SD17 - Oversight of Health and Safety Conditions in Local Jails


Executive Summary:
Local jails, jail farms, and regional jails are the responsibility of sheriffs and jail administrators to operate. Local governments are responsible for the construction and maintenance of jails. On October 4, 1994, more than 16,300 local, State, and federal inmates were housed in these facilities, which had a total rated capacity of 9,747 inmates. In other words, local jails on a statewide basis were operating at 168 percent of their rated capacity.

Oversight of local jails is provided primarily through the Board of Corrections and its agent, the Department of Corrections (DOC). The Code of Virginia, § 53.1-68, requires the Board of Corrections to develop standards for "the construction, equipment, administration, and operation of local correctional facilities." DOC audits jails for compliance with these standards in addition to providing periodic monitoring and technical assistance.

Senate Joint Resolution 91 (SJR 91) of the 1994 General Assembly Session directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to evaluate the oversight of health and safety conditions in local jail facilities. Several factors cited in SJR 91, including severe overcrowding, limited program space and work opportunities, and increased challenges to inmate management in local jails provided the major impetus for the present study.

One goal of jail oversight and regulation is to ensure that inmates receive adequate care and treatment. In addition, adequate oversight is also necessary to help ensure that otherwise minor problems or conditions in local jails do not, due to overcrowding, develop into more serious incidents. Finally, adequate oversight can help consistently ensure that conditions in local jails are constitutionally acceptable. There are, however, some functions in the process that could be enhanced to ensure that there is adequate oversight. Significant findings of this report include:

• DOC should begin to comply with the Code of Virginia regarding the intake of State-responsible prisoners from local jails. State-responsible inmates, although not entirely responsible for local jail overcrowding, significantly compound the overcrowding issue for many jails.

• Selected Board of Corrections' standards need to be strengthened, developed, or reclassified in order to ensure the proper protection for both jail inmates and staff.

• The processes guiding the annual inspections should be strengthened to ensure unannounced inspections are conducted, that the inspections encompass the entire jail operating environment, and that the results of annual inspections are available to the Board of Corrections.

• Additional oversight by the State and local health departments is necessary both in the food service area and in general jail sanitation.

• Finally, DOC should take a more active role in managing the population in local jails. The Code of Virginia currently provides the Director of DOC with the authority to balance local jail populations.

Overcrowding Negatively Impacts Jail Health and Safety Conditions

Overcrowding appears to be the most significant impediment to maintaining proper conditions in local jails. For example, overcrowding resulted in about 2,700 inmates sleeping on jail floors in August 1994. Overcrowding also magnifies physical plant deficiencies or limitations. For example, some jails are plagued with continual plumbing problems or damage to the jail physical plant. In addition, overcrowding limits sheriffs' and jail administrators' ability to both impose discipline for poor behavior and to reward good behavior. Moreover, overcrowding may lead to increases in the number of incidents, such as assaults, that occur in jails.

Compounding the overcrowding situation in local jails is the number of State-responsible inmates in local jails awaiting transfer to a DOC institution. As of September 1994, about 1,700 inmates were being held in local jails in violation of § 53.1-20 of the Code of Virginia. Some local jails, however, would remain overcrowded absent any State-responsible inmates. Nonetheless, State-responsible inmates in local jails simply exacerbate already stressful and potentially dangerous conditions. DOC should meet its statutory requirement for accepting State-responsible inmates in local jails into the State prison system. To assist DOC in this endeavor, the General Assembly appropriated funding during the September 1994 Special Session to add 1,500 beds to the State prison system for State-responsible inmates in local jails.

Finally, overcrowded conditions create an environment in which minor problems could rapidly increase into life-threatening situations. These situations only heighten the possibility of court involvement in the operation of the jail system. Further, it emphasizes the need for timely and unrestricted access of State and local regulatory and public safety officials to local jails.

Selected Jail Standards Need to Be Strengthened

The Board of Corrections' standards governing jail operations are the framework through which health and safety conditions in local jails are assessed. The Board has promulgated 114 standards, of which 30 are considered life, health, and safety standards, to govern local jail operations. DOC staff use these standards to evaluate conditions in local jails.

Some standards, however, lack clarity, others fail to provide clear directives for jail staff, and others lack the important life, health, and safety designation. For example, requirements for food service and fire safety inspections do not clearly state the intent of the Board of Corrections, which may result in many jails failing to comply with this important standard.

Standards addressing medical screening of jail inmates and medication management in jails need to be more prescriptive in order to ensure inmates and jail staff are properly protected from disease, serious illness, and unsafe living conditions. This is especially crucial in the current environment in which many jails are operating far in excess of their rated capacities.

Finally, standards regarding communicable disease control in local jails should be promulgated. Jails reported that more than 390 inmates in calendar year 1993 were infected with HIV. Further, local jails reported that 13 inmates were determined to have active cases of TB in calendar year 1993. Given the levels of overcrowding, limited opportunities for exercise, and poor ventilation in some jails, standards regarding communicable disease control are necessary.

DOC Oversight and Enforcement Mechanisms Should Be Strengthened

Insight into the living and working conditions inside a jail are provided by the oversight activities of DOC. The effectiveness of this oversight is determined by the ability of DOC staff to identify problems and ensure corrective action is taken in a timely manner. Some weaknesses, however, appear to be evident in the current jail oversight and monitoring process. These weaknesses include the lack of unannounced inspections and policies and procedures guiding the DOC annual inspection process.

Unannounced Annual Inspections Are Needed. A significant deficiency in the jail oversight process is the lack of unannounced inspections of local jails. The current triennial certification audit is announced at least 60 days in advance. In addition, all but one DOC regional manager provide jails notice of upcoming annual inspections. Conducting all inspections on an announced basis may not always provide DOC staff, and subsequently the Board of Corrections, with an accurate assessment of a jail's condition. To correct this, the Code of Virginia should be amended to require that DOC conduct all annual inspections on an unannounced basis.

Annual Inspection Process Should Be Strengthened. The entire DOC annual inspection process should be strengthened. This is a critical function as it is the only formal assessment of jail conditions that is conducted in the two years between the DOC certification audit. However, despite the importance of this function, its effectiveness is questionable.

For example, the annual inspection appears to neither prepare jails for the certification audit nor help jails continually maintain compliance with the Board of Corrections' standards. Furthermore, the process lacks policies and procedures to guide DOC staff in conducting the audit. The lack of policies and procedures could lead to inspectors making subjective assessments of jail conditions. Finally, the process lacks a mechanism for ensuring that the Board of Corrections is systematically apprised of jail conditions that are not in compliance with promulgated standards.

Certification Audit Cycle Should Be Revised. Currently, all jails are formally audited once every three years for compliance with all of the Board of Corrections' jail standards. In addition, the certification audit is the most consistent mechanism currently available to the Board for receiving comprehensive information on conditions in local jails.

However, many jails consistently fail to meet many of the Board of Corrections' standards in every certification audit. More than 30 jails have been out of compliance with 10 or more standards on at least one certification audit since 1988. Results such as these indicate that some jails experience difficulty continuously maintaining compliance with the Board of Corrections' jail standards. To correct this situation, the Board of Corrections should shorten the audit schedule of jails having difficulty maintaining compliance with standards.

Furthermore, it appears that jails that undergo extensive renovations should be audited soon after the renovations are completed. Certification audits can detect potentially dangerous deficiencies in standards that result from renovations that might otherwise go undetected. As a result, the Board of Corrections should direct DOC to conduct certification audits of jails that have undergone renovation or additions shortly after project completion.

Additional Options for Improving Conditions in Local Jails

In addition to changes in the Board of Corrections' jail standards and the oversight process of DOC, additional mechanisms may be available for improving health and safety conditions in local jails. These mechanisms include assigning responsibility for sanitation and food service oversight to the State and local health departments, requiring DOC to become more active in balancing local jail inmate populations, transferring oversight of juveniles from the Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) to DOC, and emphasizing regional jails.

Require State and Local Health Department Involvement in Jail Oversight. Due to overcrowding, some local jails are having difficulty maintaining appropriate sanitary conditions. Improper sanitary conditions can have a significant impact on jail safety and health. Further, DOC staff involved in jail oversight lack expertise to address environmental health issues in local jails. As a result, the Board of Corrections, with input from the Board of Health, should develop standards addressing sanitation in local jails which the health department can use for inspections of local jails.

In addition to general sanitation, the State and local health departments should inspect and permit all jail kitchen facilities. There appears to be substantial variation in how local health departments currently permit and inspect jail kitchens. Given the levels of overcrowding and the almost continuous operation of some jails' kitchens, proactive oversight by local health departments of this function appears necessary.

DOC Should Take a More Active Role in Balancing Jail Populations. Currently, jail staff transport State-responsible inmates, often with only 24-hour's notice, from local jails to DOC institutions. For many jails, this can impose a significant hardship on their operations as staff must also transport State-responsible inmates in some cases across the State. For some sheriffs' offices, this can require taking law enforcement deputies off of patrol or taking a deputy from an overcrowded jail. To mitigate the effect of these transports on overcrowded jails, DOC should meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia and provide transportation from local jails to State prisons.

In addition, the Code of Virginia provides the Director of the Department of Corrections with the authority to transfer inmates to other State or local correctional facilities he may designate. Some local jails currently have, and others may soon have, additional jail capacity that could be used to alleviate severe overcrowding in selected jails. In addition, DOC initiated transfers could alleviate the need for jails to pay often substantial rates to other jails to house inmates.

Transfer Oversight of Juveniles from DYFS to DOC. Prior to February 1993, DOC was responsible for oversight of juveniles in local jails. Currently, DYFS has that responsibility. However, under DYFS, standards regarding juveniles in jails have not always been in effect. This periodic absence of standards does not allow for consistent and effective oversight. In addition, DYFS' monitoring activities have not been consistent. Finally, current DYFS' oversight efforts are redundant with DOC's general oversight of jails. As a result, responsibility for oversight of juveniles should be returned to DOC.

Regional Jails Should Be Emphasized. There are a number of small jails that receive significant amounts of State funding for staff and operating costs. Due to their size, they also have a high per-inmate operating cost to the State. For example, the Bath County jail had a per inmate-day operating cost to the State in FY 1994 of $242. In contrast, the statewide average was $29 per inmate day.

In addition, many of these jails lack adequate program space, and lack the administrative facilities for easy expansion that is available with newer jails. Moreover, many small jails have an average daily population well below the threshold for receiving State supported medical and treatment positions. Medical and treatment staff provide a significant contribution to the health and welfare of inmates in local jails. If some localities continue to operate single jurisdiction jails, they will not be eligible to receive State funded medical and treatment positions in the near future. Therefore, where regional jails are appropriate, the State should no longer fund the construction and subsequent operation of small, inefficient single jurisdiction jails.