|
|
| Jail Standards in 2001: Results of a Twenty-One State Survey |
| By Mike Howerton |
| Published: 01/07/2002 |
|
Survey Development and Respondents The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) sponsors and coordinates an annual meeting of chief jail inspectors from across the country to discuss key issues in corrections, jails and jail inspection. These yearly meetings focus on a variety of topics but share a central theme relating to jail standards and compliance assessment. The status of jail standards in each state is newsworthy and a topic of ongoing discussion among participating Inspectors. In preparation for the July, 2001 meeting, NIC coordinators and jail inspectors planned a range of topics including a survey of participant states to obtain the current status of jail standards. This item was placed on the meeting agenda and the survey was undertaken in March, 2001 by staff of the Local Facilities Unit, Virginia Department of Corrections. The survey was sent to participating chief jail inspectors and by the July 17-18, 2001 meeting date, survey responses were received from the following twenty-one states: * Michigan *Wisconsin * California * Idaho * New York * Indiana * Kentucky * Oregon * Georgia * Massachusetts * Florida * South Carolina * Virginia * Maryland * Ohio * Arkansas * Minnesota * Pennsylvania * Nebraska * Oklahoma * Maine Respondents identified their job title, agency and state and provided information on seven multiple part questions. An abbreviated version of survey questions follows: 1) Does state have jail standards? When promulgated? Is compliance mandatory or elective? 2) Do standards govern operations, construction or both? 3) Are regular audits or inspections conducted? 4) What authority enforces compliance? 5) What sanctions may be taken for non-compliance? 6) Have standards been recently revised? 7) What changes, updates or modifications were made? States with Jail Standards Jail Standards currently exist in all of the twenty-one states surveyed however, dates of promulgation and requirement for compliance vary. Among survey responses, Maine reported the earliest establishment of jail standards in 1951, followed by Michigan in 1953 and California, with full jail standards development some 10 years later in 1963. Based on survey responses, standards promulgation gained impetus in the early 1970s and by the mid 1980s, all survey respondent states had established standards for jails. Today, in 2001 jail compliance with state standards is generally mandatory. Of the twenty-one responding states, only four reported compliance to be elective. Those states were Georgia, Idaho and California with Oregon instituting elective compliance in 2000 (former mandatory compliance from 1979). Current jail standards typically govern both jail operations and construction or areas related to the facility physical plant. While Maryland reported governance of operational areas only, the majority of responding states indicated that matters such as new construction, renovation, additions, and cell size were also addressed in current jail standards. Compliance Assessment and Enforcement The majority of responding states (20 of 21) reported the existence of a compliance assessment process. Only one state, Georgia, indicated that no determination of standards compliance was undertaken. Even states such as California, Idaho and Oregon with elective standards reported that compliance assessment was undertaken. Regularly scheduled inspections or audits are carried out in most states to examine jail policy, procedure and physical plant compliance with standards. Among surveyed states, the timeframes for inspections or audits varied from quarterly, or four times per year, to every three years. Virginia for example, fell in the median of responding states with a compliance assessment process for jails and lockups of annual Life, Health and Safety Inspections (34 standards) and triennial audits (over 100 standards). A commonality among several states was the identification of critical standards and a compliance assessment process that specifically focused on these apart from other administrative or policy related standards. Fire safety, health care, security and sanitation were often reported as critical areas for standards governance and compliance assessment. Standards compliance enforcement, or the ability to mete out sanctions for non-compliance, is generally vested at the state level in the executive or judicial branches of government. Respondent states reported the following enforcement agencies or bodies: *State Department of Corrections *State Attorney General *Courts *State Commissions *Board of Corrections *Department of Health Where compliance is elective, an enforcement or sanction process was not reported but compliance assessment was undertaken by organizations such as the Sheriffs Association (Idaho) or a peer review system in Oregon. California, with elective compliance and no sanctions, reports publishing of inspection results with distribution to the jail administrator, superior court, city council or board of supervisors and state legislature. Additionally, compliance with construction standards is mandatory where state funding is provided to California localities. The compliance enforcement or sanction process, according to most surveyed states, begins with mutual discussion of deficiencies and planning for corrective action by both the jail and inspection authority. Upon a citation of deficiencies, jails are generally required to submit an action plan within a specific timeframe. The action plan specifies corrective actions necessary and a timetable for completion. Corrective actions not carried out or continual non-compliances may be met with further sanctions. The majority of states in the survey reported the legal authority for closure or prohibition of confinement as the ultimate available sanction. Jail Standards Revision Surveyed states were queried on the status of standards revision with respondents providing information on planned or completed changes. A majority of states responding to the survey (18) reported recent or current revision activity to change or update standards. Only two states with jail standards, Arkansas and Oklahoma, responded that no current revision activity was underway. Florida reported an annual review of standards mandated through the Florida Model Jail Standards. Revision topics or planned changes were varied among surveyed states with a range in scope from simple language or format revisions to significant modifications of content. While Michigan and Georgia reported planned changes to more closely follow American Correctional Association Standards, other states indicated that revisions would reflect changing case law and subsequent practices. States such as New York and Indiana reported specific revisions targeted at management of segregation prisoners, strip searches, medical care and continuing education for jail staff. Prisoner classification was a revision topic with Virginia, Kentucky and South Carolina reporting changes to current classification procedures or requirements for an Objective Jail Classification model. Jail Standards in 2001 The results of this survey show that standards remain a significant factor in jail oversight across the country. From the early 1950's to today, standards have been promulgated to set a benchmark for the operation of these local correctional facilities under the administration of sheriffs, jailors or administrators. Standards today remain mandatory with compliance assessed by outside agents at regular intervals. Typically, jail inspectors perform and manage this assessment process and report to state level authorities on findings. Correctional agencies, boards, commissions or state officials enforce compliance with a variety of sanctions available. While jail closure could result from non-compliance, most deficiencies are addressed through mutual state and local planning for corrective action. Lastly, most surveyed states report that jail Standards have been recently revised or updated. A variety of revision topics reflect changes in case law; modified strip search procedures; improved classification models; or alignment with American Correctional Association Standards. While different states focused on specific topics of vested interest, a commonly reported revision activity was the inclusion of best correctional practices. **Mike Howerton is a Chief of Operations with the Virginia Department of Corrections who has worked with city, county and regional jails for over 20 years. As manager of the Local Facilities Unit, Mike coordinates state jail Inspections; construction planning and review; technical assistance and other programs. A graduate of Eastern Kentucky University with a Masters in Criminal Justice from Virginia Commonwealth University, Mike was elected President of the National Association of Jail Inspectors in July of this year. Please contact at: Virginia Department of Corrections PO Box 26963 Richmond, VA 23261 (804) 674-3251 (office) (804) 743-7746 (home) Pat Waskey, Executive Secretary, Local Facilities Unit assisted in the development, distribution and compilation of the Jail Standards Survey. Resources Further information or copies of the Standards Survey may be obtained by contacting Mike Howerton, Chief of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections at HowertonJM@vadoc.state.va.us or Pat Waskey at WaskeyPJ@vadoc.state.va.us or telephone the VADOC Local Facilities Unit at (804) 674-3245. |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
Hiring an attorney can present confusing situations for someone. It’s hard to tell whether you’ll get the best service possible in your situation. You likely have a lot of questions. Will your lawyer hand off your matter to someone else? Will your lawyer return your phone calls? It’s hard to know without someone you can trust. If you been Waco insurance claim lawyer you need a lawyer. People in Central Texas have trusted Dunnam & Dunnam for almost 100 years for their most pressing legal concerns. They understand the value of a good advocate. They’re a family helping Waco families since 1925.