UPDATED 11/26/13: Minor edits. “The goal of this Toolkit is to provide jails of all sizes, political divisions, and geographic locations with a step-by-step guide for preventing, detecting, and eliminating sexual abuse of inmates in their custody – and for responding effectively to abuse when it occurs. Prison rape includes all forms of inmate sexual abuse within a correctional facility, including state and federal prisons, county and municipal jails, police lock-ups, holding facilities, inmate transportation vehicles, juvenile detention facilities, and community corrections facilities. Protecting arrestees, detainees, and inmates from sexual violence is part of a jail’s core mission. This toolkit will help assess your jail’s operations with an eye to improvements.” The Toolkit is divided into folders holding materials related to: introductory information about PREA [Prison Rape Elimination Act] and it Standards; a Self-Assessment Checklist with supporting forms “to provide a step-by-step process for jails to review and assess policies, procedures, and practices in light of the PREA Standards and accepted best practices”; and additional resources to assist you in PREA-readiness.
While this guide is written for police departments, sheriff’s offices should find it helpful for developing approaches to interacting with mentally ill people. The step-by-step program design process incorporates seven actions. Additionally, program designs in action are covered showing responses to specific problems and also jurisdictional characteristics.
This a new brief from the Stepping Up partners designed to help counties identify the number of people booked into jails who have serious mental illnesses (SMI) and to better connect these individuals to treatment. Determining the number of people who have SMI in jails allows counties to develop or refine strategic plans that will have the greatest impact on addressing this population’s needs.
"Although jails are the “front door” to mass incarceration, there is not enough data for justice system stakeholders and others to understand how their jail is being used and how it compares with others. To address this issue, Vera researchers developed a data tool that includes the jail population and jail incarceration rate for every U.S. county that uses a local jail … The data revealed that, since 1970, the number of people held in jail has increased from 157,000 to 690,000 in 2014—a more than four-fold increase nationwide, with growth rates highest in the smallest counties. This data also reveals wide variation in incarceration rates and racial disparities among jurisdictions of similar size and thus underlines an essential point: The number of people in jail is largely the result of choices made by policymakers and others in the justice system. The Incarceration Trends tool provides any jurisdiction with the appetite for change the opportunity to better understand its history of jail use and measure its progress toward decarceration" (website). This website provides access to the Incarceration Trend tool for jails, summary, full report, a video tour of the tool with Chris Henrichson, and data and methods. Sections comprising the full report include: introduction; the expanding footprint of local incarceration—a snapshot of the findings—decades of growth, and growth's disparate impacts; understanding growth and disparities; using the Incarnation Trends tool; and conclusion. The Incarceration Trends tool is interactive and illustrates data per 100,000 county residents for: jail incarceration rate change (1970 to 2014); the 2014 jail incarceration rate; Black/African American jail incarceration rate; female jail incarceration rate; jail and prison incarceration rate for California and New York; what is trending in your county—exploring your counties jail data. One interesting finding is that the largest increase in the number of incarcerated individuals is occurring in mid-sized and small counties. Since 1970, local jail populations in mid-sized counties have grown 4.1 percent, small counties 6.9%, and large counties by 2.8%.
"Local jails, which exist in nearly every town and city in America, are built to hold people deemed too dangerous to release pending trial or at high risk of flight. This, however, is no longer primarily what jails do or whom they hold, as people too poor to post bail languish there and racial disparities disproportionately impact communities of color. This report reviews existing research and data to take a deeper look at our nation’s misuse of local jails and to determine how we arrived at this point. It also highlights jurisdictions that have taken steps to mitigate negative consequences, all with the aim of informing local policymakers and their constituents who are interested in in reducing recidivism, improving public safety, and promoting stronger, healthier communities."
Sections of this report include: gateway to the criminal justice system—what a jail is; decades of growth; portrait of the jailed (mental illness); costs and consequences—worse case outcomes and decreased public safety, differential racial impact, accumulation of criminal justice debt, declining health, and harm to families and communities; diagnosing Los Angeles County's overcrowded jails; six key decision points that influence the use and size of jails—arrest (Broken Windows policing, and alternatives to arrest and detention), charge (in lieu of prosecution, and right-sizing the Jail in New Orleans), pretrial release and bail (what risk assessment is, facilitating pretrial release, and diversion and release opportunities during the typical criminal case trajectory flowchart), case processing (case processing reforms), disposition and sentencing (investing in alternative dispositions, and reentry and community supervision (using administrative data to prioritize jail reentry services, and improving community supervision and restructuring criminal justice debt); and conclusion. This website provides access to the full report, report summary, and a very good infographic.
“Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public … Effectively managing inmate behavior creates a safer environment for the inmates and staff and allows the jail to provide a valuable service to the public. Community safety is enhanced by strong jail management and facilities should aspire to create environments where compliance, respect, and cooperation are fostered. In an attempt to create a system of strong management, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) introduced an initiative that was designed to teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to control inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization” (p. 1). These are: assessing risks and needs; assigning inmates to housing; meeting inmates’ basic needs; defining and conveying expectations for inmates; supervising inmates; and keeping inmates productively occupied. This report explains how the Brazos County Jail implemented IBC. While the post-implementation study period was not very long, it appears that there is a positive trend in behavior change.
A comprehensive management system, called Inmate Behavior Management (IBM) is being rolled out by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). It is comprised of six specific elements that work together to control inmate behavior and produce an effective and proficient institution. This document explains “Element 4: Defining and Conveying Expectations for Behavior”. “It is intended to: Review what is known about how positive expectations influence behavior; Identify what concepts are important for jail administrators to understand as they attempt to apply this element to their facilities; and To provide resources that will assist jail administrators in providing training for their staff and in properly identifying positive expectations for inmate behavior “ (p. 3). Seven chapters are contained in this publication: setting and conveying positive expectation of inmate behavior; the basics of setting and conveying expectations; setting positive behavioral expectations; the keys to conveying positive expectations; enforcing positive behavioral expectations; monitoring implementation; and support material regarding the multi-site approach and housing unit specific. Appendixes include: “Tier Expectations for Residents”; “Notice to All Residents: Expectations of Residents, and Expectations of Staff”; and “Inmate Behavior Response Continuum (Acting and Reacting to Inmate Behavior)”. Appendixes include copies of: “Defining and Conveying Expectations – Housing Unit Specific” 4 hour lesson plan (trainer’s guide), participant guide, and PowerPoint slides; and “Defining and Conveying Expectations – Multi-Unit Training” 6 hour lesson plan (trainer’s guide), participant guide, and PowerPoint slides.
"Experience has shown that if a jail does not meet the basic human needs of inmates, the inmates will find a way to satisfy their needs in ways that may be unfavorable to the orderly operation of the jail. Understanding what motivates human behavior provides jail administrators with a very useful tool for managing inmates since it helps explain both good inmate behavior and bad. This document not only provides guidance to jail practitioners as they implement this element, but it also provides self-assessment checklists to determine how well the jail is doing in the delivery of basic needs and suggestions for area of improvement. It is our hope that by using these tools corrections professionals will realize the benefits of improved inmate behavior" (p. v). Chapters cover: the importance of meeting inmates' basic needs; meeting basic needs and how the concept contributes to inmate behavior management; the role of various jail divisions in meeting inmate needs—security, medical, maintenance, housekeeping, laundry, foods service, inmate programs, training, and administration; the connection between basic needs, inmate misconducts, and grievances; self-assessment of basic need; monitoring implementation; conclusion; and using the resource materials—Incident Spreadsheet, Incident Summary, Grievance Spreadsheet, Self-Assessment regarding Physical Needs, Self-Assessment regarding Safety Needs, Self-Assessment regarding Social Needs, Self-Assessment Results, Inmate Satisfaction Survey, and the Inmate Survey Results.
“Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public … Effectively managing inmate behavior creates a safer environment for the inmates and staff and allows the jail to provide a valuable service to the public. Community safety is enhanced by strong jail management and facilities should aspire to create environments where compliance, respect, and cooperation are fostered. In an attempt to create a system of strong management, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) introduced an initiative that was designed to teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to control inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization” (p. 1). These are: assessing risks and needs; assigning inmates to housing; meeting inmates’ basic needs; defining and conveying expectations for inmates; supervising inmates; and keeping inmates productively occupied. This report explains how the Northampton County Jail implemented IBC. Within less than two years decreased 69%, from four formal misconducts per month to just one.
This guide “presents six key elements that, in combination, will help jails reduce a wide array of negative, destructive, and dangerous inmate behavior” (p. v). These elements are: assessing risk and needs; assigning inmates to housing; meeting inmates’ basic needs; defining and conveying expectations for inmate behavior; supervising inmates; and keeping inmates productively occupied.