact to create needless and costly delays. And while all stakeholders share responsibility for these issues, we recommend proven strategies for judges to promote a speedy and fair pretrial process. Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CAFFJ-Pre-Trial-Delay-and-Length-of-Stay-Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CAFFJ-Pre-Trial-Delay-and-Length-of-Stay-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 139350 Keywords: Case ProcessingJailsPretrial Detention |
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: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) Initiative: Phase 2 Summary Implementation Findings Summary: "TJC [Transition from Jail to Community] represents an integrated approach spanning organizational boundaries to deliver needed information, services, and case management to people released from jail. Boundary-spanning collaborative partnerships are necessary because transition from jail to the community is neither the sole responsibility of the jail nor of the community. Accordingly, effective transition strategies rely on collaboration among jail- and community-based partners and joint ownership of the problems associated with jail transition and their solutions. The TJC model includes the components necessary to carry out systems change to facilitate successful transition from jail, and it is intended be sufficiently adaptable that it can be implemented in any of the 2,860 jail jurisdictions in the United States ... despite how greatly they vary in terms of size, resources, and priorities ... One of NIC's goals for Phase 2 of the TJC Initiative was to enhance the TJC model and approach to pay greater attention to pretrial practices ... Findings from the Phase 2 process and systems change evaluation are provided in individual site-specific case study reports that focus on how TJC implementation unfolded in the specific context of each participating jurisdiction ... While the TJC Model provides a common framework for TJC work, site priorities, preexisting collaborative relationships, capacity to carry out reentry activities (and where that capacity resides), and site starting points condition how TJC proceeds. However, common themes emerged across the Phase 2 sites, as well as insight into why greater progress was realized in some places more than others. The purpose of this brief is to summarize these themes and relevant information about the sites' implementation experiences-what worked well, what was notable, and what was challenging (p. 3, 5-6, Phase 2 Summary). Seven reports comprise the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) Initiative Phase 2 Site Reports series: Phase 2 Summary Implementation Findings by Jesse Jannetta, Janeen Buck Willison, and Emma Kurs has these sections: glossary; site implementation themes-leadership and collaboration; targeted intervention strategies; self-evaluation and sustainability; and lessons for changing systems. Implementation Success and Challenges in Ada County, Idaho by Shebani Rao, Kevin Warwick, Gary Christensen, and Colleen Owens; Implementation Success and Challenges in Franklin County, Massachusetts by Willison, Warwick, and Rao; Implementation Success and Challenges in Fresno County, California by Jannetta, Rao, Owens, and Christensen; Implementation Success and Challenges in Hennepin County, Minnesota by Willison, Warwick, and Kurs; Implementation Success and Challenges in Howard County, Maryland by Jannetta, Kurs, and Owens; and Implementation Success and Challenges in Jacksonville, Florida by Willison, Warwick, Kurs, and Christensen. Each of the above six Site Reports contain these sections ; glossary; introduction; TJC structure, leadership, and collaboration; targeted intervention strategies; self-evaluation and sustainability; and conclusion. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 7 reports Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://nicic.gov/library/032726 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://nicic.gov/library/032726 Shelf Number: 147472 Keywords: JailsPretrial ReleaseReentryReintegration |
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. The 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. More 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: Fishman, Nancy Title: Greater Oklahoma City Chamber Criminal Justice Reform Task Force: Report and recommendations Summary: For years, Oklahoma County has been grappling with an overcrowded and run-down jail. With discussions abounding about whether to replace it with a larger facility, the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce convened a task force to examine the county’s local justice system and needs. Chaired by Clayton Bennett, chairman of the Oklahoma City Thunder, the task force included business leaders, criminal justice stakeholders, the judiciary, county and city officials, state agencies, and others. It also brought in Vera to help analyze why the jail was overcrowded, how it was used, and whether that use served the county’s public safety needs effectively. This report presents Vera’s recommendations to the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber Criminal Justice Task Force for how the county can safely reduce its jail population. While data collection practices limited some of the analysis, key findings and associated recommendations are reported. Summary Jails in the United States have experienced dramatic growth over the past 30 years. Between 1983 and 2013, annual jail admissions nearly doubled, from 6 million to 11.7 million. Oklahoma County has followed these national trends, with the county jail population increasing five-fold since 1983— from 495 to 2,581 people. The county opened a new, larger jail facility in 1991. Since then, conditions and overcrowding at the jail have reached crisis proportions. Originally designed to house 1,200 people, it now houses more than twice that many. Partnering for change With concerns about the jail mounting, and new discussions starting about whether to replace it—at significant cost to the county—the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce convened Greater Oklahoma City Chamber Criminal Justice Task Force ("the Task Force"). The Task Force brought in the Vera Institute of Justice in February 2016 to help analyze why the jail was overcrowded, how it was used, and whether that use served the county’s public safety needs effectively. Vera presented its findings to the Task Force, and provided recommendations and guidance for how the county can safely reduce its jail population. While data collection practices limited some of the analysis, key findings and associated recommendations are reported below. Jail overview > The jail is severely overcrowded and is running at double capacity. The average daily population was 2,581 people even though the facility was originally built for 1,200. Second to municipal charges, the most common reason for bookings were non-criminal behavior—such as temporary commitment to jail for a non-criminal violation and failure to appear in court. > The most common underlying felony, misdemeanor, and municipal charges of those detained in the jail were alcohol- and drug-related. Of the 10 most common crimes, the majority were nonviolent. > Black people were over-represented—while there were almost equal numbers of black and white people in the jail, white people account for 58 percent of the county population and black people make up only 15 percent of the county population. > Oklahoma County’s rate of female incarceration was high compared to the national average for a county of its size. Twenty-seven percent of people who entered jail last year were women. Key findings and recommendations > The independent agencies and decision-makers in Oklahoma City and County who make up the local justice system do not coordinate or collaborate, and do not share an understanding of how the jail should be used. Moreover, the criminal justice agencies have not been collecting, analyzing, or sharing the data that would enable them to understand who is in the jail and why, or to make informed, data-driven decisions. Vera proposes increased governance and oversight of the local justice system to eliminate these problems and improve data collection practices. This includes the creation of a permanent, staffed policy advisory body that can spearhead and sustain reforms. > One-quarter of all jail admissions were for the lowest-level offenses: municipal and traffic violations such as public drunkenness and not having a driver’s license at the time of a traffic stop. Vera recommends the county keep as many of these people out of jail as possible, through strategies like expanding the use of citations rather than arrest and booking. Admissions on low-level charges account for much of the volume in the booking area of the jail, and contribute to overcrowding and delays. > Ability to pay bail is the chief determining factor in who stays in jail and who is released pending the resolution of their cases. Vera estimated that 80 percent of people in the Oklahoma County jail were being held pretrial. Vera recommends the county create an effective, evidence-based process to decide who stays in jail while their case proceeds and who goes home. Improving the existing processes for non-financial release for appropriate defendants is the first step, but ultimately the county system should include national best practices like the use of a validated risk assessment tool, individualized decision-making by a judge that takes into account one’s ability to pay, and a robust range of pretrial supervision options. > Almost half of people who entered the jail in 2015 were released within three days. However, for those not released within three days, the average length of stay was 41 days. In a one-day snapshot of the jail population on June 1, 2015, one-third of incarcerated people had been there for six months or longer. Vera recommends the county improve processes that move cases through the court system, to alleviate delays and systemic inefficiencies that keep people in jail longer than they need to be. > Of the almost 30,000 people who entered the county jail in 2015, many suffer from addiction, mental illness, or both. Vera recommends the county expand mental health and substance use treatment diversion options for these people, and focus resources on those who are repeatedly booked into the jail for low-level offenses. Recommendations in this area include developing preand post-booking diversion strategies and speeding and broadening access to existing drug and mental health specialty courts. > In addition to significant problems caused by cash bail, fines, fees, and costs are levied on individuals at virtually every point in the criminal justice system. Those without the ability to pay these fees often are brought back to jail for their failure to pay criminal justice debt. Vera recommends the county implement strategies that will keep people from entering an endless cycle of debt and re-incarceration, which not only harms individuals and their families but also imposes recurring costs on both the county and Oklahoma City, without improving public safety. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/oklahoma-city-chamber-criminal-justice-task-force-report/legacy_downloads/OK-chamber-final-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/oklahoma-city-chamber-criminal-justice-task-force-report/legacy_downloads/OK-chamber-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 14808 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsInmate PopulationJails |
Author: Henrichson, Christian Title: The Costs and Consequences of Bail, Fines and Fees in New Orleans Summary: The justice system in New Orleans, like most others, is partly supported by "user-funded revenue," meaning the money it collects from individuals charged with a crime. This practice has long been common in the United States, but an emerging body of research has begun to uncover the perverse incentives it creates for justice agencies and the depth of its impact on individuals. This report is an in-depth study of the costs and consequences of user-funded revenues in New Orleans, a city where the effects of this practice are likely to be particularly acute because of a poverty rate that is nearly twice the national average and a jail incarceration rate that is among the highest in the nation. Although there are steep challenges in New Orleans, there are also factors that bode well for reform. The jail population, while still nearly twice the national average, has been declining and is now the lowest it's been in decades. Furthermore, there are a number of new jail population reduction efforts— under the leadership of the mayor and city council—and a federal consent decree has led to an increased focus on improving conditions inside the jail. Data is often a prerequisite for reform. So to uncover the costs and consequences of the user-funded justice system in New Orleans, Vera researchers examined agency financial reports and justice-agency administrative records to measure (1) annual justice system expenses and user-pay revenue (namely financial bail and conviction fines and fees), (2) how much justice agencies and bond agents benefit from these revenues, (3) the financial impact of bail for defendants, (4) the financial impact of conviction fines and fees for defendants, and (5) the consequences of a user-funded system, including the human cost of jail and the disparate impact on black communities. Through analysis of 2015 financial reports and administrative court records, Vera found that: • Law enforcement, judicial, and corrections agency expenses totaled $265 million. • User-funded revenues totaled $11.5 million and comprised bond fees ($1.7 million), conviction fines and fees ($2.8 million), traffic court fines and fees ($5 million), and “other” sources that include asset seizures and drug testing fees ($1.9 million). • User-funded costs paid to commercial bond agents totaled $4.7 million for non-refundable bond premiums. • User-funded revenues comprise a sizable share of the budget for four agencies: traffic court (99 percent), municipal court (18 percent), criminal district court (32 percent), and Orleans Public Defenders (41 percent). • The cost of posting a surety bond averaged—inclusive of bond fees—$2,408 in criminal district court and $451 in municipal court. • 1,275 individuals, in criminal district court, spent an average of 114 pretrial days in jail because they could not pay their bail; 1,153 individuals, in municipal court, spent an average of 29 pretrial days in jail because they could not pay their bail. • More than 8,000 people were assessed conviction fines and fees totaling $3.8 million. o In criminal district court, 2,156 individuals were assessed a total of $2.4 million in fines and fees; o In municipal court, 6,175 individuals were assessed a total of $1.4 million. • Conviction fines and fees per individual averaged $1,125 in criminal district court and $228 in municipal court. • In 2015, municipal court issued 3,014 warrants for failing to pay (or failing to appear for payment) and criminal district court issued 990 warrants. Over those 12 months, 536 people were arrested on such warrants, all but 88 of them stemming from municipal court cases. (This includes people who were sentenced well before 2015 but were arrested in that year.) • The transfer of wealth that results from bail, fines and fees falls disproportionately on black communities: $5.4 million of the $6.4 million (84 percent) for bail premiums and fees and $2.7 million of the $3.8 million (69 percent) for conviction fines and fees were assessed to black defendants. • Once assessed fines and fees, black defendants were issued an arrest warrant in relation to unpaid fines and fees at higher rates than white defendants for both misdemeanor cases (43 percent versus 29 percent) and felony cases (18 percent versus 14 percent). Vera’s surveys and interviews with individuals previously involved in the New Orleans criminal justice system reveal that many relied on a number of people—including partners, parents, and children— to raise the money to pay the costs associated with justice system contact. And many still have trouble paying all their costs. This suggests that, for most respondents, raising the money for bail, fines and fees was a hardship that they either could not overcome, or one for which they had to rely on the resources of their community to meet. The total range of potential criminal justice costs goes far beyond those Vera analyzed through administrative records. So it is little surprise that more than half of survey respondents reported they and their family spent over $4,500 on costs associated with their most recent court case – including bail, fines, fees, transportation to court, attorney fees, and money put into their jail commissary account, among other expenses. The majority of people we surveyed reported that these costs had a major or moderate negative impact on their family's financial stability. Interviews with court-involved individuals and justice system stakeholders underscored the financially detrimental impact of user-funded costs on families, the stress of ongoing financial obligations to the justice system, the role of these criminal justice costs in exacerbating justice involvement, and the ways in which these costs damage perceptions of fairness and trust. The greatest cost, however, may be the human cost of jail (such as the risk of harm in jail and the deprivation of liberty) for those unable to bail, fines and fees, which Vera estimates to be substantially greater than the cost of jail to taxpayers. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans-technical-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans/legacy_downloads/past-due-costs-consequences-charging-for-justice-new-orleans-technical-report Shelf Number: 140663 Keywords: BailCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtCriminal Justice SystemsFinancial SanctionsJails |
Author: San Jose (CA). Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara Title: Management Audit Of the Office of Pretrial Services Summary: This management audit examined the operations and practices of the Office of Pretrial Services to identify opportunities to increase its efficiency, effectiveness and economy. The audit report contains six major findings and 21 recommendations that would enhance operations of the Office of Pretrial Services and aspects of the Department of Alcohol and Drug Services that serve pretrial release clients, as well as enhancing Countywide implementation of the State's new realignment program. Estimated savings is $432,989 to $1,286,512, in the form of reduced Office of Pretrial Services expenditures and reduced jail costs, as well as about $65,000 in additional revenue to support the Valley Medical Center laboratory. KEY FINDINGS • Staffing in the Jail Division, which makes initial recommendations regarding own-recognizance release for defendants booked into the County jail, was not optimally matched to workload A combination of 4-day, 10-hour and five-day, eight-hour shifts would optimize staffing versus workload, and permit reduction of 1.6 positions. The reduction was made, for budgetary reasons, and the Director of Pretrial Services concurs with exploring the schedule change, pending 2012 meet-and-confer negotiations with the relevant labor organization. • A new risk assessment tool implemented to assist Jail Division and Court Division staff in making release recommendations to judges, has changed the basis for such decisions, in ways that indicated the new tool was having the desired effect. However, the audit found that Jail Division staff often did not clearly state the basis for recommending against releasing defendants that the tool indicated would be eligible for release. • A two-month sample of Court Division recommendations found 312 of 418 defendants deemed low-risk by the new decision-making tool, 77 percent, and 786 of 850 defendants deemed average risk, 92 percent, were nonetheless not recommended for release. The Director of Pretrial Services reported that his staff, during the period of the audit, had already begun analyzing low risk cases not recommended for release, and would provide additional training to staff. • Cutbacks in available County-funded substance abuse counseling and treatment programs create substantial delays in Pretrial Services clients getting treatment required by their release, contributing to pretrial release failures and a return to custody. Audit recommendations would improve utilization of the limited treatment resources, and would address lengthy telephone waiting times in the Department of Alcohol and Drug Services Gateway referral system. The audit also found a problem at Gateway in identifying clients eligible for treatment resources under the State’s Fiscal Year 2011-12 realignment law. County departments should develop procedures to identify realignment-eligible clients. • A case rating system used by the Supervision Division to assign cases to staff is not coordinated with a new risk assessment tool used in the Jail and Court divisions, and does not guide selection of supervision strategies, which are largely reactive, and don’t vary much from one client to the next. Also, the Supervision Division does not use technology that peer agencies do, such as computerized voice-recognition check-in systems, to allow Supervision Officers to devote more of their time to the most difficult clients. • About $65,000 a year spent with a contractor to analyze drug test samples could instead be used to support the Valley Medical Center laboratory, which provides the same service to the Probation Department. In addition, staffing for specimen collection from female clients is inefficient, requiring $50,372 to $67,123 in unnecessary staff costs. Details: San Jose, CA: Board of Supervisors Management Audit Division, 2012. 123p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/bos/Management%20Audit/Documents/PTSFinalReport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/bos/Management%20Audit/Documents/PTSFinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 140668 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice JailsOffender Supervision Pretrial Services |
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: Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform Title: A More Just New York City Summary: In her 2016 State of the City address, New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito called for fundamental criminal justice reform. Titling her speech "More Justice," Mark-Viverito announced the creation of an independent commission to explore "how we can get the population of Rikers [Island] to be so small that the dream of shutting it down becomes a reality." The Speaker appointed former New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman to chair the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform. Under Judge Lippman's leadership, 27 commissioners were selected, including leaders in business, philanthropy, academia, law, and social services, as well as those with personal experience being held on Rikers Island. Several organizations from the non-profit and private sectors were engaged to provide research and strategic support, including the Center for Court Innovation, Latham & Watkins LLP, Vera Institute of Justice, CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance, Forest City Ratner Companies, Global Strategy Group, and HR&A Advisors. To ensure its independence, the Commission relied on philanthropic support, taking no money from government or political entities. For more than one year, the Commission has studied the City’s criminal justice system, and Rikers Island in particular. In addition to gathering formal testimony and interviewing a wide range of experts—city officials, corrections staff, formerly incarcerated New Yorkers and their families, prosecutors, defense attorneys, clergy, service providers, advocates, and others—the Commission undertook a far-reaching community engagement process, including meetings with the faith community, design workshops, public roundtables throughout the City, and a website to solicit public input. The Commission also performed in-depth data analysis and evaluated model programs and practices from across the country and around the world. Jail in New York City The presumption of innocence is one of the foundations of the American legal system. Yet on any given day, three-quarters of the roughly 9,700 people held in New York City’s jails are awaiting the outcome of their case, nearly all of them because they cannot afford bail. These individuals have been found guilty of no crime. Research shows that incarceration begets incarceration. Spending time behind bars also begets other problems, including eviction, unemployment, and family dysfunction. These burdens fall disproportionately on communities of color. On any given day, nine out of ten people being held behind bars in New York City are either Black (55 percent) or Latino (34 percent). The vast majority of those incarcerated in New York City, more than 7,500, are housed in nine jails located on Rikers Island (the rest are held in smaller facilities around the City). Many of these facilities are falling apart. And many lack the kinds of basic services, including air conditioning and space for social services, that are essential to a modern correctional system. This creates a toxic environment for everyone—both those being held and those doing the guarding. The Commission heard multiple reports of mistreatment on Rikers Island, ranging from small, daily humiliations to occasional acts of shocking brutality. Much of this testimony confirmed the stark conclusion of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan: there is a deep-seat- ed culture of violence on Rikers Island. Another problem is physical isolation. Rikers Island is located far from the City’s courthouses and neighborhoods. It is accessible only by a narrow bridge. The Department of Correction spends $31 million annually transporting defendants back and forth to courthouses and appointments off the Island. Visiting a loved one on Rikers can take an entire day, forcing people to miss work and make costly arrangements for child care. Rikers's inaccessibility also presents challenges for the men and women who work there. The Commission heard from corrections officers who slept in their cars between shifts rather than travel home to be with their families. Perhaps most importantly, Rikers's isolation encourages an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" dynamic, to the detriment of all parties. Rikers Island essentially functions as an expensive penal colony. The Commission has estimated that the annual price of housing someone in a New York City jail is $247,000. The costs, both moral and financial, of this arrangement might be readily borne by New York City taxpayers if there were compelling evidence that it helped to keep the City safe. But no such evidence exists. For more than 20 years, New York City has successfully driven down both crime and incarceration, a trend which has continued under Mayor Bill de Blasio. The City has proven that more jail does not equal more public safety. Indeed, an emerging body of research suggests that jail can actually undermine public safety, encouraging criminal behavior and undermining the stability of families and communities. Details: New York: The Commission, 2017. 150p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577d72ee2e69cfa9dd2b7a5e/t/58e0d7c08419c29a7b1f2da8/1491130312339/Independent+Commission+Final+Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577d72ee2e69cfa9dd2b7a5e/t/58e0d7c08419c29a7b1f2da8/1491130312339/Independent+Commission+Final+Report.pdf Shelf Number: 144694 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformJailsPrison ConditionPrison ViolenceRikers Island |
Author: Barbee, Andy Title: Justice Reinvestment in Arkansas: Policy Options and Projected Impacts Summary: This presentation outlines proposed policy options for the Legislative Criminal Justice Oversight Task Force, which are designed to address current pressures on prisons, county jails, and the state's supervision system. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, Justice Center, 2016. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2017 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/8.25.16_Justice-Reinvestment-in-Arkansas.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/8.25.16_Justice-Reinvestment-in-Arkansas.pdf Shelf Number: 145158 Keywords: Corrections Costs of Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Reform JailsJustice Reinvestment Prisons |
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: 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: Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Urban Affairs Title: D.C. Prisoners: Conditions of Confinement in the District of Columbia Summary: On average, the daily population of D.C. Department of Corrections (DCDOC) facilities exceeds 2,000 prisoners. About three-quarters of these individuals are detained at the Central Detention Facility, a nearly forty-year-old facility commonly referred to as the "D.C. Jail." Just under one quarter are detained at the privately-run Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF). The rest are located at one of the District's three halfway houses. This report examines the conditions of confinement at the D.C. Jail and the CTF and discusses several recurring and serious problems that require the prompt attention of the DCDOC and District policymakers. Details: Washington, DC: The Committee, 2015. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2017 at; http://www.washlaw.org/pdf/conditions_of_confinement_report.PDF Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.washlaw.org/pdf/conditions_of_confinement_report.PDF Shelf Number: 135232 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsJailsPrison ConditionsPrisonersPrisons |
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 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: 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: Denman, Kristine Title: Pretrial Detention and Case Processing Measures: A Study of Nine New Mexico Counties Summary: The New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center completed a study of pretrial case processing measures and pretrial detention within nine New Mexico counties. This study addresses multiple objectives. First, this study was intended to explore the feasibility of developing case processing performance measures that are more robust than those currently used. Second, this study is intended to understand the extent of pretrial detention and the factors associated with pretrial detention. Third, we assess the degree to which pretrial detention decisions appear to be accurate. Finally, we explored whether pretrial detention influences case processing and outcomes. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Statistical Analysis Center, 2017. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2017 at: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://isr.unm.edu/reports/2017/pretrial-detention-and-case-processing-measures--a-study-of-nine-new-mexico-counties-.pdf Shelf Number: 147348 Keywords: BailCase ProcessingJailsPretrial DetentionPretrial ReleaseRisk Needs Assessment |
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: 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: 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: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: Destined to Fail: How Florida Jails Deprive Children of Schooling Summary: Florida prosecutes more children in the adult criminal justice system than any other state, and as a consequence, hundreds of children are held in adult county jails every year. In the majority of cases, the decision to prosecute a child as an adult is made by the prosecutor, without judicial review or an individual assessment of the child's potential for rehabilitation. As a result, children as young as 12 have been incarcerated with adults. Many have not been found guilty, but are merely waiting for their cases to be adjudicated. While imprisoned, children still have rights under state and federal law to access education - a critical factor in their future. And with good reason: The further they fall behind, the less likely they are to become productive members of society. Unfortunately, children in adult jails are being denied these rights as Florida's jails and school districts are not living up to their legal obligations. The educational services they provide to children held in adult jails are, in most cases, seriously deficient. For some children, the services are virtually nonexistent. Adult jails are simply not intended or equipped to house children. For this review, which began in 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center submitted public records requests to school districts across the state, spoke with public defenders and advocates, examined data from the U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection, and interviewed children who are or have been held in county jails in Florida. The findings are troubling: Many small jails (facilities holding fewer than 20 children in 2015-16) offer only GED courses to children, eliminating the opportunity for a child to pursue a high school diploma while awaiting trial. Some children receive only two to three hours per week of instruction in these small county jails. When they return to their neighborhood schools, they often do not receive credit for their studies, including the GED work. In large jails (facilities holding 20 to 130 children in 2015-16), children often receive educational services geared toward a high school diploma - though they don't all receive the legally required 300 minutes of instruction per day that is necessary for a total of 180 instruction days per year. At many small jails, students with disabilities receive limited - if any - educational services that are required by law because of their disabilities. At large jails, students' existing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), which outline the services that a student with disabilities should receive, are sometimes altered - and even effectively closed out - leaving them without the services they deserve under the law. At many large and small jails, students with IEPs between the ages of 18 and 22 must be proactive and ask for the education services to which they are entitled. Consequently, they often do not receive them. Because county jails are not designed to accommodate children, there are multiple barriers that limit access to education. Small jails, in particular, do not have housing units for children, much less a space for classes. In such instances, children may be held in solitary confinement, which has been likened to torture. Lacking access to materials and teachers, children in solitary may simply receive worksheets that don't count toward school credit and without any writing instruments to complete them. Large jails, on the other hand, may have cell blocks for youth and space for classes, but these arrangements pose problems as well. Youth units, for example, are often for boys. As a result, girls under 18 are routinely held in solitary confinement or in medical or mental health segregation wings, which are not equipped for providing education. And as in small jails, children held in solitary confinement at large jails - whether for housing or discipline - are often left out of educational programming or provided with worksheets. In some counties, students are marked absent from the jail's classes for each day they are held in confinement. The solution to these problems is simple: Children don't belong in adult jails. Details: Montgomery, AL: SPLC, 2018. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2018 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cr_ctaa_report_2018_web_final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cr_ctaa_report_2018_web_final.pdf Shelf Number: 149572 Keywords: Correctional EducationJailsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
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: 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 |
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: 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 |
Author: Kajstura, Aleks Title: Women's Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2018 Summary: With growing public attention to the problem of mass incarceration, people want to know about women's experience with incarceration. How many women are held in prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities in the United States? And why are they there? How is their experience different from men's? While these are important questions, finding those answers requires not only disentangling the countrys decentralized and overlapping criminal justice systems, but also unearthing the frustratingly hard to find and often altogether missing data on gender. This report provides a detailed view of the 219,000 women incarcerated in the United States, and how they fit into the even broader picture of correctional control. This 2018 update to our inaugural Women's Whole Pie report pulls together data from a number of government agencies and calculates the breakdown of women held by each correctional system by specific offense. The report, produced in collaboration with the ACLU's Campaign for Smart Justice, answers the questions of why and where women are locked up. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2018. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2019 at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018women.html Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2018/11/13/mass-incarceration-women-2018/ Shelf Number: 154084 Keywords: Campaign for Smart JusticeCorrectional InstitutionsFemale InmatesFemale OffendersJailsMass IncarcerationPrison Policy InitiativePrisonsWomen Prisons |
Author: California Lawyers for the Arts Title: Arts-In Corrections:: County Jails Project Summary: California Lawyers for the Arts became involved in advocacy to restore California's stellar Arts-in-Corrections programs in 2011, just as the US Supreme Court was requiring the state to reduce severe overcrowding in the state's prisons. In addition to having the nation's largest state prison population, California also claimed one of the highest recidivism rates in the country at nearly 70%. We worked actively with Dr. Larry Brewster of the University of San Francisco and the William James Association to conduct a collaborative demonstration project in several state prisons that involved pre and post surveys of the students. Based on the evidence we gathered at that time, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was persuaded to provide the California Arts Council with a $2.5 million contract in 2014 for a two-year pilot project providing arts programs in up to 19 state prisons. CLA's Arts in Corrections Initiative, which has received major funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, the California Arts Council, the Quentin Hancock Fund, the Wallace A. Gerbode Foundation and the Art for Justice Fund, brings a new level of awareness and appreciation for the value of effective arts programming in correctional facilities. The goal of this multi-year study is to measure the behavioral and attitudinal changes experienced by residents in county jails throughout California and the impact on their lives through self-reported surveys administered at the end of sequential art classes. A third year of support from the NEA Locals program is supporting outreach to additional counties in California and the development of a tool kit for national distribution. In collaboration with art organizations in Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Nevada, Sutter, and Yuba Counties, we evaluated the results of the 10 to 18-week art classes attended by a total of 119 men and women. At the end of each program, the participants completed surveys that were designed by Dr. Larry Brewster of the University of San Francisco School of Public Administration. The art classes were held in Santa Cruz Main Jail, San Francisco County Jail - San Bruno Complex, MCJ Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles, Fresno County Jail, Sacramento County Jail - Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center, Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in Nevada City, Sutter County Jail, and Yuba County Jail. The residents engaged in the arts reported a number of attitudinal and behavioral changes that can improve their lives. In addition to helping the inmates and their institutions, these benefits can extend to their families, their communities, and the society to which they return. Artists engaged in this work benefit from having socially meaningful work that connects them to larger public policy issues. Details: s.l.: The Program, 2018. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2019 at: =https://www.calawyersforthearts.org/resources/Documents/cla.countyjailsprojectreport.revisedapril2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.calawyersforthearts.org/resources/Documents/cla.countyjailsprojectreport.revisedapril2018.pdf Shelf Number: 154933 Keywords: Arts in PrisonsArts ProgramsCorrectional ProgramsJailsOffender RehabilitationRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Worwood, Erin B. Title: Statewide Evaluation of Utah Mental Health Courts: Phase I Summary: This report provides details on the programs, participants, eligibility criteria, and methods/outcomes used to study 43 MHCs across the United States, Australia, and Canada. It also describes the program components, target populations, and available data for the nine MHCs in Utah. Both the Utah MHCs and the studies included in this review reflect significant heterogeneity in terms of program and study components. Unfortunately, these differences limit the generalizability of findings across programs. Nevertheless, this report provides a detailed cataloguing of methods used to evaluate the impact of MHCs and can be used to inform discussions as a statewide evaluation plan is finalized. Details: Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah, Utah Criminal Justice Center and College of Social Work, 2015. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2019 at: https://socialwork.utah.edu/_resources/documents/ucjc-reports/statewide-ut-mhc-study_part-1-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: https://socialwork.utah.edu/research/reports/posts/statewide-mental-health-court-study/index.php Shelf Number: 156208 Keywords: Disabilities Human Rights Jails Mental Health Courts Mental Hospitals Mental Illness Prison Reentry |
Author: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority Title: Entrepreneurship for the Formerly Incarcerated: A Process Evaluation of the Pathway to Enterprise for Returning Citizens (PERC) Program Summary: Each year, over 25,000 individuals are released from Illinois prisons and nearly half of them end up returning to prison within three years (Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council, 2015; The Illinois Department of Corrections, 2018). Reentry entrepreneurship training programs have been implemented as one way to reduce recidivism and improve the economic stability of men and women returning to the community from jails and prisons. Entrepreneurship training programs were developed to help overcome barriers inherent in traditional reentry workforce development programs and services such as lack of education, work experience, qualifications, opportunities, and discrimination (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2016). Some programs provide the opportunity for small loans to help fund new entrepreneurs. The body of previous research is small, but there is some support that entrepreneurship programs may be a way to help improve outcomes for formerly incarcerated individuals (Johnson, Wubbenhorst, & Schroeder, 2013; Keena & Simmons, 2015; Klein & Mohan, 2017). Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) researchers conducted an evaluation of Pathway to Enterprise for Returning Citizens (PERC). PERC offers classroom training on entrepreneurship and business, mentoring, and the opportunity to obtain a loan to start a business to individuals recently released from prison and living in Chicago neighborhoods. PERC is a collaboration between the Chicago Neighborhood Initiatives Micro Finance Group (CNIMFG), ICJIA, Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), several community-based nonprofit training organizations, and multiple private funders. The goals of PERC are to increase employment and self-sufficiency of returning citizens; decrease recidivism; and produce businesses that operate for two or more years. ICJIA researchers completed a process evaluation examining program planning and development in the first six months of the program by using multiple methods of data collection. The evaluation of the PERC program focused on individuals that applied for PERC in Winter 2017 and completed training in Spring/Summer of 2018. The research attempted to answer the following research questions about PERC: -Who were the applicants and participants of the program? -How did the program operate in its first six months? -What did the stakeholders, training staff, and participants think of the program? -To what extent did participants learn entrepreneurship skills? Details: Chicago, Illinois: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2019. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2019 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Entrepreneurship%20for%20the%20Formerly%20Incarcerated%20-%20A%20Process%20Evaluation%20of%20PERC.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/articles/entrepreneurship-for-the-formerly-incarcerated Shelf Number: 156590 Keywords: EvaluationJailsPrisonsRecidivismReentryReturning Citizens |