U. S.

Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Assistance

The Future of Jails and Jail Funding

Initiatives

Working Groups:

May 7 – 8, 2007
Las Vegas, Nevada

June 4 – 5, 2007
Orlando, Florida

Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc.

 This report was supported by Grant No. 2006-MU-MU-K005 awarded by the
Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or
opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official
position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc.

1880 Crestview Way, Naples, Florida 34119
(239) 597-5906 Fax: (239) 597-6691
Email: [email protected] Web: www.cipp.org

April 24, 2007

 AGENDA
The Future of Jails and Jail Funding Initiatives
Bureau of Justice Assistance
and the Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc
Orlando, Florida
June 4 – 5, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Participants arrive. Dinner on your own;
save receipts!

Monday, June 4, 2007 2:00 Presentation 5: Technology

Rob Donlin
8:00 Breakfast
2:45 Break
8:30 Convene
Introductions, Objectives 2:45 Small Group Work
Schedule, Logistics
4:30 Adjourn
9:00 Presentation 1: Demographics
Dr. Jeanne B. Stinchcomb 5:30 Dinner (Catered)

9:45 Break Tuesday, June 5, 2007

10:00 Presentation 2: Workforce 8:00 Breakfast

Elizabeth Price Layman
8:30 Convene
10:45 Presentation 3: Inmate
Management 8:45 Small Group Work
Susan W. McCampbell
10:00 Break
Noon Lunch (Catered)
10:15 Reporting Recommendations
1:15 Presentation 4: Special
Populations Noon Lunch (Catered) /Adjourn
Beth Creager Fallon
 NOTES:

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 4

 Table of Contents
Page

Demographics, Crime Trends, and Public Policies:

What Does the Future Hold for Jails? 7

The Changing Labor Market:

Competing in the Talent War 15

Inmate Management:
Operational Challenges for Jails of the Future 21

Special Populations:
Coping with the Challenges of Inmates with Non-Traditional Needs 29

Correctional Technology:
What’s the Real Future? 35

Appendices

Environmental Scan: Overview of Baseline Facts, Figures,

and Trends Related to Issues Facing Local Jails 39

About the Authors 53

End Notes 55
NOTES:
 DEMOGRAPHICS, CRIME TRENDS, AND PUBLIC POLICIES:
WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR JAILS?

Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, Ph.D., Professor

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida Atlantic University
111 East Las Olas Boulevard
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-762-5138
[email protected]

Demographic Trends and the “New America”

The America that we know today will not be the same country where our children
and grandchildren will live. In part, that is because the demographic makeup of the U.S.
population is projected to change significantly in the coming years. Today, those who
describe themselves as white, non-Hispanic are a sizeable majority of the population
(69%). However, that figure is projected to decrease to 65% by 2010, and to further
decline over the coming decades, representing just half (50%) of the population by
2050.1
This demographic shift translates into a sizeable growth among those currently
considered “minority” populations. Because U.S. birthrates have not been high enough
to replace the population for the past thirty years, much of the increase in the U.S.
population is due to the arrival of new immigrants.2 A rapid rise in the level of
immigration during the 1990's occurred largely because millions of people legalized in
1987 and 1988 under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 were becoming
U.S. citizens in increasing numbers. As they become citizens, they can sponsor the
legal immigration of immediate relatives without being subject to numerical limits.3
Undocumented immigration from Mexico and Central America, on the other hand, is
primarily a reflection of America’s effectiveness in controlling its southwest border.4
Along with the influx of incoming groups, it is also necessary to consider who is
leaving the country. For example, expanding the overseas assignment of military
personnel and their dependents reduces the number of young people in the U.S., who
are at highest risk for crime–as illustrated during World War II, when the homicide rate
plummeted, (only to escalate again by the mid-1970s as the baby boom offspring of

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 7

returning veterans reached their crime-prone years).5 Thus, both foreign policy and
immigration policy, along with related variables ranging from world events to birthrates,
are significant considerations in projecting demographic trends and their related impact
on crime.
Age Factors and Family Dysfunction

In recent years, with birthrates low and people living longer, the percentage of
elderly in the U.S. has been rising. The proportion of people age 65 or older is
expected to increase from 12% (35 million) in 2000 to nearly 20% (71 million) in 2030.6
Given their low rate of offending, that sounds like good news for jails that are already
staggering under the weight of growing demands and stagnant resources. The bad
news is that the elderly are especially vulnerable to victimization, and their increased
percentage in the population may be offset by growing numbers of young people in the
immediate future.
Youth have always been involved in crime far out of proportion to their
representation in the population, and during the decade between 2004 and 2014, the at-
risk population of males and females between the ages of 16-24 will grow by nearly
3%.7 While that is not an alarming figure, even when taking into account such crime-
related factors as race, sex, and economic status, young people account for
proportionately more crime than older persons.
Of immediate concern today is the forecast that the national arrest rate for 15-16
year-olds is projected to increase some 30% by 2010.8 Many of these juvenile suspects
will not be confined in adult jails. But there is an increasing tendency to transfer cases
from juvenile to criminal court,9 and the “separation by sight and sound” provisions
governing their confinement in adult facilities, (along with increased risk of victimization
and special programming needs), make them especially difficult to accommodate in jails
that are already overcrowded and understaffed.
It has been speculated that increases in juvenile crime over the past two decades
reflect economic shifts, a decline in the extended family, increase in single parenthood,
access to more lethal weapons, and the growing role of gangs.10 To the extent that
these precipitating factors remain unaddressed, disproportionate juvenile involvement in
crime can be expected to continue. Moreover, more than 1 out of 4 American children

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 8

live below the poverty line, and welfare reforms may add another million to their ranks.11
Childhood poverty is related to greater risk of victimization, and those who are
victimized as children are subsequently more likely to become offenders themselves,
thereby perpetuating the cycle of violence. Evidence of that cycle, and the family
dysfunction underlying it, is already apparent in the profile of today’s jail inmates, among
whom:
$ Over half (56%) grew up in a single-parent household or with a guardian. About
1 in 9 lived in a foster home or institution.12

$ Nearly one-third (31%) grew up with a parent or guardian who abused alcohol or
drugs, and 46% have a family member who has been incarcerated.13

$ Over half of the women in jail said they have been physically or sexually abused
in the past, compared to just over a tenth of the men.14

Even this brief sketch of the family background and childhood experiences of jail
inmates reveals a landmine of instability, social disorder, substance abuse, and violent
victimization that they have not been able to evade--and to the contrary, appear
condemned to repeat.
Overview of the Jail Population

Regardless of whether the underlying reasons are more closely related to family
chaos or free choice, in the decade from 1995 to 2005, the number of jail inmates per
100,000 U.S. residents rose from 193 to 252, reflecting an annual increase at a rate of
approximately 4%.15 Of the current jail population:
• Almost 9 of 10 are adult males. However, the number of adult females in jail has
been increasing faster than males.16

• More than 6 in 10 are racial or ethnic minorities. Blacks were almost three times
more likely than Hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail.17 (See
Figure 1).

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 9

 Figure 118

$ On average, they were slightly older in 2002 than 1996 (38% were 35 or older,
up from 32%).19

$ Among those convicted, 33% reported alcohol use and 29% drug use at the time
of the offense. Their drug use has been estimated at approximately twice the
rate of the general population.20

$ Their rate of mental illness is also about double that of the general population,21
which has largely been attributed to the deinstitutionalization of mental health
services without provision of alternative placements.22

$ Nearly half (44%) had an educational level less than high school or equivalent.23

In terms of the educational level of jail inmates, it is noteworthy that Hispanics, (a

growing segment of the U.S. population), have the highest dropout rate from U.S. high
schools. Moreover, among black males, (who are statistically most likely to be in jail),
only 5% who had attended some college were incarcerated in 2000. Among white
males with some college, only 1% were behind bars.24
With regard to their offense, black adults were most often arrested for drug abuse
violations.25 Since police make more arrests for drug abuse than for any other
offense,26 and since drug offenders represent over one-third of felons convicted in state
courts,27 it is not surprising to find this population reflecting a high percentage of jail
inmates. Thus, both drug enforcement and educational policies can be added to the list
of variables affecting local jails.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 10

Crime Trends and Jail Populations
Despite the fact that virtually all measures of serious violent crime indicate that it
has been decreasing since 1993, (see Figure 2), such statistical trends do not appear to
have had an overly positive impact on the jail population. Nor are they likely to last.
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has been monitoring violent crime in 56
jurisdictions across the nation for the past two years in order to identify the latest trends
sooner than is possible through the FBI’s crime data base. PERF findings point toward
a “nationwide surge in violence between 2004 and 2006,” with many cities experiencing
“double-digit or even triple-digit” increases.28 Since violent offenders are the most likely
to be denied pretrial release, (and since pretrial clients are the jail’s fastest-growing
population), such predictions sound ominous alarms for jails.
Figure 229

In the meantime, however, the question is why declining rates of violent crime in
recent years have not translated into declining jail populations. In part, this is a result of
the fact that nationwide, only about 25% of jail inmates are behind bars for violent
crimes, with the remaining 3 out of 4 incarcerated for property (24%), drug (25%), and
public order offenses (25%).30 But even more importantly, jail populations are intimately
related to local policies concerning what happens to offenders after they are arrested,
raising such questions as:
$ Will suspects be released or detained prior to trial?

In each year between 1986 and 1993, the conviction status of jail inmates split
almost equally--half pretrial, half convicted.31 By 1995, however, the balance

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 11

 began to shift in favor of pretrial status, and by 2002, the majority of those in jail
(60%) were awaiting trial,32 a trend that has continued through 2005, when only
38% of jail inmates were convicted.33 This rise in non-adjudicated inmates
accounts for 71% of the jail population growth in recent years.34

• How long can suspects be expected to spend in jail prior to final disposition of their
cases?

The median time between arrest and sentencing in 2002 was about five
months.35

• Do suspects tend to be convicted or acquitted at trial? If convicted, are they likely to

serve time?

The number of adults convicted of a felony in state courts has been

increasing, (see Figure 3), and over two-thirds of felons convicted in state
courts are sentenced to prison or jail, (see Figure 4).36

• Upon conviction, how long can an offender expect to spend in jail?

The average state court sentence to local jail was six months.37

• Beyond pretrial detainees and new convictions, what other types of offenders
contribute to the jail population?

Almost half of all jail inmates were on either probation or parole when they
were admitted to jail. Parole and probation violators awaiting hearings (or
transfer to state institutions after revocation) are a significant portion of
crowded jail populations–as well as a source of friction between local and
state governments.38 This reflects a trend toward increasing numbers of
offenders on community supervision who are returning to jail, as well as
increasing numbers of offenders being held in jail for other authorities, (from
12.2% in 1988 to 18.7% in 2002).39

• What does all of this mean for jails?

When combined, all of these contributing facts have produced an escalating

jail population (see Figure 5). But what may be even more troublesome for
jails is the skyrocketing probation population displayed in Figure 5, since
more people on probation potentially translates into more violations and
revocations, and therefore, more people in jail. As one researcher phrased it,
“If jails are filled with offenders who are merely noncompliant, there will be no
room for dangerous offenders.”40 In essence, the increased number of people
in jail is a consequence of changes in justice policies and practices, which
can be detected at key points in the decision-making process--starting with
the decision to place an arrestee in detention. Collectively, they “operate the

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 12

 levers and controls that regulate the size of the jail population.”41

Figure 342

Figure 4

Figure 5

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 13

Speculation about the Jail Population

Whether the number of inmates in jail will continue its upward climb is, of course,
a matter of speculation. Among those who link future growth with demographic trends
and arrest rates, there are three models used to project jail population by 2010:
Model 1: Assumes that the rate of increase will be the same as the past 5
years, projecting an increase of 200,000 by 2010.43

Model 2: Assumes slower growth, similar to the past 2 years, projecting an

increase of 100,000 by 2010.

Model 3: Looks only at demographic trends, projecting a growth of less than

100,000 by 2010.44

However, others counter that there is only a weak relationship between

population growth and crime rates or arrest trends--maintaining instead, that jail
populations are largely the result of how we respond to crime. From this perspective,
“small changes in public policy and practice can result in large effects on population.”45
Examples might include reducing the jail population for non-adjudicated inmates
through more aggressive pretrial release options; establishing judicially-sanctioned time
frames for case disposition; expediting probation/parole revocation hearings; and similar
strategies throughout the criminal justice system directed toward alleviating jail
crowding.46
In support of such strategic initiatives, it is notable that while changes in a
county’s resident population can affect the jail population, it is considerably more likely
that changes in its criminal justice practices will produce a substantially larger impact.
Forecasting changes in a county’s resident population is easier than forecasting
changes in criminal justice policies or discretionary decision-making. For jails
throughout the country, however, it is not as meaningful. The fact that America will not
look the same in another generation may not be nearly as significant as what changes
local communities make in the upcoming years with regard to everything from social
policies to justice practices. On the one hand, that makes forecasting the jail population
more challenging, but on the other hand, it gives communities more leverage in terms of
influencing it.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 14

 THE CHANGING LABOR MARKET :
COMPETING IN THE TALENT WAR

Elizabeth P. Layman
President, Price Layman, Inc.
[email protected]
904-491-0423

Think about everyone you interacted with at work yesterday. Who among them
will be able to retire in the next 5-10 years? The answer will probably be “just about
everybody.” If it is, the next question should be “who will take their place?” The answer
to that question will shape the future of the entire organization.
Remember the days when there were dozens of applicants for every opening?
That was then. This is now. Consider the following:
• In contrast to the stability of past employees, the typical young worker today
“averages nearly nine jobs between the ages of 18 and 32”. 47

• Across the nation, 58% of organizations are finding it difficult to keep employees.48

• A recent survey of police academy recruits reveals that 40% plan to leave their
current agency within three years.49

• Two thirds of law enforcement officers who leave smaller agencies have 5 years or
less on the job.50

• Turnover rates among corrections officers range from One definition of

3.8% in New York to 41% in Louisiana.51
insanity is to believe
• The Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that an that you can keep
average of nearly 20,000 correctional officers would doing what you’ve
be needed annually in the decade between 2002 and been doing and get
2012 to meet both growth (10,337) and net different results.
replacements of those leaving (8,861).52 - John C. Maxwell

What all of this means is that there is a war raging throughout the country—a war
for talent. Every organization is in it, but only those that fully embrace change dictated
by this new world will be successful competitors. Moreover, America’s changing
demographic profile presents a significant challenge for recruiting and retaining
employees. By 2020, nearly one-third of the American workforce will be composed of
ethnic and racial minorities, compared to less than one-quarter just 10 years ago.53 As
©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 15
the majority of today’s Baby Boomers retire, workplaces will fill with the newer
generations, each with their own unique attitudes, expectations, and work-related
values. What is the key to meeting these major challenges? Essentially, it is to meet
change with change—we cannot continue doing in the future what we have done in the
past.
There are many external factors that will determine the caliber of the future
workforce—from the quality of our educational system to the willingness of taxpayers to
support local jails. Internally, however, there are three issues that are paramount—
organizational culture, recruitment techniques, and retention capability.
Organizational Culture: Making the Workplace a Place Where People Want to Work
An organization’s culture is the composite of assumptions, perceptions, and
values held by its employees. More specifically, it reflects the perceptions that
employees hold about what is valued by the organization and its leadership. Culture
therefore sets the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable. As such, it can
be either a positive or a negative influence. But most importantly, culture is the force
within the organization that primarily influences the success or failure of efforts to recruit
and retain the best employees.
Analyzing an organization’s culture requires an honest and thorough examination
of “how business is done,” which includes everything from how employees treat each
other to the language they use, the way they dress, the informal rules they abide by,
and how they interact with co-workers, supervisors, managers, and clients. Particularly
in light of the results of a recent study which reported that 61% of all new hires in 2004
were attributed to two sources—the Internet and employee referrals—it is apparent that
the impact of organizational culture extends well beyond organizational boundaries. In
terms of attracting and retaining quality personnel, the bottom line is that “culture
counts.”

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 16

 An unhealthy organization culture will not attract or retain quality employees. In
these organizations, there will be three types of employees:
(1) Those who are competent and leave to work somewhere more challenging,
engaging, and upbeat;
(2) Those who are not committed to the organization, but are unable to leave for
a variety of reasons; and worse,
(3) Those who stay because no one else wants them.

Recruitment: Getting the Right People on Board

Even if the organization is one with a positive culture, where people want to work,
many additional factors influence recruiting top-notch staff. Demographics alone
indicate that the labor market will be very different. The prevalence of ethnic and racial
minorities in the population will influence how and where organizations recruit. But
equally influential will be the need to recruit across the great generational divide.
Each generation is shaped by their collective experiences. For example, the
Baby Boomer (see Figure 1) generation was strongly influenced by the assassinations
of President Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Generation X’ers have been
shaped by their role as the “latchkey” kids of workaholic Baby Boomers. Millennials
represent the digital generation, using technology in every aspect of life.

Figure 1 - Percentage of each in the workforce54

As a result of their experiential background,

30

25 Veterans <1943
each generation has unique attitudes, values,
20 and expectations about life in general and the
Boomers 1943-
1964
15 workplace in particular.
Gen X 1965-
10
1980 In a recent discussion of the multi-
5 Millenials 1981-

0
2000 generational issue among correctional
2000 2005 2010
administrators, one manager asked “Why is it
that those of us who have been working here and dedicating our lives to the
organization,…… those of us with experience and knowledge,….. why are we the ones
who have to change for the new people?” A legitimate question. But the answer is
probably not what this person wanted to hear—i.e., the population is changing, and

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 17

thus, the labor market is changing. If organizations refuse to adapt to those changes,
they will be defeated in the war for talented employees.
Retention: Keeping the Right People in the Right Places
Even the best and most successful recruiting practices do not guarantee that
people will stay. Some turnover is healthy, bringing fresh ideas into the organization.
But the costs of unproductive turnover are tremendous. It has been estimated that
turnover costs approximately 25% of the departing employee’s annual salary,55 and the
costs could be even higher for law enforcement and correctional personnel. But direct
replacement costs are just part of the picture. Turnover is also expensive in terms of
less tangible factors, such as:
• Loss of investment in terms of the knowledge, skills, and abilities of departing
employees;
• Organizationally-induced stress resulting from understaffing;
• Overtime expenditures;
• Lack of consistency in the delivery of Eighty-nine percent (89%) of managers truly
services; believe it’s [turnover] largely about the
• Agency reputation. money…..But if you are a manager, you
actually have more power than anyone else
to keep your best employees. Why? Because
How does an organization keep its best the factors that drive employee satisfaction
and commitment are largely within your
employees? Along with a healthy control…meaningful, challenging work, a
organizational culture, leaders must determine chance to learn and grow, fair compensation,
a good work environment, recognition, and
why people are leaving, (as well as why others respect.

are staying). To many managers, it is B. Kaye and S. Jordan-Evans, Love ‘Em or

Lose ‘Em: Getting Good People to Stay (San
surprising that people generally do not leave Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 2002:
because of their salary. In fact, most 9).

employees leave because of a negative relationship with their supervisor, inadequate

supervision, lack of training, or lack of opportunity for growth.56 When employees
resign, exit interviews are one way to find out why. But exit interviews are only as
valuable as the questions that are asked, the credibility of the person asking, and what
is done with the information obtained. Effective exit interviews can provide valuable
insights into the organization and its culture. Once leaders have the benefit of those
insights, the next step is to implement necessary organizational changes designed to
prevent competent employees from departing prematurely.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 18

 Determining why people leave, however, presents only half of the picture. The
other half is determining why those remaining stay. Although it is equally important
information, organizations tend to take this part for granted. The key is to not assume
why people stay, but rather, to ask them. Regular “staying interviews” will provide
essential information targeting where organizational improvements can be made. They
can also help employees with career planning and professional development. If staff
members see that someone is interested in their future, they will be more committed to
and engaged in the organization.
Succession Planning: Preparing for the Future
If the most frequent reason that employees leave is because of their supervisor, it
stands to reason that maintaining high quality supervisors is a critical ingredient in
successful retention. Law enforcement and correctional agencies historically have
avoided lateral entry, electing instead to promote from within the organization. As a
result, the pool of potential supervisory candidates is quite limited, requiring
organizations to find methods for “marketing” promotional opportunities internally.
Marketing advancement options may sound too “corporate” for local government
public safety agencies. But even the armed forces have significantly changed the way
they recruit and advertise, gearing their contemporary campaigns to the newer
generations with ads that would probably not appeal to the Baby Boomers or Veterans.
With a new workforce comprised of new values on the horizon, traditional thinking about
promotion and retention has become outdated and ineffective.
Organizations often find that many of their employees seem to avoid promotions.
Management’s perception of this reluctance to move up is likely to be that employees
are unmotivated, self-centered, or unwilling to accept new challenges outside of their
“comfort zone.” However, employees who shy away from promotions may do so for
quite different reasons. The table below illustrates the resulting gap.57
Managerial Perceptions about Employee Concerns about Promotions
Promotion
Higher pay Yes, but less opportunity for overtime
More administrative responsibility Yes, but little administrative support
Higher professional status Yes, but less personal satisfaction and
greater responsibility for the actions of
others.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 19

 Retention of employees and succession planning are clearly inter-related. If
employees are not challenged, supported, and provided with opportunities to grow and
develop, they are not likely to be satisfied with or committed to their work – especially
true of Millennial workers. Dissatisfied and disengaged workers are not only unlikely to
seek promotion, but are among those most likely to seek employment elsewhere.
Career planning used to be considered an employee’s own responsibility,
requiring considerable personal initiative. That was then. Now, the succession
planning designed to fill the anticipated vacancies of retiring managers has become an
organizational priority—at least in any agency that is proactively anticipating future
workforce challenges. Thus, individual career planning and organizational succession
planning are now considered managerial concerns, with the future of both the employee
and the employing agency integrally linked together in a manner that will determine the
future destiny of each.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 20

 INMATE MANAGEMENT:
OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES FOR JAILS OF THE FUTURE

Susan W. McCampbell, President

Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc.
1880 Crestview Way, Naples, Florida 34119
(239) 597-5906
[email protected]

Inmate management and related security concerns have always been a costly
drain on the facilities’ human and fiscal resources. That is not expected to change.
From 1977 to 2003, state and local expenditures for corrections increased by 1,173%,
skyrocketing past spending growth in education, health care, and public welfare.58 In
2003, local government spent just under $20 billion for corrections, reflecting 39% of
total correctional expenditures in the U.S.59 Primarily, that price tag is a feature of the
fact that the number of jail inmates tripled between 1982 and 2003 (to 691,000),60 and
the average daily population rose 222% in the same period.61
In addition to these static population counts, however, jails are also responsible
for a dynamic population of arrestees who cycle into and out of local jails each year.
That number is considerably higher, (although not necessarily an unduplicated count,
since the same arrestee could account for multiple jail intakes in a given year). While
this dynamic population count is difficult to identify precisely, it has been estimated to be
in the millions.62
Moreover, the average length of stay in jails is increasing, as arrestees with
serious charges are increasingly denied bond or other forms of pretrial release. At the
same time, court backlogs have slowed judicial processing, probation and parole
violators face zero tolerance policies, more punitive determinate sentencing laws have
been enacted, further delaying the transfer of inmates to equally crowded state
correctional systems. The results: longer local jail stays. All of these factors are
beyond the immediate control of the jail, yet often combine to produce a higher average
length of stay for jail inmates, with figures ranging from 17 days in Multnomah County,
Oregon63 to 24 days in California jails64 and 64.5 days in Franklin County,
Pennsylvania.65

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 21

Impact of Community Reentry
The political dimensions of crime-related public policy generate conflict between
advocates of incapacitation and those supporting more preventive and rehabilitative
community-based strategies. Regardless of the underlying ideology, however, nearly
everyone incarcerated will eventually be released. Moreover, there are nearly five
million offenders under supervision on probation and parole caseloads.66 While
probationers and parolees are not presently jail clients, they have the potential of
entering the jail system, as a result of revocations and/or new criminal charges. In fact,
the re-entry issue has recently emerged as a priority on many public policy agendas.
Nearly 650,000 people are being released from state and federal prisons
annually, arriving on the doorsteps of communities throughout the country. 67

Figure 1: Percent of Released Prisoners

Rearrested within 3 Years, by Offense, 1983 and
1994
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Reentry Trends in the U.S.

All

Property
Drug 1983
P u b lic 1994
O rde r

Violent

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

A far greater number reenter the community from confinement in local jails, (and
for many, this may occur multiple times within a year). With over 60% of those released
from incarceration involved in some form of legal trouble within three years, (see Figure
1),68 the re-entry crisis is sparking efforts throughout the country to improve the success
of inmate reintegration, and safeguard the public in the process.
Competition for Resources
Society has never been well-informed about jails or appreciative of their role in
the community, and if lack of public support continues in this fashion, jails can likewise
be expected to continue to struggle to compete for scarce resources. While the
National Association of Counties reports that its membership is more upbeat about their

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 22

budgets than in previous years, local budgets so closely track national trends that
potential volatility is quickly reflected in local spending decisions.69
Even if local economies recover from the devastating impact of 9/11 and the re-
direction of resources to homeland security, the future is considered tenuous, with the
potential of one terrorist incident creating fiscal havoc. Moreover, shifting public
attention to homeland security has further distanced support for jails, and increased
hiring by federal and state agencies for newly-created security positions depletes the
hiring pool.
Nevertheless, proportionately, it is apparent that the justice system is taking an
ever-larger slice of the fiscal pie, (as, for example, in Broward County, Florida, where
$.25 of every tax dollar is spent on the local jail system).70 As in many other aspects of
government, it is likely that citizens will begin to demand greater accountability of jails
for the expenditure of such public funds. In the meantime, local jurisdictions caught
between rising costs, public rhetoric to avoid new or increased taxes, and declining or
stagnant revenues are left with few alternatives beyond reducing budget authorizations.
As a result, jails are already facing difficulties in terms of managing more challenging
inmate populations with fewer resources to reduce idleness, link clients with community
services, or address underlying social problems--and at some point, even basic services
are threatened.
Crowding and Classification
Obviously, escalating resource concerns are intimately related to rising numbers
of clients. In the past two decades, jail populations have more than doubled throughout
the country,71 and there is no indication that such trends will diminish. Thus, crowding is
expected to continue to be a serious operational issue for local jails.
Generally, the initial response to jail crowding is to expand jail capacity through
new construction and/or renovation. But the reality is that local officials often find that
they cannot build themselves out of a crowding crisis. Rather, it is essential to engage
in a deliberative, system-wide assessment, involving all stakeholders in the local justice
system, to identify what is contributing to jail crowding (e.g., court backlogs, revocation
hearing delays, case disposition problems, etc.) and address those issues directly, as
well as identify alternatives to confinement, particularly in terms of pretrial detention

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 23

(e.g., day reporting, electronic monitoring, etc.). When such alternatives are employed,
however, it is often as a last-resort, short-term strategy rather than as part of a
comprehensive, long-term system-wide approach to crowding.
In the meantime, jails continue to grapple with the managerial impact of
crowding, which inevitably compromises inmate classification and housing. Yet the
need for serious attention to classification has never been greater, in light of the growth
of such special populations as females, juveniles, transgendered, gangs, mentally
disordered, and physically disabled, as well as those who are dangerous, predatory,
vulnerable, or geriatric—all of whom strain both the jail’s physical facilities and its
separation capabilities.
Juveniles in Jail
Juvenile offenders represent one of the growing categories of special populations
that present significant management challenges for jails, especially in light of
contemporary trends toward lower ages for prosecution of juveniles as adults, more
violent offenses being committed by young offenders, and mounting recidivist records
among today’s youth. “Estimates range on the number of youth prosecuted in adult
court nationally. Some researchers believe that as many as 200,000 youth are
prosecuted every year.”72
In that regard, many jurisdictions are implementing restorative/community justice
approaches to bring offenders, victims, and community representatives together to
repair the harm caused by young offenders in a manner that holds them accountable for
their actions through avenues that generate more benefit to the community than simply
placing them behind bars. In fact, efforts are also underway to apply to adult offenders
the lessons learned from implementing this approach with juveniles.73 Applying
restorative practices to adults holds the potential for reducing the jail population. But it
will require both the community and the judiciary accepting negotiated alternatives to
incarceration, as well as developing an infrastructure of support throughout the
jurisdiction.
Jail Security Issues
Inside even the smallest jails, security can be expected to become an even more
significant concern. More dangerous offenders, who have spent more time in state or

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 24

federal prisons, will be challenging to confine in older physical plants with less
sophisticated security hardware.74 The average lifespan of a well-maintained jail’s
physical plant is estimated to be approximately 30-35 years.75 The aging of jail facilities,
along with declining resources for preventive maintenance, negatively influences the
ability to safely and securely confine inmates. With the cost of jail construction as high
as $100,000 per bed (in 2006),76 it is unlikely that widespread new construction
will be an economically-sound long term solution.
At the same time, in terms of specific security threat groups, traditional gangs
may be joined by such newcomers as MS-13, jihadists, and religious extremists. Lack
of knowledge about foreign (or domestic) extremists, along with the inability to translate
mail, monitor telephone calls, or provide information in the arrestee’s dominant
language may well impact inmate management and jail operations.77
As more divergent groups enter the population, cultural clashes can be expected
to contribute to jail disorder. More “experienced” inmates are likely to pose increased
threat of escape, especially if facility human resources are not managed effectively and
maintenance/security systems are not upgraded and maintained. Additionally, inmates
will have access to more information through the Internet about employees, the physical
plant, etc. that can aid in defeating facility security. Moreover, arrestees now are able to
communicate with one another, as well as the outside world, from behind bars. While
contraband of the past was largely focused on weapons and drugs, an equally
problematic concern in the future involves small electronics such as cell phones,
personal digital assistant, etc., which can be concealed and used by inmates with
relative ease.
Inmate Needs and Jail Services
Given the many individual problems that arrestees bring with them to jail, it is not
surprising to find that local correctional officials are confronted with demands to treat
everything from educational and vocational shortcomings to alcohol and drug abuse,
AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis, personality disorders, mental disorders, and any number
of additional physical and psychological maladies. For example, consider the following:
• Nearly half of those confined behind bars (46%) report not having a high school
diploma,78 and even more are functioning well below twelfth-grade level on
measures of reading, writing, and/or math.79

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 25

 • Almost 70% of jail inmates admit to regular drug use, (up from 64% in 1996), with
29% reporting use at the time of the offense.80
• Sixty-six percent (66%) of jail inmates admit that they drink alcohol regularly, with
34.5% reporting alcohol use at the time of the offense.81

At the same time that jails are being confronted with a more problematic inmate
population, fewer fiscal resources are available to respond to their needs through such
initiatives as vocational training, work release, life skills training, anger management
classes, substance abuse programs, mental health treatment, parenting classes, re-
entry assistance, faith-based initiatives, etc.
Even providing fundamental medical and dental services can be expected to
continue to be a significant part of the jail’s budget as health care costs escalate at the
same time that health of jail inmates deteriorates. For the general population in free
society, health care costs are estimated to rise more than 100% between 2004 and
2015, 82 and there is no reason to expect that similar increases will not occur for those
behind bars. Moreover, heath care for aging populations with chronic, untreated medical
conditions, (magnified by years of substance abuse and inadequate health care),
presents both staffing and financial issues. In many jurisdictions, jails will continue to be
the only public facility offering crisis stabilization, treatment, medication, and referral for
medical and mental health problems.
Technological Limitations
While technology may continue to assist with inmate management and enhance
officer safety, in many respects it is not as highly adaptable to a jail setting as to a
prison. For example, given the jail’s more limited knowledge of the routine behaviors
and underlying risks of its inmate population, there are fewer opportunities to use
technology to replace or supplement staff. Thus, while some prisons can operate on
the basis of locking-down dangerous, high-risk inmates with little human interaction
23/7, most jail settings do not have such options as a result of the legal status of their
inmates, (especially the large pretrial population), and/or the facility’s lack of
technological capabilities. Additionally, the levels of intrusiveness of some technologies
may also generate privacy considerations for inmate management, especially with
regard to women arrestees.83

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 26

Evidence-based Practices and Tomorrow’s Challenges
Competition for increasingly scarce resources, combined with greater demands
for accountability, raises the need for data-based decision-making and incorporating the
principles of evidence-based practices.84 Moving in this direction will require improved
accountability through management information systems, thereby enabling more timely
and accurate evidence-based decisions to be made concerning security, operations,
and inmate management.
In many respects, the ability to meet the challenges facing tomorrow’s jails will
ultimately be dependent on community values, priorities, resources, and commitment to
improving the local justice system. With operational costs continuing to escalate as
aging physical plants are replaced or renovated, more mentally ill are confined, and
health care expenditures steadily climb, collaboration with the community, as well as
officials throughout the local justice system, will be an essential survival strategy,
especially if there is any hope for more proactively addressing such fundamental
concerns as crowding, crime prevention, reintegration, and related public safety issues.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 27

 NOTES:

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 28

 SPECIAL POPULATIONS:
COPING WITH THE CHALLENGES OF INMATES WITH
NON-TRADITIONAL NEEDS

Beth Creager Fallon

Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc.
1880 Crestview Way, Naples, Florida 34119
(401) 272-2899 [email protected]

Some of the greatest challenges facing jail operations in the next decade is the
unique needs of the growing number of inmates who constitute “special populations.”
These inmates require considerations that extend beyond the ordinary policies and
procedures designed for the more conventional population. These special populations
are: women, persons with mental illness, geriatric offenders, substance abusers, sex
offenders, and gang members. Their confinement in local jails affects everything from
health care services to staff training, physical facilities, and treatment opportunities.
Thus, they will have a significant impact on future jail operations.
Women Offenders
Women comprise an escalating proportion of jail inmates, climbing to12.7% of
the population in 2005.85 While that may not sound alarming, between 1995 and 2002,
the number of female inmates in America’s jails increased nearly 50%.86 Moreover, the
number of women under supervision by a criminal justice agency is rising faster than
arrest rates.87
Primarily, women are incarcerated for non-violent crimes, (particularly less
serious drug-related offenses). In fact, FBI statistics indicate that between 1992 and
2001, arrests of women for drug-related offenses increased more than 50%.88 In the
past, these non-violent crimes were typically punished by non-custodial sentences.
That is not the case in the climate of contemporary public policy today, with its
emphasis on waging war against drugs. As a result, more female offenders are now
behind bars.
Typically, these are women of color who are undereducated, and unskilled, with
below-average income and a sporadic employment background. Often they come from
fragmented families, have other family members who are involved in the criminal justice
system, are survivors of physical and/or sexual abuse, have significant histories of

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 29

substance abuse, suffer from multiple physical as well as mental health problems, and,
in addition to everything else, are generally unmarried mothers, (accounting for almost
250,000 children whose mothers are in jail).89
Moreover, women pose serious operational issues for jails, including special
hygiene needs, accommodations for pregnant or nursing mothers, protection from
sexual assault by other inmates (and/or staff), emotional distress resulting from being
separated from their children, and so on.
Traditionally, most institutions classify female inmates by using procedures that
were designed for males and are based largely on behaviors and risk factors that have
primary relevance for men. But when jails adopted a single, gender-neutral system
without conducting the research necessary to examine its validity for women, the
physical security imposed on female inmates may well be excessive, sending an
inappropriate message to visitors, (particularly family and children).90
Mentally-disordered Offenders
The term “mentally disordered” offenders embraces a wide range of behaviors,
from the mildly disoriented (or neurotic) to those who are severely psychotic and
completely out of touch with reality.91 More than half of all prison and jail inmates suffer
from mental illnesses which includes 479,900 people in local jails—representing 64% of
all jail inmates.92 In addition:
• Nearly a quarter of jail inmates with mental illness have been incarcerated three or
more times;

• Female inmates have higher rates of mental illness than male inmates
(representing 75% of the females in local jails);

• Seventy-six percent (76%) of jail inmates with mental illness met the medical
criteria for substance dependence or abuse; and

• Jail inmates who have mental illness are three times as likely as other inmates to
report being physically or sexually abused in the past.93

According to Human Rights Watch, the staggering rate of incarceration of

persons with mental illness is a consequence of under-funded, disorganized, and
fragmented community mental health services.94 When public policy in the 1960s and

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 30

1970s led to the closing of “state” hospitals which held person diagnosed with mental
illness – deinstitutionalization -- the plan was to replace institutional confinement with
community-based treatment. But somewhere along the way, “society ran out of money
or interest or both.”95 As a result, many people with mental disorders--particularly those
who are poor, homeless, or struggling with substance abuse–are not able to obtain
treatment.96 Moreover, persons with mental illness appear to have difficulty accessing
crucial resources in their communities, even where referrals and guidance are provided
prior to release from incarceration.
Essentially, when society cannot or will not provide effective care for special
populations, they often become correctional clients.97 Thus, in many jurisdictions, jails
are now the primary resource for dealing with community mental health issues,
essentially becoming “an asylum of last resort.”98
Geriatric Inmates
The issue of aging inmates in correctional systems has not received attention
commensurate with its projected impact. Nevertheless, the cost of housing older
inmates is enormous, largely because of the long-term medical expenses associated
with aging and the lack of adequate medical and dental care in the early lives of these
offenders. It has been estimated that the average cost of medical care and
maintenance for inmates over fifty-five years of age is about three times that of the
younger population.99 For example, the average annual health care cost for older
inmates in Pennsylvania is $11,427, compared to $3,809 for younger prisoners.100
Today, one of every 23 inmates in prison is fifty-five or older, an 85% increase since
1995. In fact, the number of inmates past the age of fifty-five is increasing at twice the
rate of the total prison population.101
While the nature of determinate sentencing--with its three-strikes laws and
mandatory minimum guidelines--makes this a more significant issue for prisons, jails are
also affected as the U.S. population in general ages, and as increasing numbers of
parole violators are subject to jail confinement while awaiting revocation hearings.
These elderly inmates generate needs for everything from physical therapy and cardiac
medication to ADA accessible facilities, including wider cell doors and Braille signs on
doors.102 Inmates may be required to drop to the floor for alarms, stand for long periods

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 31

of time, walk to meals or other activities, clearly hear instructions, and climb onto a top
bunk—all of which are difficult activities for this population.103 These inmates are also
less likely to be able to physically participate in institutional programs or eat the same
foods as other inmates. Moreover, they are especially vulnerable to being victimized by
younger inmates. In essence, “meeting the housing, recreational, rehabilitative, and
dietary needs of geriatric inmates presents issues that corrections will be directly
confronting in the years ahead.”104
Substance Abusers
Another population of inmates that has been increasing significantly in recent
years is represented by those with substance abuse problems. In that regard, consider
the following statistics:
• Over two-thirds of jail inmates are dependent on (or abusing) alcohol or drugs—a
problem which affects females at higher rates than their male counterparts.105

• Half of all convicted jail inmates were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at
the time of their offense, and 16% said they committed their offense to get money
for drugs.106

• Jail inmates who meet the medical criteria for substance abuse (as specified in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), are twice as likely as
other inmates to have three or more prior probation terms or incarceration
sentences.107

• Alcohol abuse is more common among older offenders. Forty percent (40%) of
inmates age 35 or above had used alcohol at the time of the offense, as
compared to 24% of inmates 25-34 or younger than 25.108

• In contrast to their older counterparts, younger inmates are more likely to have
used drugs.109

• Regular drug use among jail inmates rose from 64% in 1996 to 69% in 2002,
although there was little change in the types of drugs used. Marijuana and
cocaine/crack were the most common drugs, followed by heroin/other opiates,
depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens and inhalants.110

One stimulant drug that has become of great concern in recent years is
methamphetamine (meth). Chemically, it is related to amphetamine but, at comparable
doses, the effects are much more potent, longer lasting, and more harmful to the central
nervous system.111

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 32

 The current meth epidemic presents a challenge to local law enforcement and
corrections. In a 2006 report by the National Association of Counties (NACO), for
example, meth was cited as continuing to maintain its ranking as the number one drug
problem throughout the country. Forty-eight percent (48%) of counties responding to
the NACO study report that meth is their primary drug problem – more than cocaine
(22%), marijuana (22%), and heroin (35%).112 Chronic meth abusers can display
serious psychological symptoms, including anxiety, confusion, insomnia, mood
disturbances, and violent behavior. Users are also vulnerable to a number of psychotic
symptoms, (such as paranoia, hallucinations, and delusions), that can last for months,
or even years, after use of the drug has ended.113
For jails, a significant concern regarding meth users is that, as more end up
behind bars, facilities are forced to devote a growing portion of their health care budget
to emergency dental care as a result of the condition known as “meth mouth” (i.e., the
hydrochloric acid, used in production of the drug erodes tooth enamel, resulting in pain,
abscesses, and teeth that resemble small black stubs).114
Sex Offenders
On any given day, there are about a quarter-million offenders convicted of rape
or sexual assault under the custody or control of corrections agencies.115 Communities
are becoming increasingly concerned about sexual predators, and legislators are
responding, often with laws that react more to public fears than to statistical facts.
These laws, now enacted in nineteen states, call for civil commitment of sex
offenders and mandate that they remain in secure custody, (essentially, for crimes that
they may commit). Presently, about 2,700 men are civilly committed throughout the
U.S. Such commitment procedures are costing, on average, four times more per
inmate than incarceration, and likewise present a number of due process and social
policy issues.116
Often jails must provide protective custody to inmates accused of sex crimes,
especially crimes involving children. Without specific efforts to protect them, these
inmates are vulnerable to becoming victimized, and therefore need special
consideration as potential targets.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 33

Members of Gangs (Security Threat Groups)
As the gang phenomenon has grown and spread across America, there has
been a parallel growth and spread of gangs behind bars.117 While the long-term nature
of confinement makes gangs a more serious issue for prisons than for jails,
nevertheless, gang members threaten institutional security, therefore requiring special
considerations. For example, gang affiliations need to be documented, conflicts within
and between gangs must be controlled, their movements need to be monitored, and
particularly in gang-infested jurisdictions, caution is necessary when making housing
assignments, moving inmates, serving meals, providing recreation, and so on.
Additionally, since gangs dominate the drug business, they are responsible for
considerable violence. Overall, because they constitute such a disruptive force in
correctional facilities, security threat groups interfere with operational practices and
programs, threaten the safety of inmates and staff, and erode the quality of institutional
life.118

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 34

 CORRECTIONAL TECHNOLOGY: WHAT’S THE REAL FUTURE?

Robert W. Donlin, Project Manager

Corrections Programs
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Southeast119
Trident Research Center
5300 International Boulevard
North Charleston, South Carolina 29418

Everyone has heard the old adage that the only two things that we can count on
are death and taxes. But a third ingredient could be added to this list, which is crime.
Crime has plagued society as far back as recorded history, and in the early days of
corrections, punishment revolved around confinement, silent reflection, and hard work.
Upon release, the offender was often shunned by the community, and life on the outside
was sometimes as hard as life on the inside. Over time, such attitudes have changed,
although in recent years we have witnessed a renewed emphasis on punishment, with
more and more people being confined. The result has begun to place a fiscal strain on
communities as they debate whether to spend limited tax dollars on building new
schools to invest in the future or building new jails to avoid facing lawsuits over
conditions of confinement in out-of-date, overcrowded facilities. Even after making the
hard choice of building a new jail or improving an old one, administrators face difficult
decisions with regard to staffing levels, treatment programs, etc.--all of which put an
even greater burden on the taxpayer. At least part of the solution to these dilemmas lies
in the field of technology.
Is technology the “silver bullet” for corrections? Will technology replace people,
with robots doing all of the work that humans do now? No, but technology can help jails
function more smoothly and efficiently. From initial design to intake and release,
technology can be of valuable assistance--let’s look at some of the ways.
Microwave and Video Systems
Ask the average person to describe a jail, and they will probably tell you about
cement and steel, high walls or fences with roll after roll of razor wire, and “guards”
stationed in posts on the perimeter with weapons in hand. But the reality is something
quite different, both inside and outside. Jails currently being built do not employ the

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 35

same concept of bars as in the past. Architectural design changes have made jails less
imposing and more in line with other structures, such as office buildings. Fences with
row after row of razor wire are being replaced with electronic devices. The days of
officers walking perimeter posts with weapons have been replaced by fence sensors,
microwave and camera systems. Soon, so-called “intelligent video“ systems will
become more and more common in the jail environment. These systems will be able to
detect changes in the jail environment, such as a sudden grouping of inmates possibly
signaling a fight, or a person passing through an area where no one has access, or
objects being removed from, (or placed in), a specified area. The days of officers having
to pat down all inmates and visitors may likewise come to an end. Millimeter microwave
or, MMI, systems are being developed that will show anything being concealed on, (or
possibly in), a person that is not supposed to be there. These are all technologies that
are either on the market now, or soon will be—and that is only the beginning.
Shared Data Bases
Presently, when a prisoner is admitted to jail, an individual record must be
compiled. This involves the gathering of information such as personal data, family
history, health questions, risk factors, prior arrest history, etc., which in most
jurisdictions is done manually. In some cases, the jail has had the prisoner previously
on a prior charge, so they do not have to gather all of the information anew. Now under
development are systems that will extend that benefit by enabling information to be
shared between agencies. Databases such as Justice Data Extendable Machine
Language are being developed that will allow agencies to get information from another
jurisdiction that is already in the proper format and to pass the additional information
that they gather along so the next agency (prison, parole, etc.) doesn’t have to waste
the time and the resources to perform the same functions again. This will reduce the
cost of record management systems and enable the automatic cross-indexing of
information, making the records clerk’s job considerably easier.
Inmate Tracking
Inmates (as well as staff) will be able to be tracked through the use of a radio
frequency identification system. These systems, which are available on the market
today, will become more and more sophisticated and will allow control rooms to ensure

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 36

that inmates are where they are supposed to be at all times. This, in turn, will help to
reduce the need for counts, make it easier to solve assault cases, and make it more
difficult for inmates to escape undetected.
Biometric Advancements
Biometrics will play a larger and larger role in jails of the future. Devices will allow
staff and inmates to go from one area to another unescorted, but will limit access only to
the specified areas. Biometric devices will be in place that will indicate if an inmate has
been fed, received their medications, or gone to court. They will check to ensure that
the right individual is put in the right bed assignment and that the right inmate has been
released.
Telemedicine
The use of telemedicine is likely to increase dramatically over the next several
years as diagnostic tools become more and more automated. In the not-too-distant
future, inmates will be able to speak with physicians located hundreds of miles away,
and the doctor will be able to make a diagnosis based on real time data that is being
streamed to them over a virtual private network (VPN). Devices are also in development
that will allow jail staff to put an inmate on suicide watch without having to personally
monitor behavior. These devices will detect changes in breathing patterns or heart rate,
alerting correctional staff to take appropriate action.
Computer-assisted Functions
Inmate visitation in facilities of the future will be able to take place over video
screens that are located in cites throughout the country. It will look similar to video
visitation now, except that there will be no reason for the visitor to come to the jail. They
will be able to simply sit in front of a computer screen at home or some other location
and visit with the inmate. More and more, courts will begin to rely on video on a routine
basis for hearings, and possibly in the not-too-distant future, even trials.
Search Devices
Devices are now coming onto the market that will aid the correctional officer in
searching for contraband, such as cell phones, drugs and guns. These devices will be
able to “hear, “sniff”, and “see” contraband through the use of techniques like spectral
analysis, wave frequency analysis, lasers and microwaves. In the future, these devices

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 37

will get better as well as cheaper and will become more readily available to jails of all
sizes. Also in development are devices that will allow officers to note increases in the
anger and/or stress level of inmates, enabling the officer to take preventive action
before a situation becomes violent.
Non-lethal Weapons
Non-lethal weapons that are available to the correctional officer will become more
plentiful. These devices will be able to control a single person or a group of inmates
using sound or light as well as the already available chemicals or electrical stimulation.
Calmative chemical agents will become prevalent, along with devices that combine
several technologies into one.
Tip of the Iceberg
The advancements described herein are only the tip of the iceberg. In the next ten
to twenty years, new technologies will be entering the marketplace at a rapid pace,
thereby continuing to reduce demands on jail administrators and operational staff. But
although these improvements will help to make jobs easier, technological
advancements will never replace human interactions.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 38

 APPENDIX

ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN:
FACTS, FIGURES, AND TRENDS RELATED TO
ISSUES FACING LOCAL JAILS
Bureau of Justice Assistance Cooperative Agreement

Submitted to:
Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc.

Submitted by:
Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, Ph.D., Professor
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida Atlantic University
111 East Las Olas Boulevard
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-762-5138
[email protected]

Date:
April 6, 2007

1. Demographics

• Census Bureau projections of the ethnic breakdown of the U.S. population:

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

White (non-Hispanic) 69.4% 65.1% 61.3% 57.5 53.7 50.1%
Hispanic (of any race) 12.6 15.5 17.8 20.1 22.3 24.4%
Black 12.7 13.1 13.5 13.9 14.3 14.6%
Asian 3.8 4.6 5.4 6.2 7.1 8.0%
All other races 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and
Hispanic Origin, 2004, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/

• U.S. birthrates have not been high enough to replace the population since 1971. The U.S. population has
not declined, however, as a result of high levels of migration into the country.

Source: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (17), U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Washington, DC, 2004.

• During the 1990s, 40% of the increase in the U.S. population was due to the arrival of new immigrants.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 39

 Source: The Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population Growth, Congressional
Testimony by Steven Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC,
2001.

• A rapid increase in the level of migration during the 1990's occurred largely because millions of people
legalized in 1987 and 1988 under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 were becoming U.S.
citizens in increasing numbers. As they become citizens, they could sponsor the legal immigration of
immediate relatives without being subject to numerical limits. Migration from this source is projected to
reach a peak early in the decade of 2000 to 2010.

• Undocumented migration of people born in Mexico and Central America is primarily a function of the
degree of success in controlling the southwest border.

• The overseas population of military personnel and dependents is a function of the future course of world
events (e.g., less military involvement might mean a spike in crime committed by youth).

Source: F.W. Hollmann, T.J. Mulder, and J.E. Kallan, Methodology and Assumptions
for the Population Projections of the United States: 1999-2100, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, January, 2000,
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0038.html

• With birthrates low and people living longer, the percentage of older people in the U.S. is increasing. The
proportion of people age 65 or older is expected to increase from 12.4% (35 million) in 2000 to 19.6% (71
million) in 2030.

Source: Public Health and Aging: Trends in Aging–United States and Worldwide,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 2003.

• Consequences of the aging population include:

-Growing pressure on health care costs;
-Workforce shortages in some sectors of the economy;
-Problems for pension and retirement programs

Source: Trends in America, Council of State

Governments, Lexington, KY, 2005.

• From 1995 to 2005, the number of jail inmates per

100,000 U.S. residents rose from 193 to 252.

• The jail population has been increasing annually at a rate

of approximately 4% since 1995.

• Almost 9 out of every 10 jail inmates are adult males. However, the number of adult females in jail has
been increasing faster than males.

• The number of juveniles held in adult facilities declined from 1999 to 2005.

Source: Jail Statistics: Summary Findings, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm

• More than 6 in 10 jail inmates are racial or ethnic minorities. (Blacks were almost three times more likely
than hispanics and five times more likely than whites to be in jail).

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 40

 Sources: Doris J. James, Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report, July, 2004, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf, and Bureau
of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/jailrair.htm

• Women represented 12% of the jail population in 2002, up from 10% in 1996.

• Jail inmates were older on average in 2002 than 1996 (38% were 35 or older, up from 32%).

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys, U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#jail

• In 2002, 44% of the jail population had an educational level less than high school (or equivalent).

Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2003, Table 6.18, p. 493,

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t618.pdf

• Of black males who graduated from high school and went on to attend some college, only 5% were
incarcerated in 2000. Of white males who graduated from high school and went on to attend some
college, only 1% were incarcerated in 2000.

Source: Saving Futures, Saving Dollars: The Impact of Education on Crime Reduction
and Earnings, Alliance for Excellent Education: Issue Brief, Washington, DC, August,
2006, citing S. Raphael, The Socioeconomic Status of Black Males: The Increasing
Importance of Incarceration, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California,
Berkeley, 2004, http://www.all4ed.org/publications/SavingFutures.pdf

• The at-risk population of males and females between the ages of 16-24 will grow 2.9% from 2004-2014.

Source: Tomorrow’s Jobs, Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Department of Labor,

Washington, DC, 2003, http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm

• The national arrest rate for 15-16 year-olds is projected to increase by 30% in 2010

• Increases in juvenile crime since the mid-1980s reflect economic shifts, decline in the extended family,
increase in single parenthood, access to more lethal weapons, and the growing role of gangs.

• Projected trends likely to affect juvenile crime in the future include population growth, increased
immigration, broader cultural diversity, welfare reform that may lead to increased childhood poverty, and
more transfers from juvenile to criminal courts.

• 26% of American children live below the poverty line, and recent welfare reforms are expected to add
another million children to their ranks. Childhood poverty correlates with increased risk of victimization,
and offenders who victimize often have histories of earlier victimization. Between 1985 and 1994, reports
of child abuse and neglect increased more than 50 percent. If this trend continues, it will reinforce the
cycle of violence.

• Youth are committing delinquent acts at younger ages. Problems posed by very young offenders in
detention include increased risk of victimization, different school and program service requirements, and
greater needs for emotional support.

Source: S.S. Stone, Changing Nature of Juvenile Offenders, conference presentation,

1998, http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/conference/track1.html

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 41

2. Crime trends

• All measures of serious violent crime indicate that it has been decreasing since 1993.

Source: Key Crime and Justice Facts, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

• From 2004 to 2005, the rate of violent crime increased 1.3%, but the rate of property offenses decreased
2.4%.

• The 5-year trend indicates that violent crime decreased 3.4%. For the 10-year trend (1996 to 2005),
violent crime declined 17.6%. The 10-year trend for property crime indicates a decline of 13.9%.

• Law enforcement officers made more arrests for drug abuse violations in 2005 (an estimated 1.8 million
arrests, or 13% of the total) than for any other offense.

• In 2005, 76% of all persons arrested were male, 70% white, and 15.5% juveniles.

• Between 1996 and 2005, the number of juveniles arrested declined by 25%, while the number of females
arrested increased by 7.4%

• Black adults were most often arrested for drug abuse violations.

Source: Crime in the United States, 2005, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/

• The number of adults convicted of a felony in state courts has been increasing, and over two-thirds of
felons convicted in state courts are sentenced to prison or jail. As a result, the number of adults in the
correctional population has been increasing.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 42

 Source: Key Crime and Justice Facts, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

• The median time between arrest and sentencing in 2002 was about 5 months.

• The average state court sentence to local jail was 6 months.

• Drug offenders were 35% of felons convicted in state courts in 2000.

Source: Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Washington, DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fssc00.pdf

• The estimated number of arrests for drug abuse violations among adults has been increasing, while the
number for juveniles has stabilized.

Source: Key Crime and Justice Facts, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

• The percentage of convicted inmates in the jail population decreased from 48.5% in 1990 to 38% in 2005.

Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (online), 2005, Table 6.17,

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t6172005.pdf

• The rise in unconvicted inmates accounts for 71.4% of jail population growth. Approximately 60% of all
jail inmates on a single day are awaiting trial.

Source: Defining the Future and Exploring Organizational Strategies: Proceedings of

the Large Jail Network Meeting, National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of
Justice, July, 2003, p. 19, http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2003/018966.pdf.

• National data indicate that the average length of stay in jail is 15-16 days.

Source: James Austin, Maine County Jail Population Study, Probation Revocation
Survey Data and County Jail Population Projections: 2010, National Institute of
Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, February, 2002,
http://nicic.org/Library/019385

• Almost half (49.6%) of jail inmates were being held for either drug or public order offenses in 2002.

• The average sentence length of jail inmates in 2002 was 24 months; time expected to be served was 9
months.

• Among convicted jail inmates, 33% reported alcohol use and 29% drug use at the time of the offense.

• Over half (56%) of jail inmates said they grew up in a single-parent household or with a guardian. About
1 in 9 had lived in a foster home or institution.

• Nearly one-third (31%) of jail inmates grew up with a parent or guardian who abused alcohol or drugs,
and 46% had a family member who had been incarcerated.

• Over half of the women in jail said they had been physically or sexually abused in the past, compared to
over a tenth of the men.

Source: Doris J. James, Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report, July, 2004, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 43

• The Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse estimate that
60-83% of the corrections population has used drugs, approximately twice the rate of the general
population.

Source: Drug Treatment in the Criminal Justice System: Fact Sheet, Office of National
Drug Control Policy, Washington, DC, March, 2001,
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/treatment/index.html

• The correctional population has twice the rate of mental illness as the general population. Among prison
and jail inmates, 16% report either a mental condition or an overnight stay in a mental hospital, and were
identified as mentally ill.

Sources: Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Washington, DC, 1999, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/mhtip.htm.
See also Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project, Council of State
Governments, Lexington, KY, 2002, http://consensusproject.org/

• Almost half of jail inmates were on either probation or parole when they were admitted to jail. Parole and
probation violators awaiting hearings or transfer to state institutions after revocation are a significant
portion of crowded jail populations–as well as a source of friction between local and state governments. If
jails are filled with offenders who are merely noncompliant, there will be no room for dangerous offenders.

Source: Madeline M. Carter, ed., Responding to Parole and Probation Violations: A

Handbook to Guide Local Policy Development, April, 2001: pp.5-6,
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2001/016858.pdf

• Increasing numbers of offenders on community supervision are returning to jail. The number of
probationers revoked and incarcerated rose from 268,000 in 1990 to 479,800 in 2001. The number of
parolees revoked and incarcerated was 215,000 in 2002, up from 133,900 in 1990.

• Increasing numbers of offenders are being held in jail for other authorities, (from 12.2% in 1988 to 18.7%
in 2002).

Source: Allen Beck, Jail Population Growth: Sources of Growth and Stability, Defining
the Future and Exploring Organizational Strategies: Proceedings of the Large Jail
Network Meeting, National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, July,
2003, p. 19, http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2003/018966.pdf.

• Disadvantaged communities with high proportions of young people and single-parent families experience
the greatest difficulty in protecting youth from victimization.

Source: J.L. Lauristen, How Families and Communities Influence Youth Victimization,
Bulletin, November, 2003 (NCJ 201629),
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/publications/PubAbstract.asp?pubi=11415

• There is only a weak relationship between population growth and crime rates or arrest trends. Jail
populations are actually the result of how we respond to crime; small changes in policy and practice can
result in large impacts on population. For example, pretrial release rates have declined for those charged
with violent crimes, resulting in increased jail populations, and (independent of arrest rates).

Source: Allen Beck, Jail Population Growth: Sources of Growth and Stability, Defining
the Future and Exploring Organizational Strategies: Proceedings of the Large Jail
Network Meeting, National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, July,
2003, p. 19, http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2003/018966.pdf.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 44

• Future growth of the jail population is linked to demographic trends and arrest rates. There are three
models being used to project jail population by 2010:

1. Assumes that the rate of increase will be the same as the past 5 years, projecting an increase of
200,000 by 2010.
2. Assumes slower growth, similar to the past 2 years, projecting an increase of 100,000 by 2010.
3. Looks only at demographic trends, projecting a growth of less than 100,000 by 2010.

Source: Defining the Future and Exploring Organizational Strategies: Proceedings of

the Large Jail Network Meeting, National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of
Justice, July, 2003, http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2003/018966.pdf.

• Changes in a county’s resident population can affect the jail population, but changes in criminal justice
practices can have an even larger impact. Forecasting changes in a county’s resident population is
easier, however, than forecasting changes in criminal justice policies or discretionary decision-making.

• The increased number of people in jail is a consequence of changes in justice policies and practices.
They can be detected at key justice system decision points –e.g., the decision to arrest, the decision to
place an arrestee in detention, case filing, or sentencing. Collectively, they operate the levers and
controls that regulate the size of the jail population. The jail administrator has little control over who goes
into jail, how long people stay there, or how they get out.

Source: Mark A. Cunniff, Jail Crowding: Understanding Jail Population Dynamics,

National Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC, January, 2002,
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/017209.pdf

• The number of jails housing fewer than 50 inmates has been declining, while mega jails confining a
thousand or more inmates are rapidly increasing.

Source: J.B. Stinchcomb, Corrections: Past, Present, and Future, American

Correctional Association, Lanham, MD, 2005: 129.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 45

3. Inmate management

• A survey of large jail administrators in 2005 indicated the following issues as “strong” or “critical”
needs, (according to one-third or more of the respondents):
-Facility capacity to handle offender population;
-Managing high-cost functional areas (e.g., offender medical care, employee health insurance);
-Adequacy of facilities for safe offender management and supervision;
-Facility planning and development process;
-Strategic planning;
-Adequacy of facilities to support mission;
-Age and condition of facilities;
-Staff retention/turnover.

Source: Connie Clem and John Eggers, NIC Correctional Needs Assessment:
Findings of a National Survey of Correctional Leaders, National Institute of
Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, June, 2005, p. 17, (not available on-line).

• A study in Ohio indicates that, in comparison to 1999, offenders in custody in 2004 are more likely to
be unemployed, undereducated, and afflicted with drug problems, as well as more likely to spend
time in confinement.

Source: Barbara Tombs et al., Assessment of Inmate Population Characteristics

and Jail Management Processes in Hamilton County, Ohio, Vera Institute of
Justice, July 31, 2006, http://www.hamilton-co.org/administrator/bsi/jail/D%20-
%20Vera%20Assessment.pdf

• Suicide accounts for more than one-third of inmate deaths in jails. In contrast, it is the cause of only
5-9% of the deaths in state and federal prisons. (Statistics do not reflect the many additional but
unsuccessful suicide attempts).

Source: J.J. Stephan and J.C. Karberg, Census of State and Federal Correctional
Facilities, 2000, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC: 2003: 8,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/csfcf00.pdf

• Correctional systems can have a direct effect on the health of urban populations by offering health
care and health promotion in jails, by linking inmates to community services after release, and by
assisting in the process of community reintegration.

Source: Nicholas Freudenberg, Jails, prisons, and the health of urban populations:
A review of the impact of the correctional system on community health, Journal of
Urban Health, Vol. 78 (2), June, 2001: 214-35.

• As sound research has emerged in recent years, the capability now exists to use a more objective,
evidence-based decision-making process in program and policy development. Whether corrections
will move forward in this direction or remain trapped in the shifting sands of politically-based policy-
making remains to be seen, but the use of evaluation results has been a missing link in correctional
decision-making.

Source: Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, Corrections: Past, Present, and Future, American

Correctional Association, Lanham, MD, 2005: 579, quoting D.L. MacKenzie,
Evidence-based Corrections: Identifying what works, Crime and Delinquency, Vol.
46 (4), October, 2000: 463.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 46

• An important part of shifting in the direction of evidence-based practices is communicating the
agency’s vision to staff.

Source: M. Gaseau and M. Mandeville, New Directions in Community Corrections:

The Move towards Evidence-based Practices, Corrections Connection, February
24, 2005.

• Correctional facilities house 8 times more people with mental illness than state psychiatric facilities.

• In 1998, 21 states were under certified class action suits involving the provision of adequate mental
health service for inmates.

• 12,000 children are in juvenile detention facilities because their parents cannot access mental health
services.

• There is a cycle of discharge without support and rearrest.

• Funding is needed to promote mental illness awareness training for the judiciary, jail staff, and others
in the criminal justice system.

Source: Carol Carothers, Overview of Mental Health Issues in State Prisons and
County Jails: Presentation to Commission to Improve the Sentencing, Supervision,
Management and Incarceration of Prisoners, October 8, 2003,
http://www.maine.gov/spo/sp/commission/docs/Overview%20of%20Mental%20He
alth%20Issues%20in%20state%20prisons.ppt

• Types of mental health programs available should include crisis intervention and management,
psychotherapy, psycho-educational programs, specialized treatment programs, and substance abuse
initiatives.

Source: J.S. Steffan and R. D. Morgan, Meeting the needs of mental ill offenders:
Inmate service utilization, Corrections Today, Vol. 38, February, 2005: 38-41.

• The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (S.1194) was passed in October, 2004.
It authorizes federal funds for diversion, mental health treatment for inmates with mental illnesses,
community re-entry services, and training.

Source: R. Honberg and D. Gruttadardo, Flawed Mental Health Policies and the
Tragedy of Criminalization, Corrections Today, Vol. 38, February, 2005: 22-24.

• The Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project is a national effort among policy-makers,
criminal justice practitioners, and mental health advocates to identify measures that will improve the
response to people with mental illness who are in contact with (or at high risk of involvement with) the
criminal justice system. The report provides 46 policy statements that can serve as a guide or prompt
an initiative to improve the justice system’s response to the mentally ill. Following each policy
statement is a series of more specific recommendations that highlight the practical steps needed to
implement the policy. Discussion of each recommendation includes examples of programs, policies,
or statutes that illustrate one or more jurisdiction’s implementation efforts.

• The intent is for government officials and community leaders to use these policy statements,
recommendations, and examples to move beyond discussing the issue and to begin developing
initiatives that will address the problem. However, this report could overwhelm a community, as in the
case of reform efforts that have been derailed before getting underway because those involved could
not decide where to begin.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 47

• The single most significant common denominator shared by communities that have successfully
improved the response to people with mental illness is that each started with cooperation between at
least two key stakeholders–one from the criminal justice system and the other from the mental health
system. Indeed, the Consensus Project report reflects, on a national level, the value of substantive,
bipartisan, cross-system dialogue regarding mental health issues as they relate to the criminal justice
system.

Source: Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project, Council of State

Governments, Lexington, KY, June, 2002, http://consensusproject.org/the_report/

• A good classification system identifies inmates who are eligible and will benefit from early release into
community-based programs. This will also minimize public risk and help reduce over-crowding.

• Many jails over-build the number of high-security cells. Consistent collection and analysis of
classification data will aid in avoiding this.

Source: G. Knapp and D. Wells, Inmate Classification and Direct Supervision Jails,
Northpointe Institute for Public Management, Traverse City, MI, 2005,
http://www.northpointeinc.com/article01.htm

• The most dramatic impact of objective classification systems has been the economic benefits reaped
from our ability to place larger proportions of the inmate population in lower custody levels without
jeopardizing inmate, staff, or public safety.

• Many of the classification systems used today were developed more than a decade ago on an inmate
population that may be significantly different from today’s larger and more diverse population.

• Classification systems should generally be re-evaluated and tested at least every 5 years to ensure
that they are valid and operating properly.

Source: J. Austin, P.L. Hardyman, and S.D. Brown, Critical Issues and
Developments in Prison Classification, National Institute of Corrections, U.S.
Department of Justice, September, 2001, http://nicic.org/Library/017241

• Better integration of the institutional and community risk, needs assessment, and case management
processes and planning is needed to maximize resources, ensure safety and security, better prepare
inmates for release, and support communities to which prisoners are released.

Source: P.L. Hardyman, J. Austin, and J. Peyton, Prisoner Intake Systems:

Assessing Needs and Classifying Prisoners, National Institute of Corrections,
Washington, DC, January, 2004, http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2004/019033.pdf

• Most institutions classify female inmates by using procedures that were designed for males and are
based largely on behaviors and risk factors that have primary relevance for males. Most jails adopted
a single gender-neutral system without conducting the research to examine its validity for female
samples. As a result, the physical security imposed on many female inmates is often excessive, and
sends an inappropriate message to visitors, particularly family and children.

Source: T. Brennan and J. Austin, Women in Jail: Classification Issues, National

Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC, March, 1997,
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/1997/013768.pdf

• Typical jail problems have been greatly reduced or virtually eliminated when staff members
continuously and actively supervise inmates, set and clearly communicate expectations for their

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 48

 behavior, provide incentives for positive behavior, and hold inmates individually accountable for
violations of standards.

• When crowding diminishes the jail’s ability to house and manage inmates effectively, the funding
authority can provide leadership by supporting efforts to develop alternative programs or community
sanctions for certain types of inmates who may not necessarily have to be detained in the jail. This
will require the coordinated efforts of all key players in the local criminal justice system.

Source: Gary M. Bowker, Jail Resource Issues: What Every Funding Authority
Needs to Know, National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice,
February, 2002, #017372, http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/017372.pdf

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 49

4. Workforce

• The minority portion of the workforce is expected to increase to 36% by 2020.

• Baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) comprise about one-third of the workforce, and will be
retiring in large numbers by 2010.

• By 2010, the number of workers in the 35-44 age group, (who typically are moving into upper
management), will decline by 19%. Numbers of workers in the 45-54 age group will increase by 21%,
and the 55-64 age group will increase by 52%.

Sources: Policy Alert, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, San
Jose, CA, November, 2005; Business Basics: An Aging Workforce’s Effect on U.S.
Employers, 2005, www.forbes.com

• The number of women in the labor force will grow at a faster rate than the number of men.

• The primary working age group, (between 25 and 54 years old), is projected to decline to 65.2% of
the labor force by 2014. Workers 55 and older, on the other hand, are projected to increase to 21.2%
of the labor force.

Source: Tomorrow’s Jobs, Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Department of

Labor, Washington, DC, 2003, http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm

• In an effort to retain older employees and meet workforce needs, some businesses are providing
more choices for work schedules, number of hours worked, and other options such as unpaid leaves,
alternative work locations, and differing job assignments.

Source: Businesses: How Are They Preparing for the Aging Workforce?, The
Center on Aging and Work, Boston College, Boston, 2005.

• In 2003, a National Institute of Corrections report indicated that 18% of supervisors, 31% of
managers, and 62% of executives in local jails will be eligible to retire in five years.

• When jail administrators were asked whether their agency has adequate capacity to train and develop
staff, 41% responded negatively for the executive level, 27% for the managerial level, and 16% for
the supervisory level.

Source: Connie Clem, Results of Data Analysis: NIC Needs Assessment on

Correctional Management and Executive Leadership Development, National
Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, May, 2003, pp. 21, 23,
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2003/018898.pdf

• Overall, the top ten issues identified by jail executives as needing attention or a change in approach
during a 2005 NIC survey were as follows. (Note: 6 relate to workforce issues):
1. Employee motivation;
2. Planning for staffing needs; (Note: Listed twice in original report);
3. (tie) New employee recruitment, screening, and selection;
3. (tie) Facility capacity to handle offender population;
4. Adequacy of offender mental health care;
5. Training and developing managers/supervisors;
6. Ability to evaluate program impact;

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 50

 7. Training and developing executives/leaders;
8. Influencing justice system policies that affect costs;
9. Evaluation of training impact;
10. (tie) Numeric sufficiency of staff to manage offenders;
10. (tie) Managing high-cost functional areas (e.g., offender medical care, employee health
insurance)
10. (tie) Planning for staffing needs. (Note: Listed twice in original report).

Source: Connie Clem and John Eggers, NIC Correctional Needs Assessment:
Findings of a National Survey of Correctional Leaders, National Institute of
Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, June, 2005, p. 17, (not available on-line).

• The combination of an increasingly younger, better-educated workforce composed of a more diverse

population reflecting the often-conflicting values of new generations of employees presents
management challenges. Today’s employees are considerably less likely than their predecessors to
quietly endure an autocratic management style.

• Lack of recognition and problems with administrators are major contributors to correctional officer
stress. Autonomy on the job and participatory decision-making are associated with stronger
organizational commitment and less job-related stress.

• Research confirms that the difficulty of work in correctional institutions is related more to problems
involving staff relationships than to problems dealing with inmates.

• Staff cannot be expected to maintain peak performance in an organizational culture that is plagued
with contradiction, ambiguity, inequity, inconsistency, unethical behavior, or autocratic management.
In a number of agencies, the leadership challenge is to move from a politically-based to a
professionally-based culture.

Source: Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, Corrections: Past, Present, and Future, American

Correctional Association, Lanham, MD: 487, 489, 509.

• Offering flexible work schedules and shifts (and other non-traditional approaches) will make the job
and work more appealing.

• Keeping employees interested, challenged, and successful will lead to retention.

Source: Catherine E. McVey and Randolph T. McVey, Responding to today’s

workforce: Attracting, retaining and developing the new generation of workers,
Corrections Today, December, 2002, 80-21, 109.

• The factors driving motivation and job satisfaction have shifted dramatically in today’s workplace. In
the past, people were motivated primarily by fear. The fear was rooted in the protection against the
loss of economic stability; people did not want to lose the security they had worked hard to acquire.
Today, employees are motivated not by fear but by gain. The overall attitude is “What do I get from
my job? Are my needs being met? Is my value being raised?

Source: H.E. Chambers, Finding, Hiring, and Keeping Peak Performers: Every
Manager’s Guide, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA, 2001.

• An organization’s culture is closely tied to its ability to recruit and retain employees. With an upbeat
culture that attracts applicants and inspires employees, agencies can compete more effectively in
today’s marketplace.

• Immediate supervisors are a key factor in employee turnover.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 51

• Job satisfaction and employee retention go hand-in-hand with career development and succession
planning, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that employees are continually growing, learning,
and being challenged.

• With the diversity of today’s workforce, one size no longer fits all when it comes to techniques for
enhancing job satisfaction.

• A comprehensive workforce development effort involves an ongoing process to build a staff that is
continually growing, developing and proactively addressing new demands.

Source: Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, Susan W. McCampbell, and Elizabeth P. Layman,

FutureForce: A Guide to Building the 21st Century Community Corrections
Workforce, National Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC, September, 2006:
xiv, xv.

• Leadership is more than simply coordinating and influencing the work of an organization. It is
developing, maintaining, or changing the culture of the organization.

Source: S. Stojkovic and M.A. Farkas, Correctional Leadership: A Cultural

Perspective, Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 2003.

• In studying nine selected private sector organizations known for innovative or effective human capital
management, we found that they focused on nurturing organizational cultures that involved
employees and rewarded them for performance, empowering employees by making them
stakeholders in the development of solutions and new methods.

• Hierarchical management approaches will need to yield to partnerial approaches. Process-oriented

ways of doing business will need to yield to results-oriented ones. And siloed organizations with a
steep hierarchy will need to become integrated organizations if they expect to make the most of the
knowledge, skills, and abilities of their people.

Source: D.M. Walker, Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st
Century, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, March 9, 2000.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 52

 About the Authors

Dr. Jeanne Stinchcomb serves on the faculty of the Department of Criminology and
Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University in Ft. Lauderdale, where she teaches
graduate and undergraduate courses. She earned her Master’s degree in
Administration of Justice and Ph.D. in Social Policy from Virginia Commonwealth
University. Her career has embraced over three decades of teaching and administrative
experience in settings ranging from colleges and training academies to the FBI in
Washington, DC, and the Miami-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
She has taught in the National Sheriffs’ Institute and has served as a consultant for
agencies such as the National Institute of Corrections, American Correctional
Association, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Her consulting activities
range from evaluating program outcomes to developing police promotional exams. Her
most recent book (2005) is Corrections: Past, Present, and Future. Honored as the
2002 recipient of the Peter Lejins Research Award, (national recognition of research
that has contributed significantly to corrections), her work has been published in such
journals as Crime and Delinquency, Federal Probation, Criminal Justice Policy Review,
Justice Quarterly, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, American Jails, Corrections
Today, Sheriff, Corrections Compendium, and the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.
She can be reached at [email protected]

Susan W. McCampbell has worked in corrections and law enforcement for 30 years.
She is President of the Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc., (CIPP) a not-for-profit
company specializing in public policy consulting, established in 1999. McCampbell
serves as the Special Master in the matter of the USA v. the Territory of the Virgin
Islands, et. al., appointed by the Federal Court in April 2006; and works as an expert
witness in corrections and law enforcement litigation. McCampbell has worked with the
National Institute of Corrections (NIC) including: developing strategies for community
corrections to address recruitment, retention and preparation of first line supervisors;
creating curriculum on managing multi-generational workforces; providing technical
assistance to state and local correctional agencies regarding staff sexual misconduct
and PREA; and revising the curriculum for the National Sheriffs’ Institute. Prior to
founding CIPP, McCampbell was the Director, Department of Corrections, Broward
County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office for four (4) years overseeing the daily operations of a
jail system with 4,200 inmates, three facilities, and a staff of 1,600. While with BSO, Ms.
McCampbell served as Chief Deputy/Acting Sheriff for six (6) months following the
death of the Sheriff. Prior to coming to BSO, Ms. McCampbell was Assistant Sheriff ,
City of Alexandria, Virginia, Sheriff’s Office for eleven (11) years, a Program Director for
Police Executive Research Forum in Washington, D. C., and a regional criminal justice
planner in Northern Virginia. She can be reached at [email protected]

Elizabeth Layman is President of Price Layman, Inc., a criminal justice consulting firm.
Ms. Layman was a police officer/detective for 9 years in Arlington, Virginia, working in
patrol and in the detective bureau investigating major crimes. Subsequently Ms.
Layman spent 16 years with the State of Florida in Department of Corrections, and the
Parole Commission. For 9 years of those years, Ms. Layman was the Regional Director

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 53

for the Florida Parole Commission, managing agency operations in the eight-county
region of South Florida. Ms. Layman also conducted clemency investigations for the
Office of the Governor of Florida during her tenure at the Parole Commission.

Since 1997, Ms. Layman has worked with the U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Corrections and Bureau of Justice Assistance on numerous cooperative
agreements including on-site technical assistance and training in corrections agencies,
law enforcement agencies, and community corrections agencies; curriculum
development, including: Training for Investigators of Staff Sexual Misconduct; Managing
a Multi-Generational Workforce; FutureForce:Developing a 21st Century Workforce for
Community Corrections; co-authorship of A Resource Guide for New Wardens, and
Staff Sexual Misconduct with Offenders: A Policy Development Guide for Community
Corrections; and co-authorship of publications on the issue of Staff Sexual Misconduct
and Workforce Development in various periodicals, including American Jails,
Perspectives, and Sheriff magazines.

Ms. Layman has a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology from Virginia Tech. Ms. Layman is a
member of the American Probation and Parole Association, and the American
Correctional Association. Layman can be reached at [email protected]

Beth Creager Fallon is a consultant for the Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc., a
not for profit company specializing in public policy consulting. Fallon also works as a
volunteer trainer, and mentor for the Women’s Prison Mentoring Program at the Rhode
Island Department of Corrections. Fallon was one of the founders, in 1996, of Domestic
Abuse Programs, a not for profit social service organization serving battered women in
Washington County, Rhode Island, and the co-author of the book, Pattern Changing for
Abused Women.

Fallon was the Director of Family Life Education for Child and Family Services,
Newport, Rhode Island and for Boston Family Services, Boston, Massachusetts. She
edited the manual, Developing and Leading Family Life Education Programs, co
authored the article, Preparing a Community for Family Life Education, in the Journal of
Child Welfare, and taught Child Development and Human Growth and Development at
Salve Regina University. Fallon holds a B. S. from Hood College and an M.S. in Child
Development from the University of Rhode Island.

Robert Donlin’s experience in corrections includes 23 years within the State of South
Carolina Department of Corrections. Rob’s career spanned various locations as a Warden,
then as Assistant Deputy Regional Director and retiring as Compliance Review Coordinator
in the Division of Inspection and Operational Review. Currently, he is the Project Manager
for Corrections Programs at the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Center – Southeast Region.

Mr. Donlin holds a BA degree in Psychology, Masters’ Degrees in Criminal Justice and
Public Administration.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 54

ENDNOTES:

1
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 2004,
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/
2
“The Impact of Immigration on the U.S. Population Growth,” Congressional Testimony by Steven
Camarota, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC, 2001. See also National Vital Statistics
Reports, Vol. 52 (17), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004.
3
F.W. Hollmann, T.J. Mulder, and J.E. Kallan, Methodology and Assumptions for the Population
Projections of the United States: 1999-2100, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, January, 2000), http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0038.html
4
Hollmann, Mulder, and Kallan, 2000.
5
L.J. Siegel and J.J. Senna, Introduction to Criminal Justice (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2005), p. 49.
6
Public Health and Aging: Trends in Aging–United States and Worldwide, (Atlanta, GA: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2003).
7
Tomorrow’s Jobs, Occupational Outlook Handbook (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 2003),
http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm.
8
S.S. Stone, Changing Nature of Juvenile Offenders, conference presentation, 1998,
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/conference/track1.html.
9
M. Sickmund, “Offenders in Juvenile Court,” OJJDP Bulletin (October, 2000), p. 11.
10
Stone, 1998.
11
Stone, 1998.
12
D.J. James, “Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (July, 2004),
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf.
13
James, 2004.
14
James, 2004.
15
“Jail Statistics: Summary Findings,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm.
16
“Jail Statistics: Summary Findings.”
17
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Correctional Surveys,” U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#jail
18
Figure 1: Jail Incarceration Rates by Race and Ethnicity. Sources: D.J. James, “Profile of Jail Inmates,
2002,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, July, 2004,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf, and Bureau of Justice Statistics Correctional Surveys, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/jailrair.htm.
19
Bureau of Justice Statistics , “Correctional Surveys.”
20
Drug Treatment in the Criminal Justice System: Fact Sheet, Office of National Drug Control Policy,
Washington, DC (March, 2001),
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/treatment/index.html
21
Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington,
DC (1999), http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/mhtip.htm See also Criminal Justice/Mental Health
Consensus Project, Council of State Governments, Lexington, KY, 2002, http://consensusproject.org/
22
J.B. Stinchcomb, Corrections: Past, Present, and Future (Lanham, MD: American Correctional
Association, 2005), pp. 150-53.
23
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2003, Table 6.18, p. 493,
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t618.pdf
24
“Saving Futures, Saving Dollars: The Impact of Education on Crime Reduction and Earnings,” Alliance
for Excellent Education: Issue Brief, Washington, DC (August, 2006), citing S. Raphael, The
Socioeconomic Status of Black Males: The Increasing Importance of Incarceration (Berkeley, CA:
Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, 2004),
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/SavingFutures.pdf
25
Crime in the United States, 2005, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 55

26
Crime in the United States, 2005, (an estimated 1.8 million arrests, or 13% of the total).
27
Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fssc00.pdf
28
Violent Crime in America: 24 Months of Alarming Trends. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research
Forum, 2007,
http://www.policeforum.org/upload/Violent%20Crime%20Report%203707_140194792_392007143035.pd
f.
29
Figure 2: Four Measures of Serious Violent Crime. Source: Key Crime and Justice Facts, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime
30
James, 2004: 1.
31
J.B. Stinchcomb and V.B. Fox, Introduction to Corrections (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1999), p. 178.
32
Stinchcomb, 2005: 130.
33
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (online), 2005, Table 6.17,
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t6172005.pdf
34
“Defining the Future and Exploring Organizational Strategies: Proceedings of the Large Jail Network
Meeting,” National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice (July, 2003): 19,
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2003/018966.pdf
35
Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fssc00.pdf
36
Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000.
37
Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000.
38
M.M. Carter, ed., Responding to Parole and Probation Violations: A Handbook to Guide Local Policy
Development, April, 2001, pp. 5-6, http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2001/016858.pdf
39
A. Beck, “Jail Population Growth: Sources of Growth and Stability, Defining the Future and Exploring
Organizational Strategies,” Proceedings of the Large Jail Network Meeting, National Institute of
Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice (July, 2003): 19, http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2003/018966.pdf
40
Carter, 2001.
41
M.A. Cunniff, Jail Crowding: Understanding Jail Population Dynamics, National Institute of Corrections,
Washington, DC (January, 2002), http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/017209.pdf
42
Figure 3: Number of Felons Convicted in State Court; Figure 4 Percent of Felons Convicted in State
Court Sentenced to Prison, Jail or Probation; Figure 5: Adult Correctional Populations 1980 – 2005.
Source: Key Crime and Justice Facts, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D. C.,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime
43
In this regard, it is also notable that a recent analysis by Pew Charitable Trusts projects a 13% rise in
the U.S. prison population during the next five years. See K. Johnson, “Study Predicts Rise in Inmate
Populations,” USA Today, February 14, 2007, p. 4A.
44
“Defining the Future and Exploring Organizational Strategies,” 2003.
45
Beck, 2003, p. 19.
46
Stinchcomb, 2005, pp. 157-58.
47
D. Arthur, The Employee Recruitment and Retention Handbook. New York: American Management
Association, 2001, p. 15.
48
S. Ramlall, A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention
within organizations. Journal of the American Academy of Business. September 2004, pp. 52-63.
49
J.B. Stinchcomb, S.W. McCampbell, and E.P.Layman, FutureForce: A Guide to Building the 21st
Century Community Corrections Workforce. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Corrections. NIC 021799. September 2006, p. 5.
50
Ibid. p. 36.
51
Workforce Associates, Inc., A 21st Century Workforce for America’s Correctional Profession: Part One
of a Three-Part Study. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association, 2004, p. 11.
52
Ibid. p. 57.
53
R.W. Judyand C. D’Amico, Workforce 2020: Work and Workers in the 21st Century. Indianapolis:
Hudson Institute. 1997, p. 109.
54
Rubin, Paula & Susan W. McCampbell. “Effectively Managing a Multi-Generational Workforce in
Corrections” curriculum. Center for Innovative Policies, Inc. Revised March 2007.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 56

55
Arthur, 2001, ,p. 220.
56
B. Kaye and S. Jordan-Evans, Love ‘Em or Lose ‘Em: Getting Good People to Stay. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2002.
57
Stinchcomb, McCampbell and Layman, 2006, p. 74.
58
K.A. Hughes, Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 2003, Washington, DC: U. S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 212260, April, 2006, pp. 1, 2.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/jeeus03.pdf, referenced March 5, 2007.
59
Ibid.
60
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2003, Table 6.1, 2004,
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t612005.pdf, referenced March 5, 2007.
61
Ibid, Table 6.14.
62
If, for example, the average length of stay is 35 days, (a midpoint between the three jurisdictions cited
in the next paragraph), the number of potential arrestees cycling through the system could be as high as
24 million. B. Cushman, Preventing Jail Crowding: A Practical Guide, undated,
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2001/016720.pdf, referenced March 6, 2007. (Number of admissions x average
length of stay = number of jail bed days required; divided by 365 days per year = average daily jail
population).
63
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/sheriff/stats/jail_stats/monthly/2006/01-06.pdf, referenced March 5,
2007.
64
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/DivisionsBoards/CSA/fsod/jail%20profile%20summary/jps_annual_rep_99/avera
ge_length_of_stay.htm , referenced March 5, 2007.
65
http://www.publicopiniononline.com/localnews/ci_5337076, referenced March 5, 2007.
66
L.E. Glaze and S. Palla, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004, Washington, DC: U. S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November, 2005,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ppus04.pdf, referenced March 5, 2007.
67
U. S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, http://www.reentry.gov/, referenced March 5, 2007.
68
IBID.
69
C. Taylor, Poll: County elected officials bullish on economy, split on immigration, County News On-Line,
August 21, 2006
http://www.naco.org/CountyNewsTemplate.cfm?template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&Co
ntentID=21117 referenced March 5, 2007.
70
Sheman, Amy, ”Jenne Proposed Releasing Some Inmates Miami Herald, March 28, 2007,
http://www.miamiherald.com/548/story/55044.html Referenced on April 5, 2007.
71
P.M. Harrison and A.J. Beck, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005, Washington, DC: U. S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May, 2006, p. 2, and D.K. Gilliard, and A.J. Beck,
Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1996, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, January, 1997, p. 2.
72
Campaign for Youth Justice, The Consequences Aren’t Minor: The Impact of Trying Youth as Adults
and Strategies for Reform, March, 2007, page 2.
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/Downloads/NEWS/National_Report_consequences.pdf
Referenced on March 30, 2007.
73
L. Kurki, Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century: Incorporating Restorative and
Community Justice into Sentencing and Corrections, U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1999, p. 9.
74
J. Maghan, The Post 9/11 Prison, Crime and Justice International September/October 2004: 4.
75
County of Santa Barbara, New Jail Planning Study Needs Assessment (undated),
http://www.countyofsb.org/cao/budgetresearch/jailstudy/needsassessment.pdf, referenced March 5,
2007. The Minnesota Department of Corrections estimates that the life span of jails in Minnesota is 40
years. http://co.roseau.mn.us/public/construction.asp
76
A.R. Beck, Misleading Jail Bed Costs, Justice Concepts Incorporated, quoting C.G. Camp, Average
Cost Per Bed for Jail System Construction and Renovation, 1990 – 1997, The Corrections Yearbook.
http://www.justiceconcepts.com/jail%20bed%20cost.pdf, referenced March 5, 2007.
77
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division
The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Monitoring of Mail for High-Risk Inmates, September, 2006
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/BOP/e0609/final.pdf , referenced March 5, 2007.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 57

78
Sourcebook, Table 6.18, Table 6.45.
79
U.S. Department of Education, National Adult Literacy Survey, Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992.
80
Sourcebook, Table 6.21.
81
Sourcebook, Table 6.22.
82
National Coalition on Health Care, quoting C. Borger, et al., Health Spending Projections Through
2015: Changes on the Horizon, Health Affairs Web Exclusive, February, 2006,
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml referenced March 5, 2007
83
National Institute of Corrections, 2003 Environmental Scan Update, January, 2004, (unpublished), p.
11.
84
Evidence-based practice as discussed in a community corrections setting “implies that there 1) is a
definable outcome(s): 2) it is measurable; and 3) it is defined according to practical realities (recidivism,
victim satisfaction, etc.).” B. Bogue, et. al., Implementing Evidence-Based practice in Community
Corrections: The Principles of Effective Intervention, April, 2004, p. 2,
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2004/019342.pdf referenced March 5, 2007.
85
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Statistics.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/pjim05pr.htm. Referenced March 5, 2007.
86
S.W. McCampbell, Gender-Responsive Strategies Project: Jail Applications, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, April, 2006, quoting P.M. Harrison and J. Karberg
(2003), Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics: Bulletin. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, p. 8.
87
Ibid., p. 2.
88
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, 2001. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wo.pdf, referenced March 4, 2007.
89
McCampbell, 2006, p. 2.
90
T. Brennan and J. Austin, Women in Jail :Classification Issues, Washington, DC: National Institute of
Corrections, March, 1997, http://www.nicic.org/pubs/1997/013768.pdf
91
J.B. Stinchcomb, Corrections: Past, Present, and Future. Lanham, MD: American Correctional
Association, 2005, p. 410.
92
D.J. James and L.E. Glaze, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 213600, 2006
93
Ibid.
94
Human Rights Watch(October 22, 2003)http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Mentally-Ill-
Prison22oct03.htm referenced 04/01/07.
95
Stinchcomb, 2005, p. 410.
96
Ibid, p.410
97
Ibid., p. 410.
98
J.R. Belcher, Are Jails Replacing the Mental Health System for Homeless Mentally Ill? Community
Mental Health Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1988, p. 193.
99
E. Kempker, The Graying of American Prisons: Addressing the Continued Increase in Geriatric
Inmates, Corrections Compendium, Vol. 28, No. 6, June, 2003, p. 22.
100
J. Brown, Aging Prison Populations Drive Up State Costs, 2002. Stateline.org.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeld=136&contentld=14851 referenced March 6,
2007
101
Kempker, 2003, p. 1.
102
M. Cronin, Gilded Cages, Time, May 25, 1992, p. 54.
103
B.A. Williams, K. Lindquist, R.L. Sudore, H.M. Strupp, D.J. Willmott, and L.C. Walter, Being Old and
Doing Time:Functinal Impairment and Adverse Experiences of Geriatric Female Prisoners, Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 54, (4), pp. 702-707
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16686886&dopt=Ab
stract
104
Stinchcomb, 2005: 419.
105
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 209588,
2005. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sdatji02.htm, referenced March 6, 2007.

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 58

106
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics( 2005) NCJ
209588. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/sdatji02.htm, referenced March 6, 2007.
107
Ibid.
108
Ibid.
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid.
111
NIDA InfoFacts: Methamphetamine. March, 2007.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/methamphetamine.html
112
The Meth Epidemic in America, The Criminal Effect of Meth on Communities. Washington, DC:
National Association of Counties, 2006, p. 4.
http://search.naco.org/search?q=cache:Un2LZwndkwJ:wwwnaco.org/Content/Con , referenced March 6,
2007.
113
National Institute on Drug Abuse, The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction. Research Report Series
– Methamphetamine Abuse and Addiction, 2006.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/methamph/methamph.html
114
Sullivan, Laura “Meth Mouth” Strains Prison Health Care Budgets. NPR, 2007.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4793417, referenced March 6, 2007
115
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Offenders Statistics, 2007.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crrimoff.htm, referenced March 6, 2007.
116
New York Times editorial, http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2007/03ny_times_editor_28.html
Referenced March 6, 2007.
117
M. Carlie, Into the Abyss: A Personal Journey into the World of Street Gangs, 2002.
http://www.faculty.missouristate.edu/M/MichaelCarlie/, referenced March 6, 2007.
118
Ibid., quoting M.S. Fleisher and S.H. Decker, Going Home, Staying Home: Integrating Prison Gang
Members into the Community, Corrections Management Quarterly, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 65-72.
119
http://www.nlectc.org/

©2007 Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc. 59