Jail Standards and Inspection Programs, Resource - National ...

U.S. Department of JusticeNational Institute of Corrections320 First Street, NWWashington, DC 20534Morris L. ThigpenDirectorVirginia HutchinsonChief, Jails DivisionJim T. BarbeeCorrectional Program SpecialistNational Institute of Correctionshttp://www.nicic.org

Jail Standards andInspection ProgramsMark D. MartinApril 2007NIC Accession Number022180

This document is supported by cooperative agreement #06J54GJJ3 from theNational Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view oropinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarilyrepresent the official opinion or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

ContentsForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vAcknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ixChallenges Facing Jails Today. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ixConsequences for Jails and Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiResponding to the Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiChapter 1. Role and Purpose of Jail Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Definition of Jail Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Role and Purpose of Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Relationship of Standards to the Mission of the Jail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Why Jail Standards Are Important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Rationale for Jail Standards and Inspection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Commonly Raised Objections to Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Chapter 2. Jail Standards and Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Cost of Jail Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Judicial Oversight of Jail Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Historic Vulnerability of Jails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Liability Exposure: How Serious a Concern? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Risks of Inconsistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Emergence of Jail Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Jail Standards and Court Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Chapter 3. Key Elements of Jail Standards and Inspection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Policy Goals and Philosophical Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Legal Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Scope of Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Applicability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Administering Agency Organizational Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19iii

Administering Agency Functions and Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Inspections and Followup Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Chapter 4. Strategies for Developing and Implementing Jail Standards Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . 23Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Establishing the Vision, Mission, and Goals for the Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Developing Enabling Legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Establishing the Administering Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Developing the Jail Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Developing Resources To Assist Jails With Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Developing an Implementation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Conducting Initial Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Planning and Initiating Corrective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Options for Jails in States Where No Standards Have Been Adopted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Chapter 5. Technical Assistance and Resources Available Fromthe National Institute of Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33State Jail Inspectors Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Resource Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37AppendixesAppendix A. Topics of Litigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Appendix B. Summary of State Standards and Inspection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Appendix C. Profiles of Three Organizational Models of Standards Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Appendix D. Example of a Group Charter for a Jail Standards Planning Committee . . . . . . . . . . 59Appendix E. Excerpted Sections of Enabling Legislation for Nebraska Jail Standards . . . . . . . . . 61Appendix F. Competency Profile of a Detention Facility Inspector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63iv

ForewordThe National Institute of Corrections (NIC)recognizes that jails today face unprecedentedchallenges in the form of burgeoning jail populations,escalating costs, crowding, increasedpublic scrutiny, and litigation. In response tothese challenges, many states have decided toimplement jail standards and inspection programsto ensure that jails are operated safelyand efficiently.Jail standards ensure that constitutional andstatutory provisions are put into operationalpractice. These standards ensure a greater consistencyacross the state in jails’ quality of care,use of resources, and operations. They alsoprovide policymakers with a means of assessingand addressing the needs of inmates in a logical,objective way.The purpose of this guide is to give informationthat will help states and state jail-relatedorganizations to develop or update jail standardsand inspection programs. The guide providesan overview of how to develop a jail standardsprogram, offering valuable information aboutdifferent organizational models for the administeringagency; inspection and followup; keystakeholders in jails standards; vision, mission,and goals; how to develop standards; ways toassist jails with compliance; and strategies forgaining stakeholder support.Sheriffs, jail administrators, state legislators,funding authorities, and a broad range of otherstakeholders will find this guide useful. Chapter5 offers information about technical assistanceavailable from NIC as local jails establish andimplement their standards and inspection programs.We invite readers to take advantage ofthese and other resources NIC has developedand to contact NIC for additional assistance,if needed.Jail standards and inspections programs are inour nation’s best interest. Nothing less than thehealth and well-being of our citizens—inmatesand the public at large—is at stake.Morris L. ThigpenDirectorNational Institute of Correctionsv

AcknowledgmentsThis resource guide, written under the directionof the National Institute of Corrections (NIC),was developed to assist states and professionalorganizations interested in establishing or updatingjail standards and inspection programs.Elected officials, jail practitioners, and other keypolicymakers should find this document usefulas both a resource and a reference. The guidewas developed with input from knowledgeablejail inspection officials from across the countryand the author’s experience in the developmentand implementation of jail standards programs.Special thanks to Virginia Hutchinson, Jim T.Barbee, and Georgette Walsh at NIC for theirleadership and assistance in the developmentof this guide. Thanks also go to Shelley Zavlek,who edited the initial draft, and to JanetMcNaughton and Christine Tansey at LockheedMartin Business Process Solutions, who took thedocument from draft stage to final publication.I also wish to express my appreciation to thefollowing individuals who contributed to thedevelopment of the guide. William C. Collinsprincipally authored chapter 2, “Jail Standardsand Liability.” Donald Nadler contributed significantlyto chapter 1, “Role and Purpose ofJail Standards.” Mr. Nadler, along with WilliamCrout and Paul Downing, also provided invaluablesupport throughout the development of thedocument by helping to gather information aboutinspection programs and by reviewing draftsof the guide. Also, thanks to all the chief jailinspectors from across the country who sharedinformation about their programs and contributedto the development of the document at theirannual chief jail inspector network meeting.Mark D. Martinvii

Introductionsurveyed in 2002 had a current or prior violentoffense—up from 36 percent in 1996(James, 2004).■ Medical, mental health, and substanceabuse problems among jail inmates. Theprevalence of medical, mental health, andsubstance abuse problems is significantlyhigher among jail inmates than the generalpopulation. Two-thirds of inmates in2002 said they were regular users of drugsand/or alcohol (James, 2004). In a 1996survey, more than 37 percent of the inmatessurveyed reported a physical or mentaldisability, and 25 percent reported previoustreatment for a mental or emotionalproblem (Harlow, 1998). Jails increasinglyare used as alternatives to inadequate localmental health services but frequently are illequipped to provide the services requiredfor this purpose. Changes in the fundingof mental health services at the federal andstate levels that were designed to encouragecommunity-based approaches have led tothe closing of many state hospitals for thementally ill. Local mental health providersin many communities have struggled todevelop the capacity to appropriately managethe resulting influx of clients.■ Increased use of technology. Technologiesand equipment used in today’s jails are farmore complex than in the past. Live-scanfingerprinting, digital photography, barcode systems for identification and propertymanagement, card reader and PDA lockingsystems, automated booking and inmatemanagement systems, and high-tech detection,surveillance, and communicationssystems are just a few examples of the moderntechnology found in many new jails.This technology requires a workforce withspecialized training and skills.■ Challenging workforce issues. Administrators’time is increasingly taken up withaddressing issues related to union contracts,collective bargaining, and compliance withvarious labor law requirements. They facesignificant challenges in managing today’sworkforce. Hiring and retaining qualifiedstaff is a major concern. Turnover is increasingat a time when the pool of eligibleapplicants for jail officer positions is dwindling.Jail officers today are expected to bemuch more than guards. They are expectedto actively manage and supervise inmatebehavior, often through direct supervision,which stations officers in the housing unitwith the inmates to interact with them andsupervise their behavior directly. Therefore,comprehensive training and active supervisionof staff are essential.■ Privatization. Interest in privatization of jailoperations is increasing. Privatization mayrange from contracting for the overall managementof jail operations to supervisionof specific jail functions such as food services,medical services, or the commissary.Contrary to common belief, local jurisdictionsare not relieved of liability when theyprivatize services; jail officials are responsiblefor ensuring that independent contractorsmeet applicable standards in the delivery ofservices.■ Increased public scrutiny. Jails are no longerout of sight and out of mind. Any one ofa number of events or issues can put the jail“under the microscope”—including litigation,spiraling costs, public safety concerns,mismanagement (perceived or real), andsudden crises (e.g., suicide, major disturbances,escapes, fire).xi

Consequences for Jails and CommunitiesThere are many consequences to failing to meetthese challenges. Jails that are crowded or do notprovide adequate security and medical or mentalhealth services may be subject to:■ Liability.■ Compromises in public safety.■ Unsafe conditions for staff and inmates.■ Institutional violence.■ High staff turnover.■ An increased likelihood of recidivism (dueto inadequate programming).■ Diminished effectiveness of the local justicesystem.■ A negative public image.Significant financial and social costs are associatedwith each of these consequences. Ignoringthese issues is not an option; doing so would bepoor public policy and possibly an indicationof “deliberate indifference.” 1 Local jurisdictionsmust take proactive steps to operate jailsin accordance with established constitutionalrequirements and sound correctional practice.Responding to the ChallengesFortunately, jurisdictions across the country haveresponded to these challenges and have eliminatedor minimized many of the problems describedabove. Their efforts have resulted in:■ Increased professionalism as a result of theselection, hiring, and supervision of qualified,competent staff and the nurturing ofan organizational culture that valuesprofessionalism.■ Expanded training programs to providestaff with the knowledge and skills to dotheir jobs properly and maintain high performancelevels.■ Adequate staffing levels to meet coveragerequirements and carry out essential jailfunctions and activities.■ New facilities/improved conditions to providesafe, functional, and healthy work andliving environments for all users of the facility,including inmates, officers, civilian staff,and volunteers.■ The establishment of written policiesand procedures to provide consistency anddirection for staff in carrying out daily functionsand activities.■ The expansion of jail programs and servicesto meet inmates’ basic needs and keepthem productively occupied through educationalopportunities and life skills training.■ Compliance with codes and standards tomeet legal requirements and promote professionalpractice.State governments and professional associationshave provided the catalyst for many of thesechanges by monitoring and overseeing jailsthrough established jail standards and inspectionprograms. Although most jails are locally operated,many states have determined that there isan overriding state interest in providing oversightand support to local jails to maintain the healthand well-being of citizens, both offenders andthe general public.1In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the “deliberate indifference”test is applied in areas other than just medical, includingsafety and other general living conditions. It has effectivelyexpanded to mean “deliberate indifference to the basic humanneeds” of the inmate.xii

Role and Purpose of Jail StandardsChapter 1Definition of Jail StandardsJail standards are specifications or benchmarksfor jail operations and facilities. They may existin the form of mandated rules and regulationsestablished by law or voluntary guidelines establishedby professional associations. Jail standardstypically consist of prescriptive statementsthat establish requirements or levels of performancefor specific jail functions, activities, orconditions. These statements, and the standardsgenerally, are intended to reflect legal requirementsand what the field believes is “sound correctionalpractice.”Role and Purpose of StandardsJail standards play a key role in translating constitutionaland statutory provisions into operationalpractice. Exhibit 1 (page 2) shows theapplication of these provisions from the broadestlevel down to specific details of jail functionsand activities:Standards serve many important purposes forjails and the jurisdictions they serve. Standardsdeveloped at the state level, which reflect caselaw, provide a point of reference against whichall state jails may be evaluated and compared.By issuing jail standards, the state or sponsoringprofessional organization defines what itconsiders acceptable practice and the minimumconditions of confinement for all jails withinthe state. Standards create a level playing fieldfor local jurisdictions and provide for a greaterconsistency across the state in the quality ofcare, use of resources, and method of operations.Furthermore, they provide a measuring stickfor state policymakers to use in assessing andaddressing incarceration needs in a more rationaland consistent manner.Well-crafted, logical standards that comply withall state and federal laws and are based on generallyaccepted correctional practices ensure thatjails have:nnnPolicies and procedures that are both professionaland legally defensible.A basis for developing effective, defensiblestaff training programs.A rational, objective methodology for identifyingand addressing deficiencies in jailoperations and conditions.Such jails operate in an orderly manner thatpromotes the safety of inmates, staff, visitors,and the surrounding community. They experiencefewer inmate-inmate assaults, suicides, andsuicide attempts and have fewer problems withcontraband. Because these jails protect inmates’basic human rights, they ensure that inmatepunishment consists only of a separation fromsociety, and not ill-treatment or dangerous andunhealthy living conditions during custody.Relationship of Standards to theMission of the JailIn simple terms, the mission of the jail is to“keep people—to keep them in, keep them safe,keep them in line, keep them healthy, and keep

Exhibit . Translating Constitutional and StatutoryProvisions Into PracticeConstitutionThe U.S. Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) is considered when developingstandards. For example, standards set for inmate visits, mail, and telephone use reflect the right to freedom of speech established by the first amendment.StatutesStatutes provide mechanisms for the enforcementof constitutional rights (e.g., Title 42, Section 1983of the U.S. Code) and authorize the developmentand implementation of jail standards.StandardsStandards address specific aspects of jail conditions andoperations. Ideally, standards represent a merger ofapplicable case law and best practices in jail operations(e.g., rules established in state administrative codes).Policies/ProceduresPolicies and procedures formally communicate informationabout jail operations and goals to staff and others. Jail standards provide a basis for the jail’s policies and procedures.Post OrdersPost orders apply policies and procedures to specificposts or duty stations within the jail.Inmate ManualAn inmate manual describes the jail’s routine andexpectations concerning inmate behavior.them busy—and do it as efficiently as possiblewith fairness and without undue suffering”(Logan, 1993). Statutes, case law, standards,professional practice, and community values allplay a role in defining what this means for individualjails and how it affects jail conditions andoperations. Individuals in charge of the jail andits support have an affirmative duty to be proactiveand take the measures necessary to achievethis mission. Properly written jail standardsestablish requirements or levels of performancefor jail functions, activities, and conditions that,if met, should produce the desired outcomes necessaryto achieve the jail’s mission.Why Jail Standards Are ImportantCenturies ago, judges determined guilt or innocenceby ordering those accused of a crime topick up an iron bar that had been heated untilred hot. Those who could hold the bar withoutgetting burned were proclaimed innocent. Analternative method was to tie a large rock to theaccused and then toss the person into a deeppond. Those who floated were let go.Jails were dark, dreary dungeons, where emaciatedinmates fought with rats and other inmatesfor scraps of food. They lived in unsanitaryconditions and received little or no medicalcare. Temperatures ranged from freezing coldto blistering heat. Inmates did not change theirclothes; they wore what they had been wearingon the day they were incarcerated. Jail guardsregularly abused them. “Lock them up and throwaway the key” was the basic philosophy of corrections.Penitentiaries were so named becauseinmates were considered to be doing penance fortheir crimes. They were forced to spend all theirtime in solitude, with little or no regard for theirphysical health or mental well-being.Today, the U.S. justice system is considered bymany to be among the best in the world. In theUnited States, a substantial body of law protectsthe rights of the accused and incarcerated aswell as those of the victims of crimes. All citizensenjoy the right to due process, to a fair andspeedy trial, and to appeal a verdict all the way

Chapter 1: Role and Purpose of Jail Standardsto the Supreme Court, if necessary. The decisionto prosecute is based on the sufficiency ofthe evidence the police have uncovered and ona grand jury process. Trial is by a jury of one’speers, which hears the evidence and decidesguilt or innocence based on the facts presented.Although not perfect, the system has checks andbalances and has as its goal fairness and equaltreatment for all.Unfortunately, conditions in some U.S. jailsdo not reflect the enlightenment of the nation’slegal system. Appalling conditions, includingovercrowding, a lack of sanitation and appropriatemedical care, and poorly trained and abusiveguards can still be found in jails that are subjectto little or no regulatory oversight or that haveno set of standards to follow.Stakeholders responsible for building, funding,operating, or working in a jail and citizens incommunities in which jails are located should beaware of the following facts:nnnJails hold a wide variety of inmates. Oftenthe public thinks that all the “really bad people”are in a prison somewhere in anotherpart of the state. In fact, every person whogoes to prison has spent time in a local communityjail while awaiting trial and sentencing.This means that a neighbor sent to jailfor shoplifting may be in jail with someoneaccused of rape or murder.Inmates need to be protected while incustody. An inmate has a right to a safeenvironment while in jail. This objective isadvanced by placing an inmate in a housingarea that is appropriate for his/her unique setof characteristics (e.g., handicapped, developmentallydisabled, suicidal, in need ofspecial medical attention).Most inmates will return to the community.Jails do not simply lock inmates up andtoss away the key, and inmates who are notnnnntreated properly while in custody will likelycontinue to have the same problems thatresulted in their arrest once they are back inthe community.People with mental health problems constitutea large portion of the jail population.Surveys indicate that many inmates inthe United States have a diagnosable mentalhealth problem (James and Glaze, 2006).Returning them to the community withouta plan for continued counseling and medicationoften sets them up for failure and aquick return to jail.Inmates lose very few basic individualrights when they are incarcerated. Felonsmay lose the right to vote, to own firearms,and to obtain certain professional licenses.They do not lose the right to be free ofabuse, to contact and retain legal counsel,and to converse with and visit their friendsand relatives under defined conditions.The jail setting and conditions are notmeant to be punishment. The function of ajail is to safely and humanely hold inmatesremanded to its custody by the courts. Someof these inmates have only been chargedwith a crime but not yet adjudicated. The jailholds these inmates to ensure their appearancein court and/or to protect the communityuntil their next court appearance oruntil they are otherwise released (e.g., bail).For jail inmates who have been convictedof crimes, the punishment is isolation fromsociety rather than the conditions of confinement.Holding inmates under inhumaneconditions (i.e., cold, dark, dank cells) isinappropriate and illegal.Inmates have a right to medical treatment.All inmates deserve an acceptablestandard of medical care. Because inmatesare unable to access medical treatment inthe community the way that free persons

can, the courts have determined that it isthe responsibility of the jail to provide thismedical care.n Inmates must be provided with adequate,nutritional meals. Dieticians should ensurethat each meal provides inmates with abalanced diet appropriate to their age andmedical conditions. Teenagers may need adifferent caloric intake than older inmates.Diabetics, inmates on dialysis, and thosewith food allergies all need to have medicallyapproved and appropriate diets. Inmateswith legitimate religious dietary restrictionsalso must be accommodated.n Inmates must be provided with cleanclothes and bedding. Clothing, towels, andbedding must be exchanged, laundered, andinspected on a regular basis. Failing to do sowill result in an unhygienic facility for boththe inmates and the staff.n Inmates are not the only ones in thefacility. Besides the inmates, there are theofficers who work with and supervise them,cooks and maintenance people, nurses, vendors,educators, and volunteers. An unsafefacility puts community members at risk.Facilities operate around the clock, withouttime off for holidays or weekends. Thosewho work in the jail are entitled to a worksetting that is safe, stable, and healthy.n Inmates are at a higher risk of attemptingor actually committing suicide thanthe general population. Research indicatesthat the suicide rate in jails is 47 deaths per100,000 population, compared with approximately11 deaths per 100,000 in the communityat large (Mumola, 2005). Factorsassociated with inmate suicide and suicideattempts include isolation, the prospect ofspending large amounts of time locked up,and mental health problems.Rationale for Jail Standards andInspection ProgramsMost people see the value of standards as aguide to how jails should be operated andmaintained. The rationale for independentinspections and regulatory oversight to ensurethat these standards are met is more difficult forsome to accept. However, it is in society’s bestinterest to ensure that jails are used and operatedproperly. This can be achieved only by establishinga clear set of standards coupled with a processof inspections and followup to see that anyidentified deficiencies are corrected.Counties (and their many political subdivisions)have numerous local public works projects thatare the responsibility of the county or of thecities, towns, or villages within its boundaries.Roads, schools, hospitals, police departments,firehouses, and courthouses for county and localcourts are built and maintained at local expense.These projects are done for the community andby the community and are frequently sourcesof pride for the citizenry. No one questions theneed for these or the numerous other projects,including dams, bridges, and local airports, fundedat the county or local government level.Nor does anyone question the need for stateoversight of these local projects. Hospitalsare under the scrutiny of a state department ofhealth, which ensures that the quality of patientcare meets basic community standards. Qualityof care issues are referred to a state agency forreview, and this agency mandates changes forthose hospitals or their physicians and staffmembers who do not offer an adequate level ofpatient care. Schools are under the scrutiny ofthe state education department and must offercertain subjects, hold classes for a set numberof days each year, and administer tests to evaluatestudent progress as compared with that ofstudents at other schools in the state. Roads are

Chapter 1: Role and Purpose of Jail Standardsconstructed to a uniform state standard. Thesame holds true for dams, airports, and all theother local projects that come out of local taxdollars for the benefit of local citizens.No one thinks twice about the state government’sholding of these locally run services andprojects (hailed as local accomplishments) to astatewide standard. It makes sense to have themjudged and overseen in this manner. Who wouldwant their hospital run with no accountability ortheir children educated with no standard againstwhich to measure their progress?Yet states may have no standardized rules or regulationsto govern local jails, which also providean essential service to the community. The jail isas much a responsibility of the local jurisdictionas its police, courts, firehouse, roads, schools,and hospitals, all of which are subject to statestandards and regulations. Jails, then, should alsobe subject to some form of statewide regulatoryoversight.Statewide standards and inspection programs ofjails are necessary for the following reasons:Jails are high-risk environments. The likelihoodof a crisis occurring in the jail setting ishigher than in any other government function,and the consequences of such an event can becatastrophic for both individuals and the jurisdiction.Following are just some of the potentialrisks inherent in jail settings:nnnInmate risks—violence, medical conditions,self-harming behaviors, vulnerability.Confinement risks—classification mistakes,crowding, inadequate levels of basic servicesor supervision.Security risks—escapes, the introduction ofcontraband, security equipment breakdowns,inadequate emergency response.nnPersonnel risks—improper or inadequatestaff selection, retention, training, orsupervision.Environmental risks—safety hazards,poor sanitation, inadequate physical plant,contagious diseases.Inspections can help jail officials in assessingrisks, and jail standards can provide guidance inmanaging them. In addition, inspections providedecisionmakers with as much information aboutwhat they are doing correctly as they provideabout what areas need improvement.n There is a substantial body of law governingjails. A substantial body of law addressingalmost every aspect of jail operationshas emerged from the explosion of litigationagainst jails and prisons during the past 30years. Case law is evolving as courts continueto hear cases concerning jail issues. Veryfew local jurisdictions have the resourcesto monitor what legal requirements applyto their facilities or to determine the extentto which their jail’s policies and practicescomply with those requirements. A statewidejail standards and inspection program canstay informed about court rulings and adjustthe standards as needed to meet new legalrequirements.n Jails significantly restrict individualliberties. In taking an individual into custody,the government significantly restrictsmany of the liberties taken for granted inthe United States. In managing this custodyfunction of government, jails must strikea delicate balance between affording basicrights to inmates and the obligation to operatea safe and secure facility. Standards writtento conform to established case law andlegal requirements provide rules and guidelinesthat serve to maintain this balance.

Inspections provide a level of accountabilityto reduce the potential for abuse.n Jails face significant liability exposure.The high-risk nature of jails and the substantialbody of case law involving jails combineto make them one of the highest liabilityrisks for local jurisdictions. The costs ofdefending lawsuits and paying judgmentsare tremendously high and may drain criticalresources needed to properly staff andoperate the jail. A standardized inspectionprogram can reduce the impact of litigationbecause it provides independent validationof an agency’s level of compliance withaccepted standards.n Jails are a low priority. As indicated in theintroduction, jails have historically been oneof the lowest priorities for public funding.Public officials are often reluctant to spendmoney on the jail unless compelled to do so.Jail standards and inspection programs canhighlight deficiencies and influence fundingauthorities to commit needed resources tothe jail. Active implementation of the standardsgives public officials an excuse to “dothe right thing.”n Standards bring consistency and fundamentalfairness to the governmentalfunction of locking people up. Conditionsand practices in states without standards orinspections can vary widely, depending onlocal circumstances and community expectations.An inmate may be treated quite differentlyin one jail than in another. Even withina jail, the way activities and functions arecarried out may vary significantly from shiftto shift. Regular inspections and the enforcementof standards bring internal and externalconsistency to jail operations and conditions.The result is a higher level of fundamentalfairness to inmates, local governments, andthe general public.Commonly Raised Objections to StandardsA variety of objections have been raised to jailstandards and inspection programs. Followingare answers to some of the most commonobjections.It will cost a lot of money to complywith standards.Jails are already legally responsible for doingmost of what jail standards would require. Thestandards simply translate these legal requirementsinto comprehensible guidelines that jailscan incorporate into policy and practice. Thecourts may not regularly send inspectors throughjails, but this does not mean that the protectionsafforded by the U.S. Constitution do not continueto apply to inmates. Meeting these requirementsis not inexpensive. However, just as thecosts of building roads, bridges, and buildings tocode are accepted as part of the cost of ensuringthe safety of those who will use them, the costsrelated to compliance with jail standards mustbe accepted as part of the cost of a functionalcriminal justice system. Rejecting the advantagesthat jail standards offer because of cost leavesjails and local jurisdictions open to much greaterliability in the future.They will set the jail up for lawsuits bydocumenting problems.Standards and inspections can document bothproblems and their correction. Actions taken byjail officials to identify and resolve deficienciesdemonstrate that they are acting in good faithand are not deliberately indifferent to the conditionsof the jail. As such, jail standards compliancereports often result in a summary judgmentin favor of the jail, precluding the case fromgoing on to trial.Small jails will not be able to comply.Being small does not exempt a jail from therequirements of the U.S. Constitution. Small

Chapter 1: Role and Purpose of Jail Standardsjails are exposed to the same risks as their largercounterparts. Indeed, smaller jails may benefitfrom the guidance that standards can providebecause they typically lack the resources tomonitor court rulings on operating a jail in compliancewith constitutional law. Jail standardsprograms with effective technical assistancecomponents can work with small jails to helpthem with staff training, policy and proceduredevelopment, and other issues that may be perceivedas barriers to compliance.Standards provide benefits that make the jailsoft on inmates.A local jurisdiction cannot evade complyingwith the requirements of the U.S. Constitutionby arguing that such requirements are “soft oninmates.” Often, people unfamiliar with thejail simply do not understand the implicationsbehind many of the things that are done to andfor inmates. Standards that afford inmates whatmay be perceived to be undeserved benefitsoften have a rational basis related to maintainingthe inmates’ safety, security, or well-being.Jail staff “know what to do and don’t needstandards.”The prevalence of successful inmate lawsuitsshows that staff and administrators do not alwaysknow what is required to operate a jail properly.Furthermore, the knowledge, experience, andleadership of jails change with elections, retirements,and job turnover. Standards provide athread of continuity that keeps practices andconditions from slipping as a result of thesechanges.

Jail Standards and LiabilityChapter 2Cost of Jail LitigationThe costs associated with mistakes in jail operationsare going up. In early 2005, a federalappeals court in the Midwest upheld a jury damagesaward against two individual officers fornearly $57 million. The jury found the officersresponsible for the beating death of an inmate ina medium-sized Indiana jail (Estate of Morelandv. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2005)). Thesheriff was dismissed from the case on summaryjudgment, and other defendants settled claimsout of court.The Moreland decision is probably the biggestdamages award in a corrections case, but othersubstantial awards have been made in the lastfew years:nnnA teenager died of pneumonia in a bootcamp after staff ignored pleas for medicalattention. The jury awarded more than $40million against both individual staff andthe private correctional company runningthe jail (Alexander v. Correctional ServicesCorporation, Tarrant County, Tex., DistrictCourt No. 236-187481-01 (9/29/2003)).Nearly $13 million was awarded againstvarious officers, supervisors, and the cityresponsible for jail operations following ahog-tying death (Swans v. City of Lansing,65 F.Supp.2d 625 (W.D. Mich., 1998)).Mobile County, Alabama, and various jailofficials settled a lawsuit over the death of amentally ill inmate in the jail for $1.45 millionin 2003 (Collins, 2004c).n A Texas jury awarded $2.5 million to thewidow of a doctor who died in an El Pasojail while being held for traffic violations.The jury believed allegations that the jaildenied the deceased necessary antiseizuremedications (Collins, 2004b).n An Arizona sheriff and his county were hitwith compensatory damages of $440,532,and the sheriff with punitive damages of$195,000, in a case involving deliberateindifference to the safety needs of inmatesheld in the sheriff’s “tent city” jail (Flandersv. Maricopa County, 54 P.3d 837 (Ariz. Ct.App., 2002)).n The misuse of restraints has been the basisof several awards around the country. In themost notable case, $8.5 million was awardedin the case of an inmate in a MaricopaCounty, Arizona, jail who died after beingpushed into a restraint chair, gagged, andshot with a stun gun (Collins, 2004a).Depending on the facts of the case, damagesmay be awarded against individual officials(from jail officers to sheriffs to county commissioners),the governmental unit (city or county)operating the jail, or both. In some situations—such as the Moreland case—the government and/or its insurance carrier have refused to defendor indemnify officers because their actions wereso far outside the requirements of agency policy.As a result, those officers face multimillion dollardamage awards with no insurance coverage.More commonly, the insurance carrier (or theself-insured city or county) defends the officers

and pays the major portion of any judgment. Inthese cases, even if the judgment is against onlythe named officers and not the city or county,the cost of the judgment is borne by the jurisdiction,whose insurance policies cover mishandledjail operations. Large awards for damages haveled insurance providers to demand improved jailoperations as a condition of continuing insurancecoverage.Simply defending a major lawsuit can be expensive,even if the court rules in favor of the jailofficial. Losing a major case can be far morecostly in terms of damages, fees the local jurisdictionor their insurance carrier must pay to theplaintiffs’ attorney, and possible court interventionand oversight of jail operations. Such a losscan be a political embarrassment for elected officialsresponsible for jail operations. It has beensaid that “You don’t win elections by running agood jail, but you can lose elections by runninga bad one.”Judicial Oversight of Jail OperationsFor some, disco, wide ties, and polyester pantsdefined the 1970s. For those working in corrections,a revolution in the management of prisonsand jails defined that decade. The revolutionwas driven by the federal courts’ extension ofthe protections of the U.S. Constitution to thoseconfined inside jail and prison walls. During thisperiod, the courts began to examine and definewhat concepts such as freedom of religion, crueland unusual punishment, and due process meantfor inmates. This process of defining and refiningthe basic legal tests and applying them tomany different aspects of jail maintenance andoperations continues to this day.Prior to 1970, the concept of “inmate rights”was almost unknown. By 1979, the SupremeCourt criticized lower courts for becoming too“enmeshed in the minutiae” of jail and prisonoperations (Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562(1979)).For the first time in history, there was a body—the federal courts—willing to exercise verystrong oversight of detention and correctionalinstitutions and to hold agencies and officialsaccountable for operations in accordance withrequirements that, in many cases, were completelynew to those responsible.Federal constitutional requirements dealingwith both operational and physical plant issues,from procedures to be followed in disciplininginmates to the size of cells, sprang up almostovernight. These topics could be the subject oflawsuits brought by individual inmates or classactions brought on behalf of a defined group ofinmates (e.g., all the inmates in a jail now and inthe future). Many of the issues addressed are stillimportant today:nnnnnnnnMedical care, including mental health anddental care.The use of force.Protection of inmates from violence at thehands of other inmates (and sometimesstaff).Provision of services adequate to meet basichuman needs, including food, clothing, shelter,protection from fires, and exercise.Searches of all types, but particularly stripsearches of detainees.Access to mail and reading materials.A variety of issues regarding the practice ofreligion.Inmate discipline.To understand the range of court decisions andhow few areas of jail operations have escapedthe attention of the courts, see appendix A,which lists issues that the courts have routinelyaddressed over the years. This list (which,although long, is nevertheless incomplete) demonstratesthe startling number of potential topicsfor litigation that must be considered by jail0

Chapter 2: Jail Standards and Liabilitystaff, administrators, and government agenciesthat operate jails. Note that these “legal issues”affect almost every major facet of jail operations.Historic Vulnerability of JailsAs described in the introduction, local officialsand the general public historically gave jails lowpriority. There was little oversight or accountabilityfor conditions and practices. As courtsresponded to a number of cases involving horrendouscircumstances and conditions, newprecedents for jail operations were established.Few jails had legal counsel, but even those withcounsel had difficulty understanding the rapidlyexpanding scope of constitutional protectionsafforded inmates and the rapidly changing stateof the law in this area. The test used by manycourts to evaluate jail operations—the “totalityof conditions” test 2 —was very hard to applywith any certainty. There was no “instructionbook” defining professional practice and acceptableconditions that jail administrators couldfollow.Liability Exposure: How Serious a Concern?Inmate rights lawsuits in federal court are typicallybrought under federal civil rights law 42U.S.C. section 1983, which allows a court toprovide two very different types of relief—aninjunction and money damages—to a plaintiff(inmate or noninmate) who is able to show thathis/her federal rights were violated by a person“acting under color of state law.” 3 The mostcommon type of relief was an injunction, a courtorder requiring that officials take, or refrain from2Under the “totality of conditions” test a court could considervirtually any and every negative aspect of a jail’s operationcumulatively.3When a person acts or purports to act in the performance of officialduties under any law, ordinance, or regulation, he or she isacting under the “color of law.” A county or city is considered a“person” (Monell v. Department of Social Services, 426 U.S. 658(1978)).taking, certain actions within the jail. The potentialimpact of the second type of relief, monetarydamages, was highlighted in the opening paragraphsof this chapter.Although an injunction may direct officials tostop doing certain things, it often also requiresthat officials take affirmative steps to correcta problem (e.g., expanding the scope of medicalservices, reducing the jail population, etc.).For many years after courts began to entertaininmate civil rights lawsuits under section 1983,injunctions were the most typical form of reliefon which courts relied. Some injunctive orderswere very complex and addressed jail operationsin virtually all aspects. Courts commonlyappointed persons, often referred to as “specialmasters,” to monitor the defendants’ compliancewith such orders. Court monitors are now knownby a variety of titles and derive their powers andduties from the court’s order. The agency responsiblefor operating the correctional facility underthe monitor’s supervision must pay the costsassociated with the court-appointed monitor.Periods of court oversight in these far-reachinginstitutional reform cases might last for years,even decades.Court orders that mandate substantial improvementsin jail management and operation imposea related cost that must be paid from the coffersof the county or city ultimately responsiblefor jail operations. Unlike many other costs ofgovernment, court-ordered expenses cannot bedelayed or pushed aside with the excuse “wecan’t afford that.” Therefore, paying the billsattributable to the court order may require divertingfunds from other county or city agencies.Various factors, including overall improved professionalismin jail operations, have combined toreduce the amount of major jail reform litigation.However, the threat of major lawsuits remains.For instance, over the past several years, theU.S. Department of Justice, acting under its

power to litigate on behalf of inmates under theCivil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of1980, (42 U.S.C. section 1997) has entered intosettlements with seven county jails, from NassauCounty, New York, to Los Angeles County,California. 4 A small jail in Wyoming was foundto be delivering an unconstitutionally low levelof medical care to inmates, despite having beenparty to a consent decree since 1987 (Ginest v.Board of County Com’rs. of Carbon County, 333F.Supp.2d 1190 (D.Wyo. 2004)). Other recentlyreported decisions show jails dealing with majorlitigation on topics such as:nnnInmate safety (Hart v. Sheahan, 396 F.3d887 (7th Cir. 2005)).Conditions in jail for persons held undercivil procedure and awaiting adjudicationunder the state’s Sexually Violent PredatorAct (Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir.2004)).Use of webcams to broadcast views ofinmates on the Internet (Demery v. Arpaio,378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004)).Although today there are fewer sweeping jailreform cases accompanied by oversight by aspecial master/court monitor than in years past,the number of cases in which significant moneydamages were awarded to injured inmates hasincreased.The requirements of the U.S. Constitution defineand dictate “proper” operation of a jail far morethan many observers realize. Despite more conservativedecisions about inmate rights comingfrom the Supreme Court in recent years, federalcourt decisions still mandate numerous complicatedrequirements for proper operation of jails.4See the Web site of the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil RightsDivision, Special Litigation Section, www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/findsettle.htm#Settlements.Congress at times adds more requirements to jailoperations. These include the Religious LandUse and Institutionalized Persons Act, whichexpands inmates’ rights to practice their religion,and the Americans with Disabilities Act, whichrequires special provisions and accommodationsfor inmates with disabilities. Some state lawsand constitutions also impose requirements forjails. What the layperson may see as a frill in jailoperations may in fact be a requirement mandatedby the state or U.S. law.With the dramatic increase in the number ofcourt-defined inmate rights during the 1970s, amajor goal of standards was to provide jails withcomprehensive guidance as to steps that shouldbe taken to enable the jail to either prevent litigationor to be in the best possible position tosuccessfully defend a major lawsuit. That goalremains valid today.Risks of InconsistencyWhen enforcement of constitutional requirementsin a jail is dependent on litigation,the results are sporadic and inconsistent. Forexample, in the Ginest case mentioned above,litigation forced a Wyoming county to provideconstitutionally adequate medical services.However, in the absence of mandatory standardsor a similar lawsuit, neighboring counties couldconceivably continue to provide inadequatemedical care in their jails because no one wouldbe looking over their shoulder to verify whatthey were doing. If Wyoming had jail standardsand an inspection program that ensured compliancewith those standards, jail operations wouldbe more consistent across the state. This isparticularly critical in an area such as medicalcare, which has life-and-death consequences forinmates. When litigation is the main enforcementmechanism, a county can ignore its responsibilitiesunder the Constitution until it is sued.

Chapter 2: Jail Standards and LiabilityAs discussed earlier, this “pay later” approachcan result in enormous potential liability for thecounty in the form of legal settlements and damageawards.Emergence of Jail StandardsFaced with the threat of very unpredictable andcostly federal court intervention, a number ofstates recognized the importance of oversightof jail operations and looked for somethingmore standardized, predictable, and uniformthan oversight by federal courts. The early historyof jail standards in the State of Washingtonprovides a classic example of how jail standardscan minimize the involvement of federal courtsin jail operations. Surveys conducted by a stateagency in the early 1970s documented very badconditions in many jails. 5 Two adjectives thatdescribed many of the state’s jails were “old”and “decrepit.” The surveys generated controversyat first, but little action was taken toaddress the problem.Then several jurisdictions were sued and threatenedwith federal court oversight. Some governmentofficials became concerned that unlesslocal and state governments took some positiveaction, the federal courts would effectively berunning many of the state’s jails. This apprehension,combined with the promise of state dollarsfor new jail construction, led to the passageof enabling legislation for jail standards. Thelegislation created a small state agency withthe power to adopt and enforce operational andphysical plant jail standards and to distribute thenew construction moneys. A commission whosemembership was heavily representative of localgovernments oversaw the agency. Inspectionsbecame a routine part of the state’s jail policies.Initial concerns about the inspections by sheriffs5Information drawn from the recollections of William C. Collins,an attorney involved in the development of Washington State JailStandards.and jail administrators generally gave way tosupport for standards and inspections and recognitionthat external oversight helped raise thequality of jail operations and the professionalismof jail staff and management. The threat ofexpanding federal court oversight waned.Having what amounts to an outside qualityassurance program also offers a purely legal benefit.In section 1983 civil rights jurisprudence, ajail administrator, sheriff, or jurisdiction is notliable simply because a staff member violates therights of an inmate. To be liable under section1983, an official (including the county or city)must actually “cause” or somehow be responsiblefor the violation. Causation can be indirect—for example, a failure to adequately train staffcan be the basis for liability under section1983 (City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378(1989))—but policies and procedures driven bystandards that reflect the requirements of currentcase law help put the administrator and the cityor county in a strong position to deny liability byclaiming that the violation was not “caused” byany failure on their part.Jail Standards and Court RequirementsDespite thousands of court decisions dealingwith inmate issues, distilling clear operationalguidelines from the legal tests presented in thosedecisions can still be difficult. Tests that courtsapply—for example, “deliberate indifference toserious medical needs” (Estelle v. Gamble, 429U.S. 97 (1976)) or “whether force was appliedin a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,or maliciously and sadistically to causeharm” (Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,7(1992))—do not give sufficiently detailed guidanceto a resources-strapped jail administratorwho is trying to determine how to structure andoperate a jail’s medical system. Nor do they helpcounty officials in the process of designing a jailmake decisions on issues such as lighting levels

in cells, cell size, exercise yards, security doors,or the design of mental health and medicalunits—issues not normally encountered in othergovernmental building projects.Even if several court decisions combine to givefairly clear guidance in a given area, 6 jail administratorsare not lawyers and are not hired toparse scores of court decisions from all over thecountry about a minute issue of jail operations.Few jail administrators have legal assistancefrom an attorney well versed in the fine points ofcorrectional law.This is where correctional standards become animportant management tool for the jail administrator.A well-developed and evolving set of jailstandards can translate court mandates and constitutionalprinciples into understandable andobjective guidelines for jail administrators. Acourt holding that lighting levels in the jail maynot be so low as to present an “unreasonablerisk of serious harm to [inmates’] future health” 7may leave an administrator guessing as to howmuch light to provide in the jail. However, astandard stating that lighting in inmate cellsmust be “at least 20 foot-candles at desk level”(American Correctional Association, 2004) turnsthe court’s vague statement into a clear, objectiverequirement.With the ongoing threat of expensive and disruptivelitigation, a well-developed and evolvingset of jail standards, combined with inspections6For example, there is a very large, very consistent body of lawabout determining when an arrestee may or may not be stripsearched as part of the jail admissions process. Despite this, litigationcontinues to arise in situations where jails ignore this body oflaw. See Jail and Prison Legal Issues: An Administrator’s Guide(Collins, 2004d), chapter 10.7See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 34 (1993). Althoughthis case dealt with exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke, itestablished the principle (a condition that creates a serious risk ofsubstantial harm) that would provide the basis for the court’s rulingon inadequate lighting.conducted by knowledgeable, well-trained, andindependent jail inspectors, can offer two benefitsfor the jail:n Standards can turn general statements fromdiverse courts about particular issues intounderstandable, relatively objective languagethat can much more easily be incorporatedinto operating policy and practice.n Inspections can alert officials to problemsin the jail before a section 1983 complaintarrives from the federal court or before theAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)or the Civil Rights Division of the JusticeDepartment knocks on the door saying, “Youhave some problems in the jail we want totalk about. . . .”The importance of sound inspections cannot beoverstated. Standards that exist only on paperare of no benefit. Standards that are reflected inagency policies create a positive appearance, butare only a facade if staff are allowed to ignorethe policies and accompanying procedures.Skillful inspectors can look behind the languageof the formal policy to determine if day-to-daypractice follows that policy.SummaryA jail with the finest policies and managementteam can still have staff that ignore policy andviolate the rights of an inmate. For example, thetwo staff persons found liable in the Morelandcase certainly did not think that jail managementapproved of their beating an inmate or dischargingpepper spray into the inmate’s face as he wasstrapped down in a restraint chair.Inspections and inspectors are not perfect. Theymay miss deficiencies. Faulty recordkeepingmay suggest compliance with a standard but hide

Chapter 2: Jail Standards and Liabilityinstances of noncompliance. Nor does a certificateof compliance from an inspections agencynecessarily guarantee that a jail will not be suedor will not lose a major lawsuit.Nevertheless, standards should reduce the jail’srisk of being blindsided by allegations of majorproblems. Compliance with accepted standardsis perhaps the best way for agencies operatingjails to have some confidence that theirfacilities are operating in legally defensibleways. Inspections, which should accompanystandards, help to ensure that the jail is operatingproperly and highlight areas where improvementsare needed.

Key Elements of Jail Standardsand Inspection ProgramsChapter 3Policy Goals and Philosophical OrientationA starting point for states or organizations beginningthe process of establishing a jail standardsand inspection program is to understand andreach a consensus on their policy goals. Theremust be a clearly defined rationale for the stateor professional organization to be involved insetting standards and inspecting local jails. Thatrationale will shape subsequent decisions onsuch issues as the scope of the standards, theorganizational design and home of the administeringagency, implementation strategies, andapproaches to enforcement. State-level standardsand inspection programs generally serve one ormore of the following policy goals:nnnnMonitoring: Keeping track of and creatingan accurate record of the conditions in anduse of jails in the state. The primary focus ofmonitoring is on census taking, not influencingconditions or practices.Reforming: Actively working to changeconditions and practices to bring aboutimprovements, with an emphasis on the generalstate of jails rather than on the enforcementof specific standards.Regulating: Ensuring that jails meet specificstandards by conducting regular inspectionsand working with the local jurisdiction toremediate problems when compliance is notmaintained.Investigating: Conducting systematic,objective inquiries into charges ofimproprieties with the intent to discovercauses and assign responsibility, clear officersof charges, make recommendations forimprovement, and so forth.Groups charged with leading a jail standardsinitiative will need to decide which policy goalsshould be pursued and prioritize those selected.Because policy goals vary in their emphasis onchange and their strategic implications, the prioritiesestablished by the group will largely definethe philosophical orientation and structure of thestandards and inspection program.Legal AuthorityThe legal authority for the development andimplementation of state standards is most commonlyestablished in enabling legislation passedby the state legislature. The actual jail standardsare seldom established in statute; rather,they are codified as administrative regulationsunder the state’s administrative procedures actor equivalent law. Properly promulgated andadopted administrative regulations implementthe intent of the enabling legislation and carrythe force of law.The enabling legislation dictates whether the jailstandards are mandatory or voluntary. Mandatoryjail standards established by states typicallyinclude provisions in enabling legislation thatmandate compliance and include provisions forenforcement. In states where the policy goalis primarily regulation, jail standards are morelikely to be mandatory.

Jail standards developed by professional associationsare generally voluntary but may includemandatory standards that must be met as a conditionof accreditation. In states where the policygoal is focused more on monitoring and reformthan on regulation, the jail standards are lesslikely to be mandatory or may lack meaningfulenforcement provisions.Enabling legislation may provide various optionsto induce compliance with jail standards, whichmay include both sanctions and incentives.Sanction options include:nnnnnnInformal measures. Inspection agenciesmay use various means to persuade localofficials to address deficiencies, includingmeetings, public disclosure of noncompliance,etc.Court petitions. Enabling legislation mayauthorize the administering agency to petitiona court for a compliance or closureorder.Restricted use orders. These types oforders restrict the use of areas of a jaildeemed to be unsafe. They are also used torestrict the use of portions of a jail to certainclassifications of inmates or to temporaryholding.Probation. Jails may be placed on probationor conditional use orders pending correctionof deficiencies.Withholding of state funding. Some statesprovide subsidies, revenue sharing, or othertypes of reimbursement. Enabling legislationmay grant authority to withhold fundingwhen jails fail to maintain compliance withstandards.Decertification. In states where jails arecertified, decertification may result inhigher insurance premiums, loss of funding,restricted use, or closure.n Closure orders. Enabling legislation maygrant standards and inspection agenciesdirect authority to order closure where substantiallife, health, or safety concerns areidentified.Inspection authorities also employ incentivessuch as subsidies, reduced insurance premiums,and public recognition to promote compliancewith standards.Scope of StandardsThe scope of standards varies by state, rangingfrom limited to comprehensive. Standardsthat are limited in scope generally focus onlife, health, safety, and constitutional issues.Comprehensive standards address the full rangeof jail conditions and practices. Costs and politicalconsiderations are among the factors thataffect scope. For example, several states withmandatory standards have elected to “grandfather”existing facilities, choosing to focus ondeveloping standards for new construction andrenovation. When standards are limited in scope,local officials must understand that there maybe “gaps” in regulation that could increase theirexposure to liability.Enabling legislation in many states may specifythe promulgation of minimum standards. Wherethis is the case, officials should understand thelegislative intent of the term “minimum.” Insome states the legislative intent in setting minimumstandards may be to establish requirementsthat are no greater than those minimally requiredto meet legal mandates and case law precedents.As such, minimum standards may be less rigorousthan the industry’s view of what constitutesaccepted professional practice.Alternatively, the legislative intent in usingthe term “minimum” can be to indicate thatstandards reflect requirements below which8

Chapter 3: Key Elements of Jail Standards and Inspection Programsconditions may not fall. In this context, theadministering agency may be limited in itsauthority to grant waivers. 8 From a liabilitystandpoint, granting such a waiver is risky, bothfor the jail and the regulating authority, if thewaiver sanctions a condition or practice that isfound to be unconstitutional. Some states dohave provisions for variances that do not waivecompliance; rather, they approve practices orconditions that meet the intent of the standard inan alternate fashion. Generally, such variancesare granted for a limited period of time, untilchanges can be made to bring the facility backinto compliance.ApplicabilityLocal jurisdictions may operate one or moretypes of correctional facilities, including shorttermholding facilities, jails, work release facilities,community residential centers, juveniledetention facilities, etc. Consideration shouldbe given to what types of facilities the state ororganization chooses to regulate. Standards thatare subsequently developed need to be specificto the type of facility for which they are intended.For example, standards appropriate to jailsexceed standards for short-term lockups. Thenature of the operation and population of workrelease facilities or other special-use facilitiesmay dictate requirements different from thosefor a traditional jail.Administering AgencyOrganizational OptionsAgencies responsible for administering standardsprograms vary. Many programs reside within thestate department of corrections or public safety.Several are administered by stand-alone agenciesor independent commissions. At least one8A waiver sanctions a condition or practice that does not meetthe standards.program (Oklahoma) resides in the state healthdepartment. (Appendix B shows the wide varietyof agencies administering standards programsand provides detailed information about the statusand characteristics of standards and inspectionsprograms in every state.)In some states, the state sheriffs’ association hastaken the lead in developing jail standards.Typically, standards developed by professionalassociations are voluntary. No regular inspectionsor enforcement activities are associatedwith these standards. At least three states (Idaho,Oregon, and Utah), however, provide for peerinspections of jails by jail administrators, sheriffs,and other local officials. Although compliancewith the standards is not enforced, inspectionfindings are shared with the jurisdictions so theycan be used to identify areas needing improvement.Findings may also be shared with the stateinsurance pools for use in assessing insurabilityand setting premiums.Many programs fall within one of three primaryorganizational models: a department of corrections,an independent commission, or a statesheriffs’ association. The relative advantages anddisadvantages of each organizational model arehighlighted in exhibit 2 (on the following page).See appendix C for state profiles demonstratingeach of the models.Administering Agency Functions andResponsibilitiesAs indicated previously, the policy goals selectedfor the initiative will influence the makeup of theadministering agency and the emphasis it placeson various functions. The administering agency’sfunctions and responsibilities may include thefollowing components:nnStandards development and review.Inspections to assess compliance withstandards.

Exhibit . Jail Standards and Inspection Programs: Primary Organizational ModelsState Agency/DOC Independent Commission State Sheriffs’ Associationn Shared administrative costs.n Statute driven; clear authority.n More resources to assist jails.n Flexibility in funding and staffing.n Objective evaluations.n Enforceable standards.n Greater bureaucracy.n May not be a priority for parent agency.n Potential conflict of interest.n May lack understanding of local jail issues/needs.n May end up inspecting its ownfacilities.Advantagesn Stakeholder involvement.n Broader involvement in decisionmaking.n Sets own agenda.n Utilizes resources as it chooses.n Statute driven; clear authority.n Objective evaluations.n Enforceable standards.Disadvantagesn Smaller organization; fewer resourcesto draw on.n Easy target for budget cuts.n Commission members may lackknowledge about jails.n Autonomy.n Flexibility.n Enhances knowledge and networking among members.n Standards not enforceable.n Potentially less consistentinterpretation.n May be subject to political pressurefrom members.n May be viewed as self-serving.n May be less likely to produce neededchanges.n Perhaps less liability protection if notuniformly enforced.n No state funding support.n Fewer resources to facilitatecompliance.DOC = Department of CorrectionsnnnnnnnInvestigations of specific incidents or allegationsof misconduct.Data collection (jail population census, conditions,incidents, etc.).Technical assistance, consultation, problemsolving.Review of facility construction or renovationplans.Networking and referrals.Advocacy.Clearinghouse services.nnnnDevelopment and dissemination of resourcemanuals.Training.Jail policy analysis/planning.Administering jail subsidy funding.Most standards and inspection programs haveshown that the inspection component alone isinsufficient for local jails to achieve compliance.It must be coupled with a viable technical assistancecomponent. Local officials feel strongly thatif they are mandated to comply with standards,they should be given the resources necessary to0

Chapter 3: Key Elements of Jail Standards and Inspection Programsachieve compliance. The administering agencycan assist by making resource materials available,providing training, or working directly with jailpersonnel to solve problems. The administeringagency can also play a leadership role on a statelevel in jail planning, policy analysis, and advocacy.In addition, it can collect and share theinformation policymakers need to make decisionsthat affect how jails are used and supported.Inspection and Followup ProcessThe inspection process is a core function ofthe administering agency. In organizing thisfunction, the following key issues should beconsidered:nnnnInspection type and purpose. Inspectionsmay vary in scope and purpose. Comprehensiveinspections may be conducted toassess overall compliance of the jail operationand facility with established standards.Partial inspections may focus on specificaspects of the facility or operation. Followupinspections may be conducted to determineif corrective measures have resolved deficienciesidentified in previous inspections.Who conducts inspections. Generally,administering agencies employ individualswhose primary job is to inspect jails.Frequency of inspections. Most state standardsprograms inspect jails on an annual orbiennial basis. Additionally, the programshave provisions for followup to ensure thatcited deficiencies are corrected in accordancewith approved corrective action plans.Whether inspections will be announcedor unannounced. Unannounced inspectionshave the advantage of allowing the inspectorto see the jail as it routinely functions,not just how it looks or functions afterdays or weeks of preparation. Announcedinspections, on the other hand, ensure theavailability of key jail officials on the date ofinspection and can facilitate a more thoroughand comprehensive inspection. If the facilitymakes an ongoing effort to comply withstandards and documents these efforts, thisshould be evident in the inspection.n Coordination with other inspecting entities.Fire and health authorities may alsoinspect jails. It may be useful to coordinateinspections by various regulatory agencies tominimize disruption to the jail and providean overall picture of deficiencies requiringattention.n Inspection elements. Inspections should beconducted in accordance with establishedprocedures. Inspections typically involvea combination of an oral interview; anaudit of records, policies, and procedures;observation of facility operations; and anexamination of the facility. The inspectionbegins with an entrance interview to explainthe purpose of the inspection, confirm theinspection agenda, and gather initial informationabout the jail. It concludes with anexit interview, in which the inspector shareshis/her preliminary findings and describeswhat types of corrective measures mightbe needed if any deficiencies have beenidentified.n Documentation of findings. A standardizedinspection checklist is commonly usedto document inspection findings. A seriesof yes/no answers to questions concerningspecific standards is a basic format. Space isgenerally provided for additional comments.Copies of the inspection report should beshared with local officials within a reasonabletime.n Followup/corrective action. Local officialsshould correct any deficiencies identified inthe inspection report or develop a plan ofcorrective action to address any deficiencies

that cannot be immediately resolved. Thecorrective action plan should tell the administeringagency what steps will be taken tocorrect the cited deficiencies and when theywill be corrected. The administering agencycan then accept or reject the plan. Theenabling legislation may specify timeframesfor responding to inspection findings andinitiating corrective action.The corrective action process provides ameans for the inspection agency and localofficials to come to agreement on measuresto be taken to address the deficiencies. Thefocus of this process should be on collaborativeproblem solving, with both partiesworking to remediate the problem. Technicalassistance and support provided by theinspection agency at this stage may be criticalto a successful outcome.n Enforcement. The enabling legislation mayoutline the authority of the administeringagency to enforce compliance and the rangeof enforcement options. Ideally, enforcementis used as a last resort, when all other effortsto work with local officials to resolve issueshave failed.n Certification/recognition of compliance.Most programs have some official means ofacknowledging jails’ compliance with thestandards based on the results of an inspectionand completion of any necessary correctiveaction. This may be a certificate or letterof compliance from the inspection authority.n Ongoing compliance management andtechnical assistance. The goal of the inspectionprocess is to verify compliance, not tocatch jails doing something wrong. Ideally,jails should establish internal monitoring andassessment processes to manage their compliancewith standards on an ongoing basis.

Strategies for Developing andImplementing Jail Standards ProgramsChapter 4Getting StartedA state-level standards initiative may begin inseveral ways. Escalating pressure on countiesdealing with skyrocketing jail costs, crowding,litigation, or other similar issues may spark theinitiative. A precipitating serious event such as amajor class-action lawsuit, a jail fire resulting inloss of life, or a rash of escapes might also spurpolicymakers to action. In any case, it is typicallya core group of policymakers who come torealize that something has to be done to addressjail issues on a larger, statewide scale. The discussionmay begin with several sheriffs, commissioners,county legal counsel, or even civilrights attorneys. Media coverage of events mayalso help drive the issue initially.At this stage, there is probably not even broadbasedawareness or acknowledgment of theproblem among most local and state officialsand the general public, let alone consensusabout implementing jail standards as a foundationalstrategy for addressing the problem. Afirst step, therefore, is to assess and define theproblems, conditions, and forces driving theneed for action. Next, there must be an effort toraise awareness of the issues among the broaderstakeholder group (see sidebar on page 24).Stakeholders must reach a shared understandingabout the nature and consequences of the problemif they are later to reach consensus about theimplementation of standards as a solution.Once the problem is acknowledged andagreement is reached on pursuing a standardsinitiative, stakeholder groups such as the sheriffs’association, county officials’ association,or state criminal justice planning agency mayconsider establishing a formal jail standardsplanning committee to move the process forward.This committee should include representativesfrom the key stakeholder groups and otherkey constituencies within the state (e.g., the barassociation, the chamber of commerce). Thestate criminal justice planning agency or statesheriffs’ association may offer to take the leadin establishing and facilitating the work of theplanning committee.Before beginning its work, the planning committeeshould clearly understand its responsibilityand authority, the resources available to it, andthe desired outcomes for the committee’s work.To this end, the state may develop a charter forthe planning committee. A charter sanctions thework of the committee and provides a means todocument the purpose, authority, and responsibilitiesof the committee, its members, and thecoordinator. An example of a planning committeecharter is provided in appendix D.Establishing the Vision, Mission, andGoals for the InitiativeEarly in the process, the planning committeeshould establish the vision, mission, and goalsfor the initiative.Vision StatementA clear vision statement provides a focalpoint for the planning committee and all other

Key Stakeholders in ImplementingJail StandardsThe individuals and groups with a stake in jailstandards are those who are directly affectedby the standards, who have an interest in successfuljail outcomes, who have influence indecisionmaking concerning the operation andfunding of the standards program, or who maycompete with the standards program for funding.The following constituencies are likely to beinvolved in the standards development processat various levels and stages:❑ Standards program officials.❑ Sheriffs.❑ Jail administrators.❑ Jail staff.❑ County and state funding authorities.❑ The legal community (county attorneys, publicdefenders, judges, state attorney general).❑ The Governor.❑ The state legislature.❑ State criminal justice planning agencies.❑ Legislative policy analysts.❑ State associations of sheriffs and countyofficials.❑ Insurance providers and risk managers.❑ The American Civil Liberties Union.❑ Service providers (e.g. teachers, counselors,volunteer organizations ).❑ Correctional health care providers.❑ Correctional mental health providers.❑ Inmates and their families.❑ Nutritionists.❑ Environmental health specialists.❑ Taxpayers.❑ The media.stakeholders as they direct the standards developmentprocess. A vision statement answers thequestion, Where are we going? and describes adesired future state that is in some significantway better than the current state.Following is an example of a vision statementfor a standards initiative:Local jails in the state provide safe, secure,healthy, and humane environments for inmatesand staff; operate in a professional and costefficientmanner; are adequately staffed bycompetent, well-trained personnel; and assistin returning offenders to the community aslaw-abiding, productive citizens.Mission StatementMission refers to the business and purpose ofan organization or group; a mission statementdefines why the group was formed and the scopeof its responsibilities. It answers the question,How will we get there? and addresses each ofthe following issues:nnnThe purpose of the jail standards planningcommittee.The constituencies that the planning committeerepresents or serves.The activities, assistance, services, or productsthe planning committee will provide.The following sample mission statementdescribes the planning committee’s purpose andresponsibilities:The mission of the Jail Standards PlanningCommittee is to design and implement a jailstandards and inspection program, establishedin statute; to provide oversight of city andcounty jails in the state; and to assist localofficials in complying with minimum legalrequirements.

Chapter 4: Strategies for Developing and Implementing Jail Standards ProgramsGoals for the InitiativeGoals are statements that describe optimal futureoutcomes based on the assumption that theplanning committee will be able to completelyfulfill its mission. Goals also set priorities,which enable the planning committee to focusprimarily on activities that are essential for success.The following statements are examples ofrelevant goals:nnnnTo promote professionalism and reduceliability exposure through the establishmentand implementation of minimum jailstandards.To identify needed improvements in facilitiesand operations.To improve the conditions and operationsof city and county jails through correctiveaction taken by local officials and assistanceprovided by the inspection agency.To provide ongoing monitoring and oversightof jails through a system of regularinspections.Developing Enabling LegislationThe framework for realizing the vision, mission,and goals of the standards initiative is establishedin enabling legislation. Each state has aprocess for the development, introduction, andconsideration of legislative proposals. As withany political process, the planning committeewill need to identify legislative sponsors to introducethe proposal and shepherd it through thelegislative process.Many states have demonstrated that enablinglegislation can set forth legal authority brieflyand simply. Enabling legislation may include thefollowing provisions:n Intent: States the purpose for authorizingthe standards.nnnnLegal authority: Vests the authority forpromulgation and codification of the standards,including provisions for enforcement.Scope: Specifies the conditions and practices(which may range from limited to comprehensive)to be addressed by the standards.Applicability: Specifies the types of facilitiesfor which standards are to be written.Administering agency: Designates theagency or entity responsible for developingand implementing the standards and delineatesits duties and responsibilities.These provisions are illustrated in the excerptedsections of the enabling legislation for theNebraska Jail Standards Program presented inappendix E.If a state association, rather than the state government,undertakes the standards initiative, theenabling legislation may take the form of a formalresolution passed by the membership of thegroup. The level of involvement and support oflocal jurisdictions of a voluntary program administeredby a state association may be strengthenedthrough corresponding resolutions passedby the local governing authorities.Establishing the Administering AgencyAs previously indicated, the organizationalstructure of most existing standards programsfalls within one of three primary organizationalmodels:n An executive branch agency (department ofcorrections, public safety department, etc.).nnAn independent agency or commission.A state sheriffs’ or county officials’association.The enabling legislation may delegate theresponsibility of state-administered standards

and inspection programs to a specific agency ororganizational entity. Historically, this has oftenfallen to the state’s department of corrections,although there are some very successful examplesof programs administered by independentcommissions. Some considerations in settingup the standards agency or office include staffing,function and duties, budget, and operatingprocedures.StaffingThe typical staff of a standards and inspectionprogram includes a chief, one or more inspectors,and clerical support. If a program is establishedas a section or division within a largeragency, the parent agency may provide administrativesupport for human resources, assistancewith fiscal management, legal support, and relatedadministrative services. The parent agency(this is particularly true if the parent agency isa department of corrections or similar agency)may also provide access to in-house expertise insuch areas as training, food service, health care,safety, and facility plans review. In consideringstaffing requirements for a standards and inspectionprogram, decisionmakers must ensure thatthe number and types of staff are sufficient tocarry out the functions and duties of the programand to meet agency goals.Programs administered by professional associationsmay employ only a coordinator and relymore heavily on trained volunteers to conductinspections and assist local jails in meetingthe standards. These volunteers are typicallyjail administrators, sheriffs, or other local officialswho are organized into peer inspectionteams. Regardless of who is assigned to inspectfacilities, it is critical that all inspections be performedconsistently.Functions and DutiesThe function of the standards program may belimited to inspections and compliance monitoringor may include a range of resource, advocacy,and support services for jails. The policy goalsfor the program, the philosophical orientation ofthe program’s leadership, and funding levels willdetermine the emphasis placed on various functionsand the duties of the program’s staff. TheNational Institute of Corrections has developeda competency profile for a detention facilityinspector that describes the typical duties andresponsibilities of that position (see appendix F).BudgetA funding request must be developed and submittedto the appropriate funding authority forthe program. Initially, it may be a special appropriationtied to the enabling legislation to get theprogram up and running. Subsequent fundingfor the program may then be included in thebudget requests submitted by the parent agencyduring the normal budget cycle. The budget forthe standards program may include funding forprogram staff and operations. It may includeadditional funds for grants or subsidies to localjurisdictions to support compliance with thestandards.Adequate funding for the standards programshould be viewed as a priority. State electedofficials (and sometimes officials within the parentagency) tend to view standards programsas a nonessential function of state governmentbecause the primary focus is on local jails.When states seek to reduce government spending,standards programs are easy targets. Thefinancial and social cost of failing to maintainsafe, humane, and constitutional jails in the statemust be clearly understood and communicated tofunding decisionmakers.

Chapter 4: Strategies for Developing and Implementing Jail Standards ProgramsPrograms administered by professional associationsmay rely on grants, dues, or special assessmentsfrom participating jurisdictions. Also,public entity insurance pools, because they havea vested interest in jail conditions and practices,may be willing to absorb some or all of the costsof administering the jail standards program.Operating ProceduresFor the same reason that most standards programsrequire jails to have written policies andprocedures, the standards programs should havewritten operating procedures for their own keyfunctions and activities. At a minimum, the proceduresshould address the following issues:nnnnnnnnnPhilosophy and purpose of the program.Promulgation, amendment, and repeal of thejail standards.Inspection process.Inspection followup process.Issuance of variances.Enforcement process.Procedures for providing interpretive rulingsor clarifications of the jail standards.Plans review and approval process (if anassigned function).Technical assistance process.Developing the Jail StandardsMost states give those who will be affected bythe jail standards the opportunity to be involvedin the process of developing them. In stateswhere standards are administered by an independentcommission, the commission typicallyincludes those who have a direct stake in thestandards, such as judges, sheriffs, commissioners,and prosecutors (see “Key Stakeholdersin Implementing Jail Standards,” page 24).Additionally, many states establish separateadvisory groups consisting of key stakeholdersto assist in the development process.The standards development process should moveforward based on the guidance provided in theenabling legislation on such matters as scope andapplicability. The statute may specify what typesof facilities are to be covered by the standardsand the range of conditions and practices forwhich standards must be developed. Professionalstandards such as the American CorrectionalAssociation’s Performance-Based Standardsfor Adult Local Detention Facilities (2004) andother existing state standards may provide guidancein format, organization, and content.If the standards are to be formally adopted andcodified under the state’s administrative code,the state’s administrative procedures act or asimilar law will dictate specific aspects of thedevelopment, review, and approval processes.The legislation may include provisions for participativerulemaking, outlining who must beinvolved and in what manner. It may also requireopportunities for the public to provide inputthrough a formal hearing process and an impactstudy to assess the potential costs of the standardsfor local jurisdictions. The legislation alsois likely to provide for various levels of formallegal and policy reviews before the standards areformally adopted and go into effect.If the state sheriffs’ association (or similargroup) leads the standards initiative and the standardsare voluntary, much of the oversight justdescribed will not apply. Rather, the approval ofthe standards may lie with the membership ofthe professional association.Performance Measures vs. StandardsJail standards have contributed to significantimprovements in jail conditions and operations,particularly in states with proactive standards

and inspection programs. Some programs areconsidering new approaches to the developmentof standards that not only will help to monitoractivities but also will provide a means to measurea jail’s performance and the outcomes itachieves over time. Exhibit 3 compares traditionalstandards with these new performance-basedstandards.Developing Resources To Assist Jails WithComplianceStates that have successfully implemented jailstandards have developed a range of resourcesto assist jails in complying with the standards.Standards programs in various states have takenthe lead in developing or encouraging the developmentof:nnnnnTraining programs and other trainingresources for jails.Resource guides, model manuals, and selfassessmentchecklists.Consultation services in areas such as medicalcare, food services, emergency preparednessplanning, facility planning, staffing, andpolicy and procedure development.Information sharing (through workshops,Web sites, newsletters, and networking).Financial subsidies to jails.Ideally, these types of resources should be inplace at the time standards are implemented, sojails can draw on them in addressing noncomplianceissues uncovered during inspections. Inreality, the program’s capacity to provide supportwill evolve as the program matures. Other organizationsand agencies may also play a role inproviding certain types of resources.Developing an Implementation StrategySuccessful implementation of a jail standardsprogram requires understanding different strategiesfor introducing change and when to usethem. A marketing plan is central to this endeavor.These aspects of implementing standards arediscussed in the following sections.Strategies for Change and When Each IsAppropriateThe effective use of strategies for change is perhapsthe most important consideration in implementinga jail standards and inspection program.Indeed, the actual content of the standards andthe mechanics of the inspection process may beless significant.Four types of strategies are described below:facilitative, educative, persuasive, and coercive.Each is based on a different assumption regardingthe perceptions or position of local stakeholderswho may be affected by the standards.During the course of implementation, the inspectionagency will probably use all four strategies,depending on local circumstances. Ideally, facilitativeand educative strategies will predominate;Exhibit . Comparison of Traditional Standards With Performance-Based StandardsTraditional Standardsn Prescriptive.n Pass/fail.n External compliance.n Existence of practice.n Focus on “What are you doing?”Performance-Based Standardsn Quality control.n Degrees of compliance.n Internal process.n How well practice is carried out.n Focus on “How am I doing?”8

Chapter 4: Strategies for Developing and Implementing Jail Standards Programsif these two types of strategies are effective, theneed for persuasive and coercive strategies willbe infrequent.Facilitative StrategiesThis approach assumes that local officials supportthe program and only lack the resourcesnecessary to make the changes required by thestandards. The resources can range from simpleinformation to extensive financial support.A program with a strong technical assistancecomponent can enhance the effectiveness of afacilitative strategy. Technical expertise in suchareas as program planning, policy and proceduredevelopment, staffing analysis, and facilitydevelopment should be available to jails alongwith regular inspections. The program shouldalso facilitate access to other supplementaryexpertise such as dieticians, safety planners,and medical/mental health planners. The availabilityof financial assistance (through eitherdirect funding support or other flexible taxingauthority) is also an effective tool for facilitatingcompliance.Educative StrategiesThe educative approach assumes local officialsgenerally agree with the program but lack specificknowledge of standards and their purpose.If this is an issue, the program must providekey stakeholders with this essential informationthrough workshops, seminars, and the distributionof written materials before and duringimplementation. Training for jail personnel isalso an effective way to increase understandingof standards.Persuasive StrategiesThis approach assumes local officials are indifferentto or disagree with standards or independentoversight of jails and must be persuadedthat complying with standards is in their bestinterest. A good understanding of the prioritiesand concerns that weigh upon local officialscan enhance a persuasive strategy. Support maybe gained by emphasizing common goals (e.g.,public safety, liability reduction, efficient operations).Positive reinforcement (e.g., offering discountson insurance premiums for compliance,recognition of excellence) may also be an effectiveelement of a persuasive strategy.Coercive StrategiesThis approach assumes local officials activelyoppose the program and will refuse to cooperate.In these cases, it may be necessary to compelcompliance through enforcement actions or othersanctions. Sanctions can range from closureorders, restricted use orders, or surcharges oninsurance premiums but should be employedonly after all other strategies have failed.Immediate enforcement action may be requiredif jail conditions threaten the life, health, andsafety of inmates, staff, or the public. Legalauthority strengthens the program’s capacity tocoerce compliance. Standards established bylaw as administrative rules backed by explicitenforcement authority will be more effectivethan programs that depend solely on voluntarycompliance.Market the InitiativeAn effective marketing plan should be developedto gain the support of key stakeholders in theprocess (see “Key Stakeholders in ImplementingJail Standards,” page 24). Most stakeholderswill have a position—supportive, neutral, ornonsupportive—regarding the development andimplementation of jail standards. A strategy togain stakeholder support may include the followingsteps:nnIdentify the key stakeholders.Prioritize and list the stakeholders with thegreatest influence (either positive or negative)on the successful implementation of thestandards.

nnnAssess their current understanding of the initiativeand support for it.Identify the desired level of understandingand support.Develop and tailor strategies to enhance supportor reduce opposition.It may be helpful to map out a marketing strategy,as shown in exhibit 4.∗Conducting Initial InspectionsOnce the standards program is in place, theapproach taken to the initial inspection of jails iscritical to implementing the standards successfullyand to gaining the ongoing support of thosedirectly affected by the standards. The initialinspections provide baseline compliance levelsfor individual jails and for the state as a whole.This baseline will help the standards programofficials and policymakers assess the amount andtype of resources needed to bring the jails intocompliance.The results of the initial inspections can derailthe process, particularly if there is substantialnoncompliance. This is especially true if localofficials are not prepared for the results or donot understand how to bring their facilities intocompliance over time through a realistic andachievable corrective action process. States haveemployed a variety of strategies to prepare localofficials for initial inspections:nnWorkshops and meetings with local officialsto provide information about the standards,explain what to expect in the initialinspections, and describe the process fordeveloping and implementing correctiveaction.Self-audit tools for jails to use in gaugingtheir level of compliance before the initialinspection.nnn“Unofficial” courtesy inspections to helplocal officials assess their compliance status.Training, technical assistance, andresource materials to assist local officialsin making the improvements needed to meetthe standards before the initial inspection.“Pilot testing” of the new standards andinspection process for a full inspectionperiod (annual or biennial) without “formalizing”the results. This allows the inspectionagency to work out issues related to theapplicability of the standards as well as theinspection process. After the pilot testing,the planning committee and the inspectionagency may make necessary adjustmentsbefore the official inspection process begins.Planning and Initiating Corrective ActionAfter the initial inspection, it is incumbent oneach jail to establish a corrective action plan toaddress any cited deficiencies. Standards programofficials should be prepared to work closelywith local officials to identify realistic actionsteps and develop timelines designed to achievecompliance within a reasonable time. Timelinesmay vary considerably from jail to jail, dependingon the nature of the noncompliance and whatis necessary to resolve it.The initial focus should be on achieving compliancewith core life, health, and safety standards.Officials may want to consider deferringenforcement of noncore standards during theinitial implementation period. Local officialsshould be granted substantial discretion in establishingtimelines for achieving compliance withnoncore standards based on budget cycles andother relevant factors.The standards program should maintain thoroughdocumentation of corrective action plans, agreements,and progress in resolving deficiencies.0

Chapter 4: Strategies for Developing and Implementing Jail Standards ProgramsExhibit . Sample Marketing Strategy for Gaining Stakeholder Support for Jail StandardsStakeholder Understanding of/Support for InitiativeStakeholders Current Desired Strategy for Change Action StepsLocal jail officialsn Skeptical.n Intrudes in localaffairs.n Potentially increasesliability.n Cannot possiblycomply.n Positive tool to assistjails.n Safety net.n Objective, fair.n Promotesprofessionalism.n Compliancerealistic,achievable.Facilitate andeducate—Highlight professionalismand liabilityreduction.n Implement jailtraining.n Conduct workshopson jail liability.n Visit jails inother stateswith standards.n Develop resources toassist jails.Local fundingauthoritiesn Intrusive.n Another unfundedstate mandate.n Expensive.n Coddles inmates.n Reduces liability.n Realistic,achievable.n Fair, objective.n Promotes consistency.Educate andpersuade—Highlight costs oflitigation and consequencesof inaction.n Conduct workshopson jail liability.n Present informationabout jails and theirrole in the localjustice system.n Present informationabout standardsand the inspectionprocess.State policymakersn Local issue, not astate problem.n Nonessentialstate governmentfunction.n Expensive.n Coddles inmates.n Promotes publicsafety.n In overall publicinterest.n Reduces liability.n Better outcomes atlocal level reducestate costs.Educate andpersuade—Highlight consequencesof inadequatejails for thejustice system andthe community.n Work with mediato highlight currentconditions.n Gather and sharedata on jail useand needs.n Develop and sharefact sheets on liabilityand impact of inadequatejails on justicesystem.Special interest n Influenced by n Better option than Facilitate and n Include SIGs ingroups (SIGs) politics. litigation to produce educate— standardspositive change.developmentn Minimal impact onHighlight theprocess.changes needed. n Objective, unbiased. benefits ofn Might be helpful. n Proactive.standards.n Keep SIGs informedof process.n Address jail complaintspromptlyand fairly.Note: This sample marketing strategy is presented for illustrative purposes only. Stakeholder views may vary significantly,depending on local circumstances.

The documentation will not only help keep trackof the status of jails across the state, but also willhelp demonstrate a proactive, good-faith stanceon the part of local officials with regard to jailconditions in the event that a lawsuit is filed.Options for Jails in States Where NoStandards Have Been AdoptedJails in states that have not adopted standardshave a number of options to reduce their liabilityexposure and promote professional practice. Inthe absence of state standards, jails may electto base their operations and practice on professionalstandards such as those developed bythe American Correctional Association or theNational Commission on Correctional HealthCare. Both of these professional organizationshave an accreditation process that provides forindependent audits and recognition of compliance.Even if a local jurisdiction chooses notto become accredited, the professional standardsprovide a sound basis for jail policies andprocedures.Additional options for jails in states without jailstandards are outlined below. Jails in states withstandards may also find these suggestions useful.n Contact other states or local jurisdictionswith jail standards to get copies of theirstandards and any supporting materialsthey may have developed to help facilitatecompliance.n Be sure to comply with other federal, state,or local rules and regulations applicable tothe jail, such as fire codes, health codes,building codes, accessibility codes, safetycodes, mental health laws, etc.n Certify the jail administrator through theAmerican Jail Association’s Certified JailManager program.n Provide training and certification of staffthrough local and state programs, as well asthrough programs offered by the AmericanCorrectional Association, the AmericanJail Association, and other professionalorganizations.n Hire an independent consultant for a comprehensiveaudit of the facility to identify problemareas and assist with the development ofa plan of action to resolve deficiencies.n Develop a system of internal audits andinspections to monitor jail activities, identifyproblems, and track trends.n Network with other jails in the area todiscuss problems and to share ideas andresources.

Technical Assistance andResources Available From theNational Institute of CorrectionsChapter 5Technical AssistanceThe National Institute of Corrections (NIC) providesa range of technical assistance to agenciesand jail-related organizations interested in developingjail standards and inspection programs orin updating existing programs. Technical assistanceis generally short term and may focus onspecific aspects of the development and implementationprocess, for example:nnnnnnOrganizing the process and facilitating initialmeetings.Facilitating the development of enablinglegislation.Facilitating the development of the jailstandards.Organizing the inspection process.Developing an implementation plan.Training inspection staff.To request technical assistance, the agency ororganization should send a letter on agency stationery,signed by the agency’s chief executiveofficer, to the NIC’s Jails Division. 9 The lettershould:n Briefly describe the problem for which assistanceis requested.n Identify the agency contact person by name(if different from the agency head), and9Letters of request should be mailed to the attention of the JailsDivision Technical Assistance Manager at the National Institute ofCorrections, 320 First Street, NW, Washington, DC 20534.nnnprovide the person’s address, telephone number,and e-mail address (if available).Reference any supporting documentation orbackground materials that have an impact onthe identified problem(s).Identify the NIC program staff person whoassisted the applicant agency (if the currentwritten request was preceded by a telephonecall).Specify the desired timeframe for servicedelivery.For more information on technical assistancefrom NIC, visit the Professional Services pageof the NIC Web site: http://www.nicic.org.State Jail Inspectors NetworkNIC facilitates the State Jail Inspectors Network,which promotes the exchange of ideas and informationbetween the directors of state jail inspectionprograms. The network is based on the viewthat the collective expertise and experience ofexisting jail inspection programs can providesignificant ongoing support to individual programsand can assist states that do not currentlyhave jail standards in developing and implementingthem. The goals of the State Jail InspectorsNetwork are as follows:n Identify and explore emerging and continuingissues facing jail inspection programsfrom the perspective of those who administerthem.

nnnnnIdentify emerging and continuing issues facingjails that inspection programs may havea role in resolving.Discuss strategies and resources for dealingsuccessfully with these issues.Discuss potential methods by which NIC canhelp jail inspection programs stay currentand enhance their capacity to work with jailsin their respective jurisdictions.Develop and enhance the lines of communicationamong the various state inspectionprograms.Assist states and jail-related organizationsinterested in establishing jail inspectionprograms.Network activity takes place primarily throughan annual meeting hosted by NIC and a privatee-mail discussion list. Network membersgain information they can use to improve theirrespective inspection programs, receive briefingson rapidly changing developments, have instantaccess to a national network of their peers, andestablish face-to-face networking relationships.The State Jail Inspectors Network offers representativesfrom states or jail-related organizationsthat are engaged in developing andimplementing jail standards programs opportunitiesto participate in Network activities and communicatewith Network members. Additionally,NIC may draw on the expertise of Networkmembers to provide information or resources onspecific issues or deliver technical assistance torequesting agencies or organizations.To join the State Jail Inspectors Network orrequest assistance from the Network members,contact the NIC Jails Division.TrainingNIC offers specialized training for jail inspectorsand related staff of inspection agencies.These resources include the companion publicationsJail Inspection Basics: An IntroductorySelf-Study Course for Jail Inspectors and JailInspection Basics: Supervisor’s Guide (Rosazza,2007a and 2007b) and the 4½-day DetentionFacility Inspector Training Program.The Jail Inspection Basics self-study courseis an entry-level course for new inspectors. Itcovers legal issues, standards, the inspectionprocess, facility design and its impact on operations,communication, government structuresand processes, and resources available to jailinspectors. The supervisor’s guide is a resourceto help supervisors facilitate and evaluate thenew inspector’s learning process. Supervisorscan also use this guide to relate the material inthe self-study course to the agency’s needs andthe state’s specific standards and to support realtimeassessments.The Detention Facility Inspector TrainingProgram highlights specific aspects of the jailinspector’s job and addresses the inspectionprocess, the provision of technical assistance,review of construction plans, ethics, currentissues and trends, and how to stay on track. Thistraining program, which is not typically includedin NIC’s annual service plan, is offered intermittently,depending on the availability of resourcesand the level of need. The program materials—lesson plans, participant manual, handouts, andslides—are available to states or organizationsinterested in offering the training on a local orregional basis. NIC also routinely accepts jailinspectors into other jail-related training programsto increase their overall knowledge andskills in jail administration, planning, andoperations.

Chapter 5: Technical Assistance and Resources Available From the National Institute of CorrectionsFor information on NIC training programs,visit the NIC Web site, http://www.nicic.org, orconsult NIC’s annual service plan, TechnicalAssistance, Information, and Training for AdultCorrections. In addition to presenting the trainingprograms being offered in a given year, thispublication includes information on NIC satellitebroadcasts and online training resources. Theservice plan can be ordered or downloaded fromthe NIC Web site.Resource InformationNIC Information CenterThe NIC Information Center was created toassist correctional policymakers, practitioners,elected officials, and others interested in correctionsissues. It maintains a collection of the mostcurrent materials available in corrections andrelated fields, including unpublished materialsdeveloped by federal, state, and local agencies.Center staff have professional experience incorrections and are available to discuss specificinformation needs and provide personal researchassistance on request. All services are providedat no charge.NIC is continuously expanding its body ofinformation and resources on jail standards andinspection programs. This includes the followingtypes of materials from various state inspectionprograms in electronic or hardcopy format:nnnnnEnabling legislation.Jail standards.Inspection checklists and relateddocumentation.Inspection program operating procedures.Inspection program resource materials.Contact the NIC Information Center. Torequest personal assistance or obtain copies ofspecific NIC publications and other resources,visit the NIC Information Center Virtual HelpDesk at the NIC Web site, http://www.nicic.org,or call 800–877–1461.NIC Web SiteIn addition to information on training and technicalassistance and access to the NIC InformationCenter, the NIC Web site, http://www.nicic.org,offers the following resources:n A searchable database of more than 1,200publications developed by NIC or with NICfunding. Publications can be downloaded orordered through the online Help Desk.nnnAccess to agency news and updates and tocorrections news.Links to pages devoted to current NICinitiatives.Opportunities to discuss issues and shareinformation through the agency’s newCorrections Community Web site (seepage 36).SummaryJail standards and inspection agencies can playa pivotal role in improving jail facilities, management,and operations. State agencies or jailrelatedorganizations interested in developing jailstandards and inspection programs or improvingexisting programs are encouraged to use theresources discussed in this section or contactNIC’s Jails Division directly at 800–995–6423for more information about what assistancemight be available to support their initiatives.

Corrections Community Web SiteIn July 2007, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) launched a new Web site that provides a placefor corrections professionals to work together, share information, and stay current in their profession. TheCorrections Community Web site, http://community.nicic.org/ (also accessible through the agency’s mainWeb site, http://www.nicic.org), offers three venues for interaction and collaboration:❑ Corrections News/Blogs: NIC experts deliver relevant and current corrections and criminal justice newsand information through online news columns (blogs). Members can share their thoughts on the newsand stay current through e-mail alerts and other subscription tools.❑ Discussion Forums: Public and private forums covering a wide variety of topics offer participants a wayto get answers from fellow professionals. Public forums are moderated and open to everyone; privateforums are restricted to specific groups that require a higher level of security and privacy.❑ Shared Files: Members can upload their own files to share and browse through the public file library tolocate material that others have shared.Thousands of professionals have joined the Corrections Community Web site since it was launched in July2007. Membership is free and provides instant access to all of the public forums and the opportunity torequest access to the private and secure forums.

ReferencesAmerican Correctional Association. 2004.Performance-Based Standards for Adult LocalDetention Facilities. 4th ed. Alexandria, VA:American Correctional Association.Collins, W. 2004a. Correctional Law Reporter.Volume XIV, No. 81. Kingston, NJ: CivicResearch Institute.Collins, W. 2004b. Correctional Law Reporter.Volume XV, No. 54. Kingston, NJ: CivicResearch Institute.Collins, W. 2004c. Correctional Law Reporter.Volume XV, No. 85. Kingston, NJ: CivicResearch Institute.Collins, W. 2004d. Jail and Prison Legal Issues:An Administrator’s Guide. Hagerstown, MD:American Jail Association.Harlow, C. 1998. Profile of Jail Inmates1996. BJS Special Report. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ164620.Hansen, R., and H. Daly. 1994. Challengingthe Conditions of Prisons and Jails: A Reporton Section 1983 Litigation. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ151652.Harrison, P., and A. Beck. 2006. Prison andJail Inmates at Midyear 2005. BJS Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of JusticeStatistics. NCJ 213133.Hughes, K. 2006. Justice Expenditure andEmployment in the United States, 2003. BJSBulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Statistics. NCJ 212260.James, D. 2004. Profile of Jail Inmates,2002. BJS Special Report. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ201932.James, D., and L. Glaze. 2006. MentalHealth Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates.BJS Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ213600.Logan, C. 1993. “Criminal Justice PerformanceMeasures for Prisons,” in Performance Measuresfor the Criminal Justice System. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,pp. 19–60. NCJ 143505.Mumola, C. 2005. Suicide and Homicide Ratesin State Prisons and Local Jails. BJS SpecialReport. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Statistics. NCJ 210036.Rosazza, T. 2007a. Jail Inspection Basics:An Introductory Self-Study Course for JailInspectors. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, National Institute of Corrections. NICAccession Number 022124.

Rosazza, T. 2007b. Jail Inspection Basics:Supervisor’s Guide. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute ofCorrections. NIC Accession Number 022123.Scalia, J. 2002. Prisoner Petitions Filed inU.S. District Courts, 2000, with Trends 1980–2000. BJS Special Report. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ189430.8

Topics of LitigationAppendix AThe following list indicates the enormousbreadth and scope of issues that may be thesubject of litigation. This list is not exhaustive.Some of the topics (e.g., medical care) will berelatively obvious to the lay person; others, suchas access to the courts and law libraries or therequirements of various Supreme Court decisions,are much more esoteric. The intention ofthe list is to illustrate the very large number ofinmate-related legal concerns that confront thejail administrator.Access to the Courtsn Law libraries:❑❑❑❑Contents.Illiterate inmates.Providing access for segregated inmates.The pro se criminal defendant andaccess to a law library. 10n Jailhouse “lawyers,” 11 a somewhat protectedvocation:❑❑❑❑Charging for services.Possessing the legal papers of another.Jailhouse lawyer-client privilege.Communication between jailhouse lawyersand their “clients.”10A party to a lawsuit who represents himself is appearing in thecase pro se.nnTypewriters and copy machines.Storage of legal materials.The Eighth Amendment: Overview andUse of Forcen Use of force:n❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑Duty to intervene.Restraints.Hog-tying.Stun guns.Stun belts.Stun devices and medical needs.Chemical agents.Using force to enforce orders.Deadly force:❑❑Escapes and deadly force.Warning shots.The Eighth Amendment: Medical CarennnnnnnCost of treatment.Delayed care.“Elective” treatment.Admission screening.Abortion.Preexisting conditions.Organ transplants.11A jailhouse lawyer is a jail inmate who assists other inmates withlitigation.39

n Paraplegic inmates.n Officers administering medications toinmates.n Deviation from established policy.n Ignoring instructions of treatment staff.n Medical custody conflict resolution process.n Medical copay plans.n Medical records and the right to privacy.n Interpreters.n Right to postrelease care.n HIV/AIDS:❑ HIV deliberate indifference for failure totreat as a serious medical condition.❑ Mandatory segregation.❑ Right to privacy/disclosure.❑ Protection.❑ HIV/AIDS, the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA), and theRehabilitation Act.❑ Security concerns and ADA issues.n Dental care:❑ Extraction-only policies.n Smoking:❑ Secondhand smoke.❑ Smoke-free jails.❑ Employees and smoke-free jails.n Tuberculosis:❑ Screening.❑ Response to active tuberculosis.❑ Mandatory testing.n Mental health:❑ Consent and involuntary medication.❑ Emergency medication.❑ Inmate refusals and deliberateindifference. 12❑ Involuntary medications and pretrialdetainees.❑ Danger to self or others.❑ Involuntary medications and incompetenceto stand trial.❑ Managing inmates who are bothdangerous and incompetent❑ Forced medical treatment during hungerstrikes and other involuntary treatment.❑ Court orders for medical care.❑ Transsexuals.❑ Transsexuals and operational implicationsof their management.❑ Housing.❑ Searches.n The Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act (HIPAA):❑ Application of HIPAA to jails andprisons.❑ HIPAA requirements.❑ Exception for correctional facilities.❑ Right of access.❑ Complaints about HIPAA violations.The Eighth Amendment: SuicideLitigation themes—identification, protection,and response:n Identifying the suicide risk.n Screening and profiles.n Passing on information.12In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the “deliberate indifference”test is applied in areas other than just medical, includingsafety and other general living conditions. It has effectivelyexpanded to mean “deliberate indifference to the basic humanneeds” of the inmate.40

Appendix A: Topics of Litigationn Records and threat identification.n Protecting the identified suicide risk.n Suicidal comments.n Frequency of checks.n Use of video surveillance as a supervisiontool.n Removal from suicide watch.n Response to suicide attempts.n Postadmission suicides.n Jail design issues.The Eighth Amendment: General Conditionsof Confinementn Personal safety.n Classification.n Shelter.n Food.n Withholding meals.n Food loaf.n Vegetarian meals.n Hot food.n Sanitation.n Showers and personal hygiene.n Inmate cleaning requirements.n Clothing.n Exercise.n Outdoor exercise.n Exercise in the cell.n Duration of conditions.The Fourteenth Amendment: InmateDiscipline and Other Procedural DueProcess Issuesn Property interests:❑ Fines in disciplinary hearings.❑ Disciplinary hearing “fees.”❑ Taking inmate property.❑ Control of cash.❑ Sandin v. Connor and property interests.n Inmate discipline and due process:❑ Sandin only limits due process for sentencedoffenders.❑ Jails, discipline of pretrial detainees, andthe liberty interest question.❑ Good time earned vs. expectations ofgood time and due process.n Major disciplinary infractions: The proceduralrequirements of Wolff v. McDonnell:❑ Miranda warnings.❑ Privilege against self-incriminationin disciplinary hearings and Mirandawarnings.❑ Notice and the hearing.❑ Inmate’s presence at the hearing.❑ Waiver.❑ Refusal to attend the hearing.❑ Excluding the inmate for safety or securityreasons.❑ Witnesses to infractions.❑ Institution must justify denials.❑ Grounds for denying witness requests.❑ Advance notice of witness requests andwitness summaries.❑ Relevance.❑ Security concerns: “unduly hazardous toinstitutional safety.”❑ Cumulative testimony.❑ Witness statements.❑ Grounds for not denying witnesses.❑ Blanket denials.❑ Credibility.❑ Refusal to testify.41

❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑Officer refusals.Inmate refusals.Stating reasons for denying witnesses.Right to assistance.Interpreters and the hearing-impaired.Role of the assistant.No right to legal counsel.The hearing officer(s).Impartiality.❑ Inmate lawsuits against hearing officersand bias.❑ Role of the hearing officer.❑ Hearing officers vs. hearing committees.❑ Evidence: When is an inmate guilty?❑ The burden of proof.❑ Officers’ reports as evidence of guilt.❑ Anonymous informants.❑ Hearsay.❑ Constructive possession.❑ Statement of the evidence relied on.❑ The hearing record and its importance.❑ Prehearing confinement.n Miscellaneous disciplinary issues:❑ Polygraph.❑ Settlement.❑ Appeals.❑ Overlapping disciplinary and criminalcharges.❑ Major vs. minor offenses: Where is theline drawn? Is some “process due” forminor infractions?❑ Due process and long-term administrativesegregation.The First Amendment: Religion, Publications,Mail, Telephone Use, Grievances, and InmateMarriagesn The Turner test (imposing restrictions onfirst amendment rights):❑ What are “legitimate penologicalinterests?”❑ Turner: the four questions.❑ Why understand the Turner test?❑ Are cost concerns a legitimate penologicalinterest?❑ What constitutional issues does Turnerapply to?❑ Must a problem have occurred?❑ Exaggerated responses.❑ Consistency.❑ Burden.n Religious issues:❑ The Religious Land Use andInstitutionalized Persons Act.❑ What is a religion? What constitutes sincerityof beliefs?❑ Must a religious practice be required bya faith to be constitutionally protected?n Particular religious practices:❑ Mandates from faith not required.❑ Hair and beards.❑ Hair: male inmates vs. female inmates.❑ Personal appearance.❑ Group religious services.❑ Religious diets.❑ Native American practices.❑ Satanic materials and practices.42

Appendix A: Topics of Litigation❑ Establishment clause: Can the jail“establish” a religion?❑ Equal protection.n Publications and mail:❑ Total bans of all publications.❑ “Publisher only” rules.❑ Complete bans on hardbound books.❑ Due process, rejection notices to inmateand sender.❑ Reading incoming and outgoing mail.❑ Rejection of letters and publications.❑ Censoring outgoing mail.❑ Bulk mail publications.❑ Content-based restrictions.❑ Racist/religious material.❑ Sexual publications.❑ Criticism of institution officials.❑ Photos of wives and girlfriends.❑ All-or-nothing censorship.❑ Segregation and mail access.❑ Mail between inmates.❑ Gift subscriptions.❑ Copying outgoing mail.❑ Obstruction of justice.❑ Foreign language.❑ Delays in mail delivery.❑ “Privileged” or “legal” mail.❑ General rules for handling privilegedmail.❑ Media mail and privilege.❑ Opening privileged mail by mistake.n Telephone use:❑ Recordings.❑ Calls to lawyers.n Grievances:❑ Disrespectful language.❑ False statements.❑ Abuse of the system.n Inmate marriages.Retaliationn Grievance system abuse: points toremember.First Amendment: Visitationn Denial of visiting rights, Turner, and dueprocess.n Children’s visits.n Contact and conjugal visiting.n Visitor searches—general.Fourth Amendment: Searchesn Cell searches.n Pat searches.n Strip searches.n “Arrestee” strip searches:❑ Offense-based reasonable suspicion.❑ Drugs and alcohol.❑ Nature of the offense and criminalhistory.❑ General population placement.❑ Medical concerns.❑ Clothing exchanges.❑ Bullpens and holding areas.❑ When does an arrestee become aninmate?43

n Inmate strip search:❑❑❑Out-of-institution contacts.Inmates in segregation.Incident to cell block searches.❑ Random general population stripsearches.❑ Reasonable suspicion strip searches.❑ Emergency situations.❑ How/where search conducted.❑ Privacy concerns.n What creates “reasonable suspicion”?n Body cavity probe searches:❑ Probe searches and high-securitysettings.❑ Ad hoc probe searches: reasonable suspicionor probable cause?❑ Manner of search.❑ Eighth amendment.n Visitor searches:❑ Pat-downs and searches of bags andpurses.❑ Vehicle searches.❑ Visitor strip searches.❑ “Consent” conditions.n Informant tips and reasonable suspicion.Cross-Gender Supervisionn Female officers and male inmates: observation,pat searches, and strip searches.n Male officers and female inmates: observation,pat searches, and strip searches.n Same-sex posts: bona fide occupationalqualification (BFOQ) issues.n BFOQs in small jails.n Men working in women’s facilities.n Limited ban on male officers approved.n Sexual contact between staff and inmates.44

Summary of State Standardsand Inspection ProgramsAppendix BSurvey information was collected from thechief jail inspectors and other key officials ineach state known to have a jail standards andinspection program. Prior surveys of inspectionprograms were also reviewed to confirm andfill in the gaps of the collected information. Theresults are summarized in the table on the followingpages. Contact information for agenciesadministering the jail standards programs also isprovided.Inspection programs across the country areas varied as the jails they regulate. The tableprovides information on the key features andcharacteristics of those programs organizedin a way that allows readers to compare andcontrast the approaches the various states havetaken to developing and implementing standards.Some states are noticeably missing fromthe survey. In some cases, the jails are part of astate-operated jail system. Although there maybe some internal auditing and compliance managementfunction within the agency overseeingthe state-run jails, there may not be a separate,independent inspection authority. In other states,efforts to establish jail standards programs maynot have been undertaken or may not have beensuccessful. In a very few states, the jail standardsprograms have been eliminated or greatlydiminished.Policymakers in states interested in developingjail standards and inspection program canlearn from both the successes and failures ofother states that have gone through the process.Readers are encouraged to contact inspectionofficials directly for more information abouttheir respective programs.45

Existing Standards and Inspections ProgramsFacility Types CoordinationMandatory Inspection Administrative Inspected/ Sanctioning Enforcement Assistance With OtherState a Standards Program Frequency Agency Model b Enabling Statute Applicability c Governed d Authority Options to Jails e Agencies fAL Yes Yes Semiannual Alabama Department of DOC AL Title 14 Cities over J, HF (city None Closure TR, TA, FP, RM FM, HDCorrections 10,000 popu- lockups) (Governor)lation, countyAR Yes Yes Annual Correctional Facility Commission Code, 12-26.10-108 City, county, J, HF, JD, WR, Attorney Closure TR, TA, FP, PR FM, HD (volunteerReview Committee private PVT general inspectors)CA No Yes Biennial Corrections Standards DOC CA Penal Code, sec. City, county, J, HF, JD, P, WR Informal Withholding of TR, TA, FP, PR, FM, HDAuthority 6030 state funds RM, FSDE No Yes Annual Delaware Department DOC Title 11 State J, HF, WR Agency Corrective TR, TA N/Aof Correction actionFL Yes Yes Annual Florida Sheriffs’ State sheriffs’ FL Statutes, ch. County J, HF, WR None None N/A N/AAssociation, Jail association 951.23Standards CommitteeIA Yes Yes Annual Iowa Department DOC Iowa Code, ch. 356 City, county J, HF Agency, court Closure, TR, TA, PR, RM FM, HDof Corrections, Jail restricted useInspectionsID No Yes Biannual Idaho State Sheriffs’ State sheriffs’ na County J, HF, WR Informal None TR, TA, PR, NoneAssociation association RM, ADIL Yes Yes Annual Illinois Department DOC IL Compiled Statutes, City (V), county J, HF Attorney Court order TR, TA, PR, RM FM, HD, Departmentof Correction, Office ch. 730, 5/3-15-3 (b) (M) general of Natural Resourcesof Jail and DetentionStandardsIN Yes Yes At least Indiana Department of DOC IN Code 11-12-4 County, state J, JD, P, PVT Court Grand jury, TR, TA, PR, FM, HDannual Correction court orderKY Yes Yes Semiannual Kentucky Department DOC KY Rev. Statutes County J, PVT Agency Closure TR, TA, FP, PR, Noneof Corrections 441.064 RM, AD, FSLA Yes Yes Quarterly to Louisiana Department DOC Consent decree City, county J, HF Agency Restricted use TR, TA, FS FM, HDevery 3 years of Public Safety andCorrectionsMA Yes Yes Biannual Massachusetts DOC 103 Code of MA County J Agency None TR, TA, PR, RM FM, HDDepartment of Reg., 900 et seq.Correctionsna = not applicable, N/A = not available (the information was not included in the survey information collected for the state).aThe following states have not adopted standards and have no provision for jail inspection: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Rhode Island,South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Of these states, Alaska, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont have state-operated jails and West Virginia has a regional jail system. Georgia adopted standardsbut did away with its inspection program years ago; the state still has standards but does not actively enforce them.bDOC = Department of Correction.cM = misdemeanors, V = ordinance violations.dHF = holding facilities, J = jails, JD = juvenile detention facilities, P = prisons, PVT = private, WR = work release.eAD = advocacy, FP = facility planning, FS = financial subsidies/grants, PR = plans review, RM = resource material, TR = training, TA = consultation/technical assistance.fFM = fire marshal, HD = health department.46

Appendix B: Summary of State Standards and Inspection ProgramsExisting Standards and Inspections Programs (continued)MandatoryState a StandardsInspectionProgram FrequencyFacility TypesAdministrativeInspected/ SanctioningAgency Model b Enabling Statute Applicability c Governed d AuthorityEnforcementOptionsCoordinationAssistance With Otherto Jails e Agencies fMD Yes Yes Every 3 years Maryland Commissionon CorrectionalStandardsME Yes Yes Biannual Maine Department ofCorrectionsMI Yes Yes Annual Michigan Departmentof CorrectionsMN Yes Yes Annual orbiennialMinnesota Departmentof CorrectionsMT No No na Montana Sheriffsand Peace OfficersAssociationNC Yes Yes Biannual North CarolinaDepartment of Healthand Human Services,Division of FacilityServices, Jail andDetention SectionND Yes Yes Annual Department ofCorrections &RehabilitationIndependentcommission20:7 MD R. 642 County, state J, P, WR Agency Reprimand,closureDOC ME Title 34 City, county,regional, stateDOC MI Compiled Laws,791.262TR, TA N/AJ, HF, P, WR Agency Closure TR, TA FM, HDCounty J, WR Attorney general,courtDOC MN Title 241.021 County J, HF, JD, WR,PVTState sheriffs’associationNorthCarolinaDepartmentof Healthand HumanServicesClosure (courtorder)Agency Closure (sunsetorder)TA, PR, RM FM, HDTR, TA, FP, PR,RM, ADna County J None None N/A N/AGeneral Statutes143B-153; 153A-221City, county J, JD, HF Secretary,Departmentof Healthand HumanServicesCorrectiveaction, closurePR N/AFM, HDDOC 12-44.1 N/A N/A Agency Closure TR, TA, PR FM, HDNE Yes Yes Annual Nebraska CrimeCommission, JailStandards DivisionNJ Yes Yes Annual New JerseyDepartment ofCorrectionsNY Yes Yes Annual New York StateCommission ofCorrectionOH Yes Yes Annual Ohio Department ofRehabilitation andCorrection, Bureau ofAdult DetentionIndependentcommissionNE Rev. Statutes, 83-4, 124–134City, county J, JD, HF AttorneygeneralDepopulation,restricted use,closure,DOC N/A City, county J, HF Agency Limit capacity,closureIndependentagencyArticle 3 sec. 45, NYState Corr. LawDOC OH Rev. Code,5120.10City, county J, HF (citylockups)FM, HDTR, TA FM, HDAgency, court Closure TR, TA, PR, RM HDCity, county J, HF Agency Decertification TR,TA, PR, RM N/Ana = not applicable, N/A = not available (the information was not included in the survey information collected for the state).aThe following states have not adopted standards and have no provision for jail inspection: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Rhode Island,South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Of these states, Alaska, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont have state-operated jails and West Virginia has a regional jail system. Georgia adopted standardsbut did away with its inspection program years ago; the state still has standards but does not actively enforce them.bDOC = Department of Correction.cM = misdemeanors, V = ordinance violations.dHF = holding facilities, J = jails, JD = juvenile detention facilities, P = prisons, PVT = private, WR = work release.eAD = advocacy, FP = facility planning, FS = financial subsidies/grants, PR = plans review, RM = resource material, TR = training, TA = consultation/technical assistance.fFM = fire marshal, HD = health department.47

Existing Standards and Inspections Programs (continued)MandatoryState a StandardsInspectionProgram FrequencyFacility TypesAdministrativeInspected/ SanctioningAgency Model b Enabling Statute Applicability c Governed d AuthorityEnforcementOptionsCoordinationAssistance With Otherto Jails e Agencies fOK Yes Yes Annual (threetimes peryear bypractice)OR Yes (statutes)No (standards)Oklahoma StateDepartment of HealthYes Biennial Oregon State Sheriffs’AssociationPA Yes Yes Annual PennsylvaniaDepartment ofCorrectionsSC Yes Yes Annual South CarolinaDepartment ofCorrectionsTN Yes Yes Annual Tennessee CorrectionsInstitute, Division ofCompliance, Standards& InspectionsTX Yes Yes Annual Texas Commission onJail StandardsUT No Yes Annual Utah Sheriffs’AssociationVA Yes Yes Annual Virginia Department ofCorrectionsWI Yes Yes Annual Wisconsin Departmentof Corrections, Officeof Detention FacilitiesOklahomaStateDepartmentof HealthState sheriffs’associationOK Admin. Code310:670City, county J, HF Agency, attorneygeneral,courtClosure TR, TA, FP,PR, RMna N/A N/A None None N/A N/ADOC Title 37, ch. 95 County J, WR, PVT Court Closure,restricted useDOC SC Code of Laws24-9-10Independentstate agencyIndependentstate agencyState sheriffs’associationCity, county,privateTN Statute 1400 City, county,privateTX Govt. Code, ch.511DOC Code of VA, sec.53.1.5 et seq.J, HF, JD, WR,PVTCounty J, HF, PVT,county, courtholdingAgency, court Closure orother, asdetermined byjudgeJ, HF, PVT None Withholding ofcertificationAgency, attorneygeneral,courtTR, TA, FP, PR(on request),RMFM, HDPR FM, HDTR, TA, FP, PR,RM, FS, ADClosure TR, TA, PR, RM FMna County J None None TR, TA, FP, PR,RM, ADCity, county,stateJ, HF, P, WR Court Closure(extremecases)DOC Sec. 301-37(3) City, county J, JD, HF AttorneygeneralTA, FR, PR,RM, FSClosure TR, TA, FP, PR,RM, ADFM, HD, Departmentof Labor and IndustryFM, HDFM, HDFM, HDFM, HDna = not applicable, N/A = not available (the information was not included in the survey information collected for the state).aThe following states have not adopted standards and have no provision for jail inspection: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Rhode Island,South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Of these states, Alaska, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont have state-operated jails and West Virginia has a regional jail system. Georgia adopted standardsbut did away with its inspection program years ago; the state still has standards but does not actively enforce them.bDOC = Department of Correction.cM = misdemeanors, V = ordinance violations.dHF = holding facilities, J = jails, JD = juvenile detention facilities, P = prisons, PVT = private, WR = work release.eAD = advocacy, FP = facility planning, FS = financial subsidies/grants, PR = plans review, RM = resource material, TR = training, TA = consultation/technical assistance.fFM = fire marshal, HD = health department.48

Appendix B: Summary of State Standards and Inspection ProgramsContact Information for AgenciesAdministering Jail StandardsAlabamaDepartment of Corrections2265 Maron Spillway RoadElmore, AL 36025334–567–1554www.doc.state.al.usArkansasCorrectional Facility Review Committee1515 West Seventh Street, Suite 20Little Rock, AR 42201501–324–9493CaliforniaCorrections Standards AuthorityDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation600 Bercut DriveSacramento, CA 95814916–445–5073www.cdcr.ca.gov/DivisionsBoards/CSA/DelawareDepartment of Correction245 McKee RoadDover, DE 19904302–739–5601www.state.de.us/correct/FloridaSheriffs’ AssociationJail Standards Committee2617 Mahan DriveTallahassee, FL 32308850–877–2165www.flsheriffs.orgIdahoState Sheriffs’ AssociationP.O. Box 446Orofino, ID 83544–0446208–476–4832www.idahosheriffs.comIllinoisDepartment of CorrectionOffice of Jail and Detention Standards1301 Concordia CourtSpringfield, IL 62794217–522–2666, ext. 4212www.idoc.state.il.usIndianaDepartment of CorrectionIGCS302 West Washington Street, Room E334Indianapolis, IN 46204317–232–5711www.in.gov/indcorrection/IowaDepartment of CorrectionsJail Inspections510 East 12th StreetDes Moines, IA 50319515–725–5731www.doc.state.ia.usKentuckyDepartment of Corrections275 East Main StreetFrankfort, KY 40602502–564–7290www.corrections.ky.govLouisianaDepartment of Public Safety and CorrectionsP.O. Box 94304Baton Rouge, LA 70804225–342–6794www.doc.louisiana.gov/MaineDepartment of CorrectionsState House Station #111Augusta, ME 04333207–287–2711www.maine.gov/corrections/49

MarylandCommission on Correctional Standards115 Sudbrook LanePikesville, MD 21208410–585–3830www.dpscs.state.md.usMassachusettsDepartment of Corrections50 Maple StreetMilford, MA 01757508–422–3300www.mass.govMichiganDepartment of Corrections206 East Michigan AvenueGrandview PlazaP.O. Box 30003Lansing, MI 48909517–335–1426www.michigan.gov/correctionsMinnesotaDepartment of Corrections1450 Energy Park DriveSuite 200St. Paul, MN 55108651–361–7146www.corr.state.mn.us/MontanaSheriffs and Peace Officers Association34 West Sixth AvenueHelena, MT 59601406–443–5669www.mspoa.orgNebraskaCrime CommissionJail Standards Division301 Centennial Mall SouthLincoln, NE 68509402–471–2194www.ncc.state.ne.usNew JerseyDepartment of CorrectionsP.O. Box 863Trenton, NJ 08625609–292–6158www.state.nj.us/corrections/New YorkState Commission of Correction80 Wolf RoadAlbany, NY 12205518–485–2346www.scoc.state.ny.usNorth CarolinaDepartment of Health and Human ServicesDivision of Facility ServicesJail and Detention Section701 Barbour DriveRaleigh, NC 27699–2710919–855–3857www.dhhs.state.nc.us/North DakotaDepartment of Corrections & Rehabilitation3100 Railroad AvenueBismarck, ND 58502701–328–6390www.state.nd.us/docr/OhioDepartment of Rehabilitation and CorrectionBureau of Adult Detention1030 Alum Creek DriveColumbus, OH 43209614–752–1066www.drc.state.oh.us/web/bad.htmOklahomaState Department of Health1000 Northeast 10th StreetOklahoma City, OK 73117–1298405–271–3912www.health.state.ok.us50

Appendix B: Summary of State Standards and Inspection ProgramsOregonState Sheriffs’ AssociationP.O. Box 7468Salem, OR 97303503–364–4204www.oregonsheriffs.orgPennsylvaniaDepartment of CorrectionsP.O. Box 598Camp Hill, PA 17001717–731–7841www.cor.state.pa.us/South CarolinaDepartment of CorrectionsP.O. Box 21787Columbia, SC 29221803–896–8502www.doc.sc.gov/TennesseeCorrections InstituteDivision of ComplianceStandards & InspectionsRachel Jackson Bldg.320 Sixth Avenue North, Eighth FloorNashville, TN 37243–1420615–741–3816(No Web site)TexasCommission on Jail StandardsP.O. Box 12985Austin, TX 78711512–463–5505www.tcjs.state.tx.usUtahSheriffs’ AssociationP.O. Box 489Santa Clara, UT 84765435–674–5935www.utahsheriffs.orgVirginiaDepartment of Corrections6900 Atmore DriveRichmond, VA 23225804–674–3499www.vadoc.state.va.us/WisconsinOffice of Detention FacilitiesDepartment of Corrections819 North Sixth Street, Room 510Milwaukee, WI 53203414–227–5199www.wi-doc.com51

Profiles of Three OrganizationalModels of Standards ProgramsAppendix CExecutive Branch/Department of Correction Model: IndianaParent agency: Indiana Department of Correction (DOC).Administering entity: Detention services.Legal authority:How promulgated:Basis in law:Scope:Applicability:Enforcement:Inspections:Followup:Support services:Staffing:Authority for standards, inspections, and enforcement is established in statute(Indiana Code 11-12-4).Standards are promulgated by the Jail Standards Committee, composed of“at least five” sheriffs representing small, moderate, and densely populatedcounties.Standards are administrative regulations promulgated under the stateAdministrative Code Act (ACA). As such, they carry the force of law.The jail standards are minimum standards; the statute defines the functions andconditions to be addressed. Existing jails are considered “grandfathered,” andonly the courts may force an existing facility to come into compliance.Adult jails, adult holding facilities (under-24-hour facilities and under-96-hourfacilities), and juvenile detention facilities.The Indiana DOC commissioner may petition the circuit court of the countyconcerned for corrective action after the county has received a 180-day noticeof noncompliance. As an alternative, a grand jury may be requested.At least annually.Followup inspections and technical assistance visits are conducted based on thetotality of conditions.Facility planning assistance, review and approval of plans, training, collectionof jail population “snapshots,” technical assistance, resource documents, etc.Historically, one division chief (chief jail inspector) and one jail/juvenileinspector. Recently combined with a state facility ACA audits team, whichadded a fire safety and environmental specialist.53

Resource materials:Comprehensive Indiana Jail Compact Disk updated and provided annually.Technical assistance provided to individual counties, and training providedstatewide, based on annual review of deficiencies noted in jail inspectionreports. E-mail list server maintained by chief jail inspector for disseminationof information and issues affecting jails.Description:Indiana inspected county jails from 1953 to 1979 without benefit of written standards. The Indiana JailStandards Committee was created in 1979 by statutory authority at the request of Indiana sheriffs todevelop and implement minimum written standards for adult jails. Professional and technical “experts”are added as ad hoc members to advise the Standards Committee. The chief jail inspector historicallychairs the committee. The Committee may also be used to hear and resolve inspection issues and provideinterpretation of standards upon request.The program is designed so that the Indiana DOC has no authority over county jails, with one exception:By statute, the chief jail inspector establishes the rated capacity of each jail. Indiana sheriffs developjail standards, and the Indiana DOC promulgates the standards and provides an inspection service tothe counties.Jail inspection reports enter the public record 10 days from the date mailed. An electronic copy of thereport is sent after each inspection, followed by a hard copy. The county sheriff reviews the report andprovides written comment and forwards a copy of the report to each county official concerned.54

Appendix C: Profiles of Three Organizational Models of Standards ProgramsIndependent Commission Model: NebraskaParent agency: Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.Administering entity: Jail Standards Board (JSB).Legal authority:How promulgated:Basis in law:Scope:Applicability:Enforcement:Inspections:Followup:Support services:Staffing:Resource materials:Authority for standards, inspections, and enforcement is established in statute(Nebraska Revised Statutes 83-4,124 through 83-4,134).Standards are promulgated by JSB.Standards are administrative regulations promulgated under the stateAdministrative Procedures Act. As such, they carry the force of state law.The jail standards are comprehensive, i.e., the statute defines the functionsand conditions to be addressed. Existing physical plant standards were neverapproved. However, standards for the renovation and construction of new facilitiesare in force.Adult jails, adult holding facilities (under-24-hour facilities and under-96-hourfacilities), juvenile detention facilities.JSB has the authority to petition the district court for closure; the district courthas the authority to order compliance or close the facility.Annual.Inspectors present inspection report to JSB, which cites facility for noncomplianceor finds facility in full compliance. Noncompliant facilities must prepareand submit a corrective action plan for JSB approval. Inspectors monitor completionof corrective action; once deficiencies are corrected, JSB finds facilityin full compliance.Facility planning assistance, review and approval of plans, training, collectionof jail population data, technical assistance, resource documents, etc.Division chief; two inspectors; two part-time clerical staff.Model policy and procedure manual, model jail records, jail planning and constructionguide, jail management information system, compliance managementhandbook.Description:The Nebraska JSB was created in 1978 with statutory authority to develop and implement minimumstandards for adult jails and temporary holding facilities throughout Nebraska. With the passage ofLegislative Bill (LB) 328 in August 1981, JSB was placed under the authority of the state’s CrimeCommission. The enactment of Minimum Jail Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities in August1993 expanded JSB’s purview to include juvenile detention facilities.55

Nebraska is one of only a few states to have its standards and inspection program administered bya “grassroots” representative board, giving those affected by the standards ample opportunity tohave input into the process. Although JSB operates as an independent governing board, the CrimeCommission’s Jail Standards Division provides staff and administrative support.JSB is composed of 11 members, 9 of whom are appointed by the governor for 3-year terms. Statutorily,the state fire marshal and director of the Department of Correctional Services serve on the board.Appointed board members include two county commissioners or supervisors, a county sheriff, a policechief, a juvenile detention facility administrator, an administrator of a large jail (average daily populationgreater than 50 persons), a member of the Nebraska State Bar Association, and two laypersons.56

Appendix C: Profiles of Three Organizational Models of Standards ProgramsProfessional Association Model: IdahoParent agency: Idaho Sheriff’s Association (ISA).Administering entity: Jail Standards Committee (JSC).Legal authority:How promulgated:Basis in law:Scope:Applicability:Enforcement:Inspections:Followup:Staffing:None.Standards are promulgated by JSC with approval of ISA.Voluntary.The jail standards are comprehensive.Adult jails.None.Annual.Inspectors present inspection report to the jail standards coordinator, who mailsa copy to the sheriff and/or jail administrator. If deficiencies are identified, thejail prepares a compliance plan and submits it to the jail standards coordinator,who evaluates the plan and makes written recommendations to JSC. JSC eitherissues a certificate of compliance or approves/rejects the compliance plan. Ifthe plan is rejected, the jail must revise and resubmit it; if the plan is approved,the coordinator monitors the corrective action.Jail coordinator, volunteer peer inspectors.Description:ISA adopted the Idaho Jail Standards in 1990. To implement these standards, ISA established an inspectionand certification process. A jail standards coordinator position was funded through assessmentsto participating counties. Sheriffs, commissioners, and jail administrators serve on inspection teams towork with the jail coordinator as peer inspectors. JSC was designated as the authority to review inspectionsand certify jails. The Idaho County Risk Management Program, which insures 39 of the 40 jails inIdaho, uses the standards as a basis for decisions regarding insurance coverage. Failure to comply withstandards may result in a loss of coverage.57

Example of a Group Charter for a JailStandards Planning CommitteeAppendix DDate of the Charter: _____________________PurposeThe planning committee’s purpose is to leadthe design and development of a jail standardsand inspection program (established in statute),which will provide oversight of city and countyjails in the state and assist local officials in complyingwith minimum legal requirements. In providingthis assistance, the planning team will:n Secure and/or share information needed tomake decisions regarding development ofthe standards program.n Identify the problems, conditions, and forcesin the state driving the need for standards.n Establish a vision, mission, and goals for theinitiative.n Explore and recommend strategies andapproaches for the development andimplementation of standards.n Develop recommendations and/or draftlanguage for enabling legislation for astandards program.n Assist in the development of action agendasto implement the recommendations developedby the committee.The planning committee may also recommendchanges in justice system policy to make properand best use of local detention resources inaccordance with established standards.AuthorityThe planning committee has the authority toresearch and prepare work products pursuantto assigned tasks. The work products will besubmitted to the facilitator for inclusion in theoverall plan.Responsibilitiesn Planning Committee:❑ Establish a work plan for assignment oftasks.❑ Seek information or assistance from thefacilitator and/or committee chair whenneeded.❑ Deliver work products on time.❑ Get maximum benefit from expertise ofall members.n Individual Members:❑ Attend scheduled meetings.❑ Complete work assignments on time.❑ Share expertise.❑ Do the homework.n Facilitator:❑ Provide background information onthe jails in the state and their currentcondition.❑ Provide information on the factors drivingthe need for standards at this time.59

❑❑❑Provide “best practice” information andresearch on jail standards.Facilitate meetings and work sessions.Prepare the final plan.Timeframe for the Work of thePlanning TeamThe final plan must be ready by_______________________________.60

Excerpted Sections of EnablingLegislation for Nebraska Jail StandardsAppendix ESection 83-4, 124 Legislative intent; JailStandards Board; created; administration byNebraska Commission on Law Enforcementand Criminal Justice; members; qualifications;terms; expenses.It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Stateof Nebraska that all criminal detention facilitiesand juvenile detention facilities in the state shallconform to certain minimum standards of construction,maintenance, and operation.Section 83-4, 126 Jail Standards Board; powersand duties; enumerated.The Jail Standards Board shall have the authorityand responsibility:(1) To develop minimum standards for the construction,maintenance, and operation of criminaldetention facilities;(2) To perform such other duties as may be necessaryto carry out the policy of the state regardingsuch criminal detention facilities and juveniledetention facilities as stated in sections 83-4, 124to 83-4, 134; and(3) Consistent with the purposes and objectivesof the Juvenile Services Act, to develop standardsfor juvenile detention facilities, including, but notlimited to, standards for physical facilities, care,programs, and disciplinary procedures, and todevelop guidelines pertaining to the operation ofsuch facilities.Section 83-4, 131 Detention facility; inspection;report.Personnel of the Nebraska Commission on LawEnforcement and Criminal Justice shall visit andinspect each criminal detention facility and juveniledetention facility in the state for the purposeof determining the conditions of confinement, thetreatment of persons confined in the facilities, andwhether such facilities comply with the minimumstandards established by the Jail Standards Board.A written report of each inspection shall be madewithin thirty days following such inspection to theappropriate governing body responsible for thecriminal detention facility or juvenile detentionfacility involved. The report shall specify thoseareas in which the facility does not comply withthe required minimum standards.Section 83-4, 132 Detention facility; inspection;failure to meet minimum standards; correctiveaction.If an inspection under sections 83-4, 124 to 83-4,134 discloses that the criminal detention facilityor juvenile detention facility does not meetthe minimum standards established by the JailStandards Board, the board shall send notice,together with the inspection report, to the governingbody responsible for the facility. The appropriategoverning body shall promptly meet toconsider the inspection report, and the inspectionpersonnel shall appear to advise and consult61

concerning appropriate corrective action. Thegoverning body shall then initiate appropriate correctiveaction within six months of the receipt ofsuch inspection report or may voluntarily closethe facility or the objectionable portion thereof.Section 83-4, 133 Detention facility; governingbody; failure to take corrective action; petitionby Jail Standards Board; hearing; order;appeal; effect on reimbursement.If the governing body of the juvenile detentionfacility or criminal detention facility fails to initiatecorrective action within six months after thereceipt of such inspection report, fails to correctthe disclosed conditions, or fails to close thecriminal detention facility or juvenile detentionfacility or the objectionable portion thereof, theJail Standards Board shall advise the Departmentof Correctional Services that the criminal detentionfacility does not qualify for reimbursementfor state prisoners under section 47-119.01 and atthe same time or at a later date may petition thedistrict court within the judicial district in whichsuch facility is located to close the facility. Suchpetition shall include the inspection report regardingsuch facility. The local governing body shallthen have thirty days to respond to such petitionand shall serve a copy of the response on the JailStandards Board by certified mail, return receiptrequested. Thereafter, a hearing shall be held onthe petition before the district court, and an ordershall be rendered by such court which either:(1) Dismisses the petition of the Jail StandardsBoard;(2) Directs that corrective action be initiated insome form by the local governing body of thefacility in question; or(3) Directs that the facility be closed. An appealfrom the decision of the district court may betaken to the Court of Appeals.62

Competency Profile of aDetention Facility InspectorAppendix FAn effective detention facility inspector assessescompliance with applicable standards and promotesprofessionalism through inspections,technical assistance, investigations, studies, andstaff development to ensure safe, secure, effective,and legally operated facilities. The tasksassociated with each of the inspector’s duties areenumerated below.Duty A: Conduct Facility Inspections1. Determine inspection type (announced orunannounced).2. Collect/review materials.3. Conduct initial interview.4. Review policies and procedures.5. Conduct initial facility tour.6. Review facility documentation (intake/release, classification, logs, inmate managementfiles).7. Verify other required inspections.8. Inspect medical services.9. Inspect offender housing units.10. Interview staff and/or offenders.11. Calculate/verify rated capacity compliance.12. Inspect food service.13. Analyze emergency preparedness.14. Inspect facility programs.15. Examine laundry practices.16. Review offender account.17. Review disciplinary proceedings.18. Review offender grievances.19. Review offender-generated funds.20. Examine offender classification systems.21. Verify staff training.22. Inspect physical plant.23. Inspect perimeter security.24. Verify secure practices.25. Verify operational practices (policies andprocedures, post orders).26. Provide exit interview.27. Prepare narrative/written report.28. Provide inspection appeal responses.29. Analyze/verify facility responses/actions.30. Conduct followup inspections.31. Determine/initiate enforcement action.Duty B: Provide Technical Assistance Tasks1. Provide technical consultation (legal, standardinterpretation, legislative).2. Provide staffing analysis.3. Provide assistance in the development ofpolicies and procedures.4. Provide assistance with construction plans.5. Address public forums.6. Conduct security audits.7. Provide requested presentations.8. Conduct requested surveys/analysis.9. Provide inmate program/serviceconsultation.10. Provide facilitation/mediation services.11. Coordinate with consultants.63

Duty C: Perform Administrative Tasks1. Manage records system.2. Develop/maintain statistical profiles.3. Generate administrative reports.4. Network with peers.5. Attend staff meetings.6. Provide supervision/guidance.7. Participate in standards review/revision.8. Provide public relations information.9. Assist with strategic planning.10. Provide testimony (court, legislative, personneladvisory board).11. Participate in hiring processDuty D: Conduct Investigations1. Analyze complaints/allegations.2. Document receipt of complaint.3. Contact site personnel.4. Review relevant documentation.5. Protect chain of evidence.6. Interview complainant (record anddocument).7. Conduct onsite analysis.8. Acquire appropriate guidance.9. Make appropriate referrals.10. Provide complaint responses.11. Conduct followup contacts.12. Develop final report.13. Initiate/determine enforcement action.DUTY E: Oversee Construction PlanReview Process1. Provide construction standards.2. Coordinate planning meetings.3. Review schematics.4. Review construction specifications.5. Approve construction plans.6. Conduct onsite inspections.7. Evaluate staff analysis.8. Review transition/occupancy plan.9. Develop final inspection report.Duty F: Provide Training Programs1. Conduct needs assessment.2. Develop/revise lesson plans.3. Develop pre- and postevaluation processes.4. Identify training aids.5. Identify resources (training assistance,subject matter experts, consultants).6. Coordinate training schedule.7. Coordinate logistical issues.8. Ensure site/class preparation.9. Conduct training presentation.10. Provide on-the-job training/mentoringprogram.Duty G: Promote Professional Growth1. Network with peers.2. Attend personal training.3. Maintain professional organizationmemberships.4. Attend academic opportunities.5. Represent state on national level.6. Maintain professional certifications.7. Review professional publications.8. Generate professional articles.9. Attend/coordinate conferences.64

User Feedback FormPlease complete and return this form to assist the National Institute of Corrections in assessing the value andutility of its publications. Detach from the document and mail to:Publications FeedbackNational Institute of Corrections320 First Street, NWWashington, DC 205341. What is your general reaction to this document?______Excellent ______Good ______Average ______Poor ______Useless2. To what extent do you see the document as being useful in terms of:Providing new or important informationDeveloping or implementing new programsModifying existing programsAdministering ongoing programsProviding appropriate liaisonsUseful Of some use Not useful3. Do you believe that more should be done in this subject area? If so, please specify the types of assistanceneeded. ____________________________________________________________________________4. In what ways could this document be improved? ________________________________________________5. How did this document come to your attention? ____________________________________________6. How are you planning to use the information contained in this document?__________________________7. Please check one item that best describes your affiliation with corrections or criminal justice. If a governmentalprogram, please also indicate the level of government._____ Citizen group_____ College/university_____ Community corrections_____ Court_____ Department of corrections or prison_____ Jail_____ Juvenile justice_____ Legislative body_____ Parole_____ Police_____ Probation_____ Professional organization_____ Other government agency_____ Other (please specify)8. Optional:Name:____________________________________________________________________________Agency: ____________________________________________________________________________Address:__________________________________________________________________________Telephone:__________________________________________________________________________Jail Standards and Inspection Programs:Resource and Implementation Guide

National Institute of CorrectionsAdvisory BoardCollene Thompson CampbellSan Juan Capistrano, CANorman A. CarlsonChisago City, MNMichael S. CaronaSheriff, Orange CountySanta Ana, CAJack CowleyAlpha for Prison and ReentryTulsa, OKJ. Robert FloresAdministratorOffice of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency PreventionU.S. Department of JusticeWashington, DCStanley GlanzSheriff, Tulsa CountyTulsa, OKWade F. Horn, Ph.D.Assistant Secretary for Children and FamiliesU.S. Department of Health andHuman ServicesWashington, DCByron Johnson, Ph.D.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyBaylor UniversityWaco, TXColonel David M. ParrishHillsborough County Sheriff’s OfficeTampa, FLJudge Sheryl A. RamstadMinnesota Tax CourtSt. Paul, MNEdward F. Reilly, Jr.ChairmanU.S. Parole CommissionChevy Chase, MDJudge Barbara J. RothsteinDirectorFederal Judicial CenterWashington, DCRegina B. SchofieldAssistant Attorney GeneralOffice of Justice ProgramsU.S. Department of JusticeWashington, DCReginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D.Executive DirectorOhio Business AllianceColumbus, OHB. Diane WilliamsPresidentThe Safer FoundationChicago, ILHarley G. LappinDirectorFederal Bureau of PrisonsU.S. Department of JusticeWashington, DC

U.S. Department of JusticeNational Institute of CorrectionsWashington, DC 20534Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAIDU.S. Department of JusticePermit No. G–231Address Service Requestedwww.nicic.org