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

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