2 ASSESSMENTS DUE IN 48 HOURS

p.108

6 Jails and Detention Centers

© iStockphoto.com/Tomasz Wyszołmirski

Media Library

CHAPTER 6 Media Library

PREMIUM VIDEOPREMIUM VIDEO

Career VideoCareer Video

Payne career video 6.1: Professor

SAGE News ClipSAGE News Clip

SAGE News Clip 6.1: Alabama Prisons and HIV

SAGE News Clip 6.2: Prison Suicide Amid Hernandez News

Journal ArticleJournal Article

Journal Article: 6.1: Integrated Primary and Behavioral Health Care in Patient-Centered Medical Homes for Jail Releases With Mental Illness. Criminal Justice and Behavior

p.109

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Describe the origins of jails

• Identify the types of jails in operation

• Explain how jails process individuals

• Assess how jails affect and are affected by overcrowding, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and special needs of their inmates

• Describe the various approaches jails take to address medical problems of inmates

• Discuss how jails manage sexual violence, gangs, and suicides

• Explain the kinds of innovations happening in jails and how they are working out

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE

Test your present knowledge of jails by answering the following questions as true or false. Check your answers on page 391 after reading the chapter.

1. Most jails are operated by states.

2. Jails for juveniles are usually referred to as detention centers.

3. Most inmates of adult jails have been convicted of crimes.

4. The drug war has disproportionately affected the number of minorities and women incarcerated in jails.

5. Jails have become the most likely social institution to hold the mentally ill in the United States.

6. Incarcerated women tend to have fewer medical problems than

incarcerated men.

7. Female staff in jails are more likely to be the perpetrators of sexual victimization of male inmates than are male staff.

A MENTALLY ILL INMATE IN THE DONA ANA COUNTY JAIL, NEW MEXICO

Stephen Slevin, 59, was an inmate for 22 months in the Dona Ana County Jail in Las Cruces, New Mexico (“$15.5 Million Settlement,” 2014, p. 20). He was first booked into the jail on charges of driving while intoxicated and receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle in August 2005 (a friend had let him borrow the car to drive across the country). He had a history of suicide attempts and mental illness, so the jail officers in booking placed him in an empty padded cell for 2 days before he was assessed by the mental health unit. He was then eventually sent to solitary confinement, where he had no contact with a judge or medical personnel for the next 18 months. It was noted that on entering the jail, he had been a well- nourished and healthy male with a mental illness. After the 18 months in

solitary confinement and a psychiatric evaluation, however, he smelled bad, had overgrown nails and hair, was malnourished at 133 pounds, and “complained of paranoia, hallucinations, bed sores and untreated dental problems” (“$15.5 Million Settlement,” 2014, p. 21). Slevin had pulled out his own infected tooth while incarcerated because no dental care was provided to him. A month after this evaluation, he was again placed in solitary confinement but was finally released in June 2007, when the charges were dismissed. He sued in federal court, alleging a violation of his civil rights and false imprisonment, and a federal jury agreed and awarded him $22 million. When Dona Ana County appealed this decision, a federal judge affirmed the punitive and compensatory damages in the original award. To avoid further appeals by the county, however, Slevin settled with the county and its insurer for $15 million in 2013 (“$15.5 Million Settlement,” 2014, p. 20).

p.110

INTRODUCTION: THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTION

The American jail is a derivative of various modes of holding people for trial that have

existed in Western countries for centuries. Whether fashioned from caves, mines, or old houses or as separate buildings, jails were developed originally as a primary means of holding the accused for trial, for punishment (even execution), or in lieu of a fine. As was noted in Chapter 2, jails were called gaols in the England of the Middle Ages and were operated by the shire reeve, or sheriff, and his minions.

Jails have been in existence much longer than prisons, and their mission is much more diverse, especially now. These days, jails are usually local and community institutions that hold people who are presumed innocent before trial; they hold convicted offenders before they are sentenced; they hold more minor offenders who are sentenced for terms that are usually less than a year; they hold juveniles (usually in their own jails or separated from adults or before transport to juvenile facilities); they hold women (usually separated from men and sometimes in their own jails); they hold people for the state or federal authorities (there are some exclusively federal jails); and, depending on the particular jail population being served and the capacity of any given facility, they serve to incapacitate, deter, rehabilitate, punish, and reintegrate.

Although described as correctional afterthoughts by scholars, and despite their multifaceted and critical role in communities, jails have often received short shrift in terms

© Wikimedia/WhisperToMe

of monetary support and professional regard (Kerle, 1991, 2003, 2011; Thompson & Mays, 1991; Zupan, 1991). The vast majority of jails are operated by county sheriffs, whose primary focus has been law enforcement rather than corrections. As a result, jail facilities have often been neglected, resulting in dilapidated structures, and jail staff have had less training and pay than probation and parole officers in communities or correctional staff working at the state or federal level in prisons. Jail staff also often receive less pay and training than deputy sheriffs working in the same organization (sheriff’s office) as the jail. Research indicates that many in the general public may even view jails as more punitive than prisons (see, e.g., May, Applegate, Ruddell, & Wood, 2014). The late comic Rodney Dangerfield’s perennial lament, “I [They] don’t get no respect,” surely applies to jails more than perhaps any other social institution.

PHOTO 6.1: Travis County Jail

In this chapter, we discuss how this forgotten social institution fulfills a vital community role, one that includes all of the functions described in the preceding paragraph as well as serving as a repository for people who are only nominally criminal and have nowhere else to go (e.g., the homeless, the mentally ill). The role of jails also includes the holding of some state or federal inmates when prisons are too full or prior to their transport to prison. In some larger counties, the holding of longer- term sentenced inmates or those who have numerous physical, mental, and substance abuse problems—not to mention educational deficits—has led to more programming and treatment in jails. Part and parcel of this interest in treatment is the emergence of community reentry programs, as will also be discussed in Chapter 10, as a means of preventing crime and addressing the multifaceted needs of ex–jail inmates. In this chapter, these emerging trends are explored, as are the challenges jails face, but first we discuss the types of institutions that constitute jails.

p.111

JAIL TYPES

The typical jail is operated by the sheriff of a county. However, some cities, states, and the federal government operate jails, and sometimes multiple jurisdictions combine

resources to administer a jail that serves a region. Some counties have hired jail administrators to oversee the operation of the jail, taking it out of the hands of the local sheriff. Jails for adults are sometimes called detention centers, and jails for juveniles are almost always referred to as detention centers. Some American Indian tribes have their own jails, and many police departments have short- term lockup facilities to hold suspects or those accused of crimes. Currently, there are about 2,900 jails in the United States, and 68 jails are operated by American Indian tribes (Minton, 2014; Minton & Golinelli, 2014; Sabol & Minton, 2008). When a state or the federal government (or another governmental entity) has inmates for a jail but no facility of its own in a given vicinity, the entity will typically ask the county to hold that inmate. Counties are usually more than willing to do this because they are paid a fee that often exceeds the cost of holding inmates, which makes holding inmates for other jurisdictions a money-making enterprise.

Most jails are composed of one or two buildings in close proximity to each other. They are usually operated somewhat close to a city or town center except when located on reservations or at military facilities. Larger jail jurisdictions (more than 1,000 inmates) will often operate more than one jail.

Many jails have adopted technological changes that have greatly enhanced their ability to supervise and control inmates. The

Getty Images/AFP PHOTO/Jeff Haynes

PHOTO 6.2: A double-bunk jail cell. The pink interior paint is meant to soothe detainees.

use of cameras, voice-operated and visual- check-operated doors by a control center, electronic fingerprint machines, and even video arraignments and visiting are revolutionizing the jail experience. Certainly, these changes are making the facility more secure, but they also, in the case of video visiting, may make it easier to maintain contact with the outside.

JAIL INMATES AND THEIR PROCESSING

Jails operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, because crime does not take a holiday. They hold all kinds of inmates, from the serious convicted offender awaiting transport to a state or federal prison to the accused

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitatio n

misdemeanant who cannot make bail. About 60% of jail inmates have not been convicted of the crime for which they are being held; they are awaiting court action (Minton, 2010; Minton & Golinelli, 2014, p. 1). Jails receive inmates from local, state, federal, and tribal police officers. In 2015, they processed 10.9 million inmates (down from a peak of 13.6 million in 2008), with most inmates in and out within a few days or a week, some within hours, although others might be held for more than a year, particularly if they are sentenced state or federal inmates (Minton, 2010; Minton & Zeng, 2016, p. 1). Because of their complicated and diverse role, and as a means of keeping track of the inmates they are responsible for holding, jails will often follow a set procedure that is prescribed by both tradition and practice.

p.112

PHOTO 6.3: Inmates in the reception housing area of a California state prison. Prisons in California, like those in many states, have suffered from severe overcrowding during recent decades.

The first part of the typical processing of an inmate at a county or city jail is the delivery of the arrestee to the facility by a law enforcement officer. As is discussed in the following, many arrestees may be stressed, upset, mentally disturbed, or intoxicated and/or drug impaired. In the latter two cases, the officer may choose to administer a Breathalyzer and/or blood test at the jail. If the arrestee is injured, the jail’s booking staff may require that the arrestee be taken by the police to the hospital to be checked out before he or she is admitted to the jail.

If not injured, the arresting officer will fill out the paperwork for admittance of the arrestee to the facility. Usually, the arrestee is still with the officer when this is occurring and often still in handcuffs. Once the required paperwork and processing are completed, the jail will accept the arrestee, search him or her, and begin its own paperwork for admitting the arrestee. At this juncture and depending on the alleged offense, the arrestee may be allowed to contact family and friends and/or a bail bondsman. The arrestee might be released directly into the community if the alleged offense is minor. However, if the alleged offense is serious enough, the arrestee will

need to await arraignment by a judge to determine bail and, during the interim, might be booked into the jail.

During the booking process, jails will often— although not always—strip search arrestees (now inmates), take their property, and issue clothing and other essentials. If the new inmate is intoxicated or belligerent, booking staff may place him or her in a special holding cell. In the latter case, this might involve a padded room or a restraint chair. Once the inmate is sober and calm, he or she is then classified and moved to a more permanent housing area in the jail. Larger jails often keep new inmates in a separate area or cell before they place them in a general housing unit so that they can be observed and classified (based on their alleged offenses, alleged criminal coconspirators, criminal histories, gang involvements, health and other needs, etc.).

TRENDS IN JAIL POPULATIONS

OVERCROWDING

As indicated in other sections of this book, jails need to deal with the same kinds of overcrowding issues that have afflicted prisons. Overcrowding occurs when the number of inmates exceeds the physical capacity (i.e., the beds and space) available. Each year and over the last several decades, the number of jail beds needed by

jurisdictions has increased, and they have been filled almost as soon as they have been built (see Figure 6.1; Minton, 2010). However, between 2008 and 2009, there was an unprecedented decrease in jail inmates of 1.1%. As of 2015 (the latest data available at the time of this writing), on average jails were operating at nearly 80% of their capacity, and the highest capacity for the last decade (2000– 2009) was achieved in 2006 and 2007 at 96% (Minton, 2010, p. 5; Minton & Zeng, 2016, p. 7). Between 2014 and 2015, the amount of bed space increased (Minton & Zeng, 2016, p. 1). This percentage use of capacity is actually better than in past years, when jails of the 1980s and 1990s were operating at well over their rated capacities (Cox & Osterhoff, 1991; Gilliard & Beck, 1997; Klofas, 1991). In addition, and notably, even an average of 80% for 2015 means that half of the jails in the United States are operating at over that average.

p.113

Moreover, the percentages of capacity can be misleading when one considers overcrowding. Certain sections of jails are designated for specific types of inmates who cannot or do not mix well (males and females but also juveniles, arrestees, inmates with medical problems, gang members, etc.). The percentage capacity may indicate that the jail is not completely full, but any given section might be overwhelmed with inmates.

FIGUREFIGURE 6.16.1 Inmates in Local Jails, 1980–2015

Source: Minton and Zeng (2016).

Such overcrowding limits the ability of the jail to fulfill its multifaceted mission; less programming can be provided, health and maintenance systems are overtaxed, and staff are stressed by the increased demands on their time and the inability to meet all inmate needs. From the inmates’ perspective, their health, security, and privacy are more likely to be threatened when the numbers of inmates in their living units increase and the amount of space—and possibly the number of staff— does not. The jail staff also lose their ability to effectively classify and sometimes control inmates; they may be unable to keep the offenders convicted of serious crimes away from the presumed innocent unconvicted or more minor-offending inmates. Judges and jail managers will struggle over how to keep the jail population down to acceptable limits, and as a result even serious offenders may be let loose into communities as a means of

reducing the crowding. Therefore, although the “get tough” laws in many states were passed with the explicit intent of incarcerating more people for longer times, their actual unintended effect in some jails may be to incarcerate serious offenders less (because there is no room) and all offenders in less safe and less secure facilities.

Although suits by jail inmates are usually not successful, some are. Welsh (1995) found, in his study of lawsuits involving California jails, that the issue courts gave greatest credence to was overcrowding. Perhaps this is because overcrowding is clearly quantifiable (the rated capacity is clear, and the inmate count is obvious), but it is likely that it was regarded as so important by courts because it can lead to a number of other seemingly intractable problems such as those just mentioned.

GENDER, JUVENILES, RACE, AND ETHNICITY

As indicated from the data supplied in Table 6.1, most jail inmates are adult minority males, although the number of whites represents the largest racial grouping of the men, and the number of whites as a proportion of the total men has increased markedly, particularly since 2010. Women comprised more than 12.2% of jail inmates in 2009, but that increased to nearly 15.0% by 2014 and 14.3% in 2015, both of which are more than in 2000 (11.4%) (Minton & Zeng, 2015, p. 4;

Minton & Zeng, 2016, p. 5; see also Figure 6.2). The reason often cited for the overall increases in incarceration in jails and prisons, and the increases for women and minorities in jails and prisons in particular, has been the prosecution of the drug war since the 1980s and 1990s. The “get tough” policies, which have led to longer periods of incarceration in prisons, have also led to a greater propensity to catch and keep low-level drug offenders in jails (Irwin, 2005; Owen, 2005; Welch, 2005; Whitman, 2003). The focus of arrests in the drug war has often been on the low-level sellers, rather than on the buyers or the drug kingpins, and that has netted more minorities and women into the system. Mandatory sentences, juvenile waivers, and sentence enhancements for certain offenses have collectively led to longer sentences for most offenders and backed up the numbers of offenders in some jails either awaiting transfer to state or federal prisons or doing their time in the jails rather than in the overcrowded prisons.

p.114

PERSPECTIVE FROM A PRACTITIONER

Brian Cole, County Corrections Director

Position: Director of the county department of corrections

Location: Shawnee County Department of Corrections, Kansas

Education: B.A. in criminal justice and B.A. in psychology, Washburn University, 1989

What are the primary duties and responsibilities of a director of a county department of corrections?

Under administrative direction of the Board of County Commissioners, this position administers the adult and juvenile detention programs of Shawnee County, Kansas; ensures offenders placed in custody are housed in a safe and secure manner and that offenders receive appropriately fair and humane treatment by staff; monitors the overall security of the centers and regularly

tours the facilities to ensure the highest security standards are maintained; proactively seeks to improve offender processes to enhance the security and efficiency of the agency; creates and expects a staff culture of integrity in the reporting of misconduct by other staff and offenders; and visits offender living units and speaks with offenders to gain a sense of morale of offenders and to monitor operations.

This position oversees programs to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accrediting entity standards; plans and coordinates the annual budget, staffing, and program needs for the department; and ensures expenditures are within budget parameters and proactively seeks and implements methods by which the department can save funds.

This position also proactively recommends changes to the physical plant that will provide enhanced efficiency and security; creates future projections for physical plant expansion; develops and maintains positive working relationships with employees of other county agencies, other law enforcement agencies, colleges and universities, and other agencies and organizations as appropriate; delegates an appropriate amount of work to staff to encourage

their professional growth and seeks opportunities for professional self- growth; and seeks and completes public speaking engagements to promote positive community relations. The person holding this position is expected to respond to media requests, as appropriate, and attend community functions as a representative of the department.

What characteristics make a good director of a county department of corrections?

• Integrity

• Leadership

• Flexibility

• Initiative

• Sense of humor

• Compassion for staff

• Proactive

• Confidence

• Public speaking skills

• Good written and verbal communication skills

What is a typical day like for a director of a county department of corrections?

A typical day for me would be one that starts with meeting with staff and

determining the priorities of the day. In corrections, you never have a “clean desk.” As one project ends, you always are starting a new one. On a daily basis, I speak with my executive team to get a brief update on projects, personnel, budget, special-needs inmates, and physical plant issues. I also meet with our mental health team leader daily to review high-risk inmate statuses. Each day, I spend time researching current events and legal trends, trying to stay as proactive as possible to avoid complacency and litigation. I speak with inmates on a daily basis and respond to requests. I spend time meeting with the public to ensure our agency is meeting and exceeding citizen expectations, and I provide feedback to our commissioners.

What is your advice to someone either wishing to study or now studying criminal justice to become a practitioner in this career field?

Working in the field of corrections takes committed people. On a daily basis, you work with incarcerated individuals who have made (in some cases) some very bad life decisions. You have to be one who can separate emotion from your job and understand that you are managing people and managing problems. You have to have an appreciation for the

environment you are working within. This is a stressful but very rewarding job. Corrections can be a career, not just another job. You make decisions each day that could mean the life or death of inmates, staff, and community members. You cannot take shortcuts. Learn as much as you can about your agency, the philosophy, and the culture that the leader of the organization has put in place. You have a great opportunity to help others, work as a team, and truly better your community.

p.115

What are the biggest challenges facing corrections?

Mentally Ill Inmates

Jails are becoming community mental health facilities for the mentally ill. With this being a trend in some parts of the country, a citizen has a better chance of receiving treatment in a jail than in his or her community. As directors, we must educate our staff to meet this challenge. One way is through crisis intervention team (CIT) training.

It is a fact that some people with mental illness will end up in jail. In some instances, this may be the safest and best option for them. However, inmates in jail go into crisis, and correctional staff must be able to handle these

emergency situations. Through CIT training, our staff has been able to identify crisis situations, defuse these situations, communicate with the inmates in crisis, and—most of the time —see the incidents to positive resolutions that do not result in harm to the inmates or staff. The end result is officer and inmate safety, and then we will refer the inmate to mental health services for treatment. We have CIT training available two times a year for all staff.

Transgender Inmates

Historically, correctional institutions have classified inmates by their genitalia, not by their gender identity. Often transgender women are placed in male housing units, and transgender men are placed in female housing units. Transgender inmates have the right to be treated with dignity and respect and be free from harm and harassment.

A key federal court opinion out of the First Circuit Court of Appeals shed light on an issue that all correctional managers must be aware of. Increasingly, correctional managers must take the proactive steps to create and implement policy that begins with the early identification of transgender inmates, completion of medical and mental health evaluations and treatment

(including gender reassignment surgery), proper housing, programs, and clear protocols for routine interactions such as showering and pat downs. As with every category of individual liberties, it is incumbent on correctional leadership to identify and address inmates’ rights, as framed by legislative, executive, and judicial decisions.

It is not clear why there have been recent declines in the numbers of minorities (particularly African Americans and Hispanics), vis-à-vis whites and women, incarcerated in jails, a particularly notable phenomenon in large-city jails (Minton, 2010; Minton & Golinelli, 2014; Minton & Zeng, 2015). It could just be a minor shift that will not become a trend, or it could signal a longer-term change in the use of jails due to the recession of 2007 to 2010, a rethinking in the prosecution of the drug war, or some other variable not yet identified by researchers. Longer-term trends do indicate that the number of adult males in jail from 1990 to 2006 nearly doubled while the numbers of adult females and juveniles nearly tripled. Percentage increases for women and juveniles are also large; in 1990 women represented only about 9% of jail populations and juveniles about 0.6%, whereas by 2000 women composed 11.3% and juveniles 1.2% of jail populations (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000, 2007; see also Table 6.1). However, the percentage of inmates in adult

jails who were juveniles decreased by half from 2000 to 2015 (from 1.0% to 0.5%) while the percentage of females increased by 3 percentage points during that same time period (see Table 6.1).

p.116

FIGUREFIGURE 6.26.2 COMPOSITION OF LOCAL JAILS, 2015

Source: Minton and Zeng (2016).

Note: “Other” includes American Indians, Alaska

Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific

Islanders.

Across the two largest racial groupings (whites and African Americans) and the largest ethnic grouping (Hispanics), there have been significant increases in jail incarceration, but as indicated in Table 6.1, for both groups there have been decreases since at least 2000 and continuing through 2015 (the latest year for which we have data). The raw

Thinkstock Images/Comstock

PHOTO 6.4: A female jail inmate awaits her cell assignment. Women comprised more than 12.2% of jail inmates in 2009 (Minton & Golinelli, 2014, p. 7).

number of whites has increased from 1990 (when there were fewer whites incarcerated in jails than African Americans). Proportionate to their representation in the population, however, African Americans are much more likely to be incarcerated in American jails than are whites or Hispanics. As reported by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2008), for 2006, “Blacks were almost three times more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail” (p. 2). Again, this higher proportional rate of incarceration for African Americans, in particular, can likely be attributed to their greater concentration in impoverished neighborhoods and to the focus of the drug war that has tended to target such living areas and the selling and use of crack cocaine (see the discussion of enhanced sentences for crack cocaine in Chapter 5). But as the drug war has waned, in terms of not only crack cocaine sentences but also marijuana prosecutions, as both medical and recreational marijuana are decriminalized and legalized, the number of minorities has decreased as a percentage of jail populations, particularly among African Americans (from 41.3% in 2000 to 35.1% by year-end 2015; Minton & Zeng, 2015, p. 4; Minton & Zeng, 2016, p. 5), but also among Hispanics (see Table 6.1).

p.117

TABLETABLE 6.16.1 Inmates in Local Jails, by Characteristics, Midyear 2000 and 2005–2015

Source: Minton and Zeng (2016).

Note: May not sum to total due to rounding. – =

data not collected.

a. Includes juveniles who were tried or awaiting

trial as adults.

b. Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

c. Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives,

Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific

Islanders.

THE POOR AND THE MENTALLY ILL

The late corrections scholar John Irwin once referred to the types of people who are managed in jails as the “rabble,” by which he meant “disorganized and disorderly, the lowest class of people” (Irwin, 1985, p. 2). These were not just the undereducated, the under- or unemployed, or even the poor and mentally ill. He meant to include all those

descriptors as they related to the state of being disorganized and disorderly and as those designations might lead to permanent residence in a lower class, but he also meant that jail inmates tend to be “detached” and of “disrepute” in the sense that they offend others by committing mostly minor crimes in public places.

Mental Illness, Homelessness, Substance Abuse, and Poverty

Certainly, the fact of being homeless puts a person at a greater risk for negative contact with the police; lacking a home, private matters are more likely to be subject to public viewing in public spaces, and this disturbs or offends some community members, which leads to police involvement. Those who are mentally ill are more likely to be homeless because they are unable to manage the daily challenges that employment and keeping a roof over one’s head and food in one’s mouth require (McNiel, Binder, & Robinson, 2005; Severson, 2004).

p.118

IN FOCUS 6.1

High Schools in Jails

For many years, versions of high schools have existed in juvenile detention facilities. High school classes

and the ability to earn high school credits and degrees have existed in America’s prisons and larger jails. But the Five Keys Charter School in San Francisco, California, claims to be the first complete high school inside an adult jail (J. Tucker, 2014). Started in 2003, the Five Keys Charter School graduated 20 students in 2014, and 600 total have received a high school diploma or a certification of completion or equivalency diploma since its inception. “The school’s philosophy is founded on the five keys to an inmate’s success: connection to community; a focus on family; recovery from substance abuse; education; and employment” (J. Tucker, 2014, p. 1). Notably, these are the same areas that are a focus of other reentry programming. In a simple comparison of graduates’ recidivism (44%) with other inmates’ recidivism (68%), the high school graduates do much better (J. Tucker, 2014, p. 1). If subsequent research includes matching of graduates with those who didn’t graduate on key characteristics (such as criminal history, age, gender, and mental illness) and also finds reduced recidivism, this high school in an adult jail could save the public millions of dollars while creating safer communities.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you think that earning a high school diploma in a jail setting is likely to benefit inmates and their communities? Why or why not?

2. What are the likely barriers to completion of high school in most jails? How might such barriers be overcome?

Jails in the United States are full of the mentally ill, the homeless, and the poor. Data from the BJS (based on interviews with local jail inmates in 2002) indicate that about 64% of jail inmates (75% of females and 63% of males) have a mental health problem (as compared with 56% of state prisoners and 45% of federal prisoners; see Figure 6.3) (James & Glaze, 2006, p. 1). In a later BJS study, it was determined that 26% of jail inmates had symptoms of “serious psychological distress” (Beck, Berzofsky, Caspar, & Krebs, 2013, p. 25). In contrast, about 10.6% of the U.S. population has symptoms of mental illness. Moreover, for virtually every manifestation of mental illness, more jail inmates than state or federal prisoners were likely to exhibit symptoms, including 50% more delusions and twice as many hallucinations (James & Glaze, 2006, p. 2). Of those jail inmates with a mental health problem, the specific diagnoses included mania (54%), major depression (30%), and psychotic disorder (24%) (James & Glaze, 2006, p. 2). The specific identification of a

mental illness for each inmate by the BJS research team was based on a recent clinical diagnosis or symptoms that fit the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).

A whole host of problems has been found to be associated with mental illness, including homelessness, greater criminal engagement, prior abuse, and substance use (McNiel et al., 2005). Among the findings from this BJS study of jails was that those jail inmates with a mental illness were nearly twice as likely to be homeless as those without a mental illness designation (17% as opposed to 9%) (James & Glaze, 2006, pp. 1–2). More inmates with a mental health problem had prior incarcerations than those without such a problem (25% as opposed to 20%). About three times as many jail inmates with a mental health problem had a history of physical or sexual abuse than those without such a problem (24% as opposed to 8%). Nearly three-quarters of the inmates with a mental health problem were dependent on or abused alcohol or illegal substances (74% as opposed to 53% of those without a mental health problem). In short, mental illness, along with poverty, was entangled in a whole array of societal issues for jail inmates.

p.119

FIGUREFIGURE 6.36.3 Percentage of Inmates With Mental Health

Problems

Source: James and Glaze (2006).

Further evidence for this supposition was found by McNiel et al. (2005) in their study in San Francisco County. They found that mental illness, substance abuse, and jail incarcerations were inextricably connected as life events. Those who were mentally ill and homeless were also more likely to have a substance abuse problem, and it was also likely that jail incarcerations were part of their existence as well.

Mental Illness and Victimization

Moreover, in the BJS’s National Inmate Survey—conducted in state and federal prisons, jails, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, and military and Indian country facilities and focused primarily on sexual victimization—the researchers found that those who are mentally ill are much more likely to be sexually victimized while incarcerated than inmates who are not (Beck et al., 2013). Among their important findings were the conclusions that inmates with serious psychological distress reported high rates of inmate-on-inmate and staff sexual victimization in 2011 and 2012 (pp. 6–8):

• Among state and federal prison inmates, an estimated 6.3% of those identified with serious psychological distress reported that they were sexually victimized by another inmate. In comparison, among prisoners with no indication of mental illness, 0.7% reported being victimized by another inmate.

• Similar differences were reported by jail inmates. An estimated 3.6% of those identified with serious psychological distress reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization compared with 0.7% of inmates with no indication of mental illness.

• Rates of serious psychological distress in prisons (14.7%) and jails (26.3%) were substantially higher than the rate in the U.S. noninstitutional population age 18 or

older (3.0%).

• For each of the measured demographic subgroups, inmates with serious psychological distress reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than inmates without mental health problems.

• Among inmates with serious psychological distress, nonheterosexual inmates reported the highest rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (21.0% of prison inmates and 14.7% of jail inmates).

p.120

What we might learn from these findings is that jails hold more inmates with psychological problems than do prisons, and —as with prisons—this mental illness makes them more vulnerable to sexual abuse. These data tell us that the likelihood of abuse is also heightened if the inmate is LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex) and has serious psychological problems.

Mental Illness and Solitary Confinement

Mental illness also makes jail inmates more likely candidates for the use of solitary confinement and targets of other violent inmates. In a study of the Rikers Island 10-jail complex by New York City, city health officials noted that a disproportionate number

of inmates have a mental health diagnosis (Pearson, 2015). It was reported that the health care workers, who are employed by the city but are bound by medical ethics, are reticent to approve solitary confinement for such inmates because they know it can exacerbate their already precarious mental health status. Yet the mentally ill in these jails are more likely to be placed in solitary because of their behavior problems and/or as protection. In an earlier study of the Rikers Island jail complex by the Department of Justice and the New York Times, it was found that a culture of violence was predominant in these jails (particularly those for juveniles) and that too often the targets of this violence were adult and juvenile mentally ill inmates (Seabrook, 2014).

Calls for Reform in the Care of the Mentally Ill

The abuse and poor conditions for the mentally ill are not a problem reserved for the Rikers Island jail inmates. As A. Cohen (2013) documented in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, a number of reports emanating from the Justice Department, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a federal judicial decision indicate that the abuse is widespread and exists in both jails and prisons. “Prison [and jail] officials have failed to provide a constitutional level of care in virtually every respect, from providing medication and treatment to protecting the men from committing suicide” (p. 1). In fact,

the problematic treatment of mentally ill jail inmates has risen to crisis status for the Council of State Governments. As a consequence, on May 6, 2015, it launched a national initiative to help counties address this issue in their jails (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015). Remedies, embodied in what is termed an evidence-based Stepping Up Program, will focus on diversion from jail to other services and the provision of treatment and better care for mentally ill inmates.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS

One of the social issues that is particularly problematic for jail inmates and the people who manage them is the relatively poor health of people incarcerated in jails. According to the 2011–2012 study of jail inmates by the BJS (Maruschak, 2015), half of jail inmates reported a chronic medical problem such as cancer or blood pressure or heart problems. According to an earlier iteration of this study (Maruschak, 2006, p. 1), most of these medical maladies preceded placement in jail and included the following (in order of prevalence): arthritis, hypertension, asthma, heart problems, cancer, paralysis, stroke, diabetes, kidney problems, liver problems, hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, and HIV. A small percentage of inmates (2%) were so medically impaired that they needed to use a cane, walker, or wheelchair. Nearly 75% were overweight, and

more than 60% were morbidly obese (Maruschak, 2015, p. 1).

SAGE News Clip SAGE News Clip 6.1: Alabama Prisons and HIV

p.121

ELDERLY INMATES

As one might expect, the elderly—and in prisons and jails, due to the premature aging of inmates, that can mean anyone over age 50 —are much more prone to some of these medical maladies than are younger inmates (Hamada, 2015). In one BJS study, 61% of those over age 45 reported a medical problem (Maruschak, 2006, p. 1). With the exception of asthma and HIV, which tended to be more prevalent among younger inmates, the older inmates were much more likely to have the other medical problems tallied in this report; this means that older inmates are more costly to manage in jails because of their greater

need for medical care.

FEMALE INMATES

Like the older inmates, women were much more likely to report medical problems to the BJS researchers (53% for women as opposed to 35% for men) (Maruschak, 2006, p. 2). They reported a rate of cancer that was nearly eight times that of men (831 per 10,000 female inmates compared with 108 per 10,000 male inmates), with the most common types being cervical cancer for women and skin cancer for men. In fact, of every medical problem documented in the study, the women reported more prevalence than the men, with the exception of paralysis, where they were even with men, and tuberculosis, where a slightly greater percentage of men reported more (4.3% for men as opposed to 4.0% for women) (Maruschak, 2006, p. 2).

JUVENILE INMATES

Incarcerated youths have their own set of potentially debilitating health problems that also present an immediate health risk to communities. In a study of adolescents in a juvenile detention center in Chicago, about 5% of the teens had contracted gonorrhea, and nearly 15% had chlamydia (Broussard et al., 2002, p. 8). Girls were more than three times more likely to have one of these diseases than were boys in this study.

RIGHTS TO MEDICAL CARE

According to the 1976 Supreme Court case Estelle v. Gamble, inmates have a constitutional right to reasonable medical care. The Court held that to be deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of inmates would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA, commonly referred to as Obamacare) also requires that jails provide medical and mental health care within their facilities (Tally, 2015), although at the time of this writing during the spring of 2017 it was not clear whether the ACA would be repealed or not. Needless to say, treating such problems while providing care that meets the ACA mandate requires that a jail of any size have budgetary coverage for the salaries of nurses; contracts with a local doctor, mental health provider, and dentist; and an arrangement with local hospitals. Moreover, regular staff need basic training in CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and other medical knowledge (e.g., to know when someone is exhibiting the symptoms of a heart attack or stroke or the symptoms of mental illness) so that when problems arise staff recognize how serious they might be and know how to address them or whom to call (Kerle, 2011; Rigby, 2007).

Some jails are addressing these issues by contracting with private companies to provide medical services or using telemedicine as a means of delivering some services. The National Commission on Correctional Health Care recommends that if jails go the route of

private provision of services, they should make sure that such programs are properly accredited so that the services provided meet national standards (Kerle, 2011). When such matters as obtaining and maintaining quality care are not attended to, as is sometimes the case in jails and prisons (Vaughn & Carroll, 1998; Vaughn & Smith, 1999), jail inmates are likely to suffer the consequences in terms of continued poor health (Sturgess & Macher, 2005). In addition, jails may be sued for failure to provide care, and communities might be exposed to contagious diseases along with liability for legal bills (J. Clark, 1991; Macher, 2007; Rigby, 2007). Clearly, the provision of decent health care to incarcerated persons is important not just because the Supreme Court mandates it or because it is the moral thing to do for people who are not free to access health care on their own but also because the vast majority of jail inmates return to the community, most within 1 or 2 weeks (Kerle, 2011). Therefore, to prevent the spread of diseases and to save lives both inside and outside of jails, basic medical care would appear to be called for. Some jails are evidently expending energy to address this area of incarceration given that 4 in 10 of the inmates in the 2002 BJS study reported that they had had a medical exam since their admission (Maruschak, 2006, p. 1).

p.122

SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND JAILS

© Scott Houston/Alamy

PHOTO 6.5: Female inmates line up for their medications.

It is one of those oft-cited assumptions that people in prisons and jails have substance abuse problems, but this is one area of social commentary that actually fits social reality. According to a 2002 BJS study of jail inmates (the latest available data at the time of writing), fully 68% of jail inmates reported substance abuse or dependence problems (Karberg & James, 2005, p. 1). In fact, half of convicted inmates reported being under the influence at the time they committed their offense, and 16% said they committed the crime to get money for drugs. Female and white inmates both were more likely to report substance use at the time of the offense (Karberg & James, 2005, p. 5). For convicted offenders who used at the time of offense, alcohol was more likely to be in their system than drugs (33.3% for alcohol as opposed to 28.8% for drugs). The drugs of choice for abusers and users varied and included, by

prevalence of use, marijuana, cocaine or crack, hallucinogens, stimulants (including methamphetamines), and inhalants (Karberg & James, 2005, p. 6). Not surprisingly, those who reported a substance abuse problem were also more likely to have a criminal record and to have been homeless before incarceration. White, Goldkamp, and Campbell (2006) found in their study conducted in New Mexico that many people who are arrested and subsequently come into contact with the local jail have “co-occurring disorders” such as mental illness and substance abuse problems (p. 303).

Violent offenders were more likely to use alcohol than other substances at the time of the offense. But violent offenders were also least likely, with the exception of public order offenders, to report being on drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense (Karberg & James, 2005, p. 6).

Fully 63% of those with a substance abuse problem had been in a treatment program before (Karberg & James, 2005, p. 1). Most such programs were of the self-help variety such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. However, 44% of these people had actually been in a residential treatment program or a detoxification program, had received professional counseling, or had been put on a maintenance drug (Karberg & James, 2005, p. 8). Treatment for convicted offenders in jails, as of 2002, was at 6%. Notably, provision of treatment in jails is difficult

because most inmates are out of the facility within a week, and about 60% are unconvicted, so as people who are presumed innocent, they cannot be coerced into getting treatment. Therefore, treatment programs are usually focused on those who meet all of the following criteria: They have a substance abuse problem, they are convicted, and they are longer-term inmates. Even having said this, the amount of treatment programming in jails does not fit the obvious need (Kerle, 2011).

p.123

SUICIDES, GANGS, AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN JAILS

SUICIDES

As indicated from the data presented above, those incarcerated in jails often enter them at some level of intoxication. Moreover, many have a mental disability, and if this is their first experience with jail, it might be exacerbated by the shock of incarceration. Most who are booked into jails are impoverished, and some are homeless. In addition, being booked itself may represent both the mental and physical low points of their lives. Such a combination of conditions may predispose some jail inmates to not just contemplate suicide but to actually attempt it (Winfree & Wooldredge, 1991; Winter, 2003).

SAGE News Clip 6.2: Prison Suicide Amid Hernandez News

In 1986, the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA) did a study of suicides in jails. Twenty years later, in 2006, the National Institute of Corrections funded another NCIA study of the status of jail suicides. Based on 464 suicides that occurred in 2005 and 2006, the NCIA published the following findings regarding suicide victims in jails and characteristics of the suicides:

• Sixty-seven percent were white.

• Ninety-three percent were male.

• The average age was 35.

• Forty-two percent were single.

• Forty-three percent were held on a personal and/or violent charge.

• Forty-seven percent had a history of substance abuse.

• Twenty-eight percent had a history of

medical problems.

• Thirty-eight percent had a history of mental illness.

• Twenty percent had a history of taking psychotropic medication.

• Thirty-four percent had a history of suicidal behavior.

• Deaths were evenly distributed throughout the year; certain seasons and/or holidays did not account for more suicides.

• Thirty-two percent occurred between 3:01 p.m. and 9 p.m.

• Twenty-three percent occurred within the first 24 hours, 27% between 2 and 14 days, and 20% between 1 and 4 months after incarceration. (Hayes, 2010, p. xi)

These data indicate that the profile of the suicide-prone inmate in jail is that of someone who is male, white, somewhat young (although the BJS data indicate both younger and older inmates are prone to committing suicide), in jail on a violent offense charge, with a history of substance abuse, and at the beginning of his jail incarceration. Other data from the BJS and other sources flesh out and contextualize these findings (see Figure 6.4).

Data obtained by BJS in a multi-year study (2000–2002) of deaths while in custody also suggest that age, gender, and race are important variables in predicting suicide along with jail size (Mumola, 2005). White males

under age 18 and over age 35 and those inmates with a more violent commitment history were more likely to commit suicide than African American males or those in other age groups and who were not incarcerated for a violent offense (Mumola, 2005; Winter, 2003). Winter (2003) found in her study of 10 years of suicide data from jails in one midwestern state that those who committed suicide tended to be younger, were arrested for a violent offense, had no history of mental or physical illness, did not necessarily “exhibit suicidal tendencies,” and were more likely to be intoxicated with alcohol when admitted (p. 138).

p.124

Moreover, according to the authors of the BJS study, the suicide rate for large, primarily urban jails, which tend to hold fewer whites, was about half that of the smaller jails (as cited in Mumola, 2005). Similarly, in a study by Tartaro and Ruddell (2006), the researchers also found that smaller jails (with less than a 100-bed capacity) had a two to five times greater prevalence of attempted and completed suicides than larger jails did (p. 81). In this study, crowded jails and those with “special-needs and long-term inmates” were also more likely to have a higher rate of suicide completion (p. 81). The shock of incarceration may be one explanation for jail suicide rates, although why this shock might be greater for those in smaller jails is not entirely clear. The BJS and NCIA data do

indicate that about half of the suicides occur within the first 9 days—for women it was 4 days—and in the cell of the person committing the suicide (Mumola, 2005).

Larger jails, with their greater resources and higher level of training for staff, may be better equipped than their smaller counterparts to monitor and prevent suicides in their facilities. For instance, if younger inmates are fearful of being housed with and possibly abused by older adults, some less crowded and perhaps larger jails may have the luxury of segregating young men from older men and thereby lessening the fear that might precipitate some suicides. Winter’s (2003) conclusion, after studying 18 years’ worth of administrative data on suicides in a midwestern jail, is that keeping and accessing more complete records regarding suicides is critical to preventing them. It is possible that larger, more urban jails are better able to handle this responsibility. In their comparison study of rural and urban jails, Applegate and Sitren (2008) remarked on the greater capacity of urban jails, relative to rural jails, to provide services to inmates, which one assumes would directly and indirectly affect the rate of suicides in these jails.

However, large jails still have their share of problems with suicides. In a study by Selling et al. (2014) of suicides in the New York City jail system, the researchers found that between 2007 and 2011 there were eight deaths resulting from suicide and 2,514 cases

of self-injury (out of yearly admissions of 80,000 and an average daily population of about 12,500) (p. 163). The self-injuries had increased in number during this time period. The methods of self-injury included, among others, “lacerations, ligatures tied around the neck, attempted overdose, and swallowed foreign objects” (p. 163). In response to this research, the jail managers (there are several New York City jails) improved the surveillance system and the electronic health records so they could better watch and document those who would be most likely to need help.

We do know that the rate of suicide among inmates in jails, despite its marked decrease over the last 9 years, is still twice as high as would be true for a comparable group of free citizens (Mumola, 2005). Jails have three times the rate of suicides that prisons do, although their homicide rates are comparable (Mumola, 2005). The good news, however, is that jail and prison deaths due to suicide (and homicide) declined precipitously from 1983 to 2002, with the rate of prison suicides declining by half during this time period and jail suicides by nearly two-thirds (Mumola, 2005, p. 2). In 1983 jail suicides were the major cause of death for inmates, but by 2002 illness had replaced suicide as the primary reason for death.

p.125

GANGS

Gangs present myriad management problems for jail and prison managers. Violence, including robberies, assaults, drug smuggling, and even murders, tends to naturally follow in their wake and prevents the orderly and safe operation of the facility for staff and inmates. Because gangs are more prevalent in large urban areas, they are more of a problem in large urban jails. Yet the estimates of their prevalence in large jail systems range from 16% to 25%, depending on the location of the jail (Tapia, 2014, p. 258). However, these estimates are likely to be low because gang members are usually not forthcoming about their membership in a correctional environment (Ruddell, Decker, & Egley, 2006). It is generally true that larger urban jails have more problems with gangs. Because jails are more likely to involve a short-term period of incarceration, however, they may be less likely to hold as many gang members as prisons (Alarid, 2000).

FIGUREFIGURE 6.46.4 Predictors of Jail Suicide

Source: Based on data from Hayes (2010, p. xi).

To counter the collective influence of gangs, jails will try to separate members in housing units, placing the most disruptive members in segregation (Tapia, 2014). Another tactic is to document those involved in gangs and to track them and their activities throughout the jail system. However, although gang members, by their definition, might appear to present a monolithic adherence to gang orthodoxy, there is some indication that not all gang members agree about how the gang should be operated

and the tactics they should employ. For instance, in a study by Tapia (2014) of Latino gangs in Texas, it was found that there were intergenerational disputes on these matters, with younger inmates tending to organize themselves in more autonomous groups, which are as much support groups as criminal enterprises in jails. In that same research, however, the gangs identified by correctional officer respondents as most prevalent in Texas jails were the Texas Mexican Mafia, Aryan Brotherhood, Bloods, Texas Syndicate, Crips, Tango Blast, Tango Orejon, Aryan Circle, and Hermandad de Pistoleros Latinos (p. 262).

SEXUAL VIOLENCE

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 mandated that the BJS collect data on sexual assaults in adult and juvenile jails and prisons and that it identify facilities with high levels of victimization. According to the National Inmate Survey for 2011 and 2012 (which included 358 local jails and was conducted by BJS researchers), 3.2% of jail inmates (as opposed to 4.0% of prison inmates) reported experiencing sexual victimization perpetrated by other jail inmates or staff during the previous 12 months (Beck et al., 2013, p. 1). Extrapolating these sample findings to the national population of jail and prison inmates, the BJS researchers estimated that fully 80,600 inmates in prisons and jails experienced sexual victimization during this time period (Beck et al., 2013, p. 8). For jails, it was estimated that there were 25,100

victims; of these incidents, 11,900 were inmate on inmate and 13,200 were staff on inmate, and of these, 2,400 reported being victimized by both staff and inmates (Beck et al., 2013, p. 8). Notably, some of these victimizations were likely “consensual,” although it is legally impossible for inmates, who occupy a powerless position vis-à-vis staff, to give consent to them.

p.126

ETHICAL ISSUE

What Would You Do?

You are a correctional officer who works in the booking area of a large urban jail. About once per month, the jail admits one or two transgender inmates. You notice that there is one male colleague named Joe who is particularly abusive of the transgender female inmates (calling them names, strip searching them, making them stand around naked in front of other staff and inmates while making derogatory comments about their body parts, doing unnecessary pat downs that focus inordinately on their breasts and genitals, referring to them by male pronouns, etc.). Although Joe is the primary instigator of this abuse, there are a few others, both male and female, who play along and others who try to ignore it

(including you). You know your sergeant also has witnessed the abuse and has done nothing to stop it. You are unaware of any complaints being lodged by staff regarding Joe’s or the others’ behavior, although it is openly practiced in the booking area at least once or twice a month. You have heard that a lawsuit has been filed by a former inmate about Joe’s and the other officers’ treatment of her. As a booking officer, you are likely to be called to testify about what happened in her case (all of the abuse mentioned above). What will you do if called to testify? How will you explain your failure to report this abuse beforehand? What do you think will be the likely outcomes of the choices you made and make?

Female inmates in jails (as well as in prisons) were more than twice as likely as male inmates to experience sexual victimization perpetrated by another inmate (3.6% for females as opposed to 1.4% for males) (Beck et al., 2013, p. 17). Male inmates in jails and prisons were slightly more likely to be victims of staff perpetrators. There was higher victimization among inmates who were two or more races or were white by other inmates and staff. In general, younger inmates (under 34 years) and those with a college degree were targeted more by both inmates and staff for sexual victimization.

As mentioned previously in this chapter, LGBTI inmates were much more likely to be victimized by both staff and inmates in both prisons and jails. In prisons, 1.2% and 2.1% of heterosexual inmates experienced inmate-on- inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization, respectively, as compared with 12.2% and 5.4% of LGBTI inmates. In jails, the figures were similarly startling, with 1.2% and 1.7% of heterosexual inmates who experienced inmate-on-inmate and staff-on- inmate sexual victimization, respectively, as compared with 8.5% and 4.3% of LGBTI inmates (Beck et al., 2013, p. 18). In essence, in jails, the LGBTI inmates were seven times more likely to experience sexual victimization by other inmates and 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual victimization by staff than were heterosexuals.

In addition, as mentioned previously in this chapter, those with a mental illness were much more likely to experience sexual victimization than were inmates without such a malady (Beck et al., 2013). Mentally ill jail inmates experienced more inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization than inmates without mental health problems.

In the Prison Rape Elimination Act– prescribed surveys of adult correctional authorities in prisons, jails, and other adult correctional facilities, it was found that the allegations of sexual victimization increased from 2009 to 2011, although the number of substantiated cases (those where an

investigation found that the allegation was true) remained about the same since 2005 (Beck, Rantala, & Rexroat, 2014, p. 1). Notably, in an earlier version of this research, it was explained that most of these allegations were not substantiated, nor were they investigated or found to be supported by evidence, by prison or jail officials (Beck, Harrison, & Adams, 2007). Having said this, however, we should recognize that in most such instances of sexual violence, it would be very difficult to find evidence, as it is in the free world, particularly if the one perpetrating the victimization was a staff member, which of course is why the inmate survey data presented first in this section become so important.

p.127

More than half of the substantiated staff-on- inmate sexual misconduct victimization was committed by female staff on male inmates:

Among all substantiated incidents between 2009 and 2011, the majority (84 percent) of those perpetrated by female staff involved a sexual relationship that “appeared to be willing,” compared to 37 percent of those perpetrated by male staff. Any sexual contact between inmates and staff is illegal, regardless of whether it “appeared to be willing.” (Beck et al., 2014, p. 1)

Other research has found that female staff

were more likely perpetrators in prisons, although we know from research on Texas prisons that when the offense was actual sexual battery, the staff offender was more likely to be male (Marquart, Barnhill, & Balshaw-Biddle, 2001). Male staff were more likely the perpetrators of sexual violence in jails. For instance, in a 2007 case involving the jail in Yuma County, Arizona, three male officers were charged with unlawful sexual conduct with three female inmates (Reutter, 2007).

When the allegation was substantiated, most of the staff were fired (78%), and nearly half (45%) were arrested, prosecuted, or convicted (Beck et al., 2014, p. 1). Inmate perpetrators in substantiated cases were more likely to be placed in solitary confinement (73%), and about half (48%) were prosecuted if the act was a nonconsensual sex act (Beck et al., 2014, p. 1).

Researchers at the Urban Institute (e.g., see La Vigne, Debus-Sherrill, Brazzell, & Downey, 2011, p. 3) used a situational crime prevention approach with the hoped-for result of reducing violence and sexual assault after studying three jails. Their recommendations were multifaceted and included studying past incidents of violence to determine what characteristics of the situation might be changed to reduce future violence; increasing surveillance cameras outside of cells (having a record of who goes in and out because cells are a typical locus for violence); ensuring that

staff are around consistently; hiring better quality staff; training staff in crisis intervention and about violence, mental illness, suicide, and sexual assault; having an enforceable no-tolerance policy for staff sexual misconduct; developing strategies to reduce violence and sexual assault; reducing the contraband coming into the jail because this is often linked with violence; and making sure that inmates who need medications and mental health care get them because not getting them on time may precipitate violence.

INNOVATIONS IN JAILS

NEW-GENERATION OR PODULAR DIRECT-SUPERVISION JAILS

During the 1980s, a new kind of jail was under construction in the United States, then called a new-generation jail and now known as a podular direct-supervision jail. Its two key components are a rounded, or podular, architecture for living units and the direct, as opposed to indirect or intermittent, supervision of inmates by staff; in other words, staff were to be in the living units full time (Applegate & Paoline, 2007; Gettinger, 1984; Jay Farbstein & Associates & Wener, 1989; Zupan, 1991). It was believed that the architecture would complement the ability to supervise and that the presence of staff in the living unit would negate the ability of inmates to control those units. Other important facets of these jails are the provision of more goods

and services in the living unit (e.g., access to telephones, visiting booths, recreation, and library books) and the more enriched leadership and communication roles for staff.

Career Video Payne career video 6.1: Professor

p.128

Not surprisingly, several scholars recognized that the role for the correctional officer in a podular direct-supervision jail would need to change. Zupan (1991), building on the work of Gettinger (1984), identified seven critical dimensions of new-generation jail officer behavior: (1) proactive leadership and conflict resolution skills, (2) building a respectful relationship with inmates, (3) uniform and predictable enforcement of all rules, (4) active observation of all inmate doings and occurrences in the living unit, (5) attending to inmate requests with respect and dignity, (6) disciplining inmates in a fair and consistent manner, and (7) being organized and in the

Courtesy of Bergen County Sheriff’s Office/Bergen Co unty Jail

PHOTO 6.6: A female correctional officer operates a new-generation jail control pod.

open with the supervisory style. Whether officers in podular direct-supervision jails are always adequately selected and trained to fit these dimensions of their role is, as yet, an open research question (Applegate & Paoline, 2007; Nelson & Davis, 1995; Wener, 2006).

New-generation jails, although hardly “new” anymore, became popular in the United States by the late 1980s and through the 1990s (Kerle, 2011; Wener, 2005). Reportedly, in the 21st century, about one-fifth of medium and larger jails are said to be new-generation facilities (Tartaro, 2002). Their architecture, although not all features of such jails, can be seen in most new jails and prisons built these days whether or not they include direct supervision.

It is widely acknowledged by correctional scholars and practitioners that although podular direct-supervision jails or prisons are not necessarily a panacea for all that ails corrections today (e.g., crowding, few resources), they often do represent a significant improvement over more traditional jails (Kerle, 2003; Perroncello, 2002; Zupan, 1991). If operated correctly and including all of the most important elements, they are believed to be less costly in the long run (due to fewer lawsuits), be safer for both staff and inmates, provide a more developed and enriched role for staff, and include more amenities for inmates. This is a big if, however, and some research has called into question these claims of a better environment for inmates and staff and a more enriched role for staff as the implementation of the new- generation model has sometimes faltered or been incomplete in many facilities (Applegate & Paoline, 2007; Stohr, Lovrich, & Wilson, 1994; Tartaro, 2002, 2006). Clearly, more research on new-generation jails is called for to determine their success (or failure) in revolutionizing the jail environment for staff and inmates.

COMMUNITY JAILS

Another promising innovation in jails has been the development of community jails (Barlow, Hight, & Hight, 2006; Kerle, 2003, 2011; Lightfoot, Zupan, & Stohr, 1991). Community jails are devised so that programming provided on the outside does

not end at the jailhouse door because the needs that such programming was addressing have not gone away and will still be there when the inmate transitions back into the community. Therefore, in a community jail, those engaged in education, drug or alcohol counseling, or mental health programming will seamlessly receive such services while incarcerated and again as they transition out of the facility (Barlow et al., 2006; Bookman, Lightfoot, & Scott, 2005; National Institute of Corrections, 2008). Whether one is in and out of the facility within a few days or a few months, needs are met and services provided so that the reintegration into the community is smoother for the inmate and the community in question.

p.129

IN FOCUS 6.2

Prison Rape Elimination Act Controversy

As mentioned in the text of this chapter, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003 required that the Department of Justice and its subdivisions—the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics—study and report on the amount of sexual violence in adult and juvenile prisons and jails. In reaction to this reporting and court cases indicating

that LGBTI inmates were particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by inmates and staff, and after studying the matter, the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, which was created by the PREA legislation, released its national standards in June 2009. These standards are extensive and require that states train staff differently, monitor inmates differently, report offenses, treat victims and offenders, audit themselves, and collect and keep relevant data related to sexual violence. The U.S. Attorney General was asked to release these standards and require that the Bureau of Prisons and each governor certify compliance with these standards or certify that they were working toward compliance. If governors did not do this, they risked losing 5% of any future Department of Justice grants (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). As the date for certification of compliance neared during the spring of 2014, governors from at least seven states and one territory (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and the Northern Mariana Islands territory) ignored the certification deadline of May 15 or indicated that they would not certify compliance with these standards, some claiming that the standards were too cumbersome and expensive to comply with (Reilly, 2014, p. 1). On the other hand, a few states, including New Hampshire and New Jersey, certified

compliance, while 46 states or territories promised to use their grant monies from the Department of Justice to work toward compliance with the federal standards (Reilly, 2014, p. 1). By spring of 2016, most states had certified or promised to move toward compliance.

Discussion Questions

1. What benefits would flow from certification by states for jail inmates?

2. How might non-LGBTQI inmates benefit from certification?

3. Why would states be reluctant to promise certification, and how might that reluctance be overcome?

Managers of community jails also recognize that they cannot staff or resource the jails sufficiently to address every need of their inmates. Rather, community experts who are regularly engaged in the provision of such services are the appropriate persons to provide them whether the inmate is in a jail or free in the community; in both instances, it is argued, the inmate is a community member and entitled to such services (Barlow et al., 2006; Lightfoot et al., 1991).

Obviously, the development of community jails requires that some resources (particularly

space) be devoted to the accommodation of community experts who provide for inmates’ needs. Unfortunately, it is the rare jail that has the luxury of excess space for allocation to such programming. Therefore, the solution may lie in inclusion of such space in jail architectural plans, although this certainly is not optimal given the immediacy of inmate needs discussed in the foregoing section.

p.130

ETHICAL ISSUE

What Would You Do?

You are a professor at a university, and you do research on jails. Some of your early research was on new-generation or podular direct-supervision (PDS) jails. One of the jails you profiled in that early research was a model PDS jail in that it practiced all of the principles of the best of such jails. You happen to visit that jail more than 20 years later, and other than the physical podular architecture, there is no longer anything new or progressive about the jail; there is no evidence that it is a PDS jail anymore. In fact, the supervision practices now seem to you to be abusive. Staff are no longer in the living units 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and inmates are locked up in their double- and sometimes triple-celled small

cells (made for one inmate) for up to 23 hours a day. Staff are not trained in how to be leaders in their living units because they are rarely in them, and inmates are not out of their cells to be led; instead, staff contact with inmates often includes yelling through the steel cell doors or the slight contact staff have with inmates when let out for their 1 hour of exercise. Inmates no longer have the support or services that typified PDS jails—and this jail—in the past. You are aware that fully 50% to 60% of the inmates in this jail have not been convicted of a crime, yet they are treated like they are serious offenders with behavior problems in a super-maximum-security prison. You know how this jail used to be operated, you know how it should be operated, and you know it is not being operated in this way. What would you do and why? Who might you talk to? What do you think would be the likely consequences of the action(s) you choose?

The second problem that faces jail managers interested in creating community jails is convincing local service providers—and lawmakers if need be—that people in jails have a right to, and a continued need for, services and that the continued provision of such services by community experts benefits both those inmates and the larger community. Needless to say, making this case, as

reasonable as it might sound, can be a “hard sell” to those social service agencies that already have scarce resources and to policymakers concerned that more tax dollars might be required to fund such resource provision in jails. For these reasons, larger jails and communities, with their economies of scale and a greater proportion of their populations in need of social services, might be better situated to operate community jails and thus achieve their purported benefits of less crime from the continuous provision of services in jails (Kerle, 2011; Lightfoot et al., 1991).

One interesting development on this front is how the Affordable Care Act is being implemented in jails. The ACA does not expressly prohibit jail inmates, as long as they are not convicted, from being able to sign up for Medicaid or qualified health plans while they are in jail. What this means is that a jail can embrace this community function by ensuring that its inmates are signed up. Evidence indicates that mentally impaired inmates with Medicaid coverage who reentered communities from jails were more likely to have a smooth transition to needed care than those who were not so covered (Robertson, 2014).

COEQUAL STAFFING

Another promising innovation in jails that has occurred during the last couple of decades in some sheriffs’ departments has been the

development of coequal staffing, which provides comparable pay and benefits to those who work in the jail with those who work on the streets as law enforcement (Kerle, 2003, 2011). Historically, jails have been a dumping ground (to use Irwin’s [1985] terminology) not just for inmates but for staff as well. If a sheriff deemed that a staff person could not “make it” on the streets as law enforcement, he or she was given a job in the jail, where apparently the individual’s lack of skills and ability was not seen as a problem. Moreover, jail staff were (and often still are) paid less and received less training than their counterparts working on the streets (Stohr & Collins, 2009). As a result, jails do find it difficult to attract and keep the best personnel, and even if they can attract the more talented applicants, jail jobs were (and often still are) used as “stepping stones” to better paying and higher status jobs on the law enforcement side of sheriffs’ agencies (Kerle, 2011).

p.131

Since the 1980s, however, many sheriffs’ departments, although far from a majority, have recognized the problems created by according this second-tier status to those who work in jails (Kerle, 2011). Consequently, they have instituted programs whereby staff who work in the jails, who often are given deputy status, are trained and paid similarly to those who work in the free communities. Some anecdotal evidence from sheriffs’ departments indicates that this change has had

a phenomenal effect on the professional operation of jails (because they are better staffed) and on the morale of those who labor in them (Kerle, 2011).

REENTRY PROGRAMS FOR JAILS

Perhaps the newest “thing” in jails these days (and in prisons, too) is a rethinking about how to keep people out of them. (Reentry will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10.) Rather than focusing on deterrence or incapacitation so much (as during the 1980s and 1990s), jail practitioners are studying how to make the transition from jails to the community smoother and more successful so that people do not commit more crimes and return (Bookman et al., 2005; Freudenberg, 2006; McLean, Robarge, & Sherman, 2006; Osher, 2007). Research by Wodahl, Boman, and Garland (2015) indicates that community sanctions for probation and parole violations can be as effective as the use of jail and, at the same time, cost much less, so there is additional impetus for communities to try to move their jail inmates back into the community or to restrict their placement in the jail in the first place.

JOURNAL ARTICLE Journal Article: 6.1: Integrated Primary and Behavioral Health Care in Patient-Centered Medical Homes for Jail Releases With Mental Illness. Criminal Justice and Behavior CLICK TO SHOW

As indicated by the discussion in the foregoing material of all the medical, psychological, and social—not to mention educational—deficits that many inmates of jails have, this transition back into the community is likely to be fraught with difficulties. That is why any successful reentry program must include a recognition of the problems individual inmates may have (e.g., mental illness, physical illness, joblessness, homelessness) and address them systematically in collaboration with the client and the community (Freudenberg, 2006; McLean et al., 2006). In a study by Freudenberg, Mosely, Labriola, and Murrill (as cited in Freudenberg, 2006) conducted in New York City jails, the researchers asked hundreds of inmates what their top three priority reentry needs were. For adult women, they were housing, substance abuse treatment, and financial support; for adult men, they were employment, education, and housing; for adolescent males, they were employment, education, and financial support (Freudenberg, 2006, p. 15). Spjeldnes, Jung, and Yamatani (2014) also argued that women’s and men’s reentry needs may differ; these researchers found, in their study of a large urban jail, that more women than men reported chemical dependency and mental health needs and that women were more likely to value treatment programming.

Effective interventions to improve reentry, in the New York study, included everything from referral to counseling to drug treatment to

post-release supervision, depending on the needs of the inmate, his or her unique reentry situation, and the services available in the community. Clearly, reentry is a complex process for people with multiple problems, and it requires that jail personnel prioritize the needs they will target and the interventions they will apply and then network with community agencies to provide the package of services most likely to further the goal of successful reentry (Freudenberg, 2006; McLean et al., 2006). In fact, Bookman and her colleagues (2005) argued that jail personnel should expect to engage in collaborative arrangements with community agencies (sounds a bit like community jails, doesn’t it?) if they hope to succeed during the reentry process.

p.132

SUMMARY

• Jails in the United States are faced with any number of seemingly intractable problems. They are often overcrowded—or close to it—and house some of the most debilitated and vulnerable persons in our communities. They house the accused, the guilty, and the sentenced as well as low-level

offenders and serious and violent ones. As with prisons, their mission is to incapacitate (even the untried), to deter, to punish, and even to rehabilitate. The degree to which they accomplish any of these goals is, in large part, determined by the political and social climate in which the jail is nested. Since the 1980s, the political climate has favored “harsh justice” meted out by policymakers and the actors in the criminal justice system and has led to the unrelenting business of filling and building prisons and jails across the country (Cullen, 2006; Irwin, 1985, 2005; Whitman, 2003).

• Jails have also served as a dumping ground for those who are marginally criminal and are unable or unwilling to access social services. Too often, the needs of such persons go unaddressed in communities, and as a result these unresolved needs either contribute to their incarceration (in the case of substance abuse and mental illness) or make it likely (in the case of homelessness) that they will enter and reenter the revolving jailhouse door.

• Sexual violence in jails remains problematic. It is likely true that the rate of violence between inmates and inmates or between staff and

inmates has gone down during recent years. However, increased monitoring of this phenomenon is certainly called for and may serve to further reduce violence through the implementation of violence reduction techniques and training for staff. To that end, the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, with its reporting requirement for correctional institutions, represents a positive move.

• Thankfully, there have been some other hopeful developments on the correctional horizon. Jails in a position to do so have expanded their medical and treatment options to address the needs of inmates. Architectural and managerial solutions have been applied to jails in the form of new-generation jails and coequal pay for staff in sheriffs’ departments, and some jails have even experimented with community engagement to ensure that the needs of people in communities are not neglected when such folks enter jails or reenter communities.

KEY TERMS

Coequal staffing, 130

Community jails, 128

Jails, 110

New-generation or podular direct-supervision jails, 127

Overcrowding, 112

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 125

Reentry, 131

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Why are jails the “dumping ground” for so many people in our communities? What are the consequences of this social policy?

2. What is the best use for jails? What factors might make it difficult to operate jails so that they are able to focus on this best use?

3. What do you think are the best practices (most effective) in managing medically challenged or potentially suicidal inmates?

4. How can jail managers best reduce or eliminate sexual violence against inmates in jails? What do you think keeps managers from being successful at eliminating such violence?

5. What factors are likely to compromise the ability of podular direct-supervision jails to achieve

their promise?

6. Why are jail staff in most facilities and sheriffs’ departments still paid less than those on patrol? What argument can be made for the same or even higher pay for jail staff?

7. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of community jails?

8. How might reentry programs prevent recidivism?

p.133

Review → Practice → Improve

Sharpen your skills with SAGE edge at edge.sagepub.com/stohressentials3e.

SAGE edge offers a robust online environment featuring an impressive array of free tools and resources for review, study, and further exploration, keeping both instructors and students on the cutting edge of teaching and learning.

FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION AND APPLICATION, TAKE A LOOK AT THE INTERACTIVE

EBOOK FOR THESE PREMIUM RESOURCES:

Career Video 6.1 Professor

SAGE News Clip 6.1 Alabama Prisons and HIV

SAGE News Clip 6.2 Prison Suicide Amid Hernandez News

Journal Article 6.1 Integrated Primary and Behavioral Health Care in Patient-Centered Medical Homes for Jail Releases With Mental Illness